T1B

they deserved Bama or USC .

not to mention every time someone says that about team a they go out and lose to team b.

yea its happened to Texas before, but I don't see it happening to Texas this year. Their game is more smashmouth and they tend to win by the oline. I think Texas will start slow but win going away. They still believe that if they win big they can force a split MNC.

We shall see.

Hmm...I can see that a lot of folks are going to underestimate the Buckeyes for this one...myself, I fully expect them to win.

i don't. osu isn't that good, relatively speaking. texas is, though there is that apparent trend where teams spend more time bitching about the shaft rather than practicing [oh, mtoooooooooooool] that they get worked like the nancies they are.

PSUFAN wrote:myself, I fully expect them to win.

I don't. At all. Buuuuuut, I'll be pulling for 'em.

Vito Corleone wrote:yea its happened to Texas before, but I don't see it happening to Texas this year. Their game is more smashmouth and they tend to win by the oline. I think Texas will start slow but win going away. They still believe that if they win big they can force a split MNC.

We shall see.

What is this "split MNC" that you speak of? I've never heard of something so ludicrous.

Sin,
LSU homer

Tejas wins this one.

They'll outscore a pathetic osu offense.

This isn't saying much since a pathetic $C offense outscored osu 35-3.

Two OVERRATED teams that would be blown out by Cal.







the truth

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:myself, I fully expect them to win.

I don't. At all. Buuuuuut, I'll be pulling for 'em.

Not sure why? Has Texas faced a defense like tOSU's? The Bucks are not the same team that got whipped by SC.

DiT wrote:they deserved Bama or USC .

Not a snowball's chance in hell of either happening going in.

USC was locked into the Rose Bowl . . . opposite Penn State.

The Sugar and Fiesta Bowls had the top two picks, and you knew one would take 'Bama and the other Texas. The fact that each bowl game had a tie-in with the respective conferences made it even more likely.

Realistically, Texas' only bowl option was either tOSU or Utah. And Texas may have benefitted from playing tOSU rather than Utah. Even a two-loss tOSU team probably commands more respect from the pollsters than does an undefeated Utah team.

DiT wrote:they deserved Bama or USC .

Maybe but it had no chance in hell of happening. In order to get the great matchups that are possible, the conference "tie-ins" to the
major bowl games need to be blown the hell up.

Then if you're really wanting any kind of playoff, balanced scheduling is a must.

I don't see either happening any time soon.

Yes, lose the fucking conference tie-ins. Since we have no playoff, 1 should play 2. 3 play 4. And so on. Each game is rotated evenly year after year.

GreginPG wrote: Then if you're really wanting any kind of playoff, balanced scheduling is a must.

That will happen - never.

Mace wrote:There's only one bowl that means anything....the last one. The rest are just for shits and giggles, and the matchups are based as much on fan base and money to be made as they are on quality matchups. This year is no exception.

We'll never see a true playoff in Division I football, imo, but, even using the BCS rankings, there's no reason they couldn't match up 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in a bowl game on January 1 or 2, and then have a championship game the following week. There would be a lot of argument about who should be in the top 4 every season but it would be far superior to the current method. The "plus one" proposal has been around for several years and I've never heard a legitimate argument for not doing it.

As much as I would have like the plus one, would it have really worked this year?

Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tech, USC, Penn State, Utah, Boise state

That's nine undefeated or one loss teams right there.

if you take the top 4 teams you are screwing over the team with the best defense in the country and two undefeated teams.

Sudden Sam wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Yes, lose the fucking conference tie-ins. Since we have no playoff, 1 should play 2. 3 play 4. And so on. Each game is rotated evenly year after year.

Exactly. They're eliminating some great games by maintaining the old conference tie-ins. Alabama-Texas, Alabama-USC, Texas-USC would be fantastic games. They'd actually mean something, too. The kids would be up for them for one thing. How could Texas not get up for USC or Alabama? Hell, we've never beaten Texas. Think Saban and the Tide don't wanna end that streak?

This is what is so aggravating with the college football postseason...we don't even like the majority of the bowl matchups. Does anyone give two craps about watching Southern Miss-Troy or Northern Illinois-Louisiana Tech? Why do we need 34 bowl games? Why does every 6 or 7 win team deserve to play an extra game around the holidays? If you're going to have bowl games and not a playoff, just reward the best of the best and not litter the airwaves with some of these unwatchable exhibition games played before half-empty stadiums. D-IA football definitely has it's priorities warped...it's always money first with them.

Vito Corleone wrote:

Mace wrote:There's only one bowl that means anything....the last one. The rest are just for shits and giggles, and the matchups are based as much on fan base and money to be made as they are on quality matchups. This year is no exception.

We'll never see a true playoff in Division I football, imo, but, even using the BCS rankings, there's no reason they couldn't match up 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in a bowl game on January 1 or 2, and then have a championship game the following week. There would be a lot of argument about who should be in the top 4 every season but it would be far superior to the current method. The "plus one" proposal has been around for several years and I've never heard a legitimate argument for not doing it.

As much as I would have like the plus one, would it have really worked this year?

Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tech, USC, Penn State, Utah, Boise state

That's nine undefeated or one loss teams right there.

if you take the top 4 teams you are screwing over the team with the best defense in the country and two undefeated teams.

One of the foremost Plus One proponents on this board (in the past, anyway) conceded last year to me that Plus One would not have worked last season. His suggestion then became an 8-team playoff.

As you have pointed out, even an 8-team playoff really wouldn't have worked this year. Somebody would've been left out.

Myself, I would favor a 16-team playoff for the following reasons:

1. Better, imho, to err on the side of inclusion than exclusion. We have an imperfect method for ranking teams. There will always be some controversy about who's left out, no matter number. But at 16 teams, the teams going to the "we wuz robbed" card would've been in the "lucky just to be there" category in a best-case scenario. Nor does a 16-team field cheapen the playoff imho. SEC smack aside, a true playoff would be a meatgrinder, and any team who survived it would have a legitimate claim on a national championship.

2. As has been pointed out, one of the nice things about the bowl games is that they offer the sort of OOC matchups we rarely get to see during the regular season. I think it would be all the nicer if some of those games had an impact on who wins the national championship.

3. As a practical matter, I don't see the BCS conferences agreeing to a true playoff without protection of their automatic bids. A 16-team field is probably necessary to accomplish that.

Take a 16-team field with a modified version of the Wetzel Plan: each conference champ with a Top 25 finish in the final BCS rankings would earn an automatic bid. Remaining bids would be at-large. This season, a playoff would've looked like this:

1. Oklahoma (automatic) vs.
16. Virginia Tech (automatic)

8. Penn State (automatic) vs.
9. Boise State (automatic)

4. Alabama (at-large) vs.
13. Oklahoma State (at-large)

5. USC (automatic) vs.
12. Cincinnati (automatic)

6. Texas Tech* (at-large) vs.
11. TCU (at-large)

3. Florida* (automatic) vs.
14. Georgia Tech (at-large)

7. Utah* (automatic) vs.
10. Ohio State (at-large)

2. Texas* (at-large) vs.
15. Georgia (at-large)

* I switched the seedings on Florida and Texas, as well as on Texas Tech and Utah, to avoid regular-season rematches in first and second rounds.

I would go along with Plus One, but only because I think the only way we'll ever get to a true playoff is through the "baby step" approach. Plus One would be useful in that regard, but not as the ultimate end. On the positive side, I don't think it would be the end. If they ever went to Plus One, I think they'd see that a true playoff would be a cash cow the likes of which they haven't yet imagined.

Jsc810 wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote:They still believe that if they win big they can force a split MNC.

There is the crystal football, which is awarded to the national champion. Here is a photo of one.



Then there is everything else.

Right on cue.

The Seer wrote:

GreginPG wrote: Then if you're really wanting any kind of playoff, balanced scheduling is a must.

That will happen - never.

Then if so, is there really any reason at all to discuss or debate any kind of playoff?

Oh and just for kicks, let's eliminate any kind of coaches poll while we're at it. They should do that now anyway.
At the very least it should be thrown out of any kind of equation when factoring in BCS rankings.

Oh and another thing, no FBS team should be scheduling any FCS team!

GreginPG wrote:

The Seer wrote:

GreginPG wrote: Then if you're really wanting any kind of playoff, balanced scheduling is a must.

That will happen - never.

Then if so, is there really any reason at all to discuss or debate any kind of playoff?

Oh and just for kicks, let's eliminate any kind of coaches poll while we're at it. They should do that now anyway.
At the very least it should be thrown out of any kind of equation when factoring in BCS rankings.

Oh and another thing, no FBS team should be scheduling any FCS team!

What do you suggest for a school like OU who was left with just under four months to find a second replacement game after two schools had backed out in less than six months (Clemosn and then Middle Tennessee State) to do. JUst give up a home date?

SunCoastSooner wrote:What do you suggest for a school like OU who was left with just under four months to find a second replacement game after two schools had backed out in less than six months (Clemosn and then Middle Tennessee State) to do. JUst give up a home date?

Truthfully I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps that should be the exception rather than the rule, having to replace a slot on your schedule because a school backed out. Schools backing out on games they agreed to is BS anyway. Scheduling FCS teams in advance should not be allowed.

I guess the point I was trying to make above is this: there are so many flaws with the system we have now and the glaring flaws I see are schools that manipulate the schedule in their favor and coaches that skew the vote to help their team. Why the coaches vote is even in any formula is beyond my comprehension.

I'm in love with the idea of using points allowed, it really covers not only how good your defense is but also special teams and offensive turnovers since they generally result in points. The big thing is there is no reason to leave ones starting offense in to run up the score cause it doesn't matter how many points you score just what you give up.

Sudden Sam wrote:At least Texas is playing a "name" team. Alabama's in a no-win situation. Beat Utah...so what? The Tide should beat Utah. Lose to 'em 'cause the kid's couldn't get fired up about playing these guys? Oh boy.

That's a load of horsesh*t.

Sin,
OU, Oh-Six

Texas kinda got fucked. But they really ought to hang this one on the kid that blew the int vs. TT. While I think Texas is the best team in the 12, they had it in their hands, literally, and let it fall harmlessly to the turf.