January 8, 2008

I couldn't get excited about this game because the teams brought so many losses into the bowl season. As good as LSU is, I don't think a two-loss team can make a solid claim to the national championship in college football. They win it primarily because so many other teams choked in the clutch, not because they set themselves above the rest through the quality of their play.

It's weird that Kansas didn't get higher than seventh after their bowl win and a one-loss season.

I know it's pointless to say this, but it's a crying shame we can't get a playoff. An eight-team college football playoff would become one of the most-watched and most-loved spectacles in sports.

posted by rcade at 9:05 AM CDT on January 8

I wouldn't say the game was an utter blowout. OSU looked poised to get some momentum at the beginning of the second half (and only down by 2 scores) with that nice 3 and out until the bonehead roughing the kicker play. OSU hurt itself way too much with 15-yd penalties resulting in first downs LSU shouldn't have had.

An eight-team college football playoff would become one of the most-watched and most-loved spectacles in sports.
I 100% agree. With a number of top teams having "claims" to the nat'l championship, it could have been an unbelievable 3 weeks of playoffs.
Hm, maybe it's their plan? Build up so much hype and demand for a playoffs that it is welcomed with so much fanfare resulting in it being the most-watched thing ever!

posted by jmd82 at 10:03 AM CDT on January 8

Congrats to the Bayou Bengals!
The victory is win-win for Northeastern Ohio since Les Miles (Elyria) and Bo Pelini (Youngstown) piloted the national champions to victory. While Miles matriculated to the dreaded team up north, Pelini was a captain at OSU and should never have been allowed to leave the state. Two straight disappointing defensive years in the "big one" shows that Jim Tressell and the OSU brass better re-think their philosophies.

As far as a playoff for the national champ? Have one and college pigskin fans won't have anything to argue about until next August or so! Now the various blogs and boards will abound with GA and USC and to a lesser extent KA fans complaining about their teams never having the chance to keep the LSU offense in check.

posted by tbocce at 10:16 AM CDT on January 8

An eight-team college football playoff would become one of the most-watched and most-loved spectacles in sports.

Such a system would invariably propel, a two-loss team ... to the national championship in college football. And we would find ourselves here, again, arguing about the seeding system, home-field advantage, or the #9 team that 'got screwed'.

Also, I would like to point out we already have an 8 team battle royal to decide the national championship, sorta. It's called: The SEC Regular Season.

posted by r8rh8r27 at 11:38 AM CDT on January 8

Any playoff would probably have to be 8 teams at a minimum. Look at the final (pre-bowl) BCS rankings -- it's arguable that teams 3 and 4 (OU and VT) didn't belong, at least based on their bowl showings. A four team playoff would have left out the two teams who clearly belong right behind LSU (and who could well beat LSU head-to-head), USC and Georgia.

On the whole, good performance by LSU, who finally were really healthy for the first time since the first couple of weeks of the season. I'd just as soon not see Ohio State (or any Big 10 team, for that matter) in the title game next year.

posted by holden at 11:42 AM CDT on January 8

It is becoming rather obvious that momentum is building for a playoff system of some type. I prefer a 16 team format that starts one week after the college season ends and have the first week of games played on the campuses of the higher ranked team in the game. The second round can ultilize several of the BCS bowls on a rotating basis and maybe one or two "minor" bowls. The third round (semis) would ultilize the BCS bowls chosen for the semi games, minus maybe the Rose Bowl (the Big 10 and PAC 10 do not want a playoff system and want to keep the Rose Bowl) on a rotating basis. The format would feature a one week break for Christmas and would conclude no later than the current system concludes.

A sixteen playoff would leave little room for argument (except from the PAC 10, Big 10 crowd), it is doubful the the sixteenth seeded team will take down number 1 in their game, so arguments about whether another team should have been sixteenth seed would be silly, same goes for the fifteenth, thirteenth and twelth seeds. After several years of being left our of the title picture and having to yell that they deserve the National Championship from the sidelines, the Pac 10 and Big 10 will come to their senses and join in, until then, the implication that the UGA president made of "to hell" with them would suffice.

posted by Cave_Man at 12:13 PM CDT on January 8

That's what Georgia President Michael Adams said.

Michael Adams rules! I'd prefer a 16 team playoff but I'd settle for 8 teams.

The BCS plus one nonsense is more BCS BS. Who would you pick to play LSU? USC? Georgia? Kansas? West Virginia? You're right back where you started from.

The reason that the push for playoffs might finally get some traction is that the BCS has committed the cardinal sin. It's become BORING!

Georgia vs. Hawaii. USC vs. Illinois? These are the best matchups the BCS can muster?

And waiting until January 7th to watch Ohio State get blown out again? The game started at 5:15 PM out west. By the time I could sit down and watch it, it was already 24-10. Talk about anti-climactic.

I realize the East Coast doesn't want to stay up to midnight to watch the game but if it's gonna be at 5 PM, at least schedule it for the weekend. But they can't do that because it conflicts with the NFL playoffs.

Hey, here's a novel idea! Play the game on New Year's Day!

And watching the game on Fox is an exercise in masochism. I'd rather mute it and invite someone to come to my house with a bullhorn and yell "FOX" in my ears every five seconds. "JUMPER?" Jump this, assholes.

Having the "best" regular season in sports is irrelevant if your post season is broken. (No offense to LSU. They deserved to be there as much as anyone and won convincingly).

I just hope the idiots running college football now live long enough to see what a massive public and commercial success the college football playoff tournament becomes. No doubt they'll be hanging out with the guy that turned down the Beatles because "guitar bands are over."

posted by cjets at 1:11 PM CDT on January 8

Something has got to change. Ohio State should not have been there in the title game this year and I'm saying that as a Buckeye fan. I knew that they were not ready and I was praying that they wouldn't go. LSU won, but I'm still not convinced that they should have been there either. And cjets is right the BCS game has become boring. I hate the fact that is almost a week later than the other bcs bowl games and on a freakin' Monday night. I hate the fact that it was on FOX and I was going to scream if they did the "jumper" replay thing again. Can someone please fix this freakin' problem? Please?

posted by lil'red at 1:41 PM CDT on January 8

Let's face it. Georgia got the screwing of a lifetime. They were # 4 when # 1 and # 2 lost on the same night. Ohio State ( # 3 ) moves to # 1 and Georgia ( # 4 ) goes to # 5? Are you kidding me? Don't give me the "They didn't win their conference" arguement. They were voted there and everyone knew they didn't win the conference. Then Ohio State ( # 1 ), Va Tech ( # 3 ), and Oklahoma ( # 4 ) get beat and USC jumps from # 6 to # 2, leaving Georgia 3rd in the Coaches Poll. Georgia beats a higher ranked team than USC in the Bowl Game and this is the reward they get? It is way past time for a playoff.

posted by dbt302 at 2:02 PM CDT on January 8

I was quite surprised that LSU put up 38. I still think Les Miles isn't a very good coach, but that was, by far, the best I've seen LSU look all year. I thought OSU would push them around but it didn't happen, so congratulations to them.

posted by chmurray at 2:55 PM CDT on January 8

dbt302: I'm a UGA alum and can die a happy man when I finally see my Dawgs win the nat'l championship (I'm banking on next year and/or 09 if Moreno and Stafford stays healthy), but they didn't win their conference this year. They didn't win their conference or the SEC title. Maybe they do deserve to be ranked over USC, but not in the title game. What were you going to do- put them in over LSU or have an all-SEC BCS game?

The old excuse was that the players were student-athletics and a playoff system would take them out of the classroom.

Just start the playoffs right after the regular season instead of waiting a month afterwards. Other student-athletes travel as much if not more than football students.

posted by jmd82 at 3:25 PM CDT on January 8

My biggest issues are that I don't think LSU is the best team in the country. I didn't think they were the best team in the SEC. They were the best team in the stadium last night, most definately. But, I would say that I agree that there are four or five others that could say the same - I thought USC looked better than LSU (by far), and that Georgia got hosed but good. Kansas was hosed even better. I even believe that Missouri would have beaten LSU. And, the WVU could also make a claim.

This is why I think the whole process stinks. You have your March Madness to settle (on the court) which team is the best. Not simply which team didn't loose a game in "regulation" as Les put it. Just because they lost in overtime instead of regulation shouldn't make any difference at all - a loss is a loss. Let the games be settled on the field of play and not by people that choose the team they think is the best. There were several teams that could have won the "tourney" if one were to be played. I will watch the regular season, but the bowls they fight so hard to protect - probably won't watch many of them anymore.

posted by Mickster at 3:56 PM CDT on January 8

Mickster- Boy, would I like to be a fly on the wall when these picks are made. The political wrangling and manure that goes on behind closed doors for these picks, must have the delegates wearing some really high top boots, and clothes pins on their noses.

posted by Nakeman at 4:10 PM CDT on January 8

Maybe they do deserve to be ranked over USC, but not in the title game. What were you going to do- put them in over LSU or have an all-SEC BCS game?

The BCS Poll before the final week of the season looked like this jmd82:

1. Missouri 11-1
2. West Virginia 10-1
3. Ohio State 11-1
4. Georgia 10-2
5. Kansas 11-1
6. Virginia Tech 10-2
7. LSU 10-2
8. USC 9-2
9. Oklahoma 10-2
10. Florida 9-3

Based on the fact # 1 and 2 lost, Georgia had every right to move to # 2. LSU jumped 5 spots to # 2 and Oklahoma jumped 5 spots to # 4. Va Tech jumped 3 to # 3. The rule has always been, if you lose a game later in the year, the more you get hurt from it in the polls. Georgia won 7 straight while others lost and moved to # 4. It didn't matter that they didn't win their conference then. Don't penalize them after the fact. As far as USC goes... They lost to 42 point underdog Stanford. They lost after Georgia did and should have been behind them in the poll and still should be. It should have been Georgia kicking Ohio State last night.

posted by dbt302 at 4:52 PM CDT on January 8

There were several teams that could have won the "tourney" if one were to be played. I will watch the regular season, but the bowls they fight so hard to protect - probably won't watch many of them anymore.


I did not watch any bowl games or the National Championship game this year (or last year) and do not plan on watching again until a well thought out playoff system is implemented. NCAA football officials and bowl people are tone deaf and the only thing that will wake them up is people stop watching the inadequate postseason offerings that they present. NCAA officials need to get off their A** and implement a playoff system, and tell the PAC 10 and Big 10 that they cannot claim a National Championship if they insist on holding out.

posted by Cave_Man at 5:07 PM CDT on January 8

Two points I would like to, well, point out:

1. How can the NCAA argue against a 16-team football playoff when every other division of the same sport successfully undertakes a 16-team playoff? The model is in place and it's their model. Conferences with championships should have their teams limited to 11 regular season games. Therefore, 2 teams would play 15 or 16 games, 4 would play 14 or 15, every other team would play no more than under the current system. Side note - if they still want a gazillion bowls, let the non-playoff teams continue to bowl away. Those bowls surely cannot be any less meaningful than they currently are.

2. LSU beat the #1, #3, #12, #16, & #23 ranked teams in the BCS poll(12/2/07); #6, #10, #11, #13, & #14 in the final Coaches poll, and #5, #9, #12, #13, & #15 in the final AP. The 2 teams they lost to, both in triple O/T, received Coaches & AP votes and were bowl participants. I'm not sure if any of the other reasonable candidates for the championship game can claim a similar resume for the season. I don't have the time to compile the same statistics for each of the other candidate teams, but it would be interesting to see what those results are.

posted by manics21 at 5:59 PM CDT on January 8

As good as LSU is, I don't think a two-loss team can make a solid claim to the national championship in college football.

All the other teams had 2 losses too (except for Kansas and Hawaii and most feel that if either of them played the games LSU/USC/Georgia played they'd have 4 or 5 losses). So if you have this 2 loss rule, it should automatically go to Kansas or Hawaii? Even though everyone knows they aren't the best teams?

I know it's pointless to say this, but it's a crying shame we can't get a playoff.

Count me as one who disagrees. I think the current system is designed to put the 2 best teams against each other and it usually does that. People always clamoring about Boise and Hawaii just aren't realistic. At the end of the season, if you looked objectionably as to who should be playing for the title, LSU and OSU seemed the 2 most qualified for that right.

As for a playoff, why did we need one? The last 7 or 8 weeks were like the playoffs! #2 teams losing like 5 or 6 weeks in a row, teams jumping up, going down, jumping up, going down. Every week was exciting this year and it culminated in the 2 best teams playing for the title. This year, more than any other year, it seems to be an argument as to how well the current system is working!

posted by bdaddy at 9:27 PM CDT on January 8

The BCS Poll before the final week of the season looked like this jmd82:

Trust me- I was watching those polls as much as anyone else. I was hoping UGA would go to #2, but wasn't surprised.
I don't see it as a matter of UGA being penalized- it was a matter of the other teams being rewarded for winning their conference/championship. I think all of the BCS conferences should have a conference championship to decide their playoff contender, but whatever.

Also, I think you have to look at the entire season's work and you cannot discount and entire season's work. UGA lied a giant f'in egg against UT and should have beat USC, while LSU...well, manics21 covered that.
All this's to say why the current system is BS. There are arguments to make for each team.

Every week was exciting this year and it culminated in the 2 best teams playing for the title.

Clearly, other people think otherwise. I don't think the two best teams played- rather I think the two teams who deserve to play under the current system played.

And, the last 7-8 weeks were most definitely not the playoffs. I bloody hate that arguments. If they were, it would have been UGA-USC in the championship game, and certainly not LSU or OSU as they had later-season losses than either team.

posted by jmd82 at 10:56 PM CDT on January 8

SEC fans:

Take a look at this. Bowl Subdivision Polls

Looks like the Big 12 has 4 teams in the top 10.
Funny how SEC fans always want to compare their conference to the Big 10, or the Pac 10, or the ACC, or the Big East...

posted by canstusdis at 11:21 PM CDT on January 8

Funny how SEC fans always want to compare their conference to the Big 10, or the Pac 10, or the ACC, or the Big East...

Actually, all I did was compare the SEC to the Big Ten as it applied to OSU getting the beatdown again this year in the big game.

Looks like the Big 12 has 4 teams in the top 10.

Keep on extrapolating said data, and you'll see that the Big 12 does indeed have four of the top 10, and not another team in the top 20. The SEC, meanwhile, has two of the top three teams, and five teams overall in the top 20. I don't know if those numbers are necessarily the "NUFF SAID" you were looking for.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 5:01 AM CDT on January 9

The SEC, meanwhile, has two of the top three teams, and five teams overall in the top 20. I don't know if those numbers are necessarily the "NUFF SAID" you were looking for.

Dammit TBH you beat me to the punch once again.

I'll compare the SEC with any confrence in any sport. Not that the SEC is the best confrence in all sports but it sure is fun (to me) to see how my fan base stands up against the rest of the nation.

What we really need is the old SWC back.

posted by Folkways at 8:09 AM CDT on January 9

The Sagarin ratings have the BCS conferences ranked as follows at the end of the season:

SEC
Pac-10
Big 12
Big East
ACC
Big Ten

This is not to say that those ratings are the be all, end all, but it does perhaps provide a different perspective than just counting the number of teams each conference has in the top-10, top-25, etc.

In terms of the Pac-10 and Big Ten adding teams, where do the teams come from for the Pac-10? (It's obviously easier for the Big Ten in that they only need one team.) One thing I have always loved about the Pac-10 is the wonderful symmetry of 2 Arizona teams, 2 LA teams, 2 Bay Area teams, 2 Oregon teams and 2 Washington teams. I also love that every team in the conference plays every other team each year.

posted by holden at 8:39 AM CDT on January 9

I agree with bdaddy. College football is so exciting because every single game matters, and winning well matters as well. It makes each game crucial. I like the BCS so much better than the AP awarding the championship. Plus, I don't think there is any possible playoff system in football where an arguably great team is not left out. And, any system that takes away home games to make room for corporate sponsored games stinks.

On other matters, it was tacky of Georgia to bring this up now. And, the jumper thing on Fox was so ridiculous. Who thinks up this shit?

posted by bperk at 9:25 AM CDT on January 9

SEC, Big 12, both conferences are solid and have something that the Pac 10 and the Big 10 don't - a conference championship. That does settle the score on the field of which teams represent their conference in the BCS games by AUTOMATIC spots.

I agree that both conferences are better than the Big 10 this year. I'm not sure about the Pac 10--they were also very good. As for conference championships, I agree that there needs to be uniformity in that either all conferences need to have them or none should, but I would rather see them done away with. Playing regular season games is every bit as good at "settling the score on the field." Furthermore, it is often the case that teams play each other in conference championship games who have already met in the regular season. This is both unneccessary and unfair to the team that already won.


every single game matters.

No, it doesn't. See: OSU v. Illinois. LSU v. Kentucky.

The fact that other unexpected upsets happened and that those two teams still made the championship game does not prove that those games didn't matter. In fact, it shows just how important every game is.

posted by bender at 10:38 AM CDT on January 9

I skipped a lot of posts, having anticipated and understood the general gist of them.
The rankings, people. Post-season, pre-season, mid-season...who cares? It's all a four-month fix. The plus-one garbage is just more tweaking by the 15-20 teams who actually have a shot in the present system. A playoff, you say? Great. But it's still set up so that the 25 teams that people just KNOW are going to be good in July get a humongous head start, and the Kansases, Hawai'is, Boises, etc...of the world have to claw their way up and hope someone notices in time to escape the San Diego Federal Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.
The preseason rankings are an eternal injustice to at least 50 teams a year. There shouldn't be rankings until at least a month into the season. Don't base it on conjecture, speculation, and last season's results. Base it on how they're actually doing. Then, and only then, will we be making progress.
Until this happens, I'm making this subjective creature as subjective as it gets. The games are going to be played anyway, so I'll just decide what I think is important, and the omniscient national media can say whatever it wants.

And for the love of everything, it's parity, not parody...although, that kind of makes sense, too.

posted by newbie1412 at 12:26 PM CDT on January 9

But it's still set up so that the 25 teams that people just KNOW are going to be good in July get a humongous head start, and the Kansases, Hawai'is, Boises, etc...of the world have to claw their way up and hope someone notices in time to escape the San Diego Federal Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.

It's a good point. But if you have a 16 team playoff, I think it's much less of an issue. Kansas Missouri and Hawaii were all in the top sixteen this year. Also, a 16 team playoff could have automatic byes for all conference winners. If you can't win your conference or impress enough people to finish in the top 16, then you probably don't deserve to be in the playoffs.


As for conference championships, I agree that there needs to be uniformity in that either all conferences need to have them or none should, but I would rather see them done away with.

Agreed. One of the main arguments against a playoff seems to be that a playoff would mean that college athletes are playing too many games. If this is the case, why not drop the conference championship game?

posted by cjets at 3:28 PM CDT on January 9

Well, if all of the high schools can do it across the country, and the other Sub Division college teams (or whatever they are called now - NAIA, etc...) can have playoffs, why couldn't the major colleges? It is done in every level of football in the U.S. except for the Div. 1 schools who seem to want to hold on to the rich tradition of bowl games. It is the almighty dollar that is sponsoring the San Diego Federal Credit Union Poinsettia Bowls and others like it. It is all about the GREED of big time athletics that make millions on the players and teams and yet can't give a kid enough money (say a stipend) to go home for the holidays.

posted by Mickster at 9:30 PM CDT on January 9

I think what is lost in all this Buckeye bashing is that this was supposed to be a rebuilding year for them. They thought they had a core of good young talent, one that would make them a great team in the next two years, and I think that is still the case. I don't think Tressel or anyone else thought they would beat the likes of Wisconsin and Michigan this year, let alone win the Big Ten, and they certainly wouldn't be making an appearance in the title game. Most of us Bucks fan never even entertained the thought that they were the best team in the country this year. However, when the season played out the way it did, there they were with one loss. Should Tressel and the AD have said, "no thanks, BCS. The money's nice and all that, but we don't think we should accept it." Should those of us who cheer for the Bucks have just stayed home and played with ourselves, rather than support the team?

Yes, this year and probably for the past few, the SEC is the best overall conference in college football. That will not be the case in perpetuity, so get off the smug kick, SEC fans. Teams in the PAC 10, Big 12, and even the Big 10 will rise and fall in cycles, as they always have. In five years, there may be much discussion about how some SEC team snuck into the big one to get beaten by an obviously better ACC team. That doesn't mean that a team doesn't deserve credit for what they accomplished.

I also hear that the Big 10 is addressing the long postseason layoff issue next year. Is it true that the season is being pushed back a few weeks so there is no more six to seven week layoff before bowl games? Maybe one of you Wolverine fans, hanging out in your shiny new R-squared A-squared t-shirts could look into it.

posted by tahoemoj at 2:00 PM CDT on January 12