Offseason College Football Thread

[lomasmoney 0]

There are all kinds of crazy rumors about Big 10 expansion floating aroud. Texas is being thrown about as a potential target, but getting ND to join the Big 10 would be way more likely than Texas leaving the Big 12. Best case team to join is Missouri since they have natural rivalries with Illnois, Iowa, maybe even Indiana. As for a replacement team to the Big 12, Arkansas is the most logical fit with all their rivalries with the Texas schools, but I just don't see that happening. My bet is that they steal like a Colorado State or Houston type school if Missouri leaves, which is apparently not all that unlikely

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'd rather see new schools in major conferences than one switching over to another. Grab the best MAC school for the Big Ten or something, let a new institution into the club and spread the wealth of those massive TV contracts. Let's say Iowa State or Missouri is moved over to the Big Ten, there's no sense of promotion or freshness about it, not to mention they were already receiving some decent bank as a member of the Big XII.

[Bored 0]

CFN Preseason Rankings 79 thru 40:

 

79. Duke

78. Baylor

77. Connecticut

76. North Carolina

75. Fresno State

74. Wyoming

73. Western Michigan

72. Indiana

71. Iowa State

70. Stanford

69. Nevada

68. Minnesota

67. Kansas

66. Syracuse

65. Cincinnati

64. Colorado State

63. Southern Miss

62. Mississippi State

61. Northwestern

60. Mississippi

59. Central Michigan

58. Pittsburgh

57. New Mexico

56. Michigan State

55. Kansas State

54. Vanderbilt

53. N.C. State

52. Illinois

51. Washington

50. Wake Forest

49. Hawaii

48. Utah

47. Kentucky

46. Washington State

45. Notre Dame

44. Virginia

43. Colorado

42. Boise State

41. BYU

40. Purdue

[Vern Gagne 0]

I think the Big 10 wants Rutgers so they can add the NYC-NJ tv market.

 

Minnesota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Northwestern

Illinois

Purdue

 

Michigan

Michigan St.

Indiana

Ohio St.

Penn St.

Rutgers

[Art Sandusky 0]

Iowa State to the Big Ten, Boise to the Big XII. No one could possibly disapprove of that.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

Boise State at 42? Ouch.

[Broward83 0]

Once Boise State grows up and stops playing on a fucking blue field, they can join a big boys conference. Til then, they can stay where they are.

 

Seriously... no one would want to see burnt orange Texas jerseys matched against that god awful turf.

[Art Sandusky 0]

They'd be white if they were visiting. The only way they'd get the home jersey is if they ever go to the Humanitaraian/mpc.com/whatever the fuck Bowl. Just saying. It's silly to dismiss a school based on their home turf.

[Guest •]

Once Boise State grows up and stops playing on a fucking blue field, they can join a big boys conference.

I'm breaking my "no college sports talk" rule to call you a fucking idiot. CAN'T PLAY WITH THE BIG BOYS HOOK 'EM HORNS WOOOOO-EE.

 

This Big Ten Network money grab is ridiculous, by the way. It's not that important to capture the New York cable market for your midwestern college sports channel. They have better things to worry about there, sports-wise, and moreover, the market is already oversaturated with sports channels: FSN New York, YES, SNY, MSG, and MSG2. Rutgers or no Rutgers, Cablevision surely won't deign to pick up minor league football from the flyover states at anything but a dirt-cheap carriage fee. As it stands, this network at least has Chicago, Detroit, Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus. Those are all major markets, plus smaller markets within the represented states. I have trouble believing that the public has demanded a 24/7 Big Ten sports channel, but what do I know. I think there are too many regional sports channels. It's spiraling out of control.

[Broward83 0]

Call me an idiot all you want...doesn't change the fact that no matter how much I hate Oklahoma, I can say that Boise's meltdown and eventual lucky win over OU doesn't really prove to me that they'd be such a huge draw for the Big 12 or any BCS conference. Honestly, if BSU was such a great program.. if they are this up and coming juggernaut of a program, why haven't they been invited in by any of the other conferences?

 

If you put them in the Big 12, yeah.. they go into the North. Wow... let them beat up on the dregs of an already weak division that outside of a fluke win by Colorado and K-State in the conference title game, get crushed by the likes of AnM, Oklahoma and Texas. Then what does that really do for the Big 12? Wow, we got rid of a school that really doesn't have a chance of getting into the title game with a school that could, but would get beat in the title game. All for what? So we can have the state of Idaho to recruit in? Yeah, that makes sense.

 

Boise is a good program and I think that yeah, they did get shafted last year in not being able to play for a national title, but that doesn't prove to me they belong in a BCS conference. Why don't we put this on hold until they make it a bit of a tradition to at least play in meaningful bowl games.

 

 

As far as the field comment? It's a fucking gimmick that takes away from the game. I want to watch a game on green grass or turf, not on a blue fucking field in the middle of nowhere Idaho. Yeah, I'm an idiot.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Except Boise State did beat Oklahoma. So they could still beat them again in the conference title game. Call it a fluke all you want, but that's college football. I don't go around calling UCLA flukes for beating USC. Just accept that Boise State owned the best team in the conference the past season. So yeah you're an idiot.

[Broward83 0]

I can accept that Boise beat Oklahoma. Trust me... but if you're going to tell me that they "owned" Oklahoma, then yeah, you're wrong. Owning them would've been holding on to the massive lead they had to begin with and not having to claw back to take the game into overtime and win it then.

 

Boise is a good program, I haven't really said otherwise... but why should they be put on such a high pedestal for playing in a weak conference?

 

 

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Well I'm speaking in terms of leading Oklahoma the majority of the game. Yes they squandered the lead, which is where their inexperience comes in. But if they were such a small time school, they'd have rolled over and died. They didn't. They went on to beat Oklahoma in the end, which is all that matters. They aren't being put on a high pedestal. They are ranked 42nd after all. They just need more recognition, because rail on the WAC all you want, it is a NCAA Division 1-A conference, and teams shouldn't be penalized for belonging to it. Let's not forget Boise State has only been a Division 1-A school for 6 years now.

[Broward83 0]

That's the thing though, people are penalized for the conferences they belong to. That's the way it's been and how it'll continue to be because if you give me an undefeated Boise State out of the WAC with a one or two loss team from the SEC, ACC or Big 12, chances are I'll go with the latter team over Boise simply due to the level of competition played.

 

Them not rolling over and dying doesn't prove to me how their not a small time school. All that proves is they've got talent on both sides of the ball and played the game with a chip on their shoulder.

 

As far as the lauding them and that, I mean as far as how their this great team, how their an uncrowned champion and all that bullshit. I just think before more people get on the BSU bandwagon, lets just see if they can repeat last years performance. If a BCS bowl or a high-end bowl game becomes the norm at BSU, then yeah... lets move 'em into a bigger conference and see how they do. Until then, lets not get blinded by their great performance over OU.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Fair enough, but let's be honest here. They can't possibly do any worse than some Big XII teams. I will say this, geographically it makes no sense for Boise State to join the conference anyways, so I would prefer to put them in the Mountain West (which is a lateral move at best anyways) or Pac-10 for upward mobility.

[Broward83 0]

Yeah, I could see them going with the Pac 10. I just feel if ISU does get plucked from the Big 12, there's going to be a huge shifting in conferences, because I'd see either Arkansas or Houston getting added, which would cause either the SEC or Conference USA to shuffle around and it'd just be a huge clusterfuck.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I don't really see who they could possibly replace in the Pac-10. You can't take out any of the teams there because all of those schools have natural in-state rivalries with each other. I'd guess maybe Arizona, but they've had better years.

[Guest]

They'd have to bring someone else along, like Utah or Hawaii. I wouldn't oppose.

 

An every-other year trip to Hawaii for the players in that division of the conference? Who would oppose that?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Hawaii would make more sense, since their program has been pretty good for a while now, and they're more "Pacific" than Utah.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Fresno State would make sense too. I'd think Hawaii and Fresno State would be the first two teams considered for a Pac-12 conference expansion.

[cabbageboy 0]

Teams like Boise face a dilemma. Namely they can't really play anyone since their conf. sucks, so they might get screwed out of the big BCS games (or were). It's a double edged sword, in that they shouldn't be screwed for being a smaller program, but also shouldn't be a serious national contender in the current system since their SOS is about 85.

 

With that said, I didn't think Boise beating OU was an upset at all. Boise was unbeaten (albeit in the WAC) while the Big 12 was pretty crappy. If anything I expected Boise to win.

 

What do you guys think of the proposed "and 1" game to have 4 teams in a pseudo playoff? I think it will likely suck, since how does anyone determine those other 2 teams that get in? Applying it to the past season you'd have FL and OSU, but who are the other 2? Notre Dame sure as hell ain't getting in, nor would LSU with 2 losses (finishing 3rd actually in the SEC West). Wake Forest was trash, no way they are in. USC I think had 2 losses, so they are out. OU wasn't much, they wouldn't be in that select 4. Michigan had 1 loss to a top ranked Ohio St., so I think they would be in. U of L had 1 loss by 3 points at Rutgers (an 11-2 team).

 

Thus it would probably have gone like this, at least to me:

 

(1) Ohio St. vs. (4) Louisville

(2) Florida vs. (3) Michigan

 

In other words Boise would still be screwed in some fashion even with the 4 team scenario.

[Guest •]

As far as the field comment? It's a fucking gimmick that takes away from the game. I want to watch a game on green grass or turf, not on a blue fucking field in the middle of nowhere Idaho. Yeah, I'm an idiot.

How does it take away from the game being played? How does it detract from your enjoyment of the game, beyond the extent that artificial surfaces detract from football? What makes green plastic better than blue plastic? Everyone can tell it's fake grass. And who cares about playing in "middle of nowhere Idaho"? Do you have similar qualms about college football being played in middle-of-nowhere Provo, or middle-of-nowhere Champaign, middle-of-nowhere Iowa City, middle-of-nowhere College Station, middle-of-nowhere College Park, middle-of-nowhere Pullman, or middle-of-nowhere Lafayette, to name a few? What a stupid pair of things to be hung up on. Rolleyes.

 

I'm standing by my theory that college sports make you stupid.

[Guest Vitamin X]

While I won't go as far as Czech did there, I have to agree. That was one of the most regional-centric comments I've heard spouted off here in a long time. It's always the folks from Texas or Oklahoma or whatever that you hear going, "Well *I* want to do this and that because this is what I like!" Fuck you. Other people have different tastes. It's like this story one of my professors said about a group of young American college students who were abroad over in Spain (guess where they were from!) and demanded a Budweiser and were shocked, appalled, and pissed off they couldn't get any. Just because it doesn't conform to what you like doesn't mean other people have to agree with it.

 

I mean, so what if it's gimmicky? It's fun. It's awesome. It's unique, which is a feature you find lacking at many schools around the country.

[Bored 0]

Pac-10 has no need for expansion. It's the one conference that took advantage of the 12 game schedule by adding a ninth conference game thus ensuring that every team plays each other. I'm surprised that still no other 10+ team conference has done this yet.

 

And just noticed the Coaches' Poll has been released.

 

1. USC (45)

2. LSU (4)

3. Florida (9)

4. Texas

5. Michigan (2)

6. West Virginia

7. Wisconsin

8. Oklahoma

9. Virginia Tech

10. Ohio State

11. Louisville

12. California

13. Georgia

14. Auburn

15. Tennessee

16. Rutgers

17. UCLA

18. Penn State

19. Nebraska

20. Arkansas

21. Florida State

22. TCU

23. Boise State

24. Hawaii

25. Texas A&M

 

Other Receiving Votes

 

Boston College 150; Georgia Tech 150; Miami 91; Notre Dame 90; South Carolina 90; Wake Forest 71; Missouri 58; Oregon State 52; Brigham Young 47; Clemson 30; Oregon 30; South Florida 26; Texas Tech 20; Alabama 16; Oklahoma State 15; Southern Mississippi 14; Iowa 12; Kansas State 8; Memphis 5; Houston 4; Arizona 1; Duke 1; Kentucky 1; Washington State 1.

 

Before anyone asks this question, as someone does every year, Steve Spurrier voted Duke #25 and he does it in every preseason poll.

 

 

Here's CFN's Preseason Rankings 39 to 1.

 

39. Texas Tech

38. South Carolina

37. Alabama

36. Arizona

35. Iowa

34. Oregon

33. South Florida

32. Arkansas

31. Arizona State

30. Georgia

29. Maryland

28. Auburn

27. Boston College

26. TCU

25. Tennessee

24. West Virginia

23. Nebraska

22. Florida State

21. Texas A&M

20. Penn State

19. Oklahoma State

18. Clemson

17. Rutgers

16. Missouri

15. California

14. Oregon State

13. Florida

12. Miami

11. UCLA

10. Georgia Tech

9. Ohio State

8. Louisville

7. Virginia Tech

6. Michigan

5. Wisconsin

4. Texas

3. Oklahoma

2. LSU

1. USC

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm expecting these rankings to change a looooot more than usual throughout the season.

[Guest •]

Is Spurrier's vote meant to be a jab at how fucking worthless preseason polls are? If so, hats off.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

No. Spurrier always votes Duke high because that's where he got his coaching start, at Duke. So it's a life-long thing that he votes Duke 25th every year.

[Guest •]

That's kind of neat, though that also unintentionally belies the veracity of the preseason poll.

[Guest Smues]

I think his policy is that he'll vote them until they lose a game, which is pretty much week 1 every year.

[Broward83 0]

As far as the field comment? It's a fucking gimmick that takes away from the game. I want to watch a game on green grass or turf, not on a blue fucking field in the middle of nowhere Idaho. Yeah, I'm an idiot.

How does it take away from the game being played? How does it detract from your enjoyment of the game, beyond the extent that artificial surfaces detract from football?

 

Because when watching a game, I'd like to be able to focus on the game and not the fucking smurf blue field that the teams play on. You look at the rest of football and it's a green field. I don't care if its artificial or not, that's not the point I was making. The blue field is a fucking gimmick that gets people talking about BSU and honestly, up until their big run last year.. its mainly "Oh, yeah.. those guys that play on the blue field." Nothing about an actual player or about how good the team is.. just the field.

What makes green plastic better than blue plastic? Everyone can tell it's fake grass. And who cares about playing in "middle of nowhere Idaho"? Do you have similar qualms about college football being played in middle-of-nowhere Provo, or middle-of-nowhere Champaign, middle-of-nowhere Iowa City, middle-of-nowhere College Station, middle-of-nowhere College Park, middle-of-nowhere Pullman, or middle-of-nowhere Lafayette, to name a few? What a stupid pair of things to be hung up on. Rolleyes.

Qualms? No. Play the game wherever you really want to fucking play the game...just not on a gimmicked field. Honestly, of all the cities you mentioned trying to make your "point", the only one I wouldn't go to is College Station. Mainly because I have problems with a city that refuses business' to build within its limits if they won't conform by changing their color scheme. (If you didn't know, any business that has an orange/white color scheme is forced to change it to maroon/white because of their hatred of UT or as they like to refer to Austin, TU. Whataburger, Home Depot and others have had to do this in order to open up in College Station. Hooters told 'em fuck off, and didn't build) Oh yeah, and how the city condones acts of vandalism to anything that is UT (ripping off chrome horns, tearing off bumper stickers and replacing them with AnM ones) ..oh, and most of the state pretty much regards College Station to nothing more than a city of cultists.

 

I'm standing by my theory that college sports make you stupid.

 

As you've pointed out on your own.

 

While I won't go as far as Czech did there, I have to agree. That was one of the most regional-centric comments I've heard spouted off here in a long time. It's always the folks from Texas or Oklahoma or whatever that you hear going, "Well *I* want to do this and that because this is what I like!" Fuck you. Other people have different tastes. It's like this story one of my professors said about a group of young American college students who were abroad over in Spain (guess where they were from!) and demanded a Budweiser and were shocked, appalled, and pissed off they couldn't get any. Just because it doesn't conform to what you like doesn't mean other people have to agree with it.

 

So what if its regional-centric? Welcome to what makes sports so passionate. People in Cal still bitch about UT "whining and complaining" to get into the Rose Bowl. UCLA fans still hold a grudge at Notre Dame for ending that amazing streak they were on. So what? The comment wasn't even "I want to do this..." it was simply stating that BSU's field is gimmicked and is a distraction. You all act as if the field is some holy fucking being that any word spoke against it is sacrilige.

 

As far as the supposed Texas college students... fuck 'em, I mean yeah.. because there aren't numerous other students from other states that are just as imbecilic? Right. The fact they got pissed off about their not being any Budweiser is stupid yeah... but honestly, with as wide spread as it is around the world... are they actually wrong for assuming that Budweiser would be available? Hell, I got upset when I lived in Brownsville and couldn't find a single bar that served Shiner Bock on tap, even though its a Texan brew.

 

I mean, so what if it's gimmicky? It's fun. It's awesome. It's unique, which is a feature you find lacking at many schools around the country.

This is your opinion, and so be it. I personally think the field is a distraction and not needed. Want to be unique? Add something extra to your pre-game or half-time ritual. Look at THE OSU. They play on a regular field.. but you know what makes them unique? Script Ohio. Florida State? The warrior that rides out and throws down the flaming spear.