College Football Week 9 discussion

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Every year we have this discussion, and the same posters came around sticking their heads in the sand, saying, "I like it how it is, I like it how it is, I like it how it is!"

Better the sand than where I think most of those who cry about a playoff have their heads firmly planted.

FTR, I don't like how it is now as well as I liked the conference bowl-ties scenario & would be fine with seeing that return tomorrow.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Championships should not be handed out to the best conference but the best team.

So are you saying that Division II and Division III conferences should have a chance to compete for the same title as Division I teams?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So are you saying that Division II and Division III conferences should have a chance to compete for the same title as Division I teams?

No, they play in different divisions that have different qualifications to compete in.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, they play in different divisions that have different qualifications to compete in.

The BCS Conferences are treated as their own division - isn't that what you have the problem with? Would things be better if they cut off ALL access to non-BCS conference schools? Then they'd be 1 division in name only.

What would you do? How big a tournament? Any conference gets an automatic bid, no matter how bad? What if the Sun Belt loses its best 4 teams, does the reamaining champion still get in a playoff? What about independents?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I couldn't believe some of those calls that were overturned or NOT overturned. The most egregious one to me, being the TD along the sideline in the end zone where the guy clearly dragged his foot along the black end zone that was overturned. How could that be overturned? I thought the catch along the back of the end zone was a good non-overturn since he seemed to still be gathering the ball in while stepping out of bounds.

The sideline end zone TD overturn really made me wonder if the Big Ten had some influence on the outcome of the calls to keep Iowa undefeated. It was that bad. Then Iowa had the fluke "pinball" INT return for a TD, and IU fell apart. If I were an IU fan, I would be on suicide watch for a while.

Sorry, Kodos.

He looked out to me. I didnt see anything fly in the air that would say his foot dragged on the ground. Therefore, when his knee hit out of bounds, no TD.
Cant blame the refs. Overcome it. Dont fold in the 4th quarter and allow 28 points. Tackle one of those receivers on their 92 and 68 yard TD romps. Block the DE so he doesnt hit the QB and allow an 86 yard interception for a TD.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Kodos

The thing with Indiana is that no lead is safe. EVER. We can and will find a way to lose. Against Iowa, the refs helped us lose repeatedly. Even better than Michigan's "interception" that kept us from trying to mount a game-winning drive. Indiana football is simply cursed. At least Northwestern's comeback from 28-3 was not aided by the refs. Coach Bill Lynch simply cannot make adjustments, and we always get killed in the second half, even if we look good in the 1st half.

Hey, I clearly pointed out that Indiana did a good job of killing themselves against Iowa. But the refs sure seemed happy to help them lose too.

I hope Iowa gets humiliated in whatever bowl they go to.

P.S. The "" in this case means I am dead serious and I hope Iowa gets utterly crushed.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Better the sand than where I think most of those who cry about a playoff have their heads firmly planted.

FTR, I don't like how it is now as well as I liked the conference bowl-ties scenario & would be fine with seeing that return tomorrow.

Actually, a playoff makes logical sense. It's only the current system and to an extent the old system which don't make sense. And more and more people are finally getting upset enough to try to do something about it. The vocal majority seems to firmly for a playoff.

Unfortunately, the minority includes the people who run the thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

[quote=Chief Rum;2159125]Actually, a playoff makes logical sense. ... [quote]

Unless you're not looking at it from a fiscal standpoint and not from a long term interest standpoint.

Sorry, but I don't see a playoff adding anything. I don't feel like it would add anything whatsoever to my enjoyment of college (and indeed would detract from it as it would likely eliminate the lower tier bowl games that I currently watch).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The NFC South has up years and down years. There's nothing inherently about the NFC South that will make it good or bad.

The Sun Belt v. SEC is a completely different thing. It's like if you had an NFL division that consisted soley of AFL2 teams, who only pay their players $200/game. Is it fair to treat that division the same as the AFC East with regards to playoffs?

As do college conferences. The ACC and Big East are essentially mid-majors now and I would say the Mountain West could hang with them from top to bottom. In fact, if you take the top 3 teams from the Mountain West, I'd say they could hang with any other conference's top 3 with the exception of the SEC.

Remember that the MWC went 6-1 last year against the Pac-10 which was regarded by some as the best conference in college football.

[tarcone]

LOL

And the in my post meant "Man up, your team is lousy. Every year. And he WAS out of bounds."

[tarcone]

Im all for a playoff and have been for years. Use the bowls as the spots where the games are played. 1 Vs. 8 playins the Orange bowl, etc.

All other teams that dont make the playoffs get to go to the other bowls. Everyone is happy.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by molson

The BCS Conferences are treated as their own division - isn't that what you have the problem with? Would things be better if they cut off ALL access to non-BCS conference schools? Then they'd be 1 division in name only.

What would you do? How big a tournament? Any conference gets an automatic bid, no matter how bad? What if the Sun Belt loses its best 4 teams, does the reamaining champion still get in a playoff? What about independents?

See, this is what bowl proponents try to drag the discussion into, logical inconsistencies, irrelevancies (not necessarily included above in molson's quote, just noting it's a common ploy), dragging out the logistics like it's just SO impossible. This is just details, things to be worked out. And the reason bowl proponents go down this road is because they want us to tire of it, to not try to chaneg the system, because it's easier to give in and not change anything than to try to get the system right.

And, Rainmaker and other playoff proponents, it's why I strognyl advise you all just stop trying to convince them. I guarentee you, it's a waste of time. We see this same discussion over and over every year, and it's the same posters doing the same stuff each and every time. I just don't see the point.

If you want to change the system, fight it with money. Contribute to the PAC that was formed. Write letters to Congressmen, college presidents, etc. Tell them you're not going to give them anymore of your money. It's the only way they'll listen.

[tarcone]

I like the argument that extra games would be bad for the student-athlete. Yet all games would be played on the semester break. And, oh yeah, shortly after that argument had legs the NCAA okayed a 12th game for everyone.

What happened to Sen. Hatch? Utah starts losing so he quits his campaign?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

See, this is what bowl proponents try to drag the discussion into, logical inconsistencies, irrelevancies (not necessarily included above in molson's quote, just noting it's a common ploy), dragging out the logistics like it's just SO impossible. This is just details, things to be worked out. And the reason bowl proponents go down this road is because they want us to tire of it, to not try to chaneg the system, because it's easier to give in and not change anything than to try to get the system right.

And, Rainmaker and other playoff proponents, it's why I strognyl advise you all just stop trying to convince them. I guarentee you, it's a waste of time. We see this same discussion over and over every year, and it's the same posters doing the same stuff each and every time. I just don't see the point.

If you want to change the system, fight it with money. Contribute to the PAC that was formed. Write letters to Congressmen, college presidents, etc. Tell them you're not going to give them anymore of your money. It's the only way they'll listen.

I thought this was a waste of typing or something? Why are you still here?

I'm just curious what people's alternative plans are. I can see a +1 or +2 after the bowls someday, but any playoff system is still going to leave out the Sun Belt. So I'm curious whether THAT'S the perceived problem, or if people would be happy with a 4-team, post bowls playoff that included only BCS Conference teams.

The Congressional angle is so retarded. The MWC and WAC talk big but they love the system as is. They get the scraps of much bigger programs.

[Chief Rum]

[quote=JonInMiddleGA;2159127][quote=Chief Rum;2159125]Actually, a playoff makes logical sense. ...

Unless you're not looking at it from a fiscal standpoint and not from a long term interest standpoint.

Sorry, but I don't see a playoff adding anything. I don't feel like it would add anything whatsoever to my enjoyment of college (and indeed would detract from it as it would likely eliminate the lower tier bowl games that I currently watch).

I didn't know the BCS had asked you to crunch the numbers on a potential playoff and you found it wanting. And here I thought you were an ad exec working in radio. Go figure.

There is nothing in the logical sense that suggests a playoff will make less money than the current system. As for long term interest, you'll have to expand because I'm not making the connection. Playoff systems don't seem to be hurting interest in other sports, after all.

Perhaps it would detract from your personal interest, and that's up to you. But the current system detracts from my personal interest currently. So where your interest wanes, mine would grow.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The BCS Conferences are treated as their own division - isn't that what you have the problem with? Would things be better if they cut off ALL access to non-BCS conference schools? Then they'd be 1 division in name only.

They aren't treated as a seperate division though. They schedule heavily against the non-BCS teams and count them into determining their bowl eligibility status.

If they want a seperate system then they should do it. BCS schools should only schedule other BCS schools. But they want it both ways, they want to use those lower tier conference teams to pad their win totals and give themselves credibility while not counting them in postseason discussions.

Originally Posted by molson

What would you do? How big a tournament? Any conference gets an automatic bid, no matter how bad? What if the Sun Belt loses its best 4 teams, does the reamaining champion still get in a playoff? What about independents?

I'd do something similar to the lower divisions. 16 teams make the playoffs. Conference champions earn an automatic birth if they finish in the top 25. Seeding is done by the BCS rankings. Higher seed gets the home games with a neutral site hosting the championship.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by molson

I thought this was a waste of typing or something? Why are you still here?

I'm just curious what people's alternative plans are. I can see a +1 or +2 after the bowls someday, but any playoff system is still going to leave out the Sun Belt. So I'm curious whether THAT'S the perceived problem, or if people would be happy with a 4-team, post bowls playoff that included only BCS Conference teams.

The Congressional angle is so retarded. The MWC and WAC talk big but they love the system as is. They get the scraps of much bigger programs.

Fine enough. Cya, sandhead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If you want to change the system, fight it with money. Contribute to the PAC that was formed. Write letters to Congressmen, college presidents, etc. Tell them you're not going to give them anymore of your money. It's the only way they'll listen.

I agree, because those fans who actually understand, know, or give a damn about college football are incredibly tired of hearing it from those who don't. And the coaches are excluded from that since they're looking after whatever interest compels them at that moment, whether it be p.r. with their fans or trying to generate some slim chance they don't deserve for a team that should only be watching a title game on TV like the rest of us, or whatever else they perceive in their best interest at that moment.

The beauty of your proposed technique is that, at least as far as the colleges go, the ones that matter in college football know that the support isn't going away while those of whom it's a new discovery largely don't give damn anyway. Now the politicians, that's a little more risky for me since you can never count on them to do the right thing (and stay the hell out of it) with any consistency. But that's a risk I'd be willing to take if it meant never having to hear the simple minded shrill whining from the playoff crowd again.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd do something similar to the lower divisions. 16 teams make the playoffs. Conference champions earn an automatic birth if they finish in the top 25. Seeding is done by the BCS rankings. Higher seed gets the home games with a neutral site hosting the championship.

If a Sun Belt team goes undefeated, and doesn't schedule anyone from a higher conference (and probably even if they do), they're not cracking the top 25.

And with that kind of access, you're going to have more 1-AA schools looking to move up. They can start their own crappy conference and get into a 16-team championship tournament. Do you let them in?

And maybe the WAC schools kick Boise St. out so they can get their own crack at the tournament.

That's a big roadblock with college - you don't have control over conferences and allignments. That's not a big deal in basketball, where there's room in the tournament for everybody. But if there's only 16 teams, you're going to have some nightmare/weird scenerios.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by tarcone

LOL

And the in my post meant "Man up, your team is lousy. Every year. And he WAS out of bounds."

Very well. So you admit that a lousy team was kicking your team's ass for three quarters.

I will be here to mock you when Iowa goes down in flames. Ordinarily, I have nothing against the Hawkeyes, but you and your fellow Iowa fans over at Scout are going to compel me to root FOR Ohio State when you play them. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FTR, I don't like how it is now as well as I liked the conference bowl-ties scenario & would be fine with seeing that return tomorrow.

I liked the conference tie-ins much better. At least you created some cool rivalries and added more meaning to the games.

I still think if you're going to go the bowl route and not care about the legitimacy of the championship, they should go one step further for the fans. Hire a Vince McMahon type to set the games every year. Base the matchups on the most interesting storylines. Former coach going against the team that fired him. Pit the nerdy schools against one another (Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke). Take two of the most exciting WRs in a game. Records shouldn't matter, it should be about what garners the most interest from the fans.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Very well. So you admit that a lousy team was kicking your team's ass for three quarters.

I will be here to mock you when Iowa goes down in flames. Ordinarily, I have nothing against the Hawkeyes, but you and your fellow Iowa fans over at Scout are going to compel me to root FOR Ohio State when you play them. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

I am enjoying this ride. It has been incredible. And if it ends, so be it. But Im happy that my team makes a run every once in awhile.

And yes, that lousy team was kicking our ass. But in the end, the final score was Iowa 42 Indiana 24. If you dont play 4 quarters, the previous 3 dont matter.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Actually, a playoff makes logical sense.

How so? (Honest question.)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If a Sun Belt team goes undefeated, and doesn't schedule anyone from a higher conference (and probably even if they do), they're not cracking the top 25.

And with that kind of access, you're going to have more 1-AA schools looking to move up. They can start their own crappy conference and get into a 16-team championship tournament. Do you let them in?

Then they don't get into the playoffs. I think you will find zero instances of a team going undefeated and not cracking the top 25 however.

Moving up to FBS is not just about competition. You have to meet certain financial, scholarship, and attendance requirements. Even the best teams in FCS would have trouble meeting those qualifications.

It is also up to the NCAA to determine whether conferences are legit and deserve automatic qualification. Just as they do in basketball with the case of the Great West Conference.

[k0ruptr]

Random thoughts ahead, not aimed at anything inparticular:

Was just doing some research on Boise State's OOC schedule cause sometimes you just have to get lucky ya know for SOS. Miami Ohio absolutely sucks balls this year but when Boise state put them on the schedule (July, 2005) they were coming off an 8-5 season and went bowling. I'm sure Boise didn't expect them to win 1 game and be horrible this season and last.

Boise played Bowling green last season but didn't have plans to play them this year until March because of someone else backing out (can't find out who) but when that happens I know its hard to find a replacement, cause I'm pretty sure 90% of the teams already have their schedule filled for the upcoming fall. That didnt help.

UC Davis was no excuse, but almost every single team in FBS plays a FCS team now days. So I don't think people can nit pick too much there.

lastly, I can't find when Tulsa and Boise reached an agreement for this years game. but Tulsa did win 11 games last season, so they arn't a bad team, too bad for Boise that this years Tulsa isn't last years. (if Boise could still win I mean)

So far in the WAC Boise currently has games left against Idaho (7-2, good record). and Nevada (5-3, ok record. winning at least) LA Tech is 3-5, not a horrible team though. Utah State is 2-6 and sucks. New Mexico State is 3-6 and sucks. so 2 decent teams, 2 bad teams and one ok/semi bad team left.

There schedule gets held back because of the WAC. Hawaii having a crappy year doesn't help again, and also not too expected. Hawaii is consistently in the top 50 in rankings year in year out. This year they are probably around 100. Boise state hasn't had the scheduling luck they need so far.

Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Fresno St. and maybe Tulsa all should be going bowling. In any other year Hawaii would be too. thats 4 should be's and 1 maybe, and 1 usually. Not as bad as people make it out to be, IMO

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I am enjoying this ride. It has been incredible. And if it ends, so be it. But Im happy that my team makes a run every once in awhile.

And yes, that lousy team was kicking our ass. But in the end, the final score was Iowa 42 Indiana 24. If you dont play 4 quarters, the previous 3 dont matter.

You should definitely enjoy it. Haters gonna hate.

(did i do that right)

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Fine enough. Cya, sandhead.

Sandhead?

I'm not even anti-playoff. I just don't want to see a Florida v. Troy playoff game while 11-1 or 10-2 USC stays at home. That seems to be the consensus of what people want though. In pro sports, being in a crappy division/conference is a huge advantage, but it shouldn't be that way in college sports, where you have huge and inherent disparities in conference talent.

I wouldn't mind a "final four" playoff after the BCS Bowls (or essentially, an 8 game playoff), but I don't want to see the crappy conferences get what would essentially be special treatment in light of their weak schedules.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Moving up to FBS is not just about competition. You have to meet certain financial, scholarship, and attendance requirements. Even the best teams in FCS would have trouble meeting those qualifications.

The structure of 1-A, and those qualifications, aren't set in stone. College basketball has 350+ teams in one division.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The structure of 1-A, and those qualifications, aren't set in stone. College basketball has 350+ teams in one division.

The rules are still there and can be enforced. There is a major scholarship difference between the two divisions that does limit programs with lesser financial resources from moving up. FBS schools must also maintain a 15,000 average attendance over a short time period. I'm pretty sure there is also a moratorium on moving up unless you have been invited into a conference.

In any event, it's not easy to move up, especially in football where you have to commit much more money.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Sandhead?

I'm not even anti-playoff. I just don't want to see a Florida v. Troy playoff game while 11-1 or 10-2 USC stays at home. That seems to be the consensus of what people want though. In pro sports, being in a crappy division/conference is a huge advantage, but it shouldn't be that way in college sports, where you have huge and inherent disparities in conference talent.

I wouldn't mind a "final four" playoff after the BCS Bowls (or essentially, an 8 game playoff), but I don't want to see the crappy conferences get what would essentially be special treatment in light of their weak schedules.

In a 16-team playoff (or even an 8 or 12), an 11-1 or 10-2 USC squad would almost surely be in it.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In a 16-team playoff (or even an 8 or 12), an 11-1 or 10-2 USC squad would almost surely be in it.

Yep, almost. Although the Sun Belt winner would always be in it, right?

I'm with molson in that I'm not anti-playoff, either. I like the old bowl system, but if playoffs are done well, I'd be for it. I don't think 11 conference winners and 5 at-large counts as done well, though. I'd rather see 8 teams, 8 conference winners -- the 6 BCS, Mountain West, WAC. The rest are a Division I-1.5A (or just join division I-AA), and anyone that doesn't like it can join one of the 8 (or move from one of the top 8 down a rung).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Yep, almost. Although the Sun Belt winner would always be in it, right?

I'm with molson in that I'm not anti-playoff, either. I like the old bowl system, but if playoffs are done well, I'd be for it. I don't think 11 conference winners and 5 at-large counts as done well, though. I'd rather see 8 teams, 8 conference winners -- the 6 BCS, Mountain West, WAC. The rest are a Division I-1.5A (or just join division I-AA), and anyone that doesn't like it can join one of the 8 (or move from one of the top 8 down a rung).

No they wouldn't. I stated that a team would have to win the conference championship and fall in the top 25 of the BCS to get into the playoffs.

Note: Going back to 2002, I can't find a single Sun Belt team that finished in the top 25 which should end your fears.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No they wouldn't. I stated that a team would have to win the conference championship and fall in the top 25 of the BCS to get into the playoffs.

Note: Going back to 2002, I can't find a single Sun Belt team that finished in the top 25 which should end your fears.

It does, but I would rather not use the BCS for anything, personally. I thought you playoff people hate the BCS?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

It does, but I would rather not use the BCS for anything, personally. I thought you playoff people hate the BCS?

I don't hate the BCS rankings. I think they are perfectly fine in helping determine at-large bids and seeding for a playoff. In fact, I wish college basketball had more of a system in place for determining their seeding and at-large teams.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't hate the BCS rankings. I think they are perfectly fine in helping determine at-large bids and seeding for a playoff. In fact, I wish college basketball had more of a system in place for determining their seeding and at-large teams.

Well, I personally dislike them. In the setup I'd like to see with 8 teams, I'd rather see a random draw (probably done before the season starts) instead of using rankings and seedings.

[MJ4H]

With all the Iowa-Indiana talk in this thread, how the hell did this picture not get up here:

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What's the incentive for either team? USF a borderline bowl team that doesn't want to throw a likely loss on their schedule that could cost them bowl eligibility. Florida doesn't benefit at all by bringing in a tougher school from a major conference. And USF is still a Big East school that can draw 60,000+ a game. They aren't giving up a home game for nothing.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They're also a team criticized for playing creampuffs themselves.
Orlando Sentinel - USF football never met a cream puff it wouldn't attempt to schedule by Tim Stephens

If I had bothered to dig up that link and their future schedule I would have noticed September 11th 2010 - @Florida. So that should settle that argument with Romagoth (they also allegedly lose money on the home games vs. crempuffs between the rent and the concessions they give up).

As to their own creampuffs, I agree with Logan - they've got 2 games a year OOC against some combination of Florida, Miami, FSU, Notre Dame and Michigan St. I'd like if they upped their level of FCS creampuff (Charleston Southern? Stony Brook?), but their overall OOC slate seems quite respectable.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In college football's system, we wouldn't have had Derrick Rose and Memphis in the title game. Dwayne Wade and Marquette in the Final Four. The dynasty from UNLV. The system arbitrarily dismisses teams for no reason and doesn't judge their talent or ability as a factor in the decision. So should Memphis have been left out of the tournament two years ago because they play in a crappy conference?

Huh? Memphis was #2 in the polls going into the tournament. UNLV started #1 and finished #2 in 1989-90 and went wire-to-wire #1 in 1990-91. Marquette was 26-7 and ended the regular season ranked #12 - they weren't close to being one of the top 2, or 4, teams in the regular season. This strawman analogy is terrible.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As do college conferences. The ACC and Big East are essentially mid-majors now and I would say the Mountain West could hang with them from top to bottom. In fact, if you take the top 3 teams from the Mountain West, I'd say they could hang with any other conference's top 3 with the exception of the SEC.

The ACC and Big East are the 3rd and 4th best conferences this year, better than the Big 10 or Big 12, and would destroy the MWC where the bottom falls out after 4 teams (TCU/BYU/Utah/AF).

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Fresno St. and maybe Tulsa all should be going bowling. In any other year Hawaii would be too. thats 4 should be's and 1 maybe, and 1 usually. Not as bad as people make it out to be, IMO

Agreed they got unlucky on how bad teams like Miami (O) and Tulsa turned out (and the placement of the Oregon game 1st instead of late), but even if you replace them with Central Michigan and Houston this year that's not going to get them over the hump into the NC (would probably get them over TCU for the BCS slot). Fresno St's a decent team, but they lost every game vs. BCS competition, and Nevada was blown out and completely outclassed by Notre Dame in their only national exposure, so nobody's going to take them seriously as good teams and beating them will give little credit to Boise. As pointed out, they know exactly what they're doing, and it's working great for them - look how much more they're talked about than a Houston team that beat 3 BCS teams, or that Tulsa team last year - and they have scheduled harder for the future.

[Kodos]

Interesting article from the LA Times, who should have no dog in the hunt as far as Indiana-Iowa is concerned. Not saying I totally buy the conspiracy theory, but I don't totally dismiss it either. All I know is that very questionable calls on replays have really hurt Indiana in games against Michigan and Iowa this year.

hxxp://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dufresne2-2009nov02,0,2988335,full.column

CHRIS DUFRESNE / ON COLLEGE FOOTBALL

Something doesn't smell right around the BCS


It can't afford the sniff of a scandal, but recent officiating and replay decisions are bad for the system.

By Chris Dufresne
November 2, 2009

The Bowl Championship Series can probably survive controversy and silliness and talk-radio arguments and, more than likely, political bullying from windbag representatives interested mainly in their reelections.

What the BCS can't survive is the overhanging cloud of scandal or conspiracy.

We're starting to hear whispers: I can verify the source of one of these rumors because I started it.

Pssssst: The top schools appear to be getting BCS protection from officials because it's in the best interest of the conferences for the best teams to win.

A second team in the BCS means an additional $4.5 million to conference coffers.

A conference advancing a team to the national-title game brings huge exposure and revenue to the school and the league.

Superstars always get preferential treatment, if you believe your eyes and the shady accounts of an ex-NBA referee, who traded his old stripes for prison stripes.

Didn't Magic Johnson get every call at the end of the important playoff game?

Yeah, but that's different. In a seven-game series, things tend to even out . . . or at least sometimes.

In college football, one bad call can cost you everything.

Do officials want the best teams to win?

No way -- that's impossible to believe.

But there have been enough strange calls lately to warrant a serious crackdown on getting it right for the sake of not having columns like this written.

Two weeks ago, Florida got the benefit of several calls in a close win against Arkansas, so many in fact that the SEC suspended the crew.

A week ago, Tennessee lost to Alabama by two after a last-second field-goal try was blocked. Volunteers Coach Lane Kiffin said he didn't run another play to get his kicker closer because he feared getting called for another penalty. Tennessee had eight flags in the game to Alabama's one.

Saturday, Indiana caught the short end of several calls that benefited Iowa, an undefeated team with national-title aspirations.

Indianapolis Star columnist Bob Kravitz wrote the game felt "like a Brinks robbery" and made note of "an inept group of officials who took 14 IU points off the board with bogus calls on obvious touchdown passes."

The most egregious error occurred when the replay booth overruled an Indiana touchdown that would have given the Hoosiers a 28-14 lead.

A scoring pass to Terrance Turner was ruled complete on the field. The referee was in perfect position to make the call and did not hesitate in his decision.

Yet, upon further review, it was overruled in the booth.

Wait a minute -- what happened to irrefutable proof?

A few weeks earlier, Washington shocked Arizona on a pass that deflected off an Arizona receiver's foot, with the Washington player returning the "interception" for the game-winning score.

It seemed impossible the ball didn't hit the ground.

Given Arizona's only other loss this year was to Iowa, and that Arizona is the only Pac-10 or Big Ten team never to play in a Jan. 1 Rose Bowl, that call may turn out to mean something.

I called Verle Sorgen, director of instant replay for the league, and he gave me an emphatic explanation.

He said there must be irrefutable proof that the original call was wrong.

What does that mean?

Sogren said if you gathered 100 college football experts in a room to look at the play, 99 of them would have to come to a consensus.

Wow, that's some burden of irrefutable proof, but if that's the rule . . .

OK, then, how do you explain the Big Ten overturning Saturday's call in Iowa City?

No one with two eyes could say it was irrefutable that Turner was not inbounds when he caught the pass.

Instead of a touchdown, Indiana settled for a field-goal attempt that went awry and Iowa soon tied the score and won in a runaway.

It is not enough, in hindsight, for the conferences to keep issuing apologies.

There has to be a better answer than conference commissioners reprimanding coaches for criticizing officiating crews that end up getting suspended because the coaches were right about the refs being wrong.

The SEC admitted that its officials blew it in Florida-Arkansas and the Big Ten should admit that the Indiana touchdown should have been upheld.

How about some consistency?

Because the Pac-10 and Big Ten champions play each other in the Rose Bowl, it makes sense that irrefutable proof in one league should be irrefutable in the other.

Instead of apologizing all the time, how about getting the call right? Or else, junk instant replay.

If we, the non-experts, can see it, why can't the experts?

The future of the BCS ultimately hinges on its transparency and the integrity of its games.

It was outrageous, but hilariously OK to me, when USC in 2003 finished No. 1 in both polls but couldn't play in the BCS title game because it finished No. 3 in the standings.

Hey, they came up with these stupid rules and that's just the way it shook out.

Besides, an acceptable outcome prevailed when the AP voted USC a share of the national title.

It was less OK in 2004, however, when Texas edged California for a Rose Bowl spot because deciding votes suspiciously tipped toward Texas even after Cal beat Southern Mississippi on the road.

The aftermath of this was so ugly that the AP pulled out of the BCS formula and several news organizations, mine included, issued a ban forbidding their writers from participation in polls.

In the news business, credibility is imperative.

It must also be for the BCS.

If you're going to continue with this unbelievable creation to ferret out championships, it has to be believable.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Comments on Mike Williams leaves Syracuse football team | Today in Central New York - Page 2 -

what a dope, he deserves to be bagging groceries.

My guess is it's related to his suspension...

The guy's a fruit loop. He enrolled in community college last year, did all this extra work to get academically elligible this year, just to quit halfway through the season.

He's made some comments about the new coaching regime being more strict than the last one, I'm sure what this is all about. He sees himself as a huge NFL prospect and doesn't want to be bothered by classes and rules and coaches yelling at him.

[MrBug708]

What is it about being named Mike Williams and having no interest in school

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Very well. So you admit that a lousy team was kicking your team's ass for three quarters.

I will be here to mock you when Iowa goes down in flames. Ordinarily, I have nothing against the Hawkeyes, but you and your fellow Iowa fans over at Scout are going to compel me to root FOR Ohio State when you play them. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

Right there with you Kodos. I have learned to loathe Iowa this season.