College Football 2007 Thread Part III

[OGBoardPoster2005]

The main issue I believe is just the run and shoot doesn't run well for mid-majors against upper teams and it was evident last night. Boise and Utah actually had a run game against OU and Pitt

[Brick Killed a Guy]

extremek said:

milkmannorm said:

I believe the deal that the Rose Bowl has with the BCS is something like this: The Rose Bowl is given first choice of the Big Ten/Pac Ten teams so long as they're not ranked 1 or 2 in the country. When Texas played USC it was because it was the national championship game.

Don't forget Miami/Nebraska in '02.

I think the only exception was the year Oklahoma played Washington State in the Rose Bowl (2003).

That year, it wasn't for the title game (that was Miami-Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl). But Iowa (a Big Ten school) qualified as a BCS at-large. Instead, Iowa went to the Orange Bowl and played USC (in other words, the traditional Rose Bowl Big10/Pac10 matchup moved to Florida)

[Brick Killed a Guy]

grapplercrappler said:

I need to let out a rant just for my sanity. I think UGA could defeat LSU and Ohio State. They really got hosed on the final BCS rankings in my view and of course I am biased. They were fourth and Ohio State was third. Then the number one and two teams both lost. Well Ohio State jumps from three to one without even playing and Georgia actually falls from four to five without even playing. LSU, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech all leapfrog Georgia in the rankings, even though Georgia had won six straight games, including impressive wins against Florida, Auburn, and Kentucky.

They go to the Sugar Bowl and destroy the previously undefeated Hawaii who lead the nation in offense. The UGA held Heisman-candidate Colt Brennan to zero touchdowns, sacking him eight times, and forcing three interceptions. The only touchdown they gave up was in the fourth quarter when they were using backup defensive players. They could have scored more points in the fourth quarter, while their backups played in the redzone. They opted to let their second and third string players play four full downs instead of kicking a sure field goal or trying to score a touchdown with their starting team. Their overall schedule was one of the most difficult in football in my view. Certainly it was more difficult than the teams playing the Big 10 or the Pac 10.

Okay, I think I feel a little better after that partisan rant.

I hear you. That's why since LSU and Georgia didn't get to play each other this season, they should have had a Play-in game for the title game. Winner faces Ohio State in the title game. Loser faces Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl.

[Dr. T is an alien]

uncivilized82 said:

grapplercrappler said:

I need to let out a rant just for my sanity. I think UGA could defeat LSU and Ohio State. They really got hosed on the final BCS rankings in my view and of course I am biased. They were fourth and Ohio State was third. Then the number one and two teams both lost. Well Ohio State jumps from three to one without even playing and Georgia actually falls from four to five without even playing. LSU, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech all leapfrog Georgia in the rankings, even though Georgia had won six straight games, including impressive wins against Florida, Auburn, and Kentucky.

They go to the Sugar Bowl and destroy the previously undefeated Hawaii who lead the nation in offense. The UGA held Heisman-candidate Colt Brennan to zero touchdowns, sacking him eight times, and forcing three interceptions. The only touchdown they gave up was in the fourth quarter when they were using backup defensive players. They could have scored more points in the fourth quarter, while their backups played in the redzone. They opted to let their second and third string players play four full downs instead of kicking a sure field goal or trying to score a touchdown with their starting team. Their overall schedule was one of the most difficult in football in my view. Certainly it was more difficult than the teams playing the Big 10 or the Pac 10.

Okay, I think I feel a little better after that partisan rant.

I hear you. That's why since LSU and Georgia didn't get to play each other this season, they should have had a Play-in game for the title game. Winner faces Ohio State in the title game. Loser faces Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl.

They may not have played each other, but it was LSU that won the SEC. In other words, LSU did better against common opponents. Would it be a good game? Hell yeah, it would. However, LSU already proved itself better. If UGA wanted to make their argument for being better than LSU, maybe they should have taken care of business and won the division.

[Randy Barber 4-Life]

milkmannorm said:

hoagiewithpastrami said:

I don't think it's set in stone anymore.

Didn't Texas play in the Rose Bowl in place of a Pac-10 team the year that USC won the BCS Championship?

They COULD have let Georgia play in it, they just chose tradition instead.

Either way, it looks like all four BCS bowl games could be blowouts.

Georgia just made anyone that thinks Hawaii should've gotten national title consideration look silly.

USC beat the dog out of Illinois in a very "traditional" Rose Bowl.

Then we have coachless WVU against a very good Oklahoma team tomorrow.

Then a VaTech team that was peaking at the end of the season, against a good, but not spectacular, Kansas team.

I really hope the BCS Title game isn't a dud.

And I agree, the Cotton Bowl should be included in the BCS. If they move to the "Plus 1" bowl system they could have 5 BCS Bowls (the four current ones, plus the Cotton), and then the BCS title game a week later.

Of course, I'm more in favor of a playoff (like, you know, EVERY OTHER MAJOR SPORTS LEAGUE ON THE PLANET uses) than any other alternative.

I believe the deal that the Rose Bowl has with the BCS is something like this: The Rose Bowl is given first choice of the Big Ten/Pac Ten teams so long as they're not ranked 1 or 2 in the country. When Texas played USC it was because it was the national championship game.

Basically all four BCS bowls have conference tie-ins to take the champion(s).
Rose = Big Ten & Pac-10
Orange = ACC
Fiesta = Big 12
Sugar = SEC
If the conference champion they are tied-in with is in the national title game, they are no longet tied to that conference. So after the title game and the conference champions are set, the BCS bowls can pick whoever they want from the pool of teams who qualify for BCS spots. (I'm almost sure) the venue hosting next year's BCS title game gets first pick, and then down the line until (I'm absolutely sure) this year's BCS title venue gets last pick. So the Rose Bowl absolutely could've taken Georgia.
When Texas played USC in the Rose Bowl that was their second straight Rose Bowl win, they had played there and won the year before against Michigan.

[#Classic Hi-Definition X]

Since this thread has gotten to 30 pages, it's lockdown time. A new thread will be up shortly.