UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

January 9th, 2009, 01:47 pm
Cajun Express

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajunhawk

_ I think the SEC is just as against a playoff as everyone else. The fact is, no BCS conference wants a playoff. Dont put the blame squarely on the PAC10, all BCS conferences are 100% responsible for this embarrasment. _

Nobody in the BCS wants a playoff, they just want one more chance amongst themselves.
January 9th, 2009, 02:01 pm
MetryCajun

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajun Express

_ Nobody in the BCS wants a playoff, they just want one more chance amongst themselves. _

Thank you! Right now you have 4 teams beating their chest. A playoff would only allow 1. This is how the BCS conferences want it. I hate the BCS for taking New Years day from me. Bring me a playoff or go back to the way it used to be!! :hot:
January 9th, 2009, 02:15 pm
4LSU

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajunhawk

_ I think the SEC is just as against a playoff as everyone else. The fact is, no BCS conference wants a playoff. Dont put the blame squarely on the PAC10, all BCS conferences are 100% responsible for this embarrasment. _

Hey, I don't have any insight into the minds of the SEC leadership, but I remember what I read....sometimes...and this was from sports writer Dan Wetzel:

"So it was with renewed hope that two of just such power brokers, two of the sport's most progressive commissioners – Mike Slive of the SEC and John Swofford of the ACC – spoke Monday in fairly bold terms about seriously exploring a "Football Final Four" in the coming months."

And this:

"Standing in the way, of course, are the obstructionists – the Big Ten, Pac-10 and their corporate partner, the Rose Bowl.

Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen has gone so far as to say he will pull his league out of the BCS if a Plus One is adopted."

It might not be a full scale playoff, but its a step in direction many want to go and the PAC 10 is not one of that many. imo
January 9th, 2009, 07:34 pm
cajun4life

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4LSU

_ Hey, I don't have any insight into the minds of the SEC leadership, but I remember what I read....sometimes...and this was from sports writer Dan Wetzel:

"So it was with renewed hope that two of just such power brokers, two of the sport's most progressive commissioners – Mike Slive of the SEC and John Swofford of the ACC – spoke Monday in fairly bold terms about seriously exploring a "Football Final Four" in the coming months."

And this:

"Standing in the way, of course, are the obstructionists – the Big Ten, Pac-10 and their corporate partner, the Rose Bowl.

Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen has gone so far as to say he will pull his league out of the BCS if a Plus One is adopted."

It might not be a full scale playoff, but its a step in direction many want to go and the PAC 10 is not one of that many. imo _

You know as well as everyone else that unless you adopt a full scale playoff which includes every conference champion the it is a joke.
January 9th, 2009, 08:36 pm
NOCajun

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonCajun

_ And Florida lost to Ole Miss. If Penn State doesn't lose to a last second field goal to Iowa, they would likely have been in the BCS title game. The problem is, there were a number of 1 loss teams could be playing for a national title. Texas and USC were as good or better than OU and Florida and Texas beat OU. It is a joke how these two were selected. The BCS is a farce. A playoff is the only solution and I don't mean a single game after all the bowls. Who would have played in that game vs. Florida - Utah, USC or Texas? And, why are there other BCS bowl games if only one BCS bowl game decides the national championship? They are as meaningless as any other of the 34 or so bowl games. _

While I'm not in complete argeement with your logic here (I was referring to BOWL game results, not regular-season games - I'm only lookiong at what's happening right NOW), I agree completely that we need to have at least a 32-team playoff that includes ALL D1A Conference Champions and that all Conference Champioship games should be abolished in lieu of the playoff system.
January 9th, 2009, 09:56 pm
CajunSaint

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

1. usc would have skull-drug either or those two teams last night the way they played.
you can disagree all you want, but you can't say i'm wrong. and i can make that claim
because of the abortion of a system called the bcs.
2. a plus-one system would be just as bad. who would determine the "one," the same
system that gives us this joke?
3. imo, anyone who thinks this system works must be just a casual fan. must be at least
8 teams to be viable. better would be 11 fbs conference champions, plus 5 at-large
teams to have a 16 team format tournament that would produce a true champion.
whatever system would have more success "getting it right" with 5 teams to choose.
4. i would hope to live to see the day when my cajuns would win their conference, thus
being included in "the ncaa fbs football championships"!! geaux cajuns!!
January 9th, 2009, 10:55 pm
4LSU

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajun4life

_ You know as well as everyone else that unless you adopt a full scale playoff which includes every conference champion the it is a joke. _

My initial comment in this thread was not to support the current system, but to point out that the PAC 10, which contains USC, was against the simplest playoff form, plus one, and therefore I have little concern that they, USC, didn't get a chance to prove they are the best of the rest. Nothing more and nothing less.

I will admit to you that I am of a different mind than most in that I enjoy having 17 teams leave postseason play as winners and not just one.
January 10th, 2009, 05:39 pm
MissingMandy

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4LSU

_ My initial comment in this thread was not to support the current system, but to point out that the PAC 10, which contains USC, was against the simplest playoff form, plus one, and therefore I have little concern that they, USC, didn't get a chance to prove they are the best of the rest. Nothing more and nothing less.

I will admit to you that I am of a different mind than most in that I enjoy having 17 teams leave postseason play as winners and not just one. _

We need a playoff system but I don't believe the PAC 10 would be the only conference against it. I also don't believe USC would not show up for a playoff game if the Rose Bowl were eliminated. I gained a tremendous amount of respect for the PAC 10 while living in the Pacific Northwest. USC is a powerhouse that produces a tremendous amount of NFL players. I don't believe we leave with 4 post season winners, we usually leave with a team that should have been in the BCS championship game...not in it. This year was one of the few years I agreed with the matchup. Great game.
January 10th, 2009, 07:06 pm
4LSU

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissingMandy

_ We need a playoff system but I don't believe the PAC 10 would be the only conference against it. I also don't believe USC would not show up for a playoff game if the Rose Bowl were eliminated. I gained a tremendous amount of respect for the PAC 10 while living in the Pacific Northwest. USC is a powerhouse that produces a tremendous amount of NFL players. I don't believe we leave with 4 post season winners, we usually leave with a team that should have been in the BCS championship game...not in it. This year was one of the few years I agreed with the matchup. Great game. _

The PAC 10 has won a number of national titles in a number of sports. The excellence of their sports programs can't be denied and I was in no way attempting to dimish the achievements of its member schools. USC is an elite school and its accomplishments speak volumes toward its own excellence.

I don't know the why of it, but the PAC 10 has refused to go to the conference title game and I think we have to look no further than that to find the reason for USC not being in more BCS title games. While some teams are gaining BCS points and national pub winning conference title games, the PAC 10 teams sit at home watching other highly ranked teams play each other on national TV. Shoot me, but when they do damage to their own best interest I'm not gonna feel to sorry for them.

I have to be honest and tell you that I'm not that upset with who has been in the BCS title games. ;)
January 10th, 2009, 08:00 pm
CajunSaint

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4LSU

_ The PAC 10 has won a number of national titles in a number of sports. The excellence of their sports programs can't be denied and I was in no way attempting to dimish the achievements of its member schools. USC is an elite school and its accomplishments speak volumes toward its own excellence.

I don't know the why of it, but the PAC 10 has refused to go to the conference title game and I think we have to look no further than that to find the reason for USC not being in more BCS title games. While some teams are gaining BCS points and national pub winning conference title games, the PAC 10 teams sit at home watching other highly ranked teams play each other on national TV. Shoot me, but when they do damage to their own best interest I'm not gonna feel to sorry for them.

I have to be honest and tell you that I'm not that upset with who has been in the BCS title games. ;) _

another point needs to be remembered here, 4l, and that is that according to ncaa rules, a conference must have 12 member schools in order to have a conference championship game, the mac being the first conference to do so. the pac 10, obviously, has only 10 member schools. so...it's not as easy as you make it out to be. but, surely you do not question the caliber of the trojans' football program since pete carroll took over. the best record against top 10 opponents, and the best overall record over the last 7 seasons are nothing to sneeze at(among bcs schools). granted there could have been at least 2 more bcs championships, but the cards did not fall their way as they did for other schools. but, i'm spending too much time defending a program that certainly doesn't need my help. geaux cajuns!!
January 10th, 2009, 09:05 pm
MissingMandy

Re: UF #1, Utah #2, USC #3, Texas #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4LSU

_ The PAC 10 has won a number of national titles in a number of sports. The excellence of their sports programs can't be denied and I was in no way attempting to dimish the achievements of its member schools. USC is an elite school and its accomplishments speak volumes toward its own excellence.

I don't know the why of it, but the PAC 10 has refused to go to the conference title game and I think we have to look no further than that to find the reason for USC not being in more BCS title games. While some teams are gaining BCS points and national pub winning conference title games, the PAC 10 teams sit at home watching other highly ranked teams play each other on national TV. Shoot me, but when they do damage to their own best interest I'm not gonna feel to sorry for them.

I have to be honest and tell you that I'm not that upset with who has been in the BCS title games. ;) _

I don't think they really care about (the Pac 10) what goes on elsewhere and I really doubt they feel they are damaging their own best interests. It's kind of like they are in their own world. USC dominates the West and the rest just try and get close. USC is an exciting team to watch and you have to have respect for a coach that churns out the champions that Pete Carroll does.

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page