BCS Title Game

Soreali · Post by **Soreali** » December 3, 2006, 10:12 pm

Whos going to win

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 3, 2006, 10:40 pm

44-17

Post by **Sylvus** » December 3, 2006, 10:42 pm

You really think Ted Ginn is going to fumble two punts into the endzone? How do they score the field goal though? Statue of Liberty plays march them down the field? Blocked punt recovered inside the 30?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 3, 2006, 10:51 pm

Michigan 17
USC 23

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 3, 2006, 11:52 pm

Sylvus wrote:You really think Ted Ginn is going to fumble two punts into the endzone? How do they score the field goal though? Statue of Liberty plays march them down the field? Blocked punt recovered inside the 30?

I was being generous. Though, I am positive the entire defense is salivating at the thought of going after Leak. 2 INT's in the first quarter will put Tebow in the limelight.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » December 4, 2006, 1:33 am

I think the Rose Bowl will be a better game to watch, of course the beauty is I can watch both. I can't wait to see Michigan dismantle USC.

Yes, the Buckeyes will beat Florida.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 4, 2006, 3:44 am

Actually Michigan v. USC is going to be an awesome game. I don't even care who wins, but it'll be by far a better game than FSU will be able to muster.

National Championship:
OSU 41 - UofF 24 (with a garbage touchdown toward the end when it doesn't matter)

Rose Bowl:
USC 23 - Michigan 24

Edit: Thanks Midgen

Midgen · Post by **Midgen** » December 4, 2006, 4:18 am

FSU != University of Florida.

FSU finished 3-5 and second to last in their conference and 6-6 overall.

As entertaining as it might be to watch Ohio State demolish Florida State in the BCS Championship, I'm afraid the University of Florida Gators have volunteered for this beating instead.

Although if you're desperate to see Florida State get manhandled, you can watch UCLA do it in some obscure thing called the "Emerald" bowl, in San Francisco on December 27th.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 4, 2006, 1:27 pm

Even missing three starters, the Gator D is better than any other defense the Buckeyes have seen all year. The Buckeyes are the best offense, but anyone who thiks this is a massive mismatch is mistaken. It comes down to one thing: can we contain Troy Smith? I'm pretty sure we'll do a better job than Michigan.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » December 4, 2006, 2:11 pm

The Buckeyes don't have to look any further than their own locker room to find a defense better than Florida's. I also believe you do Michigan a disservice. That game with them is the closest anyone will come to us.

I'll make you the same wager Sylvus had with Zamtuk, Masteen. If you're game.

Florida Wins - I'll fly a Florida avatar for 10 days
OSU Wins - You fly a Buckeye avatar for 10 days

P.S. I'd welcome a side bet between you and Sylvus as well. If Florida wins or loses by less than 2 (better containment of Troy Smith) He flies an SEC avatar for 10 days, if they lose by more than two, you fly a Big 10 avatar for 10 days after you finish flying the Buckeye for the loss to me. I know Sylvus would be up for this one.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 4, 2006, 2:30 pm

Do you honestly believe that if Florida were playing in Columbus on Nov. 18 that they would have done better than a three point loss?

I'm not sure that you have the best D that Ohio State has seen, but your kick blocking unit will be, hands-down.

I'll take Ahsur's bet. I'll take it at all you have to do is lose by no more than three, same as us. Shit, I'll give you the vegas spread. Anyone seen it yet, btw?

If it's less than 9 I'm thinking about cashing out my 401k and doubling it.

Go Buckeyes! (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.)

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » December 4, 2006, 2:42 pm

I thought I heard it was 6.5 points in favor of the Buckeyes... I could be wrong.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » December 4, 2006, 3:04 pm

Thought I had heard 8.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » December 4, 2006, 3:06 pm

Be careful. Just remember how that OSU team shouldn't have been able to beat Miami a few years back...

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 4, 2006, 3:16 pm

Yeah, plenty of people are talking about that up here as well. However, it's mainly the fans who are this cocky, where as our team isn't. In 2002, Miami was just as cocky and overconfident as their fans (inmates).

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 4, 2006, 3:57 pm

You both are on.

Florida covers the spread: Ashur flies the Orange and Blue for a week, and Sylvus flies the SEC logo.

OSU wins big: I sport the Buckeye for a week, followed by the Big 11 logo for another week.

Correct?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » December 4, 2006, 4:28 pm

yep! (although it was Sylvus offering you the spread, not me... but if you need it, sure)

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 4, 2006, 7:54 pm

Time for me to deliver my thoughts:

1. First and most important, we need a playoff.

This is more difficult than it seems. Each round you want to add to the playoff will become progressively tougher. A 2-round, 4-team playoff seems grand, until you look at the nightmare that might ensue. Take the top four teams this year. They come from only two conferences. One of them didn't even finish second in its conference. How can you justify their inclusion over Louisville or Boise State? I don't think the issues are seriously resolved until you make it an 8-team playoff. This year, that would seem uncontroversial-- it includes OSU, UoF, UoM, LSU, USC, Louisville, Wisconsin and BSU. Auburn is the first team out, which seems plausible. I don't think a major-conference team that finishes 9th has too much of a gripe about not being in the championship mix. Imagine, however, if Auburn had finished 8th and BSU 9th-- that, to my mind, would be a valid gripe. An 8 team playoff would require a lot more political will than a 4 team playoff. Problems aside, however, even a 4-team playoff would be much better than the BCS.

2. Florida belongs in the National Championship game.

Why? Well, I know that everyone's still all glowy from the OSU-Michigan game, so let me repost what I wrote in the other BCS thread:

I wrote:Also, let's be careful not to overstate how close the Michigan / Ohio State game was. Michigan never held a lead after the midway point of the first quarter. The dynamic of the game was: Ohio State scores to make it a 2 score game, Michigan scores to make it a 1 score game, Ohio State scores to make it a 2 score game, and on and on. The score was 42-31 before Michigan scored a late-game touchdown. The outcome was never seriously in doubt at the end of the game because Michigan was in a situation where they had to score, recover an onside kick and score again to even have a chance. There was only one instance in the 4th quarter where Michigan had the ball with a chance to take the lead. That was quite early in the 4th quarter, and they went 3 and out. While the game was close, and it was obvious that the teams are not that far apart, it seemed clear that Ohio State was just a little bit better. Maybe that can be excused by the homefield advantage, I don't know, but let's be honest and acknowledge that the history of the rivalry, the rankings of the teams, and the stakes riding on the outcome were far more important than the fact that the game was so close and the teams were so even in raising the status of the game.

So let's not jizz all over ourselves thinking that the game was more or less a tie (if only it wasn't in Columbus, and if only the field wasn't so shitty, and if only Ohio State didn't have a better team...). It wasn't.

Why else? The Big 10 sucks. There are exactly three worthwhile teams in the Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The only two teams that have had good out of conference wins in the entire conference are Ohio State (versus Texas) and Michigan (versus Notre Dame). Penn State's best out of conference win? Akron. Purdue's best out of conference win? I don't know, is Ball State better than Miami of Ohio? Hell, the only remotely valuable IN-CONFERENCE win that either of these teams have is Penn State's victory over Purdue. After those five teams, you have another six, none of whom has a winning record: Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Illinois. Yeah, I bet Wisconsin had a whole lot of trouble steamrolling through that schedule. And Michigan's 7-1 conference record looks a whole lot worse when you realize that only two of those games could have legitimately been expected to offer some competition.

Now, I'm not saying that the SEC is all that incredible. Off the top of my head, the SEC's best out of conference wins are Tennessee against California, South Carolina against Clemson, and Florida against Florida State (neither Clemson or FSU is all that good, but then, neither are Texas and Notre Dame). But, nevertheless, the SEC still has five teams that are better than the Big Ten's fourth-best team: Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, LSU, Auburn. There's also no reason to believe that Penn State and Purdue are any better than Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina. In fact, each of those SEC teams, unlike Penn State and Purdue, has at least one good win (UGA against Auburn and Georgia Tech, Kentucky against Georgia, South Carolina against Clemson).

Although all of this is insulting to the Big 10, that's not the point. The point is simply that Florida and Michigan have not played one another, and we need to come up with a way to compare them regardless. We can make as many claims as we want about how it's just obvious that one team is better than the other, but really, that's a load of crap. We have to judge based on tangible things that we know, and what we know is that Florida won the SEC championship and finished with one loss while playing a schedule which required them to face four good teams, five competent teams, and ten bowl teams in total; while Michigan finished second in the Big Ten with one loss while playing a schedule which required them to play three good teams, two competent teams (generously counting Iowa), and seven bowl teams in total.

3. Right now, not after the bowls are played, is the best time to evaluate the BCS.

What does conventional wisdom say will happen in the major bowl games? Well, undefeated and top-ranked Ohio State should beat one-loss, second-ranked Florida. Presumably, given OSU's apparent strength, the game should not be a blowout but should be a relatively clear win. Florida should be within two scores. One-loss, third-ranked Michigan should beat two-loss, fifth-ranked USC. The margin should be similar to that in the OSU-UoF game.

Remember-- this is what we EXPECT to happen.

And what will be the consequences if what we expect to happen does, in actuality, happen? Michigan fans will bitch up a storm about how they were excluded, Florida was undeserving, the SEC should never talk again, and on and on and on. It will be ludicrous and really irritating. If Michigan had gotten the number two spot, we would have expected the same relatively narrow loss to OSU, and we would have expected Florida to blow out Notre Dame. If that had happened, all the Florida fans would be crowing, and that would be just as ludicrous. So please, Michigan fans-- unless you stomp the holy fuck out of USC, and unless Ohio State has their backups in by the 4th quarter, shut the fuck up after the game-- even if Florida loses.

The best way to evaluate the BCS is to look at a few questions now.

How many potentially championship-worthy teams are being left out? By my estimation, five: UoM, LSU, USC, Louisville, BSU (Wisconsin gets left out because they have more losses than Boise State, and they don't have a single win that's better than anything Boise has). That's a flaw in the system.

Did the BCS create the right bowl matchup? If we're trying to make a single championship game of only two teams, then before-the-fact judgments are necessarily the only ones that we can use in creating the matchup. Thus, as long as there is no playoff, we have to judge the BCS on what Florida and Michigan look like now-- not what they look like after the bowl games are played. Public opinion seems to be split (I think ESPN's survey ended with 51% for Florida). Analyst opinion seems to be split (I've seen arguments for both teams). Florida has a better resume. This is not like 2003, when it was widely agreed that Oklahoma was undeserving even before they got hammered. The problem is with the notion of a two-team championship matchup, not with the two teams that are in that matchup.

As for my predictions:

- Ohio State by 7-10 points in a relatively low-scoring game.
- Michigan is more angry and more focused and wins by 2 touchdowns.
- Louisville demolishes Wake Forest, bringing pride to the Big East (which now owns consecutive BCS victories against the SEC and ACC champions) and shame to the ACC (which has become a worse conference in both football and basketball since the expansion).
- LSU steamrolls Notre Dame, making all of us Notre Dame haters chortle with delight (about how overrated Notre Dame is) and squirm uncomfortably (due to the fact that they're even in the BCS in the first place).
- I have to admit that I haven't seen either Boise State or Oklahoma in months, so I'll take a blind stab and guess that Boise wins, running the non-BCS-conference-team-in-BCS-game record to 2-0 and giving the little guys something to brag about.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 4, 2006, 8:23 pm

Here's an article looking at Strength of Schedule:

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/Bu ... f_Schedule

Overrated or Underrated? A Closer Look at Strength of Schedule
Nov 06, 2006 | 5:01PM | report this

So the SEC is king and the Big East is just the Big Easy, huh? Is the ACC really down? Where does the Pac-10 stand? Here's a look inside the numbers based on strength-of-schedule ratings:

A look at the strength o' schedule debate:

Try this on for size. Louisville and West Virgnia of the much-maligned Big East currently rank 39th and 35th in SOS, respectively. Ohio St., the consensus number one, ranks 32nd. That's a nearly-indistinguishable difference. Notre Dame is 30th in SOS. The SEC is widely considered to be the best, but the SOS of it's teams has quite a range. Florida ranks 5th. Arkansas, on the other hand, sits at 58th. While Auburn, LSU, and UT all rank among the top 26, UGA comes in at a paltry 80th with Alabama an even-more-laughable 93rd. At the other end sits Kentucky, quietly at .500 in conference play, with the 10th-ranked schedule in America.

The ACC has seemingly hit a dip in the road this year, but again, the SOS range shows great disparity. Cinderella Wake Forest, while providing a feel-good story, ranks a downright sorry 104th in SOS. Meanwhile, the Ramblin' Wreck of GA Tech is an impressive 9th. BC? 12th. These kinds of strength-of-schedule differences provide more questions than answers. Is Wake really any good? Should 7-2 GA Tech be ranked ahead of 7-2 LSU (Tech having the better SOS)?

The non-BCS teams throw another kink into the system. Boise State is undefeated, but with an SOS ranked 82nd nationally. Would some of the teams ranked below the Broncos also be undefeated with that slate of games? One would think so. And how can pollers explain 7-2 BYU (86th) placing ahead of 7-2 Maryland (37th)?

Out west Orgeon St., at 6-3 with a win over USC, sits out of the top-25 despite the 3rd toughest schedule in the country. In fact, the Pac-10 in general runs a much tougher gauntlet than most would expect. Cal ranks 6th in SOS with USC coming in at 24th.

Finally, the Big Ten features SOS beasts such as Penn St. (2nd), Michigan (14th), and the team with nation's official schedule from hell, Minnesota (1st). The aforementioned OSU sits in the middle of the pack, as do Wisconsin (46th), Purdue (60th) and Iowa (40th). As for the not-so-Big 12, the SOS shows it's hit and miss. Texas, with their out-of-conference matchup with Ohio St., ranks 16th. Other top-25 schools Oklahoma (33rd) and Texas A&M (57th) are less impressive.

So what conclusions can we draw? The SOS debate seems to suggest analyzing teams based less on their conferences and more on their individual schedules. I think the SEC is the perfect example of the national media overrating some teams b/c they play in what is considered the country's most powerful conference. Again, a glance at Georgia or Alabama reveals that an SEC schedule does not automatically equate to a strong SOS. The Big East's top two teams also suggest that voters should look at the team's individual schedules rather than writing them off for playing in a supposedly-easy conference. Remember, the Big East currently has three top-10 teams plus other bowl schools like Pitt and South Florida. Louisville whipped Miami. WVU trounced that 7-2 Maryland squad I mentioned. So, I guess the final word would be the age-old "don't judge a book by it's cover" mantra. Hopefully voters will keep a close eye on schools' SOS rankings while turning a blind one to conference biases as the season plays out.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » December 4, 2006, 8:49 pm

Sueven wrote: - LSU steamrolls Notre Dame, making all of us Notre Dame haters chortle with delight (about how overrated Notre Dame is) and squirm uncomfortably (due to the fact that they're even in the BCS in the first place).

Can only hope! I would LOVE to rub that in with the snotty Dame fans at work.

Clatis · Post by **Clatis** » December 4, 2006, 9:50 pm

OSU by 21.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 5, 2006, 10:19 am

I think this may be one time when OSU runs up a score to prove a point. 51-20 Ohio State.

This may be the first and last time in history that Michigan and OSU are both pulling for each other.....and could signal the apocalypse.

On a side note, if you want to talk about strength of schedule and Florida, I still see one loss on their record and it did NOT come from the unanimous number 1 college football team in America. Michigan won every game on their schedule except for playing number 1. Bottom line is that Florida lost to the number 9 team by 10 points. Michigan lost to the number 1 team by 3. In between, each of them beat everyone else they played. End of story.

If USC had not lost to UCLA...and who did not see that coming...Michigan would have been sitting at #3 in the coaches poll. Instead, all these non-conference fuckheads wanted to make sure that the Big 10 did not get the title game. OSU beat the Miami "unbeatable" juggernaut because of one thing....the Big 10 plays a tougher brand of football than the southern conferences. If Florida played in the Big 10 it would have finished 3rd this year if not lower.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 5, 2006, 1:33 pm

Sueven wrote:So let's not jizz all over ourselves thinking that the game was more or less a tie (if only it wasn't in Columbus, and if only the field wasn't so shitty, and if only Ohio State didn't have a better team...). It wasn't.

You're right, it was not a tie. It was a three point win by the team that outplayed the other one. Who said it was a tie? But let's not belittle how close the final score was. For the record I don't think I ever said it was a tie, and even when providing reasons that I thought Michigan played below their potential, I said that Ohio State outplayed us and deserved that win.

Yes, I did provide a number of factors that affected Michigan. Or maybe they didn't, all I do know for sure is that with two of the best ever defenses in an historically defensive matchup, more points were scored and more yards were gained (by both teams) than in just about any two other meetings of the teams. That suggests an anomaly to me. Had it only been Ohio State moving the ball I would not be making this argument. But we were nearly as effective as they were at moving the ball, and our offense is not our biggest strength. Something strange was going on with both defenses.

All I know is that the Championship is where the #1 and #2 teams should play. Nothing in the rules says that both teams have to be conference winners, in fact precedent has been set that proves otherwise. And, by definition, if #1 and #2 are in the same conference, they cannot both be the winner of their conference. I think that Michigan is #2, as do the computers (albeit a tie for #2), and all humans who were polled when our season ended. They still thought we were better than Florida after their lackluster performance vs. FSU. I don't know, I heard a lot more arguments about why Michigan shouldn't play in that game than why Florida should. If, at any point during the season, I had been hearing anything about why Florida were a better team than Michigan, it'd be an easier pill to swallow. I had resigned myself to accepting that USC deserved to go over Michigan, as people said they were a better team. That they'd hit their stride and were playing great football. In the same breath, they were saying that Michigan was third only to OSU and USC. The same cannot be said for Florida.

That said, it's all my opinion and conjecture as to who the #2 team is, the same as what anyone has. We can't settle who the better team is as we aren't playing this year. The closest we can come is evaluating the relative performances of both teams against Ohio State. And you can bet that I'll be bitter as hell if Florida doesn't win outright or at least keep the within a score.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » December 5, 2006, 2:36 pm

I like how Lou Holtz said it on ESPN.

You can make an argument about why Florida should be in the title game, but there is no argument as to why Michigan shouldn't be there.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 5, 2006, 2:41 pm

The two arguments I'm hearing over and over is that though they're the definite #2 in the country, they:

1. Already had a chance to beat OSU and didn't.

2. Didn't win their conference.

/shrug

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 5, 2006, 2:56 pm

The way it will end up, is probably how it should be. UM will roll, then get the number 2 spot. OSU will roll and keep 1. I would have loved to see a rematch, though I'm certain my health would be severely damaged afterwards. We definately are the two best teams in the country, but I fully understand giving another conference/team a shot. And shutting up the SEC fags is almost up there with playing UM twice.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 5, 2006, 3:47 pm

noel wrote:The two arguments I'm hearing over and over is that though they're the definite #2 in the country, they:

1. Already had a chance to beat OSU and didn't.

2. Didn't win their conference.

/shrug

And this exact quote right here is why the rankings were FIXED so that a rematch would not happen. Coaches and other votes in polls put the fix in so that the number 1 and number 2 teams did not meet. The BCS title game is nott about who had a chance already or winning a conference. It is supposed to be the consensus #1 and #2 teams playing to determine who wins on a neutral field.

Anyone who voted for Michigan as #3 the previous votes that then voted Florida higher AFTER USC lost should have their voting privileges revoked for life.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 5, 2006, 4:23 pm

I always pull for the Pac Ten in non conference games although there is the rare occasion I hope the University of Arizona loses.

The Pac Ten has a winning record vs the Big Ten since 2000.

Specifically for this match up:

USC vs Michigan:

1969 Jan. 1* .5- 7......... W 10- 3 N1... c103,878
1976 Jan. 1* .3- 2......... W 14- 6 N1... c106,182
1978 Jan. 1* .3- 5......... W 17-10 N1... c105,629
1988 Jan. 1* .5-11......... L 14-22 N1... c101,688
1989 Jan. 1* 12- 3...(1:10) W 17-10 N1... c103,450
2003 Jan. 1* .1- 4......... W 28-14 N1... c93,849

USC has won five of the last six meetings in the Rose Bowl.

And just an FYI,

USC vs OSU

1974 Jan. 1* .5- 3...(2:03) W 18-17 N1... c106,721
1979 Jan. 1* .3- 1...(1:32) W 17-16 N1... c105,526
1984 Jan. 1* 18- 6......... W 20-17 N1... c102,594
1989 Sept. 23 12-20......... W 42- 3 H .... 69,876
1990 Sept. 29 18-12......(R) W 35-26 A .... c89,422

USC has won the last five match ups.

Pac Ten > Big Ten

Michigan and OSU combine have won one game out of the last eleven vs USC

I found the USC Football Guide online. Haven't looked for Arizona State's to check the match ups vs OSU and Michigan. I know ASU is 1-1 in Rose Bowls vs those two teams!

So yeah, I'm pulling for USC in the Rose Bowl.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 5, 2006, 4:36 pm

you have a formula for being a bandwagon?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » December 5, 2006, 4:45 pm

Interesting that you chose the Rose Bowl. Seeing as how it was a Pac-10 bowl since waaaaaay back. Of course there would be good Pac-10 numbers there! Here's an easy question for you: What player(s) has been a two-time player-of-the-game athlete in the Rose Bowl from a non-Pac-10 school? There aren't many of them, and you're likely to find "more" of them after the BCS roped in the Rose Bowl for championship games.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 5, 2006, 4:50 pm

Zamtuk wrote:you have a formula for being a bandwagon?

Yeah, you first attend a school that's in the conference you wish to root for, pull for your specific school first and then for the conference as a whole.

Pretty wild huh? That's severe bandwagoning I guess!

How about some others of mine. Been a Arizona Cardinal Fan since they moved to Arizona in 1988. I jumped on that worst record in the NFL bandwagon.

Or maybe it's bandwagoning on the Phoenix Suns after while living in Arizona for 18 years.

Boohahz: I didn't choose the Rose Bowl. Those games listed vs OSU and Michigan are the last ones played vs those teams, bowl or no bowl.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » December 6, 2006, 4:43 am

Interesting article, if he pulls this off I will have to change my feelings about Florida Football.

ATLANTA – A gray-haired 62-year-old with a master's degree in pediatric dentistry and a doctorate in educational psychology normally wouldn't come off as the most powerful person on a football field.

But here was Bernie Machen, president of the University of Florida, moments after his Gators won the SEC championship Saturday at the Georgia Dome, throwing out the most important bit of news of the college football weekend – he is going to fight for a new championship season.

"We need a playoff," Machen said.

Yeah, not exactly a groundbreaking conclusion – coaches, players and fans have been screaming the same for decades. But Machen perhaps is the most powerful person ever to make that statement, let alone promise to champion its cause.

It is the university presidents of the six BCS conferences – ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC – that are standing in the way of the long-needed elimination of the bowl-based championship system.

It is that system that created another season of discontent and controversy as Florida was selected to play Ohio State in the Bowl Championship Series title game on Jan. 8 in Glendale, Ariz. The one-loss Gators were selected over fellow one-loss contenders Michigan and Louisville as well as unbeaten Boise State. Florida's last-week jump over Michigan in the standings unleashed a torrent of debate as frustrated fans tried to apply logic to an illogical system.

About the only thing agreed on by everyone except the people who make money running bowl games – and the conference commissioners they seem to have in their pockets – is that a playoff system is preferred. A nice 16-team playoff – the same one Division I-AA uses – would be more exciting, more accessible and more profitable.

But until the university presidents challenge the wisdom of the conference commissioners and stop leaning on absurd and contradictory excuses such as a concern for missed class time, nothing ever will change, no matter the near-annual selection controversy.

The biggest roadblock to common sense always has been the presidents. BCS defenders – mostly suits who have profited richly – claim the presidents won't go for a playoff.

Machen swears he is going to change that.

"It's something that's going to take several years to make this kind of change," Machen told a crowd of reporters here Saturday. "But it needs to change.

"In the end, it's about money. There are a lot of people who would be nervous about being at risk for [less] money in a change to a playoff model."

Playoffs need a proponent, and it can't come from the coaching ranks or the media. It can't be a simple fan or even a television executive waving billions in broadcast rights. This thing has to be changed from within, and that means president to president, Ph.D. to Ph.D.

Machen isn't the first university president to promise to fight for a new system. But he is the first at a school with the power and cache of Florida. This isn't the president of Tulane, which has a weak football program. This isn't a commissioner from the Mountain West, a league with its nose pressed against the window.

Florida has not only one of the most successful athletic departments in America but also a sterling academic reputation. It is an anchor in the big-time SEC. When Machen talks, he'll do so with credibility at that level of the academia. He told The Gainesville Sun he already has discussed playoff ideas with Florida State president T.K. Wetherell, who has also recently pledged support.

And he keeps promising to talk to many others, even after his Gators navigated the BCS water to get into the title game. That, he swears, isn't the point. The problem remains.

He has vowed to take the issue up with his fellow SEC presidents at their annual spring meeting. Machen holds more cards than perhaps even he knows. He thinks this will take a long time, and perhaps it will because there still is a lot of status-quo money that will push back.

But if Machen can convince his fellow SEC presidents, if he can present viable revenue options, if he can convince them to send the championship system back under central NCAA control (and out of the hands of conference commissioners), if he can get the SEC to say it will opt out of the BCS when the current television contracts expire after the 2009 season, then the system immediately will crumble.

It's that simple. College football can't have a viable championship system without the SEC.

Yes, it's a lot of "ifs," but not if this guy is for real, not if Dr. James Bernard Machen really is ready to become the most powerful force in college athletics. Then the revolution finally would have its leader.

"This BCS system has to change," he said.

This BCS is a house of cards. It's just waiting for someone to blow it down. With any luck, college football has, at last, found its hero.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 7, 2006, 1:20 am

OSU's band may get to dot the "i" but USC's band gets to play with Fleetwood Mac!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbSx99Yq ... ed&search=

Lindsey sounds horrible (Howard Dean type screams) in this video but it still rocks.

Here's the Original:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JNCBwrUSd0

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 14, 2006, 5:48 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFwERRJOl_E

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 15, 2006, 5:26 am

Cool. You're a private school and what not. We are still going to own you. Then we will spill your own Gatorade on our coach, while you sit there wondering why. Then you realize we would have already kicked the living shit out of you in college basketball, then suicide is the only option.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 15, 2006, 4:37 pm

UF is a state school, like OSU. We're just better at it.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 15, 2006, 5:16 pm

UF is also the defending national champions in basketball. I don't think you get to talk shit about that until either you've knocked them out in the tournament or you're the defending national champions.

But what the fuck kind of list has Florida ranked #2? I know college rankings are mostly bullshit, but I've never seen Florida close to that high in my life. Berkley, UVA and Michigan are the traditional top schools. Those are the top 3 in US News this year (Florida is 13, Ohio State 19).

Update: I found the list. It's "best VALUE," not "best SCHOOL." Which is still important, but "it's a report that basically ranks all the public schools by their academics" isn't really accurate.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 15, 2006, 5:55 pm

Arizona State has been the #1 party school in the nation according to Playboy Magazine twice in the past 15 years or so.

We had the porn scandal involving the student body president as well.

Sweet.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 15, 2006, 6:42 pm

Winnow: This is a question I regularly have. Why is it that when people are talking about universities in any context, you talk about ASU with almost no reference whatever to the original topic? I mean, here there is a reference of sorts in that rankings are involved, but it's pretty damn tangential. I've attended three different universities so far, none of which are Ohio State or Florida, but it doesn't mean I'm incapable of acknowledging the existence of those schools.

I only bring this up because I feel like, if you reframed your post just a little bit, it actually could be on-topic and interesting to someone besides yourself. You could post a list of the top party schools, point out where Ohio State and Florida rank, and then say 'hey, ASU is #3' or whatever. Or you could start a topic about party schools particularly and invite other people to talk about their schools. As it is, though, all you're doing is spamming other peoples threads.

And that aside, you're wrong anyway.

http://www.snopes.com/college/admin/playboy.asp

Playboy has done 3 lists in the past 2 decades (87, 02, 06), and ASU came out on top once. Incidentally, in 02, the year you were #1, OSU was #12 and UF was #16.

Rollins College is #3. I've never heard of Rollins, except I know that Xzion goes to school there. Another list that I stumbled upon listed Rollins as the best "small party school." So I still don't know shit about the college, but apparently those guys get wasted.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 15, 2006, 8:06 pm

Sheesh, you make the honor even more prestigious by linking that there have only been three "official" rankings and ASU was #1 (2002) in one of those years. Woo hoo!

#13 in 1987's rankings isn't too shabby either.

You make a good point Sueven. I'll usually link my ASU propaganda in at least some extremely abstract way with the topic. In this case, I didn't think it was called for as the thread broke down to bogus college rankings so I figured I'd throw out the ultimate in bogus ratings: Playboy's Party School Rankings.

If I'm at work and get interrupted, my posts may not be as complete as I'd like with related charts and pictures! Adding the 2nd #1 ranking for ASU was a cry for attention to see if anyone would actually look up the rankings.

Things will calm down sometime in January when my job might require more than five or ten minutes a day of real work. Something for all to look forward to!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 15, 2006, 8:15 pm

ASU girls are sexy

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 18, 2006, 1:52 am

Sueven wrote:But what the fuck kind of list has Florida ranked #2? I know college rankings are mostly bullshit, but I've never seen Florida close to that high in my life. Berkley, UVA and Michigan are the traditional top schools. Those are the top 3 in US News this year (Florida is 13, Ohio State 19).

Update: I found the list. It's "best VALUE," not "best SCHOOL." Which is still important, but "it's a report that basically ranks all the public schools by their academics" isn't really accurate.

We're a couple slots ahead of OSU on the big list, but it's the cheap tuition that pushes us on the value list.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/colleg ... _brief.php

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » December 20, 2006, 10:34 pm

Wasn't someone going on at some point this season about how Michigan people were "smarter" than other schools? You would think Desmond Howard would at least be smart enough to study what schools were playing each other before this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOn77rGFqCs

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 24, 2006, 2:43 am

Zamtuk wrote:Then you realize we would have already kicked the living shit out of you in college basketball

Not only did Billy D beat that ass, but he did it rotating in the entire bench and like half of the band.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 24, 2006, 5:40 am

yeah, that was a sad showing. though oden was still able to make sportscenters top ten by that nice double block, including shoving the ball down noah's throat.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 7, 2007, 10:29 pm

Wait is almost over. Tomorrow is the showdown (sorry, armageddon/judgement day was already taken by our last game). I look forward to good game in which we win. Even though I am nowhere near as excited for this game as UM/OSU, it will be a glorious day.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » January 9, 2007, 12:09 am

So far it looks like The SECs top teams are as good as anyone in the country.

Gamei · Post by **Gamei** » January 9, 2007, 12:14 am

Hasn't been a terribly glorious day for OSU so far.

Being an SEC guy this is kind of fun, but as a football fan I hope OSU turns it into a tight game in the second half.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 9, 2007, 12:16 am

That sound you heard is Troy Smith's draft stock plummeting to round 2.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » January 9, 2007, 12:17 am

Fl-#1
LSU-#2
USC-#3
So on
So on
So on

Thats what the final rankings will be if the game keeps going like this!

VeeshanVault

BCS Title Game

Who will win?

BCS Title Game