We have a new homer of the year award.
First of all, I think College Football is the best sport on the planet because every game COUNTS. You cant lose, or you are out.
While the playoff system solves some things, it kills the meaning of the regular season. All of these conversations dont take place if we have a playoff system.
What there should be is Bowl Games with a mini playoff.
BCS Teams #1-#4 Play each other. #1 plays #4, and #2 plays #3.
This first round takes place around the last week of December while the smaller bowls are going on. Then, the National Championship around January 10th, would give about 2 weeks preparation. It also avoids playing the national title for all of the marbles with like 4 weeks off.
There would still be BCS Bowls and the whole deal. Just a 4-team Mini-Playoff would mean the regular season still mattered, Bowl Games are still in effect, rankings dicussions for who is #4 are still in effect, but you have a more liegt national champion, plus the added revenue from the mini playoff - all while still avoiding academic finals and those issues.
OK, now what am I missing?
First of all, I think College Football is the best sport on the planet because every game COUNTS. You cant lose, or you are out.
While the playoff system solves some things, it kills the meaning of the regular season. All of these conversations dont take place if we have a playoff system.
What there should be is Bowl Games with a mini playoff.
BCS Teams #1-#4 Play each other. #1 plays #4, and #2 plays #3.
This first round takes place around the last week of December while the smaller bowls are going on. Then, the National Championship around January 10th, would give about 2 weeks preparation. It also avoids playing the national title for all of the marbles with like 4 weeks off.
There would still be BCS Bowls and the whole deal. Just a 4-team Mini-Playoff would mean the regular season still mattered, Bowl Games are still in effect, rankings dicussions for who is #4 are still in effect, but you have a more liegt national champion, plus the added revenue from the mini playoff - all while still avoiding academic finals and those issues.
OK, now what am I missing?
EveryGamblersDream said:
Come on. Nobody is trying to take anything away from what Boise State has accomplished, but they are completely and entirely out-talented and out-sized, out-physicaled at nearly every position vs. a team like Ohio State.
It's an entirely different crop of talent, a different type of talent.
When your team hasnt lost a game, and you read all of the articles and hear all of the quotes about how some player is great and the coach feels he's playing as good as anyone in the country and all of that, it's easy to get caught up in the feeling you have because they havnt lost. You havnt seen any flaws yet.
Im not saying they dont deserve a chance to play certain teams, but to say theyd beat Ohio State is something different. The system is set up the way it is because it has happened throughout time - time and time again. It's a different kind of talent.
I follow this team & don't need quotes to tell me what is really going on. To say the system is setup the way it is makes no sense at all. You make it sound impossible for teams "supposedly" more talented, athletic, etc.... to lose to lesser teams.
How many "supposedly" more talented teams lost to the lesser foe? Oklahoma was supposed to be one of the greatest teams ever & they got throttled by USC.
1AA teams are never supposed to be able to compete with any 1A team. However every year more & more of these "supposedly" inferior foes march into enemy territory & win.
The reasoning doesn't fly & until someone can show proof as to why Boise St or any other undefeated & "supposedly" inferior team shouldn't have a chance at the title, I'm calling BS on it.
How many "supposedly" more talented teams lost to the lesser foe? Oklahoma was supposed to be one of the greatest teams ever & they got throttled by USC.
1AA teams are never supposed to be able to compete with any 1A team. However every year more & more of these "supposedly" inferior foes march into enemy territory & win.
The reasoning doesn't fly & until someone can show proof as to why Boise St or any other undefeated & "supposedly" inferior team shouldn't have a chance at the title, I'm calling BS on it.
EveryGamblersDream said:
woah woah woah
Oklahoma/USC.....those are teams that grab that similiar talent that I am talking about. Those are big time programs, in hot big time beds for talent, with big time traditions, big time coaches, big time facilities.
Boise State doesnt get that same crop...that same type of talent.
I'm not trying to make anything sound impossible. But I mean, you cant argue that it has been proven over years and years that the big boy schools rarely lose to teams of Boise States caliber. For every 1 upset you show me, I'll show you 15-20 where it didnt happen. Thats all I mean by thats the way the system is set up. It has happened time and time again. Thats why the BCS ranks things the way it does. Thats why Rutgers is undefeated sitting way back there too.
Sure some 1-AA team upsets Kentucky and Wake and Arizona and teams like that every now and then. But no 1-AA team is upsetting the big boys on any consistent basis whatsoever. Its a different kind of talent, I cant stress that enough.
There is a major jump in overall talent.....for the big traditional schools.
Its talent that is the rare combination of size/speed/power all wrapped in one.
Where a team like Boise State will get a guy with size, or a guy with speed, or a guy with power, but rarely do they have a roster filled with that type of dynamic talent over their whole roster the way the big boys do.
Boise State may have 3 guys that run 4.35's. But Ohio State will have guys with that same speed, that are bigger, stronger, more physical, and more polished.
Like I said, you cant take anything away from Boise State, and I understand you are proud, and you have every reason to be, but they lose 90% of the time to Ohio State at best and I have loads of history with similiar situations to back this up.
I must respectfully disagree with some of your comments. First off yes on paper you could show the 15-20 times it didn't happen, but it isn't as easy as it sounds.
The strides some of these programs have made in the last 3-5 years alone makes it much different from even say 7 years ago. The landscape of football has changed so much.
It has been playing out over & over the last few years. The talent difference between these schools is shrinking. 6+ years ago a Boise St, Fresno St would have no shot at the bigger schools.
Now these teams play knowing they can not only compete but win. Showing samples of losses from schools in different situations doesn't prove that today's version couldn't beat the big boys.
Why are the big schools so afraid to even play the smaller schools? When they do they rarely do a home & home. I know Boise St would beat anyone at home which is why most teams won't come. God forbid a big "tradition" program lose to a "Boise St."
The sad thing is the majority of people will always have this false notion of teams like a Boise St, Fresno St, etc... because that is what everyone sells.
The point I usually hear in these debates is why don't these teams prove it. Well how can they if they don't get the opportunities to do it. How about some rilvaries growing between programs & not just geographically. Let some of these teams join a better conference, etc.
As far as the I-AA teams go, I don't agree with you either. While many of the I-AA programs could not compete much less beat the big boys. I do see a few programs that are not far off who could if given the opportunity. Some of the programs are close to I-AA & might be so within the next decade.
Teams like Montana, Southern Illinois, Furman, Northern Iowa, Massachusetts are damn good teams that can & have beaten 1-A teams. I think they could beat some of the big teams.
I will say they are not yet on the level of a Boise St, Fresno St (outside of this season) as far as consistency goes. I do think if they did jump up, easily within 5 years they could consistently beat the big boys instead of the once in awhile victory.
I don't think it is a 90%-10% ratio but more so 60%-40% at best. This is just my opinion of the win-loss ratio between a Boise St & teams like Ohio St & such.
I will thank you for engaging in a thoughtout debate about the topic.
The strides some of these programs have made in the last 3-5 years alone makes it much different from even say 7 years ago. The landscape of football has changed so much.
It has been playing out over & over the last few years. The talent difference between these schools is shrinking. 6+ years ago a Boise St, Fresno St would have no shot at the bigger schools.
Now these teams play knowing they can not only compete but win. Showing samples of losses from schools in different situations doesn't prove that today's version couldn't beat the big boys.
Why are the big schools so afraid to even play the smaller schools? When they do they rarely do a home & home. I know Boise St would beat anyone at home which is why most teams won't come. God forbid a big "tradition" program lose to a "Boise St."
The sad thing is the majority of people will always have this false notion of teams like a Boise St, Fresno St, etc... because that is what everyone sells.
The point I usually hear in these debates is why don't these teams prove it. Well how can they if they don't get the opportunities to do it. How about some rilvaries growing between programs & not just geographically. Let some of these teams join a better conference, etc.
As far as the I-AA teams go, I don't agree with you either. While many of the I-AA programs could not compete much less beat the big boys. I do see a few programs that are not far off who could if given the opportunity. Some of the programs are close to I-AA & might be so within the next decade.
Teams like Montana, Southern Illinois, Furman, Northern Iowa, Massachusetts are damn good teams that can & have beaten 1-A teams. I think they could beat some of the big teams.
I will say they are not yet on the level of a Boise St, Fresno St (outside of this season) as far as consistency goes. I do think if they did jump up, easily within 5 years they could consistently beat the big boys instead of the once in awhile victory.
I don't think it is a 90%-10% ratio but more so 60%-40% at best. This is just my opinion of the win-loss ratio between a Boise St & teams like Ohio St & such.
I will thank you for engaging in a thoughtout debate about the topic.
EGD, Boise State was very impressive last night. They have an absolute killer home field advantage. They were not playing against highly recruited players though. That doesn't mean they could not beat a powerhouse, but it does mean that they are still very untested. Until they are tested and pass I still would have them as a double digit underdog in any BCS bowl game. So would Vegas linesmakers.
You can take the 4 BCS games, which now mean absolutely nothing, and unless you have a play on the game why would you even watch any of them except for title game, and corporate those 4 games as far as a playoff. Regular season still means alot , as your still trying to qualify for one of thsoe games.DCS conference winners plus 2 at large. The winners of those games meet for the semifinals. Thats only three extra games played altogether and everyone wins. How exciting would that be ? That way when someone like Utah runs the table they have a chance to play it out instead of regulating them to a consolation gamre against Pitt which , lets face it meant nothing.The way its structered now, you have no chance to have David v Goliath matchups, like other sports, because David never gets the chance.
EveryGamblersDream said:
EGD,
I'm not debating that strides have been made by these programs. There have been strides.
But those teams are still a long ways from stepping on the field with an Ohio State and competing week in and week out. If Boise State played Ohio State every game this year, they'd go 1-13. Maybe 2-12. I think we obviously disagree on that - and just about everything else including a 1-AA team beating Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, etc.
As for why dont big schools schedule the small ones.....it seems like they are getting ragged for their schedule no matter who they schedule. Never heard a team play Cal, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Ohio State and then get ragged for not playing a small school.
As a professional baseball scout, I'll tell you there is a concept about dynamic talent that you are ignoring that exists in every sport - baseball, football, basketball anything. It is the type of talent that is rare. It's the 4* 5* talent, that is loaded acorss the board for Ohio State. It's the physical freaks. The 6'3" guy that benches 400 pounds, knocks peoples head off and runs a 4.5 and has a 32" vertical.
Once again, not saying Boise State doesnt deserve a shot. They are undefeated. I'm right there with you. I wish there was a playoff. But calling a 10 point victory over Ohio State is just a whole different ballgame that Im not playing.
We'll obviously just agree to disagree on all of this and move on to the next topic. :drink:
