Who is the Real NC?

I have been on the fence about this issue

but after our loss to Utah I am 100% in support of a playoff. We went out and got absolutely whipped by Utah and I think one reason for that is the game meant more to them. We set our sights on the SEC title first and the NC second. Sure, the Sugar Bowl should be a big deal, but lets face it. It didn’t mean that much to our players or else they would have shown up and played with intensity like they did for all our big games earlier in the year.

Now if this was a playoff game, I think we show up to play and get the W. In essence, the SEC CG was our playoff and we lost, but we played with heart because it meant something.

I wouldn't piss off the boys from Alabama . . .

by I hate UT on Jan 6, 2009 4:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Or maybe we still win, but at least both teams know that they have a chance at the title.

The problem for us Utah fans is we did everything we could. We tried to schedule tough (Oregon State ended up better than Michigan, but that’s not our fault), we beat every team on the schedule, we played a pretty difficult schedule, and then we won our bowl game. What else should we have to prove?

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 6, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We beat every team on our schedule, too.

then had to play a conference championship game.

by yellowhammer on Jan 6, 2009 5:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yup

if Utah had to play in a conference championship (say TCU in a rematch), they could have just as easily lost that one. like Ball State lost to Buffalo in their conference championship

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 12:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In the words of Cletus from the Simpsons: "Coulda, but didnt'a."

Just like we could have lost to alabama or TCU the first time or Oregon State or any other number of teams, but we didn’t. We went undefeated. Our conference, like the PAC 10 and the Big East, doesn’t have a conference championship game, so our championship is decided by an on-the-field, one-and-done tournament. 8 games. Win them and you’re champion, lose one and you’d better hope for a tie. We won them. As undefeated champions, it would have been nice to get a shot at the title. Oh well, maybe the next time we go undefeated.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

full round robin

is a great way (probably the best, and most fair) to decide a conference champion. the MWC, big east, and Pac 10 do have that going for them.

i say we go to 8 teams seeded into the 4 BCS bowls using system similiar to current one to determine the 8 seeds. scrap the conference championship games. and if non BCS teams hope to make it in, they need to do exactly what utah did this year, schedule a damn good OOC lineup and win it, then win the conference you’re in, and you should get an invite to the 8 team party.

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but

half the teams in your conference can barely qualify as D-I caliber teams. Playing 8 conference games when half the teams have absolutely zero chance of beating you does not impress.

by skigator93 on Jan 7, 2009 9:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not an even playing field

Just pointing out that while you may feel as if you’re getting the shaft, the bcs conferences that do not have championship games have an easier road to the NC than the ones that do. That’s not exactly an even playing field either.

by yellowhammer on Jan 8, 2009 8:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree!

In a “down year for the SEC,” 5 teams we played made it to a bowl game, where only 3 in the MWC made it. In an “up” year, it is an even more difficult road.

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

5 MWC teams made it (Utah, CSU, AF, TCU, BYU)

And there are only 8 MWC teams, not 12. Just FYI.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 8, 2009 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I got that, but aren’t your odds better with 8 than 12? You always have the possibility that all 12 will be great? So isn’t that just further proving our point? (I just thought that was implied in the original post by YH)

by crimsongirl on Jan 9, 2009 7:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My argument

was that you said that you played 5 bowl teams, even in a down year for the SEC. I was letting you know that so did we (the four MWC teams plus Oregon State), and it is more likely that you will have bowl-eligible teams in the SEC because there are 12 teams.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 9, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

im trying to think

But we played

Clemson
UK
UGA
UF
Ole Miss
LSU
Utah….7 bowl teams out of 13 games….usually you could add Auburn and Tennessee on that list.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 9, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you're right....

but I left out non-conference teams B/C we were discussing the fact that playing in a conference without a championship game might be a little easier road to the NCG. These are the teams you play year-in, year-out right? The OOC teams change from year to year, so we cannot say to much about how we play Clemson as we do not regularly play them.

That is also what I meant by the “down year” comment. Usually we would have had at least, competitive games from Auburn, Tennessee, and even Arkansas. This year, we didn’t have Vandy or USC on schedule—both were in bowl games.

by crimsongirl on Jan 9, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Correct

No cream puff schedule, but the SEC also has more teams and more tie ins with fan bases in the bowl areas. With two divisions you guarantee more eligible teams no?

They should be in more bowls.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 11, 2009 7:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

BAMA certainly would have ZERO excusses

if we lost the sugar bowl-playoff round 1…..as it is, ummm yeah, we didn’t care about the game and you did, our o line was hurt, my dog ate the gameplan, cuz, now see what had happened was….

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

undefeated

i have to think that if both teams went into the Sugar Bowl undefeated, it would have been a completely different ball game. this was Utah’s nat’l championship game. Bama had nothing to gain. if we won, it was expected. if we lose, it was a debacle.

plus, playing with 3 backup linemen didn’t help. we just don’t have the depth or talent right now to overcome serious injuries. especially injuries to the unit that was our STRENGTH all year.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 12:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

After what Utah

showed me I think they really deserve a shot. As it is they have no shot. In a way to invite them to a BCS Bowl, but tell them- Hey you have no real shot at the championship is kinda like flirting with a girl that you know you don’t really like (and will never ask out)…in a way she would rather you just leave her alone.

by 5026 on Jan 6, 2009 4:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I believe in a playoff, but...

Nobody is “ineligible” to win the national title. Saying so is either a demonstration of ignorance of process or willfully misleading.

The only thing required is that you be ranked #1 or #2 in the BCS at the end of the season. There are zero teams for whom this is impossible in a hypothetical sense.

In fact, Utah could easily have been playing there right now, except for a few things:

First, every team is competing with preconceived notions. For some, like Georgia, the initial perception is better than the reality. For others it’s the other way around. Utah is in the same boat as a lot of other inconsistently good football teams: you have to prove you belong. Is it fair? No, it’s not fair. Welcome to life.

Second, Utah beat the hell out of a lot of teams. They did not, however, beat the hell out of ALL of the other teams they played. There are games on that schedule that you’d expect a #1 team to win by a lot more than Utah did. These are the games that people will look to in order to validate their preconceived notions. Again, it’s not fair, but it’s also not a surprise.

In some ways, teams like Utah have a more difficult road: they don’t just have to win, they have to dominate every game. You can thank the hype-machine that spins up teams like 2007 Hawaii for that. Fact is, though, that nobody ever promised that every team would have an equally difficult route to the MNC. Nobody expects it.

Utah had a good season. They’d deserve a spot in a playoff. They did not deserve a spot in the BCS National Title game, and that’s pretty much the bottom line, in my opinion. Life sucks sometimes.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 6, 2009 6:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ineligible

You say no one is ineligible hypothetically, but then proceed to say that practically they are. What’s the difference?

That’s like saying hypothetically every employer is an “equal opportunity employer.” Yes – by law they have to be, so theoretically they are. However, a racist, sexist boss just disregards qualified applicants because of some “preconceived notions,” and the reason he gives is that the applicant performed well in most areas of their training, but there were a few areas where you would expect a “number 1 applicant to perform much better than they did,” yet, the person he hires has similar problems (i.e. Florida losing a game). Let’s call the path the discriminated against employee must walk “a more difficult road.” Let’s say they hypothetically had just as much of a shot as anyone else. That’s great, but it still means it’s impossible for them to get the job. They are ineligible.

I bleed crimson and white...I puke Vol puke orange. RTR

by SugarBowl93 on Jan 7, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if utah hadn't beatin new mexico by 3 points late in the game

for example, then they likely would of had a higher ranking in the coaches and AP polls that following monday. those things DO have a cumulative effect by season end. if Utah goes undefeated next season, and has the same caliber OOC schedule, they might just get invited to BCS championship game…. Utah being 2-0 in the BCS with an impressive win over BAMA, and a 20 + game win streak? it’s safe to say that the perceptions about utah will be vastly changed if that comes true, and if it does, they will likely get to play for the title. it does suck for this seasons utah squad, but really this isn’t any different from the entire history of college football. if i remember correctly, after we beat penn 9-0 @ penn WAYYYYY back in the day, no one gave us any credit. then we beat washington state in the rose bowl, and still didn’t get any. minnesota won like 1000 games in the 1930’s but they had controversy surrounding their final rankings as well, never a unanimous championship….

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Utah will be rebuilding next year

At least from what i have heard. And that might just hurt them. Sure they had a god year in 08 but if they take a major step back and lose to say a New Mexico State and go like 8-4 or 7-5 then the next time around they won’t be ranked high enough to get into the NCG. Its all about that preseason ranking for some teams. If you have to prove that you are worthy of a BCS NCG appearance, you have to stay consistent in winning. Having a good year then two down years, then another great year followed by a bad year isn’t going to get it done.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oh yeah

And that has been my gripe with mid majors all along. They have one great year and they think thats enough. Without adequate experience (playing in big time bowls and winning, and also playing a tough OOCS), how are we supposed to take them serious. I know our SoS was lower than Utah’s this year but that isn’t going to be the case on a consistent basis. Go over and take a look at the teams they play year in and year out and its a joke.

Take Utah out of the equation ( cause they now have 2 BCS wins), we just don’t know HOW good some of these teams are. So giving them a top 10 preseason ranking isn’t justified. Call it unfair but pollsters aren’t just looking at one particular year. Its a total resume they are looking at.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed that top 10 preseason rankings for the mid majors is out of the question

unless its someone like utah AND they return most of their guys. seeing as they’re going to lose their QB and WR’s and such. they have no shot at completing the scenario i outlined above….

ball state sure turned out to suck. and arkansas beat the piss out of tulsa so….

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, no

I did not say that they were “practically ineligible”. Here’s the thing:

You’re trying to pick two teams out of 120 based on 12ish games with common opponents few and far between. This is statistical lunacy. The selection is virtually all subjective.

Prior to the Sugar Bowl, what had Utah done that was impressive enough to merit BCS Title consideration? They went undefeated in the MWC . . . and scraped by against some teams that a #1 team should have dismantled.

So, why is it that nobody outside of Utah thought that the Utes should have been in the title game, but now they’re the BCS victim du jour? There’s a whole stack of cognitive biases that explain it. Hindsight bias and outcome bias spring immediately to mind.

But let’s think about it for a minute.

Let’s pick two fictional college teams… Y State University and College of Z. Each will play 10 games. YSU plays 10 top-ranked high school teams. CoZ plays 10 NFL teams.

YSU goes 10-0. CoZ goes 0-10. Who’s better?

The correct answer is: we have no freaking clue. CoZ would likely go 10-0 against YSU’s schedule, and we have nothing but guessing to do if we want to figure out how YSU would fare against CoZ’s schedule.

This is just an exaggerated way of saying, look, this is all subjective. Utah wasn’t “ineligible”, they just didn’t do what they needed to do to demonstrate to people that they were championship material. They had poorer opportunities, but they also didn’t perform as well. Florida and OU lost, but both losses were to better teams than appear anywhere on Utah’s regular season schedule.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

agreed

Utah’s three BIG wins this year before the Sugar Bowl were all AT HOME (oregon st, tcu, byu). their toughest road game was………….um………….michigan?, utah state?, wyoming? new mexico? san diego state? wow, that is a really tough road schedule.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I

agree to a playoff in principle. My only problem with it, IMO, is that a playoff system makes the assumption that all college football programs/teams are equal, far from it. In the NFL, for example, the entire structure is geared towards making things as equal and competitive as possible. D-I CFB is the opposite, its the haves and the have-nots.

Aside from that, is the quality of schedule issue. The NFL is brilliant in the way they balance schedules. There is no feasible way to do this in college football. Even if you make some guidelines like “to be eligible for the playoff, you must play X-number of BCS teams or X-number of ranked teams” it still wouldn’t work. And don’t get me started on conference championship games.

Even if you simplified it, and had a +1 or took the top 8 or 16 teams at the end and had a tournament, this still wouldn’t produce a “true” NC.

Not to be a negative Nancy, but I just think the D-1 CFB pool is too large, the playing field is too uneven, there are too many variables to control and the bowl system is too entrinched to try to uproot at this point.

Thirty-Six to Nothing

by Bens4vcobra on Jan 7, 2009 9:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

With an 8 team or a 16 team playoff you'd have a real national champion.

Does anyone think the NCAA basketball championship is illegitimate because there is an argument about the 35th or 36th best team being left out? No. The same for the football playoff. If the argument is about who’s #8 or #16, rather than who’s #1, there would be a lot more legitimacy for the champion. The #9 team or the #17 team would have a complaint (just like the last teams left out of the NCAA basketball tournament) because it would cost them money, but not because they didn’t have the chance to prove it on the field, because the #9 team wouldn’t be undefeated and therefore would have some reason they didn’t get the game. Especially if you go to 16 and include the top 16 teams in the BCS (or all the conference champions plus 5 at-larges). Then everyone gets a real shot to settle this on the field, uneven or not. At least if the games were played those of us in the “have-not” world would have a shot. And your argument about haves and have-nots is un-American. This country is built on performance, not tradition. If you are a great performer you get the chance to prove yourself.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well there is an argument that teams ranked in the mid 40's to low 50's in RPI ranking

get left out of the 65 team field because of the AUTOMATIC CONFERENCE BIDS. most 15 and 16 seeds have ZERO chance to win a game or move on, and they effectively displaced teams that ranked much much higher than them in RPI ranking. for example who wins the NIT every year? is it EVER a mid major runner up who “got left out” or is a 5th or 6th or 7th placed team from a power conference who slaughters all the other crap wannabes in the NIT?

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also

if playoffs solve everything and make sure the best teams get to compete for it. then why are the NFL’s New England Patriots sitting at home? was Miami really better than them? and since people are taking for granted that wins and losses are relative, why does an overall record even matter?

i guess i’m trying to say that i still like the idea of having the primary metric be an undefeated regular season, against top caliber teams. which is why i think utah is getting kinda screwed here. ya’ll should get the AP vote for co-champs. ya’ll played a tough OOC schedule, and finished off with a solid win over a great team.

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The NFL is a bad example.

And here’s why. The Patriots are home right now because they lost 5 games, something they controlled. If they really wanted to be in the playoffs, all they needed to do was win one more game. Are they better than Arizona and San Diego and Atlanta? Probably, but if they wanted to prove it in the playoffs, all they had to do was win one more game.

Contrast that with college football. Utah did everything they could, in the areas they had control over, to get to the national title game. Utah had no control over Michigan going 3-9 (if Michigan had gone 11-1 I think Utah might have made the title game). Utah has no control over Wyoming or New Mexico or TCU or even Alabama. They could only play the games on their schedule. Which they did, and they won. Same for Auburn in 2004. Auburn got shafted out of the title game because there were two more-respected programs ahead of them and their OOC schedule was horrible, but they’d proven everything they could prove, on the field.

The Patriots, on the other hand, lost 5 games, including to the Dolphins at home. They split with Miami, and Miami won the other tie-breakers, so Miami gets to go. If New England had gone 2-0 against Miami, or if they’d been able to beat the Steelers (at home), Jets (at home), Colts, or Charges (who had a losing record at the time, remember) they’d be in the playoffs. But, due to their own inadequacies, they failed to do so and thereby missed the playoffs. Do you know who they have to blame? Themselves. Utah (especially Utah), Texas and USC this year, and loads of other teams the past few years (including last year’s Georgia team, this year’s Alabama team, 2004’s Auburn team, etc) did pretty much just as well as the teams in the title game, or (for Utah and Auburn) went undefeated and did EVERYTHING they could do, and still got left out. That’s the difference.

Plus, if the regular season is the playoff in college football, and the playoffs are elimination games, then the undefeated champion of the regular season should get the trophy, or at least a shot at it.

But I certainly agree with your 2nd paragraph. I know we’re getting some AP votes, but I don’t think it’ll be enough. Maybe. Hope springs eternal. I guess we’ll know soon enough.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Auburn got shafted

Becuase the #1 and #2 preseason teams also went undefeated….

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?seasonYear=2004&weekNumber=1&seasonType=2

Auburn can bitch all they want but they started out at #18…

Utah wasn’t even ranked at the end of LAST season

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?seasonYear=2007&weekNumber=1&seasonType=3

Thusly wasn’t on anyones preseason top 25….

Lets take Bama for example from this year. We started out at #24…beat a top 10 team to start the season. Jumped up in the low teens, then beat the #3 team in the country on the road in VERY impressive style, then road other teams loses to #1.

Utah on the other didn’t have a break through performance till week 7 when they beat OSU. By the time they got to the meat of their schedule the top 5 were already set.

It all goes back to consistency. If Utah wanted to be considered legitmate contenders they should have done better last year. Complain all you want but that is how CFB is set up right now. Utah going 9-4 last year in the MWC just wasn’t going to give them the push to be preseason anything.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ha

You just called Clemson a top 10 team. I know they were at the time, but come on dude….

by skigator93 on Jan 7, 2009 9:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He's...

…just explaining why Bama jumped as high as they did, not testifying to our strength of schedule.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 7, 2009 10:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

come skigator

Have you already started drinking….you know i wasn’t calling Clemson a top 10 team NOW but they were when we played them.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 9:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

but if Florida blows out OU, there’s no way the AP awards Utah the title. that’s the reality.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yep

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, as sad as it makes me.

But I also thought we’d get smashed in the sugar bowl and that we’d lose to TCU, so I’ve been pleasantly surprised by this team a couple of times recently.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

same

goes for Bama….picked 3rd in the west and thought to win 8-9 games….ill take 12-2 any day

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what to do with the BCS and the TARP funds

are basically the greatest problems of our time. there is no one answer that can satisfy a majority of people, and even if we started down what turned out to be the right path, we feeble minded humans would likely not recognize it as such…. i guess the one thing that applies in both situations that we should consider is that the only constant is change, and that it’s fool hardy of us to cling to the past as if it were sacrosanct. also, we need to recognize that our current systems are inherently flawed and cannot provide us with the results we seek. and so we must undergo a paradigm shift, dispense with the antiquated notions of traditional powers and free market theory.

the goal is to get the best teams into one final game, and to get funds to consumers and businesses. not to further consolidate power-opportunities to play for the title-capital into the hands of the few. afterall these are the same few who gave us this crap system which nearly everyone can agree must be changed.

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

in short, 8 team playoff, nationalize the banks, sell them off once global market has rebounded

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the best way is not a 8 team playoff

Plus one.

1 against 4
2 against 3

And winner of both games plays for the NC.

It keeps the uniqueness that is the bowl season and the regular season and at the same time putting the top 4 teams together. It will alow the BCS games to still exsist and doesn’t drag the season any longer than needed.

Will teams still be left out? Of course. In any play off format someone gets left out. Thats kinda what inspires teams to not lose and recruit better.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i keep chaning my mind on this between; screw it! lets go back to the old days, plus one, and plus 3

but just to play devils advocate for a plus 3 system. lets look at this year. which 4 teams would you have seeded. it’s a really tough call to make. i know we lost, but i will still argue to death anyone who suggests it should be OU, texas, florida, and someone other than bama. so what we wind up with, is either texas or OU being left out to placate people like me. do we include utah over penn state and usc? before penn state got their arses kicked they’d of had an argument, the same goes for utah, no one would give them the benefit of the doubt, but they wound up proving themselves to better than penn state…. this whole thing is a cluster____ and i’m starting to think we need to scrap our old methods and come up with something new….of course in reality, thanks to the bowl system (which is awsome, and i enjoy it more than NFL) that wont happen, so we’re back to square one.

one thing i do know for sure is, they were selling fiesta bowl tickets for 10 and 15 dollars a few minutes before kickoff monday night, so the current incarnation of the BCS isn’t fullfilling it’s potential.

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

uhhhh

USC?

by skigator93 on Jan 7, 2009 9:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes to the playoffs, no to the bank nationalization. : )

I bleed crimson and white...I puke Vol puke orange. RTR

by SugarBowl93 on Jan 7, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

would the "no" be due to

a principled belief in the private enterprise system and neo-liberal economics? or due to a conclusion that they should be allowed to run themselves because they’ve done such a good job thus far?

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What's the difference...

…between ‘neo-liberal’ economics and liberal economics?

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 7, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

milton friedman, keynes, "chicago school" basicly the 20 and 21 st century versions which said we can sell debt as a product

by tempebamafan on Jan 8, 2009 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Selling debt isn’t a problem. Selling debt in a way that obfuscates the real risk from the investors is a problem. Unless I misunderstand what you mean, which is likely.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 8, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i wasn't as clear as i should have been

bonds have been around since the 17th century….

it’s the laissez fair attitude that essentially says: “government should take as inactive a role as possible in the regulation of markets because governments are inefficient and markets work better when they police themselves.” which lead to the last 2 big bubbles, and their subsequent “bursts”…

i suggest that neo-liberal economics is flawed because it relies on individual actors to betray their own interests when it comes to policing market activity. they literally are supposed to think locally (randian "self interest’) but ACT globally (market regulates itself). the bond rating agencies don’t want to downgrade risky bonds, because the bond issuers pay their salary, mortgage brokers have no incentive to ensure their loan is solvent because the loan is repackaged and sold off, the borrower doesn’t repay the actual lender. and when you have all of these things going on at once, no one person, group, or even industry has the incentive to purposefully stop making money. they are pressured to deliver earnings for shareholders every quarter. and when some rational actors do point out the pending collapse, the particpants in the bubble are under further pressure to ignore or marginalize the people crying foul. afteral if the gravy train is going to stop, why not keep eating until it does? at which point we’re all passengers with a shared destiny.

so what we wound up with in this market for the last 3 or 4 years was the so-called “responsible actors” playing a game of see no evil because they didn’t want to be the first in their industries to step back. and the individual people with money who DID know what was going down became short sellers. once the bubble did burst, the greedy “rational actors” cried foul at the short sellers, and had the SEC suspend short selling. so in effect the only mechanism left in the marketplace to voice opposition to the status quo, wound up being shut off, because they were so precisely correct. (for real, ask an uber capitalist options trader just how “free” the markets were september through december)

now, one might say “well, see thats where interventionalism will hurt you, it’s BECAUSE free market principals weren’t followed that this happened” and that would be entirely false. the fact that regulation was compelled onto the market to bring about stability, indicates that regulated markets actually behave more rationally. and that without any regulation, we would have wound up with a complete collapse, afterall it was the neo-liberal vanguard who was in charge the whole time. the neo-liberal economists DO KNOW that regulation was the only option left to stop the bleeding that their pet experiment brought about. they just wont admit to it.

and now these same people with the same ideological dogmas are going to take public tax dollars to recapitalize private equity. in laymens terms, the banks screwed up, so instead of them taking a loan from taxpayers, they’re getting a gift, so they can make loans back to the taxpayers….. the second someone suggests we should re-appropriate the private sector’s equity into, and for the benefit of, the public sector, they are called a communist. the fact is, what is going now is most appropriately labeled as fascism. but these labels just cause anger and confusion. so in laymens terms, if they screwed up, they shouldn’t get to steal from us to loan us back our money. we should their cash and other assets and put them to our collective use, as they’ve proven themselves to be incapable of handling their own affairs.

by tempebamafan on Jan 10, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

damn....

that’s long… i need to make a correction though. second to last paragraph; i stated regulation was compelled onto the market. proper way to say it would be that because the markets would not accept regulation, INTERVENTIONALISM was imposed instead. and without the recent drastic intervention we’d have collapsed. this may seem like semantics, but intervention is an even bigger slur in the neo-liberal world. it is seen as regulations’, older, uglier, stronger, more mustachio’d brother. and they claim it will ruin everything with a quickness. yet in their hour of darkness that’s where they turned first….

by tempebamafan on Jan 10, 2009 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We...

…sure can buy debt as a product.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 8, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what the hell are you guys talking about!!!!!!!!!!!

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Midgets fighting badgers

by PeteHoliday on Jan 9, 2009 8:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dolla dolla billz

ya’ll

by tempebamafan on Jan 10, 2009 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

indeed

thats literally what a “secured” credit card is…. “here’s 1000 bucks, please hold onto it for me, so i can charge against it, and PAY interest on those charges. in the mean time would you please continue to hold it and EARN and keep interest on it. all the while charging me? thank you ever so much.”

by tempebamafan on Jan 10, 2009 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

NCAA Basketball is an equally bad example

You can’t have a 16 team playoff in football.
What alumni are going to travel to 4 postseason games?
Plus, teams that aren’t in the top 8 at most (I say 4) don’t deserve to play for a national championship.

You guys already know how expensive SEC Championship tickets were this year – The BCSCG are more expensive than that. Add a flight to Miami and lodging and you are talking big bucks. That is with only attending 2 games.

by skigator93 on Jan 7, 2009 9:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Travelling is a bad argument.

You do the first round as home games for the higher-seeded teams. Possibly the first two rounds, then the last two rounds at neutral sites like bowl games. Again, there are two options, but let’s say you take the conference champions and the 5 highest-ranked non-champions. The tourney would be the following teams:

Conference champions:
OU
Florida
Penn State
USC
VA Tech
Cincinnati
Utah
Boise State
Buffalo
ECU
Troy

At-large:
Texas
Alabama
Texas Tech (unless you keep the 2-per-league rule, which would make this GA tech)
Ohio State
TCU

Let’s say you keep the 2-per-league rule, although i don’t know why. Also, you can’t meet your own conference mate in the first round. The tournament would look like this:

Oklahoma v. #16 Troy
Florida v. #15 Buffalo
Texas v. #14 ECU
Alabama v. #13 VA Tech
USC v. #12 GA Tech
Utah v. #11 Cincinnati
Penn State v. #10 TCU
Boise State v. #9 Ohio State

Play all those games at home for the 1-8 teams. Let’s say we have no upsets, although I think the OSU/Boise game and the TCU/PSU games have good chances of going to the lower-seeded team. Then the second round is:

OU v. #8 Boise
UF v. #7 PSU
Texas v. #6 Utah
Alabama v. #5 USC

That’s a great set of games, worthy of a bowl game. But if we don’t want to make it to expensive, we keep these at the 1-4 spots and let’s say every winner is the top seed again (although USC and Utah should both have great shots at winning those games as well).

The final four is played at the BCS site of the nearest BCS bowl for the higher-seeded team. So the OU/Alabama game is at the Fiesta Bowl and the Florida/Texas game is at the Sugar Bowl. The National title game gets played the next week at whatever the scheduled location is, the other two BCS games get their pick of the losers from the Elite Eight, as do two other bowls (say Cotton or Holiday or Gator). Everyone else plays in their regular bowl games, just like the NIT.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 11:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No

you wouldn’t. It would us all “feel good” but you would not have a ‘true NC’ its a falacy.

Thirty-Six to Nothing

by Bens4vcobra on Jan 8, 2009 8:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

Uhh, everyone who has no automatic championship potential is ineligible, de facto or dejure, ineligible is ineligible.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 11, 2009 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Problem is

even undefeated BCS conference teams have been locked out before (i.e. Auburn 2004).

Bring MWC and WAC into the BCS agreement, 8 Auto bids for conference champs, have 4 at-large bids, maintain the 2 teams per conference cap, top 4 get byes. You could run it like the 12 team NFL playoffs. It unfortunately would require 11 game seasons and prep/play during the holidays, to facilitate finals/conference championships. This is totallly rough and probably would never work, but it could potentially be better…or worse lol

Offense sells tickets. Defense wins games. - Paul W. "Bear" Bryant

by TheRedTideConsumes on Jan 6, 2009 6:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well

But you guys said Auburn sucks and deserved it?

by MeanBobMean on Jan 11, 2009 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i believe

the best two teams in CFB are playing in the NCG. Does that mean that other teams shouldn’t have gotten a shot? Of course. Thats why we need a playoff. Utah is a great team that certainly should have gotten its chance. But i stand by my original statement. UF and OU are the two best teams in CFB.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 6, 2009 7:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

gimme a break

OU is all offense and nothing else. they would get smoked by SUC. as much as i hate SUC, cheaty petey and all their pompous, arrogant fans, even I have to admit this. i wouldn’t be surprised if they lost to Utah as well. but SUC vs Florida is a championship game i would like to see. i still Florida wins, but OU is definitely not one of the top 2 teams in the country. i’ll wait till tomorrow night to stamp and seal my point.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But OU's

Only loss was to a top 4 Texas team, on a neutral site. SUC lost to an unranked OSU team on the road and was embarrassed if i do rememebr.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not really

losing to an OSU team (that was 3rd in the Pac-10, one win away from going to the Rose Bowl, and shut out LeSean McCoy and #20 Pittsburgh in their bowl game) on the road by 5 points is not an embarrassment. and we all saw that Texas was overrated. so losing to them on a neutral site is no better than losing to OSU on the road. and it’s not really a matter of losses. both SUC and OU have 1 loss. it’s a matter of who’s the better team. and SUC on a neutral site would beat OU.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Spot on.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 11, 2009 7:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

45-35

tejas beat OU on a neutral field. OU is nowhere close to the top 1 or 2 spots. florida is going to rape them, but it’s okay cause tebow is a preacher.

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not so sure

Bama played Florida closer than we did Utah. That’s enough evidence for me personally to be believe that Utah would have a darn good shot at beating either Florida or Oklahoma.

Another thing to consider is, the usual excuse for not ranking “non-BCS” teams higher is their strength of schedule relative to BCS teams. Well, Bama was ranked No. 1 for a month, and our SOS is lower than Utah’s (Bama=63; Utah=57), according to CBS Sports.com’s 120 ranking (http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls/120). Now, Florida and Oklahoma’s SOS are much higher than Utah’s. But, once again, based on head-to-head competition on the field, Utah played Bama tougher than Florida did.

To be honest, I really can’t make an argument based on the evidence that Utah is not as good as Florida or Oklahoma.

Dr. BamaFrazier is IN!

by BamaFrazier on Jan 7, 2009 6:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry, but...

This: “Bama played Florida closer than we did Utah. That’s enough evidence for me personally to be believe that Utah would have a darn good shot at beating either Florida or Oklahoma.”

…is just silly. For starters, it’s just not true. The score was closer (by 3 points) but Florida pulled away at the end. Utah got a big burst at the beginning and then stagnated.

Then, Alabama lost two all-american offensive linemen for the Sugar Bowl. That alone would’ve turned the Florida game into a four TD rout. If you think we could give up 8 sacks and still hold Florida to 10 points over 3.5 quarters with that offensive line, you’re just out of your mind. Our struggling offense handed the ball to Utah enough times that they really should have blown us out. Instead, once we figured out the gimmick to their offense we shut it down.

This is before you even stop to ask yourself if our team looked like the same one that suited up against Florida. Did they play with the same fire and just get beat? I don’t think so. It really did look to me like our guys just didn’t even want to be there. Utah did. They were the better team that night, but trying to compare Florida to Utah on the basis of Alabama as a common opponent is just not that easy.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Frazier...

Now that i have seen all three teams play….Utah is just not as talented as UF or OU. Are they one heck of a team that should end up in the top three to end the season? Hell yes! But are they good enough to beat UF at their best or OU at their best? I have to say no. We played UF as good as anyone (san Miss) and we still lost by 11 AND they didn’t even have their best player. Im not going to comment about our o-line injuries but the fact that Utah was up on us by 21 and we cut it to 4 says alot. I have to agree with Pete that if we spot UF 21 to start the game….its a 40+ point blow out.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 9:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you actually played us better than Ole Miss

In that game we fumbled 37 times and missed (had blocked) an extra point. I think if we call anything OTHER than Tebow up the middle on the 4th and 1, we still win the game- however, I also don’t believe we would have had nearly as successful a season. We needed that game to wake up the giant.

by skigator93 on Jan 7, 2009 10:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We aren't . . .

As talented as Florida—almost no one is. But we match up fairly well with OU. Their Offense would no score on us at will as they did some teams. It would be a far better match than OU fans would admit.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 11, 2009 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The answer

to the question you posed is a simple one.

The “real” national champion is the team that wins the BCS Championship game. It’s a crappy system, but it’s the one our schools all agreed to. Whining now that it’s not fair is just sour grapes.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 12:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

agreed, for this season at least. with a caveate

that utah get to hold the “USCal Honorary runner up pretend co national champion presented by the associated press” trophy

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

haha

how come auBarn didn’t get one of those?

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

cause barn sucks

and they got beat by USC twice in a row to open the 2002 and 2003 seasons. i didn’t say it was fair, i did say it was funny and awesome though…yes, barn deserved one, but f-em….

by tempebamafan on Jan 7, 2009 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It boils down to this.....

On a neutral field……
          Could Utah beat UF – No
          Could Utah beat OK – No
          Could Utah beat TX – No
          Could Utah beat USC – No

I like the Utes and congratulate them on a bowl victory and an undeated season. But that and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
As one who pulls for UNA in D2, I can tell you first hand, the cream of the crop rises to the top in a 16 team playoff, and though Utah is a very good team, I just don’t think they would have the horses to last in a 4 game streach.

Well, are you gonna pull them pistols, or whistle dixie?

by jtCRIMSON on Jan 7, 2009 1:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm with NLS, how do you know?

We were 10-pt dogs to Bama. There was no way a small, weak, lowly MWC team could beat Big, Strong, Angry Alabama in what amounted to a home game. But we did. You don’t know if the same couldn’t happen to UF, OU, TX or USC, because we won’t get a chance to prove it on the field.

I was on this board prior to the game, and I didn’t even give us much of a chance to win (although i was sure we’d cover). If 95% of the country was wrong about the Sugar Bowl, couldn’t the same be possible about USC, OU, UF, or TX? Sure it could.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs