College Football Discussion 08

Student Lounge College Life
361

<p>And if only Jaquizz Rodgers had stayed in Texas, USC would be riding pretty high right about now.</p>

<p>Who here thinks it's about time that the Pac-10 added a couple of teams to get one of these great conference championship games? The only problems are who to add, and how to split the divisions - Boise State, Hawaii, Fresno, BYU, Utah are possibilities but the current pac-10 presidents would probably scoff at adding anyone without solid academic rep. Then of course it's obvious which 4 teams go to the north and what 4 go to the south...but which direction do Cal and Stanford go? And where on earth would some team like Hawaii get put? (not to mention the not-unrealistic situation where a team plays at Hawaii, the bonus-pay game, in the conference championship, and in a bowl game for 15 total games on the season)</p>

362

<p>^ Utah and BYU (maybe Colorado) are the only colleges that make sense to add to the Pac-10. But, don't hold your breath. This has been talked about and debated for years.</p>

<p>Pac-12 would be divided into two divisions:</p>

<p>North:
BYU
Utah
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State</p>

<p>South:
UCLA
USC
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona State</p>

363

<p>It's BASKETBALL season anyway now.
Anyone see my Deacs win the 76 Anaheim Classic Last Night?</p>

364

<p>Yeah, Utah/BYU would be natural, but there is no way the Pac 10 presidents let them in. Frankly, what the Pac-10 should do is start scheduling like the SEC and Big-12. If Oregon State had only one loss going into the game with USC, we might be talking about a whole new scenario.</p>

365

<p>If you want to talk academics in the Pac-10, why not add Air Force?</p>

366

<p>
[quote]
The Big 12 has recognized that possibility, and instituted the best tiebreaker they could under the circumstances--the polls. And the polls picked Oklahoma.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that's the best they could do, it was pretty bad. The SEC has a much more simple, logical way of going about such a tiebreaker-- if the teams are within five spots of each other in the BCS rankings, the winner of the regular season head to head goes to the Championship. In that case, it would be Texas.</p>

<p>What this whole Big 12 mess shows is that you will be rewarded if you run up the score. You will be rewarded for style points, and how you finish playing at the end of the season, rather than the head-to-head. </p>

<p>Next season will be full of lopsided, merciless, classless running up the score, which is is a loud form of politicking in itself. </p>

<p>It's really actually pretty fitting that probably Oklahoma and probably Florida will end up playing for the National Title. Both are known for running up the score and playing till the last second no matter how far ahead, we'll see who up-ends who.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's BASKETBALL season anyway now.
Anyone see my Deacs win the 76 Anaheim Classic Last Night?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No.</p>

367

<p>
[quote]
It's BASKETBALL season anyway now.
Anyone see my Deacs win the 76 Anaheim Classic Last Night?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Um, this is a football thread. Anyways, basketball is boring since UNC is going to rape and pillage their way to a national championship, so what Wake Forest does is just moot anyways.</p>

368

<p>thanks Rachel_Dawes for a sensible post.
Use all the rules and arguments you want to, Texas <em>should</em> have ended up being 2nd. Case closed.</p>

<p>I don't understand why our coach has to show so much integrity, why can't we just run up our score, against Arkansas, A&M, and all the other teams we played.
If the system sucks, you've got to be like Bob Stoops and Urban Meyer to get to the nat'l championship.</p>

<p>Note-I'm not saying Florida is not a good team. It might be the best in the country right now. But the way they run up the score is outrageous. OU- does not deserve any bit of..lets not go there.</p>

<p>As far as Tech is concerned, teams that get blown-out, and barely pass by easy teams shouldn't be playing in Nat'l Championship. Period.</p>

369

<p>Heh. Unfair, sure, but I can't think of a team that deserves to be shafted this way more than Texas. Anyone remember how Mack Brown begged his way to the Rose Bowl in '04?</p>

370

<p>^ As a Cal Bear I most certainly do. :D</p>

371

<p>
[quote]
<em>Looks up Mildcats OOC schedule</em></p>

<p>oooh...Syracuse, Duke and Southern Illinois...</p>

<p>A Big 10 guy should not being giving crap to an SEC guy about OOC schedules.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhh, at least that is 2 BCS schools for an OOC schedule and when these schedules were made 6-8 yrs ago, Syracuse and Mizzou were about on par.</p>

<p>Plus, NU has played BCS schools like Arizona St., TCU and Kansas (in fact, NU played ASU, TCU, Kansas and Hawaii all in one season recently).</p>

<p>Let's get real, NU has academic recruiting hurdles and hence, tough conference play - they aren't going to schedule schools like UT (leave that to dOSU or PSU).</p>

<p>And it's not like the Cal Teddies don't schedule "powerhouses" like Louisiana Tech, Colorado St., Portland St., CS Sacramento, NM St., etc.</p>

<hr>

<p>As I've been saying, the SEC is overrated, esp. this year.</p>

<p>The SEC has only 2 really good teams this year - the rest are good to horrendous (aside from UF and Bama, the ACC is 6-1 against the SEC this season; the SEC is 6-9 against OOC BCS schools).</p>

<p>While I'm not buying into OU's defense, their D is still way better than Mizzou (OU will handily beat Mizzou; Mizzou gave up 40+ points to Illinois, a team that Northwestern limited to 10 points).</p>

372

<p>Mobile</a> Breaking Oklahoma News | NewsOK.com "A Harris Interactive poll head-scratcher"</p>

<p>Apparently a voter-- somone who is part of the human group who determines a third of the BCS results-- didn't know that Penn State does in fact have one loss. </p>

<p>In other news, heard the Trojans are going to play in home jerseys at the Rose Bowl on Sat. The penalty for that is the loss of two timeouts, one at each half. Hope Pete Carroll is sure he's going to win....</p>

373

<p>To add to your post Rachel - And then there's the coach's poll... </p>

<p>Who hasn't seen that EVERY coach who is interviewed says, "We're not looking ahead, all we're doing is getting ready for next week." </p>

<p>Do you think they are sitting around on Sunday watching numerous game films of all the OTHER teams, in other conferences, that have been competing? I seriously doubt it. So, in reality, beyond watching game film of their upcoming opponents, how educated are they, beyond what the read in the Sunday papers, about teams that they won't play?</p>

<p>I read somewhere that in most cases, it's not even the coaches who vote, it is athletic directors and assistants. Are they studying games of all the other conferences? I doubt that.</p>

<p>Bring on a playoff system!!!</p>

374

<p>Oh, and to those who are complaining about Florida running up the score - in the games that I have watched this year, Tebow and Harvin have rarely played beyond the 3rd quarter. It has been that backup quarterback and co who have "run up" the score. I guess they could just take the snap and run around in circles...</p>

<p>Edit to add - the one game they did rub it in was at the Georgia game, but they deserved it after the "storm the field" after the first touchdown last year. ;)</p>

375

<p>as far as I know, there wasn't any 'begging' for votes this time around
but interesting though, if that's how you're justifying the shaft.</p>

<p>so how'd the results turn out back in 2004?</p>

<p>we need playoffs. that would be a lot more satisfying.</p>

376

<p>Yeah, I'd agree there hasn't been any begging on Mack's part this year. In fact, he has somewhat stayed above the fray...</p>

377

<p>
[quote]
In other news, heard the Trojans are going to play in home jerseys at the Rose Bowl on Sat. The penalty for that is the loss of two timeouts, one at each half. Hope Pete Carroll is sure he's going to win....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, it will only be 1 timeout at the beginning of the game, and UCLA will burn one in solidarity. Pete has been trying to revive this tradition for a few years now. Back when both teams were playing at the Coliseum they would also wear their home jerseys.</p>

<p>Also, apparently this jersey rule goes back to black and white television as it was hard to distinguish dark colors. I think they can change it now.</p>

<p>In other news: Charlie Weis will be retained at Notre Dame.</p>

378

<p>I think the "white jersey" rule wasn't in effect in 1982 (the last year UCLA used the coliseum as their home field) since it would probably have applied to whoever was the "visiting" team that year. Instead, it was probably instituted for god knows what reason.</p>

<p>The standard penalty for violating the white jersey rule would be two timeouts, one per half - USC received a waiver from the NCAA (supported by UCLA and the Pac-10) so that the penalty would be for the first half only - and UCLA will burn a timeout to make things even.</p>

<p>It seems all a bit ridiculous that they need to jump through all these hoops. The primary thing is the jerseys need to be contrasting. It should be a penalty for the visiting team to wear non-white home jerseys, but the home team should be able to decline it like any other penalty.</p>

<p>If you look at Notre Dame's 2009 schedule, it looks like there's a bit of room for improvement next year. Their offense is by far their major weak point but Clausen will be a 3rd year starter and perhaps be able to give him some protection. They play Nevada, Michigan, Purdue, Washington, Washington State, Stanford (collective 2008 record: 21-51) which bodes for probably at least another 6 wins.</p>

379

<p>
[quote]
In other news: Charlie Weis will be retained at Notre Dame.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's going to be even more fulfilling when Rice crushes them, knowing that this clown will still be at ND.</p>

380

<p>Notre Dame really screwed themselves over giving Weis a ten year contract. I know he started off great, but in the world of college football there is usually no job security.</p>