Official 2006 College Football Season Thread.

[gunnar hendershow]

Michigan deserves their chance at a neutral site I say. The SEC is not as strong as we like to think it is, Florida's a good team and deserves a BCS spot. But over Michigan it's just not right.

[HailtotheYo]

Thank you GOD. We all know why I WISHED that Michigan wouldn't get a rematch, but let me do it in a different manner.

Before anyone says anything about me just jumping on Florida, I point them back in this thread where I asked the question if there was a better one loss team in the nation than Florida.

Who did they beat ?

Florida - TWO ten win teams (Arkansas/LSU) and nine win Tennessee. Their preseason schedule was 27th in the nation and the final winning percentage of their opponents ? -> .643 ....... highest in the nation. Non conference schedule includes So. Miss, a team that played for its conference title. FSU, UCF (trash) and West Car (minus points). Mixed bag there, but with FSU and So. Miss, two credible non conference games. Florida only played one conference game against an opponent that didn't have a winning record. Florida had the extra game.

Michigan - They beat 11 win Wisconsin (highly underrated team) and ND (overrated team). The rest of their schedule looked good in pre-season, but proved to not be so hot. They do get the added bonus of Cent Mich winning the MAC Title. They also get the knock for having to do everything they possibly could not to lose to Ball St. Michigan played three. Michigan's opponents were second toughest overall in the nation.

Common opponent - Vandy. Neither played well against Vandy. 20-7 for Mich and 25-19 for UF. Mich seperates with 2:00 left in the third, and a touchdown with 2:00 left in the game gives Vandy a shot at Florida. So, this really tells us shit.

They both lost to a team with ten wins.

*Others*

Florida is 21st with 410 ypg

Michigan is 33rd with 384 ypg (Florida had the tougher schedule)

Florida passed for 3091 yds and rushed for 2084

Michigan passed for 2229 and rushed for 2270

Michigan is 1st in rushing defense

Florida is 6th (neither allow more than 80 per game)

Florida is 6th in scoring defense

Michigan is 8th (neither allow more than 15 per game)

Michigan is 6th in total defense

Florida is 10th

There are other things that factor in, but looking at the numbers in conjunction with the opponents, I say Florida IS better than Michigan. And yes, I've thought that before.

Edited December 4, 2006 by HailtotheKing

[GhostMachine]

I'm inclined to agree that Florida is better than Michigan, and keep in mind I'm a Tennessee Vols fan who dislikes the Gators.

On the NFL show before the bowl rankings special this weekend, I think Lee Corso hit the nail on the head: he predicted that Florida would get in for two reasons: 1. A lot of people don't want to see an Ohio State\Michigan rematch, and 2. a lot of coaches, mostly SEC coaches, would remember Auburn getting screwed out of the title game a couple years ago and vote for Florida out of revenge.

I hope Ohio State beats Florida, but unlike my father who hopes its a slaughter, I hope its a fairly close game.

The Vols are going to play Penn State in the Outback Bowl. This will be a tiebreaker, as PS and UT are 2-2 against each other, and Joe Pa is going to be coaching from the sidelines apparently. Last time they played each other, PSU won in the....1994 Citrus Bowl, I think.

[DMN in the House]

UCLA BITCHES!

SHOCKED THE WORLD!

*cough, cough*

Now that its out of my system, let me announce that, until the UCLA Bruins wreck The Bowden's Christmas, me and Biggzy can't be friends. That is all.

[ACCBiggz]

I just want you to wreck Weatherford.

[Vendetta]

Please do. Break Weatherfords neck or something along those lines. Lee should be playing. I lost 20 bucks on that game because Weatherford is a dumb ass. He makes Chris Ricks look like Joe Namath.

[HailtotheYo]

I completely agree with the man that has Amy Reid in his signature .................................................. yummy.

[HailtotheYo]

Here's how I see that a playoff could work. Just one scenario. I'd love to see something like this instead of the BCS mess we seem to get more often than not. Besides, what does playing one game after a 30 to 50 day layoff prove anyway ? At this rate, we'll be clamoring for the way college football used to be. Of course, the funny thing in all of it, is that at the end of the day .... the same thing ends up deciding who's playing for the National Title in both the old, and the BCS scenarios. But, on to the show.

The concept of the BCS is sound. It can be implemented in this playoff deal as well, and I shall do that. The human polls have their say as well, but that's more for seeding at the end of the year. Now, first things first. No more conference title games. The season ends at the last full weekend of November. A 12 game limit is put on schedules. To determine the field for the playoffs we FIRST go to conference champions. It is only fair that EVERY school and EVERY conference has EQUAL chance at the national title, so each conference champion is in. Now we go to the BCS. To round out the field we will take the top 5 non conference champion BCS rated schools. In the case of the independent, they must be in the top 16 of the BCS rankings to be included (as there are 16 teams in this playoff). Seeding shall be done according to BOTH human poll and BCS rankings. The only exception to this, is that a non conference champion cannot be seeded higher than a conference champion IF the conference champion is in the top 8 of the BCS (or the top half of the playoff field). So, this year the rankings would be as follows.

1.Ohio State (1 human - 1 BCS - Big Ten Champ)

2. Florida (2 human - 2 BCS - SEC Champ)

3. Louisville (5 human - 6 BCS - Big East Champ)

4. USC (8 human - 5 BCS - Pac 10 Champ)

5. Boise State (9 human - 8 BCS - Wac Champion

6. Michigan (3 human - 3 BCS - Big Ten runner up)

7. LSU (4 human - 4 BCS - SEC West runner up)

8. Wisconsin (6 human - 7 BCS - Big 10 runner up)

9. Auburn (10 human - 9 BCS - SEC East runner up)

10. Oklahoma (7 human - 10 BCS - Big 12 Champ)

11. Notre Dame (11 human - 11 BCS - Indepenent)

12. Wake Forest (15 human - 14 BCS - ACC Champ)

13. BYU (19 human - NR BCS - Mountain West Champ)

14. Houston (NR human - NR BCS - Conf USA Champ)

15. Central Michigan (NR human - NR BCS - MAC Champ)

16. Mid Ten St (NR human - NR BCS - Sun Belt Champ)

Ok, so now we've got some teams, so we need to match them up. Well, obviously it would be done just as any other tournament with seedings. 1 plays 16 and etc on down the line. BUT, what about the bowl games ? Easy. The bowl game market is more saturated beyond all repair at this point anyway, so doing away with 2 dozen GaylordFurnitureGallery.com bowls won't be a bad thing. In my scenario, I just took the 15 longest running bowl games and there you go. I went with longevity, history ... all that stuff. So, where do the play ? Easy, I borrow the D III footbal strategy (and logic) and try as humanly possible to match the first round matches with a geographically sound bowl. The higher seeded team obviously being home and getting the geographical nudge. Our first round would be:

Ohio State vs Mid Ten St (Liberty Bowl - Memphis Tennessee)

Florida vs Central Michigan (Gator Bowl - Jacksonville Florida)

Lousville vs Houston (Chick-fil-A Bowl - Atlanta Georgia)

USC vs BYU (Holiday Bowl - San Diego California)

Boise St vs Wake Forest (Insight Bowl - Phoenix Arizona)

Michigan vs Notre Dame (Capital One Bowl - Orlando Florida)

LSU vs Oklahoma (Independence Bowl - Shreveport Louisiana)

Wisconsin vs Auburn (Cotton Bowl - Dallas Texas)

Now, I know that because of some of the pairings, the geographical placements suck. All in all though, it evens out. Interesting things to note about the first round:

- Ohio State essentially plays a road game in Tennessee, but it is the BEST geographical placement for them

- Michigan gets their rematch ..... against Notre Dame, now why is it that on the other foot, the shoe don't fit ? Irony is amazing so I gave them a slight break in sending them to Florida in hopes of nice weather

- Wisconsin gets hosed worst of all, but the use of the Cotton Bowl here is the best I could give them

- Boise St still ends up getting their annual 'home' bowl game

- We get great traditional pairings like LSU/Oklahoma, Wisconsin/Auburn, and USC/BYU

- The only apparent clear cut winners are the top two rated teams ... as it should be .... right ?

As far as the rest of the playoff goes, the seedings will remain to determine the pairings. We still have the Outback Bowl, Sun Bowl, and of course the big four. The use of the big four would only make sense in a rotating system of having two years on, two years off in hosting the semi-finals. They already rotate the National Title game as of now, so what's the difference really ? After it is all said and done, we have a TRUE BCS National Title Game ...... and no one can bitch about the winner. But what if it ends up being a team with 2 or more losses ? That doesn't matter. They EARNED it on the field. In this scenario, each team in the playoff field earned the right to be there by either winning their conference, or by being ranked high enough in the BCS by jockeying for position ...... um, you know .... which is exactly how it's done now.

[gunnar hendershow]

That's pretty much how I see it working too. That way those small schools also have the opportunity to get their name out there.

[Mofoticon]

It is a decent idea, but it will NEVER happen like that....too many games for teams to play.

[oldskool]

Nice idea, but how can you argue that 3 non-top-25 teams and 4 non-BCS-ranked teams (the conference champions) get into the playoff while 10-win teams such as West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Rutgers and TCU aren't considered?

[gunnar hendershow]

They didn't win their conference. Sure those schools will complain, but honestly did they have a real shot in the first place? It's all about weeding out from the top 3 or 4 who the best is. And the best way to do that is put in the top 5 or 6, which this does. And then makes it a legitimate playoff scenario.

[Vendetta]

Hailtotheking, I fowarded your idea to a local radio station and a friend I know that works at ESPN. Given you full credit of course. I love the idea of a playoff system. And they can't use academics as an excuse because Div II and Div III and College Basketball and Baseball all do play off systems.

[HailtotheYo]

Nice idea, but how can you argue that 3 non-top-25 teams and 4 non-BCS-ranked teams (the conference champions) get into the playoff while 10-win teams such as West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Rutgers and TCU aren't considered?

A - the didn't win their conferences

B - the inclusion of the current BCS formula is to determine the "best" non-conference winners, and in this case those schools aren't ranked high enough

Now, if you take a look at things, Houston/BYU have 10 wins but aren't ranked/barely ranked. They won their conference and the others didn't. That's what seperates them. Now on to Central Michigan. They are a 9 win team, but a conference champion. Ooching them in based on conference champion merit isn't exactly a stretch now is it ? Mid Ten St is the only REAL stretch in receiving benefits here. They also get OSU in the first round. Their scenario is the same as any 7-5 team that eeks into a bowl in the way things are now. Hey, congrats on your season and shitty conference championship .... now go play in the craptacularsponsored.com/sucksass bowl. What's the difference really ?

The controversy created is no different than that created by the NCAA Basketball tourney. There are a handful of teams with shitty records and no real track record for the season, but they get in. Why ? They're conference champs. People bitch about which BUBBLE teams get in, not why a conference champion got in over an "obviously" better team. Why is it that in EVERY OTHER SPORT that division/conference winners get to advance controversy free, but in this case it isn't fair ? Sorry folks, but it is NCAA Football that has it wrong, not every other sport. So, in the case of West Virginia/VT/Rutgers/TCU ... argue them against ND/Mich/Wis/LSU/Auburn .... not a team that DID IT'S JOB and won its conference.

Edit 1 - As far as too many games to play ... hogwash. It is easily applicable for a team to play a 16 game schedule in college. Already there are teams that have reached the 14 game mark several times, and 13 is the norm for teams with a conference title game. Stretching it by at the most 2 isn't a stretch at all.

Edit 2 - thanks CD ... much appreciated. If only those that make the difference in this matter could hear the logic rather than see the $$$$$ .

Edited December 6, 2006 by HailtotheKing

[Lowerdeck]

Wow. That sounds like a very impressive plan there. I would like to see something like that done, unfortunately it won't.

[TheSqauredCircleMessiah]

The fact that you think the WAC & Big East are on par with the Big Ten, Pac 10, SEC, Big 12 is just so adorable.

[oldskool]

The fact that you think the WAC & Big East are on par with the Big Ten, Pac 10, SEC, Big 12 is just so adorable.

[Mofoticon]

The fact that you think the WAC & Big East are on par with the Big Ten, Pac 10, SEC, Big 12 is just so adorable.

My stance is this:

You keep the four BCS bowls as is. Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar, all played as they've always played with the same teams they'd always have (Pac-10 v. Big Ten in the Rose Bowl, for example).

Instead of giving one of them a national title game, or instead of taking 2 teams out of them to put in a separate game, you do this:

Rose Bowl winner plays Fiesta Bowl winner at *insert bowl site here*

Orange Bowl winner plays Sugar Bowl winner at *insert other bowl site here*

Winner of Rose/Fiesta v. Winner of Orange/Sugar for national title at *insert third bowl site here*

The bowl sites I mentioned would rotate throughout the stadiums the non-BCS bowl games are played in. Rose/Fiesta/Orange/Sugar Bowl-located fans have had those great bowl games and national championship games for years; spread the love to the other bowl-hosting cities.

[gunnar hendershow]

The big problem is time. These games will have to happen on weekdays because of the NFL Playoffs.

[HailtotheYo]

Time ? on weekdays before the NFL playoffs ?

Dude, the entire month of December is compromised of the bowl season. All this tournament is doing, is replacing the bowl season. There would be four weeks of games ... a month, just like the current bowl season.

And no, I don't think the lower conferences are on par with the bigger one as a whole. I do however feel that conference champions should be awarded accordingly. Why is that a bad thing ? You can take the smugness somewhere else.

As for the basketball argument .... you can't blame football for being the sport that it is. By saying that a conference champions deserve to be in the NCAA tourney even with its 16-17 record, just because it played 30+ games is just dumb. That's the way basketball is. There is a 25+ game season. College football has an 11 - 13 game regular season. You can't compare the number of games played between sports when the sports themselves aren't equal. If that were the case then I would start arguing that basketball has to have the post-season conference tournies because the regular season is a sham. Florida State just beat Florida, but when it's all said and done that one loss is going to mean shit all because they'll play 30 games. How is that fair when one loss in football literally all but douses your National Title hopes ?

Fact is, in every other sport conference/division champions get a shot at their respective sport championships. College Football should be no different.