College Football Discussion 09

<p>Of all teams, Texas hasn’t been screwed over by the BCS. Actually, as pointed out, the BCS screwed Cal by picking Texas in 2004…</p>

<p>Your beef is entirely with the big-12 conference. Most other conferences have tie breaking procedures that determine their champion from on the field results - the big-12 left it to the BCS to decide.</p>

<p>As for a playoff - as much as I’d like to see the champion determined on the field, a 16-team playoff could have teams playing 17 games in a season - that’s an awful lot of wear and tear, athletically. Even the NFL is debating right now whether extending to a 17 game season is too long.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>These are supposed to be some of the best athletes in the country. DI-AA, DII, and DIII can play upwards of 15-16 games, don’t they? And if 17 games is too much, then cut out the crap games. BCS schools are concerned that if this goes to a playoff system, some smaller schools may create havock by beating the bigger schools. But if the BCS schools can keep the smaller schools from even competing fairly, all is good for the BCS schools.</p>

<p>Well, there’s zero chance that they will cut the current 13 game regular season (counting conference championship games)</p>

<p>FCS schools usually play 15 games total, for the two teams that make it. I could see FBS teams playing 15 or 16 games, also, but each extra game is going to wear down the teams even more.</p>

<p>Also, I don’t really know about including at-large teams. As far as I can tell, no team has won a national title without also winning their conference title. An 8-team playoff with automatic bids for the 6 BCS conference champions and the 2 highest ranked non-BCS conference champions, would resolve most controversies. Would it be totally fair to non-BCS teams? Maybe no, but it would be way more fair than right now.</p>

<p>“These are supposed to be some of the best athletes in the country.”</p>

<p>Anyone wanna talk about who the best athletes in the world are? I’ve heard people say basketball, rugby, soccer, baseball, hockey, or track athletes are the most athletic in the world. I KNOW that football players are the most athletic in the world. Anyone wanna defend another sport?</p>

<p>Rugby players are most likely similar athletically to football players with a ten second or less play clock.</p>

<p>There are a handful of amazing athletes who play rugby, but other than a few most of them are just pretty strong tough guys. They are like college level football fullbacks with better endurance.</p>

<p>Wrestlers have to be in peak physical condition while they are eating extremely limited diets.</p>

<p>Wrestlers are in great shape, but they’re not very athletic.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s all well and good, but if nobody wants to play them, what else can they do?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not that it doesn’t sound fair, it’s just that it doesn’t make any sense at all if you want to legitimately determine who the best team is.</p>

<p>leeznon: I don’t know about the guys you know, but all the ones I know are exceptionally athletic. I can’t even begin to tell you how many football players came out for a wrestling practice and then quit the next day. Anyway, we are getting off the topic of college football.</p>

<p>What do y’all think the most interesting match-up of all the non-BCS bowl games is? I’m going to say the Capital One Bowl between LSU and Penn State.</p>

<p>ThisCouldBeHeavn: The basing on reputation isn’t supposed to be fair or meant to find out who the best team is. It’s impossible to determine the best team in the nation in the current BCS system, the only way to really find out is through a playoff. It’s supposed to determine who will be the most exiting match-up and sell the most tickets. And higher reputation equates to more money.</p>

<p>Yeah I think football players are in bad shape endurance wise but the best overall athletes. I might start a new thread about this topic cause I don’t wanna go too much off topic. Yeah I’d say Penn State/LSU is the most exciting non BCS bowl game.</p>

<p>Mack Brown’s the highest payed college coach now. </p>

<p>Why’d they raise his salary now? Shouldn’t they have done this after the championship game and only if they won?</p>

<p>Best overall athletes? I’d say either Olympic gymnasts or triathletes. But yeah, 17 games is entirely too long of a season. You can be the best athelete ever but your body is still going to feel the stress and strain of you beating yourself up on/as a result of other people for 17 weeks.</p>

<p>

Further incentive to stick around. Mack Brown will get a $450k bonus if he wins the NCG.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Texas high school teams can play as many as 16 games.</p>

<p>A shout out to new Notre Dame coach (former Cincinnati coach) Brian Kelly, for leaving his 12-0 team coachless for the sugar bowl, helping continue the tradition</p>

<p>No matter how much people hate on USC, they will hate on Notre Dame more :)</p>

<p>Seriously, though, he is a good coach. Pete Carroll has his work cut out for him with that on the schedule every year…</p>

<p>One of my friends put it best: “Hating ucla is part of being a Trojan. Hating Notre Dame is part of being an American!”</p>

<p>Seriously, who leaves their team between the regular season and the bowl game? Especially when your team is undefeated? Imagine how the players must feel right now, their coach just ditched them. So much for all those notions of loyalty, team as a family, and such, right?</p>

<p>I can see the motivation, though. Cincinnati just finished their best season ever, undefeated, and yet might not have even made it over TCU had Texas lost. </p>

<p>Cincy might be the best team in the state right now, but Ohio State will continue to sit and get better picks of local talent (Notre Dame can recruit nationally, in hotbeds like Southern California, Texas, the South)</p>

<p>Still, doesn’t make the move any less, well…</p>

<p>It’s part of the rules of the BCS that Notre Dame gets favorable treatment. Literally.</p>

<p>Who wouldn’t want that?</p>

<p>I know that it seems like Brian Kelly is the person to blame and it is true that he let his team down. But I think Notre Dame should also be blamed for basically forcing Brian Kelly to make such a fast decision. What was the benefit of making such an immediate hiring? It’s not like they need a head coach right now, their season is over. Shouldn’t Notre Dame have respected the fact that Kelly was coach of Cincy and at least dealt with everything after the season? I think it’s disrespectful from both Kelly and Notre Dame.</p>