College Football Week 14 (Conference Championship Week) discussion

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Although I dislike Saban and have no love for Alabama--good job kicking Florida's ass this weekend.

Yes. The image of Tebow crying on the sidelines is one I shall cherish in my heart for all time.

[Kodos]

That was nice, wasn't it.

Wanny losing after having a huge lead was nice too.

[Eaglesfan27]

Not a surprise, but Clausen just announced he is going pro. I'm sure Tate will be leaving with him.

[DeToxRox]

Not sure if covered yet, but apparently Les Miles voted Cincy 8th on his coaches poll.

[Dr. Sak]

More on the coaches' ballots - USATODAY.com

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

What a heartbreaker for Pitt. All they needed to do was make the simplest point in football and they'd be AT WORST headed to overtime...but they biffed it.

Still time for a FG pending a decent return. Two timeouts left.

Have not read the whole thread yet, but I was thinking about the Pitt/Cincy game. It's got to suck that both teams missed a PAT, but the game hinged on the fact that Cincy missed theirs early, and got a chance to make up for it with a 2-pt. conversion, while Pitt's came at the end, so they didn't get that chance.

[Dr. Sak]

Gary Pinkel's ballot is a little amusing.

Puts Pitt one spot over WVU. Guess he missed the game a few weeks ago. Voted Boise State the lowest of any other coach at 9, two spots below Oregon. One of two coaches to vote for Missouri, he put them at 22. Penn State two slots ahead of Iowa, who they lost to at home.

[MJ4H]

My play-off format would look like this this year:

Week One:
Boise State vs Cincinnati
Florida vs TCU

Week Two:
Texas vs Winner (Boise State/Cincinnati)
Alabama vs Winner (Florida/TCU)

Week Three:
Winner (Week Two Game 1/Week Two Game 2)

What could be simpler or more fair?

[Dr. Sak]

Les Miles is also quite interesting...

Boise State at 7, while Oregon at 6. Same deal with PSU and Iowa (9 &10). Pitt 6 slots better than WVU. Florida at #3. Two loss Ohio State team over Boise and Cincy.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

My play-off format would look like this this year:

Week One:
Boise State vs Cincinnati
Florida vs TCU

Week Two:
Texas vs Winner (Boise State/Cincinnati)
Alabama vs Winner (Florida/TCU)

Week Three:
Winner (Week Two Game 1/Week Two Game 2)

What could be simpler or more fair?

Wetzel's playoff plan: Money talks - College Football - Rivals.com

Here's another scenario from Dan Wetzel.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of "proving ground" this year for Cincy, TCU, or Boise State in bowls.

Presumably, it will be Alabama and Texas in the title game. But then you only have one other top 8 team around to play against with Florida as 7 and 8 play each other in the Rose Bowl (Ohio State/Oregon).

One of those three teams will be playing Florida and they get to play this year's version of 2008 Utah. But the other two will either play each other or "less glamorous" teams in Iowa or Georgia Tech. So they won't even have a good chance to "prove" much.

SI

I know it's stupid to quote myself, but I wanted to add to this post from Saturday now that the bowls are out:

Once Texas was chosen for the national title game, there was no "proving ground" left. Anyone really excited about one of the smaller conference teams beating Iowa or Georgia Tech? Or even the Rose Bowl teams ranked 7/8- Oregon/Ohio State? Heck, didn't Boise State already do that this year? So, unless TCU, Cincy, or Boise State had gone to the BCS Title game, there weren't going to be enough "quality opponents" as in people's minds, only Alabama, Texas, and Florida qualify as such.

If the National Title game had been TCU/Cincy vs Alabama and then TCU/Cincy vs Texas and Boise State vs Florida- then it would have given fans a trio of David vs Goliath matchups. But, as Alabama and Texas went to the title game, there was just nothing there. Only Florida remained as a "school to prove things against".

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

My play-off format would look like this this year:

Week One:
Boise State vs Cincinnati
Florida vs TCU

Week Two:
Texas vs Winner (Boise State/Cincinnati)
Alabama vs Winner (Florida/TCU)

Week Three:
Winner (Week Two Game 1/Week Two Game 2)

What could be simpler or more fair?

I prefer the 8-game format: 6 BCS Conference Champs, 2 at-large from lower conference champs. The regular season is important for determining conference champs, post-season for national champ. So we'd have:

Alabama
Iowa

TCU
Boise State

Cincinnati
Oregon

Texas
Georgia Tech

for a bracket. 3 weeks to a championship, so season not extended one bit (aside from these teams who play maybe 2 extra games)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

We play Navy? Um.... ok....

I'm actually pretty excited about that matchup. Two totally different styles of play. Both teams 8-4. I know there's some complaining about OU, ISU, and A&M all getting selected ahead of Mizzou despite worse records, but playing a good Navy team in a state that has become a big recruiting bed for Mizzou on ESPN sounds like a great deal to me.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Les Miles is also quite interesting...

Boise State at 7, while Oregon at 6. Same deal with PSU and Iowa (9 &10). Pitt 6 slots better than WVU. Florida at #3. Two loss Ohio State team over Boise and Cincy.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Gary Pinkel's ballot is a little amusing.

Puts Pitt one spot over WVU. Guess he missed the game a few weeks ago. Voted Boise State the lowest of any other coach at 9, two spots below Oregon. One of two coaches to vote for Missouri, he put them at 22. Penn State two slots ahead of Iowa, who they lost to at home.

this is the kind of stuff that makes me think the coaches poll is stupid. Most of us probably have seen more of these teams then the coaches voting.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Have not read the whole thread yet, but I was thinking about the Pitt/Cincy game. It's got to suck that both teams missed a PAT, but the game hinged on the fact that Cincy missed theirs early, and got a chance to make up for it with a 2-pt. conversion, while Pitt's came at the end, so they didn't get that chance.

Was at the RU-WVU game so I had only seen highlights until last night when I caught the last 4 minutes or so on ESPN Classic. I don't think there's anything that better says Dave Wannstedt than on 4th down from your own 20 with 10 seconds left, calling a PLAY ACTION PASS.

[Kodos]

You have to admit though: a play-action pass at that point was totally unexpected by the defense.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Wetzel's playoff plan: Money talks - College Football - Rivals.com

Here's another scenario from Dan Wetzel.

That's the scenario I've favored for quite a while (and talked Arlie into including as an option in BBCF ). 11 conference champions plus 5 at large teams.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

. I don't think there's anything that better says Dave Wannstedt than on 4th down from your own 20 with 10 seconds left, calling a PLAY ACTION PASS.

Ya, I laughed out loud when that happened.

[molson]

I think the best compromise, that I think we'll actually see sometime in the next 15 years, is a +4 (final four) after the bowls.

You could still have Pac 10 v. Big 10 in the the Rose Bowl, SEC in the Sugar Bowl, etc, and those games become basically quarter-final games to get into the final 4. Then you just have the entire final 4 in one of those venues, rotating every year.

Realistically, the bowls aren't going to be wiped out by playoff, and they're also not going to be devalued to the point where they're just a venue in a 16-team tournament for teams that have zero connection to their history. They're too entrenched, that's just never going to happen, at least as a 1st step.

[Swaggs]

Here is a list of 2009 bowl gifts:

2009 Bowl gifts to participants

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Gary Pinkel's ballot is a little amusing.

Puts Pitt one spot over WVU. Guess he missed the game a few weeks ago. Voted Boise State the lowest of any other coach at 9, two spots below Oregon. One of two coaches to vote for Missouri, he put them at 22. Penn State two slots ahead of Iowa, who they lost to at home.

I think it was Craig James who had Pitt in the 16-17 range and WVU unranked this week.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Here is a list of 2009 bowl gifts:

2009 Bowl gifts to participants

Sorry, Hawaii bowl participants. Your reward is a bowl game in Hawaii

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Not sure if covered yet, but apparently Les Miles voted Cincy 8th on his coaches poll.

If I was Brian Kelly, I'd leave LSU off every ballot I made for the rest of my career.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

That's the scenario I've favored for quite a while (and talked Arlie into including as an option in BBCF ). 11 conference champions plus 5 at large teams.

I'd rather have a modified form of the Earned Access rule from lower divisions. I'd have it so all conference champions get invited if they fall within the top 25 of the BCS rankings. I think you'd have an amazing playoff.

[clemsonfan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I wont rant because we did it to ourselves.
But it sucks that Clemson can lose the ACC Championship game and drop to the 5th ACC Bowl Tie and have two teams they beat head to head jump them.

A rematch of the 06 Music City Bowl with Kentucky....wow.
Can't wait.
Nashville is a nice town to visit, but this is now an 8pm game which is gonna be cold as hell.

I will be there, just because it is my last time to see CJ Spiller play in a Clemson Uniform...but it sucks. John Swofford can lick the sweat out of the bottom of my ass crack for allowing this.

Yeah, I think Clemson got robbed.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Here is a list of 2009 bowl gifts:

2009 Bowl gifts to participants

Irony!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd rather have a modified form of the Earned Access rule from lower divisions. I'd have it so all conference champions get invited if they fall within the top 25 of the BCS rankings. I think you'd have an amazing playoff.

Agreed. What I don't like about the at-large is that I am completely against teams that could not win their conference playing for the national championship. If you have at-larges like that, it DOES eliminate the importance of the regular season. If you can't win your conference, you don't get in.

That means either an 8-team playoff with lower tiers left off, or reorganizing into 16 conferences. 16 conferences could be fun with 8 teams each and getting rid of conference championship games, but I don't think that's realistic, so I'd go with the current big 6 plus the top 2 minor-conference champs by BCS or some similar ranking.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Agreed. What I don't like about the at-large is that I am completely against teams that could not win their conference playing for the national championship. If you have at-larges like that, it DOES eliminate the importance of the regular season. If you can't win your conference, you don't get in.

That means either an 8-team playoff with lower tiers left off, or reorganizing into 16 conferences. 16 conferences could be fun with 8 teams each and getting rid of conference championship games, but I don't think that's realistic, so I'd go with the current big 6 plus the top 2 minor-conference champs by BCS or some similar ranking.

It's a different sport, so I am sure there are carry over differences, but that said, this sort of thinking went into the wildcard discussion in baseball, and after 15 years, most people now acknowledge the wildcard as a tremendous positive for baseball.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It's a different sport, so I am sure there are carry over differences, but that said, this sort of thinking went into the wildcard discussion in baseball, and after 15 years, most people now acknowledge the wildcard as a tremendous positive for baseball.

If we eliminated conference championship games, I'd agree more. But when teams ALREADY are playing a round of playoff games, I don't like the idea of them losing a playoff game, then still making it to the next round. Essentially the conference championship games turn my 8-team playoff into a 16-team playoff, with the "wildcards" in those games.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If we eliminated conference championship games, I'd agree more. But when teams ALREADY are playing a round of playoff games, I don't like the idea of them losing a playoff game, then still making it to the next round. Essentially the conference championship games turn my 8-team playoff into a 16-team playoff, with the "wildcards" in those games.

I have never been a fan of the championships games actually.

[MacroGuru]

TCU/BSU were screwed without a reach around....nuff said.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Sorry, Hawaii bowl participants. Your reward is a bowl game in Hawaii

SI

At least you can wear that "Kahala Aloha shirt".

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

TCU/BSU were screwed without a reach around....nuff said.

Were they? One of them will end up undefeated, which will allow that program to continue beating the drum for more respect among pollsters and more pressure to revise the BCS process.

As fans, I think it's going to be a really fun match-up to watch - Boise's offense vs. TCU's defense, and TCU's under-rated offense vs. Boise's under-rated defense. Plus the whole rematch story angle from last year's bowl game.

I suppose some fans and maybe some of the players on the teams wanted a shot at BCS conference schools, but given that neither team was going to get slotted in the BCS Title game, I'm not really these programs got "screwed".

[Wolfpack]

I used to think 16 was a good playoff number, but now think 8 is better. At 8, you'll still have debate about who might get left out at 9 or 10, which might be legitimate, but at 16, I think there's too much risk of a more "average" champion.

I'd populate the eight like so: top four conference champions in the BCS standings qualify (regardless of conference, big or little), then any other teams not taken by the first cut of four teams that were unbeaten (basically the back-door entry for Notre Dame and non-power conference members), with any leftover spots determined by a committee as in basketball, no more than two teams from a conference. The special rule I'd place on unbeatens is that the wins would all have to come against I-A/FBS opponents (no fattening up on FCS teams). An unbeaten team doesn't get an automatic invite if they've got an FCS team on their schedule and instead would have to win the approval of the selection committee.

I also wouldn't abolish the bowl system. Most bowls are irrelevant to the national title picture now, so I don't see why that should change. However, I would move up/compress the regular season so that the first two Saturdays in December are playoff rounds and those games are all played at home sites of the higher seeds. Losers of these playoff games then can be picked up by bowl games while the final two play the national championship at one of the BCS sites as they do now.

Failing all that, I'd like to see the BCS abolished and all conference tie-ins eliminated. Instead, make the bowls bid (via their payouts) for picking order each year. The Rose wants to keep taking Big 10/Pac 10 teams? Well, ante up and get that plum first spot in line to guarantee it. I would hope that doing that would increase school revenues due to competitive bidding, especially at the top of the order and produce a much more varied mixture of games from year to year with the tie-ins abolished. The only stipulation I could consider to such a draft would be some kind of "can't pick a team with more than x fewer wins than best available" rule to ensure that the bowls aren't entirely out to pick name schools with crap records. There could also be a "Selection Sunday" where the matchups are announced on national television on the day after the regular season ends.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Boise is much, much closer to Arizona than VA Tech.

True. Does any poster have the numbers Boise sold in 2004 or VaTech sold last year? People keep talking about their own schools, but I'm not sure where to go to find those outside of SID offices.

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Not a surprise, but Clausen just announced he is going pro. I'm sure Tate will be leaving with him.

I could try to claim that maybe they'll change their mind once a new coach is named, but yeah, they're making the right decision. Clausen's clearly a top 3 QB now and should go 1st round if not top 5 (he'll get lots of unflattering comparisons to Brady Quinn, but he's clearly better and I'm not saying this in hindsight - I have dozens of posts saying Quinn isn't nearly accurate enough to be an NFL QB. Plus apparently NFL scouts like him more because he's already played on a horrible team behind a horrible O-Line as part of a rebuilding effort ). Weis compared Tate to (Carolina) Steve Smith late in the year and it appears NFL scouts have started to agree. I was hoping his size would keep his draft stock down and him in school, but it appears my hope ND would continue its 20 year streak without a 1st-round WR will not come true. At least Michael Floyd is still trapped by being a true sophomore.

[Matthean]

I'm still for the "And one" format, or just go final four. 1 vs. 4 and then 2 vs. 3 based on BCS rankings. Winner of those games go for the title. If Boise State wants to complain, give them Florida.