Who do you like for the National Championship Game?

[colorado_loves_football]

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.

You guys amaze me!
We are talking about a coach in Stallings who won a national championshipo for Alabama, yet you say his head was on a silver platter following a loss to a team that was likely better?
If the argument is Alabama should have been in the Sugar Bowl, then maybe you have a point, but the fact remains, Alabama should have beaten Louisville, if they were deserving of a Sugar Bowl bid.

Main difference being Ohio St. lost to Michigan and Alabama beat Tennessee. Probably both teams 'deserved' an invitation to the Fiesta Bowl, but Air Force was 'locked' into the Liberty Bowl, and Louisville was already committed to the Fiesta Bowl (due in part to the Martin Luther King fallout). So, what resulted was a relatively unothodox pairing of teams, both games.

Nevertheless, I think you are both making excuses for your respective teams. This was before the BCS, but I think the Bowl Alliance was in effect. That means that most games were 'strategic' pairings of teams, including the Liberty Bowl. As I recall they had an agreement with the service academies, the Commander-in-Chief's trophy winner was assured a spot, provided they met 'minimum' standards (6 wins). That's one reason why Air Force was viewed as a 'huge' underdog. As I recall, the betting line favored Ohio St by a substantial margin. That's one reason Air Force beating Ohio St. wasn't just 'another game'. Both teams knew, going into the game, what the circumstances were.

As far as Francione goes, I don't know why he left, but he likely wasn't a good 'fit' for Alabama. I thought he did ok, and I was surprised he didn't stay, but he obviously had other plans. Both schools (Ohio St & Alabama) have certain qualities that make them both attractive and at the same time 'frightening' for a prospective head coach. Bear Bryant, and Woody Hayes are viewed as 'larger-than-life' characters, and maybe for good reason. I still view both schools in that context, and that makes for fairly 'high-pressure' work for whoever accepts the challenge.

Someone made reference to Meyer at Florida, Derek? I seriously doubt his job was on the line, after one year. If it was, then he never should have taken that job. When Bill McCartney accepted Colorado's job, it took him close to ten years to bring them 'up to speed' with the rest of the conference, and even then, they were still beaten regularly by Nebraska. That was the team McCartney pointed to as the team to beat.
He did, but infrequently. Nebraska mostly had Colorado's #. The funny thing is, Barnett while not necessarily Colorado's 'best' coach from a %, mostly did pretty well against Nebraska. One reason he was fired was they didn't beat them, in a year, they probably should have.

So, it's all relative. No coach can win every game. Sonny Lubick at CSU, I believe has the best overall winning % yet he's struggled, lately.
And he will likely go down as one of the 'best' coaches in the state of Colorado. I know the same won't be said of John Cooper, Earle Bruce, or Dennis Francione. There's an element I suppose that accompanies 'greatness', but you are right, Spence, people don't recognize it until after it's gone.

[Eric]

I'm not usually one of those fans, but Lloyd Carr had better get this team going. If he were doing this at Eastern Michigan, I'd be pleased, but Michigan has the talent to win a NC and they are one of the most prestigous schools in America. I don't care if he wins the Big 10 as much as winning the Big 10 and getting a bowl win. I know I never like to look at a season by a preformance in one game, but that's what you play for. A bowl bid. And for Michigan, it's a BIG bowl bid we fans are looking for. His last win was the 2003 Outback Bowl against Florida.

[Spence]

I'm not usually one of those fans, but Lloyd Carr had better get this team going. If he were doing this at Eastern Michigan, I'd be pleased, but Michigan has the talent to win a NC and they are one of the most prestigous schools in America. I don't care if he wins the Big 10 as much as winning the Big 10 and getting a bowl win. I know I never like to look at a season by a preformance in one game, but that's what you play for. A bowl bid. And for Michigan, it's a BIG bowl bid we fans are looking for. His last win was the 2003 Outback Bowl against Florida.

This is the difference in programs. It is what CLF doesn't get. Teams, fans, and players from the upper tier programs expect to be in the BCS and they expect to be contenders for a national championship. Winning the conference isn't just expected it is demanded. Coaches from these programs don't get any points for losing in the bowl games or the rivalry games, even if they are close. John Cooper throttled Colorado in the 90's, they won the north the same year, and no one cared because he lost to Michigan. Coaches who coach for these schools are on the hot seat for 10-2 if the two were the rivalry and bowl games. The 10 wins do not matter at all.

Bobby Bowden getting heat at Florida St. the last couple of years. Bowden is a legend. He turned a girls school into a national power. Doesn't matter. If he doesn't win now he will feel the heat.

Joe Paterno has been at Penn St. for 100 years. Has run a clean program at the highest level. If it had not been for last seasons performance, I don't think he would be back.

It is a whole different world.

[Eric]

Right on. Take South Florida for example. I bet they were saying "guys, guess what, we're going to a bowl game!"

If a Michigan fan said that I'd say, "..........so?"

There is a difference but understandably so. Teams that don't get a taste of success for a while are super excited when their team is mediocre. Like me, with Central and Western. If they get 7 wins and a bowl bid, I'm satisfied.

[Spence]

It is like that here too. Almost everyone is a Buckeye fan. There are other D-1 in state schools that we follow, but most fans of Ohio University are also Buckeye fans. We just hold the teams to two different standards. If Ohio State goes to the Alamo Bowl, we look at it as a very bad year. Even the Citrus Bowl(Cap 1) isn't indicative of a good season. If Miami(Ohio) went to the Citrus they would be thrilled. It just is two different worlds.

[colorado_loves_football]

This is the difference in programs. It is what CLF doesn't get. Teams, fans, and players from the upper tier programs expect to be in the BCS and they expect to be contenders for a national championship. Winning the conference isn't just expected it is demanded. Coaches from these programs don't get any points for losing in the bowl games or the rivalry games, even if they are close. John Cooper throttled Colorado in the 90's, they won the north the same year, and no one cared because he lost to Michigan. Coaches who coach for these schools are on the hot seat for 10-2 if the two were the rivalry and bowl games. The 10 wins do not matter at all.

Bobby Bowden getting heat at Florida St. the last couple of years. Bowden is a legend. He turned a girls school into a national power. Doesn't matter. If he doesn't win now he will feel the heat.

Joe Paterno has been at Penn St. for 100 years. Has run a clean program at the highest level. If it had not been for last seasons performance, I don't think he would be back.

It is a whole different world.

Curious as to what game you are referring to?
Colorado did play Ohio st, and lost to them, most times, but not in the '90s. In fact the last time I'm aware they even played against each other was 1986. A game Ohio St. won, but not by a 'substantial' margin.
They did, however, beat Colorado soundly in 1985. And with Woody Hayes as coach, they 'put the hurt' on Colorado, 1977, in the Orange Bowl.

But, none of those games were under John Cooper, so you must be confusing them with someone else. Colorado wasn't very competitive until 1986 anyway. So, I don't know if that game in 1985 means much, if at all. Nevertheless, Ohio St did beat Colorado convincingly, that year.

Colorado didn't really do much in the Big Eight, until 1986. That year, they were 6-1 overall, and even beat Nebraska. Problem was Oklahoma beat Colorado 28-0. Nevertheless, it was the beginning of CU's rise to prominence on a national level.

I'm thinking you are maybe confusing Ohio St. with Michigan. There was a game, 1997, where Michigan beat Colorado soundly, in Ann Arbor. That was also the year Michigan won a share of the national title, along with Nebraska. Colorado was supposed to be good that year, but mostly weren't. And they weren't in the Big XII title game, but in 1996, they almost were. They lost to Nebraska who represented the N. Division in the inaugural Big XII Championship game, losing to Texas. Texas then played Penn St. in the Fiesta Bowl.

Colorado actually did ok under Rick Neuheisel, but he never could beat Nebraska. And his coaching philosophy was more suited to the Pac-Ten anyway. After Barnett became the coach, they were a more running-oriented offense, than passing. And that's what's worked, traditionally, for Colorado. It's one reason I worry about what might happen with Dan Hawkins running the show.

Believe it or not, Bill McCartney liked to throw the football. He only went to the option because he felt he had no other choice. 1985 was the first year Colorado ran the option. it was their primary offense and they used it through 1991. 1992 they used a different style, one that relied heavily on the pass. Like I said, it wasn't until Barnett became head coach they relied on the 'traditional' approach, keeping the ball on the ground.

Maybe your point is that Colorado and Ohio St don't belong in the same category. I don't know if I agree, but thats' your opinion. Colorado likely isn't as good as Michigan, but that's probably one reason McCartney went with a more 'conventional' passing game. It didn't 'stick' but it would appear that Hawkins will make that more of a priority.

[Eric]

I don't think that's Spence's point, but you're wrong, Ohio State and Colorado are in different categories. If you say they're the same, you're telling me Colorado is an elite program. The Buffaloes are an above average program, but they aren't in the upper tier of college football teams.

[Spence]

But, none of those games were under John Cooper, so you must be confusing them with someone else. Colorado wasn't very competitive until 1986 anyway. So, I don't know if that game in 1985 means much, if at all. Nevertheless, Ohio St did beat Colorado convincingly, that year.

'85 was the game I was thinking about. Must have been Coach Bruce instead of Cooper. I didn't think it had been that long ago, man i'm getting old.

Maybe your point is that Colorado and Ohio St don't belong in the same category. I don't know if I agree, but thats' your opinion. Colorado likely isn't as good as Michigan, but that's probably one reason McCartney went with a more 'conventional' passing game. It didn't 'stick' but it would appear that Hawkins will make that more of a priority.

That isn't the point at all. There is pressure at Colorado. Maybe not like Nebraska, but it is there. My point was that 8-4 or 7-5 will get you fired at the big time schools. It isn't considered a good season at all. You lose to the wrong teams and your done. It isn't like that, at least not to the same degree, with teams that aren't considered top tier. My point about Cooper is still valid with coach Bruce. Earle Bruce beat Michigan, but he lost games to schools that he shouldn't have. At Ohio State, just like all the top level programs, you have to do it all to keep your job. Fans will except a "rebuilding" season, like Oklahoma this year, but only one. Oklahoma needs to get back to the top 20 this year or Stoops will start feeling the heat. It is a different world then the situations at the mid level and lower tier programs.

Excellence is expected at these schools. Just going to a bowl game isn't good enough.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't think that's Spence's point, but you're wrong, Ohio State and Colorado are in different categories. If you say they're the same, you're telling me Colorado is an elite program. The Buffaloes are an above average program, but they aren't in the upper tier of college football teams.

Now we are getting 'personal', after all I'm a CU alumnus, (well, sort of). I never gradutated from there, but I did attend that school back when Colorado was 'good', relative to the rest of the NCAA.
Colorado isn't one of the 'elite'? I don't think I agree with you, for the following reason: Colorado fired a coach who by most people's standards was successful, within conference, and I contend that's what matters most, regardless of where you play.
So, it would appear that Colorado is one of the more 'outstanding' football teams, irrespective to what you say.
You must have short-term memory, to make that claim, Colorado has been a pretty outstanding football team, throughout it's history (not that there haven't been lulls), but in general they've been pretty good.
Yes, it would appear that Ohio St has their #. And Michigan, too, with one notable exception. Nevertheless, Colorado has done some pretty outstanding things in it's history, and even has had a supreme court justice in Byron "Whizzer" White.
Ever hear of "Kayo" Lamm? You can have your opinion as to what constitues an 'outstanding' team, but base it on valid information.
There was a stretch where Colorado was pretty bad, early-'80s. That was the Chuck Fairbanks era, but even then, they had some respectable teams. And that year you refer to (1985), Colorado was just starting to 'gel' as a team, as evidenced by the following year, when they nearly beat the Buckeyes, in Columbus.
So, as much as I respect you opinion, I have to disagree with you on principle. Colorado likely does have an outstanding football team. Gary Barnett never took them to a national championship, but he won a Big XII title, and several N. Division crowns (4 I think). Colorado plays in the same division as Nebraska, so that says something about how 'good' CU's team likely is.
And in case you have short-term memory loss, Colorado still nearly beat Clemson in the Champs Sports Bowl. Colorado was beaten, soundly by an eventual national champion Michigan team, 1997. Colorado had to forfeit every game for using an ineligible player, that year. But, no excuses, Michigan beat them soundly, a year Colorado was predicted to be good, but weren't. To Neuheisel's credit, he followed up that year, with a relatively good year, prior to leaving for University of Washington.
Since then, Colorado has 'sputtered' at times, but still managed to remain 'strong' in the face of adversity.
Last year was a disappointment, given how well they started the year.
But they still managed to win a N. Division title, and challenged a 'gamey' Clemson Tiger team. All-in-all, I'd say Colorado has done some pretty amazing things, in the '90s and continued into this century.
I am worried, however, how they might fare under Dan Hawkins.
I"m worried it's the second coming of Chuck Fairbanks.
But if you think a team that wins their division 4/5 years isn't competitive, I think there's likely something seriously wrong with you (no offense intended).

[Eric]

I didn't say that they aren't competitve, I only said they are in that tier below the elites (Ohio State, USC, LSU, etc.). Not that they can't compete with any of those programs, just that talentwise, they aren't there with them. Maybe they have historically, but I'm talking about 2006. I'm not trying to get in a fight here, I'll admit that Michigan is probably in that tier because they don't do much on a large scale although they always have potential to.

When I talk about that tier, I am also including schools like Georgia Tech, Cal, Texas Tech, and Arizona State. That's not that bad of a crowd, or so it should seem.

[Spence]

All time records

Michigan- Wins 848(1st. all time) Losses- 281, Ties 36 Winning pct .743

Ohio State- Wins 775(5th. all time) Losses- 300, Ties 53 Winning pct .711

Colorado- Wins 651(15th. all time) Losses- 402, Ties 36 Winning pct .614

[Spence]

I'm not trying to get in a fight here, I'll admit that Michigan is probably in that tier because they don't do much on a large scale although they always have potential to.

I'll only say this once so I don't choke on the words. Michigan is the #1 program all time. They go back and forth with ND for the title. There is no need for a Michigan fan to think any less of their program. Granted Michigan won a lot of their games before the forward pass was aloud(had to get a shot in here somewhere), but they have been playing championship football since there was a thing as championship football.

There are certain teams that are elite. A notch above the rest in terms of the program as a whole. Michigan is one of those teams.

1 Michigan

2 Notre Dame (IN)


3 Nebraska

4 Texas

5 Ohio St.

6 Alabama

7 Penn St.

8 Oklahoma


9 Tennessee


10 Southern California


11 Georgia


12
Louisiana St.

These are the big boys of college football. You could justify throwing in Florida State and Miami based on their winning percentage and consistant performance over the last 20 years. Florida St. with a .676 winning percentage and Miami (Fla) with a .640 winning percentage. This is the list of the elite teams in CFB. These teams have done it and done it consistantly over time.

I haven't ran the numbers, but I would be willing to bet these teams have won more national championships then all of the rest put together. 14 teams having more NC's then the other 115 combined. That is why these are the big boys.

[Spence]

I think that has a real chance of developing. I really like Oklahoma this year. They had to take their knocks last year and get the experience. This year they should come out with a chip on their shoulder. They have something to prove.

[Spence]

West Virginia sure has their plate set for them. They just need to use the one game at a time approach and not lose focus.

Ohio State doesn't have enough experience on defense and a few holes in the O-line to make a serious run next year. They have to hit the ground running with the first five games being killer games for an inexperienced defense(especially the defensive backfield).

2006 Ohio State schedule

NORTHERN ILLINOIS

Texas

CINCINNATI

PENN STATE

Iowa

BOWLING GREEN

Michigan St.

INDIANA

MINNESOTA

Illinois

Northwestern

MICHIGAN

The first part of the schedule will be mean for a defense trying to feel it's way. Ohio State will be in the same boat as Oklahoma was last year. To much to quick. If they can go undefeated those first five games they would be in good position. I just don't believe they will.

[Spence]

Except for Michigan the back half of the schedule is pretty light, but the front half ( when we need to get experience) doesn't give much chance for a breath.