USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
- Thread starter GreatLakerMohawk
- Start date
- Status
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Cincinnati would leapfrog the Horned Frogs
Cincinnati would leapfrog the Horned Frogs
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
reading this, well that gave me a headache..
reading this, well that gave me a headache..
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Gerhart and Golden Tate <em>should be</em> one-two, and not necessarily in that order either.
McCoy's 9 INTs disqualify him. I think if you take a QB, it should be Clausen.
Gerhart and Golden Tate <em>should be</em> one-two, and not necessarily in that order either.
McCoy's 9 INTs disqualify him. I think if you take a QB, it should be Clausen.
Last edited:
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
if they gave penn state the bid over iowa, gotta think they would completely undermine themselves given iowa's victory over psu earlier in the year...
if they gave penn state the bid over iowa, gotta think they would completely undermine themselves given iowa's victory over psu earlier in the year...
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Hopefully that would lead to a peasants' revolt and burning down every TV studio in the country.
What exactly was wrong with the system circa 1975 again? (Other than not maximizing network revenue.)
Hopefully that would lead to a peasants' revolt and burning down every TV studio in the country.
What exactly was wrong with the system circa 1975 again? (Other than not maximizing network revenue.)
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Perhaps, but Northwestern is a worse loss to have on your record than Iowa.
Perhaps, but Northwestern is a worse loss to have on your record than Iowa.
BoomGoestheDynamite
Registered User
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
The 2007 Missouri team sends its regards.
The 2007 Missouri team sends its regards.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Clausen being 6-6 disqualifies him. How about giving Kellen Moore some credit, he has had an amazing season.
Clausen being 6-6 disqualifies him. How about giving Kellen Moore some credit, he has had an amazing season.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Once you get past the title game, it has very little to do with merit. Consequently, Iowa's win over PSU is more or less irrelevant.
Once you get past the title game, it has very little to do with merit. Consequently, Iowa's win over PSU is more or less irrelevant.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Clausen is not 6-6. Notre Dame is 6-6. And since when did the quality of the rest of the team become a determining factor? Oh, right, since ESPN started deciding who wins the award.
Kellen Moore does deserve some credit. Although the competition is a little questionable, he's had an outstanding season and (like Clausen) should be ahead of "leader of a top team" types like McCoy and Tebow.
Personally, I tend to favor not giving it to a QB. Notwithstanding his outstanding statistical performances, Clausen's been a little spotty in a couple of games of late. As I said, Tate or Gerhart is my preference.
Clausen is not 6-6. Notre Dame is 6-6. And since when did the quality of the rest of the team become a determining factor? Oh, right, since ESPN started deciding who wins the award.
Kellen Moore does deserve some credit. Although the competition is a little questionable, he's had an outstanding season and (like Clausen) should be ahead of "leader of a top team" types like McCoy and Tebow.
Personally, I tend to favor not giving it to a QB. Notwithstanding his outstanding statistical performances, Clausen's been a little spotty in a couple of games of late. As I said, Tate or Gerhart is my preference.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Would TCU have a shot at playing in a big bowl, or would they be contractually obligated to play in a smaller bowl?
Who would the SEC choose from between Alabama and Florida to be its champion and play in the Sugar Bowl?
Some of the bowls on New Year's Day:
Citrus Bowl: Georgia Tech vs LSU
Fiesta: TCU? vs. Boise State
Cotton: Nebraska vs. Penn State(?)
Rose: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Sugar: Alabama/Florida vs. (possibly TCU)
Orange: Texas vs. Cincinnati(?)
And the national champion is...
Would TCU have a shot at playing in a big bowl, or would they be contractually obligated to play in a smaller bowl?
Who would the SEC choose from between Alabama and Florida to be its champion and play in the Sugar Bowl?
Some of the bowls on New Year's Day:
Citrus Bowl: Georgia Tech vs LSU
Fiesta: TCU? vs. Boise State
Cotton: Nebraska vs. Penn State(?)
Rose: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Sugar: Alabama/Florida vs. (possibly TCU)
Orange: Texas vs. Cincinnati(?)
And the national champion is...
BoomGoestheDynamite
Registered User
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
The problem as I see it is that the BCS still purports to give us a true national champion, where the old system made no such claim. Texas has no reason on paper to be selected over TCU or Cincinnati for the title game. They will go and possibly be crowned "national champions" for no reason other than they're a big name school from a big name conference (that has lost more title games than any other by far, including two in humiliating fashion).
The old system would still leave a little play in the joints with a split title or at the very least not having any central body recognize a national champion. This year more than ever is a ****ing indictment of the BCS. It is the worst of both worlds.
The problem as I see it is that the BCS still purports to give us a true national champion, where the old system made no such claim. Texas has no reason on paper to be selected over TCU or Cincinnati for the title game. They will go and possibly be crowned "national champions" for no reason other than they're a big name school from a big name conference (that has lost more title games than any other by far, including two in humiliating fashion).
The old system would still leave a little play in the joints with a split title or at the very least not having any central body recognize a national champion. This year more than ever is a ****ing indictment of the BCS. It is the worst of both worlds.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
We replaced human polling with a computerized clusterfrak that takes human polling, mixes it with some other stuff and spits out two winners that get to duke it out. Some people make tons of money.
Other than that- we still have a championship decided mostly by polls that is designed to leave certain deserving teams on the outside looking in.
Honestly: there isn't much of a difference between 1975 and now.
We replaced human polling with a computerized clusterfrak that takes human polling, mixes it with some other stuff and spits out two winners that get to duke it out. Some people make tons of money.
Other than that- we still have a championship decided mostly by polls that is designed to leave certain deserving teams on the outside looking in.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
In theory, you could replace TCU with an undefeated Iowa or Oregon State- since they would have not been able to leap frog Texas nor Florida.
The only team capable of being in the top 3 outside of Alabama, Texas, or Florida had they gone undefeated was USC. Other than that, the pre-season path decided what was going to happen. THAT is the problem I have with the system. It doesn't matter how good your team is if they are underrated at the beginning of the season as long as the over rated teams go undefeated.
And for the "rematch"- as much as OSU tanked a few years ago- lest we forget why they didn't rematch against Michigan- if you can't bother to win your conference, you have no business being in a one game tournament for a national championship.
In theory, you could replace TCU with an undefeated Iowa or Oregon State- since they would have not been able to leap frog Texas nor Florida.
The only team capable of being in the top 3 outside of Alabama, Texas, or Florida had they gone undefeated was USC. Other than that, the pre-season path decided what was going to happen. THAT is the problem I have with the system. It doesn't matter how good your team is if they are underrated at the beginning of the season as long as the over rated teams go undefeated.
And for the "rematch"- as much as OSU tanked a few years ago- lest we forget why they didn't rematch against Michigan- if you can't bother to win your conference, you have no business being in a one game tournament for a national championship.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
The one improvement over 1975 is that a clear #1 team can no longer avoid playing the best available team, as happened a few times in the 1970s and 1980s. Other than that, it's pretty much a wash--and that is exactly what it was designed to be. A continuation of the old system, with a small improvement.
Given the constraints that they are operating under (preservation of the major bowl games, protection of the major conferences and a maximum of 1 post-season game per team), you really can't invent a system that does much better. The problem is with the constraints, not the system.
The one improvement over 1975 is that a clear #1 team can no longer avoid playing the best available team, as happened a few times in the 1970s and 1980s. Other than that, it's pretty much a wash--and that is exactly what it was designed to be. A continuation of the old system, with a small improvement.
Given the constraints that they are operating under (preservation of the major bowl games, protection of the major conferences and a maximum of 1 post-season game per team), you really can't invent a system that does much better. The problem is with the constraints, not the system.
P
Priceless
Guest
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings
Okay, just how many guys have won the Heisman on a team with a losing record? I believe the answer is 1. Less-than team = No Heisman.
Clausen is not 6-6. Notre Dame is 6-6. And since when did the quality of the rest of the team become a determining factor? Oh, right, since ESPN started deciding who wins the award.
Okay, just how many guys have won the Heisman on a team with a losing record? I believe the answer is 1. Less-than team = No Heisman.
- Status