College football 2009

[Bahku]

Clausen is NOT going back to Notre Dame but will enter the NFL Draft and pass on his Senior year in college ... a lot of people will like this, but I think it's a shame. Stay in school.

Why? The coach he went to the school for is gone. Also, why risk another year and get Sam Bradford.

To help revive the team and program he loves so much and to set an example for other athletes to finish school.

[KCattheStripe]

Clausen is NOT going back to Notre Dame but will enter the NFL Draft and pass on his Senior year in college ... a lot of people will like this, but I think it's a shame. Stay in school.

Why? The coach he went to the school for is gone. Also, why risk another year and get Sam Bradford.

To help revive the team and program he loves so much and to set an example for other athletes to finish school.

I'm not sold that he loves the school, I think he went to Notre Dame to work under Weis and get ready for the NFL. He said as much when he explained why he didn't go to USC. I see no reason why he should risk another season in college football instead of going and making millions of dollars. Especially because college will be waiting for him when he's done if he really wants/needs his degree. Access to Higher Education for non-traditional students ( over 25) has exponentially expanded with the advent of the internet.

[Bahku]

Clausen is NOT going back to Notre Dame but will enter the NFL Draft and pass on his Senior year in college ... a lot of people will like this, but I think it's a shame. Stay in school.

Why? The coach he went to the school for is gone. Also, why risk another year and get Sam Bradford.

To help revive the team and program he loves so much and to set an example for other athletes to finish school.

I'm not sold that he loves the school, I think he went to Notre Dame to work under Weis and get ready for the NFL. He said as much when he explained why he didn't go to USC. I see no reason why he should risk another season in college football instead of going and making millions of dollars. Especially because college will be waiting for him when he's done if he really wants/needs his degree. Access to Higher Education for non-traditional students ( over 25) has exponentially expanded with the advent of the internet.

Well, there's plenty of people on both sides of the "stay in school" argument, and I've spent a huge amount of typing time here myself stating my opinion. After hearing and understanding the arguments from the other side, (and agreeing with some of them, actually), and re-thinking it over-and-over, despite all the allure and enticement of multi-million dollar contracts, and all they can do to improve a player's life, (and his family's), I still come down on the side of staying in school, and seeing it through to the extent originally planned. Not only for education's sake, but also for the sake of the improvement of one's skills, the support of his team-mates and school, and the integrity of setting a good example for others. There's no amount of money that will ever take the place of those things, in my humble opinion.

[Eja117]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Possibly true, but Texas, Alabma, and Cinncy are also undefeated. With five undefeated teams three have to get left out, no one forfieted the National title to those two teams.

Agreed.  Three undefeated teams were gonna get screwed, regardless. 

Somehow I don't think Alabama, Texas, or Cincinnati is conceding anything to TCU & Boise State right now.  No one is forfeiting anything. 

Well actually yes they are. I see excluding a realistic competitor as forfeiting. The entire system is designed to exclude them in the first place. Then even when they play their way in they still get excluded. Assuming Bama and TCU both win (or Texas for that matter) I'm not sure how we take Bama seriously as a champion. Especially if Cincy dominates their game too.  You can't respect the champions of leagues that don't settle things on the field. They're just a team that was good that year. Florida last year. A great one loss team that year.  Utah. Undefeated. They finished the year giving the trophy to the team that looked inferior. College football produces a lot of fun, tradition, and pageantry, but not legitimate champs we can respect. 

Let's say the NBA did the same thing and in 08 crowned the Lakers champs without playing it out....exact.....same...thing

[Eja117]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Based on the rankings, the only teams that could presumably beat them would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Florida (ranked ahead of Boise).  Maybe they should have matched up against one of the latter two of those teams, but once the Sugar Bowl picked Florida, which team should the Fiesta Bowl have taken?  They picked the highest ranked (AP) team (TCU), followed by the Sugar Bowl taking the next highest team (Cincy).  That meant the Fiesta Bowl was left with taking an inferior opponent, or the best remaining team, which happened to be Boise St.

I don't think seeing TCU beat up on Iowa or Georgia Tech would have been all that telling.  I would have preferred to see a match-up against Cincy or Florida, but that just didn't make sense in terms of how the selections were done.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first pick of at-large teams, and you're the Fiesta Bowl with the second pick.  Who do you take?  I think their selections were very logical.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first at large pick? Who do you take? You take the best team, right? oh wait. This is college football we're talking about. You skip over two undefeated teams for a team that just got beat by the underdog.

[Roy Hobbs]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Based on the rankings, the only teams that could presumably beat them would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Florida (ranked ahead of Boise).  Maybe they should have matched up against one of the latter two of those teams, but once the Sugar Bowl picked Florida, which team should the Fiesta Bowl have taken?  They picked the highest ranked (AP) team (TCU), followed by the Sugar Bowl taking the next highest team (Cincy).  That meant the Fiesta Bowl was left with taking an inferior opponent, or the best remaining team, which happened to be Boise St.

I don't think seeing TCU beat up on Iowa or Georgia Tech would have been all that telling.  I would have preferred to see a match-up against Cincy or Florida, but that just didn't make sense in terms of how the selections were done.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first pick of at-large teams, and you're the Fiesta Bowl with the second pick.  Who do you take?  I think their selections were very logical.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first at large pick? Who do you take? You take the best team, right? oh wait. This is college football we're talking about. You skip over two undefeated teams for a team that just got beat by the underdog.

The Sugar Bowl took the SEC runner-up, since they're at heart a SEC Bowl.  There's no conspiracy to it; people have been saying for literally months that the Sugar Bowl was taking either Florida or Alabama if they were a 1-loss team.

[Roy Hobbs]

Clausen is NOT going back to Notre Dame but will enter the NFL Draft and pass on his Senior year in college ... a lot of people will like this, but I think it's a shame. Stay in school.

Why? The coach he went to the school for is gone. Also, why risk another year and get Sam Bradford.

To help revive the team and program he loves so much and to set an example for other athletes to finish school.

I'm not sold that he loves the school, I think he went to Notre Dame to work under Weis and get ready for the NFL. He said as much when he explained why he didn't go to USC. I see no reason why he should risk another season in college football instead of going and making millions of dollars. Especially because college will be waiting for him when he's done if he really wants/needs his degree. Access to Higher Education for non-traditional students ( over 25) has exponentially expanded with the advent of the internet.

Well, there's plenty of people on both sides of the "stay in school" argument, and I've spent a huge amount of typing time here myself stating my opinion. After hearing and understanding the arguments from the other side, (and agreeing with some of them, actually), and re-thinking it over-and-over, despite all the allure and enticement of multi-million dollar contracts, and all they can do to improve a player's life, (and his family's), I still come down on the side of staying in school, and seeing it through to the extent originally planned. Not only for education's sake, but also for the sake of the improvement of one's skills, the support of his team-mates and school, and the integrity of setting a good example for others. There's no amount of money that will ever take the place of those things, in my humble opinion.

I think it's a tricky decision.  Staying in school works out great for some players, like Peyton Manning.  However, what about Matt Leinart, who would have been the #1 pick and slipped to 10th because he stayed in school?

I think especially in the case of Clausen, it makes sense to leave now.  He's losing his coach and mentor, as well as his top receiver.  He'd potentially have to learn an entirely new system (which may not be a pro-style offense), which could stunt, rather than improve, his development.

I always appreciate it when seniors come back.  However, if I were in Clausen's shoes, I very well may enter the NFL, as well.

[Eja117]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Based on the rankings, the only teams that could presumably beat them would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Florida (ranked ahead of Boise).  Maybe they should have matched up against one of the latter two of those teams, but once the Sugar Bowl picked Florida, which team should the Fiesta Bowl have taken?  They picked the highest ranked (AP) team (TCU), followed by the Sugar Bowl taking the next highest team (Cincy).  That meant the Fiesta Bowl was left with taking an inferior opponent, or the best remaining team, which happened to be Boise St.

I don't think seeing TCU beat up on Iowa or Georgia Tech would have been all that telling.  I would have preferred to see a match-up against Cincy or Florida, but that just didn't make sense in terms of how the selections were done.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first pick of at-large teams, and you're the Fiesta Bowl with the second pick.  Who do you take?  I think their selections were very logical.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first at large pick? Who do you take? You take the best team, right? oh wait. This is college football we're talking about. You skip over two undefeated teams for a team that just got beat by the underdog.

The Sugar Bowl took the SEC runner-up, since they're at heart a SEC Bowl.  There's no conspiracy to it; people have been saying for literally months that the Sugar Bowl was taking either Florida or Alabama if they were a 1-loss team.

Ok fine. So they're an SEC bowl.  So let's say some other BCS team was undefeated. Not one with a name like Cincy, but a name like Florida St, or Penn State, or USC or Mich or Ohio St or Notre Dame.

Then who do they pick?  They could still get an SEC team if they wanted. They could have had TCU and LSU right there in the heart of LSU country.

[Donoghus]

Clausen is almost certainly going to be the first QB taken in this upcoming draft.  First rounder.  His stock is extremely high right now.  You only need to look at Sam Bradford going back to O.U. after last season to see the risk of staying in school.

What's the incentive for Clausen to come back?  His head coach is gone so he's have to spend his senior year under a new regime which will most likely be considered a transition year.  He's already had plenty of national exposure thanks to Notre Dame's television deals.  The risks far outweigh the rewards if he decided to stay in school.

He's making the right call.  

[nickagneta]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Based on the rankings, the only teams that could presumably beat them would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Florida (ranked ahead of Boise).  Maybe they should have matched up against one of the latter two of those teams, but once the Sugar Bowl picked Florida, which team should the Fiesta Bowl have taken?  They picked the highest ranked (AP) team (TCU), followed by the Sugar Bowl taking the next highest team (Cincy).  That meant the Fiesta Bowl was left with taking an inferior opponent, or the best remaining team, which happened to be Boise St.

I don't think seeing TCU beat up on Iowa or Georgia Tech would have been all that telling.  I would have preferred to see a match-up against Cincy or Florida, but that just didn't make sense in terms of how the selections were done.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first pick of at-large teams, and you're the Fiesta Bowl with the second pick.  Who do you take?  I think their selections were very logical.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first at large pick? Who do you take? You take the best team, right? oh wait. This is college football we're talking about. You skip over two undefeated teams for a team that just got beat by the underdog.

Just a little history here but the Sugar Bowl is the second oldest college bowl game and has always prided itself in having an SEC representative in it's bowl. With the exception of 3 times in the 90's during the beginning of the BCS year and a few years after it's inception  in it's first 15 years, the Sugar Bowl has always had an SEC representative be the host team. That the Sugar Bowl chose Florida is not a part of some grand conspiracy to screw an unbeaten team. It's just built in 75 years of tradition and the desire to absolutely have to have an SEC team part of that bowl.

[Eja117]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Based on the rankings, the only teams that could presumably beat them would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Florida (ranked ahead of Boise).  Maybe they should have matched up against one of the latter two of those teams, but once the Sugar Bowl picked Florida, which team should the Fiesta Bowl have taken?  They picked the highest ranked (AP) team (TCU), followed by the Sugar Bowl taking the next highest team (Cincy).  That meant the Fiesta Bowl was left with taking an inferior opponent, or the best remaining team, which happened to be Boise St.

I don't think seeing TCU beat up on Iowa or Georgia Tech would have been all that telling.  I would have preferred to see a match-up against Cincy or Florida, but that just didn't make sense in terms of how the selections were done.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first pick of at-large teams, and you're the Fiesta Bowl with the second pick.  Who do you take?  I think their selections were very logical.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first at large pick? Who do you take? You take the best team, right? oh wait. This is college football we're talking about. You skip over two undefeated teams for a team that just got beat by the underdog.

Just a little history here but the Sugar Bowl is the second oldest college bowl game and has always prided itself in having an SEC representative in it's bowl. With the exception of 3 times in the 90's during the beginning of the BCS year and a few years after it's inception  in it's first 15 years, the Sugar Bowl has always had an SEC representative be the host team. That the Sugar Bowl chose Florida is not a part of some grand conspiracy to screw an unbeaten team. It's just built in 75 years of tradition and the desire to absolutely have to have an SEC team part of that bowl.

You're absolutely right, but if they wanted to be an SEC bowl so bad then they should never have become a BCS bowl and could have still picked LSU v TCU. A BCS bowl shouldn't be trying to glorify and protect the SEC

[nickagneta]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Based on the rankings, the only teams that could presumably beat them would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Florida (ranked ahead of Boise).  Maybe they should have matched up against one of the latter two of those teams, but once the Sugar Bowl picked Florida, which team should the Fiesta Bowl have taken?  They picked the highest ranked (AP) team (TCU), followed by the Sugar Bowl taking the next highest team (Cincy).  That meant the Fiesta Bowl was left with taking an inferior opponent, or the best remaining team, which happened to be Boise St.

I don't think seeing TCU beat up on Iowa or Georgia Tech would have been all that telling.  I would have preferred to see a match-up against Cincy or Florida, but that just didn't make sense in terms of how the selections were done.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first pick of at-large teams, and you're the Fiesta Bowl with the second pick.  Who do you take?  I think their selections were very logical.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first at large pick? Who do you take? You take the best team, right? oh wait. This is college football we're talking about. You skip over two undefeated teams for a team that just got beat by the underdog.

Just a little history here but the Sugar Bowl is the second oldest college bowl game and has always prided itself in having an SEC representative in it's bowl. With the exception of 3 times in the 90's during the beginning of the BCS year and a few years after it's inception  in it's first 15 years, the Sugar Bowl has always had an SEC representative be the host team. That the Sugar Bowl chose Florida is not a part of some grand conspiracy to screw an unbeaten team. It's just built in 75 years of tradition and the desire to absolutely have to have an SEC team part of that bowl.

You're absolutely right, but if they wanted to be an SEC bowl so bad then they should never have become a BCS bowl and could have still picked LSU v TCU. A BCS bowl shouldn't be trying to glorify and protect the SEC

This statement is so wrong in its lack of understanding of the politics and money and tradition of the college scene and the college bowl system as a whole as to be humorous.

Sorry, eja, you are about as wrong on this one as you could possibly be and you appear dead set against listening to people who know more on the subject so I won't go into any more. Just some advice. Read up on college bowl history. Read up on college football traditionalism. Go talk to some people involved in big time college sports.

After you do all that if you still feel the same way, I'll continue to debate you on this. Until then.........

[Eja117]

Well one thing is for sure. Either TCU or BSU ends up the national champion. The BCS teams all forfeited to them.

Not really. We have a whopping 5 undefeated teams eja117. So there is no way without a playoff system to settle it fairly, three teams had to be left out. No matter who was left out it was going to be unfair.

I do agree that having TCU and Boise play each other was a dodge by the BCS.

If the BCS believed that TCU and BSU weren't the best teams around they would have had BCS teams go out and beat them, but they know there aren't two BCS teams that can do that. Not after Bama and Texas anyway

Based on the rankings, the only teams that could presumably beat them would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Florida (ranked ahead of Boise).  Maybe they should have matched up against one of the latter two of those teams, but once the Sugar Bowl picked Florida, which team should the Fiesta Bowl have taken?  They picked the highest ranked (AP) team (TCU), followed by the Sugar Bowl taking the next highest team (Cincy).  That meant the Fiesta Bowl was left with taking an inferior opponent, or the best remaining team, which happened to be Boise St.

I don't think seeing TCU beat up on Iowa or Georgia Tech would have been all that telling.  I would have preferred to see a match-up against Cincy or Florida, but that just didn't make sense in terms of how the selections were done.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first pick of at-large teams, and you're the Fiesta Bowl with the second pick.  Who do you take?  I think their selections were very logical.

You're the Sugar Bowl with the first at large pick? Who do you take? You take the best team, right? oh wait. This is college football we're talking about. You skip over two undefeated teams for a team that just got beat by the underdog.

Just a little history here but the Sugar Bowl is the second oldest college bowl game and has always prided itself in having an SEC representative in it's bowl. With the exception of 3 times in the 90's during the beginning of the BCS year and a few years after it's inception  in it's first 15 years, the Sugar Bowl has always had an SEC representative be the host team. That the Sugar Bowl chose Florida is not a part of some grand conspiracy to screw an unbeaten team. It's just built in 75 years of tradition and the desire to absolutely have to have an SEC team part of that bowl.

You're absolutely right, but if they wanted to be an SEC bowl so bad then they should never have become a BCS bowl and could have still picked LSU v TCU. A BCS bowl shouldn't be trying to glorify and protect the SEC

This statement is so wrong in its lack of understanding of the politics and money and tradition of the college scene and the college bowl system as a whole as to be humorous.

Sorry, eja, you are about as wrong on this one as you could possibly be and you appear dead set against listening to people who know more on the subject so I won't go into any more. Just some advice. Read up on college bowl history. Read up on college football traditionalism. Go talk to some people involved in big time college sports.

After you do all that if you still feel the same way, I'll continue to debate you on this. Until then.........

No I completely agree with you on the aspect of college football tradition and politics.  That's why they can't really be taken seriously as a competitive sport. It's just for fun and money. And tradition I guess.

College football has a long tradition of not settling anything on the field. It used to settle even less on the field.

The thing is that the BCS sort of set itself up as a force for positive change and evolution (at least publicly). Darwin tells us you change or you suffer.  The BCS has suffered mightily in the credibility department and as soon as they set up a playoff they'll see how much the suffered financially too.

I don't buy your premise that the Sugar Bowl HAD to pick Florida. Or that they SHOULD have picked Florida. I totally buy that they wanted to.  Actually I do buy that they had to pick Florida but not for the reasons you do.

We have a system here highly highly dedicated to not settling things on the field and then I get told I just have naive knee jerk conspiracy theories?

Weren't you the one that specifically stated about a month ago that a playoff can never happen? Isn't that a conspiracy? So it's a conspiracy towards not having a playoff, but it's all legit towards producing weird post season matchups when there were other options?

I admit I am not getting out of this what I am supposed to be getting out of it. I'm sorta just assuming that what I am seeing is what's happening.

[Roy Hobbs]

I just don't see the controversy.  We have #1 vs. #2, #3 vs. #5, and #4 vs. #6 matchups.  I think those games are all pretty compelling.

Would it be a more entertaining bowl if TCU was beating up on a 2-loss Iowa team, and Boise St. was defeating a 2-loss Georgia Tech team?  Wouldn't the same people then be saying that the bowls didn't respect the mid-majors, because they had them playing greatly inferior opponents?

The only more compelling matchup would have been TCU vs. Florida, and Cincinnati vs. BSU.  However, that would have required the Sugar Bowl to pass on Florida, or the Fiesta Bowl to pass on TCU.  It also would have required a western school to travel east, and an eastern school to travel west, despite neither of Cincy or TCU having a reputation of traveling well.  (TCU couldn't even fill its own stadium).

If anything, I think the Fiesta Bowl should be congratulated.  They could have easily taken Iowa, a team that travels well and would guarantee a lot of money.  Instead, they elected to go with BSU, despite that setting up a matchup of one of last year's bowl games.  I think they should be commended for that, taking the higher ranked team over the one that brings more fans.

[Eja117]

I just don't see the controversy.  We have #1 vs. #2, #3 vs. #5, and #4 vs. #6 matchups.  I think those games are all pretty compelling.

Would it be a more entertaining bowl if TCU was beating up on a 2-loss Iowa team, and Boise St. was defeating a 2-loss Georgia Tech team?  Wouldn't the same people then be saying that the bowls didn't respect the mid-majors, because they had them playing greatly inferior opponents?

The only more compelling matchup would have been TCU vs. Florida, and Cincinnati vs. BSU.  However, that would have required the Sugar Bowl to pass on Florida, or the Fiesta Bowl to pass on TCU.  It also would have required a western school to travel east, and an eastern school to travel west, despite neither of Cincy or TCU having a reputation of traveling well.  (TCU couldn't even fill its own stadium).

If anything, I think the Fiesta Bowl should be congratulated.  They could have easily taken Iowa, a team that travels well and would guarantee a lot of money.  Instead, they elected to go with BSU, despite that setting up a matchup of one of last year's bowl games.  I think they should be commended for that, taking the higher ranked team over the one that brings more fans.

fair enough. I guess I'll have to take the good with the horrible here...and yes I could probably see myself saying that had that happened...although if Georgia Tech had beaten TCu I would have had to shut up a little, wouldn't I?

isn't that alone worth it?