BF2S Forums Official NCAA Thread

OrangeHound wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Personally, I think TCU, Auburn and Oregon are all on par, with TCU edging Auburn a bit.

Perhaps ... but TCU still doesn't "earn" the right to play for the championship.  Both Oregon and Auburn have gone through multiple tests, have been beaten up by multiple hard-hitting teams, and have faced top-level schemes and coaching all year.

TCU doesn't earn such an opportunity since they face a mid-tier and light-weight weight schedule every game (and Utah is just as light-weight as TCU, by the way ... Utah absolutely crushed by a struggling Notre Dame).

I don't buy that argument. The quality of TCU's opponents doesn't reflect the quality of TCU. It's like the situation with BSU. They tried to schedule tough non-conference opponents, but none of them would take them on. TCU essentially crushes that lightweight opposition...as you would expect them to. And when they have an off day, they still win.

I don't buy the "give the SEC the nod simply because they're the SEC" argument. That's as bad as "give Notre Dame the nod simply because they're Notre Dame". That's how you end up having to watch a shitty team on NBC every Saturday... The SEC isn't a conference full of "top-level schemes and coaching". It's a conference just like any other: with a handful of teams that meet that description and the rest are a bunch of also-rans. Big 10/11, Big 12, Pac 10...all the same. TCU and BSU just happen to be the single stars in their respective conferences. Doesn't mean they aren't among the best teams in the country simply because the rest of their conference happens to be weak (to some).

FEOS wrote:

TCU going to the Big East.

I guess that solves the whole "TCU isn't in a BCS conference" problem.

One more team to get in the way for the Cards. It will be interesting to see how many teams that will complain to have to go down to Texas to play a conference game when they are NOT in the "EAST"

FEOS wrote:

The SEC isn't a conference full of "top-level schemes and coaching".

Nice fantasy.  The best coaches in the NCAA are always moving from lower tier conferences like the Mountain West and the WAC, and up to conferences like the SEC or the PAC-10.   

I'm not saying the Mountain West doesn't have a good coach or two.  Of course they do.  And, if they prove themselves in such a role then it is not long until you see them moving up to the bigger conferences.   Conferences like the WAC or Mountain West or Big east are not destinations for most coaches, but farms.  And this is why there is better coaching, scheming, and conditioning in the higher tier conferences.

The best team in AAA baseball doesn't get to play in the World Series, even if their record is stellar.  They got that record by playing other AAA teams, AAA quality players, and led by AAA coaching staffs.  They did not play a full season against teams like the New York Yankees or San Francisco Giants.  But, the good news is that their head coach is likely getting an offer to coach soon in the big leagues.

reposting for truth~

FEOS wrote:

That's typical SEC big-headedness talking. I'm not a WAC or MWC fanboi by any stretch.

i am a fanboi (Pac 12 next year, anyways) and it pisses me off that only BCS schools can play for a National championship.

why is there no BCS in college basketball, why only football?

it's sad that the current play-for-pay policies that today's bowl system has done to college football in general, and rivalries in particular.
next year, when Utah plays BYU in the third week of September, i will remember greed and big-headedness killed a 100+ year rivalry . . .

FEOS wrote:

The SEC isn't "full" of what you describe. This year, it's got about six teams that meet that description. Four in the west and two in the east. Big 12 has three in the south and two in the north. Big 10 has three, maybe four. Big East the same. ACC has four. MWC has four. PAC 10 has 3...4 if you count USC (not bowl eligible). WAC has 4 quality teams that can play with just about anyone.

So you think a schedule played by teams in the WAC or the Mountain West is equivalent to the SEC or the Pac-10?   That the talent level is the same?

You want facts?   Where do most NFL players come from? 

Over the last ten years lowly Tennessee has had more first round NFL picks (10) than all the teams in the WAC and Mountain West COMBINED (9).   The SEC has had 400 players drafted by the NFL over the last 10 years.  The Mountain West has had 122 ... the WAC has had 84.  The most talented teams in the WAC or Mountain West (like Boise State, TCU, Utah or BYU with 22) would be in the bottom third of a conference like the SEC (only Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Miss State have less NFL talent).

Week in and week out, an SEC team faces 3-4 times the NFL caliber players that a Mountain West team faces.

I'm not saying that there isn't a good team or two in each of these conferences ... I'm not even saying TCU isn't a good team.  But, if TCU had played Oregon, Florida, South Carolina, LSU, and Alabama this year (like the Vols did), then the probability that they would have lost at least one or two games to these teams is quite high.  Playing a schedule with teams like this would mean that TCU could likely be 10-2 rather than 12-0.  A crappy SEC team like the 2010 Tennessee Vols might even go 10-2 or 11-1 if it played in the WAC.

Auburn has proven they deserve a title shot.  Oregon has proven they deserve a title shot.  TCU has proven only that they can beat up on lesser talent.

Still, I truly wish TCU would play an Auburn or Oregon just so it would shut up such nonsense ... funny, I don't hear any complaints these days from Boise State fans.

OrangeHound wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The SEC isn't "full" of what you describe. This year, it's got about six teams that meet that description. Four in the west and two in the east. Big 12 has three in the south and two in the north. Big 10 has three, maybe four. Big East the same. ACC has four. MWC has four. PAC 10 has 3...4 if you count USC (not bowl eligible). WAC has 4 quality teams that can play with just about anyone.

So you think a schedule played by teams in the WAC or the Mountain West is equivalent to the SEC or the Pac-10?   That the talent level is the same?

You want facts?   Where do most NFL players come from? 

Over the last ten years lowly Tennessee has had more first round NFL picks (10) than all the teams in the WAC and Mountain West COMBINED (9).   The SEC has had 400 players drafted by the NFL over the last 10 years.  The Mountain West has had 122 ... the WAC has had 84.  The most talented teams in the WAC or Mountain West (like Boise State, TCU, Utah or BYU with 22) would be in the bottom third of a conference like the SEC (only Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Miss State have less NFL talent).

Week in and week out, an SEC team faces 3-4 times the NFL caliber players that a Mountain West team faces.

I'm not saying that there isn't a good team or two in each of these conferences ... I'm not even saying TCU isn't a good team.  But, if TCU had played Oregon, Florida, South Carolina, LSU, and Alabama this year (like the Vols did), then the probability that they would have lost at least one or two games to these teams is quite high.  Playing a schedule with teams like this would mean that TCU could likely be 10-2 rather than 12-0.  A crappy SEC team like the 2010 Tennessee Vols might even go 10-2 or 11-1 if it played in the WAC.

Auburn has proven they deserve a title shot.  Oregon has proven they deserve a title shot.  TCU has proven only that they can beat up on lesser talent.

Still, I truly wish TCU would play an Auburn or Oregon just so it would shut up such nonsense ... funny, I don't hear any complaints these days from Boise State fans.

You're so busy beating the SEC drum that you're missing the point completely. The SEC is not the entirety of college football. SEC fans need to get that through their heads. There appears to be zero ability to approach the issue with anything resembling objectivity or critical thought--only "SEC is the toughest conference and deserves bonus points no matter what!"

It's fucking nonsense when you look at the entire field of college football, removing conference bias from the equation. But you have to be able to do that first.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

They really need to force big football program schools to accept invitations to play Boise State/TCU type teams.

This. The fact that SEC teams refused to take them on as non-conference games speaks volumes....

FEOS wrote:

You're so busy beating the SEC drum that you're missing the point completely. The SEC is not the entirety of college football. SEC fans need to get that through their heads. There appears to be zero ability to approach the issue with anything resembling objectivity or critical thought--only "SEC is the toughest conference and deserves bonus points no matter what!"

I know that.

Remember though that conferences like the SEC and the Pac-10 and the ACC and the Big-12 and the Big-10 made the big bowls what they are, and they made the BCS.  Then, they invited in other lower conferences to share in the bounty, primarily to create greater overall revenue streams.

But.  Never forget.  We didn't invite in these lower conferences so that they could become national champions.

That's not a joke, although it sure sounds like one, huh?

Do you really think that a conference like the SEC really wants to have a conference like the WAC become a peer?  And share money?  And have national champions to the point that it dilutes the SEC brand.  Phhht.

Money is the real reason why we don't have playoffs, simply because we fear that a TCU or a Boise State would win (I don't think they would in the end, but the fear is real). 

Money is the reason why super-conferences is probably what will eventually happen rather than a playoff system.

OrangeHound wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You're so busy beating the SEC drum that you're missing the point completely. The SEC is not the entirety of college football. SEC fans need to get that through their heads. There appears to be zero ability to approach the issue with anything resembling objectivity or critical thought--only "SEC is the toughest conference and deserves bonus points no matter what!"

I know that.

Remember though that conferences like the SEC and the Pac-10 and the ACC and the Big-12 and the Big-10 made the big bowls what they are, and they made the BCS.  Then, they invited in other lower conferences to share in the bounty, primarily to create greater overall revenue streams.

But.  Never forget.  We didn't invite in these lower conferences so that they could become national champions.

That's not a joke, although it sure sounds like one, huh?

Do you really think that a conference like the SEC really wants to have a conference like the WAC become a peer?  And share money?  And have national champions to the point that it dilutes the SEC brand.  Phhht.

Money is the real reason why we don't have playoffs, simply because we fear that a TCU or a Boise State would win (I don't think they would in the end, but the fear is real). 

Money is the reason why super-conferences is probably what will eventually happen rather than a playoff system.

Now you're making sense.

Just read today how UNR's upset of Boise cost them (UNR) a million dollars because it knocked Boise out of BCS contention and thus lost the entire conference the BCS money dispersal that comes with it. UNR's share would've been a cool mill.

That is just fucked up.

11 Bravo wrote:

college football is worse than the govt when it comes to the good ol boy network.

OH is definitely networked. i'll bet he's a network admin . . .

[are you a booster, OH? next year, when Utah's in the PAC 10, can i buy you a box of Cubans and maybe swing a vote? ]

Poseidon wrote:

Cam Newton is unstoppable.

he's the best qb money can buy.

I hope Newton takes a huge shit on Oregon.