<p>I really don't think Hawaii should be in the Sugar Bowl against Florida. I don't know if you saw them play against SJSU, but they were pretty bad. Hawaii, to me seems really overrated and the only reason they get recognition is because they score lots of points against really bad teams. You put them against any Pac-10, SEC, Big10, etc teams and I have a feeling it will be like watching a high school football team play against a college football team.
If CBS projections come out to be true, then Cal VS WV game should be really fun to watch. But more than that, I would love to see Oregon vs Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. That will be a shootout.</p>
<p>Blue: def. agree about HI. Have them play LSU, OSU, USC, and Cal week in and week out, and then we'll see if they're still undefeated.</p>
<p>^ But this is precisely the problem...we won't know how good HI actually is...</p>
<p>I agree some playoff system is necessary. The current system rewards teams in weak conferences while punishing teams in more competitive conferences.</p>
<p>One way to help eliminate bias is to abolish all human polls and go to computer statistics.</p>
<p>I don't think teams play any less in a playoff system. in high school football, every game mattered, nobody played one bit less than in playoffs. teams play to win not for stats/rankings, but to win, to say you're better and to have that. playoffs will just add to that excitement, i think.</p>
<p>Can you imagine the excitement of filling in a 64-team championship playoff bracket for football?</p>
<p>The regular season could be shortened a bit to determine seeding in the playoffs.</p>
<p>The problem is this would never happen, especially on a scale this large, because too much money is tied to bowl games for conferences.</p>
<p>i dunno tho, a change is gonna have to happen, this year with all the upsets, there's going to be a ton of controversy that's gonna shake things up again. it's going to keep happening till there's enough pressure to change.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there is so much money guaranteed with the BCS, it will take more money - not uproar - for the conferences to agree to change.</p>
<p>Good luck getting the Pac-10 and Big 10 to cut out the Rose Bowl and leave the Tournament of Roses high and dry.</p>
<p>They keep tweaking the BCS...just last year they added the National Championship Game. No changes will be made to the system until the 2010/11 season when the current NCG has run its cycle thru the 4 BCS Bowls.</p>
<p>32 and 64 teams is completely unrealistic in football, the only things you can do are 4, 8 or possibly 16 team playoffs, although 16 may be too many as well. I think 8 would be the perfect number. You keep the bcs bowls and then just have games after it. Just think how amazing it would be to have an actual national championship game the week before the super bowl since usually they have a bye week in between the championship games and super bowl. Thats my proposal and I'm stickin to it. </p>
<p>As for the people that say they would rather have the rose bowl over NC game, I just don't understand it. I really could care less what bowl we go to, if its not the NC game it really doesnt matter IMO. I know tradition is huge in college football but there is only one champion and thats the winner of the NC game. Thats why I'm so depressed after this loss, we had our dream shot and kinda blew it, hopefully by running the table we get in that NC argument again.</p>
<p>ucbchemgrad, yeah filling in the bracket for 64 teams would be so fun. lol. My friends and I would definitely have a good time if we had playoffs and brackets had to be filled out.</p>
<p>yes, imagine the excitement of a 64 team bracket! we could have LSU play Florida International in the first round! I'll run out and get the chips and dip...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know tradition is huge in college football but there is only one champion and thats the winner of the NC game.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The AP will continue to take a final poll, which could result in a split decision.</p>
<p>yah, that's how USC got a share of the national title a few years ago right? that was a confusing debacle.</p>
<p>^ Yes, that p issed LSU off.</p>
<p>Who thinks DeSean will stay for his senior year? He seems pretty inconsistent, though at the same time awesome, and I think if he stayed he would be a frontrunner for the Heisman next year.</p>
<p>USF is overrated, overrated, overrated....</p>
<p>I severely doubt that he will stick around for his senior year.</p>
<p>A lot of people view him as a better Ted Ginn, Jr., and he got drafted 9th (though he probably shouldn't have been.) I doubt he'd turn up the opportunity. I wouldn't keep my hopes up.</p>
<p>with lavelle hawkins, robert jordan, and craig stevens graduating and the possibility of desean declaring for the draft, how do you think the offense will change next season? </p>
<p>the running game will definitely be there for the long run, but im just curious on who will step up to fill in those spots in the passing game.</p>
<p>Marvin Jones or something like that the WR from Etiwanda High School committed to Cal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USF is overrated, overrated, overrated....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In defense of USF, they did beat #17 Auburn and #5 West Virginia, at the time. Other teams ranked in front of 'em lost, like Cal. USF has quality wins.</p>
<p>well, we will still have Longshore, even though that's not saying much.
Anyone think Lavelle Hawkins should get drafted? I think he should maybe in the fourth or fifth round, his performance against OSU proved that, I think.
I don't think DeSean Jackson is as good as Ted Ginn. Jackson is a slightly better punt returner than Ginn was, but Ginn was a better and much more consistent receiver in his days at Ohio State. Jackson seems too inconsistent, unless he has a string of breakout games from now on, I doubt he will win the Heisman or get drafted that high.
On the other hand, I believe Justin Forsett is one of the most underrated RBs in college football today. He is good enough to be a late first round pick. Any thoughts?</p>