The College Football Thread 2006

[DanS]

Yeah, don't think so. I wonder how good Michigan thought that ND defense was

5 turnovers (including a pick 6) will make any defense look horrid.

Michigan got more yards on offense in the OSU game than it did in the ND game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

OSU had 2 turnovers in the Fiesta Bowl last year, compared to 0 for ND, and still won by 14. Good teams don't make the turnovers to begin with .

And don't forget that Michigan outgained ND by ~100 yards anyway. Btw, what's the excuse for letting up 37 by Michigan State? And 26 by UNC?

Michigan got more yards on offense in the OSU game than it did in the ND game.

Yeah... just 57 more yards. Difference being they gave up 245 yards to ND and 503 yards to OSU.

[MRT144]

they also beat ND. you ND apologists are funny and annoying

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Guynemer


The odds of a rematch are remote. If either USC or Florida/Arkansas finish with one loss, they will very likely be ahead of the Wolverines. No way would a one loss Notre Dame finish in front of Michigan, though.

I think Michigan would beat any of those teams, but they had their shot at the Buckeyes and blew it. One of those other teams deserves a shot.

The 2 best teams DESERVE to be in the National Championship. This isn't Oprah ball where everyone gets a chance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't deserve to be in the national championship game if you have lost a game (I'm with Drake on that). It's a privilege not a right if you have a loss.

And of course, prove which are the 2 best teams when you have 4 teams with 1 loss?

[Drake Tungsten]

You don't deserve to be in the national championship game if you have lost a game (I'm with Drake on that). It's a privilege not a right if you have a loss.

Right on.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't deserve to be in the national championship game if you have lost a game (I'm with Drake on that). It's a privilege not a right if you have a loss.

And of course, prove which are the 2 best teams when you have 4 teams with 1 loss?

I was just responding to his comment. He seemed to be saying Michigan was the best 1 loss team and that a team not as good as Michigan "deserved" to be in the National Championship more than Michigan

We can all debate who the 2 best teams are. I would just hope that we would agree that the 2 best teams deserve to be in the National Championship. Competitive sports isn't supposed to be about what people want to see or what makes people "feel good". That's for girl's T-Ball and Oprah.

The true test would be the playoff scenarioe I outlined earlier. But given the convoluted system of voting and computer rankings we have it should still be an attempt to identify the 2 best teams. I don't think the computer are programmed to select what "feels good" and I don't think, when asked to cast their ballot in the polls, that people are asked to rank the teams in the order they think would make a match that "feels good".

[DanS]

Don't know if y'all follow recruiting, but have you heard that over the weekend, Marc Tyler broke his leg so badly it punctured the skin?

Marc Tyler is the Scout #2 ranked running back for 2007 and was the subject of an ND-USC recruiting battle that USC won.

Don't know how fixable these things are nowadays.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Deity Dude]Competitive sports isn't supposed to be about what people want to see or what makes people "feel good". [/q]

Do you follow college football? The bowls are usually ALL about what people want to see. They'll pick teams more for ratings and popularity than talent all the time.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
We can all debate who the 2 best teams are. I would just hope that we would agree that the 2 best teams deserve to be in the National Championship.

The two best conference champions should play. If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to play for the championship. That includes you, oklahoma.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Deity Dude]Competitive sports isn't supposed to be about what people want to see or what makes people "feel good". [/q]

Do you follow college football? The bowls are usually ALL about what people want to see. They'll pick teams more for ratings and popularity than talent all the time.

Thank you for continuing to point out why there should be a predetermined, consistant playoff mechanism.

16 teams - the 11 conference champions and 5 at large bids. It would be awesome. I'd actually watch early December bowl games .

[SlowwHand]

Arkansas vs Ohio State, because Texas had bad luck.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Thank you for continuing to point out why there should be a predetermined, consistant playoff mechanism.

16 teams - the 11 conference champions and 5 at large bids. It would be awesome. I'd actually watch early December bowl games .

No ... I want to see michigan or ohio state (this year, OSU ) playing USC/Cal (this year, USC ) in the Rose Bowl, like they had every year for nearly a century. I don't give a flying #@%@# what some opinion poll says are the top teams in the country, not even the top 16 teams in the country. I just want to see the Big Ten and the Pac Ten duke it out in Pasadena with roses lining the streets. I watched the Rose Parade and then the Rose Bowl every year as a child, and loved it. Playoffs would ruin that for me.

Anyway, the gripes would remain, JUST as they remain in the grandaddy of playoffs, NCAA Basketball. They somehow manage to gripe about who #66 and #67 should have been... (well, what, #40 or so when you ignore the bottom 20something auto bids?) They'd just extend to the #17 team.

People who demand a playoff for college football need to go watch PROFESSIONAL football, where the champion matters, and they play for MONEY. Maybe they should stop televising college football entirely... that'd fix them ...

[SlowwHand]

Watch OSU vs. S. Cal. just because? Good thought process.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I was just responding to his comment. He seemed to be saying Michigan was the best 1 loss team and that a team not as good as Michigan "deserved" to be in the National Championship more than Michigan

We can all debate who the 2 best teams are. I would just hope that we would agree that the 2 best teams deserve to be in the National Championship. Competitive sports isn't supposed to be about what people want to see or what makes people "feel good". That's for girl's T-Ball and Oprah.

The true test would be the playoff scenarioe I outlined earlier. But given the convoluted system of voting and computer rankings we have it should still be an attempt to identify the 2 best teams. I don't think the computer are programmed to select what "feels good" and I don't think, when asked to cast their ballot in the polls, that people are asked to rank the teams in the order they think would make a match that "feels good".

Frankly in some ways I'm glad Michigan lost ... they'll clearly get the Rose Bowl bid now, and play either USC should USC lose to ND, or someone else - maybe ND again, that would be a classic-er-not Rose Bowl wouldn't it?

Ultimately the problem is that myself and some others (not sure how many are this extreme) don't consider college sports 'competitive sports' in the same way you do. I think they're about sportsmanship and activity, and anything past that is only as it's convenient. College sports is, currently, an amateur sports league, and as such we should stop trying to make it essentially a professional sports league, where the competition and winning is all that manners. That's not why college sports were formed, and not why they should be in existence today. Go make semipro NFL leagues if you want professional style college age competition. Not surprisingly, money has corrupted college sports and it's money, not your desire for a champion, that will create or not create a playoff system. I wish the NCAA would get a David Stern type commissioner and reign in the cr#$% that's coming down the pipes these days ...