Which college football teams genuinely have a shot at a national title

[Bonedaddies]

I'm going to be a TAMU fan for the first time in my life here in a couple of days.

 

 

 

Save your energy for a second helping of Turkey.....it aint going to happen this year......

 

Now Auburn.....that might have a chance. Auburn over Bama, Bama over UF = an opening.

[theprofessor]

Save your energy for a second helping of Turkey.....it aint going to happen this year......

 

Now Auburn.....that might have a chance. Auburn over Bama, Bama over UF = an opening.

 

After watching Texas, Florida, Alabama, Cincy, Boise St. and TCU the last 4 weeks I am convinced that the BEST team in College football is TCU.

[Bonedaddies]

After watching Texas, Florida, Alabama, Cincy, Boise St. and TCU the last 4 weeks I am convinced that the BEST team in College football is TCU.

 

I wonder if you saw TCU play OU, LSU, BAMA or USC you would have the same feeling vs. the game you saw them play.

[BS Miscreant]

After watching Texas, Florida, Alabama, Cincy, Boise St. and TCU the last 4 weeks I am convinced that the BEST team in College football is TCU.

I wonder if you saw TCU play OU, LSU, BAMA or USC you would have the same feeling vs. the game you saw them play.

Even money, right now, if I had to bet, I could see taking TCU over OU, LSU or USC. Keeping in mind of course that each of those three are sporting 3 losses this year. That said, you still have to wonder about who, exactly, the Horned Frogs have played. Yes, they beat Clemson. Good win but the Tigers lost to Maryland the following game for Pete's sake. Other "quality" wins are BYU who got smoked by Florida State and Utah who have played exactly two "good" teams and lost to both. The one thing that keeps me from being completely skeptical is their margin of victory lately. No one is even coming close. It's what we would all expect an upper echelon team from a good conference to do to this schedule from week to week. So, would TCU be unbeaten in the SEC, PAC 10, etc...? Not sure. Could they play with the "big boys" for one game and maybe even win? No doubt in my mind.

[Bonedaddies]

Even money, right now, if I had to bet, I could see taking TCU over OU, LSU or USC. Keeping in mind of course that each of those three are sporting 3 losses this year. That said, you still have to wonder about who, exactly, the Horned Frogs have played. Yes, they beat Clemson. Good win but the Tigers lost to Maryland the following game for Pete's sake. Other "quality" wins are BYU who got smoked by Florida State and Utah who have played exactly two "good" teams and lost to both. The one thing that keeps me from being completely skeptical is their margin of victory lately. No one is even coming close. It's what we would all expect an upper echelon team from a good conference to do to this schedule from week to week. So, would TCU be unbeaten in the SEC, PAC 10, etc...? Not sure. Could they play with the "big boys" for one game and maybe even win? No doubt in my mind.

 

I would not want to even debate if TCU could play with the "big boys", no question they could and would be in games against all teams above. Mt thought was based on "after seeing......" all of these teams play (against different talent levels) and who is the best.

 

TX has manhandled everyone put in front of them, keeping in mind thier OOC schedule was VERY weak and the Big 12 is down this year. Given the way that TAM played last night, not sure how many of the top 7 would have done....we will see how the other Rivalry games go this weekend.

[muck]

Well, after TWO very disappointing losses (TAMU and Auburn), I'm resigned to being a Florida State fan and a Nebraska fan.

 

C'mon underdogs!

 

[untateve]

Well, after TWO very disappointing losses (TAMU and Auburn), I'm resigned to being a Florida State fan and a Nebraska fan.

 

C'mon underdogs!

 

 

muck is dead to me.

[detlef]

Well, after TWO very disappointing losses (TAMU and Auburn), I'm resigned to being a Florida State fan and a Nebraska fan.

 

C'mon underdogs!

 

While I do think losing to A&M would have knocked UT out of the running, I don't think that would necc. be the case for either FL or Bama because they'd still have a chance to make up for it with a win over the #1 team in the nation. UT, of course, wouldn't be able to do the same with a win over Nebraska.

 

Now, I think it would be lame as hell for a one-loss SEC champ to go over TCU, Cinci, or BSU, just saying I wouldn't put it past the BCS.

[budlitebrad]

Now, I think it would be lame as hell for a one-loss SEC champ to go over TCU, Cinci, or BSU, just saying I wouldn't put it past the BCS.

 

+1

[GWPFFL BrianW]

While I do think losing to A&M would have knocked UT out of the running, I don't think that would necc. be the case for either FL or Bama because they'd still have a chance to make up for it with a win over the #1 team in the nation. UT, of course, wouldn't be able to do the same with a win over Nebraska.

 

Now, I think it would be lame as hell for a one-loss SEC champ to go over TCU, Cinci, or BSU, just saying I wouldn't put it past the BCS.

 

Agreed. TCU is a damn good football team, with a solid resume. Boise on the other hand.... I'd have a problem with. 1 Great win in the opening game, and then 11 cupcakes. Cinci would have earned it as well, particularly because the Big East (justified or not) is a BCS conference. Personally, I think that Mountain West conference is outstanding and right up there with the BCS conferences.

[Chief Dick]

This has been the most uninteresting college football season I can remember.

 

The BCS has screwed up college football. Hell, I liked it better when there were bowl tie-ins and had a potential for a split national championship. Made for a heck of a lot of drama during bowl season.

 

The BCS has rendered EVERY bowl but one irrelevant. IMO, the BCS is killing college football.

[Rockerbraves]

Now, I think it would be lame as hell for a one-loss SEC champ to go over TCU, Cinci, or BSU, just saying I wouldn't put it past the BCS.

Again, any BCS NC not including the SEC Champions (regardless of record) would be a joke.

[detlef]

Again, any BCS NC not including the SEC Champions (regardless of record) would be a joke.

You can't seriously mean this and defend the BCS at the same time. Was the Texas/USC game a joke? I mean, that's the poster child for all that is great about the BCS that it brought us "the greatest college game ever played".

[Rockerbraves]

You can't seriously mean this and defend the BCS at the same time. Was the Texas/USC game a joke? I mean, that's the poster child for all that is great about the BCS that it brought us "the greatest college game ever played".

Absolutely dead serious.

 

Until the SEC finally if ever loses a national championship game the SEC champ should get an automatic bid to the BCS NC game.

[theprofessor]

Absolutely dead serious.

 

Until the SEC finally if ever loses a national championship game the SEC champ should get an automatic bid to the BCS NC game.

 

[The Irish Doggy]

The BCS has rendered EVERY bowl but one irrelevant. IMO, the BCS is killing college football.

 

( this isn't necessarily directed at CD, so much as thoughts in general)

 

I guess I've never understood this argument, but I hear it a lot. I have no problem with runners-up and conference champs duking it out in one more game even if it isn't for a national championship. You still get to see a lot of great football between teams that don't necessarily play each other often. A lot of team's fans like the travel (especially going from North to South in winter). Hosting cities still get to make some bucks. I think there's a lot to like there.

 

I don't see that big of a difference before and after BCS. It seems to me that there is the same amount of controversy except instead of arguing about which teams should play for a championship, instead we have arguments about which teams are left out of the championship game. Besides, before the BCS, there were plenty of bowls played where teams had no shot at being ranked #1. I don't see how they are more or less relevant now.

 

If they ever expand to a large playoff system (maybe 12-16+), that would be more damaging to the bowls IMO. They'd turn into the NIT equivalent of college hoops where only the most hardcore fans really care what happens. But so long as the national championship is settled by a lowish number of teams (I'm thinking 2 - 6), the bowls can still be played with some interest.

 

Maybe my perspective comes from being a Cincinnati Bearcat fan; growing up we rarely had much to look forward to in football. I wonder if I just learned to enjoy a good game between good teams because I just like watching football.

Edited December 1, 2009 by The Irish Doggy

[muck]

Idea:

 

If there are more than one "0 loss" teams after the bowls are played, they have a tournament (or round robin in the case of an odd number of teams with no losses) to end the year with no more than one undefeated team.

[detlef]

Absolutely dead serious.

 

Until the SEC finally if ever loses a national championship game the SEC champ should get an automatic bid to the BCS NC game.

Why must you always be fishing? Again. The last time the BCS Championship clearly matched the two best teams in the country (based both on the resumes going into the game as well as the stellar game they provided the fans), neither was from the SEC.

[detlef]

( this isn't necessarily directed at CD, so much as thoughts in general)

 

I guess I've never understood this argument, but I hear it a lot. I have no problem with runners-up and conference champs duking it out in one more game even if it isn't for a national championship. You still get to see a lot of great football between teams that don't necessarily play each other often. A lot of team's fans like the travel (especially going from North to South in winter). Hosting cities still get to make some bucks. I think there's a lot to like there.

 

I don't see that big of a difference before and after BCS. It seems to me that there is the same amount of controversy except instead of arguing about which teams should play for a championship, instead we have arguments about which teams are left out of the championship game. Besides, before the BCS, there were plenty of bowls played where teams had no shot at being ranked #1. I don't see how they are more or less relevant now.

 

If they ever expand to a large playoff system (maybe 12-16+), that would be more damaging to the bowls IMO. They'd turn into the NIT equivalent of college hoops where only the most hardcore fans really care what happens. But so long as the national championship is settled by a lowish number of teams (I'm thinking 2 - 6), the bowls can still be played with some interest.

 

Maybe my perspective comes from being a Cincinnati Bearcat fan; growing up we rarely had much to look forward to in football. I wonder if I just learned to enjoy a good game between good teams because I just like watching football.

I'm only replying because I've gone on record of having said that, in some ways, I prefer the old system to the BCS (though I'd vastly prefer a play-off to either). I don't think the BCS is doing any worse of a job in terms rendering so many bowl games inconsequential, rather that it has done far too little in terms of solving the issue it was created to solve and has marginalized some traditions. Really just the Rose Bowl mostly but, hey I grew up a Pac 10 guy.

 

So that's always my harping point. I don't mind blowing up the old system, just do so in favor of something that actually works. Otherwise, leave it alone. To be honest, like so many solutions, this one was obsolete by the time it was finally approved. It's no revelation that college football has gotten more competitive over the last few decades. As a kid, I can only remember a few years when people generally agreed on who the NC team was even using the vote. And in those years when that wasn't the case, it always seemed to just be between two teams. I honestly can't recall a year when there were a number of teams that people thought deserved a shot. I'm sure someone could drum up one or two years, but like I said, I don't recall.

 

None the less, that was then, this is now. Scholarship limits mean that OU, Bama, USC, OSU, Mich, and the like couldn't deprive everyone else of quality talent. That means there's more good teams out there. That means that non-traditional schools can field teams that can compete with the big boys. That means that it is more likely that you'll find 3, 4, 5 teams that deserve consideration for the NC. So, while the BCS may have worked 20-30 years ago, it simply doesn't now.

[Perchoutofwater]

I really wish we had a 4 team playoff. I'd love to see TCU against Florida and Texas against Alabama with the winner of each game going to the championship game.

[Rockerbraves]

Why must you always be fishing? Again. The last time the BCS Championship clearly matched the two best teams in the country (based both on the resumes going into the game as well as the stellar game they provided the fans), neither was from the SEC.

Do you think possibly your Pac10 background (Rose Bowl) much like Brian's Big 10 background (Rose Bowl) is why you two feel this Texas vs USC was the best BCS NC game ever to determine a true national champion.

 

If you look at the game itself, wouldn't you agree Texas did not dominate USC? In fact, that game could have gone either way. So I'm not a 100% certain Texas was the best team that season.

 

Now the game that sticks out for me in regard to the best buildup and perfomance in a BCS NC game was SEC Florida huge win over Ohio State in 2007. Trust me no one question who the better team was in that game. And if you recall after that game many experts felt the only team who could have beaten Florida that night was another SEC team called LSU who drummed their BCS opponent.

 

The point I'm making is that the SEC Champion until proven otherwise should have an automatic spot in the BCS NC game.

[muck]

The point I'm making is that the SEC Champion until proven otherwise should have an automatic spot in the BCS NC game.

 

Ok, at risk of chomping too hard, what sort of objective proof would you accept that would keep the SEC from getting an automatic berth?

[Rockerbraves]

Ok, at risk of chomping too hard, what sort of objective proof would you accept that would keep the SEC from getting an automatic berth?

SEC needs to lose a BCS NC game would be a start.

[theprofessor]

If you look at the game itself, wouldn't you agree Texas did not dominate USC? In fact, that game could have gone either way.

 

I think you're validating Detlefs point here. The game was not one sided, in fact, watching most of the game one could say that SC was the better team. But, the game was very competitive throughout ... hence Detlefs point about it probably being the greatest NC game of all time. The game had it all ..... great offensive plays, extreme athleticism on both sides of the ball, one of the greatest QB play in a big game and late game drama and heroics. Clearly a much better game than the Florida-OSU snoozefest that you speak about.

Edited December 3, 2009 by theprofessor

[untateve]

I think you're validating Detlefs point here. The game was not one sided, in fact, watching most of the game one could say that SC was the better team. But, the game was very competitive throughout ... hence Detlefs point about it probably being the greatest NC game of all time. The game had it all ..... great offensive plays, extreme athleticism on both sides of the ball, one of the greatest QB play in a big game and late game drama and heroics. Clearly a much better game than the Florida-OSU snoozefest that you speak about.

 

I, for one, enjoyed the Florida-OSU NC game much more than the Texas-USC game. Of course, some may accuse me of a mild bias.