T1B

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:16 am**

I'm pretty sure we know who the Coach of the Year is now.

And rack Adel for the laugh.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:25 am**

StrandedTexan wrote:LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!

I bet Rutgers will be ranked in the top 10 this Sunday... I'll guess 6 (prolly 7).
LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!

You're an idiot.

Great game, but the game showed how weak the Big East is.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:30 am**

montinelevin wrote:
StrandedTexan wrote:LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!

I bet Rutgers will be ranked in the top 10 this Sunday... I'll guess 6 (prolly 7).
LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!
You're an idiot.

Great game, but the game showed how weak the Big East is.

true. the big east is only the fifth best of the six bcs conferences, right ahead of the pac 10.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:32 am**

M Club wrote:true. the big east is only the fifth best of the six bcs conferences, right ahead of the pac 10.

The Big East is ahead of the ACC this year.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:33 am**

RACK Rutgers for an inspired performance.

Watching the crowd spill out and then reverse in double time was fuckin hilarious.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:35 am**

montinelevin wrote:
StrandedTexan wrote:LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!

I bet Rutgers will be ranked in the top 10 this Sunday... I'll guess 6 (prolly 7).
LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!
You're an idiot.

Great game, but the game showed how weak the Big East is.

Did you just edit a quote? I think you just editted a quote, dumbass. READ before you quote... It will be an absolute farkup to put them that high, but I bet the Harris and Coaches will do it. You miss anything so far? Scroll up, you can figure it out.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:36 am**

Mikey wrote:RACK Rutgers for an inspired performance.

Watching the crowd spill out and then reverse in double time was fuckin hilarious.

prolly the first time the blimp perspective was essential for anything other than the filled-stadium shot.

i get the feeling rutgers could go undefeated and wouldn't complain too much about being left out of the bcs championship game.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:37 am**

Ha I think I got the closest to nailing the score.

BTW this does a lot to help Texas but they still need a lot more help to get into the BCS championship game. A one loss Florida, Auburn, or USC will still pass Texas.

I think the biggest winner tonight was the college football fans who are now guaranteed of a hell of a BCS championship game. Winner of the tOSU/Michigan game vs a top notch 1 loss team. Should be a great game.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:42 am**

Vito Corleone wrote:Ha I think I got the closest to nailing the score.

I think that honor goes to Stranded Texan. He picked Rutgers 24-22 and even predicted that they'd win on a game-winning FG.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:42 am**

M Club wrote:
montinelevin wrote:
StrandedTexan wrote:LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!

I bet Rutgers will be ranked in the top 10 this Sunday... I'll guess 6 (prolly 7).
LET THE CHAOS BEGIN!!!!!
You're an idiot.

Great game, but the game showed how weak the Big East is.
true. the big east is only the fifth best of the six bcs conferences, right ahead of the pac 10.

Really?

The computers have the Pac 10 as the top conference in the country.

It also has Cal with the 2nd toughest schedule in the country.

but who really cares about being un-biased.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:46 am**

montinelevin wrote:
Really?

The computers have the Pac 10 as the top conference in the country.

It also has Cal with the 2nd toughest schedule in the country.

but who really cares about being un-biased.

the best i can pull of re: objectivity is this: yr still cal. that's not impressive.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:51 am**

A one loss Texas Florida or Auburn are more impressive than a one loss Kal

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:55 am**

montinelevin wrote:
M Club wrote:
montinelevin wrote: You're an idiot.

Great game, but the game showed how weak the Big East is.
true. the big east is only the fifth best of the six bcs conferences, right ahead of the pac 10.
Really?

The computers have the Pac 10 as the top conference in the country.

It also has Cal with the 2nd toughest schedule in the country.

but who really cares about being un-biased.

How great would Louisville or West Virginia be in the Pac-10? Right on par...

All O, no D at all. We saw it in the WV/Louis game. We saw a decent D in Rutgers beat Louis. With the exception of USC (who recruits their D from states that have balls) the Pac 10 is an absolute joke. It's not in their character to play D. Farking Californians... Should I hit him hard or will a medium hit do it? A medium hit would be better for the world. I'll go medium just in case...

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:02 am**

the difficulty in obtaining it is what makes the championship so special...

That's why it's fun to see Rutgers making a really improbable run.

That was a classic game. I guess my fondness for Rutgers stems from 1) watching PSU beat up on them for so many years, and 2) watching Greg Schiano do such a great job.

I thought Rutgers might beat Louisville. I don't think winning at Morgantown will be easy for them. In fact, I think it very unlikely.

Let's put it this way...if Rutgers beats WVU, and wins a BCS bowl game of some kind, they will be legit. Those are two really tough games for them to win...and if they do, they really will have shown something.

Hell, they already have.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:03 am**

StrandedTexan wrote:We saw a decent D in Rutgers beat Louis.

rutgers held a legitimately impressive offense to 18 points, not to mention that 2nd half sack job.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:16 am**

M Club wrote:
StrandedTexan wrote:We saw a decent D in Rutgers beat Louis.
rutgers held a legitimately impressive offense to 18 points, not to mention that 2nd half sack job.

Your point?

WV is a joke, Louisville is a bigger joke, Rutgers is a stud team in Div 1A???

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:21 am**

It's a moot point.

Rutgers will lose to WVU.

Just another 1 loss team.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:22 am**

StrandedTexan wrote:WV is a joke, Louisville is a bigger joke

Not that I agree on either being a joke (I guess we're just supposed to take your word on that?), but just from a rational standpoint, wouldn't you want to reverse that seeing as Louisville beat WVU?

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:33 am**

montinelevin wrote:
Rutgers will lose to WVU.

Fact! The blind will kill be deaf. It's funny that WVU, Louisville, and Rutgers will prolly beat the shit outta each other. WVU over Rutgers? Take it to the bank. B beats A, C beats B, A beats C. In a real conference that would be a story. In the Big East it's...par for the course. Cripples beating on cripples.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:34 am**

StrandedTexan wrote:
M Club wrote:
StrandedTexan wrote:We saw a decent D in Rutgers beat Louis.
rutgers held a legitimately impressive offense to 18 points, not to mention that 2nd half sack job.
Your point?

WV is a joke, Louisville is a bigger joke, Rutgers is a stud team in Div 1A???

my point = i'd have thought the novelty of internet mb's would've worn off by now and ppl would quit pretending they're douches. unless yr really a douche.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:35 am**

montinelevin wrote:Just another 1 loss team...

in the mold of cal..

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:59 am**

M Club wrote:
montinelevin wrote:Just another 1 loss team...
in the mold of cal..

If we take the recent past history... yep.

That's why we play the games.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:07 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
StrandedTexan wrote:WV is a joke, Louisville is a bigger joke
Not that I agree on either being a joke (I guess we're just supposed to take your word on that?), but just from a rational standpoint, wouldn't you want to reverse that seeing as Louisville beat WVU?

Yes, I concede that Louis beat WVU straight up, then Rutgers beat Louisvile. However, I honestly think WVU is the best team in the Big East, then Louisville, then Rutgers, They all suck in the grand scheme of things, but hey.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:23 am**

Adelpiero wrote:from the gambling thread. gotta love easy $$$

adelpiero wrote:big bet on louisville -6. unless they have a letdown, they win this outright and by a td or 2. rutgers qb teal is horrible, you stop rice, as others have, and rutgers is on the ropes(see uconn game yikes).
louisville has the defense for a power running game, not against a spread ya out offense so much, . rutgers defense has been decent, but they wont be able to stop louisville run game and passing game.

i go to bed with the score 25-7 and louisville ends up losing????

wow, congrats for rutgers, i guess someone gave petrino, gary pinkels 2nd half gameplan.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:52 pm**

StrandedTexan wrote:Cripples beating on cripples.

You know, outside of Texas and OU, that's how a lot of people view your conference.

The Big 12 North? That's more like deathbed cancer patients beating on each other.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:29 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:I dunno...the difficulty in obtaining it is what makes the championship so special...I'd say possible "more special" than any other sport,or so I'm guessing

Well, under my proposal of a four team playoff, the "difficulty in obtaining" would still be very prevelant.

In a four team playoff, or hell, even an eight team playoff, less than 1% of all D1 teams would be competing. Less than 1 freaking %. Under the four team scenario, it would be less than half of 1%. Knowing that, how the hell could anyone rationalize the significance of the games taking a blow? Under either scenario, if you lose just one game, you'll be hurting. If you lose two games, you'd be seriously on the ropes, likely on the outside looking in. You'd still need to play every game with that oh-so sacred "one and done" mentality, because you'll want to ensure yourself a spot in the top four (or eight). Plus, you'll be competing for a spot against other teams with identical records, so that will motivate you to play tougher OOC competition in order to increase your SOS, which will be a necessity if you want to beat out a field of teams with similar records.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:51 pm**

^^I've always liked the idea of a 4-team playoff, maybe even a 6-team. Opposed to playing those games at a neutral site, though, as someone always suggests. If a system ever gets implemented, I think #1 & #2 deserve to play at home until the championship game. That would also keep the "oh shit, we'd better not lose a game" mentality.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:37 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:I dunno...the difficulty in obtaining it is what makes the championship so special...I'd say possible "more special" than any other sport,or so I'm guessing
Well, under my proposal of a four team playoff, the "difficulty in obtaining" would still be very prevelant.

In a four team playoff, or hell, even an eight team playoff, less than 1% of all D1 teams would be competing. Less than 1 freaking %. Under the four team scenario, it would be less than half of 1%.

Huh? There's 119 teams in 1-A. Even if you're figuring in 1-AA, I don't think your % gets that low. By way of comparison, IIRC there are 322 teams that play D1 basketball.

Knowing that, how the hell could anyone rationalize the significance of the games taking a blow? Under either scenario, if you lose just one game, you'll be hurting. If you lose two games, you'd be seriously on the ropes, likely on the outside looking in. You'd still need to play every game with that oh-so sacred "one and done" mentality, because you'll want to ensure yourself a spot in the top four (or eight).

Realistically, at this point I don't think a four-team (or even eight-team) playoff is viable in a system that supplants the current bowl system, or at least, those teams' participation in the current bowl system. The reason is the BCS.

The BCS guarantees a $14-18 million payout every year to the champions of the six conferences that have automatic bids into the BCS. That, imho, is the primary reason why the powers that be have concocted it -- the #1 vs. #2 game is actually window dressing. Those powers would fight tooth and nail against any system that prevented the participation of those conferences on an annual basis.

Even an 8-team field won't work, and the simple reason for that is that the BCS added a fifth game this year. It's now much easier for teams from non-BCS conferences to qualify for a BCS bowl than in years past. Even Notre Dame now has an easier time qualifying for a BCS bowl, as a practical matter if nothing else, given that the BCS doubled the number of at-large bids available. And these programs also would cry foul if you eliminated two teams from the mix. You can't unring this particular bell.

Having said all of that, a 16-team field would still do the trick for you, without triggering the aforementioned turf protection issues, especially if you took Vito's and Shoalzie's advice and gave the non-BCS conferences a seat at the table. Under that scenario, 11 (or perhaps 10, if there was a serious push to expand and consolidate conferences, but no fewer than that) of the bids would be automatic, and only five at-large bids would remain. If competition for at-large bids were that tight, any team in contention for an automatc bid, as a practical matter, couldn't afford more than two losses in a season, and even a two-loss season might not be enough for an at-large bid in the playoff. And even with 16 teams in the playoff, you'd still have a much smaller percentage of 1-A teams playing for the championship than you have in any of the other major sports in this country.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:09 pm**

MGO learned math a little different from what I was taught...just sayin'.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:42 pm**

Heh, my bad, left out a key component of basic math. It's close to 3.5%, actually, which still bodes pretty well for my point. Still about 97% of the CF landscape will be left out of the playoff. Still makes for important games all year round, right?

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:35 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Heh, my bad, left out a key component of basic math. It's close to 3.5%, actually, which still bodes pretty well for my point. Still about 97% of the CF landscape will be left out of the playoff. Still makes for important games all year round, right?

By way of comparison, here's the percentages of teams involved in the championship of what I consider to be the other major sports in the U.S.:

College basketball: 65/322 = 20.2%
MLB: 8/30 = 26.7%
NFL: 12/32 = 37.5 %
NHL: 16/30 = 53.3%
NBA: 16/30 = 53.3%

Compared with those numbers, even a 16-team field would mean a much lower percentage of college football teams playing for the national championship than in other sports. I don't know why so many are so afraid of a field that large.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:46 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:...even a 16-team field would mean a much lower percentage of college football teams playing for the national championship than in other sports. I don't know why so many are so afraid of a field that large.

It's been said a thousand times, but I'll say it again. A 16-team CFB postseason completely diminishes the importance of the regular season. If I knew Ohio State would still have a shot at a national championship with one or two losses, I would've never booked my flight to Austin in September.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:06 pm**

The strong majority of regular season games are already insignificant. Why is this so hard to grasp? We will be seeing ranked matchups in weeks to come that really won't mean much at all, other than in-conference bragging rights, and whatsuch.

Now, I do think there's incentive to win your consolation game because it will (in most cases) help your positioning in next season's preseason polls. And with the flawed system you guys love so much, preseason polls dictate a lot.

But again, after you lose a game or two, the rest of the season doesn't mean anything. In most every other sport, the importance of regular season games exists from start to finish. For college football it's about half a season, at the most, and only for a very small percentage of teams. The regular season, with this system, is heavily watered down and makes for a lot of boring football games that could otherwise, mean much, much more.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:39 pm**

I think we are all still losing sight of the fact that the Big East still sucks the fact that Rutgers shut down Louisville screams how overrated Louisville was, not how underrated Rutgers is.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:42 pm**

CFB does have a playoff. It starts in Week 1.

I mean, to win a playoff, you have to win all of your games, right?

Don't like your lot, be it BCS bowls, 4 team playoffs, or 8 team playoffs?

Then I guess you should have played better and won more games then.

Remember...my team was the ORIGINAL "got fucked by the BCS" team. Guess they shouldn't have messed up those punts, and should have beaten Stanford .

Was it really that recently that Stanford was halfway decent?

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:31 pm**

you are an idiot, did you just say that the playoff is called "the regular season"?
what a fuckin moron,
I guess the regular season in the NFL is a playoff as well?
dumb fuck,

its simple, the BCS will determine the top seeds, wether it be a top 20, top 16 or top 12, whatever, then, your playoff bowls will begin, leading to an eventual national champion,
I am all for it, think about it? did you see michigan barely squeak by ball st? as a nebraska fan, I have a giant boner at the thought of gettting michigan again in a bowl,
its funny, early on, a michigan fan was talking trash, telling me that I didnt want any part of michigan this year, REALLY? seems to me, that after watching the mighty fags from ann arbour, struggle to just win against who? ball st? at home?
yeah, I'll say it again, ive got a giant boner at the prospect of meeting michigan for the second straight year in a bowl, as always, they are an overrated football squad, who was lucky to escape who? ball st?

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:42 am**

I was just kind of curious how you figure Nebraska would end up in a bowl game with a 1-loss Michigan team, when Nebraska is ranked somewhere behind Oregon State in the BCS?

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:04 am**

Dinsdale wrote:I was just kind of curious how you figure Nebraska would end up in a bowl game with a 1-loss Michigan team, when Nebraska is ranked somewhere behind Oregon State in the BCS?

I was just kind of curious as to how you could be so obtuse?

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:07 am**

Oh, don't get me wrong, JettaSwingsLikeAGirl...I understand bradnology.

I was just trying to spark a lively debate regarding who Nebraska might really face in a bowl.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:19 am**

Dinsdale wrote:Oh, don't get me wrong, JettaSwingsLikeAGirl...I understand bradnology.

I was just trying to spark a lively debate regarding who Nebraska might really face in a bowl.

No, you were really being stupid.
It's not like NU has eeked their peeter into a BCS game, let alone a national championship game via a conference championship game before or anything.

Go ahead, try and step on brad's dick again. That was enlightening.

T1B

Louisville-Rutgers call it!

?