Boise State-Okie's. Wtf huh,

[Suff]

Don't know if I've ever seen anything like this,

Hook and Ladder!!:lol: I love that play,,,

Unbelievable game.

College Football.....:ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

And the game is going into overtime!

Seriously, this is the game of a lifetime!

Nothing like it since the Colts-Lions back in the '50s.


Dave

[46zilzal]

Haven't seen one this good since Miami beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl many years back when Nebraska had the Heisman winner Rozier....

BALLSEY ENDING TOO!!

[Dave Schwartz]

The best football game I have ever seen!

[46zilzal]

glad I taped it so I can watch it in August sometime.

[Suff]

I was sitting here working on My Laptop and got into it more and more as it went on. It was unbelievable..


That last play...:lol:


The Governor of Idaho was sworn in today... He took a chartered Jet to the Game...saying " This is the biggest thing in Idaho since the Potato"!:D

That last play.. Funny and Good. I really Enjoyed that game.

Good for Idaho.

[Dave Schwartz]

And for the grand finale, Boise's star running back proposes to his girlfriend during the post game on the field!

Folks, it just doesn't get any better than this.

[46zilzal]

ever wonder where all those hats made up before the game for the OTHER team than the winning one go?

[Dave Schwartz]

ever wonder where all those hats made up before the game for the OTHER team than the winning one go?

Never, before you mentioned it.

[boomman]

Dave: Totally agree! What a hoot! Not only was the hook and ladder superbly executed, but what about the statue of liberty play to win it? You had to really feel good for that Boise QB who hung in there after throwing the disastrous interception that looked like it had cost them the game! Boom

[BIG RED]

I felt like I was watching an old movie :ThmbUp:

[dav4463]

That was the greatest football game I've ever seen...........period !

[cj]

I believe it was Valuist that said Boise St didn't deserve a shot at the title.

The fact that they have zero shot to win it shows everything that is wrong with college football.

[cj]

And by the way, that strong Big 10 doesn't look so strong anymore. 2 - 4 in bowl games. Maryland completely dominated the "high powered" Purdue offense. We need a playoff, badly.

[BIG RED]

Purdue is always Purdon't

[cj]

I know Purdue isn't much, but every year we hear this conference or that is the best, and it is all just a joke. The only way to determine who is best is on the field.

One thing is certain, Michigan was not the second best team in the country this year.

[OTM Al]

Hey! Don't go bustin on my Boilers....seriously though I knew when they came out flat early they had no shot. That offense can be explosive, but its pretty easy to see when they are not on their game. Pretty decent year though considering the QB was a soph and we get 18 starters back next year. That high powered offense actually outgained ND this year in South Bend despite the loss. Talk about a team that is really going to get dismantled this bowl season. (yeah, I have to get one last Notre Dame dig in this season....)

[BIG RED]

I only meant betting them. I never touch thier games

[46zilzal]

watched the final two point conversion on tape in slow motion and only a SINGLE Oklahoma defender reacted to the side of the play.....ONLY in college football.

[Valuist]

I believe it was Valuist that said Boise St didn't deserve a shot at the title.

The fact that they have zero shot to win it shows everything that is wrong with college football.

I have nothing against Boise State. I went to a MAC school so I pull for the mid-major conferences. All I said was, a 4 team playoff would make the most sense. I can't remember a time recently when a team that was ranked 8th or 9th or whatever Boise was had a legit claim at the national championship. Also, considering how much against a playoff the conference and university presidents are, you know that when they eventually go to a playoff its not going to be a 16 team tourney. They'll start with 4.

[Trax21]

I agree with the 4 team playoff. As I stated in an older thread, I think a 4 team may work best, but I wouldn't mind an 8 team playoff if we could do away with conference championship games and play the first round at that time instead.

Not sure how much Boise State would have left in the tank if they played one more game, but I really admire their approach to the game and their execution. Too bad they won't get the chance. Under the current system, they're going to have to beef up their schedule. Still, a great win for their program.

I had a lot of fun watching the game. My son called me late to make sure I was watching. Despite all the fun I think I would still rank last year's title game as the best college game I've seen.

[delayjf]

OU beat Nebraska on a simular play (hook and lateral) in Lincoln back in 1976.
Indeed what a game - reminded me of the 1980 BYU - SMU Holiday Bowl. What a fun game to watch.

[Overlay]

I believe it was Valuist that said Boise St didn't deserve a shot at the title.

The fact that they have zero shot to win it shows everything that is wrong with college football.

So if (big if) Florida wins, what then? Florida the national champion based on beating Ohio State, and on Boise State's strength of schedule?

[rrbauer]

I agree with the 4 team playoff. As I stated in an older thread, I think a 4 team may work best, but I wouldn't mind an 8 team playoff if we could do away with conference championship games and play the first round at that time instead.

Not sure how much Boise State would have left in the tank if they played one more game, but I really admire their approach to the game and their execution. Too bad they won't get the chance. Under the current system, they're going to have to beef up their schedule. Still, a great win for their program.

I had a lot of fun watching the game. My son called me late to make sure I was watching. Despite all the fun I think I would still rank last year's title game as the best college game I've seen.

The problem with all of the "let's have a playoff" scenarios is who gets to play in the playoffs.....how is this different from what we have today. Would BS get invited to a 4-team playoff....don't think so.

I love to see a 'dog get down and dirty with a reputation team. Problem for me was at midnight (EST) when OK got the pick and runback with 1:30 on the clock, I figured that the game was in the books and with a 5 am wakeup call and a 12-hour drive in store on the next day I pressed the "off" button on the remote. The only saving grace in this deal was the ESPN highlights on Tues evening.

The "hook and ladder" was cool but the winning score was a takeoff on the Sammy Baugh "statue of liberty" play. And how much moxie did the BS coach show to go for the whole enchilada at that time? He said that he knew that his team was exhausted and that another set of downs would wipe them out. It was "now or never" time.

"Now" is sweet.

[46zilzal]

If this game were a few days earlier, I would have considered supporting Jared Zabramsky for HORSE of the year......If this guy goes to the NFL (although smallish) he could be effective as well as he thinks on his feet...

[JPinMaryland]

.. I can't remember a time recently when a team that was ranked 8th or 9th or whatever Boise was had a legit claim at the national championship. ...


How would you know this until/unless they have a playoff?

Everybody likes to think that they know who the top 5 or 10 teams are in college football and every week someone gets upset. You put the top 8 teams in a playoff and there are gonna be some upsets..

[Valuist]

How would you know this until/unless they have a playoff?

Everybody likes to think that they know who the top 5 or 10 teams are in college football and every week someone gets upset. You put the top 8 teams in a playoff and there are gonna be some upsets..

Have you been following college football for the past decade? When you get down to around 10, you're talking about 2 loss teams and 1 loss teams who didn't play the toughest of schedules. Hell, even when Auburn was unbeaten most people knew they shouldn't be in the Nat'l championship because their non conference schedule was so bad. The only controversies I can think of since the BCS started was a 3rd or 4th ranked team who didn't play for the championship. I didn't hear any Wisky fans saying they should be playing Ohio State instead of Florida.

[Valuist]

Here's the OT play between Boise and Okie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJNffv7beU

[cj]

So if (big if) Florida wins, what then? Florida the national champion based on beating Ohio State, and on Boise State's strength of schedule?

I'd vote for Boise. Florida lost.

[cj]

...The only controversies I can think of since the BCS started was a 3rd or 4th ranked team who didn't play for the championship. I didn't hear any Wisky fans saying they should be playing Ohio State instead of Florida.

The whole thing is a controversy because it isn't decided on the field. A big part of it is decided in the beginning of the year by stupid preseason rankings. Why even have them before the mid point of the season?

[Valuist]

I want a playoff as much as anyone but I'm aware at how stubborn the powers that be are. They don't want change. IF they do decide to go to a playoff, they'll just want to put a toe into the waters to begin with. No way would they go directly from no playoff (or basically 1 game) to a 16 team tourney. Eventually that might happen but I think we're talking about years down the line.

[46zilzal]

a playoff that big would require the re-structering of the entire schedule and these are SCHOOLS, not a minor league for the NFL....There would be a lot of opposition and correctly applied....

A smaller two weekender would have to suffice to get anywhere.

[cj]

a playoff that big would require the re-structering of the entire schedule and these are SCHOOLS, not a minor league for the NFL....There would be a lot of opposition and correctly applied....

A smaller two weekender would have to suffice to get anywhere.

They don't seem to have any problem with big playoffs at lower division SCHOOLS. If you believe the lack of a playoff has anything to do with education disruptions, you are living on Fantasy Island.

[46zilzal]

that was meant to show a conservative position on change not some genuflexion toward education.

[JPinMaryland]

I dont think an 8 team playoff would conflict with conference championships. ARent most of those done by the last week in Nov? Even so, you could still get three rounds of playoffs into say 2nd week of Dec. 3rd or 4th week and then 1st week of Jan.

I think they should have a two week or 10 day rest in there somewhere.

Also, these colleges could eliminate some cream puff games early in the schedule and still get the champ game in by the end of Nov. It would not be hard if they chopped off Penn St. v Akron or something.

Also why not have a mid major playoff at the same time? Gawd knows some of us will watch the Amos ALonzo Stagg bowl (Div III champ) at the same time, so why not like Marshall vs. Boise St for the mid major championship?

I think one of the main roadblocks to a playoff (aside from inertia) is that you are asking fans/alumni to travel to maybe 3 games, on short notice. It's not like the bowl games where you ask them to travel to one game, w/ 4 or 5 week notice.

I dont think it's impossible but the bean counters will have to be persuaded to do it another way. THe tv revenue would presumably make up for the lost gate..

[JPinMaryland]

Have you been following college football for the past decade? When you get down to around 10, you're talking about 2 loss teams and 1 loss teams who didn't play the toughest of schedules. Hell, even when Auburn was unbeaten most people knew they shouldn't be in the Nat'l championship because their non conference schedule was so bad. The only controversies I can think of since the BCS started was a 3rd or 4th ranked team who didn't play for the championship. I didn't hear any Wisky fans saying they should be playing Ohio State instead of Florida.


why doesnt the same reasoning apply to college basketball? WHy should there by a 64 team playoff then?

Or colllege baseball or hockey? or div. II football.?

You dont know know what's going to happen until you start putting these top 8 teams on the field. Here's a question for you: WHen top 8 div. I teams play one another, what is the % of upsets?

I would have to think it's near 35-40%. if so then an 8 team playoff could come out anywhere.

[OTM Al]

JP, you just touched on another unmentioned so far reason that schedule cutting for a playoff will be unpopular. Those cream puff games are big money makers for the cream puffs. Why else would they show up to have their heads handed to them?

[Valuist]

why doesnt the same reasoning apply to college basketball? WHy should there by a 64 team playoff then?

Or colllege baseball or hockey? or div. II football.?

You dont know know what's going to happen until you start putting these top 8 teams on the field. Here's a question for you: WHen top 8 div. I teams play one another, what is the % of upsets?

I would have to think it's near 35-40%. if so then an 8 team playoff could come out anywhere.

You can't compare football to sports like baseball or basketball. College baseball teams usually play 3 game series, usually in 3 days. Basketball games are usually a little more spread out but conferences like the Pac 10 will play on Thursdays and Saturdays. You could never have football teams play two games in 3 or 4 days. And if you played one game a week the season would probably go into February.

[Dave Schwartz]

My son brought up a really interesting point about the disadvantages of a playoff. (He spent three years at St. Mary's as an offensive lineman.)

He says that the attraction of college football is that every game, for almost every team, is like the Super Bowl. They all mean so much from the very first game of the season.

His fear is that if the playoff went very deep (i.e. more than 4 teams) we would lose that. I tend to agree with him.

And, when one applies that to this season, it is highly unlikely that Boise State would have been in the top 4. Logically, it would have been OSU, Mich, Fla and ?? - probably not USC (at least based upon the BCS).

On the topic of USC - who really played like national champs against Michigan - who really expected them to play like that after their relatively weak outing against UCLA? (The quote from my other son, who attended that game, was "It was like watching your own funeral.")


Personally, I would favor a 3-week, 8-team playoff. I think the importance and excitement of each game would not be diminished. The real problem would be scheduling 3 weeks (as so many teams play their last game as late as the 2nd weekend in Dec.).



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[RBrowning]

Uh...now this is just me....I think they ought to go back to just letting whoever wants to rank...rank. Then your team can claim a crown through AP,Coaches,FW...whoever wants to do it.


It's pretty sickening the way it's turned out. Funny the lower divisions can have a playoff system with very little revenue ,but the big schools can't.


All in all I'd be happy going back to just ranking them in the various polls.

[JPinMaryland]

You can't compare football to sports like baseball or basketball. College baseball teams usually play 3 game series, usually in 3 days. Basketball games are usually a little more spread out but conferences like the Pac 10 will play on Thursdays and Saturdays. You could never have football teams play two games in 3 or 4 days. And if you played one game a week the season would probably go into February.


THe pt. is if it's possible for a number 6 team to upset no. 4 or no. 8 to upset no. 2 or whatever...then a playoff system sort of makes sense

The way I read your posts you make it sound as if there is no way the no. 3 team in the country can beat the no. 2. That cant possibly be true based on everything we've seen in football. Maybe that is not what you are saying but it sounds like you think there is no reason to play the games at all, they are all a foregone conclusion.

[Valuist]

THe pt. is if it's possible for a number 6 team to upset no. 4 or no. 8 to upset no. 2 or whatever...then a playoff system sort of makes sense

The way I read your posts you make it sound as if there is no way the no. 3 team in the country can beat the no. 2. That cant possibly be true based on everything we've seen in football. Maybe that is not what you are saying but it sounds like you think there is no reason to play the games at all, they are all a foregone conclusion.

Its not a question of whether the 6 team can beat the 3 team. Its does the #6 or # 8 team DESERVE the chance? The regular season does count; one could argue for the top teams every game is a playoff.

[JPinMaryland]

Its hard to understand what you mean by "deserve" Isnt this some sort of subjective belief that everyone has that's different? What is your def'n of "deserve"? I dont get it. I thought you were saying that they only deserve a shot if they have a chance to beat the no. 1 team, but I guess that is not it....

To me, whether some team deserves it or not is irrelevant once you establish a playoff system. If these are the top 8 teams or top 4 or whatever than what difference does it make of soem concept of "deserve?"

If you think of all the upsets in football, and there are a lot of them, then would those teams that won really deserve to play? The Jets were 21 pt dogs to the COlts in SB III did they "deserve" to play..? I still dont know how you define deserve so I am :confused:

[Valuist]

I don't think its that difficult at all. Here would be my 4 teams for this year:

Ohio State, Florida, USC, Michigan

Who's left out? Boise? While that game was fun to watch, they needed a hook and ladder to send the game to OT and a statue of liberty play to win it. Great calls but you resort to gimmick plays when you are out of alternatives. Sorry, too many free ride games in that conference. Not fair to teams like OSU, Florida, and USC who are playing tough schedules week in and week out. Louisville? Had a nice year but the B-East is basically 3 teams, with free squares the rest of the way.

If you make the playoff too big, you taint the regular season. I already stated above the problems with football teams not being able to play games right on top of each other. And its tough to compare to basketball, since there's only about 115-120 D-1 football teams and about 320 D-1 basketball teams.

[JPinMaryland]

You still havent defined: Deserve which seems to be the lynchpin of your argument.

I dont rely on Boise St. to suggest anything. Could the no. 8 team in the country defeat the no. 1 team? I take it from lack of response to this question, that you have to admit the answer is "yes on occasion."

If so, then what are you arguing?

[rastajenk]

Would these Division I playoff games be played at neutral, warm-weather sites, or in domes? Or could we have weather be a factor just as it can be on any given weekend during the season?

Bowl-hosting cities want visitors to come on down over the holidays, to eat in restaurants and shop and party on New Year's, and all that. They don't want people to come in for one day on Dec. 10, or Dec 13, or whatever, and then hustle home to do the Christmas routines. That alone (or, rather, the money it generates) trumps all the utopian playoff scenarios. You simply can't compare it to Division III, or the basketball tournament, or anything else.

If you still had the traditional tie-ins this year, instead of the current Bowel Cleansing System, you'd have had, possibly, OSU-USC (obviously the best game out there); you could still have had Boise-Oklahoma; Florida-Louisville; Michigan-LSU. You wouldn't have to have Wake Forest and Notre Dame junking up the place. And all on the same day! Wouldn't that be better than what we have?

[RBrowning]

Mount Union could beat Weiss' Noodles.

[cj]

I don't think its that difficult at all. Here would be my 4 teams for this year:

Ohio State, Florida, USC, Michigan

Who's left out? Boise? While that game was fun to watch, they needed a hook and ladder to send the game to OT and a statue of liberty play to win it. Great calls but you resort to gimmick plays when you are out of alternatives. Sorry, too many free ride games in that conference. Not fair to teams like OSU, Florida, and USC who are playing tough schedules week in and week out. Louisville? Had a nice year but the B-East is basically 3 teams, with free squares the rest of the way.

If you make the playoff too big, you taint the regular season. I already stated above the problems with football teams not being able to play games right on top of each other. And its tough to compare to basketball, since there's only about 115-120 D-1 football teams and about 320 D-1 basketball teams.

To keep not one, but two, two loss teams over an undefeated one is ridiculous. I repeat for about the 1000th time, it is not Boise St's fault that their schedule isn't tougher. As far as these "free squares", that is a joke. A lot of big conferences get exposed every year in these bowl games. It happened again this year. The supposed weak ACC...Florida St. crushed UCLA, a supposed tough PAC 10 team.

USC and Boise played a common opponent this year as I'm sure you are aware, Oregon St.

USC lost, 33-31. Boise St won, 42-14.

USC also lost to a very mediocre UCLA team. How in the world could you put USC in ahead of Boise? Boise beat decent teams in Utah and Hawaii. They are as good as most PAC 10 teams.

The last thing I'll say is it doesn't matter HOW Boise St beat Oklahoma. When I used to play some serious basketball against shit talking teams, the best answer was "scoreboard" when you were kicking their tail. Had Oklahoma won that game, you could just as easily have said they were lucky as Boise was in control for 3.5 quarters.

Scoreboard. Enough said.

[RBrowning]

That was good.





OOOOOOOOOO

[46zilzal]

It happened again this year. The supposed weak ACC...Florida St. crushed UCLA, a supposed tough PAC 10 team.


I am very biased and I realize that my alma mater was not that good. Where do you get this TOUGH title? They were UN-EVEN all year as their games vs. N.D./USC/Washington/ Oregon/Cal showed.

[cj]

According to Valuist, they aren't a free square and part of this "very tough" schedule.
To say a 2 loss USC or 2 loss Michigan team would deserve to be in a playoff ahead of Boise St is just insane. I can understand if he is coming at this from a bettor's standpoint, but that is totally irrelevant here. I really can't believe those words came off of his keyboard.

Schedule strenth is a joke. Most conferences claim to be strong when they beat up on each other. This is the card the big conferences use to exclude the little guys. The game is totally rigged in their favor. A few years ago, Boise wouldn't have even gotten into a BCS bowl. College football is a total joke until they have a playoff that allows all teams a fair shake. If a team goes undefeated and has no chance, they didn't get that.

[JPinMaryland]

the only thing I disagree w/ CJ is saying the Pac Ten was supposed to be tough, I dont think many people thought the conference on a whole was that good. I dont even think UCLA was well thought of until the end of the season...

But yes, I see his pt. about undefeated teams like Boise St, if you consider them all in the same div; then that's how it should be. Most ranking systems seem to have some sort of inherent bias toward traditional big conference teams, and it doesnt seem like that is true anymore.

I dont think Boise St would be favored vs. USC, but I dont think they'd be an automatic loss either. SUch is the nature of football. THere is a tendecy to think that any team ranked a few slots higher than another should win a large share of the time. This seems to be similar to Valuists position, but he can correct me.

Instead, I think it more likely that when you get to the top echelon of teams, USC might still beat Boise e.g. 55% of the time, something like. It's not as one sided as we tend to believe.

ANother point: I keep hearing this pt. that in college every game is a playoff game. Isnt that a great thing? But yet we have 2 loss teams playing for the champ. ahead of undefeated teams. Doesnt that contradict?

[RXB]

Name me a two-loss team that has played for the nat'l championship, JP.

Boise State is a good team but if they went up against Pac-10 competition week after week they'd lose some games.

[JPinMaryland]

you know I was thinking USC...I keep thinking they are in the hunt.. :bang:


DOes the pt. change if we make it one loss teams? Boise St. obviously every game was not a playoff game, they had no chance, thus every game was like an exhibition.

[RXB]

There's no big secret to this. In the NCAA basketball tournament, you see teams that are 19-11 seeded ahead of 24-6 teams. Why? Is the committee completely stupid? No, it's because one of those teams plays in a real conference while the other team stacks up wins in a patsy conference.

If Boise State wants to be considered for a national championship game then they need to schedule an OOC heavy in the regular season and beat them. You can't spend the year beating the likes of Idaho, New Mexico State and San Jose State (who almost beat Boise State in each of the last two seasons) and expect to be in the championship game ahead of a one-loss team like Florida that has to play Auburn, LSU, Arkansas and Tennessee. Boise State took a couple of trips down south to play SEC teams in the last few years and got clobbered both times.

[cj]

...If Boise State wants to be considered for a national championship game then they need to schedule an OOC heavy in the regular season and beat them.

That is the fallacy in your argument. Which of these big schools do you think is actually going to schedule Boise St?

They absolutely destroyed Oregon St., a team that beat USC.

The sport is a farce. Once again, the title was not decided on the field. Think how close we were to having a sham of a title game in OSU/Michigan, just because of some perceived notion that the Big 10 was strong.

[Dave Schwartz]

If Boise State wants to be considered for a national championship game then they need to schedule an OOC heavy in the regular season and beat them.

Your point is well made. In addition, the scheduling is done a couple of years in advance, so, by the time Boise St. gets a tougher schedule, the current team will be graduated.

The current system benefits strong programs more so than strong teams.


Dave

[Valuist]

What I'd really love to see is a team like Florida go TO Boise to play on that blue turf in the altitude. IMO, the two biggest home field advantages in college football are Boise and Hawaii. I think Boise could definitely beat Florida at home, but FL would likely pound them in Gainesville and likely handle them on a neutral field fairly easily.

[RXB]

That is the fallacy in your argument. Which of these big schools do you think is actually going to schedule Boise St?

They absolutely destroyed Oregon St., a team that beat USC.

The sport is a farce. Once again, the title was not decided on the field. Think how close we were to having a sham of a title game in OSU/Michigan, just because of some perceived notion that the Big 10 was strong.

Cal destroyed Oregon St, too. How did Cal do against USC? (Lost, decisively.) Cal's nowhere near being a nat'l champ contender, and neither is Boise State. The commutative property is for math, not for sports. Otherwise:

Stanford beat Washington
Washington beat Washington St
Washington St beat UCLA
UCLA beat USC
Therefore, Stanford should've beaten USC (????)

Boise State has been a good team for several years now, yet LSU and Georgia still kept their respective games against the Broncos on the books in the past few years. There will be schools that will take a home date against Boise State as their tough OOC game. And if Boise State wants a shot in the big game, they've got to take on and defeat a tough team during the season.

The national championship will never be decided totally on the field because there will always be the question of who gets invited to any playoff, how the seedings/pairings are determined, etc. A playoff would, in large measure, trade one set of controversies for the other. And, I suspect, would be only marginally, if at all, more effective in determining the "best team" than the current process.

[46zilzal]

I hope you don't use that logic at the track

[RXB]

I thought it was completely obvious that I was refuting that "logic" rather than endorsing it.

[cj]

I thought it was completely obvious that I was refuting that "logic" rather than endorsing it.

Using schedule strength is the big schools way of keeping the little schools down. It is impossible for the small schools to compete. Even if they beat a few good teams out of conference, the schedule will always be looked down upon.

However, this schedule strength thing is usually a joke. It is totally incestuous. 95% of it is based on teams in the same conference playing each other. That thinking nearly brought us the incredible sham that would have been Ohio State and Michigan playing for a National Championship.

Who exactly are these schools that will play Boise St in Boise? Do you think they just never ask anyone, or is it that noone will come? Somehow I don't see them turning down home games with USC, Michigan, or Texas.

Those big schools do one of the following for out of conference:



schedule a patsy
schedule a very strong school that won't hurt too bad if they lose
schedule Notre Dame
Boise doesn't fit, so they don't get the games. I'm not just talking about Boise either. Louisville could make the same claims, as could a few others.

[RXB]

I said that those schools would take a HOME game with Boise. The stadium in Boise only holds about 35,000 so it would be economically foolish for a big school to travel there for a game.

I disagree with your statement that nobody would give them any respect for beating a tough OOC team. The problem is, these schools from the smaller conferences rarely beat a top-10 team. Boise will earn respect for having beaten Oklahoma but if they want to get respect during the season they have to beat a genuine quality team. They've tried in the past and failed.

Arkansas finished 10-4 this season. Nothing tremendously impressive, but look who they lost to: Florida, LSU, USC and Wisconsin. The nat'l champ plus three other teams that will finish in the top 7. And they managed to whip Auburn (another top 10 team) by 20 points on the road. Now, you're telling me that SoS is a myth? Come on, you're a whole lot smarter than that. Boise St had several unimpressive performances this year (San Jose St, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico St) that would've landed them losses against the majority of major conference schools.

[cj]

I said that those schools would take a HOME game with Boise. The stadium in Boise only holds about 35,000 so it would be economically foolish for a big school to travel there for a game.

This is the whole point. It is all about the money, and the little guys get shafted. Forget the title game, how in the world could USC wind up ranked ahead of Boise with two losses to very mediocre teams? LSU played a ridiculously easy out of conference schedule, lost two games, beat a vastly overrated Notre Dame team, and winds up 3rd. Is this for real? Wisconsin didn't beat a team of note all year until the bowl game.

Boise St played a few poor games, but they won. To say they would have lost against better teams is silly. Maybe it is hard to get motivated to play San Jose St? I always thought sports was about winning. I'll stick to supporting sports that actually have a real champion, not a paper one. College football champs are almost as bad as boxing and WWE champs these days.

As I said, Florida played a great game. They proved they deserved a shot at the title. The problem is so did Louisville, Boise St, and Michigan, but they never had a shot.

[RXB]

So, when you're handicapping a horse race, the only thing that you take into consideration from the PP's is the finish position in a race? The quality of competition doesn't matter? As long as the horse won?

I can't believe you, of all people, are saying this stuff.

LSU played road games against Florida, Auburn, Arkansas and Tennessee. What a surprise, they lost twice. I suspect Boise State would've probably lost three of those four. They certainly wouldn't have gone undefeated.

[cj]

I don't bet on sports other than horse racing, so my perspective is a little different.

In horse racing, any horse can enter just about any race they like. There is no system in place that keeps any horse down. Just ask the owners of Seabiscuit, Funny Cide, Seattle Slew, Smarty Jones, etc.

If horse racing was run like college football, those horses would have never had a chance to be champions. I am not saying that Boise is better than those teams. I am saying we will never know if they are or they aren't. We know they are better than Oklahoma. Who believed that before they played?

[46zilzal]

I don't bet on sports other than horse racing, so my perspective is a little different.

In horse racing, any horse can enter just about any race they like. There is no system in place that keeps any horse down. Just ask the owners of Seabiscuit, Funny Cide, Seattle Slew, Smarty Jones, etc.

If horse racing was run like college football, those horses would have never had a chance to be champions. I am not saying that Boise is better than those teams. I am saying we will never know if they are or they aren't. We know they are better than Oklahoma. Who believed that before they played?



Agree as I remember Quiet Little Table beating Forego at Saratoga. If that were college football they would never have been in a contest together

[rastajenk]

However, this schedule strength thing is usually a joke. It is totally incestuous. 95% of it is based on teams in the same conference playing each other. That thinking nearly brought us the incredible sham that would have been Ohio State and Michigan playing for a National Championship.

Really? Sounds like the wisdom of 20-20 hindsight. When that game was completed in November, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, said, well, that was nice, but it was merely between two overhyped teams in an overhyped conference, let's wait 'til they play somebody good to see their true measure. It was an instant-classic #1 vs. #2, and at least worthy of having a re-match discussed. In a universe only slightly altered, they could have paired up again, slugged each other silly, and people might be raving now about how the BCS has worked; Florida might have been involved in a great game shoot-out with Louisville or somebody else, but they'd be no more than an afterthought. (I, personally, never advocated for a re-match; I'm just saying that the logic for it was sound at that time.)

Last night on local radio, Thom Brennaman, who did the Monday game on Fox, was on, and he backed away from his call for a playoff during the Boise-Oklahoma game. The reason being that having a playoff championship would weaken everything else. What would it do to rivalry games? Like I alluded to a few pages ago, bowls are rewards for the players and their fans. You beat your rival late in the season, you solidify your place in the conference standings, you get a nice bowl bid. It's a vacation of several days in a destination city. In a playoff, Thom said, it would be like the NFL: you fly in on Friday night, play the game, and fly out immediately (especially if you win, to begin preparation for the next one). Who does that benefit? Only the TV network covering it. Not the host city. Not the losers. Not even the fans of the winners. In a cost-benefit analysis, deciding the champion on the field does not win out over all else.

[cj]

In a cost-benefit analysis, deciding the champion on the field does not win out over all else.

So, lets decide all sports champions WWE style then.

[rastajenk]

I don't watch rasslin' so I don't know what that means. All I know is that a watered-down, homogenized, corporate-sponsorhip borefest would be at least as likely as some kind of arbitrary playoff structure.

[cj]

We already have a corporate sponsored bore fest, don't we?

Every other sport I can think of has set rules on what it takes to win the championship. I can't think of any sport where winning all your games doesn't give you a chance at the title.

Why would a playoff system have to be arbitrary? If you establish rules, everyone will know what they have to do.

[rastajenk]

Because if you have four teams, the fifth and sixth teams will bitch. If you have eight, the ninth-ranked team will bitch. If you have conference champs only, a one-loss runner-up will bitch, not to mention all the ND alums. In basketball, they pick sixty-five, or is it sixty-six now, and there's still much grumbling from the "bubble teams." There's no end to it, really. There's probably griping going on at the lower division levels, too, but since nobody gives a shit we never hear about it.

"We already have a corporate sponsored bore fest, don't we?" Yes, we do, and we can blame the current BCS set-up for that.

[JPinMaryland]

In basketball, they pick sixty-five, or is it sixty-six now, and there's still much grumbling from the "bubble teams."



Yeah your right. College basketball just went all to hell when they started doing that tournament thing.

[rastajenk]

I was merely fleshing out cj's comment about having rules for participation in the playoffs. What are the rules for the basketball tournament? Win 20 games? A .500 record in the conference? A certain RPI, or strength of schedule? No, none of those. It's the opinion of a committee not without some bias. I'm never sad for the bubble teams left out; if they didn't play their way into that position, they wouldn't be griping. I'm just saying there can be no such thing as "rules" for a post-season tournament.

I love the basketball tournament. That first weekend is the best weekend of the sports year. But that's a function of the sheer number of games and the nature of the sport itself. By the time they get to the Final Four, most of my rooting interests have been eliminated and the games are much more predictable and much less interesting. There is so much different about the two sports that they can't be compared.

Most states, that I'm aware of, have high school football playoffs. Do the citizens of those individual states get jacked up about the playoffs? Can anyone name the champions in his state at all the division levels from just six or seven weeks ago? I know I can't. That's what I think a college playoff would produce in a short time. Less interest, not more.

[cj]

In basketball, if you win your conference, you are in, period.

Every team has a chance to win when the season starts. In football, many, many teams do not. I'd go so far as to say any team below a mid-major conference has zero chance, as proven by Boise.

[JPinMaryland]

. I'm just saying there can be no such thing as "rules" for a post-season tournament.

.

:confused: What does that mean? HOw about in football they take 6 conference winners plus two at large teams based on record then a tie break based on ranking?

Or maybe better, take 6 division winners, give them byes and take 4 at large and have them play a first round match, then get down to 8 teams..

These are rules, no?

[BlueShoe]

As several others have said,this was the best football game I can ever recall viewing,at any level,college or pro.Just to mention,have taken in a lot of games;when just a lad most college teams ran the single wing offense.Interesting in that the "shotgun" formations of today are versions of old single or double wing spreads first used many decades ago.