College Football Week 13: THE BORDER WAR!!!!!!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

So, seriously, your comeback is Rutgers and the 4 years when Oklahoma was horrible? K.

My point was that a program should be judged for what it's doing now. Obviously you disagree with that point and that's your perogative. Certainly, as a OSU fan, I know exactly where you're coming from.

[duckman]

Yeah, what they've done now is ALMOST won a conference title and ALMOST won a national title. For a team that hasn't won an ouright conference title since 1960 and never won a national title, they're pretty good.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by duckman

Yeah, what they've done now is ALMOST won a conference title and ALMOST won a national title. For a team that hasn't won an ouright conference title since 1960 and never won a national title, they're pretty good.

I can certainly understand the questions about Mizzou's program. After all, we lost to a team who couldn't beat Colorado or Texas Tech........

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I can certainly understand the questions about Mizzou's program. After all, we lost to a team who couldn't beat Colorado or Texas Tech........

Cute. It won't mean shit when we win back-to-back conference championships. That'll be five since 1999. How many does your team have during that same period? Oops...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by bsak16

He is making a HD-DVD of all of the smack talk by the Oklahoma team and will drive to San Antonio...stopping of course in KC to watch their hockey team is it the Pens or the Preds now...anyway...play it to the Mizzo team on his PS3 moments before kickoff.

Seriously we get it. You think Missouri will win easy. Sorry you know Missouri will win easy...so why are they even playing the fucking game?

LOL.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by duckman

Cute. It won't mean **bleep** when we win back-to-back conference championships. That'll be five since 1999. How many does your team have during that same period? Oops...

That's great. Remind me, how many points will the officiating crew spot you at the start of the game because of past success? I know that it helps to get overinflated rankings throughout the year with two losses, but I don't think it means much when the ball flies.

[larrymcg421]

Man the Canes need to get good again so I can join in all this trash talk.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's great. Remind me, how many points will the officiating crew spot you at the start of the game because of past success? I know that it helps to get overinflated rankings throughout the year with two losses, but I don't think it means much when the ball flies.

Actually if the officials are going to be crooked then you would think the Big 12 would tell them to favor Mizzou. More $$$ for the conference for a national title and a KU BCS bowl than OU and Ku going to lower BCS bowls.

I do agree though that most of the national press seems to be focusing on what happens "when" OU wins. Obviosuly it gives them something to talk about and that is probably most of the reason behind it, but it still is pretty insulting as a Mizzou fan when every talking head already accepts that OU will win the big 12 title.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

OU announcer Dean Blevins was interviewed on KC sports radio today about the MU/OU matchup. Blevins' comments from the interview are quoted below.............

"I really think that MU will win this game. My pick of the Tigers is based in part on the fact that MU is on a roll. Bob (Stoops) told me that their national championship team had less talent than other Sooner editions but hit a roll of confidence and just kept going. I give the crowd/emotional/motivational edge to Missouri."

"Oklahoma isn't nearly as good of a team away from home."

"Austin English is very doubtful to play. OU has no depth at defensive end with two other DEs hurt. Chase Daniel will tire the ends out because they can't rotate the position enough to keep the OU line fresh."

"Sam Bradford is probably 100% healthy but OU may have tried to protect him against OSU with basic power running attack and play-action passes. I'm interested to see if OU will try same power running strategy against the Tigers."

"I believe that Maclin was kept in check in Norman but will probably be the difference maker in this one."

[Blade6119]

All im going to say is from a big time Mizzou fan to the OU fans here, best of luck this weekend and lets just have an entertaining three hours no matter who wins. Both teams should be happy to be playing for a BCS bowl in this crazy year, so lets just enjoy watching a good game of football.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

All im going to say is from a big time Mizzou fan to the OU fans here, best of luck this weekend and lets just have an entertaining three hours no matter who wins. Both teams should be happy to be playing for a BCS bowl in this crazy year, so lets just enjoy watching a good game of football.

Right back at you.

I'm just glad this is a game people are interested in, though I certainly wish Bradford hadn't gone down and OU could've beaten TT. This would then be a semi-final. When OU beat Nebraska last year in the Big 12 Championship, I don't remember much talk before or about that game at all, and I don't remember many thinking Nebraska would win.

As for the Blevins comments, he prides himself in making anti-OU statements the past few years, it seems. Word is he and Stoops don't get along because Bob got sick of his stupid questions.

[duckman]

Mizzou sucks!

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by duckman

Cute. It won't mean shit when we win back-to-back conference championships. That'll be five since 1999. How many does your team have during that same period? Oops...

We bow in your fucking presence oh mighty OU!

[duckman]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

We bow in your fucking presence oh mighty OU!

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm, MizzouRah?

[Dr. Sak]

Missouri fans...I interview a guy that runs a Missouri blog on my podcast this week...click the link below to check it out...he did a good job looking at both teams...

http://inthebleachers.net/podcasts/i...pionship-week/

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by duckman

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm, MizzouRah?

Just getting ready..

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by bsak16

Missouri fans...I interview a guy that runs a Missouri blog on my podcast this week...click the link below to check it out...he did a good job looking at both teams...

http://inthebleachers.net/podcasts/i...pionship-week/

Even though he stole my user name, great stuff!!!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Logan

Seriously, did you pay attention to college football once Missouri was eliminated from BCS contention every year? There hasn't been a year that goes by without hearing why we need a playoff and how the system is broken. If you want specific examples, I submit to you every god damn year since 1998.

+1

Wait, lemme rephrase...

+1!!!



Jeez, Mizzou B-Ball fan, did you just stop paying attention to football every November when Quin's boys started to play?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Jeez, Mizzou B-Ball fan, did you just stop paying attention to football every November when Quin's boys started to play?

DO NOT F$#% UP THIS THREAD BY MENTIONING THE NAME THAT STARTS WITH Q!!!!!

Appreciate it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obviously I'd be disappointed as a fan of MU, but no, I don't think any team has room to complain in that situation. MU should have taken care of business in Norman and they didn't. Fortunately for Mizzou, every other team in the running had a similar problem along the way.

I remember a few weeks ago, I was talking about how the reason there are no good games in football is because people only care about blemishes and no amount of good games can make up for one bad one. That's why all "major" (sorry, Hawaii, had to throw in the exception for others out there) 0 loss teams are measured on the same level, all 1 loss teams, all 2 loss teams, etc.

Within the body of "X loss teams", they are sortof measured against each other but it seems almost that the primary measuring sticks are 1) prestige and 2) how well they have played recently with 3) logical assessment of how the teams have actually done all season much lower down on the list.

So, we get back to this statement above- "if Y hadn't lost to Z, they would have no right to complain". That's a load of crap that negativists described above come up with to end an argument when they don't want to argue any more. If we're going from the premise that all "X loss teams are roughly equivalent" then everything needs to be measured and argued about (or, again, better settled on the field in a playoff) not just some blanket mindless statement about "oh, we're not perfect" because perfection is not what is being measured against.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, we get back to this statement above- "if Y hadn't lost to Z, they would have no right to complain". That's a load of crap that negativists described above come up with to end an argument when they don't want to argue any more. If we're going from the premise that all "X loss teams are roughly equivalent" then everything needs to be measured and argued about (or, again, better settled on the field in a playoff) not just some blanket mindless statement about "oh, we're not perfect" because perfection is not what is being measured against.

SI

Obviously, a playoff is the best way to settle all that and everyone except the bowl committees and the NCAA is well-aware of that. With that said, the question was not who was best amongst 1-loss teams, but rather if I would be upset if MU was 3rd amongst 1-loss teams. I wouldn't like it, but that's part of the deal in the current college football setup. I'd argue that every game is important right now because 1 loss can ruin your national championship hopes.

[Mike1409]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

How quickly fans forget that beating OU is considered a benchmark for a program, so they get everyone's best shot almost every week. Until, oh, a week ago, beating Mizzou was considered a 50/50 proposition most years. So let's calm 'er down a notch or two.

Agreed it is always easier to be the hunter instead of the hunted. Ask USF.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd argue that every game is important right now because 1 loss can ruin your national championship hopes.

I agree...and at this point, I don't want to see VT ever schedule a tough OOC game again and I will never criticize any team for going the cupcake OOC route since that's the type of scheduling that system rewards. With all the talk about SOS in years past, this season has proved that winning a game against crap opposition is still better than losing.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I agree...and at this point, I don't want to see VT ever schedule a tough OOC game again and I will never criticize any team for going the cupcake OOC route since that's the type of scheduling that system rewards. With all the talk about SOS in years past, this season has proved that winning a game against crap opposition is still better than losing.

Absolutely true. That's one of the things a playoff system would help fix, IMO.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Absolutely true. That's one of the things a playoff system would help fix, IMO.

+1

[larrymcg421]

Yep, and forget about anyone scheduling Boise State or Fresno State, etc. Look what happened to Colorado in 2001. Losing to Fresno State cost them a shot at the national title. If they had replaced Fresno State with Temple, they would've gone to the title game.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd argue that every game is important right now because 1 loss can ruin your national championship hopes.

Once you have a loss, it's completely up to a bunch of snot nosed voters who refuse to watch your team play, who don't know anything about your conference and are biased to the nth degree.

If basketball was football, no way the Missouri Valley would've gotten as many bids as they did to the NCAA tournament last year, no way that the CAA would've had a team in the Final Four and the only thing we'd be concerned with, is major conference schools.

Smaller schools would never get to upset anybody, because no one would play them under the premise of "well, we can't do that. The games mean too much."

Which is why Florida can get away with scheduling a cream puff 1-AA school late in the season each of the last two years and no one bats an eyelash and why Michigan can lose at HOME to a I-AA school and no one minds weeks later when they can with a straight face rank them in the Top 15. And my gripe isn't that they kept winning after that. It was that if that'd been some other school that it happened to and reeled off a bunch of wins, there is no way they'd get the same respect.

The whole body of work, "every game means something" b.s. doesn't really fly when teams in major conferences can essentially schedule no one and just benefit from a weak in-conference year and the serendipity of stuff coming together for them and win a national title by doing so. Or at least getting themselves onto the radar.

Even traditionally non-power schools in major conferences have a better shot at respectability than a dominant school in a conference that "no one" respects.

And there isn't a point in those schools attempting to play 'somebodies' because if they lose, they get no respect..and if they win, it's just "well, that was just one game. They wouldn't last a season in [insert overrated three letter abbreviation conference here]."

The whole cycle is a joke, it's hard to enjoy the games as they are...when the ENTIRE season is spent debating about 'who is better'.

Sure, it adds tension and drama and storylines. But...you don't really appreciate the product as a whole, because it's all about who is #1 and so it's a ton of buildup that week after week, alienates all but the few fans in those predictable leagues, fans of those same 'power' teams and the rest of us who sit and wonder what might have been, as the other teams head to the Dusty Socks Twister Bowl.

It would be far more compelling to see the best teams on the field, playing each other at the end of the season, after they've earned it and once and for all knowing whether the teams that are truly superior are.

Last year's Big East success in the postseason railed against the conventional wisdom that their teams weren't that good and yet, people still whine.

In a playoff, you might hate the results for your conference or for your team and yet...you'd still have the whole thing come front and center and give you a real glimpse of where the power is and who is better prepared.

[TazFTW]

Joe Pa's salary.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/7503956?MSNHPHMA

Now I know he doesn't do as much as he used to but $500k is a bargain.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I agree...and at this point, I don't want to see VT ever schedule a tough OOC game again and I will never criticize any team for going the cupcake OOC route since that's the type of scheduling that system rewards. With all the talk about SOS in years past, this season has proved that winning a game against crap opposition is still better than losing.

Not true, although it may look that way in the end because of the way this year has played out, with the most probable outcome being two 1-loss teams (plus Hawaii). HOWEVER, if the year ends with 3 1-loss teams (entirely possible), Hohio State gets locked out - and just because their ooc schedule was garbage.

Next year, Hohio State plays USC - had Hohio State played and beaten USC (or Texas) this year, they'd likely be in the drivers seat. As it is, they are hoping for either Missouri or West Virginia to lose.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Joe Pa's salary.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/7503956?MSNHPHMA

Now I know he doesn't do as much as he used to but $500k is a bargain.

Don't forget those "other forms of compensation"

You are right though. The base salary is a bargain. I still don't get what the big deal about the release of his salary was for either side.

[cartman]

The football team wishes it had the success of my hoops teams!

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

The football team wishes it had the success of my hoops teams!

Hey now! Keep the gloves up! LOL

[MrBug708]

[Radii]

haha low blow, MrBug(I lol'd )

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Not true, although it may look that way in the end because of the way this year has played out, with the most probable outcome being two 1-loss teams (plus Hawaii). HOWEVER, if the year ends with 3 1-loss teams (entirely possible), Hohio State gets locked out - and just because their ooc schedule was garbage.

You're correct, but that's not the point I was trying to make. In the long run, filling your OOC with cupcakes is better for your program than playing any sort of challenging game because the end of year BCS rankings are typically just a list of teams sorted by record, then sorted by some concoction of when you lost + SOS. Teams aren't going to be worried about being the odd team out in the top three year after year...the more common worry is being in the BCS top 12 and having a shot at a BCS at large bid. The best way to maximize your final BCS ranking starts with your record, so why risk a 4-0 or 5-0 OOC mark by playing a team that may have a chance at beating you? This season in particular has shown that playing unranked teams in conference play is risky enough.

Look at Michigan...if they go undefeated against directional schools instead of playing Oregon & App State (a legit top 40 in most combined ratings), they're looking at a possible BCS at large bid right now. If VT plays a Temple instead of LSU, they're in the middle of the MNC talk right now. If Illinois and Tennessee play cupcakes instead of Missouri and California, they each have 10 wins and would probably be in the BCS top 10 right now. If BYU strolls through their OOC schedule, they're undefeated BCS busters like Hawaii. For every possible team that may miss out on the MNC game due to SOS, there are half a dozen teams who could have possibly made millions in a BCS bowl game had they just scheduled Colorado State or SMU instead of some ranked team.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Not true, although it may look that way in the end because of the way this year has played out, with the most probable outcome being two 1-loss teams (plus Hawaii). HOWEVER, if the year ends with 3 1-loss teams (entirely possible), Hohio State gets locked out - and just because their ooc schedule was garbage.

You're high on crack. Ohio State is 3rd because of 2 things, I think:

1. Big Ten is perceived as weak. Are they really weak? We'll find out during bowl season.

2. They lost last. Everybody knows the most recent team to lose pretty much falls to the bottom of the food chain and has to work their way back up. Ohio State only had one game left after their loss, so they're kind of stuck right now.

I would even add a couple more justifications in there: They have the worst loss of the 3. And Missouri beat Illinois on a neutral field while OSU lost to them.

If they had 4 OOC wins over top-25 teams, sure I think that would matter. But a single OOC win over USC or a similar top-15 school this year would make no difference. They lost last. That's how it has always been, and how it will continue to be.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Radii

haha low blow, MrBug(I lol'd )

Agree, that was funny.

Also illustrating the point why the end of season of college basketball is light years more exciting than the college football bowl season. "Hey, somebody won the Cotton Bowl." *yawn*

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

You're high on crack. Ohio State is 3rd because of 2 things, I think:

I'll add in another. I think many people still have that beating that Florida gave them fresh in their minds. They don't want OSU back in the title game because they think it'll happen again.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Agree, that was funny.

Also illustrating the point why the end of season of college basketball is light years more exciting than the college football bowl season. "Hey, somebody won the Cotton Bowl." *yawn*

Yeah the end is more exciting but as a whole, I'll take college football over basketball any day. The college basketball season is relatively meaningless compared to football. In a big conference, just win over half your conference games and you are almost guaranteed a bid. Like right now, I could careless about the college basketball games nor do I worry about how my team is playing. They just need to get hot and click come late February. In football you play maybe one-third of the games but all of them are meaningful in the end.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by bsak16

Yeah the end is more exciting but as a whole, I'll take college football over basketball any day. The college basketball season is relatively meaningless compared to football. In a big conference, just win over half your conference games and you are almost guaranteed a bid. Like right now, I could careless about the college basketball games nor do I worry about how my team is playing. They just need to get hot and click come late February. In football you play maybe one-third of the games but all of them are meaningful in the end.

Personal preference, I guess. I follow a mid-major school in college basketball, mostly, and every single game is important for them. They can pretty much afford to lose about 5 games total if they seriously want to be considered as an at-large. And beating a big boy... well, that would just create pandemonium around here. All of the little schools can dream about having that dream season and reaching the title game. In big college football, if you are a non-power school, you are never going to win a national championship under the current setup. Never.

[JonInMiddleGA]

snip

Originally Posted by VPI97

If Illinois and Tennessee play cupcakes instead of Missouri and California,

Not to mention that if one other game had ended differently, the loss to Cal would have played a role in costing Fulmer his job.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by VPI97

If VT plays a Temple instead of LSU, they're in the middle of the MNC talk right now.

*cry*

[Dr. Sak]

If VT doesn't blow that 10 point lead with a few minutes to play against BC at home...they are in the middle of the MNC talk.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by bsak16

Yeah the end is more exciting but as a whole, I'll take college football over basketball any day. The college basketball season is relatively meaningless compared to football. In a big conference, just win over half your conference games and you are almost guaranteed a bid. Like right now, I could careless about the college basketball games nor do I worry about how my team is playing. They just need to get hot and click come late February. In football you play maybe one-third of the games but all of them are meaningful in the end.

I don't think you are making a relative comparison. Yes, in basketball, if you are in a big conference, you just have to win about half your games and you make it to the postseason. Isn't it the same in football? If you win half your conference games in football, you go to the postseason (bowl game). In fact, most teams, whether big conference or small conference, just have to win just over 50% of their overall games to make the college football's postseason. Is it really that different? Second, how much more meaningful are all the college football regular season games really? I believe you are a Penn State fan so I will choose them. How meaningful was the 59-0 game against FIU back in September to the overall PSU season? Other than assisting them towards the 6-victory threshold, did it really have that much meaning? In comparison, PSU's basketball win over Va. Tech could be extremely meaningful come selection time. If PSU had only lost to Michigan, how meaningful would that game had been if PSU made the title game? Not that much. How meaningful would those other victories after Michigan had been if they did not make the title game? Again, not that much.

[Dr. Sak]

All your points are valid. I know i am in the extreme minority here when I say this and will probably get blasted for saying this but here it goes..

I really don't think the NCAA (BBall) tourney crowns the true champion. It does give everyone an equal opportunity to win it all, I won't deny that. I think it rewards a team for getting hot at the end of the year. I mean can you honestly say George Mason was one of the four best teams in 05-06? No, but they got hot at the end of the year and made it to the final four. It is great for the school, and the fans that follow the school. They were a great story, but one of the four best teams for that year...i don't think so.

I understand your point and agree with it when comparing the tourney in bball to the bowl games. I was gearing my point more towards the MNC game in football and how important all the games are in the regular season if you want to make it to that game. This year is an anomaly where you could actually have a team with two losses make the title game. This will be the first time in recent history that two teams with one loss will play for the BCS title. Most of the time you have two undefeated teams or one team that is undefeated and one team with a loss.

Hindsight is always 20-20. In 2005 Penn State's only loss was to Michigan, and I remember reading the articles during that time that said that if they would've won that game, there was a pretty good chance they would've snuck in the BCS Title game over Texas because of their computer rankings.

Finally, I have a vague memory of the last time Penn State beat Michigan. I was at the game and was a Junior in high school. I just had my 10 year HS reunion last Friday. It's pathetic for a program like Penn State to not be able to beat Michigan once in that time frame.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by bsak16

All your points are valid. I know i am in the extreme minority here when I say this and will probably get blasted for saying this but here it goes..

I really don't think the NCAA (BBall) tourney crowns the true champion. It does give everyone an equal opportunity to win it all, I won't deny that. I think it rewards a team for getting hot at the end of the year. I mean can you honestly say George Mason was one of the four best teams in 05-06? No, but they got hot at the end of the year and made it to the final four. It is great for the school, and the fans that follow the school. They were a great story, but one of the four best teams for that year...i don't think so.

I understand your point and agree with it when comparing the tourney in bball to the bowl games. I was gearing my point more towards the MNC game in football and how important all the games are in the regular season if you want to make it to that game. This year is an anomaly where you could actually have a team with two losses make the title game. This will be the first time in recent history that two teams with one loss will play for the BCS title. Most of the time you have two undefeated teams or one team that is undefeated and one team with a loss.

Hindsight is always 20-20. In 2005 Penn State's only loss was to Michigan, and I remember reading the articles during that time that said that if they would've won that game, there was a pretty good chance they would've snuck in the BCS Title game over Texas because of their computer rankings.

Finally, I have a vague memory of the last time Penn State beat Michigan. I was at the game and was a Junior in high school. I just had my 10 year HS reunion last Friday. It's pathetic for a program like Penn State to not be able to beat Michigan once in that time frame.

Again, I think the comparisons are a bit flawed. Let’s compare title games in 05-06. You will get very little argument that the national championship game should have been USC and Texas in football. The basketball national championship game was Florida and UCLA in 06. You will get very little argument from most people that those were the two best teams in the country both during the regular season and the tourney. Last year, it was Florida and Ohio State. I would argue that more people disagreed about whether those two were the two best teams in the country in football than they did on basketball. In fact, there was very little argument with the Final Four with 2 number one seeds and two number two seeds. If you are going to look at George Mason and argue that they were not one of the top four teams in the country that year, that is fine. A very reasonable argument can be made and I will probably agree with you. However you then have to look at the BCS, and ask similar questions. In 05-06, FSU was a part of the BCS. Was FSU one of the top eight teams in the country that year? Were Boise State, Wake Forest or Notre Dame all among the top ten teams in college football last year? You get the same thing. Great stories, great for their fans, but not among the best teams in the country IMO.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by bsak16

I really don't think the NCAA (BBall) tourney crowns the true champion. It does give everyone an equal opportunity to win it all, I won't deny that. I think it rewards a team for getting hot at the end of the year. I mean can you honestly say George Mason was one of the four best teams in 05-06? No, but they got hot at the end of the year and made it to the final four. It is great for the school, and the fans that follow the school. They were a great story, but one of the four best teams for that year...i don't think so.

I don't think this is really relevant to crowning a true champion. The NCAA Tournament first weekend gives us incredible excitement over the potential for upsets and Cinderellas, but the true Cinderella is a rare thing. Since 1979, there have been 116 final four teams. Only 14 of them were a 6 seed or worse. Only 8 of them were a 7 seed or worse(less than 7%). That's one team every 2 1/2 years. Only 3 of the "Cinderellas" were from non BCS confereces, George Mason(11 seed, 2006), Houston (6 seed, 19822), and Penn (9 seed, 1979). The rest are major conference schools, and in many cases are basketball powerhouses having an off year: North Carolina (8 seed, 2000), Michigan (6 seed, 1992), Kansas (6 seed, 1988), UCLA (8 seed, 1980).

47 of the 116 final four teams have been 1 seeds. NC State in 1983 (6 seed) and Villanova in 1985(8 seed) are the only 6 or below seeds to win the whole thing. 19 of the 27 champions since 1979 have been 1 or 2 seeds.

I think the NCAA Tournament in basketball is the best of all worlds, it gives you the excitement of the upset and the little guy, but in the end does a great job at crowning a champion as well.

I also think that its a huge folly to suggest that football go to a playoff system because of how the NCAA basketball tournament works. It just won't happen the same way. I don't think anyone is proposing a 64 team field, or even a 32 team field. Most people think 16 is logistically impossible from what I have read. In an 8 team playoff, who's the lowest seed and the "Cinderella" would be USC right now.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by VPI97

In the long run, filling your OOC with cupcakes is better for your program than playing any sort of challenging game because the end of year BCS rankings are typically just a list of teams sorted by record, then sorted by some concoction of when you lost + SOS.

This is almost certainly true, which is why most BCS teams have only one or two tough ooc games. This year Buckeye had none (although Washington was probably meant to be one). I think to any program there is value in scheduling one or two "intriguing" games - Ok State vs. Georgia, for example, or Miami vs. Oklahoma. Its a contest to be the big game on tv every week, and the better your matchup is, the more attention that game gets - and that is also good for your program.

I don't think, in the long run, it makes sense for any school to play their conference schedule and then a bunch of teams that aren't any good.