losing ideals.
park that car
drop that phone
sleep on the floor
dream about me!!!
park that car
drop that phone
sleep on the floor
dream about me!!!
part 1: park that car. [pertubation]
we are the APEX of the construct of college football, and i encourage all of you to be a part of it.
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN????
it means the system is breaking. it means that we're rapidly going down a path where the dam is bursting; where the bowl system fails us and where we don't know how to discern truth from fiction. and it will happen sometime, mainly because it already has.
only a few weeks ago, i vigorously defended a bowl system that i shouldn't have believed in just for the sake of continuity. tradition is tradition, or so my mind said.
NEVER MIND THAT I THINK TRADITION IS PART OF THE REASON WHY SOCIETY DOESN'T PROGRESS. THROW THAT OUT THE WINDOW.
every season has problems. let's get that out of the way first. the idea of an undefeated auburn being completely dismissed in the polls is disconcerting to anyone who saw a team with three NFL stars in its backfield. jason campbell, ronnie brown, and cadillac williams somehow had the keys to understanding in a non-trivial way.
and we should have known that this was a problem when oklahoma played lsu in a usc-free title game. alternatively, john navarre and chris perry were outclassed, which was quite the surprise to anyone who loosely associated themselves with big 10 intensity.
the point is that this scene has played out before, and so the fact that i didn't recognize that the dam would burst was unfortunate. that falls on me.
what is not trivial is the fact that, hey, this year is the worst year of all. it's the worst year for many reasons: one is that we don't believe that the undefeated teams are the best teams. normally we do. last season, we all believed that ohio state was the best team up until the bcs championship game, while this year, we don't have that belief. nobody believes in kansas, and we loosely believe (at least i loosely believe) that oklahoma, lsu, and maybe oregon are the best teams.
it's bad in another way. there's no way to differentiate the teams. in past years, you couldn't take too much issue with the way ohio state scheduled, and next year, when osu goes to play at usc, we'll be ok with the scheduling once again. but kansas and osu have had yucky out-of-conference affairs, arizona state beat colorado (whatever the hell that means) and we're left trying to differentiate between a bunch of flawed one-loss teams.
part 2: drop that phone [plush reality]
i tell you now why they're flawed. loosely, missouri is flawed because it got sort of exposed at oklahoma. west virginia is flawed because, if you believe that pat white is going to the nfl as a premium qb, you're in the minority. steve slaton has been gameplanned to perfection, and this concludes the proof.
oklahoma is flawed. their performance against iowa state exposed the fact that the offense has paul thompson, who is not a premium guy, leading the way. and lsu fans, take note: your guy isn't a premium guy either. the day i have matt flynn lead me to the kwan is the day jason white makes it in the nfl. i too watched the lsu game, and i was at the kentucky affair, and i know that he's not a good quarterback. for anyone who has doubts about this fact, i refer you to one of the five or six little touch passes that he's missed during the year, which are plays that most guys in high school make on a regular basis.
so destiny shines solely on the oregon ducks, a team with a premium qb, a loosely acceptable defense, and a socially unacceptable uniform.
i'm ok with that. ohio state has todd beckman, and we're gonna ride him to the bcs championship ***cough*** rose bowl ***end cough*** because we're gonna ride the table right through ann arbor.
i want to say that this year, the problem isn't the setup or the bcs, rather it's that nobody deserves to be national champion. it wouldn't be unprecedented: in 1990, colorado won an arbitrary title/shared it with georgia tech, despite the fact that they had one loss, should have had two, and didn't strike fear in the hearts of anyone. but they did beat nebraska.
part 3: sleep on the floor [repelling the revenant]
let me loosely outline the thoughts going on in bobby bowden's mind in a quick stream-of-consciousness affair: "we've gotta good chance to win this ol' ballgame, man, i don't care how bad drew is he'll be good enough. i've been in a hundred of these games before and i know that i'm a better coach than that guy up there 52 weeks of the year. we're gonna play some defense cause i saw how frank did it last week and we can do the same thing and it'll work. i'll blitz matt ryan and he'll throw some picks and the weather will be terrible and that'll play into our hands. i'm still a good coach."
and so it came to pass. b.c. lost last saturday night, and since the big 12 will take care of itself, we loosely have to see whether or not lsu will lose to either arkansas or the sec east champ to really avoid the controversies that will ensue this year.
danger has been averted in some vein, but we're still no closer to absolution.
part 4. dream about me. [the search for truth. (the truth is out there)]
first, i outline the five most likely bcs scenarios.
1) osu wins out, plays lsu, who wins out.
undesirable, but you have to take into account a few things: one is that osu's defense would most certainly smoke kansas, and you'd have to think that osu might have an edge on missouri. so we have to justify oklahoma over lsu at this point, but we can't really justify oklahoma over oregon.
lsu gets the nod for a couple reasons: one is that they would, at this point, have defeated florida, south carolina, alabama, virginia tech, auburn, arkansas, and maybe georgia, which seems like a ridiculous idea.
2) osu loses, oregon plays lsu.
the most desirable matchup, aesthetically, because i don't think anyone believe that oregon does not deserve a shot at this.
3) osu wins, lsu loses, oregon v. osu.
aesthetically pleasing, but could be damaging because if osu loses, the conference's credibility will be on the ropes.
4) osu wins, lsu loses, kansas wins out and jumps oregon.
yuck. now kansas identifies themselves as the apex, and plays in the title game.
5) osu loses, lsu loses, oregon v. big 12 champ.
also yucky, because if the big 12 champ turns out to be oklahoma/missouri, it's likely that wvu has a legitimate gripe.
what if we were to seed the teams one through eight? i'll outline that as well, just for kicks.
1. ohio state vs. 8. missouri
2. lsu vs. 7. kansas
3. oregon vs. 6. boston college
4. oklahoma vs. 5. west virginia
the problem is obvious: doesn't arizona state have at least as much of a gripe as missouri? doesn't georgia have a complaint as some point? what have we learned? is georgia's gripe less significant than oregon's? where is hawaii in this framework?
let me dare to ask a rhetorical question: is it possible that the dam could burst on the playoff system as well? what about a scenario where we take the top four? how do we choose!?!?!?!?! is oklahoma's claim any better (objectively) than west virginia's? loosely speaking, they're pretty similar teams: oklahoma smoked miami, wvu smoked rutgers and mississippi state, and we don't know whether or not south florida at home is better or worse than colorado on the road. how do we objectively differentiate between the two?
or, if i want to stir the pot, i could point at louisville's two one-loss seasons where they got snubbed from the bcs, and i would successfully argue that they would have been snubbed from this playoff 'jawn' as well. and, if i really wanted to stir it, last year's boise state team wouldn't have been included in a playoff system either. lol!!!!!!
it appears that i have come full circle- let me now hit you with a 'spiral of truth.' the reality is that there is no perfect answer. you cry for oregon, i'll cry for georgia, and we'll go out to a bright eyes concert together.
drop that phone
sleep on the floor
dream about me!!!
park that car
drop that phone
sleep on the floor
dream about me!!!
part 1: park that car. [pertubation]
we are the APEX of the construct of college football, and i encourage all of you to be a part of it.
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN????
it means the system is breaking. it means that we're rapidly going down a path where the dam is bursting; where the bowl system fails us and where we don't know how to discern truth from fiction. and it will happen sometime, mainly because it already has.
only a few weeks ago, i vigorously defended a bowl system that i shouldn't have believed in just for the sake of continuity. tradition is tradition, or so my mind said.
NEVER MIND THAT I THINK TRADITION IS PART OF THE REASON WHY SOCIETY DOESN'T PROGRESS. THROW THAT OUT THE WINDOW.
every season has problems. let's get that out of the way first. the idea of an undefeated auburn being completely dismissed in the polls is disconcerting to anyone who saw a team with three NFL stars in its backfield. jason campbell, ronnie brown, and cadillac williams somehow had the keys to understanding in a non-trivial way.
and we should have known that this was a problem when oklahoma played lsu in a usc-free title game. alternatively, john navarre and chris perry were outclassed, which was quite the surprise to anyone who loosely associated themselves with big 10 intensity.
the point is that this scene has played out before, and so the fact that i didn't recognize that the dam would burst was unfortunate. that falls on me.
what is not trivial is the fact that, hey, this year is the worst year of all. it's the worst year for many reasons: one is that we don't believe that the undefeated teams are the best teams. normally we do. last season, we all believed that ohio state was the best team up until the bcs championship game, while this year, we don't have that belief. nobody believes in kansas, and we loosely believe (at least i loosely believe) that oklahoma, lsu, and maybe oregon are the best teams.
it's bad in another way. there's no way to differentiate the teams. in past years, you couldn't take too much issue with the way ohio state scheduled, and next year, when osu goes to play at usc, we'll be ok with the scheduling once again. but kansas and osu have had yucky out-of-conference affairs, arizona state beat colorado (whatever the hell that means) and we're left trying to differentiate between a bunch of flawed one-loss teams.
part 2: drop that phone [plush reality]
i tell you now why they're flawed. loosely, missouri is flawed because it got sort of exposed at oklahoma. west virginia is flawed because, if you believe that pat white is going to the nfl as a premium qb, you're in the minority. steve slaton has been gameplanned to perfection, and this concludes the proof.
oklahoma is flawed. their performance against iowa state exposed the fact that the offense has paul thompson, who is not a premium guy, leading the way. and lsu fans, take note: your guy isn't a premium guy either. the day i have matt flynn lead me to the kwan is the day jason white makes it in the nfl. i too watched the lsu game, and i was at the kentucky affair, and i know that he's not a good quarterback. for anyone who has doubts about this fact, i refer you to one of the five or six little touch passes that he's missed during the year, which are plays that most guys in high school make on a regular basis.
so destiny shines solely on the oregon ducks, a team with a premium qb, a loosely acceptable defense, and a socially unacceptable uniform.
i'm ok with that. ohio state has todd beckman, and we're gonna ride him to the bcs championship ***cough*** rose bowl ***end cough*** because we're gonna ride the table right through ann arbor.
i want to say that this year, the problem isn't the setup or the bcs, rather it's that nobody deserves to be national champion. it wouldn't be unprecedented: in 1990, colorado won an arbitrary title/shared it with georgia tech, despite the fact that they had one loss, should have had two, and didn't strike fear in the hearts of anyone. but they did beat nebraska.
part 3: sleep on the floor [repelling the revenant]
let me loosely outline the thoughts going on in bobby bowden's mind in a quick stream-of-consciousness affair: "we've gotta good chance to win this ol' ballgame, man, i don't care how bad drew is he'll be good enough. i've been in a hundred of these games before and i know that i'm a better coach than that guy up there 52 weeks of the year. we're gonna play some defense cause i saw how frank did it last week and we can do the same thing and it'll work. i'll blitz matt ryan and he'll throw some picks and the weather will be terrible and that'll play into our hands. i'm still a good coach."
and so it came to pass. b.c. lost last saturday night, and since the big 12 will take care of itself, we loosely have to see whether or not lsu will lose to either arkansas or the sec east champ to really avoid the controversies that will ensue this year.
danger has been averted in some vein, but we're still no closer to absolution.
part 4. dream about me. [the search for truth. (the truth is out there)]
first, i outline the five most likely bcs scenarios.
1) osu wins out, plays lsu, who wins out.
undesirable, but you have to take into account a few things: one is that osu's defense would most certainly smoke kansas, and you'd have to think that osu might have an edge on missouri. so we have to justify oklahoma over lsu at this point, but we can't really justify oklahoma over oregon.
lsu gets the nod for a couple reasons: one is that they would, at this point, have defeated florida, south carolina, alabama, virginia tech, auburn, arkansas, and maybe georgia, which seems like a ridiculous idea.
2) osu loses, oregon plays lsu.
the most desirable matchup, aesthetically, because i don't think anyone believe that oregon does not deserve a shot at this.
3) osu wins, lsu loses, oregon v. osu.
aesthetically pleasing, but could be damaging because if osu loses, the conference's credibility will be on the ropes.
4) osu wins, lsu loses, kansas wins out and jumps oregon.
yuck. now kansas identifies themselves as the apex, and plays in the title game.
5) osu loses, lsu loses, oregon v. big 12 champ.
also yucky, because if the big 12 champ turns out to be oklahoma/missouri, it's likely that wvu has a legitimate gripe.
what if we were to seed the teams one through eight? i'll outline that as well, just for kicks.
1. ohio state vs. 8. missouri
2. lsu vs. 7. kansas
3. oregon vs. 6. boston college
4. oklahoma vs. 5. west virginia
the problem is obvious: doesn't arizona state have at least as much of a gripe as missouri? doesn't georgia have a complaint as some point? what have we learned? is georgia's gripe less significant than oregon's? where is hawaii in this framework?
let me dare to ask a rhetorical question: is it possible that the dam could burst on the playoff system as well? what about a scenario where we take the top four? how do we choose!?!?!?!?! is oklahoma's claim any better (objectively) than west virginia's? loosely speaking, they're pretty similar teams: oklahoma smoked miami, wvu smoked rutgers and mississippi state, and we don't know whether or not south florida at home is better or worse than colorado on the road. how do we objectively differentiate between the two?
or, if i want to stir the pot, i could point at louisville's two one-loss seasons where they got snubbed from the bcs, and i would successfully argue that they would have been snubbed from this playoff 'jawn' as well. and, if i really wanted to stir it, last year's boise state team wouldn't have been included in a playoff system either. lol!!!!!!
it appears that i have come full circle- let me now hit you with a 'spiral of truth.' the reality is that there is no perfect answer. you cry for oregon, i'll cry for georgia, and we'll go out to a bright eyes concert together.
12 Comments:
4) Dream about me
Well, Kansas or Missouri would have to drop out of the top 8 because 1 has to lose when they play each other - probably both because whoever wins will lose to Oklahoma. (Missouri coming back and beating Oklahoma is intriguing.) Plus, while I have come to despise the Big 12 as you, Kansas being lower than a 4 seed right now is a bit of a slap in the face. The bids should not go to the top 8 teams necessarily. 6 should go to conference champions. 3 conference have decisive ways about determining this. What about Pac 10, Big 10, Big East? Well, every conference has it's way of breaking a tie - I say the university presidents have to make the bed they sleep in. (Head to head usually suffices except in the 3 way tie of teams with 1 loss round robin style - but that rarely happens.)
Can choosing the last 2 teams really lead to bitching and moaning at the level we already have? I say definitively no for the following reason...
1) What's that Urban Meyer - your team should be the 8th one in? You deserve it more than other - well than why didn't you win your conference!
2) We finally have a reason to keep overrated yet nationally followed teams like Notre Dame out of Bowls where they don't belong. A 12th place finish is not good enough.
3) No longer are non-BCS schools disqualified from a championship be default. Boise State would get in (maybe). Hawaii might if they go undefeated (By the way, Hawaii sucks in the computer polls - for good reason - and wouldn't get in at this point - but if they beat Boise it might be enough.) Remember the Shaun King era at Tulane? They could have had their day.
People argue about who's in an out when there is a field of 64 - ESPN needs airtime. The regardless of whether a mini-playoff would "work," the question is what is more palatable - snubbing the 2nd best team or snubbing the 8th best team? I really don't think that's an argument. The only "Doomsday" scenario to rival a BCS mess that I can come up with is SEC, Big 12, and ACC teams all in the top 5 losing in their conference championships. All of them could legitimately be banking on the at-large if they lose. So there is a definitive odd man out in this scenario. But more often than not, I'm guessing those at large teams are going to come from 3-6 ranked teams that didn't win conferences.
I actually think the biggest problem would be non-BCS schools in this scenario. Boise State would not been the 2nd best at large school by BCS rankings. Is there a special "undefeated" dispensation for non-BCS teams? I mean, going undefeated in the WAC may mean something, but the Sun Belt... I don't know how this is resolved. But I do know that after Boise State, the public feels that non-BCS schools should be given a shot at it - so some kind of system for them has to be worked out.
Anyway, the article came out nicely. I think it achieves an acceptable level of ludicrosity - almost as much as this season of college football.
the problems i forsee are twofold: one problem is that there is no guarantee that we would see anything other than a four-team playoff, which would leave us with the oklahoma or kansas question.
another problem is that there is no guarantee that, say, oregon would beat georgia. so there may not be a lot of difference between the third and the ninth-best teams in the country. and i think that the 9th ranked team might have a legit complaint in this case.
I don't know what the Oklahoma/Kansas question is - doesn't whoever win the Big 12 get in and the other on is out? The +1 game (ie. the 4 team playoff) is a stupid idea in my book. It only superficially solves the problems at hand.
And the problems are not about whether team A can beat team B, so doesn't team A deserve a shot? It's a question of who's done more to deserve it. Georgia can beat Oregon - so what? Everyone has played some close games. Kentucky could beat Oregon. By your logic, any tournament that involves some kind of at-large selection is flawed because some team with a legitimate gripe will be left out (ie. March Madness is flawed because Drexel didn't get in.)
The point of a playoff is to settle it on the field. Every conference has a way of determine who the best team in their conference is - it's called a conference championship and it's settled on the field. It's imperfect but at least it's semi-definitive. And the "best" team doesn't always win - making another connection to March Madness, Jim Valvano? UConn lost to Geroge Mason with like 4 NBA draft picks playing. So it's not about who could be who in a potential match to determine who deserves it - it's about who has beaten who. I could by that it's hard to discriminate 3-9, but don't try to tell me Gerogia has a better resume and would be snubbed compared to Oregon. I would classify that is ridiculous, aristocrat style.
Here's my thesis - the problem with college football isn't necessarily differentiating teams - it's differentiating conferences. You only play 3-5 games out of conference (depending on your conference) and they are usually against bad teams, so there isn't really a metric that adequately compares teams (the ultimate basis of comparison being playing an actual game). This is why I say every conference champion deserves a shot. I would say cut it off at six and don't even have 2 at larges. Give 1 & 2 a bye in the mini-tournament. This would work if the D-IA was just 6 conferences, but you have to give the non-BCS schools a shot. If debating who the last two in are is - as opposed to the only two in, which you are basically equating to be the same situation - then give it to the two best non-BCS conference champs. But I don't think anyone finds this reasonable.
I have looked into it, and I would say I am 80% more comfortable with subjective voters deciding who gets the last two spots in title tournament than who gets the only two spots. 6 spots determined objectively versus no spots determined objectively - 6 - 0 wins.
Here's my weekly national title contenders in order of teams most likely to make the championship game (Note: Only one of the Big 12 teams can achieve the winning out they need to make the title game):
1) Oregon
2) LSU
3) Oklahoma
4) Kansas
5) OSU
6) WV
7) Missouri
8) Arizona State (I'm putting them back on the list because, hell, we're running out of 1 loss teams now)
Oregon and LSU are clearly the most likely to make it right now, but LSU has a tougher road. Kansas is the only team that essentially controls it's own destiny, but nobody expects them to win over Mizzou and Oklahoma. If Mizzou beats KU and OU I feel they have a legitimate case for "getting next" after LSU and Oregon, but I have a feeling there is a "historical bias" that would prevent that. OSU is below Oklahoma because their loss is later in the season, which really shouldn't have much of an impact. Oklahoma's loss was worse than OSU's - they're schedules are comparable. OSU will be punished for losing later in the season which is a crock. West Virginia's basting of Miss St is looking better by the week, but the Big East still struggles to get respect, and thus so does WV as they sometimes struggle to beat Big East opponents.
At this point, the BCS has to be happy with themselves - if Kansas loses, no one can argue with Oregon/LSU. They have the consensus toughest schedules of 1 loss teams and thus deserve the title shot, right? Thus 3 things could mess this up for our friends - Oregon losing, LSU losing, or Kansas going undefeated. Frankly, how can you not root for Kansas making a title game. That has to be an affront to everything the minds behind the BCS (the SEC came up with the BCS by the way...) stands for.
i'm right there with you on arizona state. i actually think that they're a good team.
upset watches:
ucla over oregon?
yes!
cincinnati over wvu?
maybe!
and i'm starting to come around on kansas, since i've watched them play in each of the last two weeks, and i loosely feel that todd reesing is someone i can cheer for.
and they looked pretty damn good against oklahoma state.
will their defense do them in?
kansas/missouri over thanksgiving break? yes! football = awesome!
I'm not a believer in Kansas at all. They have no substantial wins. I may take some gruff for this but I think there would be at least 4-5 SEC teams that would be 10-0 if they had played the same schedule as Kansas. Yes, I am saying that there are at least 4 SEC teams that are better than Kansas.
Furthermore, I think every conference this year outside of the SEC and the Pac-10 is irrelevant. Heck, having the SEC champion play the Pac-10 champion this year would suffice as a championship game if you ask me.
I think in the future that there should be some way of tweaking the BCS formula near the end of the season to give more weight to teams in the conferences that are clearly the most top notch that given year. It just seems so obvious to me that the only teams worthy of being called a "champion" this year play in the SEC or Pac-10.
Everyone thinks the SEC is the toughest conference. Every freakin' game is an apocolyptic rivalry that they smash their brains out over, thus its obviously completely ridiculous to think anyone can go 1 loss or even 2 loss in conference regardless of whether teams are considered good or not. That loss to Vandy is totally acceptable because, we just played Florida, and who can really get up for Vandy after that.
And it totally sucks that the their highest profile non-conference games involving SEC teams were Tennessee - Cal, Auburn - South Florida, and West Virginia - Mississippi St. (Kudos to Sylvester Croom on getting to bowl eligibility!) Here's hoping South Carolina - Clemson and Georgia - Gerogia Tech (?? A big game? Tech did beat ND 30-3...) turn out better for them. Saying that 4-5 teams would be 10-0 in another conference would hold water if non-conference games were mere formality and a testament to the greatness of the SEC. Tennessee, Auburn, and Miss. St. not the cream of the crop? They are at least entrenched in that murky middle below Georgia and LSU. It's too bad LSU can't be convinced to play anyone out of conference because then we would all recognize the mad skills on display. And Tennessee does control it's own fate in the SEC. I think Phil Fulmer winning the SEC and crashing a BCS would be a nice "Screw You!" to everybody - the SEC, the Tennessee fans who have turned on him, Dane Cook... I really hate Dane Cook. But now I'm off topic.
By the way, I do think Georgia could be in the title debate if they didn't play in the SEC. But that's about it. I also think California would be too if Nate Longshore hadn't been injured sending them into a tailspin. I think South Florida would still be undefeated if they hadn't lost to Rutgers. I think Flordia is conceivably a "better team" than last year. I think the Big 10 is pretty awful when their 3rd (2nd? 4th?) best team struggles get past UNLV. I think the Big 12 lucked into the same "strategy" the Big East employed last year of not having the good teams play each other until the end of the year. Completely unfounded opinions, thy name is sports!
As for Kansas, every hypothetical is "if they win out." Beating Mizzou and Oklahoma would have to put them in the title game. They have a weak schedule, but thanks to 12 team mega-conferences, that is a little beyond their control. How much can we really penalize an undefeated team? They aren't Hawaii level weak... It'll probably be moot once they lose - but can't we dream? Can't we look at them and say, hey Kansas, no one expected that - good job! And so what if they mad it and get torched by LSU in the title game. Then that's some kind of vindication on all sides and title games are never good anyway because we're usually pretty terrible at picking who should be in them.
One other interesting nugget:
The Big East is actually considered the 2nd toughest conference according the Sagarin ratings. strange no? The bottom half of the Pac 10 is nothing to crow about, I guess. But this is what happens when you let a machine run your life...
I found a few other non-conference games for SEC that may have at one team been considered of significance:
UK - U of L (How did I forget this one? It certainly lost significance because of U of L, but basically the defining point of the season as far as where each team was headed from that point on...)
LSU - Va Tech (Yep... LSU is really good...)
Auburn - Kansas State (Maybe...ish??? I guess K State is possibly mediocre - a solid 10 point win for an offensively challenged team I guess.)
Alabama - Florida State (In case you didn't notice, FSU won this one. Alabama in the top 25 was a fluke in my opinion. Alabama, Miss St., Vandy, Arkansas, and South Carolina (wha happenened!?) are all pretty good teams. But I don't see any of them in the top 3 of any other conference - except maybe the Big East - not because it is weak per se but because there are only 8 teams!)
Gerogia - OK State (... I guess... if we're going to give Kansas props we should be giving them to Gerogia as well. Congrats to the very best 2 loss team in the country - you would probably win the Big 12 north.)
TBD
Florida - Florida St (I love Florida as the best 3 loss team, but their non-conference scheduling sans FSU is laughable and was last year as well.)
Vandy - Wake Forest (Beating Vandy probably doesn't mean much - but if Wake Forest wins big (prediction: Wake Forest by 10) it might say something...)
I'm not going to pretend to draw a bunch of conclusions from this list - they are what they are. You win some you lose some, right? And it seems like more and more wins and loss mean less and less and college football.
Although some food for thought:
South Florida is kind of screwed being in the Big East. Can you imagine being a warm weather school having to play in Pittsburgh and Connecticut in November? This is a big deal in the NFL where say Tampa Bay playing at Lambeau Field in January is considered a huge advantage to the cold weather acclimated Packers. This is (usually) not an issue in college football (1) because of the similar climates of all the school within a conference and (2) because it just doesn't get cold until the last 3-4 games of the year.
I only bring this up because the whole "Team X would go undefeated in Conference Y because Team X's conference is vastly superior to Conference Y" argument. Can a warm weather school like Florida really go undefeated in the Big 10 if they would play in Michigan in November? Not that any sane AD from Florida would allow that to happen... and global warming.
John, you bring up a good point. I'll call Al Gore tomorrow morning and ask him to weigh in on how global warming is influencing football.
the pac-10 is yucky. and i'm only rating georgia, florida, and lsu as better teams than kansas. the others, not so much.
and it's hard for me to even give georgia and florida that honor when florida has three (3!!!) losses already, a close call at ole miss, and gives up all kinds of points, and when georgia has matthew stafford at qb, a guy that could melt down at any time.
south carolina and tennessee are too inconsistent. arkansas can't throw the football, so if they played kansas head-to-head it might be trouble. kentucky might be pretty good, but it's hard to see them stopping kansas's offense.
and i venture to say that missouri and oklahoma might be pretty good in the sec this year, as would west virginia...
speaking of west virginia, if they were to beat cincinnati and uconn, shouldn't they at least get a shot at the title game? probably not, i guess.
but, the real story now is college basketball, which is infinitely more interesting than any of this.
Now that Oregon lost to Arizona my Pac-10 and SEC being the only relevant conferences this year argument doesn't hold water.
I do think that LSU, Georgia and Florida are all better teams than Kansas. I also feel that Kentucky is as well, but I am a little biased here. I do think that if Kentucky had played Kansas' schedule so far that they too would be 10-0, or 9-1 at the worst. I still feel like Kansas is going to come crashing back to earth any day now. Maybe even this weekend.
I do realize that arguing that a team would be this or that with another team's schedule is very flawed.
I agree Michael. College basketball is all that matters now. How about this year's freshman class, by the way?
I mourn for Dennis Dixon's knee - that was unfortunate. Can we give him the Heisman anyway?
So right now the most likely scenario is a LSU vs. Big 12 survivor final. This is going to be strange. Whoever wins the big 12 has to be in because none of those three teams is going to end up win 2 losses while winning the big 12.
The other spot's pecking order goes LSU, WV (who knew!!!), Ohio State, Arizona State, Gerogia. If LSU loses, all hell breaks loose. If Arizona State wins out, they might make the leap since they end the season on a tougher schedule. If Georgia wins the SEC, now we have to start entertaining the notion that a 2 loss could make the leap over some 1 loss teams - but I don't think it will happen. It didn't happen for Colorado in 2001 when they ran over the Big 12 as a 2 loss team - something I disagreed with then and I will disagree with now.
For those that don't remember the 2001 season:
Miami had finished 10-1 the year before, the odd 1-loss team out. They went undefeated in 2001 and then lost to OSU in 2002 thanks to the now infamous Mo Clarett. But what took place beneath Miami was the original and ultimate BCS mess for the ages (and this is why college football is awesome!). Here's the setup going into Thanksgiving weekend:
Nebraska - undefeated @ #2
Texas - 1 loss, clinched big 12 south @ #3
Tennessee - 1 loss, clinched SEC east @ #4
Colorado - 2 loss team nobody was considering
Illinois - 1 loss, winning the Big 10? (Kurt Kittner - YES!!!)
LSU - 3 loss team, but a win over Arkansas from the SEC west
Oregon - 1 loss team winning the pack 10 with a certain Joseph Harrington leading the way @ #5
Now, what traspired:
Colorodo blows out Nebraska the day after Thanksgiving by something like 35 points and like 500 yards rushing on a once proud defense. By the way, this game was the beginning of the end of the Frank Solich era in Nebraska and thus the end of Nebraska football for the foreseeable future.
LSU handles Arkansas.
Oregon and Illinois win out - Illinois is ancillary to the story but who doesn't love a good Kurt Kittner reference - and it's a reminder to the world that Illinois did have a good season before this one in the last decade.
So now the title game is set - Miami will play Texas and everyone is happy right? Well, Texas had to play in one of those conference championships every likes. Colorado, recent shockers of the world and new BIg 12 north champs clobbers them as well, running up about 400 more yards rushing as Mack Brown craps another L in a big game.
Tennessee, now the heir apparent to the title game, loses just hours later to a spunky LSU ranked in the 20's at the time. This is the beginning of LSU football as a perennial power. (This game was like the Kennedy Assassination of sports to me. After watching all the other craziness go down, I know exactly what I was doing when LSU won - I was at bowling alley, watching the game on an overhead TV while some vaguely drunk women in the 30-40 range kept hitting on my friend and I - then 17 - as we bowled.)
The final AP and Coaches poll looked like this:
1) Miami
2) Oregon
3) Colorado
4) Nebraska
...and who played in the title game with Miami after having fluked their way back to #2 in the BCS standings thanks to computer polls - Nebraska! Oregon and Colorado fans as well of the rest of the country is heard booing loudly at this outcome - largely because Nebraska got in by losing it's final game thus not having to play in a dreaded conference championship! Meanwhile, Tennessee and Texas, who had been hoping for a title shot on the morning of the first Saturday in December are now out of the BCS with Nebraska and Florida being chosen as the at large teams.
Here's how the BCS games broke down:
Rose Bowl: (1) Miami 37, (2) Nebraska 14
Fiesta Bowl: (4) Oregon 38, (3) Colorado 16
Sugar Bowl: (13) LSU 47, (8) Illinois 34
Orange Bowl: (5) Florida 56, (10) Maryland 23
Well, it really seams like the BCS worked this time.
Epilogue: Gary Barnett is tarred and feathered after ruining Colorado football over the next 3-4 years. Well, at least half that statement is true.
So enjoy the 2007 season and it's controversy. I know I am. But always hold a special place in your heart for the fall of 2001. (Somebody should seriously write a book about it...)
By the way, I do like basketball as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home