2012 College Football Thread

[ConcernedParent]



Speaking of USC and Cal; I'm going to the game at AT&T park (bleh) tonight .
Wonder if Robert Woods will catch >15 balls against a terrible Cal secondary.

Jesus what a ****** game. USC is incredibly beatable and Cal just sucks. Going to be a long bowl season for the Pac12.

Did see a soon-to-be first round quarterback (meh) and two future first round receivers (wow) play though. Robert Woods might be the most polished soph WR I have ever seen, he didn't have a big game but his route running is just phenomenal; everything just looks so smooth and easy. Keenan Allen had 100+ yards; the dude is big, fast too for his size.

 

[edinatlanta]



Honestly, demographics more than anything else explains the South's dominance in producing talent. The South has many more black people than the rest of the country, most of whom would rather attend colleges in the South. Big Ten teams usually suffer from what my high school coach used to dub "TMWB"

God you are a racist whitey.

 

[FLMountainMan]



God is a racist.

Let me know when a person not of West African descent breaks the ten second mark in the 100 meter dash.

 

[edinatlanta]



Let me know when a person not of West African descent breaks the ten second mark in the 100 meter dash.

Frank Fredericks is Namibian. Namibia is in Southern Africa.

Dumbass racist.

 

[tj100]



If you tell me I could travel and spend on a quarter final and either see OSU lose, or not have money for the semi final and the final, I'll skip the quarter final. When there is a playoff, the higher seeded team will most likely play at home.

I think we already have some evidence that this is not, in fact, how it plays out. I'd be willing to bet that the way a playoff works out is that the quarter-finals are what we now call "Conference Championship" games, at neutral sites within the conference footprint (in the same way they are now, except for in the Pac12). The conferences seem to do a pretty good job of selling out these games right now. I think the key is that they keep them in the conference footprint - Big Ten fans aren't going to travel to Phoenix/Miami/LA/New Orleans for a semi-final, but they'd travel to Chicago/Detroit/Indy etc. for the same game.

Economics will prevent the higher seed from hosting. Imagine the first round is Tennessee @ Cincinnati - 35,000 seats just isn't going to cut it.

 

[ChicagoRon]



I think we already have some evidence that this is not, in fact, how it plays out. I'd be willing to bet that the way a playoff works out is that the quarter-finals are what we now call "Conference Championship" games, at neutral sites within the conference footprint (in the same way they are now, except for in the Pac12). The conferences seem to do a pretty good job of selling out these games right now. I think the key is that they keep them in the conference footprint - Big Ten fans aren't going to travel to Phoenix/Miami/LA/New Orleans for a semi-final, but they'd travel to Chicago/Detroit/Indy etc. for the same game.
Economics will prevent the higher seed from hosting. Imagine the first round is Tennessee @ Cincinnati - 35,000 seats just isn't going to cut it.

Interesting point about Tenn @ Cincy - but if they are choosing the 8 best teams, they may not all sit within the conference geographic footprint. Also, to have a real improvement over the current biases, a proper playoff requires an 8 vs 1 / 7 vs 2 / 6 vs 3 / 5 vs 4 set of match-ups.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]



And you have to admit if we had a playoff this year, it would be LSU/Bama then everyone would **** themselves and cry.
if the BCS keeps up, one day we will have a same conference NC Game.

Would Alabama or LSU beat Stanford more than five times in a ten-game series? Yeah, probably. Could Stanford beat Alabama or LSU in one game? Absolutely. Who wouldn't want to see Andrew Luck go up against a defense full of future NFL players? Unfortunately, we're very unlikely to get the chance to watch this.

 

[tj100]



but if they are choosing the 8 best teams, they may not all sit within the conference geographic footprint. Also, to have a real improvement over the current biases, a proper playoff requires an 8 vs 1 / 7 vs 2 / 6 vs 3 / 5 vs 4 set of match-ups.

I disagree. For an improvement, all a playoff requires is a clear path for any of the participating schools to the National Championship title.

Do we think that the MLB/NHL/NBA/NFL playoffs are fundamentally flawed because of their regional (and/or league) biases?

I would set it up as a regional playoff. 4 leagues of 20 teams; each team plays a 9 game conference schedule in their division and three out of conference games. Division champs face off in a championship game. SEC Champ plays ACC Champ, Big Ten Champ plays Pac 12 Champ. Winners face off in National Championship.

There are a couple of problems with this. First, you've only got room for 80 teams and there are 120 teams in FBS football. But this isn't really any worse than the current system, because those bottom 40 teams (including Boise State, et. al.) don't really have a chance at the NC anyway. Second, there's a probability that the outcome will not be that exciting, but this wouldn't be much different than the Super Bowl or World Series, where the outcome of the AFC/NFC Championship or AL/NLCS is more compelling than the Superbowl/WS.

The thing I really like about this structure is that it makes the three non-conference games almost meaningless. Which enables you to retain cross conference rivalries (USC/Notre Dame, Texas/Texas A&M) and you'd have top tier teams more willing to play against each other because a loss wouldn't cripple their standings in the polls.

 

[ChicagoRon]

So - Big10 / Pac 10 is not regional at all.. .it's 75% of the country.

Also - if I'm the ACC, I'm salty I never get to play the Pac10 or Big10 champ... why do I always have to lose to the SEC?

I'd say take the same concept and rotate the conferences each year and you're onto something. BUT, that would mean sometimes an SEC team plays up north or in Cali in the post season (oh my).

 

[ChicagoRon]



So - Big10 / Pac 10 is not regional at all.. .it's 75% of the country.
Also - if I'm the ACC, I'm salty I never get to play the Pac10 or Big10 champ... why do I always have to lose to the SEC?
I'd say take the same concept and rotate the conferences each year and you're onto something. BUT, that would mean sometimes an SEC team plays up north or in Cali in the post season (oh my).

Also - for the bottom 40 teams - use a system like the Euro soccer ... bottom spot of any conference moves down and plays in the "5th conference" - top 4 teams of the "5th confernce" move up each year.

 

[tj100]



So - Big10 / Pac 10 is not regional at all.. .it's 75% of the country.

In the current structure, yes, but my plan requires a 20 team conference, which means the Big 10 (and Pac 10) both would expand, as would the ACC and SEC. I paired the Big Ten and Pac 12 only because they have a long history of playing each other. The Rose Bowl would love to host that game every year - and the Big Ten fans would travel to it.

Also - if I'm the ACC, I'm salty I never get to play the Pac10 or Big10 champ... why do I always have to lose to the SEC?

The Red Sox always have to lose to the Yankees - this isn't really any different.

I'd say take the same concept and rotate the conferences each year and you're onto something. BUT, that would mean sometimes an SEC team plays up north or in Cali in the post season (oh my).

Not really. The SEC Championship game would undoubtedly be either in the Superdome or Georgia Dome. Their game against the ACC would almost certainly be in the Orange Bowl (Sun Life Stadium) or Superdome. Or maybe as far as FedEx Field. And the National Championship game is probably in a Super Bowl-style venue (i.e. Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, etc.).

For the Big Ten representative, I would see them playing the Big Ten Championship in Indy/Chicago/Detroit (as is currently planned). Winner plays the Pac 12 Champion in the Rose Bowl (I can't see anybody having an issue with the Big Ten and Pac 12 Champs playing in the Rose Bowl). And on to the National Championship game.

Also - for the bottom 40 teams - use a system like the Euro soccer ... bottom spot of any conference moves down and plays in the "5th conference" - top 4 teams of the "5th confernce" move up each year.

I would love a relegation system, but I don't think it's all that workable. Maybe on a multi-year rolling basis. It would be too disruptive to pitch Texas into Conference USA because they had one bad season.

 

[ChicagoRon]



In the current structure, yes, but my plan requires a 20 team conference, which means the Big 10 (and Pac 10) both would expand, as would the ACC and SEC. I paired the Big Ten and Pac 12 only because they have a long history of playing each other. The Rose Bowl would love to host that game every year - and the Big Ten fans would travel to it.
The Red Sox always have to lose to the Yankees - this isn't really any different.
Not really. The SEC Championship game would undoubtedly be either in the Superdome or Georgia Dome. Their game against the ACC would almost certainly be in the Orange Bowl (Sun Life Stadium) or Superdome. Or maybe as far as FedEx Field. And the National Championship game is probably in a Super Bowl-style venue (i.e. Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, etc.).
For the Big Ten representative, I would see them playing the Big Ten Championship in Indy/Chicago/Detroit (as is currently planned). Winner plays the Pac 12 Champion in the Rose Bowl (I can't see anybody having an issue with the Big Ten and Pac 12 Champs playing in the Rose Bowl). And on to the National Championship game.
I would love a relegation system, but I don't think it's all that workable. Maybe on a multi-year rolling basis. It would be too disruptive to pitch Texas into Conference USA because they had one bad season.

The red sox and Yanks are in the same division of the same league... I'm not bitching about UGA losing to UF every year, I'm talking about the entire ACC losing the semi-final every year. And this is NOT professional sports, so it is not really a fair comparison anyway. Pro teams can pick up and change market, spend more money on talent, etc. if they want to compete.

If the conference match-ups ROTATE as I suggested, then yes, the SEC would go up north sometimes. Like the years there are SEC/B10 or SEC/P10 matchups.

ON the relegation system, you're kind of right, but with 20 team conferences, a Texas is not likely to get bumped. It would be a Baylor or Vandy kind of school.

 

[tj100]



The red sox and Yanks are in the same division of the same league... I'm not bitching about UGA losing to UF every year, I'm talking about the entire ACC losing the semi-final every year.

Fair enough, but let's not pretend that the status quo in college football will remain the same indefinitely. The current ACC teams have been historically competitive with the SEC, and ranked higher than the SEC Champs going into the bowls over the years:

2000 - Florida State #1and Virginia Tech #2 (Alabama #4)
2001 - Florida State #2 and Miami #3 (Florida #7)
2002 - Miami #1 and Maryland #10 (LSU #13 - with Florida at #5) I forgot what a strange season that was...
2003 - Miami #1 (Georgia #3)

The perception is that the SEC is now and always has been AWESOME and dominant, but it's just not the case. The SEC has had, and will in the future have, down years.

spend more money on talent

Nothing seems to stop the SEC schools from spending on talent...

If the conference match-ups ROTATE as I suggested, then yes, the SEC would go up north sometimes. Like the years there are SEC/B10 or SEC/P10 matchups.

They could, but in my view, you'd be better served playing the semi-final games in Miami + Los Angeles regardless of who is in them. The Final Four is rarely played near any of the schools participating, and that seems to work out.

ON the relegation system, you're kind of right, but with 20 team conferences, a Texas is not likely to get bumped. It would be a Baylor or Vandy kind of school.

You would assume so. And I think most of the top tier schools would be pretty safe. But teams with strong (but not elite) tradition (Oregon, Colorado, Texas A&M, Georgia, Mississippi, Michigan State, etc.) would be at risk of relegation with one season going sideways. It would be too disruptive to toss Georgia out of the SEC and bring in Marshall on the basis of one bad year.

 

[eg1]

From http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-footba...vs-michigan-state-denard-robinson-rootability

GEORGIA TECH AT VIRGINIA. UVA bro: "Oh, you wouldn't believe the place. It's on the Outer Banks, real chill. The porch opens right onto the sand, and you can just roll and bro all day. Take a swim, get some beers, you know, just soak it in. Gonna go down there with the fellas before it gets too cold. You got a place you like to vacay, just let it all go?"

Paul Johnson: Oh, sure. Little place I like to call the Port of ShuttheF*#@Up. It's right next to St. Dontgiveadammits. Stop wastin' my air and get in a three point stance and eat this shovel full of s*@# my boys are gonna pitch at you for four quarters, fancy boy. Ain't every day you get a free lunch, so look grateful.

UVA bro: Harsh, bro.

LEAN: GEORGIA TECH

 

[Texasmade]



Let me know when a person not of West African descent breaks the ten second mark in the 100 meter dash.

Christophe Lemaitre. I believe he's the only white guy to ever do it.