|
Oh man...the BCS's worst nightmare (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jpisani |
As a Michigan season ticket holder, I'll go ahead and say beating Michigan this year was no big feat, I'd say even App St knocking us off last year with a blocked FG as time ran out was a bigger accomplishment. But, to Utah's credit, when the schedules were made, it would have been right around the time Michigan was ranked number 2 but lost to #1 Ohio State in the last game of the season for their only loss.
As for as Utah playing for a National Championship, I think it takes more than one year of being ranked to make it there (I'm 95% sure they weren't a preseason top 25)...no matter how tough your schedule is, I don't think you can/deserve to go from out of the ranks to number 1 or 2. |
|
|
| flavdave |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
nope. moved to baltimore 2.5 years ago after graduating a tiny ass private school in the midwest. |
Ah, ok. Because if you did, I was going to say no wonder you're not a huge fan of college football because Maryland sucks. :p |
|
|
| weymouth |
I just want all the games done by the end of New Years. I used to love the college football BCS games until they started putting the national championship a week after New Years Day.
I would rather add an extra week on the schedule, with a +1 game after the BCS games, and get these games done on New Years. Screw giving the players extra time to study for finals :D.
Plus, anyone that doesn't like college football, I question your sanity. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by flavdave
Ah, ok. Because if you did, I was going to say no wonder you're not a huge fan of college football because Maryland sucks. :p |
i am to understand they won their bowl game. |
|
|
| bas |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renzo
Playoff system here we come? |
Too much money being made as it is, won't ever happen ever. the BCS. |
|
|
| fury |
| quote: | Originally posted by jpisani
As for as Utah playing for a National Championship, I think it takes more than one year of being ranked to make it there (I'm 95% sure they weren't a preseason top 25)...no matter how tough your schedule is, I don't think you can/deserve to go from out of the ranks to number 1 or 2. |
LOL the preseason rankings are a joke anyway. Georgia #1 :haha: |
|
|
| jpisani |
| quote: | Originally posted by fury
LOL the preseason rankings are a joke anyway. Georgia #1 :haha: |
True, but they weren't even ranked at the end of the 07 season, I just checked and they beat Navy by 3 in the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl to end the season last year. Utah deserves no shot at a national title. I'm all for a better system, but this year, the only teams who should be included in national championship talk at this point are USC, Texas, Oklahoma and Florida. |
|
|
| diesel_tron3000 |
| eff the BCS:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| fury |
| quote: | Originally posted by jpisani
True, but they weren't even ranked at the end of the 07 season, I just checked and they beat Navy by 3 in the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl to end the season last year. Utah deserves no shot at a national title. I'm all for a better system, but this year, the only teams who should be included in national championship talk at this point are USC, Texas, Oklahoma and Florida. |
I'm not sure why last year's results should matter at all. Florida lost their bowl game to Michigan last year, a team that won 3 games this year. Do you think that should be taken into consideration? |
|
|
| jpisani |
| quote: | Originally posted by fury
I'm not sure why last year's results should matter at all. Florida lost their bowl game to Michigan last year, a team that won 3 games this year. Do you think that should be taken into consideration? |
I'm saying a team like Indiana, or even this years Michigan team, after being so awful (both 3-9 I think) and if either goes 11-1 or 12-0 next year, do you think they would even be close to number 1? I don't. I think it would probably take 4 or 5 straight, good wins for either of them to even break into the top 25. I think that those teams who have schedules that are good (both probably play at least 3 top 25 teams per year), win 11 games after having very poor years, should be ranked near number 10 or lower, and not in national title consideration. I don't see how it could be seen otherwise unless you have teams jumping 4 or 5 spots over teams who have all won?
You have to have two or three good years in a row to be in the national championship, that's all I'm trying to say. I'm sure if you go back and look at the champions in the BCS era, no team has ever finished number 1 when being outside of the top 10 the year before. |
|
|
| Renzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jpisani
I'm saying a team like Indiana, or even this years Michigan team, after being so awful (both 3-9 I think) and if either goes 11-1 or 12-0 next year, do you think they would even be close to number 1? I don't. I think it would probably take 4 or 5 straight, good wins for either of them to even break into the top 25. I think that those teams who have schedules that are good (both probably play at least 3 top 25 teams per year), win 11 games after having very poor years, should be ranked near number 10 or lower, and not in national title consideration. I don't see how it could be seen otherwise unless you have teams jumping 4 or 5 spots over teams who have all won?
You have to have two or three good years in a row to be in the national championship, that's all I'm trying to say. I'm sure if you go back and look at the champions in the BCS era, no team has ever finished number 1 when being outside of the top 10 the year before. |
That argument goes against everything that is at the heart of competitive sports. The only place past seasons should matter in is preseason rankings. NOTHING ELSE SHOULD MATTER. NOTHING. In the NFL, the Miami Dolphins went 1-15 last year. And now they're in the playoffs. Are you gonna tell them that they can't play for the championship because they sucked last year? No, right? Let's say Duke's basketball team has a losing season this year. In next year's preseason rankings, they're not ranked. And, yet, they go undefeated....now what? They can't play for the collegiate championship? Of course they can.
As ridiculous as these examples sound, it's just as ridiculous in college football. Maybe Utah deserved to play for the title, maybe they didn't. Maybe they played teams, maybe they didn't. It's not for any of us to make that decision. the polls and the computers. Football is meant to be played on the field. We need to come up with a better system. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jpisani
I'm saying a team like Indiana, or even this years Michigan team, after being so awful (both 3-9 I think) and if either goes 11-1 or 12-0 next year, do you think they would even be close to number 1? I don't. I think it would probably take 4 or 5 straight, good wins for either of them to even break into the top 25. I think that those teams who have schedules that are good (both probably play at least 3 top 25 teams per year), win 11 games after having very poor years, should be ranked near number 10 or lower, and not in national title consideration. I don't see how it could be seen otherwise unless you have teams jumping 4 or 5 spots over teams who have all won?
You have to have two or three good years in a row to be in the national championship, that's all I'm trying to say. I'm sure if you go back and look at the champions in the BCS era, no team has ever finished number 1 when being outside of the top 10 the year before. |
Why? With the huge amount of turnover in collegiate athletics, we aren't talking about building dynasties here. NCAA football and basketball are chock full of examples of schools coming from relative obscurity and challenging for titles. I mean, for example, Alabama was god-awful just a few years ago, and they spent the majority of the season at #1. |
|
|
|
|
