I really hope that the Seahawks keep winning, including the Super Bowl, not because I'm particularly fond of them, but because people are making far too much of a deal over a losing team making the playoffs. Alright, the system isn't perfect, but at least it's a system, so it's way better than the BCS. Also, this is the first time in 45 years it's happened...seriously, one team in 45 years has a losing record. That's not at all emblematic of a problem that needs fixing.

The one year they earned the right to be called the Saints, they lose it to Seattle, so the S is dropped again. The Aints. (Might as well make fun of my team, too. Got the first piuck in the draft judt for Andrew Luck to not enter the draft.)

Wow, they were 10.5 point favorite as well. Hopefully somebody made some money off that game. Saints had no defense this year.

I made no money off it....
:(
(should of gone to Vegas for the weekend to place the bet)

100 percent agree IKE

making fun of the Panthers, would be just too easy

Agree with Sacred Digits

The Panthers have next year!

wow.... the Jets beat the colts...

I bet they draft some OL from Virginia

jets beating the colts wasnt that impressive, both teams played horribly

roflmao @ Panthers fan talking smack

2-14 gtfo with this Aints nonsense, we have next year too and it looks stupid to insult the team that beat your redheaded stepchild ass into next year twice

also, whoever said the BCS isn't a system is silly -- it's a far better means of ensuring the two best teams play for the championship than a playoff system that lets 7-9 teams in and not the 10-6 Giants, 9-7 Chargers, 8-8 Jaguars or 8-8 Raiders

This is maybe the first time in months I get the chance to talk smack, so yeah, Im going to do it. Btw, that 7-9 just beat the Aints, so really, the playoff system that let them in worked out great.

There seems to be a problem with a false plural, there, President Eden. The NFL playoffs don't let 7-9 teamS in. They've let one in, in 45 years. Now, wasn't there a year that undefeated teams did not play in the championship, but a team with a loss did? I believe that Boise State was the snubbed team that year. So by your "but teams with better records must be more deserving" argument doesn't really wash with your "the BCS is a better system" statement.

Look guys.... the system says the winner of each division goes to the playoffs. Its been like that forever and it works. The team could have been 3 - 13 and they still would go to the playoffs. Don't bash the Seahawks anymore seriously...

Seattle 31, Carolina 14

/argument

@SD: comparing college to pro like that doesn't work at all. NFL has much more parity talentwise -- strength of schedule is similar enough to straight compare records. Not in college. Boise gets left out consistently because its opponents' combined records is consistently 30-40 wins worse than teams of comparative records. That makes perfect sense; an 11-1 team whose opponents are 96-65 has a better argument than a 12-0 team whose opponents are 60-91.

And while this is the first time a 7-9 team has gotten in, that's not my point: the division champions rule has left a lot of teams with better records in out by default every single year. Not so in the BCS; every team has a shot, in theory, they just have to schedule a difficult enough slate of games.

I disagree. In college, you're forced to play a certain number of conference games. It's not Boise State's fault if those games are cupcakes. It IS, however, Michigan's (for example) fault if they schedule Eastern Michigan (for example) for a non-con game. And yet, Michigan gets to get away with that every year because the Big Ten, as a whole, is pretty strong. Or maybe that the Big Ten, as a whole, schedules the majority of their non-conference games against cupcakes. With the exception of Notre Dame, and they're joining the Big Ten.

the BCS allows the best teams to get in. When the 10-2 LSU Tigers got in, everyone thought the system was broke. Then, THEY WON. So, TALENT got IN, based on in-game situations, not RECORD got in with an opponent record of30 and god knows what

If Boise State were to schedule and beat Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa this year and went undefeated, I guarantee you they'd be in the national championship over Oregon. Or schedule LSU, Alabama, Auburn, and Arkansas.

And the Michigans, etc. of the world aren't getting away with anything -- they play those powerful Big Ten teams every year, whereas Boise plays maybe one team of comparative strength a year if that. Boise State has to schedule strong out of conference games because their conference games are a cakewalk; Michigan and the Big Ten don't have to schedule strong out of conference games because they already run a gauntlet in the conference.

You're also talking about the conference system -- not the BCS. The BCS merely takes teams and ranks them based on record and strength of schedule. It is not responsible for the fact that some conferences are far worse than others. (And yes, I favor the conference system being obliterated, or else radically restructured to balance it better than it is now.)

Just put one SEC team in every conference, then every conference will be good

*puts Vanderbilt in the Sun Belt*

...oh wait

So, sometimes record is important, such as when the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks get in, but sometimes it's not important, such as when the 14-0 Boise State Broncos don't. And Boise State would never be able to schedule Ohio State, etc, as their non-conference games...Ohio State wants to sweep their non-cons, and playing Boise State might screw that up. It's a Catch-22.

Why doesn't Boise State schedule Ohio State? Because Ohio State wouldn't want to schedule Boise State. In the NFL, the schedules are made so that every team plays essentially the same quality of opponents: every team plays a team that was first place in a division 4 times, a second place 4 times, a third place 4 times, and a fourth place 4 times. Division winners get in to compensate for different divisions having different strength, and wild cards get in to compensate for some divisions having multiple very good teams.

Dude, Boise State lost to Nevada. BYE BYE

Nevada is ranked. Let us throw in a new conflict: Undefeated TCU anyone?

You're willfully ignoring the strength of schedule argument I've made. It's incredibly obvious that a 12-0 team with opponents whose combined record is sub-.500 does not deserve to go over an 11-1 team whose opponents combined to go >.650. You just made the argument that the NFL is rife with parity... which means that record is the only thing one needs to look at. This is *clearly* not the case in college. Thus, for college, one must look to more than just record.

And of course Ohio State wouldn't want to schedule Boise -- thanks to the conference system they don't need to. Eliminate the conference system (as I just proposed) and you eliminate that problem. That's *still* not a critique of the BCS, *which is not responsible for the collegiate conference system.*

yea, cause SEC teams can handle nearly anyone.

Ok, clearly you are a fan of some SEC team. So, who wants to discuss TCU?

Serious question cause I don't know it. Has TCU played their bowl game? If so, did they win? If so, what was the score

btw, LSU for life man. LSU for life

Strength of schedule isn't an end-all be-all either.

Let's say that you have a relatively middle of the road division, but all your divisional opponents love to go where the money is for non-con games and go lose at Michigan, et cetera. And, for sake of argument, lose narrowly. Now, take middle of the road division Mark II, same quality of teams, but these guys schedule their non-cons against local colleges that suck. So now, you have two conferences with the exact same talent level, but one has the millstone of a poorer record than the other because they played better teams. Our mythical division winner will look like they have a great strength of schedule in the second one, but a poor strength of schedule in the first one. There's no way to really analyze it in any useful way without getting into way too much math. And that would work without conferences too.

TCU beat who was it...I think Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl, or was it Ohio State in the Rose? I know they beat them pretty badly.
LSU, at least its not Auburn... or Stanford... or UVA

oh, IT WAS WISCONSIN, RIGHT?

ha spryboy, no bandwagon jumping here

As long as we're stating our college teams, I went to Michigan State. Their bowl loss wasn't that bad for me...I grew up in Buffalo, after all.

Im a VT fan, that is why is mentioned at least you were not s Stanford or UVA fan

oh, and yes, it was wisconsin

TCU played:

5-7 Oregon State
0-2 Tennessee Tech
7-5 Baylor
7-6 SMU
3-9 Colorado State
3-9 Wyoming
6-6 Brigham Young
8-4 Air Force
2-11 UNLV
10-2 Utah
8-4 San Diego State
1-11 New Mexico State

12-0, opp. rec.: 60-76

*The 1AA team (Tennessee Tech)'s record is their record against 1A competition -- 1AA teams are a huge step down from 1A competition.

Auburn:

4-8 Arkansas State
8-4 Moo State
6-6 Clemson
9-4 South Carolina
5-7 Louisiana-Monroe
6-6 Kentucky
10-2 Arkansas
10-2 LSU
4-8 Ole Miss
0-1 Chattanooga
6-6 Georgia
9-3 Alabama
9-4 South Carolina

12-0, opp. rec.: 86-61

(same story with Chattanooga)

Oregon:

1-11 New Mexico
6-6 Tennessee
0-2 Portland State
6-6 Arizona State
11-1 Stanford
2-10 Washington State
4-8 UCLA
8-5 Southern Cal
6-6 Washington
5-7 California
7-5 Arizona
5-7 Oregon State

12-0; opp. rec.: 61-74

(and for Portland State)


I'm willing to admit that TCU is just as worthy to go to the title game as Oregon. Clearly Auburn deserves the top spot, but it's fair for TCU supporters to argue that they should have gone. The Pac-10 was about as good as the Mountain West and both teams scheduled bleh out-of-conference games.

RE: strength of schedule

Agreed. Typically I make arguments based off of opponents' record and opponents' opponents' record, and I believe most BCS computers (if not all) do the same. I don't have time to compile opps. opps. records to demonstrate, though.

And for those citing Rose Bowl in favor of TCU: Irrelevant, because at the time of the BCS selection TCU hadn't played Wisconsin.

PE, if you are interested, you should check out cfbtrivia.com. Has a good query engine for looking at game records.

In any case, looking at just opponents records gives a very bogus picture. The various computer ranking systems go at least to opponents opponents if not much further.

As for changing up the I-A conferences, I think the thing that would help the most would be to shove a lot of the bottom teams down into I-AA and then stop allowing games against I-AA teams. Cut I-A down from 120 teams to around 80 or so and get more games against that group of teams would give a more balanced schedule.

Still nothing compared to what the NFL can do with their small number (32) of teams where each team plays 13 of the other 31 teams.

By the way, if anyone is looking for a good message board to discuss college football, come over to cfn.scout.com. Lot of good folks there and while there are a few general boards, the conference boards are where most of the discussions are. The forums rules are pretty strict though, very different place from here. But also very different from college football message boards that are just smack talk boards or homer boards.

Have not heard of cfbtrivia.com. Checking it out now, I hope it's better than counting numbers on ESPN =P

I mentioned the opponents' opponents' record thing earlier. I have a feeling Oregon would come out stronger than TCU with that and that Auburn would jump further ahead of the pack, but I could be mistaken.

And I would absolutely be on board with reducing the number of IA teams. Given how many athletic departments are in the red right now, it seems insane to me that the trend is toward MORE IA teams (read: more expensive budgets), not LESS. I'm not on board with ending IA-IAA contests, though, but strictly for financial purposes. In terms of producing a system which crowns the best team champion, I'm in support of that measure. But a lot of IAA teams depend on games against powerhouse IA schools: they get huge checks for coming to get their asses kicked, far more than they'd get in revenue for a IAA-IAA contest, and a lot of those athletic departments are dependent upon those deals. On the IA side it's pretty lame, they're buying wins and screwing up the champion system; but for the IAA's sakes I'd let IA-IAA contests continue.

Yeah, IA schools are always buying wins by scheduling IAA opponents. I mean, what the hell was Appalachian State doing in Michigan a few years ago? Just collecting a paycheck.

I know it's an outlier. But, as a Michigan State fan, I have to take every opportunity to mention that.

Don't forget VaTech losing to James Madison this season and then going on to a BCS bowl.

PE, you're right, there are reasons to have IAA-IA games. And it is actually mandated in some states. Arizona and ASU must play Northern Arizona in alternating years. And I know other states do similar deals.

But if the bottom I-A teams moved down to I-AA, then that would at least improve the overall games since most teams will still not schedule more than one I-AA game a year since the second one doesn't count towards bowl eligibility.

GO SEAHAWKS MY FAVORITE TEAM