College football 2009

[nickagneta]

As an aside, the objective of the BCS was never to set up a bowl system that pits undefeated teams versus each other or for the best teams to be matched against each other.

The objective of the BCS was to put into a championship game the consensus #1 and #2 team. That's it.

Remember before the BCS, the conference affiliations forced the conference champs to go to their respective bowls. So if the consensus #1 team was the SEC champion and the #2 team was the Pac 10 champion, they would never face each other. The SEC, ACC, Pac10, Big10, and Big12 all had bowls their champions had to play in which meant most of the time, getting the top 2 teams to face each other was very difficult.

So the BCS was born and promised putting the consensus #1 and #2 in a bowl to determine the national champion. They do that. They never promised that the consensus #1 and #2 would both be undefeated or that every team that was undefeated would get a crack at the national championship. The BCS is set up to preserve as much of the bowl system, tradition, money, pomp and circumstance and everything else that is the college bowl season is all about while at the same time getting the top 2 teams to face each other for the championship.

That this year they ended up with 1 v 2, 3 v 5, 4 v 6, and 7 v 8 shows that some years, they get it right.

[Eja117]

As an aside, the objective of the BCS was never to set up a bowl system that pits undefeated teams versus each other or for the best teams to be matched against each other.

The objective of the BCS was to put into a championship game the consensus #1 and #2 team. That's it.

Remember before the BCS, the conference affiliations forced the conference champs to go to their respective bowls. So if the consensus #1 team was the SEC champion and the #2 team was the Pac 10 champion, they would never face each other. The SEC, ACC, Pac10, Big10, and Big12 all had bowls their champions had to play in which meant most of the time, getting the top 2 teams to face each other was very difficult.

So the BCS was born and promised putting the consensus #1 and #2 in a bowl to determine the national champion. They do that. They never promised that the consensus #1 and #2 would both be undefeated or that every team that was undefeated would get a crack at the national championship. The BCS is set up to preserve as much of the bowl system, tradition, money, pomp and circumstance and everything else that is the college bowl season is all about while at the same time getting the top 2 teams to face each other for the championship.

That this year they ended up with 1 v 2, 3 v 5, 4 v 6, and 7 v 8 shows that some years, they get it right.

Well yeah I guess I 85% agree with that. you got me there.

[KCattheStripe]

As an aside, the objective of the BCS was never to set up a bowl system that pits undefeated teams versus each other or for the best teams to be matched against each other.

The objective of the BCS was to put into a championship game the consensus #1 and #2 team. That's it.

Remember before the BCS, the conference affiliations forced the conference champs to go to their respective bowls. So if the consensus #1 team was the SEC champion and the #2 team was the Pac 10 champion, they would never face each other. The SEC, ACC, Pac10, Big10, and Big12 all had bowls their champions had to play in which meant most of the time, getting the top 2 teams to face each other was very difficult.

So the BCS was born and promised putting the consensus #1 and #2 in a bowl to determine the national champion. They do that. They never promised that the consensus #1 and #2 would both be undefeated or that every team that was undefeated would get a crack at the national championship. The BCS is set up to preserve as much of the bowl system, tradition, money, pomp and circumstance and everything else that is the college bowl season is all about while at the same time getting the top 2 teams to face each other for the championship.

That this year they ended up with 1 v 2, 3 v 5, 4 v 6, and 7 v 8 shows that some years, they get it right.

Well yeah I guess I 85% agree with that. you got me there.

NOOOOOOOOO EJA! Continue with the righteous indignation! Never give up! Never Surrender!

[Eja117]

As an aside, the objective of the BCS was never to set up a bowl system that pits undefeated teams versus each other or for the best teams to be matched against each other.

The objective of the BCS was to put into a championship game the consensus #1 and #2 team. That's it.

Remember before the BCS, the conference affiliations forced the conference champs to go to their respective bowls. So if the consensus #1 team was the SEC champion and the #2 team was the Pac 10 champion, they would never face each other. The SEC, ACC, Pac10, Big10, and Big12 all had bowls their champions had to play in which meant most of the time, getting the top 2 teams to face each other was very difficult.

So the BCS was born and promised putting the consensus #1 and #2 in a bowl to determine the national champion. They do that. They never promised that the consensus #1 and #2 would both be undefeated or that every team that was undefeated would get a crack at the national championship. The BCS is set up to preserve as much of the bowl system, tradition, money, pomp and circumstance and everything else that is the college bowl season is all about while at the same time getting the top 2 teams to face each other for the championship.

That this year they ended up with 1 v 2, 3 v 5, 4 v 6, and 7 v 8 shows that some years, they get it right.

Well yeah I guess I 85% agree with that. you got me there.

NOOOOOOOOO EJA! Continue with the righteous indignation! Never give up! Never Surrender!

hey man. When you're beat you're beat. nick just swatted me that time. Don't worry.  there will be other days. I'll be back.  for example. We have the actual results of the bcs bowls to look forward to.

We have yet to see how the whole Brett Farve thing turns out.

We have next week's game between the Pats and the Carolina Panthers to watch.

I promise. I'll find a way to make it all about me soon enough. I promise

[Eja117]

Mark Ingram wins the Heisman.  Congratulations to Racker.

[Bahku]

Mark Ingram wins the Heisman.  Congratulations to Racker.

Sweet ... just watched the replay, (for the first time) ... all I can say is, they GOT IT RIGHT this year. Congrats, Big Guy!

[nickagneta]

While I agree that of the offensive players that were finalists, Ingram was probably most deserving given the team he played for and his contributions to making them the number one team in the nation, the Heisman is supposed to be for the best college football player. To me, there is just no question whatsoever that the best player in college football this year was Ndamukong Suh from Nebraska.

The problem is that in today's college football of sexy stats and highlight reels, it's usually the skill position players that get the glory and recognition as the best in college football.

Ndamukong Suh was the best player this year. Because his team sucked offensively, opposing teams needed to neutralize his effect against them defensively to try to win games. Yet, even though teams doubled and triple teamed him, Nebraska was still one of the best defenses in the nation. He had 82 tackles, an interception and 12 sacks while being double and triple teamed every game this year. Not sexy stats but taken in context, they might be more impressive than any of the offensive stats Ingram, McCoy, or Tebow put up.

[Roy Hobbs]

While I agree that of the offensive players that were finalists, Ingram was probably most deserving given the team he played for and his contributions to making them the number one team in the nation, the Heisman is supposed to be for the best college football player. To me, there is just no question whatsoever that the best player in college football this year was Ndamukong Suh from Nebraska.

The problem is that in today's college football of sexy stats and highlight reels, it's usually the skill position players that get the glory and recognition as the best in college football.

Ndamukong Suh was the best player this year. Because his team sucked offensively, opposing teams needed to neutralize his effect against them defensively to try to win games. Yet, even though teams doubled and triple teamed him, Nebraska was still one of the best defenses in the nation. He had 82 tackles, an interception and 12 sacks while being double and triple teamed every game this year. Not sexy stats but taken in context, they might be more impressive than any of the offensive stats Ingram, McCoy, or Tebow put up.

Yep.  Sue was the most impressive overall, and Toby Gerhart was probably the best offensive player.  However, since the voters always are in the "best player on one of the best teams" mindset, I'm happy to see Ingram get it over McCoy.

[Eja117]

While I agree that of the offensive players that were finalists, Ingram was probably most deserving given the team he played for and his contributions to making them the number one team in the nation, the Heisman is supposed to be for the best college football player. To me, there is just no question whatsoever that the best player in college football this year was Ndamukong Suh from Nebraska.

The problem is that in today's college football of sexy stats and highlight reels, it's usually the skill position players that get the glory and recognition as the best in college football.

Ndamukong Suh was the best player this year. Because his team sucked offensively, opposing teams needed to neutralize his effect against them defensively to try to win games. Yet, even though teams doubled and triple teamed him, Nebraska was still one of the best defenses in the nation. He had 82 tackles, an interception and 12 sacks while being double and triple teamed every game this year. Not sexy stats but taken in context, they might be more impressive than any of the offensive stats Ingram, McCoy, or Tebow put up.

I would generally agree with that. It frustrates me that the Heisman has virtually never (in about 30+ years or so now) gone to a defensive player, lineman, or special teams guy.

I get the whole "Well he's the QB argument" but come on.

I also don't have a huge problem with lifetime achievement type Heismans like a Colt or Ken Dorsey, but I'm probably in the minority there.


What I really really want to know is who did Tebow vote for?

[Eja117]

Looks like it's ending kinda ugly for Bobby Bowden down in FSU

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4725765

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4765006

Good. His whole career was based on winning football games. It's not like he prided himself on high graduation rates or low incarceration rates, or a squeaky clean program.  You stop winning games - you get kicked out. Welcome to FSU

The pathetic thing is that whenever he is mentioned they mention JoePa because they have virtually the same number of wins and went into the HOF together, but there is a world of difference between him and JoePa

[Evantime34]

Looks like it's ending kinda ugly for Bobby Bowden down in FSU

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4725765

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4765006

Good. His whole career was based on winning football games. It's not like he prided himself on high graduation rates or low incarceration rates, or a squeaky clean program.  You stop winning games - you get kicked out. Welcome to FSU

The pathetic thing is that whenever he is mentioned they mention JoePa because they have virtually the same number of wins and went into the HOF together, but there is a world of difference between him and JoePa

Really is there? Did you see how many Penn State players have gotten in altercations in recent years. Maybe JoePa runs a cleaner program than Bowden (which isn't saying much) but he hardley runs a clean program.

[Eja117]

Looks like it's ending kinda ugly for Bobby Bowden down in FSU

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4725765

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4765006

Good. His whole career was based on winning football games. It's not like he prided himself on high graduation rates or low incarceration rates, or a squeaky clean program.  You stop winning games - you get kicked out. Welcome to FSU

The pathetic thing is that whenever he is mentioned they mention JoePa because they have virtually the same number of wins and went into the HOF together, but there is a world of difference between him and JoePa

Really is there? Did you see how many Penn State players have gotten in altercations in recent years. Maybe JoePa runs a cleaner program than Bowden (which isn't saying much) but he hardley runs a clean program.

True, but did you also see how those guys got kicked off the team or indefinite suspensions?  Ever hear of an FSU guy that happened to, besides L Coles about a decade ago (and yet Peter Warrick with didn't get kicked out)?

[RAcker]

Mark Ingram wins the Heisman.  Congratulations to Racker.

This is the first time I've seen this.  Thanks, but all I did was cheer the team on.

Although Bama fans are happy to have a Heisman now, we really don't get all keyed up about individual awards.  The main reason we love it is because that's all Auburn fans had for years.  "We have two Heisman winners and you don't have one."  Bottom line is, if we don't win in Pasadena, we'll be disappointed.

I will say, from all I've ever seen of Mark Ingram since Saban brought him here, he is one good kid.  He is set to graduate very early on top of what he's done on the field and I think that is incredible.

I'm now trying to find my way to Lakerland to be at the big game.  "Trying" is the key word.

[Bahku]

Anyone watching the Emerald Bowl(BC/USC)?

[Bahku]

Anyone watching the Emerald Bowl(BC/USC)?

Guess not ... another lonely football thread ... ah, well, such is life.