College football 2009

[Eja117]

TCU beat Southern Methodist this year.  Clearly they shouldn't be ranked where they are.  Look, you can't penalize a team for winning the games they should win.  It's not fair to do what I just did to TCU, and it's not fair to do what you're trying to do to Florida and Alabama.

I suppose you can prove that Utah was the 'best team by a lot' last year?  They won in a BCS bowl game against a solid Alabama team - I laud them for that.  They still didn't belong in the National Championship game.

But if Bama had beaten Florida then they would have?

Yep.  Alabama beat (rankings from the date of the game):  #9 Clemson, #3 Georgia, and #16 LSU.  If you add #4 Florida to that, this is unquestionably a championship-worthy resume.  

Utah beat #12 TCU and #14 BYU.  Again, I think they were right where they belonged.

Ok, but if Bama had had a loss and then Utah beat the crud out of Florida then that makes Utah national champ.

And that isn't even close to the schedule they're playing this year.

[Eja117]

I could take the BCS schools more seriously if they could beat these non-BCS teams but they never do, cause they aren't as good. Georgia beat Hawaii when it played like 6000 miles from home in Georgia's back yard. Yay Georgia!

[Atzar]

Whatever dude.  I'm clearly not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to waste my time trying.  You think what you want think, and I'll agree to disagree.

[Eja117]

Whatever dude.  I'm clearly not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to waste my time trying.  You think what you want think, and I'll agree to disagree.

What would change my mind would be if a BCS school would beat a non-BCS school from time to time.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

[Atzar]

Whatever dude.  I'm clearly not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to waste my time trying.  You think what you want think, and I'll agree to disagree.

What would change my mind would be if a BCS school would beat a non-BCS school from time to time.

And what would change mine would be if non-BCS conferences were strongly represented in the NFL draft from time to time.  According to one mock draft, the first non-BCS player projected to be taken is TCU's Jerry Hughes - at #41.  According to another, Jerry Hughes is first again - this time at #42.

Again, I think scouts probably have a pretty good reason for establishing and continuing this trend.

[KCattheStripe]

Whatever dude.  I'm clearly not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to waste my time trying.  You think what you want think, and I'll agree to disagree.

What would change my mind would be if a BCS school would beat a non-BCS school from time to time.

What about that time Georgia Pistol Whipped Hawaii?

[Bahku]

Incredible game between Notre Dame and UConn ... Charlie's job is seriously in jepoardy, though I don't think it's his fault. I know it's his responsibility ultimately, but there have been some very close games, decided by things beyond his control.

[Scribbles]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

I think you meant the WAC...and if they played in that conference, they obviously wouldn't have the same players because they would be in a Non-BCS conference, so its really a pointless argument to even get into. 

[jdpapa3]

I played college football recently (d3...high school 2.0...nothing great) and after graduating I just can't get back into the fanhood of college football. The BCS and non-playoff system just makes it so hard for me to get back into it. I'd be rolling my eyes with a weak conference team complaining about not getting a 16 seed in a tournament, but when you have 11-0 teams that can't win it all, the sour taste doesn't go away.

Ugh. At least my Saturdays are nice and free. 

[Roy Hobbs]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

I think you meant the WAC...and if they played in that conference, they obviously wouldn't have the same players because they would be in a Non-BCS conference, so its really a pointless argument to even get into. 

Yes, the WAC.  You missed my point, though.  If the argument is "Georgia or Tennessee or Mississippi isn't that good", you need to judge that team in relative terms.  If you dropped that exact same team into TCU's or Boise State's conference, nobody in this thread would be talking about what a "weak" team they are, because they'd look dominant. 

No matter what anybody says, Florida and Alabama have played a tougher schedule than the non-BCS teams, just by virtue of coming out of a very good conference.  I don't care if they each have a couple of non-conference cream puffs on their schedule; those non-conference weaklings are the competition that TCU and Boise play every weak.

Kudos to TCU and Boise for winning the games on their schedule, and for each beating potential BCS conference champions.  It's impressive.  I hope they both play in a BCS bowl, and in all likelihood, I'll be rooting for them.  However, I don't think either team is better than Florida, Alabama, or Texas, and in general, I think that any team that makes it out of those two conferences undefeated should play for the national championship.

[Eja117]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

They'd lose to Utah, BYU, TCU, and probably one other team. They'd be Air Force.  Which is a decent team.

[Eja117]

Whatever dude.  I'm clearly not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to waste my time trying.  You think what you want think, and I'll agree to disagree.

What would change my mind would be if a BCS school would beat a non-BCS school from time to time.

And what would change mine would be if non-BCS conferences were strongly represented in the NFL draft from time to time.  According to one mock draft, the first non-BCS player projected to be taken is TCU's Jerry Hughes - at #41.  According to another, Jerry Hughes is first again - this time at #42.

Again, I think scouts probably have a pretty good reason for establishing and continuing this trend.

Well Utah's Alex Smith and Fresno State's David Carr were picked #1. 

And we all know how great the scouts are. I mean they picked Tom Brady 199th. Way to go scouts.

[Eja117]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

I think you meant the WAC...and if they played in that conference, they obviously wouldn't have the same players because they would be in a Non-BCS conference, so its really a pointless argument to even get into. 

Yes, the WAC.  You missed my point, though.  If the argument is "Georgia or Tennessee or Mississippi isn't that good", you need to judge that team in relative terms.  If you dropped that exact same team into TCU's or Boise State's conference, nobody in this thread would be talking about what a "weak" team they are, because they'd look dominant. 

No matter what anybody says, Florida and Alabama have played a tougher schedule than the non-BCS teams, just by virtue of coming out of a very good conference.  I don't care if they each have a couple of non-conference cream puffs on their schedule; those non-conference weaklings are the competition that TCU and Boise play every weak.

Kudos to TCU and Boise for winning the games on their schedule, and for each beating potential BCS conference champions.  It's impressive.  I hope they both play in a BCS bowl, and in all likelihood, I'll be rooting for them.  However, I don't think either team is better than Florida, Alabama, or Texas, and in general, I think that any team that makes it out of those two conferences undefeated should play for the national championship.

I think we would be talking about what weak teams they are. They'd lose to Boise St. They'd lose to Oregon if they scheduled them. And they'd probably lose to someone else. I guess that's not weak, but it's not dominant or anything either.

Also these teams haven't beaten teams like Bama and Oklahoma on the biggest stages the way the non-BCS teams do.

[KCattheStripe]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

I think you meant the WAC...and if they played in that conference, they obviously wouldn't have the same players because they would be in a Non-BCS conference, so its really a pointless argument to even get into. 

Yes, the WAC.  You missed my point, though.  If the argument is "Georgia or Tennessee or Mississippi isn't that good", you need to judge that team in relative terms.  If you dropped that exact same team into TCU's or Boise State's conference, nobody in this thread would be talking about what a "weak" team they are, because they'd look dominant. 

No matter what anybody says, Florida and Alabama have played a tougher schedule than the non-BCS teams, just by virtue of coming out of a very good conference.  I don't care if they each have a couple of non-conference cream puffs on their schedule; those non-conference weaklings are the competition that TCU and Boise play every weak.

Kudos to TCU and Boise for winning the games on their schedule, and for each beating potential BCS conference champions.  It's impressive.  I hope they both play in a BCS bowl, and in all likelihood, I'll be rooting for them.  However, I don't think either team is better than Florida, Alabama, or Texas, and in general, I think that any team that makes it out of those two conferences undefeated should play for the national championship.

I think we would be talking about what weak teams they are. They'd lose to Boise St. They'd lose to Oregon if they scheduled them. And they'd probably lose to someone else. I guess that's not weak, but it's not dominant or anything either.

Also these teams haven't beaten teams like Bama and Oklahoma on the biggest stages the way the non-BCS teams do.

Oregon is a BCS team. And again, Hawaii won Boise's conference and went undefeated and the proceeded to get the tar kicked out of them by Georgia.