College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

[Priceless]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

The final AP poll is out. Guess where Boise State finished.

 

[UMDBulldogHockeyIsKing]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

The final AP poll is out. Guess where Boise State finished.

The more important question is where will the be come August? If they have them 10th in the preseason poll, another undefeated year may still not be enough to propel them into the big game.

 

[redwing77]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I never said they didn't deserve to win based on the circumstances, just that the circumstances should be forever explained so those idiots in the SEC can't get all self-righteous and act like they totally dominate the football world.

As opposed to the Texas faithful, you mean? Sorry. The Texas faithful are so convincing that they had half of the commentating crew almost actively rooting for them and almost in tears when McCoy went down and when Bama put the dagger in.

That's pretty powerful nowadays since "objective" sports media now can sponsor whole conferences (ESPN and SEC ok, it's not a sponsorship but it might as well be)

Is the Twins' 1987 World Series victory over the Cardinals tainted because Jack Clark, easily the best player on St. Louis, was injured and didn't play?

I love that rationale, don't you?

But if McCoy were playing, Bama might have called their plays slightly differently, too, no? There's just no way to win the what-if game - the only game you can win is the one that is actually played on the field.

It's a team sport. If Texas builds their whole team around one guy, then that's a risk they chose, very deliberately, to take.

Yup. I love one man TEAMS. They're so easily beaten. Knock the guy out and Texas should have folded like a cheap folding chair at fat camp.

Based on how Texas and Mccoy played against Nebraska, it is not a given that if he played the entire game last night Texas would have won. Granted he gives Texas the best shot to win, but there is no way anyone can state that the result would have been different had he not been injured.

No tainted victory, no asterix, just a National Championship for Alabama.

Seeing how McCoy played vs. Nebraska isn't very good... because Nebraska could have won it if they had a field goal kicker that was clutch.

McCoy was almost useless (and would have been completely if that joke of a QB Zach Lee didn't one-up that fact) and neither was his O-Line and I don't think their D was all that good either... just benefitted from Zach Lee sucking at life.

So... what kind of asterisk do you put on a victory over a team that probably shouldn't've been there in the first place?

Alabama almost lost to Colt McCoy and the OVERRATED (even with McCoy at the helm) Longhorns.

But, no, instead Alabama won the NC. Congrats to them.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

It's your quaterback, you kind of have to build your team around him.

Which must explain why no mediocre quarterbacks have ever won a national championship? You can't seriously be arguing that LSU 2004 was "built around" Matt Mauck (who? I had to look that up) or OU 2001 was built around Josh Heupel or Tennessee 1998 was built around Tee Martin. Those were strong teams with better-than-competent quarterbacks, but they were not built around their quarterbacks by any stretch.

Or even last night - McElroy was 6/11 for 58 yards. I think Alabama would have been just fine without him.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

If there's anything tainted about this victory, it's that there are still two undefeated teams and they never got the chance to play each other.

That notwithstanding, given the current stupid rules, Alabama is the national champion and rightfully so. Injuries are part of the game. If Texas was a deeper team maybe they would have been able to overcome it. If you don't like that, that's too bad for you. Go cry me a river.

By the way, I do think Alabama would beat Boise State, but in sports it's not what you think, it's what you prove on the field. And Boise State never got a chance to prove what we think to be wrong. And that's foolish.

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports has the answer - government figures from Senators to President Obama have expressed their displeasure with the BCS, but it's not politically smart to actually do anything about it since there are far, far more important things on the plate than a college football national championship determination method. Anyone in government taking actual action against the BCS will draw rightful ire, because it is stupid in the grand scheme of things. However, no one will bat an eye when Alabama goes to visit the White House in recognition of their national championship - that's one of the "Head of State" duties that the public expects from the President. So why not use that window to advantage? Invite Boise State too, as the 2nd (now of 3) teams to finish the season 14-0. It's a simple statement that'll put pressure on the BCS without having to do much.

Wetzel made a good point that's hard to argue with - the BCS likes to circumvent the playoff discussion by saying that they make every week of the regular season a playoff. If that's true, in what game was Boise State eliminated?

Here's the article, it's a good read: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-obamaplayoff010510&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

[bronconick]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

That's a brilliant idea.

 

[Hammer]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Reports are swirling that South Florida has fired Jim Leavitt.

From CBS Sportsline

 

[The Darkness]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Which must explain why no mediocre quarterbacks have ever won a national championship? You can't seriously be arguing that LSU 2004 was "built around" Matt Mauck (who? I had to look that up) or OU 2001 was built around Josh Heupel or Tennessee 1998 was built around Tee Martin. Those were strong teams with better-than-competent quarterbacks, but they were not built around their quarterbacks by any stretch.

Or even last night - McElroy was 6/11 for 58 yards. I think Alabama would have been just fine without him.

Alabama runs a very conservative offense but if Greg McElroy goes down in the first quarter Alabama struggles, it changes the game.

The center quaterback exchange changes, the hand off points change, the tempo of the game changes.

McElroy still had to read the defenses and make adjustment accordingly, McElroy managed the game for Alabama. Most importantly McElroy goes down Texas has no respect for their passing game whatsoever and they play 9 men at the line of scrimmage to make sure they can't run the ball at all.

More importantly we're not talking about a mediocre quarterback who is usually asked just to manage the game. We're talking about a quarterback that runs a high speed pass first spread offense who completes 80% of his passes and is the leading rusher on his team. But more importantly Colt McCoy is the leader of that team mentally.

Could you imagine the Colts trying to play for the Super Bowl after Peyton Manning goes down.

For that matter could you imagine the Vikings playing after Brett Favre go, or the Saints, Packers, Cowboys, or even the Ravens.

Losing your quarterback is monumental. If you can name me one team that has won a championship game after their starting quarterback left early in the game with a injury I will admit that I'm wrong.

I promise you there are a lot more stories of teams going down in flames after losing their quarterback then there are success stories.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Alabama runs a very conservative offense but if Greg McElroy goes down in the first quarter Alabama struggles, it changes the game.

The center quaterback exchange changes, the hand off points change, the tempo of the game changes.

McElroy still had to read the defenses and make adjustment accordingly, McElroy managed the game for Alabama. Most importantly McElroy goes down Texas has no respect for their passing game whatsoever and they play 9 men at the line of scrimmage to make sure they can't run the ball at all.

More importantly we're not talking about a mediocre quarterback who is usually asked just to manage the game. We're talking about a quarterback that runs a high speed pass first spread offense who completes 80% of his passes and is the leading rusher on his team. But more importantly Colt McCoy is the leader of that team mentally.

Could you imagine the Colts trying to play for the Super Bowl after Peyton Manning goes down.

For that matter could you imagine the Vikings playing after Brett Favre go, or the Saints, Packers, Cowboys, or even the Ravens.

Losing your quarterback is monumental. If you can name me one team that has won a championship game after their starting quarterback left early in the game with a injury I will admit that I'm wrong.

I promise you there are a lot more stories of teams going down in flames after losing their quarterback then there are success stories.

You've said so much, and yet you've failed to impart exactly why it is that Alabama's victory is flawed in any way, shape, or form.

So what if the team lost its QB? They had a decent backup and they still lost. Football is still a team sport last time I checked, and the QB is 1 out of 22 players on the field. His role is most important obviously, but it's still a team sport. You don't win championships on the back of one person alone. The greatest QB of all time could play with a swiss cheese line and his team wouldn't be going anywhere.

Apparently, it's Alabama's fault that Texas didn't have another All-World QB to step in for McCoy. Therefore, their win is tainted. What a stupid remark. You don't think Texas had enough QB depth, maybe? Did they (or you) think that injuries aren't supposed to happen in football?

Jesus.

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

So then Texas' victory over Oklahoma is tainted right? If so that means Texas should have never been in the BCS Title game anyways. There ya go, Alabama still is your BCS Champion.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Losing your quarterback is monumental. If you can name me one team that has won a championship game after their starting quarterback left early in the game with a injury I will admit that I'm wrong.

New England lost Tom Brady in the 2001 AFC championship game vs Pittsburgh. They had to go back to Bledsoe.

Of course, they were already screwed beyond recovery in the regular season when they lost Bledsoe and had to go to Tom Brady.

Does that count?

 

[The Darkness]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

You've said so much, and yet you've failed to impart exactly why it is that Alabama's victory is flawed in any way, shape, or form.

So what if the team lost its QB? They had a decent backup and they still lost. Football is still a team sport last time I checked, and the QB is 1 out of 22 players on the field. His role is most important obviously, but it's still a team sport. You don't win championships on the back of one person alone. The greatest QB of all time could play with a swiss cheese line and his team wouldn't be going anywhere.

Apparently, it's Alabama's fault that Texas didn't have another All-World QB to step in for McCoy. Therefore, their win is tainted. What a stupid remark. You don't think Texas had enough QB depth, maybe? Did they (or you) think that injuries aren't supposed to happen in football?

Jesus.

I stated early that given the circumstances Alabama deserved to win. I just said that if McCoy didn't get hurt the game would have been drastically different, and personally not only do I feel cheated for seeing the matchup I was promised, but I also think Texas with McCoy has a exponentially better chance of beating Alabama for then Texas without McCoy. This is a opinion that I have justified, and really I don't even see why I have to.

Yes a quarterback is just one part of a team, but in football he is the most important part, just like in hockey your goalie is the most crucial part of your team. Except in football because the season is so short and every game matters backup quarterbacks rarely ever get any significant playing time.

 

[The Darkness]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

So then Texas' victory over Oklahoma is tainted right? If so that means Texas should have never been in the BCS Title game anyways. There ya go, Alabama still is your BCS Champion.

I'm sure a lot of the people on Texas feels like that victory doesn't amount to much, and I'm sure they didn't get anywhere as much respect for that game as they would have if Sam Bradford had been healthy.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I stated early that given the circumstances Alabama deserved to win. I just said that if McCoy didn't get hurt the game would have been drastically different, and personally not only do I feel cheated for seeing the matchup I was promised, but I also think Texas with McCoy has a exponentially better chance of beating Alabama for then Texas without McCoy. This is a opinion that I have justified, and really I don't even see why I have to.

Very few people gave Texas much of a chance even WITH McCoy. Ever heard of chaos theory? The game might have been much different if Mack Brown hadn't called that stupid shovel pass either. But it's stupid to ponder because he DID call it. Colt McCoy DID get hurt. You deal with what happens and you go on from there. Texas was not a good enough team to deal with the aftereffects of McCoy's injury. They weren't good enough to come back from the shovel pass or the fumble deep in their own zone. Alabama was good enough to come back from the fake punt interception. Enough said.

Yes a quarterback is just one part of a team, but in football he is the most important part, just like in hockey your goalie is the most crucial part of your team. Except in football because the season is so short and every game matters backup quarterbacks rarely ever get any significant playing time.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

So then Texas' victory over Oklahoma is tainted right? If so that means Texas should have never been in the BCS Title game anyways. There ya go, Alabama still is your BCS Champion.

To say nothing of the end of the Big 12 championship game. Given the way Nebraska took a giant dump on Arizona, I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that the Cornhuskers would have been much more of an enjoyable BCS entry than Texas. Or maybe in light of that game and the bowl failures from Cincinnati and TCU, maybe Boise State or Florida might have been a better choice for the BCS title game.

 

[French Rage]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Unless there were specific rules broken, the game stands regardless of who got hurt and who didn't. Now, whether this game should have solely determined who won the national championship is another issue. But playing multiple levels of what-ifs is asinine.

 

[True Blue Fan]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

That win deserves an *

He sat for two series and was ineffective for the couple of series before that.

He never had to leave the sideline.

The Texas team had to watch the centerpiece of their team and their leader leave the field and not come back. I'm sure there's a reason the entire team started playing better when he got to the sideline.

It's a tainted victory, it just is.

I stated early that given the circumstances Alabama deserved to win. I just said that if McCoy didn't get hurt the game would have been drastically different, and personally not only do I feel cheated for seeing the matchup I was promised, but I also think Texas with McCoy has a exponentially better chance of beating Alabama for then Texas without McCoy. This is a opinion that I have justified, and really I don't even see why I have to.

Yes a quarterback is just one part of a team, but in football he is the most important part, just like in hockey your goalie is the most crucial part of your team. Except in football because the season is so short and every game matters backup quarterbacks rarely ever get any significant playing time.

Yes you may have stated they deserved to win, but you are also stating that an * should be placed on the victory and that it was tainted.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, maybe, what if, probably, all dealing in fantasy, it is what it is and you have not come close to convincing me that the game would have been any different had Mccoy played the whole game. He laid an egg against Nebraska, which is not nearly as good as Alabama.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Unless there were specific rules broken, the game stands regardless of who got hurt and who didn't. Now, whether this game should have solely determined who won the national championship is another issue. But playing multiple levels of what-ifs is asinine.

Basically. This championship is a fraud because there are two undefeated teams with excellent resumes left at the end of the year, not because Texas apparently had a suspect backup plan.

 

[True Blue Fan]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Basically. This championship is a fraud because there are two undefeated teams with excellent resumes left at the end of the year, not because Texas apparently had a suspect backup plan.

Boise St. may be undefeated but their resume is hardly what one would call excellent.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Boise St. may be undefeated but their resume is hardly what one would call excellent.

Their resume is excellent considering who was willing to play them, which is no one.

It seems morally backwards to accuse a team of having a poor resume when it is outside of its control and no one is willing to play them, even at home.