College Football

[fett527]

Dude, Crothian...did you just dis my team??

I mean, Statham has had a bit of a shaky season, but he threw 333 yds and scored 2 touchdowns in this game. Can't "eek" that. Terps have gone to bowl games for 3 years running, and we're not about to break that streak now.

I still have that season opening upset to Northern Illinois last year etched in my memory and I'm not sure why. Maybe it was that crazy ball off the foot play to end the game.

 

[Krug]

Cal #4! Woohoo! Man.. if only they had beaten USC earlier in the season...

 

[Dimwhit]

Cal #4! Woohoo! Man.. if only they had beaten USC earlier in the season...

Crazy, eh? A few extra points and Cal would be in line for a national title game. And it's still not out of the question. Oklahoma still has A&M (not out of the question), and Auburn has two very tough games ahead of them in Georgia and, likely, Tennessee in the Conference Championship. Those two lose (or a USC loss in place of one of them) and Cal plays in the Orange Bowl. What would be really weird is if Cal and USC play in the Orange.

I grew up in the Bay Area, so I'm a big Pac-10 fan. Nice to see Cal doing something good. That one Big Game against Stanford way back is still one of the all-time greats.

 

[Crothian]

I'll be yelling fits if a one lose Cal team gets selected over an undeafed Badger team for the National Championship.....

But it would just be odd to see two teams from the same conference play in a bowl game...let alone one for all the marbles.

 

[Dimwhit]

Well, if two of the top 3 lose and Cal doesn't, that is likely what will happen.

Personally, I'm hoping for any result that will give more controversy to the BCS. Of course, in all likelihood, USC and OK will play for it all.

 

[drothgery]

I'll be yelling fits if a one lose Cal team gets selected over an undeafed Badger team for the National Championship.....

I'd agree, even though I think Cal is better than Wisconsin (and I won't be at all surprised if Cal ends the season at #2*). But with the way college football is set up today, you've got to give Wisconsin a first chance to lose to USC before giving Cal a second.

* This doesn't take any major upsets. Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and USC finish the year unbeaten. Auburn loses to one of the very good teams left on their schedule. USC plays Oklahoma for all the marbles, and wins convincingly. Cal plays Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl and wins convincingly. Utah gets to the BCS, but loses their game.

 

[Crothian]

Well, its looking still like there will be 5 undefeated teams: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Wisconsin, and Utah. Any season that ends with more then one undefeated leads to a controversy. Everyone has known that is the greatest weakness of the BCS, more then 2 undefeated teams. It just so rarely happens.

I'm not sure that having the BCS fail is a good thing though. Sure, it might bring along a playoffs but there is no gaurnteen that what lies in the future wilkl actually be better.

 

[drothgery]

Well, its looking still like there will be 5 undefeated teams: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Wisconsin, and Utah. Any season that ends with more then one undefeated leads to a controversy. Everyone has known that is the greatest weakness of the BCS, more then 2 undefeated teams. It just so rarely happens.

Auburn's remaining schedule is Georgia, Alabama, and then either Georgia take II or Tennessee take II. That's two top-10 teams and a major, major rivalry game, even if Alabama's having a down year. I don't see them surving unblemished.

On the other hand, it's hard to see where Boise State loses, so they should make it to the bowls without a loss.

I'm not sure that having the BCS fail is a good thing though. Sure, it might bring along a playoff but there is no gaurantee that what lies in the future will actually be better.[spelling corrected]

Perhaps not, but the current system isn't that hot, and the only thing likely to lead to real change are scenarios where it's absolutely impossible for the powers that be to claim that the system worked. There have been BCS title games with undeserving #2 teams in the BCS title game, but since #1 won the game, "the system worked". There's been an undeserving #1 in the title game, and no one claims the system worked last year.

 

[Crothian]

Oops, forgot to include Boise...my bad

The system worked last year, it did what it was suppossed to do. It was just that one of the polls didn't agree. Its not like all the computer polls agree on the same number one, but they don't generate the same publicity. The problem is the Polls, both the coaches and the AP. All polls need to be gotten rid of.

 

[drothgery]

Oops, forgot to include Boise...my bad

The system worked last year, it did what it was suppossed to do. It was just that one of the polls didn't agree. Its not like all the computer polls agree on the same number one, but they don't generate the same publicity. The problem is the Polls, both the coaches and the AP. All polls need to be gotten rid of.

The point of the BCS is to get a #1 vs #2 game. If the team that's #1 in both polls is left out -- and then goes on to beat the consensus #4 team handily in their bowl game, so the poll where the voters have a free choice of #1 (in the final coach's poll, voters are bound to select the BCS title game winner as #1; it's possible, and even likely, that the coaches would have kept USC as #1 if they could have) overwhelmingly selects them, then the system clearly isn't working. It's probably not working when an undeserving #2 gets into the title game, gets waxed, and the team that's #2 in both polls goes out and wins their bowl handily (in the process making a decent case that perhaps they could have taken out the #1 team if they'd had a shot) -- and that's happened more than once. But a split title is exactly what the BCS is supposed to prevent. I don't see how anyone can say the system works when we get one.