T1B

.....is Cam Newton eligible to play on Saturday?

Brilliant question... give Jon his password back, asshole.

Here's my theory, and I'm fairly certain I am correct on this.......

What we are currently looking at is a National championship matchup between 2 very good programs that are not considered elite. Auburn-Oregon will do OKAY in the ratings normally, but really.......it's just not Alabama-Texas or Florida-Ohio State. Really, it's probably the least appealing matchup in the BCS era simply because of the teams that are playing.

The only people that really want to see Oregon reside in Pac-10 country. The SEC region will watch Auburn but nobody else really cares about them.

However, if you have Oregon-TCU, we're looking at the lowest rated title game ever. In fact, there are probably minor bowl games that would get as high of a rating. You have an Oregon program that, like I said, nobody cares about outside the Pac-10 territory. And then you have a TCU program that absolutely nobody anywhere cares about. That = ratings nightmare.

But now that they ruled Cam eligible, the Oregon-Auburn matchup just got even more interesting. Cam is going to win the Heisman and we are going to hear for an entire month a non-stop national debate over whether or not he should even be eligible. Talking about Cam Newton is going to get more people excited for this game. It's not like the matchup was a bad one anyways. You've got 2 horrible defenses going up against 2 GREAT offenses. You would expect a record amount of points to be scored. So people would already be interested in that. But now with Cam........the ratings will take a big spike.

The NCAA knows all of this. They need Oregon-Auburn and they need Cam Newton playing in that game. If you have Oregon-TCU, you might as well just play the game before Christmas and get it over with because nobody is going to watch Oregon beat some overrated mid-major by 40. Who would want to see that?

TheJON wrote:The NCAA knows all of this. They need Oregon-Auburn and they need Cam Newton playing in that game.

Your fallacy is that the NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS, the BCS Title Game, nor the BCS standings. This is a cabal amongst universities.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

TheJON wrote:The NCAA knows all of this. They need Oregon-Auburn and they need Cam Newton playing in that game.

Your fallacy is that the NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS, the BCS Title Game, nor the BCS standings. This is a cabal amongst universities.

Yes they do, they are business partners. Don't you think, if given the opportunity, the NCAA would do whatever they could to prevent an epic ratings failure?

The NCAA is not connected with the BCS. Vince Dooley was actually working with them in the early 90s on a playoff design, but then the conference commissioners and presidents stepped in and created the BCS. It's not even a formal entity, it's just a series of contracts.

Papa Willie wrote:Auburn will go to the title game and beat Oregon. Why? Because it would be racist if it didn't turn out that way. And yes - I know Oregon has a black QB, but he speaks whiter than most whites. He doesn't count.

Hehehe.

Fuck off, dick.

TheJON wrote:You've got 2 horrible defenses

Total defense:

Iowa - 317.1 - #7
Oregon - 332.7 - #15

15 Whole yards!

Scoring defense:

Iowa - 16.4 - #15
Oregon - 18.3 - #28


WHOA!!!!

People want to watch Auburn because Cam Newton is a freak of nature.

People want to watch Oregon because they have a blitzkreig offense and use wacky posters to signal plays.

They will also enjoy Nick Fairley and his one-man Theater of Blood.

We need Auburn and Oregon to both lose this weekend. Then the NCAA will freak out and figure out a way to drop TCU down to third. Stanford and Wisconsin play for the national championship. Who wouldn’t watch that?

TheJON wrote: The only people that really want to see Oregon reside in Pac-10 country. The SEC region will watch Auburn but nobody else really cares about them.

no offense dude, but this is a patently stupid statement.....I appreciate Oregon because they are as explosive as any college offense I've seen for the last few years....

I hate the SEC but I marvel at Cam Newton and the things he can do....personally, I think it's one of the more intriguing MNC matchups in the last few years....

Dinsdale wrote:

TheJON wrote:You've got 2 horrible defenses

Total defense:

Iowa - 317.1 - #7
Oregon - 332.7 - #15

15 Whole yards!

Scoring defense:

Iowa - 16.4 - #15
Oregon - 18.3 - #28


WHOA!!!!

Dude, Iowa's defense was pretty bad this year. Stats mean nothing to me, and Iowa is a prime example.

Do you know why Iowa ranked so high on defense? Because of fewer plays. Our offense takes 84 minutes to snap the fucking ball. In fact, I saw a stat that Wisconsin's defense faced 59 more plays this year from opposing offenses than Iowa. That is about an entire game.

Actually, I should clarify......

Iowa's defense is Good..........except in the final few minutes. No joke. 16.4 points = 196 points. Opponents scored 49 points in the final 3 minutes of games. 21 were defensive/special teams scores. Michigan scored 21 4th quarter points in garbage time. Michigan State scored a meaningless 4th quarter touchdown when they were down by 37. Iowa State's STARTERS scored a meaningless touchdown with a minute to go against our 3rd stringers when they were down 35-0.

I guess I never realized just how few points we actually gave up in meaningful, non-late game situations until I went through these numbers. That's 105 points scored against us either in the clutch, mop-up duty or points not scored against the defense.........out of 196. So 91 points in 12 games were scored against our defense in meaningful situations other than the last 3 minutes of games.

Good lord, that is fucking pathetic. Just goes to show just how big of a chokejob this team did. Now you got me pissed off just thinking about it!!

Even worse is Iowa gave up 3,806 yards of offense this year (which is pretty solid). Probably 50%-55% of those yards came in game winning drives or mop-up duty. Maybe even more. Let's see here.........7 clutch drives this year led to 6 touchdowns (should have been 7-7 but the Indiana receiver dropped the game winner). Each drive was 70+ yards, with a maximum of 90 yards. Average was about 80 yards......all went for touchdowns. 80 x 7 = 560 yards. 560 of 3806 = 14.7%. Add on another 35-40% of the total season yards coming in mop-up duty and you have one of the most unexplainable statistics I have ever seen.

Felix wrote:

TheJON wrote: The only people that really want to see Oregon reside in Pac-10 country. The SEC region will watch Auburn but nobody else really cares about them.

no offense dude, but this is a patently stupid statement.....I appreciate Oregon because they are as explosive as any college offense I've seen for the last few years....

I hate the SEC but I marvel at Cam Newton and the things he can do....personally, I think it's one of the more intriguing MNC matchups in the last few years....

I enjoy watching Oregon and Auburn too. But the average football fan prefers to see the elite teams that the media annually whacks off too. Ask a TV exec if you don't believe me.

Fans will watch an Oregon-Auburn matchup because they'll want to watch the Duck's high powered offense and Cam Newton. I'm hoping that nothing fucks up this potential game over the weekend so that we can all watch it in January, as I think it will be an extremely entertaining championship game.....maybe the most exciting one yet.

Mace wrote:Fans will watch an Oregon-Auburn matchup because they'll want to watch the Duck's high powered offense and Cam Newton. I'm hoping that nothing fucks up this potential game over the weekend so that we can all watch it in January, as I think it will be an extremely entertaining championship game.....maybe the most exciting one yet.

But do you think the AVERAGE fan will want to see this game given the teams?

To those of us that watch CFB religiously, of course we're excited for this matchup. How couldn't we be? But the average fan is who makes or breaks the TV ratings.

TheJON wrote:

Mace wrote:Fans will watch an Oregon-Auburn matchup because they'll want to watch the Duck's high powered offense and Cam Newton. I'm hoping that nothing fucks up this potential game over the weekend so that we can all watch it in January, as I think it will be an extremely entertaining championship game.....maybe the most exciting one yet.

But do you think the AVERAGE fan will want to see this game given the teams?

To those of us that watch CFB religiously, of course we're excited for this matchup. How couldn't we be? But the average fan is who makes or breaks the TV ratings.

The "average fan" can read a newspaper and watch ESPN...or any other sportscast...and knows of Oregon's success this year, and of the Cam Newton story. I think the network will be more than pleased with the number of viewers for this game. Can't speak for anyone else, but I've had several opportunities to see Oregon during the regular season, unlike most years, and the same is true for Auburn. Anyone who is not aware of Cam Newton's story by now is buried six feet under.

Everyone here needs to read this article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

The biggest fraud out of the BCS colluding between universities, bowl games and coaches, is that students (and ultimately tax dollars) are getting jacked more and more every year to cover the losses generated from most athletic department. And these are mandatory fees students must pay. It is a generic "Athletics Fee." And there is little transparency involved.

It's also absurd that a bowl (and its participants could lose money) but the Kraft Hunger Bowl CEO is gonna make $350k.

The BCS and its complicit participants are committing fraud and to a lesser extent racketeering much like the current mortgage debacle.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Everyone here needs to read this article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

love this from said article

Hancock, the congenial executive director of the BCS, takes exception to that characterization. "Every conference has bowl agreements, and the commissioners can only act after taking the temperature of their schools," he says. "And if the schools didn't want to be part of the bowl system, there wouldn't be a bowl system." Critics, Hancock contends, "are fixated on the [potential] money. We prefer to do what's best for the student-athletes. And we hear them saying they prefer the bowl system." He must not be listening to the thousands of student-athletes whose sports have been cut by cash-starved athletic departments, even as the lack of a playoff deprives universities of hundreds of millions of dollars every year and enrages fans.

what a load of horseshit

that is some incredible BS. I laugh, as someone in higher education, when the university presidents get all high and mighty about a playoff taking away class-time or cutting into exams..etc. It's absurd given they allowed the season to extend a week for conference championships and pushed the BCS championship back another week in January. so, it's OK to add two weeks for the BCS but not a playoff?

Ivy Leaguers suffer the "academic risks" of participating in a playoff, if their team gets there, but god forbid Cam Newton miss a little class time. Oh noes!!!

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Ivy Leaguers suffer the "academic risks" of participating in a playoff, if their team gets there, but god forbid Cam Newton miss a little class time. Oh noes!!!

I didn't think the Ivy League schools participated in the FCS playoffs. Has that changed recently, or am I just full of shit to begin with?

My bad, you're right.

Patriot Leaguers suffer the "academic risks" of participating in a playoff, if their team gets there, but god forbid Cam Newton miss a little class time. Oh noes!!!

Fixed That For Me