College football thread
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Go Pac-10.
I'm sure all the haters will say USC's loss shows how lame the Pac-10 is and not that Washington may be building with Sarkisian.
VF, why do you post Go Hurricanes in Gator colors? Am I missing something?
I'm sure all the haters will say USC's loss shows how lame the Pac-10 is and not that Washington may be building with Sarkisian.
VF, why do you post Go Hurricanes in Gator colors? Am I missing something?
kingsnation
All-Star
Go Blue! Wolverines that is.
Great start to the year!!
Great start to the year!!
Nope, you're not missing a thing. But I am...I think I need new glasses or something. I could have sworn that was a shade of green. Oops. Fixed...
PurpleHaze
All-Star
I love college football (plus college basketball, etc.) in all its colorful, non-jaded, pure sports glory. To me it has more consistent high drama, depth, character than most pro sports. As was once said by an infamous, jaded NFL player at playoff time; "if the Super Bowl is the ultimate, why do they play it every year?" I mean the excited college bands strike up for EACH first down to move those chains! The traditional college sportsmanship, the fact most players know they're doing it not to play on Sunday since so few ever will, but for those shinning Saturday moments - and then the fierce competition, the roaring stadium crowds are gone forever. And the priceless memories continue...
Emma
Starter
I'm right there with you. It's telling that the Trojans haven't lost an out of conference game since the Rose Bowl against Texas. They've only lost three or four total under Pete Carroll. They only lose against conference rivals. The Pac-10 might not be the SEC, but it's not gutter trash. That's an east coast bias thing.
Speaking of the SEC, I liked watching Lane Kiffen and the Vols slow down the Gators offense. Shows what a D-1 team can do when Florida plays one. I think they're probably the best team in college football, but they haven't played anyone yet. Let's see what they look like in Baton Rouge in a couple of weeks.
The Big 10 is looking good this season, too. And watching Cal run all over Minnesota (Decker is gonna be a nice Joe Jurivicious-type receiver in the NFL) with Best was good for the Pac-10 also. But Michigan is a surprising 3-0, Ohio State is a strong 2-1, Penn State is 3-0, the Hoosiers, Badgers and Hawkeyes are all 3-0. Not as horrible so far as everyone said they would be.
And I feel bad for Boise State. They are probably going to be 13-0 this season, and won't get consideration for the title game because the two best teams on their schedule (Oregon and Fresno State) are either under performing or getting a bad rap, and they've already played them both. I can reserve judgment on Oregon because I think they might get some love after beating Utah, especially if they can beat Cal next week and do well with the rest of their schedule. I don't think Boise State, even if they win out, is necessarily a top five team, but they will be hard pressed to even get a BCS bowl game.
I was getting sick of watching Florida beat up on community colleges. I hope someone knocks them off their pedestal even if it means another SEC squad winning the BCS title. Florida fans are way too boisterous on my facebook pages.
Boise State really doesn't deserve title consideration unless the other best teams are 2 loss teams. They'll get a BCS game though if they run the table. I like Boise State, they seem to be one of a handful of schools that offer a masters program I am considering online so I may even apply, but I think its time they do away with that blue field if they want to be taken seriously.
Boise State really doesn't deserve title consideration unless the other best teams are 2 loss teams. They'll get a BCS game though if they run the table. I like Boise State, they seem to be one of a handful of schools that offer a masters program I am considering online so I may even apply, but I think its time they do away with that blue field if they want to be taken seriously.
The blue field does seem a bit gimmicky, but 13-0 doesn't. I don't think they're really good enough to have a chance against anyone like Florida, Texas, USC, LSU, etc. But all they can do is win their games, and they are right now. I'd like to see them schedule some games against some SEC and Big Ten teams in the future.
I don't mind Florida being good. I just don't like their scheduling. It's cheap. They play in "the best conference in college football", but they have the lightest schedule of any contender.
The thing is no SEC team will travel to play them and I wouldn't be surprised if many wouldn't even take a home game. 13-0 is no joke but until there is a playoff and legit championship it won't get you a favorable BCS matchup.
I'll admit the SEC is the best conference in college football for this decade but its always really cheesed me that the teams only play half the other teams and still get to claim they don't need a tough OOC schedule by virtue of being in the toughest conference.
I'll admit the SEC is the best conference in college football for this decade but its always really cheesed me that the teams only play half the other teams and still get to claim they don't need a tough OOC schedule by virtue of being in the toughest conference.
They have a conference championship game, something the Pac-10 should adopt, even if it's just for kicks. But that doesn't atone for scheduling Charleston Southern and Troy in the first two weeks to make sure that you are a consensus #1 before you start your conference schedule. That's garbage.
I don't believe you can have a conference championship game unless you have 12 teams in conference. So the Pac-10 would have to admit two schools. Utah and Boise State would be good adds and immediately bump the Pac-10 into Big 12/SEC territory (if not beyond it), but I suspect Utah would want BYU (which would also preserve the regional rivalry matchups in the Pac-10).
I have mixed feelings about doing that since I actually like them playing every team, the USC-ND game, and other traditional Pac-10 matchups, plus the Big 10-Pac 10 rivalry.
I have mixed feelings about doing that since I actually like them playing every team, the USC-ND game, and other traditional Pac-10 matchups, plus the Big 10-Pac 10 rivalry.
I'm not as nostalgic about the rivalry, but I don't see why it would have to go away if the Pac-10 became the Pac-12 or something like that. I wouldn't lose any sleep if all the teams didn't play each other, either, as long as you keep the regional matchups every year. You could add Utah and BYU and they would bring their rivalry into the conference. Pipe dreams, of course, but that would be fun.
For me the traditions are as much a part of the CFB excitement as the games themselves. I honestly don't even mind the bowl system for what it is if they would just stop trying to legitimize the BCS as a true National championship.
What I would like is for the conferences to do what they do with basketball and schedule interconference series in the regular season with dynamically scheduled matchups based on recent results, not 5 years advanced scheduling. How awesome would an East vs. West or North vs. South shootout weekend be where the top 4 ranked teams from two conferences all took each other on?
What I would like is for the conferences to do what they do with basketball and schedule interconference series in the regular season with dynamically scheduled matchups based on recent results, not 5 years advanced scheduling. How awesome would an East vs. West or North vs. South shootout weekend be where the top 4 ranked teams from two conferences all took each other on?
I think public sentiment is for a playoff, but the networks just paid the BCS on a new contract, so if the money isn't there, a playoff won't happen. The BCS still rakes it in, fraud or not.
That would be great, but it's a lot harder to transport and accommodate a college football team (80-100 players, 20-25 coaches and assistants) than it is a college basketball team (15 players, 5-8 coaches and assistants).
They could either book neutral sites and play the games based on current rankings or just agree that top 2009 SEC plays top 2009 PAC-10 in 2010, 2 plays 2 and so on and have 8 months to make those arrangements. While the 2nd arrangement could still produce some bad games due to year to year drop offs it still beats having schedules booked 3-4 years in advance and long term commitments to home and homes that span multiple seasons.
I feel like we had this conversation last year... the BCS stinks. Playoffs would be equally as bad. Let the bowls choose who they may and have everyone argue at the end of the year, just like before. I've gone through all the scenarios in my head, and this is the one that makes the most sense to me. This way, people won't rank teams based on whether or not they have the easiest schedule, but rather who would beat whom if they were to play head to head. At least, I think that's how the rankings used to be.
Oh yeah, and,
GO IRISH!
Oh yeah, and,
GO IRISH!
We did have the discussion before. Possibly every year since I've been a member. I don't hate the playoff idea because I went to a 1-AA school (that has since killed its program) and it worked nicely. But there are a lot less 1-AA schools to involve and no "power conferences" to deal with.
Ah the joy of going to a hockey school.
Ah the joy of going to a hockey school.
No they beat, and frequently manhandled all the "good" teams that they have played since Jan 2006. There's pretty strong evidence that playing every team every season makes for a tougher conference but it also makes for a lot less undefeated and 1-loss teams each year.
