2008 NCAA Football

Ruh roh, Penn State mascot arrested on DUI, may miss Rose Bowl

[Benzgirl]

I can't believe I'm going to root for FSU today.

[awkward1]

I am finding it refreshing to see the traditional football powerhouses from across the country regain their old glory. I live in the midst of SEC territory and I think that I am one of the few who has not partaken of the SEC kool aid. The SEC has been strong the last few years there is no denying that. However, they are falling short at a time when traditional powerhouses like OU and Texas are making a huge comeback. Yes, Florida and Alabama are kicking some a** this year, but across the nation there seems to be a resurgence of power outside of the SEC. Maybe I am a bit nostalgic, but I love the fact that Texas, OU, TT, TCU (geeze, what is going on in Texas?) Ok. State, and Penn State are back in the saddle. It's about time that some of these old rivalries have regained their old glory, it makes bowl season so much more interesting! As for the SEC, which is still a very strong conference, I don't think that Ole Miss got the respect they deserved for their role as the spoiler this year. They are playing some damn fine ball in Oxford lately and they will be a team to watch next year. The ACC is populating the bottom of the rankings but with the very young teams they are fielding I think that at least 2 of their teams will be shake things up even further next year. FSU and GT have two of the youngest teams in the nation, each playing a significant number of true freshmen. Miami is not far behind in that respect but they have yet to show that they are on their way back to their old glory status.
Why on earth is Boise State even ranked? First, they should lose points for that awful blue field that they have....it's nauseating. Second, they have only played one ranked team and have otherwise played a very weak schedule. How on earth are they ahead of a team like Georgia or Ohio State? Ok, I'll stop the rant now and make my predictions for rivalry week:
Florida over FSU - I think the game will be closer than some expect but I don't think that the Noles will pull it off this year. However, if there is going to be a spoiler in any game today I think it will be FSU.

Bama' over Auburn - Auburn had a bye week last week so they have time to rest and recuperate, but they are in 'Bama territory with a strong 'Bama team. I don't think they can pull off an upset.

Georgia Tech over Georgia - Tech is running a great option offense that will keep UGA on their toes.

OK over OK State - This will be a close one but I think OK will pull it out in the end.

Oregon State over Oregon - OSU has stepped up their game lately and if they play as well today as they have been recently this should be an easy win for them.

OK, lt's time to start the show! Let the games begin!

[Benzgirl]

Georgia Tech? Wow!

[Kevin]

OU v. Mizzou for Big XII Championship Game.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

OU v. Mizzou for Big XII Championship Game.

Bah. But whatever, I guess. We should have taken care of business in Lubbock.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Bah. But whatever, I guess. We should have taken care of business in Lubbock.

Or paid off a few more voters.

I keed... I keed.

On a more serious note, I think this will be good for college football. Not necessarily because this decision was correct. That's debatable either way. Both teams can make compelling points (and no, I don't think head to head is dispositive in a three-way tie, but I'm an Oklahoma fan, so you shouldn't be shocked). Why I think this is good for football is that from now on, athletic directors in big conferences will be more motivated to schedule high-caliber OOC games. Beating Big East champion, Cincinnati and 10-win TCU was a big part of what OU in the championship game over Texas.

Also, considering the movement in the human polls (how do you drop in the polls after beating the No.12 team by 20 at their house?), I think all votes should be public every week.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or paid off a few more voters.

I keed... I keed.

On a more serious note, I think this will be good for college football. Not necessarily because this decision was correct. That's debatable either way. Both teams can make compelling points (and no, I don't think head to head is dispositive in a three-way tie, but I'm an Oklahoma fan, so you shouldn't be shocked). Why I think this is good for football is that from now on, athletic directors in big conferences will be more motivated to schedule high-caliber OOC games. Beating Big East champion, Cincinnati and 10-win TCU was a big part of what OU in the championship game over Texas.

Also, considering the movement in the human polls (how do you drop in the polls after beating the No.12 team by 20 at their house?), I think all votes should be public every week.

It won't motivate teams to schedule better OOC games (and if that was the effect it would only occur in the Big XII since the SEC and ACC have the tiebreaker set up differently and the Big10, BigEast and Pac10 lack conference championship games), it will end up that after the season the Big XII will adopt the SEC version of that tie breaker where it is BCS standing, but if the top two teams are within 5 positions of each other than the head-to-head matchup between those two teams is dispositive.

[Kevin]

And UT fans will squeal like pigs under a gate when that policy someday excludes them from a CCG

IMHO, the BCS standings shouldn't be used at all. I actually thought Mike Leach had the best idea for determining the winner -- go by the graduation rate.

But if you want to be even more fair, I'd take the points for v. points against of all common opponents (the highest difference wins) before looking at something as arbitrary as BCS standings.

The fact that OU went on the road to the No. 12 team in the country and beat them on their own field and then was dropped in the polling is just ridiculous.

At any rate, UT is due a screwing after what Mack and his campaigning did to Cal in 2004. If nothing else, there's a solid karma argument to be made.

At any rate, how would you feel about this policy:

Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:

If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative
If three or more teams are tied, Texas wins.
If Texas is not one of the three teams tied, Texas wins.
If one or both of the divisional winners lost to Texas at some point during the season, Texas wins.
If three teams are tied, but Texas beat the North winner, Texas win

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

At any rate, how would you feel about this policy:

Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:

If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative
If three or more teams are tied, Texas wins.
If Texas is not one of the three teams tied, Texas wins.
If one or both of the divisional winners lost to Texas at some point during the season, Texas wins.
If three teams are tied, but Texas beat the North winner, Texas win

Sounds good to me!

I also kid.

Only slightly.

[lyrelyre]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

it will end up that after the season the Big XII will adopt the SEC version of that tie breaker where it is BCS standing, but if the top two teams are within 5 positions of each other than the head-to-head matchup between those two teams is dispositive.

Originally Posted by Kevin

IMHO, the BCS standings shouldn't be used at all.

It seems natural to me that a conference would want the team with the highest BCS standing to play in its conference championship simply because it increases the chances of a team from that conference playing in the national championship game. I know this year a win by either Texas or Oklahoma would likely have resulted in a Big XII team in the national championship; however, a conference cannot always count on having two (2) teams with such high BCS rankings. I think it could be a mistake for the Big XII to change the tiebreaker system. Sometimes even a difference of only five (5) positions would result in the conference sending the lower BCS ranked team to its conference championship; thus, potentially prohibiting the higher BCS ranked team’s appearances in a national championship game.

There really isn’t a perfect solution.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

It seems natural to me that a conference would want the team with the highest BCS standing to play in its conference championship simply because it increases the chances of a team from that conference playing in the national championship game. I know this year a win by either Texas or Oklahoma would likely have resulted in a Big XII team in the national championship; however, a conference cannot always count on having two (2) teams with such high BCS rankings. I think it could be a mistake for the Big XII to change the tiebreaker system. Sometimes even a difference of only five (5) positions would result in the conference sending the lower BCS ranked team to its conference championship; thus, potentially prohibiting the higher BCS ranked team’s appearances in a national championship game.

There really isn’t a perfect solution.

It isn't the conference championship game's job to send a team to the national championship game, it's their job to crown the conference champion in the fairest way possible.

And yeah, I think another 3 way tie isn't likely for a while again anyways, particularly since if I had to guess Leach will be at Auburn next season.

[Munchkin03]

You guys, I'm so pumped for tomorrow.

My peeps and I are setting up a party at one of the bars here that call itself an "official" outpost of Gator Nation. My orange and blue is out and ready. I even wore an orange and blue cardigan on Tuesday. It's cuter than it sounds.

For someone who didn't even go to UF, I love those Gators!

[lyrelyre]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

It isn't the conference championship game's job to send a team to the national championship game, it's their job to crown the conference champion in the fairest way possible.

And yeah, I think another 3 way tie isn't likely for a while again anyways, particularly since if I had to guess Leach will be at Auburn next season.

I agree that another three (3) way tie is unlikely.

However, considering the money, both for the school and the conference, at stake when appearing in a national championship game, I cannot agree that the conference championship game shouldn't be (and isn't) somewhat calculated to attempt to send a team to the national championship game.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

I agree that another three (3) way tie is unlikely.

However, considering the money, both for the school and the conference, at stake when appearing in a national championship game, I cannot agree that the conference championship game shouldn't be (and isn't) somewhat calculated to attempt to send a team to the national championship game.

National Title Game pays the same as the rest of the BCS Bowl Berths (I believe $17 million, but I'm not sure) and the conference champ gets an automatic berth and in the event of a 3 way tie a second berth is almost guaranteed. Since you're limited to 2 BCS berths and would receive 2 almost assuredly either way, than there is no monetary difference between the two. Most conferences split their bowl money, so it really doesn't matter to them who goes or to which game, as long as it's a BCS bowl.