College Football 2008 Season Catch-All

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Boomer. Sooner. Baby. ;-)

Hells yeah.
Not only a win, but a great win and I got a number. Hells. Yeah.

Just another reason for a playoff. Who is supposed to play in the Big 12 championship game? I'm firmly in the camp that if you aren't the champion in your conference, you DON'T play in the title game.

Not a big fan of Florida but they look unstoppable ATM. (Even not counting push over Citadel) Can FSU slow them down next week?

/chop

karmajay wrote:

Just another reason for a playoff. Who is supposed to play in the Big 12 championship game? I'm firmly in the camp that if you aren't the champion in your conference, you DON'T play in the title game.

/chop

Which is why everyone wanting a playoff should hope for Oregon State winning the PAC 10 and Mizzou winning the Big 12 championship game.

Here's my heresy.

I don't want college playoffs. I don't even want the BCS crap. I would prefer to just go back to when there was a gaggle of Bowls, with some with specific ties to conferences. Big 12 champ to the Orange Bowl. Pac-10 and Big 10 to the Rose Bowl, and so on.

Then let the fans and writers argue about the polls. Arguing abut who gets into these supposed playoffs would be much more annoying. And to top it off, we would actually end up with even worse teams in the Nation Championship game due to the Any Given Saturday element of football. So it would still be a mess. And it would either add too many games at the end of the season, or subtract too many games from the regular season to worth the trouble.

But really, the Bowls were really more fun when conferences had ties.

Jayhawker wrote:

Here's my heresy.

I don't want college playoffs. I don't even want the BCS crap. I would prefer to just go back to when there was a gaggle of Bowls, with some with specific ties to conferences. Big 12 champ to the Orange Bowl. Pac-10 and Big 10 to the Rose Bowl, and so on.

Then let the fans and writers argue about the polls. Arguing abut who gets into these supposed playoffs would be much more annoying. And to top it off, we would actually end up with even worse teams in the Nation Championship game due to the Any Given Saturday element of football. So it would still be a mess. And it would either add too many games at the end of the season, or subtract too many games from the regular season to worth the trouble.

But really, the Bowls were really more fun when conferences had ties.

Bowls are still tied in the BCS with the exception of the 'ship. Fiesta to Big 12, Rose to Big 10, etc.

boogle wrote:

Not only a win, but a great win and I got a number. Hells. Yeah.

Pictures or it didn't happen!

Is she hot? Does she appreciate powers of 2?

Rat Boy wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'm just hoping for an iconic image in the victory that I can use against you. :D

You were saying?

Oh shut up. Here, look at the pretty ass:

IMAGE(http://www.sidelinehotties.com/stills/erin-andrews-butt-shot.jpg)

Your mind powers will not work on me boy!

*Legion* wrote:
boogle wrote:

Not only a win, but a great win and I got a number. Hells. Yeah.

Pictures or it didn't happen!

Is she hot? Does she appreciate powers of 2?

In order your answers are yes, no and only one of the scoreboard.

So now we've got a Big 12 where Texas > Oklahoma, Texas Tech > Texas, and Oklahoma > Texas Tech.

And we've got a 1-loss Alabama team at #1 who has played none of these teams.

This will end well. Fix it, Barack!

*Legion* wrote:

So now we've got a Big 12 where Texas > Oklahoma, Texas Tech > Texas, and Oklahoma > Texas Tech.

And we've got a 1-loss Alabama team at #1 who has played none of these teams.

This will end well. Fix it, Barack!

Umm, who did the Tide lose too?

Auburn?

(please oh please oh please oh please... ∞)

Yeah, I'm pissed about Texas's 2 spot, but seeing as the difference is so small and we are going to OSU to increase our strength of schedule Im not worried.

Badferret wrote:

Umm, who did the Tide lose too?

Dammit, I meant no-loss. (Not "undefeated" until the regular season's over)

Well, Alabama has to play in the SEC championship, so they can lose there. And there is NO way 2 Big 12 teams should play for the top spot. (see above)

karmajay wrote:

Well, Alabama has to play in the SEC championship, so they can lose there. And there is NO way 2 Big 12 teams should play for the top spot. (see above)

I will be perfectly happy with whoever makes it out of the Big 12 playing whoever makes it out of the SEC. That's the championship game we should have been getting for the past several years anyway.

sheared wrote:
karmajay wrote:

Well, Alabama has to play in the SEC championship, so they can lose there. And there is NO way 2 Big 12 teams should play for the top spot. (see above)

I will be perfectly happy with whoever makes it out of the Big 12 playing whoever makes it out of the SEC. That's the championship game we should have been getting for the past several years anyway.

True that. I think this just shows us that the Big 12 just needs a better tie breaker system than the BCS.

Rock Chalk Jayhawks!!!

Beat Mizzou today makes everything else all fine and dandy. Not only Kansas get a sweet rivalry win, but could now ber in a position to get a better bowl than Mizzou, once someone from the South kicks the ever loving snot out of the Tigers next week.

Jayhawker wrote:

Rock Chalk Jayhawks!!!

Beat Mizzou today makes everything else all fine and dandy. Not only Kansas get a sweet rivalry win, but could now ber in a position to get a better bowl than Mizzou, once someone from the South kicks the ever loving snot out of the Tigers next week.

I rejoice inside everytime I see Daniels pout. Ahhhh, sweet, sweet relief.

And let the debate as to who should win the BIG 12 south begin.
I of course advocate Oklahoma whom I believe has shown their bid in the wins over Tech (BIG) and over OSU which is a tough place to play.
Texas fans will of course look at OU-Texas and say head to head, but Tech beat them and we demolished tech.

boogle wrote:

And let the debate as to who should win the BIG 12 south begin.
I of course advocate Oklahoma whom I believe has shown their bid in the wins over Tech (BIG) and over OSU which is a tough place to play.
Texas fans will of course look at OU-Texas and say head to head, but Tech beat them and we demolished tech.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but OU deserves it more. Harder schedule, more impressive wins, only loss at a neutral site - I think it all adds up to OU.

Now to take a shower.

Nightmare wrote:
boogle wrote:

And let the debate as to who should win the BIG 12 south begin.
I of course advocate Oklahoma whom I believe has shown their bid in the wins over Tech (BIG) and over OSU which is a tough place to play.
Texas fans will of course look at OU-Texas and say head to head, but Tech beat them and we demolished tech.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but OU deserves it more. Harder schedule, more impressive wins, only loss at a neutral site - I think it all adds up to OU.

Now to take a shower.

I have to take Texas. They beat OU on a neutral site, and their loss was to Tech on the road, and on a last second play.

Jayhawker wrote:
Nightmare wrote:
boogle wrote:

And let the debate as to who should win the BIG 12 south begin.
I of course advocate Oklahoma whom I believe has shown their bid in the wins over Tech (BIG) and over OSU which is a tough place to play.
Texas fans will of course look at OU-Texas and say head to head, but Tech beat them and we demolished tech.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but OU deserves it more. Harder schedule, more impressive wins, only loss at a neutral site - I think it all adds up to OU.

Now to take a shower.

I have to take Texas. They beat OU on a neutral site, and their loss was to Tech on the road, and on a last second play.

I think the commissioner of the Big 12 should make an executive decision and decide that Missouri did well to win the lowly Northern division, but Texas is going to play Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship game.

Nothing like a little rule change to make all things right with the world. I am going to HATE it if whoever goes gets beat by Missouri. Then USC will go, and I don't want that.

USC isn't moving up in spite of their being on the verge of winning the Pathetic-10. Better teams from better conferences are sitting in front of them and they can't get into the top two without some major disasters happening.

Jayhawker wrote:
Nightmare wrote:
boogle wrote:

And let the debate as to who should win the BIG 12 south begin.
I of course advocate Oklahoma whom I believe has shown their bid in the wins over Tech (BIG) and over OSU which is a tough place to play.
Texas fans will of course look at OU-Texas and say head to head, but Tech beat them and we demolished tech.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but OU deserves it more. Harder schedule, more impressive wins, only loss at a neutral site - I think it all adds up to OU.

Now to take a shower.

I have to take Texas. They beat OU on a neutral site, and their loss was to Tech on the road, and on a last second play.

Really I think its a toss up between OU and UT. To be honest, we lost in head to head, but Dallas is FAR from the neutral site it is claimed. Also, if you give any weight to who is hot right now, you have to give it to OU with a string of big wins over RANKED opponents.

Jayhawker wrote:

I have to take Texas. They beat OU on a neutral site, and their loss was to Tech on the road, and on a last second play.

If UT'd played all 60 of that game, there would be no discussion now, though, right?

Also, OU loses earlier in the season. Plus, they averaged over 53 points a game with an average margin of victory of almost 30. All while playing five ranked (at time of the game) teams. UT averages about 10 points less per game with an average margin of victory of 25.

They are real close and should play in the Big 12 championship, but oh well. Makes for interesting conversation this afternoon until the BCS comes out.

I'm inclined to think that Oklahoma might be the better team right now, but I think Texas has to be given the spot.

When at all possible, the game should be decided on the field. Texas beat Oklahoma. Oklahoma beating Tech, and Tech beating Texas, doesn't give Oklahoma a make-up win by proxy. Football doesn't work that way.

You can't give Oklahoma the spot over the team that beat them. It was pretty much known at the time that that game would decide the Big 12 South. Hanging 60+ points on teams beneath you down the stretch run doesn't erase coming up short in the clutch season-deciding game.

Oklahoma may well be the better team, but Texas losing last-minute to Tech is not nearly enough to drop them beneath a team that they defeated.

Rat Boy wrote:

USC isn't moving up in spite of their being on the verge of winning the Pathetic-10. Better teams from better conferences are sitting in front of them and they can't get into the top two without some major disasters happening.

Of course, I'm not more biased for USC than you are against them (wink), but It would be nice to see the top ranked defense in the country compete against some of those high-powered offenses from the other conferences. USC's allowed 19 points in the 2nd half this year. That's over 11 games.They've allowed 1 touchdown at home all year. USC would be favored over or at least an even bet against any other team in the country.

Defense may not be impressing the voters, but it can win championships.

*Legion* wrote:

I'm inclined to think that Oklahoma might be the better team right now, but I think Texas has to be given the spot.

When at all possible, the game should be decided on the field. Texas beat Oklahoma. Oklahoma beating Tech, and Tech beating Texas, doesn't give Oklahoma a make-up win by proxy. Football doesn't work that way.

You can't give Oklahoma the spot over the team that beat them. It was pretty much known at the time that that game would decide the Big 12 South. Hanging 60+ points on teams beneath you down the stretch run doesn't erase coming up short in the clutch season-deciding game.

Oklahoma may well be the better team, but Texas losing last-minute to Tech is not nearly enough to drop them beneath a team that they defeated.

That they defeated in a close game. And that tech team got DEMOLISHED in Norman. If you can't give OU the spot over Texas, how can you give it to Texas when tech beat them? I'm sorry, I heard that argument all night from Herbstreet last night watching the game and its really frustrating.

Fanatka wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

USC isn't moving up in spite of their being on the verge of winning the Pathetic-10. Better teams from better conferences are sitting in front of them and they can't get into the top two without some major disasters happening.

Of course, I'm not more biased for USC than you are against them (wink), but It would be nice to see the top ranked defense in the country compete against some of those high-powered offenses from the other conferences. USC's allowed 19 points in the 2nd half this year. That's over 11 games.They've allowed 1 touchdown at home all year. USC would be favored over or at least an even bet against any other team in the country.

Defense may not be impressing the voters, but it can win championships.

Who says I was biased against them? Pac-10 this year wasn't on par with the other BCS conferences and I find it odd that in spite of not being the top team in their conference, USC was ranked ahead of Oregon State by twenty spots. They're there solely because they're USC.

Getting back to the matter at hand, Oklahoma vaults Texas into the 2 spot.