T1B

Big 10: MSU went 7-1 during conference play, Wisky went 6-2, including a loss to MSU. Should Wisky win the rematch the two teams will have identical conference records and a 1-1 series split. This is nonsense. Zero reason to play this game. MSU has already earned the conference title.

Big 12: K State cannot finish with a better conference record than the winner of the South division, and both South contenders already beat K St head-to-head. Zero reason to play this game. The South winner will already have earned the conference title.

C-USA: Houston is 8-0 while Southern Miss lost twice during conference play. Even though the two teams didn't meet, it doesn't matter. Had Southern Miss won that one they'd still be a game behind in terms of the final conference records. Zero reason to play this one. Houston has already earned the conference title.

ACC: Va Tech went 7-1 while Clemson went 6-2, including a win over Va Tech. They had their chance. Zero reason to play this game. Va Tech has already earned the conference title.

Big Yeast: I don't even wanna touch that mess. :doh:

Pac 12:

The SEC is the only conference that can even make an argument for needing to play their CCG this season since Georgia finished one game behind LSU while never meeting them on the field.

Again, unless they're necessary to break a tie that wasn't already decided by a head-to-head meeting, just ditch these stupid farces.

Big 12 doesn't play a title game anymore.

One down, a fuckload to go.

Van wrote:Big 10: MSU went 7-1 during conference play, Wisky went 6-2, including a loss to MSU. Should Wisky win the rematch the two teams will have identical conference records and a 1-1 series split. This is nonsense. Zero reason to play this game. MSU has already earned the conference title.

Michigan State won that game on a Hail Mary. I have no doubt Wisconsin will pay them back double in the rematch.

Big 12: K State cannot finish with a better conference record than the winner of the South division, and both South contenders already beat K St head-to-head. Zero reason to play this game. The South winner will already have earned the conference title.

What?

There are no divisions in the XII this year and no CS game.

Stay strong Van, but think twice about starting threads.

War Wagon wrote: There are no divisions in the XII this year and no CS game.

What's the "CS" stand for? Not trying to be a dick. I just seriously can't tell if it's a typo or an abbreviation that I'm completely unfamiliar with...

CCGs are so pivotal that Bama is better off not playing in one. They can now rest easy, since the only question at this point for the Tide is: will they enter the MNC as the #1 or #2 team?

War Wagon wrote:Michigan State won that game on a Hail Mary. I have no doubt Wisconsin will pay them back double in the rematch.

We'll see. MSU spotted Wisky 14 quick points and still won. Without their best defensive player. He will be back for this game.

Oh, and the hail marry was for shits and giggles. If they don't convert, I like the home team's chances in OT.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote:Big 10: MSU went 7-1 during conference play, Wisky went 6-2, including a loss to MSU. Should Wisky win the rematch the two teams will have identical conference records and a 1-1 series split. This is nonsense. Zero reason to play this game. MSU has already earned the conference title.

Michigan State won that game on a Hail Mary. I have no doubt Wisconsin will pay them back double in the rematch.

I agree that Wisky will likely win the rematch, but so what? Since MSU did in fact already beat Wisky on the way to having a better conference record, a rematch for a supposed "conference championship" has no business taking place.

Big 12: K State cannot finish with a better conference record than the winner of the South division, and both South contenders already beat K St head-to-head. Zero reason to play this game. The South winner will already have earned the conference title.

What?

There are no divisions in the XII this year and no CS game.

Yeah, scroll up a post or two and you'll see that Screwball already corrected me on that one.

Stay strong Van, but think twice about starting threads.

This is a perfectly valid topic even despite the Big XII CCG error, so kindly fuck off. Better yet, see if you can start a better thread. Hell, if you'd like, go ahead and compare any and all my threads to yours.

Yeah. That's what I thought. Go ahead and shut the hell up.

And Van, quitcher bitchin'. Who cares if they're occasionally -- okay, frequently -- unnecessary? It's a consequence of having more than 10 teams in a conference. If you can't play round-robin, you need to have a CCG to break any potential ties.

What's your solution? Do you suggest we have provisional CCGs that go into effect only in cases of ties? CCGs are typically neutral-site games. Have fun trying to convince the owners of an 80,000-seat venue to keep a date open for you, just on the off chance you might need to use said venue on a week's notice.

Pros of CCGS:
* They guarantee that there will never be a split conference championship
* They add another handful of potentially entertaining games to the end of every season
* They increase the possibility of BCS chaos
* Oh yeah, and they generate revenue for the conference

Cons of CCGs:
* Sometimes they're unnecessary

Get over it and enjoy the bonus football...

Van, can you EVER respond to a post without going "Annie" and dissecting it to shreds... and make your point ???

It's a sign of intelligence to be able to capture a thought and respond to it... without quoting every word/sentence.

By the way, I think Michigan State takes the "Ed Gein's" to the woodshed.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:And Van, quitcher bitchin'. Who cares if they're occasionally -- okay, frequently nearly always -- unnecessary?

Yep.

It's a consequence of having more than 10 teams in a conference. If you can't play round-robin, you need to have a CCG to break any potential ties.

Ummm, Mike...

Van wrote:Again, unless they're necessary to break a tie that wasn't already decided by a head-to-head meeting, just ditch these stupid farces.

What's your solution?

Van wrote:Again, unless they're necessary to break a tie that wasn't already decided by a head-to-head meeting, just ditch these stupid farces.

Do you suggest we have provisional CCGs that go into effect only in cases of ties?

Why, yes!

CCGs are typically neutral-site games. Have fun trying to convince the owners of an 80,000-seat venue to keep a date open for you, just on the off chance you might need to use said venue on a week's notice.

CCGs are also typically pointless, and it wouldn't be that difficult to convince any neutral-site stadium to find an spot open for a monster college tilt in early December. Notice that the Pac 12 game isn't even on a Saturday? Don't make this out to be some huge logistical nightmare to overcome. It's not. Also, worst-case scenario, simply go ahead and ditch the neutral-site. Solving the venue issue could be as easy as awarding it to the team with the higher BCS ranking, which is the Pac 12's method of awarding home field in the case of identical records and no head-to-head meeting between the teams during conference play.

Cons of CCGs:
* Sometimes they're unnecessary

They also put a conference's best hope for winning the BCS title at needless risk. Suppose the correct thing would've happened in 2003 and OU got punted from the title game due to their loss in the CCG? Same deal, in '04. Auburn then gets the nod for the title game, screwing the Big XII. What if the '05 Texas team had somehow lost in the CCG to four-loss Colorado, a team they'd already destroyed that season?

Zero benefit to the dominant team...100% risk...and for what?



That's all it's about. Far too often, these farces run the risk of rendering the regular season meaningless.

Get over it and enjoy the bonus football...

So you'll be watching with wild anticipation when 6-6 UCLA takes the field against Oregon on December 2nd? Looking forward to that 62-7 beating, are ya?

I guess not...

M2, since you're infamous for never responding to anything without going off on some halfbaked, self-serving tangent, I really don't think you're in any position to critique anybody else's posts.

Besides that, you write like a Down's Syndrome monkey, and no one here takes a word you say seriously.

In any case, if I'm going to extend the courtesy of a clearly discernible response to someone's multi-point post, yep, I will often C&P each statement so as to remove any confusion. Do I have to do it that way? No, probably not. Does the respondent or anyone else reading my posts ever have the slightest doubt as to what I meant to say, or to what was I responding? Nope, they don't.

It's a matter of clarity, something about which you haven't the foggiest.

Van wrote:
Besides that, you write like a Down's Syndrome monkey, and no one here takes a word you say seriously.

So, delusional self grandeur is now taking place... as you speak for all ???



What a mess...

Van,
By your logic, we don't really need a MNC game this year either. Just hand LSU the crystal football and the AP trophy and call it a season. Why even continue playing once we get down to one undefeated team that counts (sorry Coogs)? It's all unnecessary from that point on, right?

Big East doesn't have a CCG either, Van. Not yet, anyway.

Here's an idea: limit all conferences to 9 members max, full round-robin schedule. No need for a CCG in that case. Like that'll ever happen.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Van,
By your logic, we don't really need a MNC game this year either. Just hand LSU the crystal football and the AP trophy and call it a season.

That is neither my logic nor is it logical.

Has LSU played the same conference schedule as the rest of the country? Head-to-head matchups with Big XII, Pac,12, Big XII teams?

Horrible argument. Try again.

Anyway, by my logic what we need for starters is to knock BTPCF down to roughly sixty-four teams. We need to shitcan the current model for scheduling. We need a real playoffs, even if it's just a Plus One.

Oh, and we need to kill Jim Delany.

Why even continue playing once we get down to one undefeated team that counts (sorry Coogs)? It's all unnecessary from that point on, right?

Pure silliness. When every team plays roughly the same schedule, that argument might hold water...the way it does in actual conference play.

Sudden Sam wrote:Fuck the CCGs.

Let's just kill the AQs. Why should there be any automatic qualifiers?

Yes.

Oh, and kil lthe bowl tie-ins definitely.

No. The Pac 12 and Big 10 love the Rose Bowl. The SEC loves them some Sugar. The Big XII (Big 8 and SWC offshoots) should've found a way to be permanently attached to the Cotton Bowl. The Big Yeast and ACC? Well, they get what they deserve.

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:When every team plays roughly the same schedule

Has anyone played as difficult a schedule as LSU did this year?

If you wanna believe Jeff Sagarin, every team in the Big 12 has.

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:When every team plays roughly the same schedule

Has anyone played as difficult a schedule as LSU did this year?

Probably not, but that's irrelevant. The analogy Mike was trying to draw was a comparision between conference CCGs, which are so often blatantly unnecessary and even potentially damaging to the conference, and a national title game, which usually involves teams from different conferences who otherwise have no way to measure themselves against each other.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I agree with that.

Jsc810 wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Has anyone played as difficult a schedule as LSU did this year?

If you wanna believe Jeff Sagarin, every team in the Big 12 has.

What???

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt11.htm

They've made less and less sense as the year's gone along. A week ago, Wisconsin wasn't in the top 25 per two of the computers.

Van wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Van,
By your logic, we don't really need a MNC game this year either. Just hand LSU the crystal football and the AP trophy and call it a season.

That is neither my logic nor is it logical.

Has LSU played the same conference schedule as the rest of the country? Head-to-head matchups with Big XII, Pac,12, Big XII teams?

Horrible argument. Try again.

Anyway, by my logic what we need for starters is to knock BTPCF down to roughly sixty-four teams. We need to shitcan the current model for scheduling. We need a real playoffs, even if it's just a Plus One.

Oh, and we need to kill Jim Delany.

Why even continue playing once we get down to one undefeated team that counts (sorry Coogs)? It's all unnecessary from that point on, right?

Pure silliness. When every team plays roughly the same schedule, that argument might hold water...the way it does in actual conference play.

In all likelihood, the MNC game is going to be a rematch between two teams who have, in fact, played roughly the same schedule. I think you're the one who needs to try again...

Except that this is for a national title, which is an entirely seperate entity from a conference championship. My argument is that CCGs need only be played to break ties in cases where head-to-head meetings never occured. Our current national title game is simply designed to pit the two best teams against each other, regardless of conference or record.

Apples and oranges.

Van wrote:seperate

For the millionth time
Separate motherfucker
Spelling smack now done

Look, I'm with with you on this:

Anyway, by my logic what we need for starters is to knock BTPCF down to roughly sixty-four teams. We need to shitcan the current model for scheduling. We need a real playoffs, even if it's just a Plus One.

I agree that the current system is fucked. How can anyone say that the system as it stands is fair when a team wins every game on their schedule and isn't even in the top 5, let alone in the discussion for the MNC game? I'm not saying Houston deserves to be in the MNC game, but they at least deserve some kind of shot to prove that they're the best team in the country, even if it's as a #6 seed in an 8-team playoff. If we're not going to even grant them that, then they should be playing at a lower level where winning every game on their schedule actually matters.

All I'm saying is that, given the system we have right now, CCGs are a necessary evil. And it's not apples and oranges to compare them to the MNC game. They both serve the same essential function, except at different levels. You said yourself that "When every team plays roughly the same schedule, that argument might hold water." Then when I noted that the two teams that will most likely play in the MNC game meet that criteria, you go to the "apples and oranges" argument. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of railing against some unnecessary games when the biggest game of the year also happens to be "unnecessary" by the standards you set forth:

Again, unless they're necessary to break a tie that wasn't already decided by a head-to-head meeting, just ditch these stupid farces.

Are you saying it wouldn't leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth if Alabama squeaks by LSU in an all-SEC circle jerk and is crowned the national champions?

Since Van kinda brought up the subject, let me ask this . . .

Assume UCLA lives up to its billed upcoming role as sacrificial lamb, takes Bob Knight's advice, and just lays back and enjoys the inevitable ass-raping that's coming . . .

Do they get a bowl bid?

As I understand it, they'd have to apply to the NCAA for a waiver (my source on that is Herbstreit, so I'm taking it with several grains of salt). Assuming that Herbstreit is right, though, I can see it go either way.

On one hand, UCLA will have a losing record (6-7), and there are a number of teams with non-losing records that have pretty much no chance at a bowl bid. Ball State leaps to mind. Even among BCS-level teams, between Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa State and aTm, all have non-losing records, but there's a decent chance that at least 1-2 of those teams will be home for the holidays. The bowls with at-large bids opening up will be required to take 7+ win teams from the MAC (likely Temple and Western Michigan), Sun Belt (likely Louisiana-Lafayette and Florida Int'l.), MWC (Air Force or San Diego State) and possibly the WAC (likely Nevada if Utah State, Nevada and Hawai'i all win next week) before taking a 6-win team from a BCS conference.

On the other hand, had Utah taken care of business against Colorado (as most expected them to), Utah, and not UCLA, would have been appearing in the Pac-12 CCG, and UCLA would have been bowl-eligible at 6-6, notwithstanding the beatdown they took at the hands of the Condoms. UCLA probably shouldn't be penalized for something over which it had no control.

Thoughts?

The one thing UCLA did have some control over was their record. And yes, I have read in a couple of different places that UCLA is entitled to ask for a waiver, in order to finish 6-8.

I fully expect UCLA to take a pass on asking for that waiver. Having already fired Neuheisel, they know they just need to close the books on this season.

Mike, regardless of what happens in any Bama-LSU rematch, yep, it's going to leave a sour taste. From the never-even-remotely-funny-yet-sure-to-make-SEC Fan-pee-his-pants-in-cackling-laughter LSU Freek vids to Verne Lundquist/Gary Danielson to any NFL telecast's "Let's meet the players" segment wherein we're subjected to Illiterate Ghetto Tard from Alabama smugly slurring "Ja'Whirl Johnson...Albmma," to the open idolatry ("Spend just five minutes with Tim Tebow and you'll be a better man!") supposed adults bestow on SEC players and coaches, and yep, I am thoroughly sickened by Any and All Things SEC.

Well, except for their braindead, fuckpuppet cheerleaders. Those, I can take.

socal wrote:

Van wrote:seperate

For the millionth time
Separate motherfucker
Spelling smack now done

RACK!

Here's another thing about one of the cash grab games. This one could very well make Van's head explode.

Van wrote:C-USA: Houston is 8-0 while Southern Miss lost twice during conference play. Even though the two teams didn't meet, it doesn't matter. Had Southern Miss won that one they'd still be a game behind in terms of the final conference records. Zero reason to play this one. Houston has already earned the conference title.

Consider this: Southern Miss probably plays in the same bowl game, win or lose.

If they win, the C-USA champ goes to the Liberty Bowl unless they're a BCS buster. In order to accomplish that, Southern Miss would need to jump at least 8 spots in the BCS standings and leapfrog TCU. I don't see that happening.

If they lose, Houston is a BCS buster. So the Liberty Bowl would get first choice of the remaining C-USA teams. While the Liberty Bowl could choose either Tulsa or Southern Miss, I'm guessing they'll go with the latter, given that Southern Miss likely would travel better to Memphis than Tulsa would.

The only difference is that they get an immediate, or nearly immediate, announcement with a win, whereas they'll have to wait until after the BCS pairings are announced if they lose.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is UCLA. With a win, UCLA goes to the Rose Bowl. Lose and they're probably out of the bowl picture altogether.