What a huge dissapointment....I say WAR DAMN EAGLE..... Oklahoma is blowing this game right now.... It's hard to watch, in fact I turned it off... By the way for those that don't know War Damn Eagle is what Auburn fans say when they go undefeated and don't qualify to play in the National Title game.... I'm not an Auburn fan, Roll Tide Roll...but I have to say that the best two teams aren't playing tonight...I knew they weren't but I was holding out hope that the Sooners would come to play...now unless something miraculous happens USC will win this game, and hopefully the voters will split the national title between the teams that should have played....or how about a plus one game??? I would have loved to see Auburn and Utah play...I mean the four undefeated teams play each other and who ever's left standing plays the plus one game....What's so hard about this....why can't the system be improved on...or how about overhauled??? I love college football but it's getting too hard to stomach after the regular season....too many bowl games and a system in totally flawed....if it's broke you have to fix it...right???
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"I mean the four undefeated teams play each other and who ever's left standing plays the plus one game....What's so hard about this....why can't the system be improved on...or how about overhauled??? I love college football but it's getting too hard to stomach after the regular season....too many bowl games and a system in totally flawed....if it's broke you have to fix it...right???"
Millionman, can you say MONEY? Thats what college football and those in charge care about. It is sad that over HALF of the Div 1A teams went to a bowl. They have a playoff in the lower college divisions, and every other sport in college has a play off, but college football will never, EVER have one becaue of all the money all the crap-bowls generate. You will never have a small school win the national title in college football like we had Viilanove and NC State win the title in basketball. I don't even think Villanova was ranked in the top 15 the year they won it. They should also force ALL voters, the AP and coaches poll, reveal their votes. ANyway, it's crap like this why I quit watching college football.
koooky
Millionman, can you say MONEY? Thats what college football and those in charge care about. It is sad that over HALF of the Div 1A teams went to a bowl. They have a playoff in the lower college divisions, and every other sport in college has a play off, but college football will never, EVER have one becaue of all the money all the crap-bowls generate. You will never have a small school win the national title in college football like we had Viilanove and NC State win the title in basketball. I don't even think Villanova was ranked in the top 15 the year they won it. They should also force ALL voters, the AP and coaches poll, reveal their votes. ANyway, it's crap like this why I quit watching college football.
koooky
I can't understand why the money is an excuse. I wouldn't suggest doing away with the bowls. Keep the bowls, sponsors, and the whole nine yards, but just make them meaningful. Let's say the Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl are the semifinal playoff games and the winners meet in the Rose or Orange Bowl to play for the national championship. Nokia, FedEx and the likes can still have their sponsorships.
I agree 100% with that. You could keep on the stinking bowls and make all the lower, meaningless ones the first round of the playoffs. But until someone comes up with a plan that will generate at least as much money as the current BCS system, it will never change. I think it could be done. Hell, the BCS won't even admit their system is fucked up by allowing the 4+1 system to allow, like last year and this year, a "Championship Bowl Game" to allow the big winners a chance to decide who is number one.
I agree that money is an issue, but honestly I seriously think that the presidents of the Universities are the ones sleeping behind the wheel in almost every regard. From the structure of the bowls, to allowing the NCAA to run everything....I mean most people don't realize that the NCAA is a non-profit organization, yet they make millions every year....I mean what's really going on with all of this??? It just doesn't make any sense...
I am not sure why the bowls wouldn't still just stay the way they are. I mean why not introduce another game for the national title? They could still rotate as to which bowl it is for that year. Every other bowl is only for those schools playing in it and the money is still there and the broadcasters and ESPN people and the NCAA geniuses can still say that the bowls are there for the "kids" so they can always have that experience.
The plus one I'd like to see, but why not just have assigned seeds to the top six teams. It could be switched up every year as to which bowl is going to host the national championship game just like it is now. The top team would get a bye or if that isn't liked then the top seed could play the seventh ranked team. The others will be like say for just an example the fiesta could host the 2 and 5 seed game, the sugar the 3 and 4. Then the Orange bowl would be home to the winners of those two games and then say like the Rose would host the Championship Game. The ticket sales would not suffer from this format. I mean it wouldn't have to be seedings either really. I mean the seeding would still come from the polls so why would this be a problem? I mean what is it one extra game for the two teams that deserve a shot at the title? Why not? I'm tired of seeing these obviously dominant teams play pretty much their opponents inside their conference and then MAYBE one other good team and then have these cupcake games. It's okay early in the season, but come on. The conferences with a championship game might have a problem with it, but hell something has to give if the conferences and NCAA Div I want to play it out on the field. I'm an SEC guy and I know you don't make it out of the SEC without playing a brutal schedule. I'm tired of seeing of polls in general but they want it still to keep interest and tradition and the money the system alive. I think something like what I suggested is capable of working and succeeding. The people in charge of all this crap need to start doing the thinking though. The Championship game last year albeit the score was not as terrible the Sooners didn't look much like they could handle or stay competitive with the squad from Louisiana.
The plus one I'd like to see, but why not just have assigned seeds to the top six teams. It could be switched up every year as to which bowl is going to host the national championship game just like it is now. The top team would get a bye or if that isn't liked then the top seed could play the seventh ranked team. The others will be like say for just an example the fiesta could host the 2 and 5 seed game, the sugar the 3 and 4. Then the Orange bowl would be home to the winners of those two games and then say like the Rose would host the Championship Game. The ticket sales would not suffer from this format. I mean it wouldn't have to be seedings either really. I mean the seeding would still come from the polls so why would this be a problem? I mean what is it one extra game for the two teams that deserve a shot at the title? Why not? I'm tired of seeing these obviously dominant teams play pretty much their opponents inside their conference and then MAYBE one other good team and then have these cupcake games. It's okay early in the season, but come on. The conferences with a championship game might have a problem with it, but hell something has to give if the conferences and NCAA Div I want to play it out on the field. I'm an SEC guy and I know you don't make it out of the SEC without playing a brutal schedule. I'm tired of seeing of polls in general but they want it still to keep interest and tradition and the money the system alive. I think something like what I suggested is capable of working and succeeding. The people in charge of all this crap need to start doing the thinking though. The Championship game last year albeit the score was not as terrible the Sooners didn't look much like they could handle or stay competitive with the squad from Louisiana.
The thing is, I only watch a couple of the biggest bowl games as it is. If there were some actual championship considerations, I might actually watch the Gator Bowl, the Holiday Bowl, the Insight Bowl, etc. Right now, if it's not one of the very top teams or Notre Dame (my team) I don't give a rat's ass about it, because it's meaningless.
Well, they could just do a plus-1 and make a little more money. It sucks for Auburn, for sure, but the way USC played, I don't think anybody was going to hang with them. Their defense was like a lead blanket. Of course being from Texas, I just love to see OU and Bob Stoopid go down hard, but I was hoping it wouald at least be a game...shit, OU didn't even show up. If I were them I would be embarassed to show my face in Norman.
The big problem Auburn has in my opinion, is the way they played vs VA Tech. They didn't look like they could even carry USC's jock based on the way they played in that game.
The big problem Auburn has in my opinion, is the way they played vs VA Tech. They didn't look like they could even carry USC's jock based on the way they played in that game.
Well, that's the thing Texan. You don't always know what you're going to see in any given game especially when it's a bowl. And when it's a championship bowl game the only way to see who could hang with who is to have those "whos" play each other and have them have it out on the field like everyone else. I really hate the Pre season rankings though. In my opinion that's kind of like the epitomy of the problem. They rank them based on several categories, but hardly any of them or really none are base don what they've done for the coming year because shit no one has played yet. So when USC is number one again it is probably a sure thing that they will at least be in the top 10 by year's end and of course number one if they go undefeated. But Auburn was not ranked as high as USC (I think no one could have been right...wasn't USC number 1 all year?) so "all" (hardest thing to do in any sport IMHO for sure) USC had to do was win all the regular season games to get into the championship game. Well, Auburn did that as well so why weren't they in it? Why wasn't Utah in it? Why? Because the teams are ranked...they're polled...assumed...judged...and all well before the season even begin...why not have it out on the field?
That's true... Auburn was definitely a victime of being ranked lower than OU (or USC, for that matter) at the onset of the season. I mean look at how much ground they gained on OU. Should've passed them. OU had a couple of games they came REALLY close to losing (A&M, OK State) which should've dropped them IMO. Utah was ranked behind UT and Cal even though they both had lost a game apiece, but maybe strength of schedule wasn't there for Utah, I don't know; I didn't keep up with them. The system definitely needs a common-sense-enema.iwant8inches said:Well, that's the thing Texan. You don't always know what you're going to see in any given game especially when it's a bowl. And when it's a championship bowl game the only way to see who could hang with who is to have those "whos" play each other and have them have it out on the field like everyone else. I really hate the Pre season rankings though. In my opinion that's kind of like the epitomy of the problem. They rank them based on several categories, but hardly any of them or really none are base don what they've done for the coming year because shit no one has played yet. So when USC is number one again it is probably a sure thing that they will at least be in the top 10 by year's end and of course number one if they go undefeated. But Auburn was not ranked as high as USC (I think no one could have been right...wasn't USC number 1 all year?) so "all" (hardest thing to do in any sport IMHO for sure) USC had to do was win all the regular season games to get into the championship game. Well, Auburn did that as well so why weren't they in it? Why wasn't Utah in it? Why? Because the teams are ranked...they're polled...assumed...judged...and all well before the season even begin...why not have it out on the field?
Texan said:That's true... Auburn was definitely a victime of being ranked lower than OU (or USC, for that matter) at the onset of the season. I mean look at how much ground they gained on OU. Should've passed them. OU had a couple of games they came REALLY close to losing (A&M, OK State) which should've dropped them IMO. Utah was ranked behind UT and Cal even though they both had lost a game apiece, but maybe strength of schedule wasn't there for Utah, I don't know; I didn't keep up with them. The system definitely needs a common-sense-enema.
Yeah, you are right. The system does need a little more common sense. I have always thought strength of schedule should be a HUGE factor in the computers and should be with the AP and coaches and whatnot. The coaches poll imo is the one I never got. They know the game better than most if not everyone involved, but they don't see all the games nor should they feel the need to. I forget if they use the coaches poll in the bcs or not. I don't think teams like Utah or Louisville (although they played some teams this year) or Boise State should ever play in the Championship game unless they want to move out of the conference they are in. I've lived in the Midwest, the mountain west, the south, and ACC country and I have to tell you the SEC people are nuts. They will get in your ass. Here, in the midwest things are serious only if you live in a college town of a big ten school but the intensity of the fans and just overall pride and I don't know if you want to call it intimacy or just obsession but their teams are a lot of people's fucking spirit of life force or something lol. That stuff is not seen as much in people. The support is there, but they're more like "ah that coach....he's got to go...he stinks...boo" and then they are on with their day. I knew one dude in like a support group sounding thing with his buddies. So, the bigger conferences though what with their usually harder schedules and overall pressure from the local media and community to me that makes it harder for those teams even with the talent recruited for those schools.
That's not to say I don't think Utah couldn't have put up a fight against USC or OK. They might very well could have beaten both if GIVEN the opportunity. And I think they earned enough to play at least another undefeated team like OK or Auburn.
One thing, I agree with Penguinsfan. Most of those games to me mean nothing and if it weren't for office pools and those sheets I'd probably wish they weren't on TV. lol If there was a playoff though THAT WOULD BE SWEET! I'd gear up for that every year more than the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.
I'm going to say this...you can disagree but I'm right...Auburn should be the national champ...they went through the SEC, which is the best conference top to bottom in the country, undefeated and beat UT in the SEC title game...12-0 through the SEC is remarkable...BAMA did it in '92 and beat Miami in the sugar bowl even though they were favored by two touchdonws....I hate the fact that Auburn doesn't even get a shot to play SC...I mean it's a shame that the college game has come down to a decision by computers....I mean have we lost all sense...I mean we can't even decide which two teams should play for a National Title.... give me a break...this isn't all about money...this is just about stupidity and incompetence among the officials who make these decisions, and their inability to do their jobs...
I agree with you 90%. I only disagree with you that it's not all about the money. They don't want to risk messing up a really lucritive thing.
True, but I'm not sure that a playoff system wouldn't bring in more attendance/viewers. Considering the lack luster appeal of the BCS and the folks that are so disgusted with the system that they decide to not watch college football altogether. So in the end I think it would be a solution to the problem, in more ways than one. I would love to see a playoff system where the teams play a ten game season and then they play 3-4 playoff games....that would make sense...the question would be how do you decide who goes and who doesn't??? I mean how is that decided in the lower divisions???
Well, in my opinion you could have a playoff with only the conference champs. Hasn't
OU played in the national title game since the BCS while loosing their conference championship game? Anyway, you take all conference champs and set up a play off from there and then over the years you can expand it. By taking ALL conference champs, every team has a chance. That means those little small mid-major schools get a crack at the big boys and I promise you sooner or later we would see some upsets. Eventutally we would have some small school come from nowhere and win the whole thing. I think that it would add more excitement to the game knowing any school thatwon their conference would have a shot at the national title. The way it is now, if your not ranked in the preseason top 5-10 you got no shot regardless of how well you do.
OU played in the national title game since the BCS while loosing their conference championship game? Anyway, you take all conference champs and set up a play off from there and then over the years you can expand it. By taking ALL conference champs, every team has a chance. That means those little small mid-major schools get a crack at the big boys and I promise you sooner or later we would see some upsets. Eventutally we would have some small school come from nowhere and win the whole thing. I think that it would add more excitement to the game knowing any school thatwon their conference would have a shot at the national title. The way it is now, if your not ranked in the preseason top 5-10 you got no shot regardless of how well you do.
That's very true, and that is a harsh reality...the system that is in place really takes all the excitement out of the game, and by excitement I mean everything except the media hype. The OU/USC game was such a disappointment that I just about decided to forget even watching anymore...
koooky said:Well, in my opinion you could have a playoff with only the conference champs. Hasn't
OU played in the national title game since the BCS while loosing their conference championship game? Anyway, you take all conference champs and set up a play off from there and then over the years you can expand it. By taking ALL conference champs, every team has a chance. That means those little small mid-major schools get a crack at the big boys and I promise you sooner or later we would see some upsets. Eventutally we would have some small school come from nowhere and win the whole thing. I think that it would add more excitement to the game knowing any school thatwon their conference would have a shot at the national title. The way it is now, if your not ranked in the preseason top 5-10 you got no shot regardless of how well you do.
That would be an obvious place to start, but I'm not sure it's the right place to go with things. We have to admit this was an unusual year. Hell, last year we had split national champions, each with a loss. The majority of years, you don't have more than one top team undefeated and almost never anything like we seen this year. Anyhow, the problem with the conference championship thing is when you look at who wins the MAC, Big East, Conference USA, and even Mountain West (don't be fooled by this year) you could certainly make a case that there are far more deserving teams that did not win a conference in conferences like the Big Ten, SEC, PAC Ten, etc. These teams should get a shot, even if they get a low seed, or whatever.