Who do you like for the National Championship Game?

[colorado_loves_football]

Yes, it should.
I have a little bit of 'trivia' for you guys.
When I was still attending school, up at Boulder, Colorado had a 'less-than-stellar' basketball team, relative to the rest of the Big Eight (Kansas being the defending National Champions).
Coloado was seeded last, in the Big Eight Tournament, yet nearly pulled off what would have been a 'monumental' upset, nearly qualifying for the NCAA's through competitive play.
They didn't, obviously, but it's worth mentioning, because it ties into what you are saying, that teams need to 'qualify' themselves, for the NCAA's which they do, in general.
Had Colorado gone, they would likely have been the lowest-seeded team, in the entire tournament. As it was, they lost to OU, in the championship game, thereby assuring the NCAA of a 'quality' team.
(I'm pretty sure several other Big Eight teams were also represented).
Check it out, if you're interested:
http://www.cubuffs.com/SportSelect.dbml ... EASON=1989
Why is this important?
Well, it maybe ties into what you are saying about Kansas and Bradley.
Sure, traditionally, Kansas is a much better team than Bradley, and for good reason.
Does that mean, that Kansas should be selected over Bradley every year? I think the answer to that is 'no' when Bradley is sufficiently qualified, they deserve to be represented, in some fashion.
Now, I'm not making a case for Colorado, necessarily. They needed to beat Oklahoma to be represented, but I think you can all admit, if they had, they would have been a 'wildcard', as evidenced by how they did, regular-season.
Neverthless, when you beat a team, head-to-head, that should count for something. If it happens, in a 'tournament' setting, it's obviously going to work in your favor. So, even if the 'facts' support taking Kansas over Bradley, if Bradley can 'upend' Kansas, in the tournament, they have my vote.

[Spence]

Thats' one reason why I might prefer a 64 team bracket over anything else. You might even get a 5-6 team in the 'mix'. Again, so what?
Louisiana Monroe was 5-6 and were co-champions, along with Arkansas St, and Louisiana Tech. In my mind, they qualify for a 64 team 'bracket'.
Upsets are part of the game.
TCU beating USC in the John Handcart Bowl, was assuredly an 'upset'.
I recall when Air Force beat Ohio St, in the Liberty Bowl that was an 'upset' primarily because Air Force was so mediocre, not because Ohio St was necessarily so much better than they were.
And upsets happen, anyway, regardless of anything the BCS does.
K-State and Oklahoma, 2003, a prime example.

Why should the regular season have no meaning at all? What is the advantage to playing in a good conference? Why should teams that play very good competition have to play a game with a team who took the easy road to 9 or 10 wins?

You keep talking about Air Force beating Ohio State in 1990. Let me tell you something about how good Ohio State was in 1990.

1. They lost to USC - USC was very bad in the 90'sa
2. They tie Indiana - Indiana is probably the worst team in the B-10 in football
3. They lost to Michigan because John Cooper couldn't beat Michigan or win the bowl game if he was spotted 20 points.

Ohio State won 7 games that year. Ohio State wasn't a good football team. 7 games might be respectable football in your parts, but in Columbus more is expected. That is why John Cooper, who won over 71% of his games at Ohio State, got fired. 7 wins is mediocre, it isn't respectable.

How many times does a Bama fan cheer 7 wins? Or Georgia? Or Oklahoma? Or Texas? or any program with championship aspirations.

Beating a good program when they aren't good isn't a feather in your cap. It isn't any different then beating a bad program when the are bad. They are still bad.

[billybud]

The "best teams" aren't always champs...even with a play-off. They were the "best team" when it counted.

The 2000 Baltimore Ravens were Superbowl Champs...yet they went four games in the middle of the season without making an offensive touchdown. They were best in the play offs.

It is not uncommon for a team with the best record during the regular season to not win the Championship. Pittsburgh, with it's phenomenal
15-1 record, didn't play in the Superbowl. They were knocked off in thd play off by a team that they beat solidly during the season.

[Spence]

I think they started with 8. If I rememer correctly, it was 32 in the 70s and the bumped it up to 48 before going to 64.

I didn't know that, but It makes sense. Getting a play off started in CFB would only be the begining. They may start with 8 or 10, then the #11 team would cry that the ten team didn't play as good a schedule. And what would it hut to add a couple more teams. Then 16, then 32. Prety soon the rivary games mean nothing, the regular season means nothing, and college football turns into college basketball. No one cares until the tournament.

Playoffs are a bad idea. Football has done quite well for over 100 years without a playoff. College football is as popular or more popular then it has ever been. Why people would want it to be like basketball is beyond me.

[Eric]

I'm right there with you, Spence. The only reason why I prefer college football to the NFL, NBA, NHL, or any other sports league is because of the passion of the players and how much the regular season means. That's why I have to know if Rice beats North Texas. If Rice beats North Texas in basketball, I really couldn't care less.

Bowl games is what makes me tune in and pay attention to every team. I am always giddy about the chase for a bowl game. Of course now, they have even lessened the standards with 6-6 qualifying and 1-AA victories counting.

[Eric]

Being tuned into to college football is easier too because there is only 119 instead of 300-something.

[Jason G]

I realize I'm likely in the minority here but I still think that North Texas should have gone bowling that year. I only say that because I do believe every conference champion should make the postseason since they are the "best" their conference can offer. The sad thing to me was that a team could be 5-6 and still win their league.

[colorado_loves_football]

Why should the regular season have no meaning at all? What is the advantage to playing in a good conference? Why should teams that play very good competition have to play a game with a team who took the easy road to 9 or 10 wins?

I don't think I ever said that the regular season shouldn't have any meaning, you are obviously misinterpreting me, as you usually do. I simply would prefer a way for more teams to participate in the process, and allowing 64 teams would be one way to accomplish that. (but certainly not the only way).

You keep talking about Air Force beating Ohio State in 1990. Let me tell you something about how good Ohio State was in 1990.

1. They lost to USC - USC was very bad in the 90'sa
2. They tie Indiana - Indiana is probably the worst team in the B-10 in football
3. They lost to Michigan because John Cooper couldn't beat Michigan or win the bowl game if he was spotted 20 points.

Ohio State won 7 games that year. Ohio State wasn't a good football team. 7 games might be respectable football in your parts, but in Columbus more is expected. That is why John Cooper, who won over 71% of his games at Ohio State, got fired. 7 wins is mediocre, it isn't respectable.

Actually, you are likely wrong in your assessment of USC, that year.
They were 8-4-1, losses to the following teams: Washington 0-31 (Washington was Pac-Ten Champions, losses to Colorado & UCLA).
Arizona 26-35 (Arizona was 7-5 for the year).
Notre Dame (9-3 overall, losses to Penn St, Stanford, and Colorado).
Michigan St. (8-3-1 overall, losses to Notre Dame, Iowa, Illinois).
USC, in fact, beat UCLA, giving them a measure of 'redemption' from their earlier loss to Washington (Washington lost to UCLA).
So, in all probability, USC was likely 'decent' if not 'good'.
And, USC still nearly managed to beat the Big Ten co-champion Michigan St, in the Sun Bowl, but obviously fell short, losing 16-17.

Indiana, likely wasn't that bad, either. 6-5-1 was their overall record.
They lost to Minnesota 0-12, Michigan 19-45, Michigan St. 20-45, Illinois, 10-24, and Auburn 23-27. Three of those teams (Michigan, Michigan St, and Illinois) were Big Ten Co-Champions, along with Iowa. Minnesota, interestingly, beat Iowa, to create the 'log-jam' otherwise the Hawkeyes win 'outright' Big Ten honors. And, coincidentally, give the Buckeyes the opportunity to win the Big Ten outright, but unfortunately couldn't quite 'close the deal', but nevetheless took eventual co-champion Michigan to the wire, losing 13-16, and outright Big Ten Championship, in the process.

Auburn, incidentally, was 8-3-1, losses to Florida, S. Mississippi, and Alabama. Florida was 9-2 overall, and ineligible for a bowl, losing to FSU, final game of the year, and Tennessee. S. Mississippi was 8-4 losses to Georgia, Mississippi St., Virginia Tech, and NC St. Alabama was 7-5 on the year, losses to S. Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, and Penn St.

Alabama was selected to play against the Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl. the Fiesta Bowl where they were beaten, soundly 7-34.

How many times does a Bama fan cheer 7 wins? Or Georgia? Or Oklahoma? Or Texas? or any program with championship aspirations.

I suppose you can ask the Alabama faithful that question. Nevertheless, the fact remains, both teams lost to teams that were in all probability likely not as good relative to their opponent, traditionally.
The biggest difference, is that at 9-1-1 Louisville likely a much better team than Air Force at 6-5.

Beating a good program when they aren't good isn't a feather in your cap. It isn't any different then beating a bad program when the are bad. They are still bad.

I think we can 'put to rest' the argument that somehow OSU 'likely wasn't very good'. OSU in all probability was likely 'pretty good' evidenced, in part by their beating of Minnesota 52-23, a team that did, after all beat Iowa, last game of the year, to deny the Hawkeyes an 'outright' Big Ten title.

And, assuming you are 'correct' that the tie to Indiana somehow 'proves' the Buckeyes likely weren't 'very good' that still doesn't explain how Indiana nearly beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl. Auburn, did in fact beat FSU. Florida, ineligible for a bowl, lost two games all year, to Tennessee, and to FSU. Tennessee, incidentally, tied Colorado and Auburn, and lost to Alabama and Notre Dame. Notre Dame played Colorado in the Orange Bowl. Tennessee played Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. We already know the 'end result' being a co-championship between Colorado & Georgia Tech. But the results of these games, in my opinion provide sufficient 'basis' for a playoff, if there ever was one.

Nevertheless, it would appear, that Indiana, by virtue of their game against Auburn, was likely 'decent' as was USC (both teams lost, but to 'superior' teams, in close contests). Air Force, beating OSU, is 'sufficient' evidence that they were likely 'pretty good'.

[colorado_loves_football]

* I re-edited a post I meant to delete, sorry if this confuses anyone.

A five game play-off would make the regular season useless. I am not misinterpreting what you said. You just don't understand the consequences of the things that you suggest. There is a model that proves me right in this instance. The college basketball regular season has little or no meaning. You don't have to win you conference to get in, you don't have to win your conference to get seeded high. Playoffs take away from the regular season in pro football also, this is proven by the number of teams that don't play to win at the end of the season.(with their starters, when they have a spot locked up)

I think a playoff would sufficiently select one team, as 'concensus' national champions.
I don't agree with your argument that somehow, teams that win conferences necessarily deserve 'preferential' treatment, but if you are talking about a 'revised' BCS, that would be one way to organize it (as I've already stated). Ten conferences, represented, would give 'fair' opportunity to any team, irrespective of where they play. I'm in favor of that arrangement, for obvious reasons.

If you call 8-4 good, you and I have very different standards of good.

Actually, it was 8-4-1 but yes, I think USC was likely 'pretty good' that year. You have a different opinion, but USC only lost to one team, Washington, by a substantial margin, and did nearly beat Michigan St. in the Sun Bowl. That was nearly the equivalent of playing the Rose Bowl in El Paso. Draw your own conclusion, but at least be fair, in your analysis. Michigan St. won, evidence in favor of the Big Ten being good, in my estimation (since I believe USC was respectible).

If you call 6-5-1 not bad we really have different standards of what is a good team.

Actually, for Indiana, its' not bad at all.
I remember Bill Mallory was the head football coach at Colorado. He took them to the Orange Bowl, and I believe they even won it. Another time, I believe Colorado finished #3 overall, end-of-year, so there is evidence to suggest Indiana was decent, in any respect.
They did play Auburn in the Peach Bowl, and lost. But you are suggesting that somehow Indiana was 'terrible'. How many 'terrible' teams play in the Peach Bowl? And how many of them nearly win?
Insufficient argument, to say the least. I think, if anything it's evidence to suggest Indiana was 'decent'. Ohio St. wasn't 'terrible', they nearly qualified for the Rose Bowl, and would have had they beaten Michigan (which they nearly did). Insufficient argument.

This kind of proves my point about a 7 win team being good. Ask Rolltide how good he considered Alabama to be that year.

Yeah, I read his response, which basically stated everyone wanted Gene Stallings' head, after losing to Louisville. I wonder how they felt in 1992? After they won the national championship. Or even 1991, when they beat Colorado (defending national champions) in the Blockbuster Bowl? Alabama lost to a team that was clearly better than they were. End of story.

I'm not suggesting Ohio State was bad, I am stating it. They were bad in 1990. Not even the most die hard, scarlet bleeding Buckeye would say otherwise. Oh...and Indiana was bad in 1990, just like they have been most of the years they have been in the B-10. Good and Indiana football just don't belong in the same room.

Indiana wasn't bad in 1990. They wouldn't have been in the Peach Bowl playing against a team that not only beat FSU, but also tied Tennessee.
And even if you are right, that doesn't change the fact that OSU still had Rose Bowl aspirations, had they beaten Michigan (which they nearly did).
And, OSU beat Minnesota the very Minnesota that beat Iowa, end of year.
Say what you want, it would appear that OSU was likely 'pretty good', as evidenced by their beating of Minnesota.

All that proves is that the B-10 wasn't very good that year.

I don't think it says that at all. Four teams 'tied' for Big Ten honors. Two others (Minnesota and Ohio St) nearly good enough.
Washington beat Iowa 46-34. Is that a blowout?
Clemson did beat Illinois 30-0. But maybe it's possible Clemson was good? Michigan beat Mississippi St. 30-3. Michigan St. beat USC, in the Sun Bowl, relatively equivalent to winning the Rose Bowl, in a 'typical' year. I think your argument is grossly insufficient.

No, it proves your reasoning is flawed. You need to come up with a better way to judge teams then the "six degree game".

I didn't apply a 'six-degree' anything anywhere. It was all based on head-to-head, and that's one reason why I prefer an arrangement that gives 'conclusive' evidence, a team is #1 overall.
I think we need an arrangment, that will provide that, every year.
A representative BCS would solve that particular problem, fairly.

[Spence]

I don't think I ever said that the regular season shouldn't have any meaning, you are obviously misinterpreting me, as you usually do. I simply would prefer a way for more teams to participate in the process, and allowing 64 teams would be one way to accomplish that. (but certainly not the only way).

A five game play-off would make the regular season useless. I am not misinterpreting what you said. You just don't understand the consequences of the things that you suggest. There is a model that proves me right in this instance. The college basketball regular season has little or no meaning. You don't have to win you conference to get in, you don't have to win your conference to get seeded high. Playoffs take away from the regular season in pro football also, this is proven by the number of teams that don't play to win at the end of the season.(with their starters, when they have a spot locked up)

Actually, you are likely wrong in your assessment of USC, that year.
They were 8-4-1, losses to the following teams: Washington 0-31 (Washington was Pac-Ten Champions, losses to Colorado & UCLA).
Arizona 26-35 (Arizona was 7-5 for the year).
Notre Dame (9-3 overall, losses to Penn St, Stanford, and Colorado).
Michigan St. (8-3-1 overall, losses to Notre Dame, Iowa, Illinois).
In fact, USC beat UCLA, a measure of 'redemption', I think as far as Washington is concerned. In all probability, USC was probably 'decent', if not 'good'. And I still think that you are likely using insufficient evidence to form a 'basis' for your argument, either way. As it was, USC stsill nearly beat the Big Ten Co-Champions, Michigan St, in the Sun Bowl.

If you call 8-4 good, you and I have very different standards of good.

Indiana, actually wasn't that bad, either. 6-5-1 was their overall record.

If you call 6-5-1 not bad we really have different standards of what is a good team.

Alabama was 7-5 on the year, losses to S. Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, and Penn St. They were selected to play Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl where they were beaten, soundly 7-34. Interestingly, (to me, anyway), but for an opening-game 'tie' and regular-season loss to S. Mississippi, it's possible Louisville wins a 'share' or even outright claim on the national title.

This kind of proves my point about a 7 win team being good. Ask Rolltide how good he considered Alabama to be that year.

You are suggesting that OSU 'likely wasn't very good'. I suppose that's 'fair' considering that they weren't Big Ten 'co-champions', and did in fact, nearly lose to Indiana. But Indiana, likely wasn't 'that bad' as I've already shown.

I'm not suggesting Ohio State was bad, I am stating it. They were bad in 1990. Not even the most die hard, scarlet bleeding Buckeye would say otherwise. Oh...and Indiana was bad in 1990, just like they have been most of the years they have been in the B-10. Good and Indiana football just don't belong in the same room.

I think we can 'put to rest' the argument that somehow OSU 'likely wasn't very good'. OSU in all probability was likely 'pretty good' evidenced, in part by their beating of Minnesota 52-23, a team that did, after all beat Iowa, last game of the year, to deny the Hawkeyes an 'outright' Big Ten title.

All that proves is that the B-10 wasn't very good that year.

So, it would appear, minimally, your argument, is 'flawed'.

No, it proves your reasoning is flawed. You need to come up with a better way to judge teams then the "six degree game".

[Derek]

I realize I'm likely in the minority here but I still think that North Texas should have gone bowling that year. I only say that because I do believe every conference champion should make the postseason since they are the "best" their conference can offer. The sad thing to me was that a team could be 5-6 and still win their league.

I dont disagree with that...But I would not include a BCS bowl in that.

[ktffan]

I realize I'm likely in the minority here but I still think that North Texas should have gone bowling that year. I only say that because I do believe every conference champion should make the postseason since they are the "best" their conference can offer. The sad thing to me was that a team could be 5-6 and still win their league.

I dont disagree with that...But I would not include a BCS bowl in that.

hater

[Spence]

I forgot. Fran left because he said he wanted to be back in the state of Texas. Don't think it didn't have a lot to do with the pressure of being Alabama's coach. After his first year, when he beat Auburn, he said he really had no idea about the importance of Alabama football to the fans. He said he had never seen anything like it. (including Texas v. Texas A&M)
He also wanted total control of the decision making for the program, not going to happen until Bear Bryant rises from the grave.

A lot of people don't understand the pressure put on coaches from some programs. People think it is unfair when they do realize it. I don't, if you want to be a good program the coaches have to feel the heat.

John Cooper had a very good record at Ohio State. Better then lots of his peers. He didn't beat Michigan and he didn't win the bowl game. If you do that at Ohio State your days are numbered. If E. Gordon Gee had any guts at all, Cooper wouldn't have lasted 5 season. It is about WHO you beat.

[Derek]

I forgot. Fran left because he said he wanted to be back in the state of Texas. Don't think it didn't have a lot to do with the pressure of being Alabama's coach. After his first year, when he beat Auburn, he said he really had no idea about the importance of Alabama football to the fans. He said he had never seen anything like it. (including Texas v. Texas A&M)
He also wanted total control of the decision making for the program, not going to happen until Bear Bryant rises from the grave.

A lot of people don't understand the pressure put on coaches from some programs. People think it is unfair when they do realize it. I don't, if you want to be a good program the coaches have to feel the heat.

John Cooper had a very good record at Ohio State. Better then lots of his peers. He didn't beat Michigan and he didn't win the bowl game. If you do that at Ohio State your days are numbered. If E. Gordon Gee had any guts at all, Cooper wouldn't have lasted 5 season. It is about WHO you beat.

Yeah. Just ask Ron Zook or Urban Myer, especially after he lost to Spurrier.

[Spence]

Agreed. Most SEC fans know about pressure packed coaching jobs. Nobody is safe at these programs. Woody Hayes was on step from being fired for over 20 years. He is almost worshiped in Ohio now, but I remember at time when people wanted his head. (see Woody and Bo, the ten year war)