2025-2026 College Football Thread

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I only think it would only have to be the SEC and Big 12. I think Boise can make a case if they are undefeated and Penn State has 1 loss and Ohio State has 2, or if any ACC team has 1 loss, or if any Pac 10 team other than USC wins the conference with only 1 loss.

It's kind of sad how it works for a team like Boise State or BYU. People criticize their schedule because they don't play many tough games, but when they try to schedule games against big schools they are usually turned down. Why play Boise and risk losing when you can play a low I-AA team and win by 50? It's very rare that a team like Boise can get a home and home with a big conference school as well. Last night was the first time ever a top 25 team had ever played at Boise.

You're absolutely right about it not being BSU or BYU's fault about a weak conference. But answer truthfully: Let's say an SEC or a Big 12 school has two losses, each by only 1 point, and the losses were in-conference (which equals good teams for the most part in either SEC or Big 12). A 12-0 Boise State in the WAC deserves to go to the national championship more than an SEC or Big 12 school with 2 losses by 2 points? What does your gut really tell you? Mine says no way in hell. I will admit I can be an SEC fanboy at times, but come on. But you make a great point about a weak schedule not necessarily being their fault. As for Notre Dame....

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I'll agree that every game counts. But what if Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, and Boise State all go undefeated? The BCS doesn't account for it.

I agree a playoff is needed.

That's a great point, and it'd be an interesting scenario. I would love to see a playoff system in Div I, but from listening to analysts discuss the pros and cons, I'm of the opinion that a +1 system would work better.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by rebfandan

You're absolutely right about it not being BSU or BYU's fault about a weak conference. But answer truthfully: Let's say an SEC or a Big 12 school has two loses, each by only 1 point, and the losses were in-conference (which equals good teams for the most part in either SEC or Big 12). A 12-0 Boise State in the WAC deserves to go to the national championship more than an SEC or Big 12 school with 2 losses by 2 points? What does your gut really tell you? Mine says no way in hell. I will admit I can be an SEC fanboy at times, but come on. But you make a great point about a weak schedule not necessarily being their fault. As for Notre Dame....

I agree they can't do anything about the weak conference games but they can put 2+ tough, tough games in to prove to everyone they belong, go play at an SEC school, go play USC, or a big 12 team. Then I'd say let them bid for the NCG, but beating an overrated Oregon team shouldn't get you in.

Originally Posted by rebfandan

That's a great point, and it'd be an interesting scenario. I would love to see a playoff system in Div I, but from listening to analysts discuss the pros and cons, I'm of the opinion that a +1 system would work better.

I'd put my money on the big ten team getting in if that happened.

[fatediesel]

Originally Posted by rebfandan

That's a great point, and it'd be an interesting scenario. I would love to see a playoff system in Div I, but from listening to analysts discuss the pros and cons, I'm of the opinion that a +1 system would work better.

I would take any sort of playoff including a +1, but it isn't going to happen before 2014 at the earliest. ESPN has the BCS rights until then and apparently any playoff talk wouldn't begin while the current TV deal is in place. I don't understand why ESPN wouldn't be pushing the idea of a playoff because ratings would be huge.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I would take any sort of playoff including a +1, but it isn't going to happen before 2014 at the earliest. ESPN has the BCS rights until then and apparently any playoff talk wouldn't begin while the current TV deal is in place. I don't understand why ESPN wouldn't be pushing the idea of a playoff because ratings would be huge.

And you'd know who the best was, I'd take two less games if they had an 8 game playoff.

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I would take any sort of playoff including a +1, but it isn't going to happen before 2014 at the earliest. ESPN has the BCS rights until then and apparently any playoff talk wouldn't begin while the current TV deal is in place. I don't understand why ESPN wouldn't be pushing the idea of a playoff because ratings would be huge.

I've heard a lot of people use the argument about the season being too long, taking too much time over finals, not fair to the student athlete, etc as academic reasons against a playoff. I guess there's also all the $$ being thrown around with corporate sponsorship of bowls, the number of which would go down if a playoff system is instated after 2014.

[fatediesel]

It's interesting how Division I-AA, Division II, and Division III have a 16 game playoff but they say it would be too damaging academically for Division I players. You're right, it's all about money. I just wonder why you couldn't keep the BCS bowls but designate 2 or 4 each year as the first playoff games. Keep the corporate sponsorship, ratings will be just as high if not higher.

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by supersix4

I agree they can't do anything about the weak conference games but they can put 2+ tough, tough games in to prove to everyone they belong, go play at an SEC school, go play USC, or a big 12 team. Then I'd say let them bid for the NCG, but beating an overrated Oregon team shouldn't get you in.

You may have heard the commentators discussing that dilemma during last night's game. Often when a team like Boise tries to schedule a tough game against a proven power, the better school simply turns them down. My team, Ole Miss, experienced that this past year. They tried to schedule Penn State, but were turned down. A lot of larger schools want to avoid an upset by what they consider nothing more than an upstart program.

Having said that though, if either Boise or Notre Dame sneak their way into the NC game, it will be an injustice. I just don't know of a better word.

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

It's interesting how Division I-AA, Division II, and Division III have a 16 game playoff but they say it would be too damaging academically for Division I players. You're right, it's all about money. I just wonder why you couldn't keep the BCS bowls but designate 2 or 4 each year as the first playoff games. Keep the corporate sponsorship, ratings will be just as high if not higher.

Well, I don't know the numbers for a fact, but I would guess that there are fewer schools competing in Div I-AA, II, and III (?) So, maybe their playoffs don't have to take as long (?) I don't know.

It's obvious that we, the fans, can figure it all out, but I guess money trumps common sense.

[fatediesel]

Originally Posted by rebfandan

My team, Ole Miss, experienced that this past year. They tried to schedule Penn State, but were turned down. A lot of larger schools want to avoid an upset by what they consider nothing more than an upstart program.

But if Penn State played Mississippi they couldn't have played Akron, Syracuse, Temple, and Eastern Illinois. They wouldn't want to actually play a team that had a winning record and made a bowl last year.

I remember a couple years back Iowa was scheduled to play Missouri in a home and home series but Missouri backed out and instead played Arkansas State. They did say Iowa was still welcome to play at Missouri, they just weren't going to play the return game. This didn't back out until May, so Iowa had to scramble to find an opponent and ended up playing Maine, and then they get criticized for playing an easy team.

[fatediesel]

Oregon has suspended Blount for the season. Since he's a senior that will end his collegiate career. According to ESPN's Todd McShay Blount was projected to be a late second-early third round draft pick but he said there is no way Blount gets drafted now, and that was prior to his season suspension announcement.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

Blount should get at least a 3 game suspension. It doesn't matter what the Boise player said that was a sucker punch when he wasn't looking. Then he made it even worse by trying to fight people in the crowd.

I only watched the first half of the game but Oregon's offense is just awful. They couldn't do anything. Boise blew a lot of opportunities early. They should have been scored touchdowns their first 2 drives and instead their kicker missed 2 field goals. I wonder if there's any realistic scenario where they could make the National Championship game. They are starting the year ranked fairly high so if they win out it's plausible but doubtful.

He got a season. He is in his last year, so that ends his football career.

Went from a possible NFL player (at least getting picked up after the draft) to no chance in hell.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

If that's the case (i.e., every team from the Pac 10, Big 10, SEC, ACC, and Big 12 has 2 losses), then Boise State should play for the national championship.

Bullsh*t.

If Boise does not clobber the sh*t out of every team, they should not even be in the BCS with an undefeated season. If they win a game by less than 21 in the WAC they should not be in the BCS. If they dont WIN BY 35 every game from here on, they will not be in the NCG.

WHY??

The next highest ranked team in the WAC is Nevada at #66 or some sh*t, and they are at Boise. The ENTIRE CONFERENCE is bottom tier teams. EVERY week is a patsy from here on. It is amazing...Only Florida contends for an easier schedule to go undefeated, and they are a DISTANT second.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

Oregon has suspended Blount for the season. Since he's a senior that will end his collegiate career. According to ESPN's Todd McShay Blount was projected to be a late second-early third round draft pick but he said there is no way Blount gets drafted now, and that was prior to his season suspension announcement.

I wonder how it feels to let a temper tantrum lose you a good 10 million...

At least he kept his scolly. He should be able to get a degree from a respectable university and get a job. If he farks that up, its back to Mississippi and broke for life.

I expect he has a LOT of anger in him and will blow it. Oh well.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by rebfandan

Well, I don't know the numbers for a fact, but I would guess that there are fewer schools competing in Div I-AA, II, and III (?) So, maybe their playoffs don't have to take as long (?) I don't know.

It's obvious that we, the fans, can figure it all out, but I guess money trumps common sense.

I did a paper on college football, and found out more than most people care to know about the system...

First of all, starting in 2008, outside of a hundred thousand, ALL BCS money goes to the conferences. The SEC is the only conference that does not split the money evenly (after expenses) and even the Mid-Majors make out better with the BCS than without. The BCS is nothing more than revenue sharing and has actually worked to even out the playing field in terms of budgets with Gini Coefficients dropping each year (0 would be that every team has the same budget, and 1 would be that one team has all the money).

Bottom line is that the BCS is touted as a way to find an undisputed national champion, and it is really a revenue sharing device. If fans understood this, they would be less irritated by it.

Also; Without a doubt, the BCS is better for Mid-Major conferences than a playoff, and the big proponents of a playoff are the BCS conference who want to tie up more money for their conferences (ie, they could have 2 or three teams each, instead of one, every year).


So, basically, the "BCS is about the money" myth is just that. The push for a playoff is about the money (and pretending to find the best team, something playoffs don't actually do - they find the winner of a playoff), and the BCS is about revenue sharing.

[dcowboy7]

BCS sux....playoffs rule.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by Teufel Hunden

He got a season. He is in his last year, so that ends his football career.

Went from a possible NFL player (at least getting picked up after the draft) to no chance in hell.

Is he out of the senior bowl too ?

[Slec]

I love that post talking about GINI coefficients can be followed by

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

BCS sux....playoffs rule.

absolutely kills me

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by rebfandan

Again, I'm not a big BCS fan, and it doesn't work perfectly (even the BCS board themselves admit it), but it does work. Just my opinion.

When an undefeated team gets left out over a team with a loss it doesnt work.
Just my opinion.

[toef]

Originally Posted by Teufel Hunden

I did a paper on college football, and found out more than most people care to know about the system...

First of all, starting in 2008, outside of a hundred thousand, ALL BCS money goes to the conferences. The SEC is the only conference that does not split the money evenly (after expenses) and even the Mid-Majors make out better with the BCS than without. The BCS is nothing more than revenue sharing and has actually worked to even out the playing field in terms of budgets with Gini Coefficients dropping each year (0 would be that every team has the same budget, and 1 would be that one team has all the money).

Bottom line is that the BCS is touted as a way to find an undisputed national champion, and it is really a revenue sharing device. If fans understood this, they would be less irritated by it.

Also; Without a doubt, the BCS is better for Mid-Major conferences than a playoff, and the big proponents of a playoff are the BCS conference who want to tie up more money for their conferences (ie, they could have 2 or three teams each, instead of one, every year).


So, basically, the "BCS is about the money" myth is just that. The push for a playoff is about the money (and pretending to find the best team, something playoffs don't actually do - they find the winner of a playoff), and the BCS is about revenue sharing.

Just because you wrote a paper doesn't make you an expert.

I'm not saying you are completely wrong either, but saying that the BCS isn't about money is a myth... is wrong. Just because it may have other benefits doesn't mean that it was never (or currently isn't) about money.

If a playoff doesn't prove who is best, then how does a National Championship game, as it's currently structured, determine who is best? And since the BCS isn't about money, I'm sure they're fine with not actually having a real game... just let the computer sim who is the best, and make an announcement that they are the champion.

I'm all for a +1 sort of structure, with 2 of the 4 original BCS bowls serving as playoff games (rotating the bowls each year), and then the two winners playing in the NC game.

The worst this does is push two teams out of a bowl game, but since there are so many "toilet" bowl games (due to marginally mediocre teams qualifying) that's perfectly fine with me.