NCAA Footbal 09 Season Thread

[GhostMachine]

Apparently the BCS rankings still have `Bama ranked at #1. Bullshit.

They're supposed to have the BCS selection show on later tonight, and if Alabama is in the national championship game, I think that Florida's AD should promptly call a press conference announcing that the Gators are declaring themselves co-champions if both the Gators and Tide win their bowl games. They'd have a damn good case for it.

[Mr Evil Guy]

Aha I'd lol so hard if Florida doesn't get in.

[Meacon Keaton]

Where do you see the BCS still has Alabama #1?

EDIT: I can't seem to find this week's BCS standings. Are you sure you weren't looking at last week's when Alabama was #1 and Florida was #4?

Edited December 8, 2008 by Meacon

[GhostMachine]

Where do you see the BCS still has Alabama #1?

Poll rankings in the newspaper, which I suppose could be wrong. Bama isn't ranked #1 in the other polls, though, so they may not get in to the championship game after all. But its bs if the BCS does still have them at #1, and shows how flawed the system is.

[Meacon Keaton]

I see Florida #1 in the AP, but can't seem to find December 7th BCS rankings. I don't know if they've released them, as that would ruin the element of surprise that the selection show is sure to bring.

[GhostMachine]

Okay, I guess the rankings they had in the paper were bs, because `Bama will be playing Utah in the Sugar Bowl.

Also announced so far:

Virginia Tech vs. Cincinnati in the Orange Bowl

Texas vs. Ohio State (didn't hear which bowl)

[ROC]

The paper shouldn't have even had BCS rankings because those technically always come out on Sunday evening. They never are done on Saturday.

[Lowerdeck]

Sugar - Utah vs. Alabama

Fiesta - Boise Ohio State vs. Texas

National - Florida vs. Oklahoma

Rest: http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=885360

[Hajjhowe]

POINSETTIA Bowl should be good. TCU vs. Boise State is like the Mid-Major Super Bowl. GMAC (Ball State vs. Tulsa) also looks like a shootout in waiting too.

[HailtotheYo]

First of all, the BCS can no longer justify itself in any way/shape/form.

These two lines prove it.

Final BCS rankings.

Team #9 = .698 BCS average/.686 Harris average/.678 USA Today average/8 Comp Avg .73% (undefeated)

Team #10 = .634 BCS average/.657 Harris average/.658 USA Today average/11 Comp Avg. 59% (two losses)

Yeah, so we CLEARLY and ACCORDING TO YOUR FORMULA have a BETTER team here between these two. buuuuuuutttt team #10 is going to a BCS Bowl and team #9 isn't ? hhhmmmmm .... the only thing I can think to say is, go fuck yourself BCS.

As for the rest of the Bowl Season, I like these match ups:

LAS VEGAS - BYU/Arizona

POINSETTIA - TCU/Boise St (could be best bowl by far)

Car Care - WV/NC (good measuring stick here for both schools but in opposite directions)

Emerald - Miami/Cal (same as above)

Papajohns - NCSt/Rutgers (the OOPS look what we found bowl)

Sun - Pitt/OgSt (could be brutal/nasty)

ChikFilA - GT/LSU (If LSU isn't careful this could be bad)

GMAC - Tulsa/Ball St (thousand yds anyone ?)

[GhostMachine]

I think they're going to have to figure out some way to force a playoff system eventually. If certain conferences don't want to participate, fine; they should either be forced to participate or informed that they won't be calling a team from those conferences national champions if they finish the season at #1 or #2, even if they win a bowl game.

Lets say for example that they have a 16 team playoff, the Pac-10 decides not to participate and UCLA finishes the season at #1, then goes on to beat Virginia Tech (the highest ranked team that didn't make in into the playoffs) in a bowl game. UCLA then goes on to declare themselves the national champions, only to be informed that they are NOT the national champions because they're now ranked #17 because they decided not to take part in the playoffs.

(A 16 team playoff, consisting of the champions of each major conference and the highest ranked independent team (if they've got a decent record) then going by rankings after that, would work, I think. Anything more than 16 would be too much, and any less than 12 would be too few. All games would probably have to take place on neutral ground, and by that I mean no teams playing in their home state, not just stadium or city)

[HailtotheYo]

(A 16 team playoff, consisting of the champions of each major conference and the highest ranked independent team (if they've got a decent record) then going by rankings after that, would work, I think. Anything more than 16 would be too much, and any less than 12 would be too few. All games would probably have to take place on neutral ground, and by that I mean no teams playing in their home state, not just stadium or city)

This (and various other plays on the 16 team playoff) continues to look like the best option.

I don't care what anyone says about conferences and their strength in college football. FACT, is this. It's the system in place in EVERY OTHER MAJOR SPORT in the country - to include every other college sport. Your conference champions qualify for the post season, period. From there you move on to the "next best teams." In a 16 team playoff you have a nice even number and you include the 11 conference champions. From there you use a ranking system (like say the BCS) and take the next five. While it does have it's bit of controversy, it addresses many of the issues right now. Those one loss teams ? All accounted for. The one conference could have the top 3/4 teams in the country argument - accounted for. The conference title game crap - accounted for. The we lost at this time when they lost at this time shit - accounted for. The so called mid majors not getting a chance - accounted for. Now the only controversy you have is down the line with the final teams selected. Seriously, would you rather have an issue with with who the last few teams that are let in are, or the two teams playing for the national title ? That's a no brainer.

Don't give me any crap about some conference champions not deserving a playoff spot. Nobody has a problem with it in college basketball, or baseball, or the NFL, or the NBA, or ... yeah see ? And you want to say that there are PLENTY of better schools than the conference champion in the Sun Belt ? Fine, those 5 at large playoff bids take care of that. Fact is, if this were any other sport they'd be in the playoffs and have a shot to win the title. It should be no different in football. In fact, you can't explain to me how it ISN'T ok in football.

Academics aren't an issue either. That's a load of absolute donkey shit. If the NCAA cared about academics they wouldn't allow games to be scheduled on 6 of the 7 nights of the week. Get off with that. Seriously, don't insult our intelligence. You don't give a damn about academics. Finals ? Please, these kids just got out of high school and were playing two sports and taking finals at the same time. It's a lame excuse. I mean hell, you just expanded the regular season to 12 games ....... which leads to ....

Scheduling a playoff is worse than the bowl system ? ugh, what ? Right now the first bowl game is on Dec 20th and the last on Jan 8th. Hmmmm. So the bowl season lasts 18/19 days and some teams have a month or longer between their final game and the bowl. Now, take into account you just expanded the season and you STILL have conferences that finish their season on/before Thanksgiving. So what that means, is that you can schedule a 12 game season and finish before December. So that'd mean you could start right out of the gate in December. I don't care what you say, but 20/30/40 days between a final game and a bowl is absurd. Finish the season on/before Thanksgiving and start the playoffs the next weekend. 16 teams would only take 4 weeks. Which means you'd finish the season, have a playoff, and crown your champion all in the same year the season started. What a concept.

Of course, I'm not even getting into the fact that the NCAA isn't even in charge of crowning the National Champion of the highest level of football that competes under its jurisdiction. Yeah, that's a whole 'nother argument there.

[OGpistolpete]

Graham Harrell got screwed in the Heisman Race.

Colt McCoy only got in because he goes to Texas, a big school, and probably because their team "won" the tiebreaker between the two teams, even though Texas Tech beat the team on the field.

Harrell threw for 1000+ more yards than McCoy did in the season, they finished with the SAME amount of interceptions, at seven, but Harrell finished with 41 TDs while Colt finished with nine less, 32 touchdown passes.

McCoy did finished with 77.6% passing percentage, but lets understand that while Harrell finished with a mere 71.5% completion percentage, Harrell threw nearly 200+ more passes in the season.

I could understand if Texas finished with a better record, but the fact both teams went 11-1 AND Texas Tech beat them head-on, this is one of the biggest snubs in Heisman history.

[naiwf]

McCoy was also his team's leading rusher. Heisman people ejaculate over white QBs who can run the ball and pass it.

[Evil Chase K]

So Penn State's backup QB Pat Devlin is transferring. Ouch.%0

[Szumi]

That just seems stupid to me. Kid's got some skill and is going to be the starting QB next year. Now instead, he'll be sitting out. Horrible idea by Devlin.

[Evil Chase K]

That just seems stupid to me. Kid's got some skill and is going to be the starting QB next year. Now instead, he'll be sitting out. Horrible idea by Devlin.

He can transer to a Division II er...FCS school and not have to sit out. Just like Joe Flacco did.

There's more to the story than we know, and some school's gonna pick up a good QB.

[HailtotheYo]

Graham Harrell got screwed in the Heisman Race.

Colt McCoy only got in because he goes to Texas, a big school, and probably because their team "won" the tiebreaker between the two teams, even though Texas Tech beat the team on the field.

Harrell threw for 1000+ more yards than McCoy did in the season, they finished with the SAME amount of interceptions, at seven, but Harrell finished with 41 TDs while Colt finished with nine less, 32 touchdown passes.

McCoy did finished with 77.6% passing percentage, but lets understand that while Harrell finished with a mere 71.5% completion percentage, Harrell threw nearly 200+ more passes in the season.

I could understand if Texas finished with a better record, but the fact both teams went 11-1 AND Texas Tech beat them head-on, this is one of the biggest snubs in Heisman history.

I don't think that's the case at all. Do a simple little trick. Switch the two. McCoy at TT and Harrell at Texas.

I don't see Harrell doing anything close for Texas like what McCoy did. I can name 15 QB's off the top of my head in Div1 that could do what Harrell did/damn close to what he did at TT.

Yeah, he threw 200+ more passes. How many were over 5yds ? I hope he'd have at least 1000 more yards if he threw 200 more times. I mean McCoy ONLY threw nine less TDs in 200 less attempts.

This can be spin to make Harrell look pretty weak compared to McCoy just in passing. But the argument ends when you look at the fact that McCoy actually stood up and led Texas so far as running the ball in the absence of a tailback (much like Tebow last year). Harrell can duck his head for a good yard or few here and there, but he would never be the number one running threat.

[JStarr]

I'm just chuckling over Tebow winning the Maxwell, Bradford winning the O'Brien, and McCoy winning the Walter Camp trophy. It's like, "Okay, kids, one for each of you, now play nice."

Far as the Heisman...who ya got?

I wouldn't be surprised if Bradford and McCoy split a lot of voters, leaving it open for Tebow...BUT it's my belief that Bradford SHOULD win. Guy needs to get something special for engineering the most prolific scoring attack ever.

[HailtotheYo]

My vote goes to McCoy. He just did more, in more facets of the game for his team than the other two did.

Most of it has already been outlined above.