college football blows

[daryn]

that's it.

[Clarkmeister]

I agree. I used to rank college football among my favorite 2-3 sports, now I basically don't care at all. The BCS has created the worst of both worlds - an unsatisfactory and corrupt playoff that is incomplete, while trashing the bowl game traditions. Since they will never go backwards with regard to the bowl system, I'm basically stuck not caring until the college presidents extract their heads from their collective asses.

[theredwave]

It's better than a pointless thread. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Sponger15SB]

I agree.

I can barely watch college sports....uh unless you consider surfing a sport....and even then its better to watch high school surfing.

[Clarkmeister]

Nah, it's not pointless. It's succinct and spot-on. It's exactly how I feel about the sport now, and I used to LOVE it.

[fatmongo]

Sadly, pointless threads are often more interesting that college football. College football, on the other hand, is exponentially more interesting than college basketball.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, pointless threads are often more interesting that college football. College football, on the other hand, is exponentially more interesting than college basketball.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least in college basketball everyone gets a fair chance to win the title.

[theredwave]

I just miss the NHL.

[fatmongo]

I guess in some parts of the country winning a big title game in college is seen as a pretty big accomplishment. I just see college sports as a way to sell yourself to a pro team. It really doesn't matter who wins what bowl games or whatever, just play your best, establish yourself, get drafted, and then go perform on the big stage.

[AncientPC]

I love college sports.

[Clarkmeister]

"It really doesn't matter who wins what bowl games or whatever"

Ask the kids on Utah and Auburn if it doesn't matter that from day 1 this season they never had a chance to win the championship. I'd bet they disagree with you.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I used to rank college football among my favorite 2-3 sports, now I basically don't care at all. The BCS has created the worst of both worlds - an unsatisfactory and corrupt playoff that is incomplete, while trashing the bowl game traditions. Since they will never go backwards with regard to the bowl system, I'm basically stuck not caring until the college presidents extract their heads from their collective asses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Absent a playoff system, the BCS is a better alternative than the old system. Under the old system, USC, Oklahoma and Auburn would all be playing in separate bowls.

[fatmongo]

Yeah I'm not saying I'm for or against the new or old bowl system. To be honest I have no idea how either one of them works. I just think college sports are way overblown. I'm not saying its not a good game with good players either. I just don't like the attention that it gets. Or how commercial it is. I never understood it. Its just college. If your goal is to make pro some day, does it really matter what school you play for? Not really, just impress some scouts and you're in I think. And if you goal isn't to make pro, just play your 4 years or whatever, get your degree, and move on.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I used to rank college football among my favorite 2-3 sports, now I basically don't care at all. The BCS has created the worst of both worlds - an unsatisfactory and corrupt playoff that is incomplete, while trashing the bowl game traditions. Since they will never go backwards with regard to the bowl system, I'm basically stuck not caring until the college presidents extract their heads from their collective asses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Absent a playoff system, the BCS is a better alternative than the old system. Under the old system, USC, Oklahoma and Auburn would all be playing in separate bowls.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's just fine. At least the bowls had some meaning. It mattered that the SEC champion played in the Sugar Bowl. It mattered that the Big 12 champ played in the Orange Bowl. It mattered that the Pac 10 and Big 10 played in the Rose Bowl. There was tradition and pride at stake, both at the school and conference level. Now, it's all irrelevant exhibition games leading up to a tarnished and arbitrarily selected "National Championship Game".

Now it has neither tradition, nor a legitimate championship game. It's just one big joke.

[jdl22]

I agree with this.

I am a lifelong duck fan as well as an Oregon alum. In the 2000 season we got screwed out of the national title game, being ranked #2 in both polls at the end of the season. Granted it wasn't as bad as Utah or Auburn ths year because they didn't lose during the season.

Anyway, what burned as bad as not being able to play for the national title was not being able to play in the Rose Bowl because that year it was the national title game. I went to the Rose Bowl on my 15th birthday and it was like a dream come true even though Penn State crushed my ducks. Going to the Rose Bowl was a huge deal back then. This Rose Bowl was won by a Big 12 team that didn't win its conference. That sucks.

The BCS has definately cheapened the bowl experience.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask the kids on Utah and Auburn if it doesn't matter that from day 1 this season they never had a chance to win the championship. I'd bet they disagree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utah is in a tough spot being in the MWC.

Perhaps Auburn needs to quit whining and look inward a bit. If they hadn't played The Citadel, UL-Monroe and La. Tech for their three non-conference games, they'd probably be in Miami right now. Even Bill Snyder would have been ashamed of that non-conference schedule.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]
yup.

[bernie]

Yeah, but regular season is still cool when the big teams matchup. There's alot of pride in many of those games. I think it's one sport where I enjoy the regular season much more than the post season. Right up to the conference championship games. The bowls are such a joke I don't pay too much attention to them.

Too many bowls, though.

I do agree that it sucks that many teams at the beginning, no matter how good, never get a chance to win the championship. That has always kind of irked me.

Nice to see Utah kick ass. Even though it was against the weakest BCS team, it was still great.

Even with its misgivings, I still love college football.

b

[Michael Davis]

"But every game's like a playoff game. You lose one and you're done."

-Michael

[brassnuts]

BCS sucks. College footballs sucks more than ever. College sports still is better than pro sports because of free agency.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, pointless threads are often more interesting that college football. College football, on the other hand, is exponentially more interesting than college basketball.

[/ QUOTE ]

not when you're drunk and cheering in the student section

[CCx]

college sports

good: watching young athletes put forward real effort, lots of times outweighs the pro game in this aspect, makes it real fun to watch

bad: points shaving, BCS

overall in my book, college sports are awesome, your mileage may vary

[uw_madtown]

MLB < NBA < NCAA Basketball < NCAA Football < NFL

If the NCAA went to a playoff system (even if it just involved the top 4 or 8 BCS teams), college football would be as good or better than the NFL though.

[ QUOTE ]
Now it has neither tradition, nor a legitimate championship game. It's just one big joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarkmeister's comments are dead-on. The point of the BCS was to sacrifice bowl traditions in favor of crowning true champions, but it is a complete failure at doing that. Of course, it is doubtful that we'll see a true playoff system in college football because of the money involved in going to a bowl game -- that makes it very lucrative to involve many, many teams and spread the bowls out, instead of using 3 - 7 of them on some sort of playoff amongst a limited number of teams. Like most things that stick around past their usefulness, the BCS will remain until a more financially lucrative situation presents itself.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
NBA < NCAA Basketball

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me?!?!

All the good players are going straight from high school or leaving in their first and second year of school.

Out of the top however many college basketball players how many of them are juniors or seniors? Not many, because they are all pro.

The talent pool is just horrible horrible horrible.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NBA < NCAA Basketball

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me?!?!

All the good players are going straight from high school or leaving in their first and second year of school.

Out of the top however many college basketball players how many of them are juniors or seniors? Not many, because they are all pro.

The talent pool is just horrible horrible horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The NBA is ridiculously boring to me for many of the same reasons as the MLB. While the wins by the Pistons and the Red Sox have temporarily lifted the "championships are bought, not won" image, by and large these two pro leagues lack any sort of parity or unpredictability.

Also, in the case of the NBA, I'm one of the people who prefers action that places teamwork and effort over flashy play. This style of game is more prevalent in the college game than in the pro game.

And I don't really think the exodus of college/high school basketball players is a huge reason to prefer the NBA. Of course the NBA's skill level is higher than the NCAA's. That'd be true whether or not people were allowed to leave early -- the NFL is obviously head-and-shoulders above college football, skill-wise.

It's just a fact that the college game, while less skilled than the pro game, will offer a different flavor and style. I don't enjoy the pro basketball style much at all.



Sidenote, I expected some irate baseball or hockey fan to be the first response. Fact is, those two sports are at the bottom of the barrel right now. I'd rather watch televised poker (also in the crapper) than watch pro baseball or hockey. That is, if pro hockey ever comes back.

[daryn]

wow! with all the posting around here and all the responses to this thread, i expected to get blown out of the water with this post. turns out everyone agrees! awesome.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

While the wins by the Pistons and the Red Sox have temporarily lifted the "championships are bought, not won" image

[/ QUOTE ]

1 New York Yankees $184,193,950
2 Boston Red Sox $127,298,500

And I wasn't able to find anything on basketball (weird, huh), but isn't their a salary cap?

Another thing - you are far more likely to find a "dynasty" type team in NCAA football than in NFL football.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, in the case of the NBA, I'm one of the people who prefers action that places teamwork and effort over flashy play. This style of game is more prevalent in the college game than in the pro game.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is fine, I think that is why people prefer the college games to pro, because they play a different game. I think that in college though the basketball players are so bad it makes a big difference.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
Red Sox have temporarily lifted the "championships are bought, not won" image, by and large these two pro leagues lack any sort of parity or unpredictability.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. NY Yankees 183,335,513
2. Boston 125,208,542
3. Anaheim 101,909,667
4. NY Mets 95,754,304
5. Philadelphia 93,219,167
6. Chicago Cubs 91,101,667

They definitely didn't buy it.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While the wins by the Pistons and the Red Sox have temporarily lifted the "championships are bought, not won" image

[/ QUOTE ]

1 New York Yankees $184,193,950
2 Boston Red Sox $127,298,500

And I wasn't able to find anything on basketball (weird, huh), but isn't their a salary cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say having a payroll 66% as large as the Yankees is a significant disadvantage. Of course, you could also throw up other numbers. I'm quite sure the Sox have a large payroll compared to most teams, but when the Yankees can out-spend everyone there's no excuse for not making the Series every year. And usually, they do, which is why I hate baseball.

Basketball does have a cap, but somehow it still seems to have much, much, much less parity and turnover than the NFL. The NFL has a great balance right now where teams can be very good (but not unbeatable) for 5-7 years or so before they start to fall apart a bit. And other than a few teams that fall into that semi-dynasty category, there's a lot of turnover in the standings otherwise. I just don't see this kind of dynamic in the NBA. Granted, I gave up on following the NBA too closely about four years ago, so maybe it's gotten better since then.

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing - you are far more likely to find a "dynasty" type team in NCAA football than in NFL football.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider this a negative, not a plus, and is one of the reasons I ranked the NFL higher.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Red Sox have temporarily lifted the "championships are bought, not won" image, by and large these two pro leagues lack any sort of parity or unpredictability.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. NY Yankees 183,335,513
2. Boston 125,208,542
3. Anaheim 101,909,667
4. NY Mets 95,754,304
5. Philadelphia 93,219,167
6. Chicago Cubs 91,101,667

They definitely didn't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said in a response, I realize they had a large payroll compared to most of the league. I just meant that public perception of the MLB has shifted a little bit because, hey, the Yankees didn't win. Which, when the next highest payroll in the league is only 66% of yours, is a bit ridiculous.

That probably would have encapsulated the point better. I'll rephrase.

[ QUOTE ]
While the Yankees' playoff ousting and the Pistons' championship win have temporarily lifted the "championships are bought, not won" image...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask the kids on Utah and Auburn if it doesn't matter that from day 1 this season they never had a chance to win the championship. I'd bet they disagree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utah is in a tough spot being in the MWC.

Perhaps Auburn needs to quit whining and look inward a bit. If they hadn't played The Citadel, UL-Monroe and La. Tech for their three non-conference games, they'd probably be in Miami right now. Even Bill Snyder would have been ashamed of that non-conference schedule.

[/ QUOTE ]

So being in the MWC makes it OK for Utah to be screwed? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

As for non-conference schedule, the Bowling Green pulled out on them at the last minute, forcing them to find a replacement on little notice, which ended up being the Citadel. BG then scheduled with OU. Regardless, neither team played anyone of import. 5-6 Oregon? Houston? Surely you aren't suggesting that those games meant anything.

The fact of the matter (and I'm a Big Ten guy) is that the SEC is the best football conference in the NCAA. Period. Every year. An undefeated SEC team has NEVER lost their bowl game. Recent national champs who were undefeated in the SEC yet still were big underdogs underscore this fact. LSU last year was a vastly superior team to OU. Tennessee embarassed a highly touted FSU offense. Alabama handled a high profile favored Miami team.

Anyways, none of that matters because the whole system is a joke. Because USC and OU happened to be ranked 1 and 2 in the initial polls, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for any other team to control their own destiny. Seriously, how is that even remotely acceptible? Utah and Auburn were basically told that their entire regular season was irrelevant and nothing they could have done would have mattered. And let's not even get to the embarassment last year that was OU getting included in the BCS title game after getting humiliated by a terrible KSU squad. Or Nebraska a few years prior getting in despite getting similarly rolled by CU. It's just all a big joke.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
So being in the MWC makes it OK for Utah to be screwed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I doubt if they really feel screwed. The BCS is the only reason that they got to the Fiesta Bowl; otherwise they would have been playing in the Liberty Bowl.

[ QUOTE ]
As for non-conference schedule, the Bowling Green pulled out on them at the last minute, forcing them to find a replacement on little notice, which ended up being the Citadel.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about UL-Monroe and La. Tech. Don't you think they could have found better non-quality opposition than those two?

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, neither team played anyone of import. 5-6 Oregon? Houston? Surely you aren't suggesting that those games meant anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Oregon outplayed the indignant Cal Bears, and should have beaten them (losing by one point). OU, admittedly in a lackluster effort, sleepwalked to a 35-7 win over the Ducks.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter (and I'm a Big Ten guy) is that the SEC is the best football conference in the NCAA. Period. Every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, but not this year. The SEC is way down this year.

[ QUOTE ]
Tennessee embarassed a highly touted FSU offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. You mean the highly touted FSU offense that was down to 3rd string QB Marcus Outzen going into the Fiesta Bowl?

[ QUOTE ]
Because USC and OU happened to be ranked 1 and 2 in the initial polls, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for any other team to control their own destiny. Seriously, how is that even remotely acceptible? Utah and Auburn were basically told that their entire regular season was irrelevant and nothing they could have done would have mattered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Utah is thrilled to death that the BCS put them in the Fiesta Bowl, and I still say that Auburn has no room to complain. In a virtual toss-up between the top three, their crappy non-conference schedule was the difference maker.

OU-USC is one for the ages. Two of the most storied programs in college football history knocking heads in the Orange Bowl. Four of the five Heisman finalists squaring off, and for the first time in history we have two Heisman Trophy winners playing against each other. Pete Carrol vs. Bob Stoops, the list goes on and on.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah is in a tough spot being in the MWC.

Perhaps Auburn needs to quit whining and look inward a bit. If they hadn't played The Citadel, UL-Monroe and La. Tech for their three non-conference games, they'd probably be in Miami right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry SCG but I think that Auburn definitely got hosed in this system.

They may have played those cake walk teams, but they also played LSU (4th at the time), UGA (5th at the time), and UT (15th for the SEC championship).

On the other hand, USC played Cal (7th at the time and a team that also got hosed) and AZ St (19th at the time), while Oklahoma played Texas (5th at the time, and Mack Brown can't beat the Sooners), OK St (20th at the time), and Texas A&M (22 at the time).

Auburn was the only team out of the 3 that had to play 2 top 5 teams, granted that both were in conference. They play in the toughest conference in the nation, and they ran the table.

This whole debate just goes to show that the BCS sucks, and they NEED to change the system.

BTW, did anyone feel wierd watching Michigan playing Texas in the Rose Bowl? When did Texas switch to the Pac-10? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Joe

[BottlesOf]

I don't agree, and suspect I'm not the only one. Hoever, you're not going to get "blown out of the water," because the concerns expressed are certainly valid. The system is flawed. No question there.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact of the matter (and I'm a Big Ten guy) is that the SEC is the best football conference in the NCAA. Period. Every year.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Usually, but not this year. The SEC is way down this year.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Have you watched college football this year?

Prove to me a better conference exists. The SEC is by far the best. They have:

Auburn (3)
Georgia (7)
LSU (11)
Tennessee (17)
Florida (19)

These are all teams in the top 20, not 25. Now, lets look at the Pac-10

USC (1)
Cal (4)
Arizona St (24)

Now the Big 12

Oklahoma (2)
Texas (5)
Texas Tech (21)
Texas A&M (25)

The Big 10

Michigan (12)
Iowa (13)
Wisconsin (16)
Ohio St (22)

And the ACC

Virginia Tech (9)
Miami (14)
Florida St (15)
Virginia (18)
(Keep in mind that the top 2 teams from this conference are transplants from the Big East and in their first year in the ACC).

So lets face it, at the end of this season, the best conference in the country isn't even having their best team play in the national championship. Doesn't seem fair.

Now prove me and Clarky wrong and show us that there is a better conference out there.

Joe

[ClassicBob]

[ QUOTE ]

LSU last year was a vastly superior team to OU.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just simply not true. LSU won by 7 points against OU, despite the fact that OU's Heisman-winning quarterback had an injured foot and throwing hand. OU was still an over-thrown ball away from sending that game into overtime. LSU played a great game, and I could maybe accept them as a "superior" team, but to say "vastly superior" is incorrect.

[ClaytonN]

I'm a Georgia fan, and even I can say that Auburn should have been in the national championship.

USC should not be in. I'm sorry, but all you've done is beaten Cal, and they got whooped in their bowl game. If you want people to respect your team in this BCS age, play some tougher teams.

Same goes for Utah.

On that note, college football sucks because they love the almighty dollar and could care less whether or not there is a "true" champion.

College basketball at least gives teams like Vermont and Holy Cross an opportunity to take the title. Teams like Syracuse a couple of years ago would never have gotten the opportunity to win it all if there was a BCS-like system in basketball.

Every argument for the BCS is weak

"But if there were playoffs there would be sooo many games, and the players couldn't handle it"

-If Division I-AA and Division III can use a playoff system, then the much better conditioned athletes at Div. 1 can, too. Plus, why do we have 13 game seasons now? Remember when it used to be in the vicinity of 11?

"But what system would determine who gets into the playoffs?"

-The fact that this is argued is preposterous. College basketball sees the same problems in selecting the "bubble teams". I would rather be stirred over a team being one out of the playoffs than no playoffs at all.

The most legitimate, ungreedy, and unpoisoned team sport today is probably either pro football or minor league baseball.

Basketball is full of thugs, baseball and euro soccer/football have the mantra of "In order to win a championship, your team must be well financed by rich owners", ala NY Yankees or Manchester U. Hockey doesn't even have a season right now.

Therefore, I declare the NFL rules. And everything else more or less sucks.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry SCG but I think that Auburn definitely got hosed in this system.

They may have played those cake walk teams, but they also played LSU (4th at the time), UGA (5th at the time), and UT (15th for the SEC championship).

[/ QUOTE ]

"At the time" means nothing to me.

[ QUOTE ]
This whole debate just goes to show that the BCS sucks, and they NEED to change the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're never going to have a playoff, so I suppose that you'd rather go back to the old system of everyone anxiously watching TV at 1 AM to see who gets "voted" #1.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
They're never going to have a playoff, so I suppose that you'd rather go back to the old system of everyone anxiously watching TV at 1 AM to see who gets "voted" #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preposterous argument. There are more options than

1) BCS
2) Before BCS
3) Playoffs (exhausted)

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
"At the time" means nothing to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then at what time do the rankings mean anything to you?

If #1 plays #2 in September, doesn't that mean anything? They played these teams when they were in the top 5. Thats why I also listed the other opponents and their rankings at the time. If the only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the season, then the current system only gives 2 teams a chance to be #1 out of 118 total teams in Division 1A.

I'm not saying the old system was better, but this system is the worst thing going in sports.

Joe

[JoeC]

Only sports I can watch:
1. College basketball
2. SOMETIMES pro football

It's sad but true

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
If #1 plays #2 in September, doesn't that mean anything? They played these teams when they were in the top 5. Thats why I also listed the other opponents and their rankings at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that early-season rankings are not exactly an accurate indicator of how good a team is compared to other teams.

At one point this year, Purdue was ranked #4.

[ClaytonN]

Pushing the argument of early season rankings aside, can you justifiable make an argument for an undefeated Pac-10 team going into the national championship game over an undefeated SEC team?

Can anyone?

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Pushing the argument of early season rankings aside, can you justifiable make an argument for an undefeated Pac-10 team going into the national championship game over an undefeated SEC team?

Can anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be the first to agree that the Pac-10 sucks, but USC is really good, and deserves to be there. The non-conference games back it up. USC beat a quality Virginia Tech team. They also crushed Notre Dame, who despite a mediocre season were far better than any of Auburn's non-conference opponents.

With 3 undefeated teams from BCS conferences, somebody has to get the shaft. Maybe we won't get to have a playoff until every school gets screwed over by the system. Hopefully I'll live to see it.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his point was that early-season rankings are not exactly an accurate indicator of how good a team is compared to other teams.


[/ QUOTE ]

These are the dates of the games. As you'll see, Auburn's games are spread out, and I also missed one. They played Tennessee twice:

9/18 LSU
10/2 UT
11/13 (5) UGA
12/4 (15) UT

They played a top 5 team after Nov 1.

Now USC's top 25 opponents after Nov 1:
....none. They played AZ St on October 16. That was the last ranked opponent they played.

Now Oklahoma:
Texas A&M (22)11/6

Anything else?

Joe

[PhatTBoll]

Sure, and #4 California just got embarrassed by Texas friggin Tech. You can't tell everything by rankings, and you can't play the who-beat-who-by-how-much game to see who is better. The only way to figure that out is on the field. Everything else is an approximation, and sometimes the approximations turn out to be laughably wrong. Does anybody honestly think there are 21 teams better than Ohio State right now?

Honestly I think you would have a better argument for Auburn over Oklahoma rather than Auburn over USC.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
MLB < NBA < NCAA Basketball < NCAA Football < NFL

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong.


NFL>MLB>NBA>NCAA sports

College basketball is so boring, followed closely by the no defense college football where the same teams dominate every year. The complete dominance exhibited by a few programs ruins football.

[fatmongo]

[ QUOTE ]

NFL>MLB>NBA>NCAA sports

[/ QUOTE ]

Close. Don't forget in between MLB and NBA though are tennis, golf, curling, and watching paint dry.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I only put the NFL first because of the playoffs, regular season sucks a lot.

[fatmongo]

[ QUOTE ]
I only put the NFL first because of the playoffs, regular season sucks a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno about that. I'll take NFL preseason over pretty much any other sport except hockey, eh.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way to figure that out is on the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best statement about college football in the entire thread.

I wonder if anyone from the BCS or any of the college presidents read this web site???? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, and #4 California just got embarrassed by Texas friggin Tech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any team can be beaten on any given day, I guess. Would you say overall that Texas Tech is the better of the two teams? Here's whats worse: Cal may be #4, but they were eliminated from the BCS bowls.

The rankings are the only measuring stick out there that we can use right now, and without a playoff system or some type of head-to-head, its the only way to argue who is better right now.

God I hate the BCS!

Joe

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
NFL>MLB>NBA>NCAA sports


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
college football where the same teams dominate every year. The complete dominance exhibited by a few programs ruins football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now TSC, your statements conflict here....a little. MLB is full of have's vs have nots (I know, I'm a BIG Yankee fan /images/graemlins/frown.gif). College football is very similar. Its just broken down into conferences.

The BCS bowl games (Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar) pay their participants and their conferences $10 million+ for being there. That money is turned into facilities, salaries for top coaches, and scholarships for the best athletes.

Teams like Utah and conferences like the WAC really aren't able to grow like the Big 10 and teams like Michigan because every year, the Big 10 pulls in more money from the bowls than the WAC. They then go out and buy what they need to succeed (like the Yankees /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

So your final order should read:
NFL>MLB/NCAA>NBA.

And for God sakes man, please put the NHL in there (at least if they ever come back! Man its gonna be a crappy winter!)

Joe

[ThaSaltCracka]

Heres the thing about Baseball. Most of the bad teams in baseball are bad because they have poor managment and owners that don't care about winning, because they all make money anayways. College Football is different. Every team tries to win/be good, but no matter how hard they try, teams like Oklahoma, Michigan, Miami always recruit the best players because they have the best programs. Essentially it is a system that won't change.

[JoeU]

The state of sports in America is......

[ QUOTE ]
Heres the thing about Baseball. Most of the bad teams in baseball are bad because they have poor managment and owners that don't care about winning, because they all make money anayways.

[/ QUOTE ]

we have now started to talk about baseball in a college football thread on Jan 2! /images/graemlins/grin.gif


Joe

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah, its about time.

[Mano]

I love college football, it's the BCS system that blows. We need a playoff system, preferablly 16 team. It would generate fantastic interest, ratings, and money. The problem is that the big conference schools basically have the money from the big bowl games locked up, and are unwilling to chance not getting their share (even though the majority of years they would get most of the money anyways). I am hoping that the television networks put enough pressure on the NCAA that we get a playoff.

[ThaSaltCracka]

hey, your boys played an awesome game.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Pushing the argument of early season rankings aside, can you justifiable make an argument for an undefeated Pac-10 team going into the national championship game over an undefeated SEC team?

Can anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Auburn can make a good case of getting in over USC, even with Auburn's pathetic non-conference schedule. The Pac-10 is severely overrated this year.

If you look at USC's season in its entirety, they were very fortunate to escape with a win over Virginia Tech (with some questionable officiating). We'll let that one slide, because Tech turned out to be a very good team. They were thoroughly dominated by Cal, who outgained them 2 to 1. We'll let that one slide, because Cal was a very good team (although they got taken to the woodshed by Texas Tech after whining incessantly about being left out of the Rose Bowl).

However, there's no excuse for the close calls against Stanford and UCLA. These two teams are terrible. Once again, USC needed some help from the officials to beat UCLA (who got their asses handed to them by Oklahoma State in Pasadena and lost to freaking Wyoming in the Las Vegas Bowl). How about the 4-7 Stanford Cardinal. An absolutely dreadful team, yet they took USC to the wire in a 31-28 loss.

Oklahoma might have had a couple of close games, but they NEVER struggled against a bad team.

If anything, I think it's USC who is getting a free pass in all of this controversy.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, pointless threads are often more interesting that college football. College football, on the other hand, is exponentially more interesting than college basketball.

[/ QUOTE ]
At least in college basketball everyone gets a fair chance to win the title.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although this is true, it doesn't make basketball any more fun to watch and it therefore blows in comparison to college football.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I just miss the NHL.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're the one.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Too many bowls, though.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the problem. Notre Dame in a bowl with a 6-5 record? Ridiculous!

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
The NBA is ridiculously boring to me...

[/ QUOTE ]
And to most of the rest of us. That's why its TV ratings have dropped off a cliff the last few years.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pushing the argument of early season rankings aside, can you justifiable make an argument for an undefeated Pac-10 team going into the national championship game over an undefeated SEC team?

Can anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Auburn can make a good case of getting in over USC, even with Auburn's pathetic non-conference schedule. The Pac-10 is severely overrated this year.

If you look at USC's season in its entirety, they were very fortunate to escape with a win over Virginia Tech (with some questionable officiating). We'll let that one slide, because Tech turned out to be a very good team. They were thoroughly dominated by Cal, who outgained them 2 to 1. We'll let that one slide, because Cal was a very good team (although they got taken to the woodshed by Texas Tech after whining incessantly about being left out of the Rose Bowl).

However, there's no excuse for the close calls against Stanford and UCLA. These two teams are terrible. Once again, USC needed some help from the officials to beat UCLA (who got their asses handed to them by Oklahoma State in Pasadena and lost to freaking Wyoming in the Las Vegas Bowl). How about the 4-7 Stanford Cardinal. An absolutely dreadful team, yet they took USC to the wire in a 31-28 loss.

Oklahoma might have had a couple of close games, but they NEVER struggled against a bad team.

If anything, I think it's USC who is getting a free pass in all of this controversy.

[/ QUOTE ]


You were saying? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[TimTimSalabim]

The problem, as I see it, is that one game between two teams basically means very little, because just as in poker, there is a lot of short-term luck in sports. That's why they play best-of-seven in the NBA and MLB. How many times have you seen the #1 team lose in the first or second round of the NCAA tournament to some nobody? The nobody played their best game ever, the #1 team had an off night. So no matter how big your playoff system is, it still proves squat about who the best team is.

[Number4]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem, as I see it, is that one game between two teams basically means very little, because just as in poker, there is a lot of short-term luck in sports. That's why they play best-of-seven in the NBA and MLB. How many times have you seen the #1 team lose in the first or second round of the NCAA tournament to some nobody? The nobody played their best game ever, the #1 team had an off night. So no matter how big your playoff system is, it still proves squat about who the best team is.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least the team has a chance to prove it, instead of going undefeated and getting the shaft.

[CCx]

What is your suggestion for college sports playoffs then? I too disagree with the BCS for this reason (not so much the NCAA tourney in March, but maybe to some degree)

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
At least the team has a chance to prove it, instead of going undefeated and getting the shaft.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCS does blow. Who invented this system anyway? Some geek squad with a calculator that never even touched a football?

[CCx]

[ QUOTE ]
BCS does blow. Who invented this system anyway? Some geek squad with a calculator that never even touched a football?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, some geek squad with a calculator that saw a fat ass TV deal and millions and millions of dollars for the major conferences.

[TimTimSalabim]

Actually, I hadn't thought about a solution, I'm just good at pointing out problems /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

But now that I think about it, how about a points system like they do for determining Player of the Year or Player of the WSOP in poker? With all due respect to Fossilman, we know that winning one tournament (albeit the biggest) does not make you the best poker player.

[Clarkmeister]

"The problem, as I see it, is that one game between two teams basically means very little"

When you get owned like OU is getting owned, it means quite a bit.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCS does blow. Who invented this system anyway? Some geek squad with a calculator that never even touched a football?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, some geek squad with a calculator that saw a fat ass TV deal and millions and millions of dollars for the major conferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that really why they moved to BCS? Money???? There's got to be a way a playoff would make just as much money as BCS.

[CCx]

Do you realize how much money the BCS system makes the major conferences? It's an astronomical number - the chairman of the BCS came out today and said they would look at nominating a 'panel of experts' to contribute to the bowl game nominations, but in no way would they consider a playoff. Hell, why would they? They're all making so much money it's unbelieveable, I wouldn't want to give up the BCS either if I were them!

[rickthekeg]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem, as I see it, is that one game between two teams basically means very little, because just as in poker, there is a lot of short-term luck in sports. That's why they play best-of-seven in the NBA and MLB. How many times have you seen the #1 team lose in the first or second round of the NCAA tournament to some nobody? The nobody played their best game ever, the #1 team had an off night. So no matter how big your playoff system is, it still proves squat about who the best team is.

[/ QUOTE ]