College Football 2008 - Page 32

On November 27 2008 01:10 KOFgokuon wrote:
Hate on Florida all you want, but you have to admit that Urban Meyer's daughter is kind of cute
http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=881113
even though she may not even be 18 yet...

On November 27 2008 02:41 Signet wrote:

How absolutely do you believe this, though? Hypothetical:
* Florida loses to Alabama (finishes 11-2).
* Alabama are 13-0 SEC Champions and in the title game for sure.
* Oregon State beats Oregon to win Pac 10 (finishes 9-3)
* Let's say Penn State had lost to Michigan State (making Ohio State Big 10 champs at 10-2)
* Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma State (both finish 10-2)
* Texas Tech loses to Missouri (both 2 losses)
* Big East champion already guaranteed at least 2 losses
* ACC champion already guaranteed at least 3 losses

It's down to either Texas who has the best record in the Big 12 but not the championship trophy, a BCS champion with more losses than Texas, or a team from the WAC/Mt West/MAC. I don't see the argument here for Missouri over Texas.


One big difference between this year's Big 12 and last year's SEC is that Georgia lost the SEC West due to head-to-head. It was a straight-up, objective tiebreaker. Texas may lose the Big 12 South due to voting, despite having beaten the team (Oklahoma) who they are tied with in record but will get the subjective nod. That's not really Texas' fault that the voters prefer Oklahoma. Therefore, if Oklahoma chokes it in the conference championship, it's less unreasonable to send Texas rather than OU or Missouri (on the other hand, if Oklahoma wins the B12CG, then they deserve to go).

Likewise, if LSU had lost the SEC title game last season, I think it would have been totally legit to send Georgia to the BCS championship.

On November 27 2008 02:34 Signet wrote:

That was also pre-BCS, when the bowls were decided based mostly on conference. The BCS would have pitted unbeaten Florida State against unbeaten Arizona State. (much as I don't like the BCS, it is a slight improvement over what we had before)

On November 27 2008 04:22 tonight wrote:

I was mostly talking about 06 when Florida jumped Michigan. They also didn't want a rematch of OSU and UofM in the championship game. Even though Florida ended up smashing OSU and then UofM got around to beating Florida the following year.

On November 29 2008 15:22 DukE_ss wrote:


Yeah but Florida did lose a lot of players to graduation or the draft after that 06 championship so comparing the two game isn't really fair to Florida.

On November 29 2008 17:07 Sadist wrote:

michigans defense lost a shitload too.

On November 30 2008 03:57 tomash6 wrote:


Yes, both Michigan and Florida lost a lot of players, and that makes that head-to-head comparison even worse. You just can't compare the two different seasons like that. Anyway, Florida did beat Ohio State that year convincingly, so in hindsight it was not a bad choice. Not to mention the '06 Michigan team lost decisively to USC. So if there had been a +1 or a playoff format, not even one of the Big Ten teams would most likely make the title game, much less both of them.

This year, just as every year, is a demonstration that the current format is flawed. The BCS cares whether your conference is one of the 6 privileged, regardless of if the privileged conference is strong or not. Boise State, Ball State and Utah all ran the table in their respective conference, and in addition at least Utah and Boise State are guaranteed to be ranked ahead of the Big East and ACC Champion, and possibly even the Pac-10 main champion. But only one of them will go to a BCS bowl, while the other (Boise) is most likely stuck in some average bowl game. The argument is, that they did not play a strong schedule so the undefeated record does not matter much. But then teams like Cincinnati and Oregon State, with 2 and 3 losses, should also not get a BCS bowl bid, since their conferences are not better than the MWC, for example.