NCAA College Football 2009 *Catch All*

haha, so true. I was impressed with his athletic skills although he does need some experience, I think USF will be ok. Same for FSU. The game was easily winnable except for dropped balls and turnovers. FSU is young also, only 3 people on offense won't be returning.

Gator-haters may take perverse pleasure in the news that Tim Tebow was taken to the hospital after getting hit in the head during a third quarter sack against Kentucky.

Monsoon315 wrote:

My Sun Devils will either be killed tomorrow night or manage a win. There is no such thing as a morale loss in the Pac 10 or Scc

Game effort by the Devils. The Dawgs have to stop having three turnovers a game, especially with LSU coming up.

Rat Boy wrote:

Gator-haters may take perverse pleasure in the news that Tim Tebow was taken to the hospital after getting hit in the head during a third quarter sack against Kentucky.

What? God's second begotten son?

He'll be OK in three days.

Numbers 4, 5, 6, and 9 all lost this week. The top 3 of those to unranked teams.

Do you hear someone screaming, "helloooo BCS bowl game!!"? I think it's coming from somewhere in Idaho...

Meanwhile, Oklahoma is seeing that certain Idaho team closing in on them in the rankings, and saying, "sh*t! sh*t! Not again!" HUH BOOGLE?!?

*Legion* wrote:

Meanwhile, Oklahoma is seeing that certain Idaho team closing in on them in the rankings, and saying, "sh*t! sh*t! Not again!" HUH BOOGLE?!?

Like the holocaust that game, NEVER AGAIN!

Enix wrote:
Badferret wrote:

Ole Miss was ranked #4 because they routed Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl and gave Florida their only loss of the season, but they also lost 4 games last year including games against these same c*cks and Vandy (Wake and Bama being the other two.) In 2007 Mississippi won 3 games. In short, there is no way that the Rebels were or are likely to become a legitimate top 10 team.

Indeed. Everyone was waiting to see when Ole Miss would realize that it wasn't really a top 10 team. That OMG moment came about midway through the third quarter. I suspect they'll be lucky to still be in the top 15 when the next poll comes out. And even that's probably too high.

I know everyone likes to talk about Snead as the third Ole Miss Manning, but Spurrier made him look stupid. Now you know why he ran from the QB situation at both Florida and Texas.

Did you notice how USC managed to sack him by rushing only two guys?

Related: Badferret, who are your top 3-4 SEC QBs? After Tebow, that is.

Actually, I thought both USC and Ole Miss stunk. That was one of the worse played games I've ever seen. USC did what the last 5 series? Three and out. Heck, for Ole Miss to even have a shot at winning in the last 3 minutes was amazing to me, but since USC played equally as bad, but had the benefit of one timely turnover, someone had to win.

Now that the weekend is over, though, who would have thought 4, 5 and 6 would all lose, and Ole Miss' loss would be the least bad of them all? 16-10 looks a lot better (on the road) than a 42-3 drubbing on the road (Cal) and a 21-10 (Penn State) loss at home. If Ole Miss can get line play enough to protect the QB, and Snead figures out how he was playing last year, Ole Miss can have a decent season. It's not their fault that the loons around the country thought they were as good as they did, but they could be a legitimate 8-15 ranked team.

sheared wrote:

Ole Miss ... could be a legitimate 8-15 ranked team.

Maybe, thanks to a featherbed-soft schedule.: at Vandy, home against 'Bama, home against UAB, home against Arkansas, at Auburn, home vs. NAU, home vs. Tennessee, home vs. LSU and at Mississippi State. That's maybe two losses, perhaps three because Auburn is a road game. Tennessee is a wild card.

sheared wrote:

Actually, I thought both USC and Ole Miss stunk.

I'll never admit to saying that USC is any good. They just stunk a lot less than Ole Miss, which was really bad.

*Legion* wrote:

Do you hear someone screaming, "helloooo BCS bowl game!!"? I think it's coming from somewhere in Idaho...

Ugh. This again. I wish they'd just lose already so we can be done with this.

I think we should just scrap all the traditional conferences.

Toss the whole pile in the trash and start over.

I am thinking 2 leagues per region with European Style promotion/demotion system of the top2 from the lower league and the bottom 2 from the upper league.

More competitive games and noone complaining about an automatic bid. We just give one bid to the best team from each region, and the rest are up to speculation.

just for kicks I threw together a mock up and ended up with the follow proposed to get the auto bids/Closest Competitor

Florida/Miami
Penn State/Boise State
USC/BYU
Texas Tech/BYE
Texas/LSU
Bama/Va. Tech
Mississippi/Nebraska
Ohio State/Cincinnati

I realize those aren't really earth Shattering, but what would be more exciting is to see the quality of teams in the groups competing for those big games improve.
These teams jumped from "minor conferences" the top conferences

Central Michigan
East Carolina
Houston
TCU
Wyoming
Utah
BYU
Fresno State
Boise State
Buffalo

with the following BCS also-rans being sent down to the minors

Maryland
Syracuse
Rutgers
South Carolina
Clemson
UCLA
Stanford
Washington State
Baylor
Wake Forest
Louisville
Vanderbilt
Duke
Arkansas
Nothwestern
Mississippi
Kansas State
Iowa State
Indiana
Purdue

If this is done geographically, it would preserve many of the existing rivalries and would give the situation more of a playoff situation. You win your round robin league to qualify for consideration. My thought was 7 team leagues to shrink the number of league games by removing the blowouts. This would give us 8 leagues with the SEC effect of playing a tough team every week. The upward mobility would also give the lower tier teams hope when recruiting. It would only take 1 good year to give yourself a shot at the big games, rather than having to work out a deal to change leagues after proving yourself for several years.

ESPN did something similar in the summer with this mock draft for a new BCS-ish only football division of 40 teams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/s...

You can see their geographical conferences along the right.

No Fresno State in that article = bad article!

USC's Stafon Johnson has emergency throat surgery following an accident in the weight room. Yikes.

*Legion* wrote:

No Fresno State in that article = bad article! :D

They made my list.

*Legion* wrote:

No Fresno State in that article = bad article! :D

So why would ESPN include a D2 team on its list?

gizmo wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

No Fresno State in that article = bad article! :D

They made my list.

That's why your list rocked. Especially since UCLA didn't make it.

Enix wrote:

So why would ESPN include a D2 team on its list? ;)

You're on my list.

*Legion* wrote:

You're on my list.

What about this guy over at the Sporting News? Boise's schedule is a collection of schools that would finish dead last in any BCS conference not containing Washington State.

You could plug in "Fresno State" for "Boise State" pretty much anywhere in the post, and the point's the same.

Enix wrote:

What about this guy over at the Sporting News? Boise's schedule is a collection of schools that would finish dead last in any BCS conference not containing Washington State.

You could plug in "Fresno State" for "Boise State" pretty much anywhere in the post, and the point's the same.

Yeah, the point is the same: both are strong teams stuck in a bad conference. The problem with the article is it talks as if Boise and Fresno could just knock on the MWC's door and say, "OK, we're here, let us in!". Doesn't quite work that way.

Also, when it comes to scheduling, the WAC is only part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that BCS schools jump through hoops to avoid playing them.

Boise and Fresno regularly have to agree to ridiculously lopsided scheduling agreements just to get decent teams on their schedule.

Remember USC vs. Fresno in 2005? Have you seen USC rushing back to schedule Fresno again? Not on their life.

UCLA finally scheduled Fresno last year, and of course Fresno traveled there and beat them. Will Fresno be seeing USC or UCLA step foot in Bulldog Stadium anytime soon? Hell no.

Cal is even worse. Jeff Tedford (ex-Fresno quarterback and ex-Fresno assistant coach) flat out refuses every advance Fresno makes to schedule Cal. (Fresno last played Cal in 2000, two years before Tedford took over. Fresno won).

There's no good reason why Fresno isn't playing at least one of the big California-based schools every year. Especially given how notoriously well Fresno fans travel. The only reason it doesn't happen? USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford make damn sure it doesn't. Fresno constantly approaches them for the possibility of a scheduling table scrap. They've had only two regular season games against those teams since 2001 (the school's big break onto the CFB national scene), winning one and nearly knocking off college football's best team in the other. They also got a begrudging UCLA in a bowl game, and won that too.

Let's put it this way: Fresno State travels further than any other D-I school, excluding Hawaii. California schools won't play them, so they globe-trot to schedule decent non-conference games.

Finally, strength of schedule is a red herring argument when it comes to the non-BCS schools. After all, they get ranked behind even when SOS is on their side. (That's not to say Boise and BYU necessarily deserved to be above Alabama in the example in that article, but only to point out that SOS is only considered a liability for non-BCS schools. It's never held equally strong as an asset when it's on their side).

I think I may end up adopting Fresno State. Not like I have a team.

*Legion* wrote:

The problem with the article is it talks as if Boise and Fresno could just knock on the MWC's door and say, "OK, we're here, let us in!". Doesn't quite work that way.

Actually, it does. It's not like the ACC kidnapped Virginia Tech or Boston College at gunpoint from the Big East. (That's what the Big East will tell ya. Don't listen to those bitter bastards.)

So why can't Boise and Fresno find one other team and bolt for the Mountain West? That'll give the MWC a 12th team (hello, playoff!) and a pretty formidible lineup.

As for the WAC, I caught part of the LaTech-Hawaii game last night. What the hell is a team from Louisiana doing in the Western Athletic Conference? The school's not even west of the SEC. And why was there a big drainage ditch in one of the end zones? At the end of one out-of-bounds play, that thing just about swallowed up one of the Hawaii players.

Enix wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

The problem with the article is it talks as if Boise and Fresno could just knock on the MWC's door and say, "OK, we're here, let us in!". Doesn't quite work that way.

Actually, it does. It's not like the ACC kidnapped Virginia Tech or Boston College at gunpoint from the Big East. (That's what the Big East will tell ya. Don't listen to those bitter bastards.)

So why can't Boise and Fresno find one other team and bolt for the Mountain West? That'll give the MWC a 12th team (hello, playoff!) and a pretty formidible lineup.

As for the WAC, I caught part of the LaTech-Hawaii game last night. What the hell is a team from Louisiana doing in the Western Athletic Conference? The school's not even west of the SEC. And why was there a big drainage ditch in one of the end zones? At the end of one out-of-bounds play, that thing just about swallowed up one of the Hawaii players.

I had the exact same thought about the WAC's alighnment. And when they were talking about the immense road trip that Hawaii is on, it got me to thinking that the NCAA, or someone rational, should have a voice regarding conference structuring.

How about this, let's send Texas Tech to the Mountain west with Boise and Fresno, give the MWC a bid and let the La. Tech play in the Big 12.

Enix wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

The problem with the article is it talks as if Boise and Fresno could just knock on the MWC's door and say, "OK, we're here, let us in!". Doesn't quite work that way.

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. Boise's been trying.

gizmo wrote:

How about this, let's send Texas Tech to the Mountain west with Boise and Fresno, give the MWC a bid and let the La. Tech play in the Big 12.

I would love that. When half of the WAC split off to form the MWC, many of us Fresno fans were mad that Fresno didn't go with them. BYU was of course the traditional WAC power, and losing them in conference was brutal for the level of competition.

gizmo wrote:
Enix wrote:

... What the hell is a team from Louisiana doing in the Western Athletic Conference?

I had the exact same thought about the WAC's alignnment.

I overemphasized for effect. Louisiana Tech is in the WAC for the same reason East Carolina (the Fresno State of North Carolina, incidently) is in C-USA: It needs a conference, and it doesn't fit with its more established neighbors.

La Tech is hardly a candidate for the Big 12 -- look at those (large, flagship universities) schools, and look at La Tech (small and anonymous). It's a much better fit for Conference USA.

Since we're playing hypotheticals, who's the 12th (logical) member of the Mountain West once Boise and Fresno bolt the WAC?

Enix wrote:
gizmo wrote:
Enix wrote:

... What the hell is a team from Louisiana doing in the Western Athletic Conference?

I had the exact same thought about the WAC's alignnment.

I overemphasized for effect. Louisiana Tech is in the WAC for the same reason East Carolina (the Fresno State of North Carolina, incidently) is in C-USA: It needs a conference, and it doesn't fit with its more established neighbors.

La Tech is hardly a candidate for the Big 12 -- look at those (large, flagship universities) schools, and look at La Tech (small and anonymous). It's a much better fit for Conference USA.

Since we're playing hypotheticals, who's the 12th (logical) member of the Mountain West once Boise and Fresno bolt the WAC?

Hey, if Baylor and A&M are good enough to play Texas and OU every year, so it La. Tech. At least they won a bowl game last year.

Besides, you put them in a bigger conference where they will get more exposure and they will be able to recruit better players. I see no issue as long as they are prepared to play catchup for a few years.

EDIT: And besides, my point was more to add strength to the Mountain West, and Tech's high flying offense would be a great fit.

If team #12 was to come from the WAC, there's only really two other teams you could argue: Hawaii or Nevada.

The big question mark with Hawaii is that they were one of the worst teams in college football before June Jones took over, and their arrow isn't exactly pointing upward after Jones' departure. With Boise or Fresno, I'm pretty confident they could pull in good replacement head coaches (Boise's already replaced theirs once internally. Fresno State actually turned down guys like Brian Billick when choosing Pat Hill).

Nevada hasn't been to a BCS bowl like Hawaii, but they've been on a long slow upward climb from the I-AA ranks to going to bowl games the past four years (beating UCF once, lost to U of Miami by one point in another - respectable showings against BCS competition). They're less accomplished but their needle appears pointing in the right direction.

I have to say, the one thing I'd miss about the WAC is no longer seeing Bulldog away games played at La Tech's little stadium. Nothing beats seeing a team kick an extra point and watching cars drive by in the background!

For those who are bored and have way too much time. I finished putting up my proposed CFB rearrangement.

Feel free to criticize at you convenience.

Oh, and uhm....Houston is serious about this whole top 20 ranking thing huh?

gizmo wrote:

Hey, if Baylor and A&M are good enough to play Texas and OU every year, so it La. Tech. At least they won a bowl game last year.

Besides, you put them in a bigger conference where they will get more exposure and they will be able to recruit better players. I see no issue as long as they are prepared to play catchup for a few years.

EDIT: And besides, my point was more to add strength to the Mountain West, and Tech's high flying offense would be a great fit.

Program quality isn't the issue here. Texas Tech and Baylor both came over to the Big 8 to form the Big 12 when the SWC imploded. Both schools are slightly odd fits in the Big 12 -- Tech is public but not a flagship, and Baylor is private -- but neither is going anywhere. Why would you leave a BCS conference for any non-BCS conference? You don't, and they won't.

Louisiana Tech has nothing in common with any school in the Big 12.

gizmo wrote:

For those who are bored and have way too much time. I finished putting up my proposed CFB rearrangement.

Feel free to criticize at you convenience.

Oh, and uhm....Houston is serious about this whole top 20 ranking thing huh?

ECU is not a major school in its own state. N.C. State is in every since of the word a major school.

Also, all of Virginia's natural rivals (save for Maryland) are south of them.

Enix wrote:
gizmo wrote:

For those who are bored and have way too much time. I finished putting up my proposed CFB rearrangement.

Feel free to criticize at you convenience.

Oh, and uhm....Houston is serious about this whole top 20 ranking thing huh?

ECU is not a major school in its own state. N.C. State is in every since of the word a major school.

Also, all of Virginia's natural rivals (save for Maryland) are south of them. Oh, and just for curiousities sake, who are the Cavaliers supposed to be a rival to historically?

I wasn't worried about who was considered a major school. I was worried about who I thought was a better team right now. If you can be a smaller school and put out a better product, then you should get the chance to play in the big money games. In contrast, if you are a fan of a team who is rebuilding, wouldn't you rather you team be in competitive games rather than getting stomped while they grow?

As for Virginia, there were some alignment issues which I had to make a choice on and some of the rivalries may take a hit. If you have a better idea for team alignment by region, feel free to share.

Program quality isn't the issue here. Texas Tech and Baylor both came over to the Big 8 to form the Big 12 when the SWC imploded. Both schools are slightly odd fits in the Big 12 -- Tech is public but not a flagship, and Baylor is private -- but neither is going anywhere. Why would you leave a BCS conference for any non-BCS conference? You don't, and they won't.

Louisiana Tech has nothing in common with any school in the Big 12.

Of course they don't have anything in common, they don't play in the same conference. That would change with the first game. At least regionally, it would be a better fit than road games with Hawai'i and Fresno. Besides, Tech would be such a fun fit in the Mountain West.

It's odd that you would pick Tech as an example of a team that fits in the big 12 against a team that doesn't. Until recently when they started getting consistently premier athletes they were an afterthought in the conference. They were not a major draw, and they were not a power in any sport when they joined the Big 12. Joining the Big 12 helped them to get a big time coach and top level athletes and now they are consistently a top 25 team. I could see the same happening for any school.