College Football

[just strum]

Fiesta Bowl
No. 3 Texas vs. No. 10 Ohio St.
January 5, 2009


Note, I am not counting out Utah or the exceptionally over-rated Ohio State, but I'd entertain any arguments as to how Texas v Alabama is not a more interesting game. The BCS remains a complete joke.

When I saw this on ESPN yesterday I was shocked. This has to even have Woody rolling over in his grave.

 

[piebaldpython]

When I saw this on ESPN yesterday I was shocked. This has to even have Woody rolling over in his grave.

Well Strum, if OSU beats Texas, CB may wanna jump in a grave. :rotflmao:

Speaking of football games.......hey Strum, I think NEXT Monday nite's game it between my IGGLES and your BROWNS.....somehow, the EAGLES still have a shot at the wildcard, they played the last couple of games well.......which means....that against the BROWNS.......they may very well go belly-up and make everyone on the Browns look like Hall Of Famers.

They (the Iggles) do that to us all the time.....drives the whole city nuts......when we have a chance to put somebody away, SPLAT!!.....not all the time mind you......but often enough to where we all hold our breaths, shut our eyes, cover our ears and say rosaries throughout the game. ahah

Which IGGLES team will show up???

 

[R_of_G]

So, since we are talking about college football and its travesties, let's talk about the Hesiman Award which will be presented on Saturday.

The Heisman is supposed to be an award for the "most outstanding" college football player in a season. Instead, it has traditionally been awarded to the most outstanding QB or RB in college football in a season. This year will be no different. The four finalists will be four QB's - Bradford, McCoy, Tebow and Harrell. Statistically speaking, it's Bradford, no question. However, there is much more to being the best than having the best numbers. In terms of what he meant to his team and how he contributed to the wins, the best QB would be McCoy. Of course given the regional nature of the voting, Bradford and McCoy will split many votes and Tebow may wind up winning (the second player ever to win two straight, the other being the great Archie Griffin).

Of course, the award is not for the best QB, it's for the best player. In my opinion, the best player in college football this year is USC's middle linebacker Rey Maualuga. He is, without question, the most dominant defensive player in college football on the team with the most dominant defense. If the award was truly for the best player, it would be Maualuga's. Whichever NFL team is lucky enough to draft him will have a centerpiece to build a defense around.

 

[Brian Krashpad]

The Heisman has been about backs for decades, that's sorta a done deal. I mean, look at the statute.

Tebow isn't close statistically, but closing strong and carrying the team is probably a big part of it, and he pretty much single-handidly willed the Gators to come from behind against Bama. Even with that, he'd still be out of contention without the possibility of the split.

Go Gators.

 

[R_of_G]

I agree, it's traditionally been an award for backs. Of course the voters could change that at any time by voting for defensive players. They did it for Woodson, they can do it again.

I also agree about Tebow. He did not have the numbers he had last season, but his importance to Florida can't be understated. He's been a lot of fun to watch. I'm not sure how his game would translate to the NFL when the time comes for him to go, but with his athleticism, I think he could adapt.

I'm rooting for Florida bc (a) I live in Florida and have some civic pride, and as previously ranted about by me (b) Oklahoma doesn't belong there. Go Gators indeed!:dude:

 

[R_of_G]

Sugar Bowl

Well that was a lot more interesting a Sugar Bowl than I'd anticipated. How's that for an example of why we need playoffs in college football? As you guys know from my thoughts on USC, I don't believe in allowing perceptions of a conference's strength to rank teams (nor do I believe in the rankings). What a team like Utah proves is that whatever one thinks of their competition, they ae still a team that won every game they played in. The BCS polls said Alabama was a much better team despite their loss because they perceive the SEC as strong. That Alabama team couldn't stop Utah. It's just like the Boise St/Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl of a few years back. Put the teams on the field and you might be surprised which one is better.

Congratulations to Utah. At 13-0, I find it harder and harder to refute the argument that they should be national champions. At the very least, they should have had the chance to play for it.

 

[marnold]

Congratulations to Utah. At 13-0, I find it harder and harder to refute the argument that they should be national champions. At the very least, they should have had the chance to play for it.

Got that right. Unlike many big conference teams they tried to do something about their schedule by getting a road game at Michigan. Granted, Michigan stunk this year but there's no way the Utes can be blamed for that. I think it just shows how outdated and utterly broken both polls are. I don't think either one knows you-know-what from Shinola.

 

[just strum]

...I mean, look at the statute.

and all this time I thought it was a cornerback taking an interception in for a touchdown.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I thought Brian meant that some legislative Act applied, mandating a back be picked. LOL!

 

[Bloozcat]

Well that was a lot more interesting a Sugar Bowl than I'd anticipated. How's that for an example of why we need playoffs in college football? As you guys know from my thoughts on USC, I don't believe in allowing perceptions of a conference's strength to rank teams (nor do I believe in the rankings). What a team like Utah proves is that whatever one thinks of their competition, they ae still a team that won every game they played in. The BCS polls said Alabama was a much better team despite their loss because they perceive the SEC as strong. That Alabama team couldn't stop Utah. It's just like the Boise St/Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl of a few years back. Put the teams on the field and you might be surprised which one is better.

Congratulations to Utah. At 13-0, I find it harder and harder to refute the argument that they should be national champions. At the very least, they should have had the chance to play for it.

I couldn't agree more...

Utah destroyed Alabama even worse than the Gators had. Yet in beating Alabama, Florida earned a spot in the national championship game. Utah with a better performance against Alabama and a perfect record gets to sit at home while Florida with a lesser record gets to play for the national championship of college football. What a crock!

I'm not faulting Florida, I'm happy for them that they're in the big game, and maybe they truly do deserve to be there. Nor am I faulting Oklahoma who had a fine season themselves. But what about Texas who got totally screwed out of what could be reasonably argued as their rightful place in the big game? And what of USC with only one loss and looking like a world beater themselves at seasons end?

And what of Utah...and what of Utah...the only unbeaten team in 1-A college football. Are they the unwanted stepchildren of a lesser god? According to the overwhelmingly flawed BCS, they are.

On Thursday night a new national champion of college football will be crowned by the BCS. Too bad we still won't know who truly is the best team.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Aren't colleges supposed to be institutions of higher learning? Perhaps a little remedial re-education is what's needed for the under-achievers at the BCS:

Now each of you write on the board 1000 times...playoffs, playoffs, playoffs....

 

[marnold]

I won't disagree that playoffs would be great. I will disagree that a playoff system automatically determines the best team. All it determines is the best/most fortunate team in that particular playoff. My only issue with a playoff is that it will allow us to keep the fraud that is the poll system alive and well. Unfortunately I know that will change when you can ice skate in Hades.

 

[R_of_G]

I won't disagree that playoffs would be great. I will disagree that a playoff system automatically determines the best team. All it determines is the best/most fortunate team in that particular playoff.

That's what I think a national champion should be. In most of the sports world, championships are determined by on the field performance in some form of tournament. There's always room for argument about who is the "best" team. It's part of what makes talking about sports fun, but "best" will always be subjective. That conversation shouldn't get it in the way of determining a national champion. It's not like in the NHL where the Wings win the championships because they are the best team (though it pains me to acknowledge that).

My only issue with a playoff is that it will allow us to keep the fraud that is the poll system alive and well.

Not necessarily. I have some thoughts on how it could work, but it would require the Big 10 and Pac 10 to institute a conference championship game and force Notre Dame to join a conference or be forever left out of contention for the playoffs. I don't expect to ever see it come to what I have in mind. All I ever hear about is a potential 8 team playoff. In that case, I agree with Marnold. It would necessitate keeping the polling system and would be unable to guarantee all teams deserving a shot would get one.

 

[Bloozcat]

In all playoff scenarios there are pitfalls, but at least the issue would be settled on the field where all participants have a shot at it.

I favor a sixteen team, eight game format. Eight games, then four games, then two games to determine the two teams in the championship game. Even with the current polling system it's not likely that the pollsters are going to omit any truly deserving team with sixteen slots available. The only possible argument I could see in this format may be in how the teams are paired for each game. But, all any team has to do is win and keep on winning. They'd get to prove themselves on the field...or not.

I'm not really big on the conference champion vs. conference champion format, though. Some of the stronger conferences (and that's subject to change) could have more than one team with a better record against better competition than the champion of another conference. I guess I'm not quite ready to accept that all conferences are at the same level of competition, that is unless their record proves they are as in the case of Utah this year and a team like Boise State in past years.

Oh yeah, and Notre Dame? Shut up, put on your big boy pants, and join a conference. The Prima Donna act looks ridiculous when you stink as badly as you do.

 

[R_of_G]

I'm not really big on the conference champion vs. conference champion format, though. Some of the stronger conferences (and that's subject to change) could have more than one team with a better record against better competition than the champion of another conference. I guess I'm not quite ready to accept that all conferences are at the same level of competition, that is unless their record proves they are as in the case of Utah this year and a team like Boise State in past years.

It's exactly why I favor 16 teams. With 16 you get all 11 conference champions, and then have room for 5 more teams. I think there are ways to determine which 5 teams are deserving of a shot at those 5 at large slots and level of competition could come into play here. Lots of ways they could try. Any of them would be an improvement.

 

[Bloozcat]

Well, after sitting through the entire Fiesta Bowl last night I came away with two major impressions:

1) Texas has no business anywhere near the BCS Championship game.

Texas looked about as unmotivated as a team could throughout the first half. And this after talking all week about "showcasing" themselves on national TV to support their claim that they should have been in the big game, not Oklahoma. After they no doubt got a major butt chewing from the coach at halftime, they came out in the third quarter and scored 14 points. Then as if to say, "See, we can do it any time we like, we're the best", they went back to their first half lethargy. In the meantime, Ohio State continued to push on, playing the best game they could, and crept back into the game. When Texas woke up and found their collective back against the wall, they finally got just serious enough to close out the game with a win...and it was a pretty tenuous win at that. After having watched the Texas-Oklahoma game earlier this year, I thought Texas was a real contender. I was wrong. Real contenders don't let up, ever...not until they either go down fighting or they reach final victory. Texas, in what appeared to be a fit of pique, played like they were already the champions and deserving of everyone's adoration. Well, Ohio State didn't see it that way and it almost cost Texas the game. To Ohio State's credit, they came to play. But amongst the big boys they're still a second rate Big Ten team, and yet another bowl game proved it. Still, they gave it their best shot and they should be congratulated for that.

2) Ohio State can't win the big game.

Ohio State fans always want to argue this point, pointing to victories over other Big Ten teams like Michigan or Penn State. We all saw what USC did to Penn State in the Rose Bowl, and Michigan has finally collapsed under the weight of their alumni's unrealistic expectations. No, the "big game", is any game outside of the Big Ten where the big boys test their mettle. I give Ohio State credit for their willingness to travel to other stadiums and take on competition from the other big conferences (are you listening Michigan?), but it usually results in a loss far from home. Bowl games? Just more of the same.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but there are contenders to the throne and there are pretenders to the throne. Texas played like a contender all year long, only to turn themselves into a pretender at the end. I'm sorry the BCS slighted you, but show some pride. You're a better team than last night's performance showed...or at least I thought so.

Ohio State is a perennial pretender to the throne. It's not all their fault, there are all of those Big Ten sycophants that drool all over themselves as they give Ohio State and Michigan their undeserved top ten rankings at the start of each year. That aside, it's up to Ohio State to turn inward if they want to become a contender. Quit believing the pollsters who make a living of blowing smoke up your, you-know-what’s every year. Gauge yourselves against the real competition out there, not on the praise of your buddies. And as to "Mr. Sweater Vest", it's time to get your nose out of the air and get it back to the grindstone. Your smug Mr. Rogers Neighborhood humility act wore thin years ago. It's long past time for you to return to earth...where the real championship caliber coaches ply their trade.

Just my $.02...fire away.....

 

[marnold]

Blooz, tell us how you really feel!

Personally, I didn't think that OSU would do as well as they did against Texas. I thought they were overrated at #10. The big issue for Texas is that this is the first team that they faced all year that actually plays defense.

Lately, the Big 10 has gone from being "Michigan, Ohio State, and everybody else," to "several so-so teams and one or two who are slightly better than that." It's parity at its worst right now.

I don't know what you mean by "take on competition from other conferences." Michigan traditionally has had two tough pre-Big-10 games (usually Notre Dame and somebody else) and a cupcake. Granted the past couple of years haven't been the best for ND, but it's not like they picked on Girl Scout Troop 101 either. I challenge you to find me one major program that routinely schedules road games against non-conference top 10 opposition.

Michigan's bowl record has not been good . . . except when they play the supposedly dominant SEC. Let's not forget last year when Michigan beat Florida and Heisman winner Tim Tebow. It would've been an annihilation had Mike Hart not had several uncharacteristic fumbles. And that wasn't a very good Michigan team.

I can also guarantee you that you won't have to worry about Michigan being in the top 10 pre-season next year. I'd be flabbergasted if they were ranked at all--at any point. I don't have much faith in RichRod, to be honest. I'd much rather see Michigan play a pro-style offense. For some reason, they didn't consult me.

 

[just strum]

The end result of the USC and Penn: "Give Penn credit, they played hard"

End result of Texas and Ohio State: "They can't win a bowl game, they suck..."

I only caught the first half, Ohio State won 6 to 3!!!

 

[Bloozcat]

The end result of the USC and Penn: "Give Penn credit, they played hard"

End result of Texas and Ohio State: "They can't win a bowl game, they suck..."

I only caught the first half, Ohio State won 6 to 3!!!

Oh, I think Ohio State played hard...as hard as they could. I don't think that Texas did and that's why the game was perceived as a "good game". It was artifically close, in my opinion. Texas may be a little surprised when the end of the season rankings come out and the polsters don't reward them with the ranking they think they deserve. I think Ohio State's problem is an institutional one, not a motivational one.

And I don't think Penn State played particularly well, but I'd say it was as well as they could play against USC. USC played their game and won it. There was no need for them run up of the score excessively, they just exploited their advantages and won handily. I think Penn State was over-matched just as Ohio State was. I just think that Texas didn't play to their capability.

 

[R_of_G]

Judging Texas unworthy of championship contention by that game alone seems arbitrary. I have no idea how an evaluation of that game proves anything about Texas' stacking up to Oklahoma. Oklahoma wasn't in the game.

It may reflect a bit on Mack Brown's ability to get his guys fired up for a game, but that's not even close to the same thing as a measure of how good a team it is. I'm surprised they were motivated at all to even show up for the game. They could have won by 100 points and it wouldn't have made a difference to anyone. They still had to play the 10th ranked team while a team that they beat on a neutral field gets to play for a championship.

Last night's game proved to me exactly two things...

1. Colt McCoy is the best QB in college football. There is no way I am listening to any more arguments about Bradford. McCoy does more with less. It's no contest to me which one is better and when they met head to head, McCoy beat him. He now holds the FBS (Div 1) record for highest completion percentage in a season. I know which one I'd rather have.

2. Texas can come back when they have to. I don't see it as a negative as has been suggested. It's the mark of a champion to win when they are down. Championship teams are not necessarily teams that lead from whistle to whistle. They are the teams that get it done and win the game when the clock hits 0:00. The attitude they showed and how much they won by is completely irrelevant. When the game was over, Texas won. It's that simple. That they still won even though it was a lackluster effort shows how good they really are. They only have to turn it on for a few minutes here and there and they can still win. If it were a playoff, they'd advance.

What else did they have to prove? Post season rankings are meaningless. Do you think they care if they are 3 or 5 or 25? They won all but 1 game and that's all they care about.

 

[Bloozcat]

Blooz, tell us how you really feel!
I don't know what you mean by "take on competition from other conferences." Michigan traditionally has had two tough pre-Big-10 games (usually Notre Dame and somebody else) and a cupcake. Granted the past couple of years haven't been the best for ND, but it's not like they picked on Girl Scout Troop 101 either. I challenge you to find me one major program that routinely schedules road games against non-conference top 10 opposition.

Michigan's bowl record has not been good . . . except when they play the supposedly dominant SEC. Let's not forget last year when Michigan beat Florida and Heisman winner Tim Tebow. It would've been an annihilation had Mike Hart not had several uncharacteristic fumbles. And that wasn't a very good Michigan team.

I can also guarantee you that you won't have to worry about Michigan being in the top 10 pre-season next year. I'd be flabbergasted if they were ranked at all--at any point. I don't have much faith in RichRod, to be honest. I'd much rather see Michigan play a pro-style offense. For some reason, they didn't consult me.

Yes, you are right about this, marnold. It's a stereotype from the not too distant past. Michigan has become a little more adventurous in recent years. I distinctly remember back in the 80's/90's when both Miami and Florida State were national power teams, and they both scheduled games with Michigan. Both teams went to Ann Arbor and beat Michigan, but Michigan refused to reciprocate with a game at either Florida school's home field. Michigan's excuse was, because the "big house" holds so many more people, more revenue would be generated by playing there. The Florida schools thought it was just good sportsmanship to reciprocate. That was the end of that...except for the lingering animosity of the fans in Florida who remember this. By the way, Ohio State and Miami did meet several times during this period, at neutral sites.

With a playoff game for most of the large conferences now a reality, most BCS conference schools pretty much dropped the games they once played against other large conference teams.

Notre Dame used to be a tough rival for Michigan, but that's certainly not the case now. You're right, they're not Girl Scout Troop 101...more like Troop 102... That's certainly not Michigan's fault though either.

We beat Hawaii!, We beat Hawaii!,...at what Notre Dame, surfing?

So, who's this "other" tough pre-big ten game Michigan plays? Appalachian State? (sorry for the dig, that one will take some time to live down ) One of the PAC Ten schools?

Ah, yes, last years (non-BCS) Capital One bowl game...

Both Florida and Michigan came into the game with identical 9-4 records, but Florida was ranked #9 and Michigan wasn't ranked at all. To sum it up, after a disappointing season of high expectations, Florida entered the game a little flat. Michigan came in on an emotional high for Lloyd Carr's last game as Michigan coach. Bottom line: Michigan wanted it more and they played like it. Florida underestimated Michigan and the Wolverines took advantage of it. No excuses for Florida and none heard from Tim Tebow after the game. But what a difference a year makes...

One of the major gripes from fans of teams in conferences other than the Big Ten is the preferential treatment Big Ten schools (read, Ohio State and Michigan) get in the pre-season polls. So often at least one of the teams that ends up in the championship game, starts much further down in the rankings and has to claw their way up, while Michigan and Ohio State get a pass. Even so, Michigan and Ohio State are rarely able to hold onto their lofty gift rankings and they usually drop out of contention. Unfortunately for college football, Ohio State didn't fall in the rankings the last two years and it took major beat downs for them before they were exposed as the "pretenders" I spoke of. Meanwhile, some other more deserving team was locked out of a shot at the championship game. It's those "sycophant pollsters", and the horribly flawed BCS who are responsible for this and not the Big Ten as a conference. But, who gets the blame? And who suffers with yet another anti-climatic championship game?

Oh, and don't be too quick to throw Rodriguez under the bus just yet. He may be the only hope for Michigan to get pulled kicking and screaming, 5-yards and a cloud of dust at a time, into the 21st century. Pro set offenses are great if you have superior athletes with SPEED at all positions like the pro's do. Otherwise, you'll just be sitting ducks for the teams with the fast defenses and the inovative offenses. Trust me, as a Miami Hurricane fan I watched them win many championships with that pro-set formula. That's why there are almost 50 former Hurricanes on active rosters in the NFL today. They were pro ready when they stepped off the college football field.

Now, if only the Hurricanes could get that magic back....

 

[Bloozcat]

If there was a playoff system where the champion stands alone after beating all comers, I'd agree with you R_of_G. It wouldn't matter by how much they beat them, they beat them all.

But, such is not the case with the BCS system. Teams get matched up by a system that has a great deal of built-in ambiguity. With no head-to-head competition amongst all the so-called contenders, it's as arbitrary as it gets. The system is set up so that to get to the championship a team has to beat the living He** out of every team they face - and most importantly - the team they face in the big game. Then they must curry the favor of the gods (the pollsters), and finally they must please the xoxoxo's of the computer (which really likes beatings). It's the only thing they can be judged on. It's a straight vertical assent to the top.

In beating Ohio State last night Texas proved nothing other than that they beat the #10 team as they were expected to...and not very convincingly at that. They're the champion of the Fiesta Bowl and nothing more. In the screwed up BCS system, they should have beaten the snot out of Ohio State because that's what the computers expected. Even then, they wouldn't rise much beyond where they were when the entered the game, if at all. It isn't fair and it isn't right, it's just they way it is.

I don't like it any more than you do R_of_G

 

[R_of_G]

I'm not sure they could have proved anything to anyone to beating up on Ohio State last night. Had they done that, the sports press would dismiss it as the expected result. Other than win or lose on the field, it was a no-win situation for Texas.

What would really have come of them winning 66-0 or some other blowout? Were the sports writers really going to crown them "the real champions" if there was a close and ugly title game with OU & UF? Hardly. The only thing Texas could have done is vie for #2 in the post-season poll, which is completely meaningless.

It's nice to see so many people here agree that a playoff system would be a more equitable way of solving this question. Too bad we are unlikely to see it done, or done correctly, any time soon.

 

[Bloozcat]

I get this image in my mind of some big fat guy with a cigar sticking out of his mouth. On his pocket are the letters BCS. A little boy in a football uniform with a Texas Longhorn logo on the helmet is standing next to him. The fat cat's patting the boy on the top of his helmet as he says,

"What's that sonny? You just beat Ohio State 66-0? Oooh-wee! Well, that's nice sonny. Now you just run along there, I've got some business with Mr. Oklahoma and Mr. Florida. You come back now, heeyuh."

...and such is the reward for those who Fate frowned upon...

 

[R_of_G]

If you could draw that, you'd have an accurate summary of this year's college football season. You could do a series of them with USC and Utah as well.

Me, I just see Jim Mora...

 

[just strum]

Boy, some of you guys seem to have it all figured out - update the resume, there are openings for head coaches in the NFL and soon will be in the college ranks.

 

[Bloozcat]

Boy, some of you guys seem to have it all figured out - update the resume, there are openings for head coaches in the NFL and soon will be in the college ranks.

You sound like my wife now strum. She calls me "coach" on game day....

You know what they say (whoever "they" are). Opinions are like noses, everyone's got one....

Some things are clear and others are more complicated. What's amazing to me is when so many see a simple, obvious, solution to a problem (like the playoffs) and yet the powers that be can't see it any better than a blind man. The difference is that the blind man wishes he had the sight to see it, while the BCS-ers seem to prefer their hysterical blindness.

 

[just strum]

You sound like my wife now strum. She calls me "coach" on game day....

You know what they say (whoever "they" are). Opinions are like noses, everyone's got one....

Some things are clear and others are more complicated. What's amazing to me is when so many see a simple, obvious, solution to a problem (like the playoffs) and yet the powers that be can't see it any better than a blind man. The difference is that the blind man wishes he had the sight to see it, while the BCS-ers seem to prefer their hysterical blindness.

The playoff thing still amazes me. As for how a team gets better, the big thing now is speed, but if that was the answer, the teams would be loaded with nothing but track stars. Speed definitely made a difference this year.

I think it comes down to who has the best steroids.

Oh, at least you are called coach on game day, I usually do my best coaching on the day after and if that fails, I make a hell of a sports radio commentator. I would do TV sports, but I don't own a plaid sports coat (you know, the kind that matches Warren's shorts) ancake:

 

[Bloozcat]

The playoff thing still amazes me. As for how a team gets better, the big thing now is speed, but if that was the answer, the teams would be loaded with nothing but track stars. Speed definitely made a difference this year.

I think it comes down to who has the best steroids.

Oh, at least you are called coach on game day, I usually do my best coaching on the day after and if that fails, I make a hell of a sports radio commentator. I would do TV sports, but I don't own a plaid sports coat (you know, the kind that matches Warren's shorts) ancake:

All you need is a Paul Brown hat and you're good to go, strum...:AOK:

 

[Brian Krashpad]

I love it that some Sooner sophomore mouthed off about Tebow being subpar.

 

[Bloozcat]

I love it that some Sooner sophomore mouthed off about Tebow being subpar.

What's that saying?

Make your words soft and sweet...in case you have to eat them later...