GO FUCK YOURSELF ASU AND WINNOW!

[Sabek]

From the local paper, a breakdown of BCS Championship contenders:

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content ... ptcol.html

Simply being Ohio State might help the Buckeyes sway poll voters, too.

Wow. Maybe we should stick Michigan and OhioSU in the title game...after all, they are Michigan and OhioSU. Why do any other teams even try? Michigan is one step away from being the Irish. Maybe they should get a network deal to seal the deal.

There is nothing I see that gives OhioSU the right to be ranked above ASU right now, much less if Arizona State beats USC on Thanksgiving. Ohio had a powderpuff schedule this year and still lost to a lower ranked team this year. ASU lost to an equally ranked team that was as high as #2 in the nation. ...but they're OhioSU...the rivalry and all!

I don't foresee OSU going to the championship game, but QQ more noob.

[Zamtuk]

Wow. Maybe we should stick Michigan and OhioSU in the title game...after all, they are Michigan and OhioSU. Why do any other teams even try? Michigan is one step away from being the Irish. Maybe they should get a network deal to seal the deal.

There is nothing I see that gives OhioSU the right to be ranked above ASU right now, much less if Arizona State beats USC on Thanksgiving. Ohio had a powderpuff schedule this year and still lost to a lower ranked team this year. ASU lost to an equally ranked team that was as high as #2 in the nation. ...but they're OhioSU...the rivalry and all!

pussy whine more please. the pac ten fucking blows this year. yeah, we did lose to illinois in a poorly coached game. but you pac ten fags drop to unranked teams like it's going out of style. you still play the usc card like they are still a great team. they're not. you guys haven't beaten a single team that didn't benefit from a lofty preseason ranking due to the media blowjobs the pac ten has been inexplicably getting this season. that's why you won't jump ahead of us, you guys had one test, and failed it miserably.

[Winnow]

How can anyone in the Big Ten talk about the Pac-10 blowing this year?

...even "funnier" is talking about a Pac-10 team losing to an unranked 1-A division football team.


Is there any mention of a Big Ten (11) team losing to a 1-AA team that lost to a team from a college named Wofford?

USC lost to Stanford and has, since then, worked their way back up to #11 in the country. Oregon was the best team in the country before Dixon went down and weren't ranked high in the pre-season...they earned their way up to the top.

OhioSU is he team (and USC) that benefited from preseason ranking and was placed at the top with a fucking cream puff schedule (Ohio's not USC's schedule)...and even now, the writers are throwing crap out like, "well, they are OSU, we should rank them 10 spots higher because...the are THE OSU!....kinda like Notre Dame us Notre Dame and Michigan is Michigan. Christ. Was Duke good in the past or some other asstastic team this year? Should we rank them #2 based on their history?

Ohio State is the least deserving team in the top five. ASU will deserve to be there if they beat USC, if not, they should be off to some lame bowl like OhioSU should be going to right now. (but the Big Ten DOES blow this year, unlike the Pac-10 and that's the best that conference has to offer)

[Sueven]

Winnow:

What quality wins does Arizona State have this year?

You've beat TWO teams that currently have winning records: 7-4 Oregon State and 6-5 California. Congratufuckinglations. That's PATHETIC. If you beat USC (who is not that good but would be by FAR your best win of the season), that might validate ASU as a borderline top ten team.

Ohio State has beaten 6 teams with winning records: 7-4 Youngstown State, 7-5 Purdue, 7-5 Michigan State, 8-4 Penn State, 9-3 Wisconsin, 8-4 Michigan.

So explain why ASU has "the right" to be ranked above OSU? Explain why "the entire ranking system is a sham considering strength of schedule" if OSU tops ASU?

[Sylvus]

How can anyone in the Big Ten talk about the Pac-10 blowing this year?

...even "funnier" is talking about a Pac-10 team losing to an unranked 1-A division football team.

Please enlighten me on what that has to do with anything? A 1-AA team is incapable of being ranked. The shitty 1-A team that USC lost to is unranked because they suck. I still say that on Sept. 1 (or whatever day that was), that Appalachian State team would have beaten about 85 or 90 1-A teams.

Why don't we table the discussion until after bowl season? If your conference proves that it's the better conference this year, I'll admit that it is.

[Sabek]

OhioSU is he team (and USC) that benefited from preseason ranking and was placed at the top with a fucking cream puff schedule (Ohio's not USC's schedule)...and even now, the writers are throwing crap out like, "well, they are OSU, we should rank them 10 spots higher because...the are THE OSU!....kinda like Notre Dame us Notre Dame and Michigan is Michigan. Christ. Was Duke good in the past or some other asstastic team this year? Should we rank them #2 based on their history?

OSU was ranked 12 to start the season. They were the runner up in the national championship last year.

How is #12 to start the year an inflated ranking?
They got to number one and stayed there based on winning their games and watching everyone else in the country stumble and fall.
They stumbled and now they are on the outside looking in unless some major dominos fall, but if they do then they deserve to be there to.

USC is obviously the pre-season overranked team. They started #1 and lost, at home, to a 41 point underdog.
How does that happen?
Winnow-world: OMGADZ TEH PAC TENZ IS SUPER TOUGHS AND EVERYONE GETS UP FOR THE GAMEZ
Reality: USC isn't as good as people thought.

How is beating USC such and incredible feat? Ummm it isn't.

ASU and OSU are tied for 3rd in the computer polls. Guess what spanky?
If OSU sucks then so does ASU.

[Fash]

they're tied for suck

[Winnow]

Appalachian State also lost to Georgia Southern (who lost to Chattanooga) this year so it looks like the Wofford loss wasn't a fluke.

I'm ready to wait and see what happens in the bowls. The major interest I have left in this season is an ASU/OhioSU matchup in the Rose Bowl. I hope things line up for that.

[Sueven]

I'm taking your abject failure to respond to my post, and statement that you want to wait until after bowl season, as a concession. I'll repost it one more time to give you another chance:

Winnow:

What quality wins does Arizona State have this year?

You've beat TWO teams that currently have winning records: 7-4 Oregon State and 6-5 California. Congratufuckinglations. That's PATHETIC. If you beat USC (who is not that good but would be by FAR your best win of the season), that might validate ASU as a borderline top ten team.

Ohio State has beaten 6 teams with winning records: 7-4 Youngstown State, 7-5 Purdue, 7-5 Michigan State, 8-4 Penn State, 9-3 Wisconsin, 8-4 Michigan.

So explain why ASU has "the right" to be ranked above OSU? Explain why "the entire ranking system is a sham considering strength of schedule" if OSU tops ASU?

[Sylvus]

He already answered you, Sueven.

Because a member of the Big 10 became the first ranked team (albeit a phony, pre-season ranking) to lose to a Division 1-AA team, Ohio State is worse than Arizona State.

QED

[Winnow]

#3 (4) Arizona State (9-1): With Oregon’s loss the Sun Devils spent their week off pondering a return to the national title game picture. This Thursday’s meeting with USC now looms even larger. A victory leaves them a home win over rival Arizona, who just ruined the season for the Ducks, away from winning the Pac-10 and staking their claim for a BCS title bid. Unfortunately their resume is not as good as Oregon’s was because there is no signature win at Michigan to fall back on. Their hope is that Oklahoma wins the Big XII with voters looking at the lone common opponent. That would be Colorado. Arizona State beat them 33-14 at home while Oklahoma lost 27-24 on the road. (7, 6, 6, 6)

People should root for Arizona State this Thursday just for the sake of not having USC return to the Rose Bowl again. USC stomping a Big Ten team wouldn't be a big deal. You'd get the, "well it's USC, of course they're going to beat our ass silly" replies. But ASU in the Rose Bowl would be more satisfying for whichever team wins the Rose Bowl.

That said, USC is USC and they had a bye week as well. Reading some of the local articles about them, it looks like they've got some of their starters healthy again so ASU will be playing a near full strength Trojan team that would wipe the floor with a non conference opponent. The Sun Devils will be playing the team that has basically ass-raped every non conference opponent over the past four years with the exception of a last minute loss to Texas. We can talk post season success here can't we? ...OK, maybe not with the Big Ten, but post season wins do mean something to most of the nation.

If the Sundevils manage to beat USC, they very much deserve to be in the national title mix.

[Zamtuk]

how does beating a team that will have 3 losses an accomplishment worthy enough of a title shot?

[Winnow]

how does beating a team that will have 3 losses an accomplishment worthy enough of a title shot?

How does losing to the only ranked team you faced give you a shot? (unless you consider Michigan a ranked team) Was Illinois even ranked at the time? If so, it was lower than Oregon.

What's the highest ranking teams you've faced? Here's ASU's:

#2 Cal (currently unranked)
#2 Oregon (currently #9)
#2 USC (currently #11)

Nice eh? USC is the only team that was originally ranked that high.

Ohio State:

#5 Michigan (hehe, not ranked)
?? Illinois (unranked, currently #17)
?? Wisconsin (currently #21)

If ASU beats USC, they'll have beaten 2 out of 3 teams that were ranked 2nd in the nation at one point.

Ohio will have beaten one #5 team and lost to an unranked team of which OhioSU's ineptitude caused to evetually be ranked. I guess you could throw Penn State in there, a team nowhere to be seen in the top 25 these days but then you could throw in some other Pac-10 teams.

ASU > OhioSU

clearly, pending Thanksgiving's ASU vs USC game.

[Sueven]

#23 Purdue
#25 Penn State
#21 Wisconsin
#21 Michigan

Illinois was not ranked at the time.

You played:

#21 California
#5 Oregon (and lost)

and you will play:

#11 USC

So you beat one team ranked in the twenties. Ohio State beat four teams ranked in the twenties. Yet you expect to be elevated over Ohio State because you handily lost to the best team either of you has faced?

Obviously, a win over USC will make it closer, but it's still close.

You have not beat anyone. Neither has Ohio State. Neither has West Virginia. That's why no one wants to put those teams into the championship game. If enough teams with legitimate victories fall out of it, then one of those teams will have to end up in it. But it's really a crapshoot as to who's deserving.

[Momopi]

Now that ArizonaSU lost, I can only hope that LSU hangs on to win the last two games and faces the winner of the kansas/missouri game.

[Ashur]

ASU > OhioSU

clearly, pending Thanksgiving's ASU vs USC game.

So now you finally admit OSU >ASU. Good.

Man, I really felt for you guys losing to USC eight times in a row. I think I teared up a moment.

[Boogahz]

Now that ArizonaSU lost, I can only hope that LSU hangs on to win the last two games and faces the winner of the kansas/missouri game.

The winner of the Border War will still have to win the Big12 Championship...but with the way the North has beaten the South this year, that isn't saying much. Oh yeah, the Missouri v Kansas rivalry is called the Border War. It's related to the actual bloodshed between the two states before and during the Civil War. Take that little Mr Tippy Cup rivalry!

[noel]

A team that struggled against UCLA isn't going to beat a USC team that's finally getting healthy.

[Winnow]

Now that ArizonaSU lost, I can only hope that LSU hangs on to win the last two games and faces the winner of the kansas/missouri game.

Hope no more!

Misery loves company!

[Momopi]

LoL @ LSU run defense. Like I mentioned before it wouldn't have shocked me if LSU lost to arkansas and it didn't. Wonder who wants to be national champs this year.

[Canelek]

That was sweet.

[Zamtuk]

roofles, looks to me like you all want osu back in the championship game.

gauranteed 3rd next week with OU playing winner of the border war next week.

never thought I would say this in my life but...

GO SOONERS!

[Winnow]

roofles, looks to me like you all want osu back in the championship game.

gauranteed 3rd next week with OU playing winner of the border war next week.

never thought I would say this in my life but...

GO SOONERS!

You better hope OhioSU doesn't end up playing USC. Right now, if I were you, I'd be cheering on Oregon to win out or that OhioSu lucks out and plays some panzy team in the BCS instead.

GooooDevilllls! With the success this year, Jack Elway committing, and Dennis Erickson's ability to recruit, we'll be in good shape, get some OL help, and then be ready to challenge again next year. This year merely showed the program was way ahead of schedule in its rebuilding program.

[Zamtuk]

Even if USC wins out, they won't jump us for the title game. I'm not worried about playing them in the Rose Bowl, if that's what you are talking about. We already play them the next two years anyways, so we might as well get to know them.

And I actually agree with your statement about ASU. They did pretty fucking good for a rebuilding year, and have a solid squad coming in. Not to mention that the Pac Ten will probably lose a lot of competition after Cal unloads their roster to the NFL this year, and Oregon won't be nearly as tough, so USC is the only other team to really worry about if you're ASU.

But just to swing my cock around a bit, this was OSU's rebuilding year, and look what we made of it.

[masteen]

I fucking hate how teams that were ranked at one time count as "ranked opponents." GT was ranked at one time, and they are ass squared. Only a team's current or end of season ranking should count.

[Sueven]

Masteen: I think there's merit to that, but there's also merit to looking at a teams ranking at the time of the game. Team strength fluctuates throughout the year, and looking at their rankings at the time can help gauge that. Injuries are the most obvious case (Oregon two months ago versus now), but sometimes teams just pull together (Georgia) or fall apart (California).

Winnow: Definitely a positive year for ASU. I don't think it had much to do with rebuilding, though, as this team is almost totally comprised of Koetter's recruits. I think it simply demonstrates how poorly coached ASU was, and says a lot about Erickson's abilities. As I recall, ASU always recruited decently well, but if they can step up recruiting even further under Erickson, they'll be a force.

Also, recruiting sons of successful athletes does not necessarily count as 'stepping up' recruiting. I don't know dick about Elway, but I can tell you that Michael Jordan's kid had to walk on at Illinois, and Patrick Ewing Jr. is a nice energy guy at Georgetown.

Arizona State had a great year, but this loss really does put their season in perspective. They beat zero top quality teams and two good teams. Both of the top-notch teams that they played demolished them, it was clear that Oregon and USC were vastly superior squads. ASU was probably around the quality of a Penn State or a Clemson this year.

[Winnow]

Also, recruiting sons of successful athletes does not necessarily count as 'stepping up' recruiting. I don't know dick about Elway, but I can tell you that Michael Jordan's kid had to walk on at Illinois, and Patrick Ewing Jr. is a nice energy guy at Georgetown.

I'm not saying Jack Elway is any good. The publicity that came with that is what's important. Elway may suck for all I know but he helped recruiting and John Elway saying he'll be involved (face time) will help with recruiting, along with ASU just having a solid season this year. I think Erickson visiting potential recruits, having won two national championships and having been successful everywhere he's coached on the college level (not pro), will help a bunch as well.

I'm not going to summarize this season until I see what bowl ASU goes to, who they play, and if they win.

Maybe we'll end up playing Michigan in a bowl! rawr!

[masteen]

Fuck ASU and fuck Oregon. Typical PAC-10 pretenders: play nobody, lose 2 of the 3 real games you play all season.

Fuck Florida State. That's 4 in a row bitches. In fact, fuck the entire ACC. Mediocrity lives here.

I'm gonna laugh when the overhyped winner of the KU/Mizzou game gets pummeled by the Oklahomos in the Big 12 title game. Fuck you all you guys too.

[Boogahz]

I'm not saying Jack Elway is any good. The publicity that came with that is what's important.

I don't think that many people outside of Arizona have a clue that he's going to ASU, let alone that he plays football.

[Tyek]

Masteen needs a hug.

[Sueven]

Here are my pre-bowl game conference rankings. Rankings reflect my opinion of the league's quality at the present moment. Bowl games will be a nice test.

1. SEC. A harder choice than I thought, as a few SEC teams (Alabama for instance) underperformed near the end of the season, and LSU losing delivers a hit to the top of the league. Still, LSU and Georgia are powerhouses, Florida is the best three loss team in the country and has the likely Heisman winner. Auburn, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky are tough outs who had good, solid seasons. Alabama, Mississippi State, and South Carolina all had big wins at various points this season. The only bottom feeders are Vandy (who's a pretty good bottom feeder) and Ole Miss. The league might not have a national title contender, but it's the strongest league top to bottom.

2. Big 12. The Big 12 has power at the top in Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Texas Tech. That very well might be the best top of a league in the country. Unfortunately, there's not much beyond that. Nebraska and Texas A&M had disastrous seasons, Kansas State and Colorado weren't able to sustain early-season momentum, Oklahoma State is inconsistent, and everyone else sucks. The strength at the top is enough to earn the #2 spot.

3. Big East. This was a tough pick to make, as the Big East doesn't have as many quality teams or wins as some other conferences. However, the Big East is also a smaller conference, and has great depth, making it a very difficult conference to run through. 6 of the 8 Big East teams are legitimately difficult to beat. West Virginia will be playing for the national title (and this is a better version of the same team that's already beat Georgia and Georgia Tech in consecutive bowl games). Cincinnati and South Florida are legit top-level teams. Connecticut is probably not as good as their record indicates, but they won the games they were supposed to win and held it together until the end of the season. Rutgers and Louisville had disappointing seasons, but have talent and played well at times. Pitt has talent but sucks anyway. Syracuse is just awful.

4. ACC. The ACC looks fairly similar this year to last year-- a fair amount of tough, solid teams, but no real strength at the top. Virginia Tech (who lost 48-7 to LSU) and Boston College (who just lost back to back games against Florida State and Maryland) will be facing off for the championship. There is depth present, however-- Clemson, Wake Forest, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Florida State and even Maryland are potentially dangerous teams. Unfortunately, it feels like there's some underachieving going on-- Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Maryland all should be better than they are. And the bottom of the league-- headlined by Duke but also featuring Miami and the North Carolina teams this year-- looks awful.

5. Big Ten. Ohio State is a national title contender. Illinois had a great year and is a scary young team. Wisconsin is pretty good. Michigan and Penn State are pretty decent. Indiana, Michigan State and Purdue are near the top half of mediocre. Even Iowa and Northwestern managed to win 6 games. The only godawful team is Minnesota. A purely mediocre league with one top quality team and a few potential minefields in the bushes. The league has enough depth to make it tough to run through.

6. Pac Ten. Sorry Winnow! The Pac Ten really looks awful now. USC has pulled together and looks good, but still has a loss to Stanford on its resume, and is probably slotted behind West Virginia / Missouri or Oklahoma / Ohio State / maybe LSU or UGA in the national title chase. Arizona State has been exposed as a pretender. Oregon is nothing without Dennis Dixon. Oregon State is easily the weakest #4 team in the country. California fell apart. UCLA is mediocre. Arizona, Stanford, Washington State and Washington are all bad. If you cancel out Ohio State and USC, the rest of the Big Ten looks significantly better than the rest of the Pac Ten. I'd take Illinois over anyone else in the Pac Ten, and teams like Penn State, Michigan and Wisconsin are at least comparable to Arizona State and better than anything else the Pac Ten has to offer.

[Tyek]

I actually like this plan, sure some 8th or 10 ranked team could get left out, and there will never be a perfect system, but it makes sense, gives some value to the higher ranking teams by giving them easier home games early. I only wish we had rational people looking at something like this.

The Wetzel plan

By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
November 27, 2007





A playoff is coming to college football, not eventually but probably sooner than the moneyed-establishment wants to admit.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, the Vladimir Putin of college sports and the key figure preventing a playoff, can stem the tide for only so long.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with the current Bowl Championship Series for the time being. But that doesn't mean we can't dream about what a real playoff would entail and the magic it would produce each December and January.

If you think you like Saturdays now, understand that this is just college football lite; one day to be looked back on as a quaint and confusing era.

Here's how the playoff will eventually work – and this isn't just my idea, it's essentially the exact scenario the NCAA (which will eventually run it) uses to run the football playoffs at the former Division I-AA, II and III.

We even made up a mock bracket for you to salivate over.

(Please note, whereas some conference title games still need to be played, for the sake of argument we assigned victory to the higher rated team in the current BCS standings to place and seed the field).

A 16-TEAM FIELD

Just like in what used to be Division I-AA, the tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men's basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) earn an automatic bid to the field.

Yes, all 11. Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the winner of the Mid-American Conference is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.

First is to maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd, there should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.

The chance for an easier first-round opponent – in this case No. 1 Missouri would play No. 16 Central Michigan or Miami (Ohio) – is a big reward for a great regular season. Earning a top-three seeding would present a school a near breeze into the second round. Drop to a sixth-seed in this year's scenario and you are dealing with Florida.

On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that Central Florida could beat Ohio State? Of course not, but as the men's basketball tournament has proven the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.

Last season the most memorable college football game was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn't supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became arguably the most popular team in America.

But it had no shot at a national title because the system says Boise can't be any good in 2007 because it wasn't any good in 1967. As illogical as this is, that's the system.

For even lower-rated conferences – the Sun Belts, the MACs – allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country.

With the bigger conferences, a championship would take on greater value. Does anyone without direct rooting interest really care if USC wins the Pac-10 Saturday? How about the Virginia Tech-Boston College ACC title game? You would now.


AT-LARGE BIDS

In addition to the 11 automatic bids, there would be five at-large selections made by a basketball-like selection committee. Most years, those would come from the power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC).

While the selection process would still draw complaints from the teams left out, those schools often would have two or three losses or significant flaws. Gone forever would be the days of an unbeaten Auburn in the 2004 season not getting a chance at the title or the bizarre 2003 season where nearly everyone thought USC was the best team but got left out anyway.

HOME GAMES FOR HIGHER SEEDS IN FIRST THREE ROUNDS

The strangest part of the BCS is that outside businesses – the people who own the bowl games – get a cut of the revenue. It would be unfathomable for a league such as the NFL or NBA to allow independent promoters to stage its playoffs.

College football is leaving millions on the table by staging top games in far-off locales. Ohio State, for instance, earns an estimated $5 million-plus for each home game. And that is just direct revenue. Forbes estimates Buckeye football games generated $42 million for the Columbus area in 2005.

The 14 hugely profitable home games from the first three rounds would create a huge revenue stream.

There is simply no need to include the current bowl structure. Obviously no fan base can afford to travel week after week to neutral-site games. But they wouldn't have to. In what used to be Division I-AA, the playoffs are home field until the title game. That's the way it should be.

The competitive value of home-field advantage would also help maintain the importance of the regular season because the higher the seed, the more home games.

This would also be a boon to teams in the Midwest, which build their teams to deal with the predictably harsh weather only to play postseason games in generally warm, calm environs.

So how would say, USC fare if it didn't get a Big Ten opponent in Pasadena each January, but rather had to slip and slide around Ann Arbor or Columbus for a change? And who wouldn't want to see the Trojans invade one of those historic old stadiums, snow falling, and proving they have grit not just skill?

COMPETITION

That's the best part, of course, the games. As heart-thumping and pulse-stopping as college football is and always has been, we aren't even scratching the surface in our plan. We currently have nothing even close to this. Week after week of building excitement, tension and stakes.

A byproduct of the BCS has been a devaluing of competitiveness in college football. There is no longer an incentive to play games against other big-time opponents. It's not just intra-regional games that are all but gone but most non-conference games of any significance. Teams just load up on patsies to grab the home gate and maybe play one local rival.

Amazingly, the BCS rewards them for this.

Because of human voters' tendency to favor record over all else – unless the school is from outside the BCS – the goal of the season is simply not to lose. The easiest way to do that is to play as few teams as possible that are capable of beating you.

The BCS favors teams that load up on cupcakes early and play in a weaker BCS conference that ideally doesn't have to deal with a 13th game (for the league title).

Consider Kansas, which is rated No. 5 in the BCS (and was No. 2 last week) despite owning wins over opponents with a combined record of 45-63 record (.417 winning percentage). Maybe the Jayhawks are a great team that was capable of beating other great teams. But no one really knows. And the BCS didn't care.

The playoffs return the big-time games between teams from different conferences. Even better, it puts them on campus – not some far-flung NFL stadiums – in historic venues with all the pageantry.

Oklahoma-USC in the Coliseum in the first round? Florida-Ohio State in the Horseshoe in the second? How about the Buckeyes at West Virginia in a national semifinal? Every week of every year would be incredible.

BOWL GAMES COULD STILL EXIST

Understanding that there really isn't anything wrong with most bowl games – it's not like innocent people are dying because the Meineke Car Care Bowl exists – we'll allow them to stick around.

One bowl could serve as the championship game, giving college football its neutral, Super Bowl-style site to conclude the tournament.

As for all the other bowls, they can go on as they wish. The NIT still operates, doesn't it? It's not like most bowl games have any direct bearing on the championship now.

There is value to the smaller bowls in smaller communities. If the Sun Bowl in El Paso, Texas, still wishes to stage a game, it by all means should. It just won't have access to the 16 playoff teams. But it doesn't have access to teams of that quality now. It still can host a meaningless game between two moderately successful schools. For most bowls, nothing changes.

The lack of 16 "bowl-qualified" teams would filter down, of course, and run a couple of minor bowls out of business since there won't be enough bowl-eligible clubs. But if the reason college football is not staging a playoff is the need to save the International Bowl in Toronto, then the current system is more corrupt than we think.

THE SCHEDULE

While the former Division I-AA plays all four rounds in four weeks and stages the title game before Christmas, football’s top division might be better served playing the first one or two rounds in December, breaking for final exams and staging the semifinals just after Christmas and the title game in early January.

The schedule is a minimal concern. Something can be worked out. Whatever it is, it would allow teams and stars to become familiar to the American public, for momentum to build and excitement to grow.

The college football playoffs would have a chance to rival the NFL playoffs (Super Bowl included) as the biggest sporting event in the country. Fans would love it, players live for it and a game deserving of a real playoff finally enjoying it. It would capture the imagination of the nation.

Right now it's only a dream, but the day is coming. There is only so long the dictators can stop it.

[Winnow]

ASU can still go to the Rose Bowl if UCLA beats USC this weekend! (And ASU beats UofA)

[Sueven]

Hilarious fact:

UCLA can win the Pac 10 championship and go to the Rose Bowl if it beats USC and ASU loses to UoA.
UCLA can miss the bowl games entirely if it loses to USC and goes to 6-6.

[Winnow]

Hilarious fact:

UCLA can win the Pac 10 championship and go to the Rose Bowl if it beats USC and ASU loses to UoA.
UCLA can miss the bowl games entirely if it loses to USC and goes to 6-6.

Just shows how brutally competitive the Pac-10 is. Less wimpy teams to beat up on and eight in conference games make it even harder. Not too many directional schools on the schedule.

At least the rest of the Big Ten (11) teams will have a chance with USC giving OhioSU an early season beat down the next two years.

[Zamtuk]

ucla lost to notre dame.

gg non conference parity!

[Ashur]

I'd dig that playoff plan Tyek.

[Xyun]

Hilarious fact:

UCLA can win the Pac 10 championship and go to the Rose Bowl if it beats USC and ASU loses to UoA.
UCLA can miss the bowl games entirely if it loses to USC and goes to 6-6.

Just shows how brutally competitive the Pac-10 is. Less wimpy teams to beat up on and eight in conference games make it even harder. Not too many directional schools on the schedule.

At least the rest of the Big Ten (11) teams will have a chance with USC giving OhioSU an early season beat down the next two years.

lol. oh please. take any team out of the pac 10 and put them in the big 12 or SEC and they'd get smacked around year after year. if the pac10 or big10 had any balls, they'd have their own conference championship games. pussies.

[Tyek]

I'd dig that playoff plan Tyek

.

Yeah would be cool to see.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug ... &type=lgns

Here is the story link, you can see his suggested bracket for this season there. The best part is the crappy bowls can stay so they can't bitch about the plan. They would never have seen one of the teams represented anyway and the ones committed to a smaller conference can pick up a lower ranked "Power Conference" team with a larger fan base to draw from.

[Winnow]

lol. oh please. take any team out of the pac 10 and put them in the big 12 or SEC and they'd get smacked around year after year. if the pac10 or big10 had any balls, they'd have their own conference championship games. pussies.

No need for playoffs when the Pac-10 plays eight in-conference games each year, beating each other up, while others play 1-AA and directional schools.

[Momopi]

lol. oh please. take any team out of the pac 10 and put them in the big 12 or SEC and they'd get smacked around year after year. if the pac10 or big10 had any balls, they'd have their own conference championship games. pussies.

I would think USC would do just fine in the SEC or BIG12.

[Winnow]

lol. oh please. take any team out of the pac 10 and put them in the big 12 or SEC and they'd get smacked around year after year. if the pac10 or big10 had any balls, they'd have their own conference championship games. pussies.

I would think USC would do just fine in the SEC or BIG12.

And in the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten has a losing record vs the Pac-10 overall, vs just USC, and even a losing record vs non USC Pac-10 teams.

Big Ten (11) talks a big game but the stats show differently in premier game match ups.

Where would the mystique be for OhioSU and Michigan if USC was crushing them every year in their own conference? Be thankful Big Ten (11) fans.

[Sueven]

No need for playoffs when the Pac-10 plays eight in-conference games each year, beating each other up, while others play 1-AA and directional schools.

God you're such a dumb shit.

Big 12: 8 conference games (plus one if you play in the Big 12 championship)
Big 10: 8 conference games
Big East: 7 conference games (note only 8 teams so 7 is max possible)
SEC: 8 conference games (plus one if you play in the SEC championship)
ACC: 8 conference games (plus one if you play in the ACC championship)

Your levels of moronhood and trollishness have reached unbounded proportions. While you used to make clearly biased, partisan arguments for your position, at least they were possible to engage with. You've now turned to ignoring other peoples points, making up facts, and blatantly lying. It's not worth engaging with anymore. Until you stop lying in sports arguments, I'm going to respond to you by simply posting the facts that demonstrate your idiocy. Like the above.

[Winnow]

No need for playoffs when the Pac-10 plays eight in-conference games each year, beating each other up, while others play 1-AA and directional schools.

God you're such a dumb shit.

Big 12: 8 conference games (plus one if you play in the Big 12 championship)
Big 10: 8 conference games
Big East: 7 conference games (note only 8 teams so 7 is max possible)
SEC: 8 conference games (plus one if you play in the SEC championship)
ACC: 8 conference games (plus one if you play in the ACC championship)

Your levels of moronhood and trollishness have reached unbounded proportions. While you used to make clearly biased, partisan arguments for your position, at least they were possible to engage with. You've now turned to ignoring other peoples points, making up facts, and blatantly lying. It's not worth engaging with anymore. Until you stop lying in sports arguments, I'm going to respond to you by simply posting the facts that demonstrate your idiocy. Like the above.

It's all in how you interpret things. That's not my fault. Did I say anywhere that the Pac-10 played more in-conference games than other conferences? Come on Sueven! You're going to be a lawyer. That's a nice counterpoint, but I wasn't lying. I resent that you said that! Shame!

[Winnow]

USC would be favored to win an eight team college football playoff:

Hypothetical odds-on favorites

It seems as if every year at about this time, we're arguing about the national championship in college football and whether the BCS is working or if it's time to establish a playoff system.

And that's when there are no more than three teams with a valid claim to No. 1.

This season has been downright bizarre, which makes us believe that a playoff would be even more intriguing.

Of course, there always is the argument about what to do with the bowl games and how many teams should be in a playoff.

If we ever see a playoff system, the most likely scenario would be to include the top four teams. But even that probably wouldn't satisfy anybody this year, because we have seen that all the top teams are vulnerable and that a two-loss team such as Southern California or Louisiana State actually might be the best out there.

Purely for entertainment purposes, we asked some oddsmakers at three offshore operations how they would rate the top eight teams in the BCS rankings if we threw them all into an eight-team tournament for the championship right now.

Oddsmakers at BetUS.com, Bodoglife.com and BetCRIS.com all agreed to take part.

As you might expect, Missouri and West Virginia are not their teams to beat.

In fact, when No. 8 USC is the prohibitive favorite among the wise guys, you have to figure that we're not really identifying a true national champion with what we have now.

"True, USC might be ranked No. 8 in the BSC rankings, but over the long haul of a playoff system, we see them winning the whole thing," said BetUS.com oddsmaker Reed Richards.

Richard Gardner, Bodoglife.com's sports-book manager, agreed but said he thinks LSU is the second-best bet. So did the oddsmakers at BetCRIS.com.

"USC started slow, but they've been playing great football lately now that everyone is healthy," Gardner said. "LSU was the second favorite, as we feel like they would beat every team but USC on a neutral field.

"The performance by the Big Ten over the last two years hurt Ohio State in our rankings. Kansas has the longest odds, as they have had the easiest schedule. Their game vs. Missouri showed they aren't ready to play with the big boys."

In fact, if the tournament was seeded based on the BCS rankings, with No. 1 playing No. 8 and No. 2 playing No. 7 and so on, you know what we probably would get?

A microcosm of the season, because No. 1 and No. 2 probably would get knocked off in the first round.

[Sueven]

It's all in how you interpret things. That's not my fault. Did I say anywhere that the Pac-10 played more in-conference games than other conferences? Come on Sueven! You're going to be a lawyer. That's a nice counterpoint, but I wasn't lying. I resent that you said that! Shame!

This is stupider than the previous. The fact that I'm going to be a lawyer may help me to see through your bullshit semantic tricks, but it doesn't really have any relevance here beyond that. Let's break it down.

if the pac10 or big10 had any balls, they'd have their own conference championship games. pussies.

Xyun makes a point.

No need for playoffs when the Pac-10 plays eight in-conference games each year, beating each other up, while others play 1-AA and directional schools.

You respond.

There are two readings of your response.

The only reasonable reading of your response is: It's unnecessary for the Pac 10 to have a conference championship game ("no need for playoffs"). The reason a conference championship game is unnecessary is because the Pac 10 does something that the conference who do have championship games do not do ("when the Pac-10 plays" ... "while others play 1-AA and directional schools"). The thing that the Pac 10 does which makes a conference championship game moot is playing eight conference games per year ("eight in-conference games each year, beating each other up").

The other possible reading of your response is to place more emphasis on the "beating each other up" part, which would at least be logical if Pac 10 teams were prone to 'beat each other up' more in conference games than are those in other conferences. This is an SEC style argument that your teams are so much better than everyone else's that you rightfully ought to play by a different set of rules. This is a retarded argument when the SEC makes it, and it's CERTAINLY a retarded argument when it's made by a proponent of the weakest conference in the country (or, to be uncontroversial, when it's made by a proponent of a conference which is not clearly the strongest in the country).

If the first reading is correct, then you're lying. The three conferences who play championship games ALL play 8 conference games prior to the championship.

If the second reading is correct, then you're trolling, because the argument is blatantly ignorant.

If you intended something else, you may be functionally illiterate.

[Zamtuk]

Is that opinionated article supposed to mean anything?

[Boogahz]

Is that opinionated article supposed to mean anything?

another west coaster has his panties in a wad?

[Winnow]

If the first reading is correct, then you're lying. The three conferences who play championship games ALL play 8 conference games prior to the championship.

If the second reading is correct, then you're trolling, because the argument is blatantly ignorant.

If you intended something else, you may be functionally illiterate.

Objection!

ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Objection, the question assumes facts not in evidence

This objection is used when the introductory part of a question assumes the truth of a material fact that is in dispute. Questions that assume facts are permitted only under cross-examination, and usually to impeach a witness' credibility.

You could have started off with:

OPINION BY AN UNQUALIFIED WITNESS

Objection, counsel's question calls for an improper opinion. Or, objection, the witness hasn't been sufficiently qualified as an expert. Or, objection, insufficient foundation

Opinion testimony is proper only in the area of expertise or specialized knowledge that an expert witness is qualified in. Lay witnesses may give opinions only when their perception is helpful to the jury; e.g., time, distance, speed, sobriety.

It was a stressful day in the market!

[Xyun]

winnow = pwnd.

the only way to prove pac 10 and big 10 always over hype their shitty teams is by having a true playoff system. It is no coincidence that the major cockblock for a playoff system is the big 10.