*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (3 Viewers)

[Christo]

Munchie.

 

[Premier]

Great job of going out of your way to prove my point, professor. Find me one instance of Christo or I saying anything about a 30 million dollar tv contract.

No ####. It's $2.6 billion.

30 million per team per year. You know the numbers all the WVU bloggers and Dr D-Bag here were posting that FSU would be begging to get.

I didn't realize that I was a WVU blogger since you continue to use "you guys." See, in the non-conference honk world, we don't refer to everyone that covers or is a fan of any single team in the entire conference "you guys." I know that's tough to understand for a dim bulb such as yourself.Also, nobody said $30 million per team. Somewhere in the low $20s was mentioned. I realized you're detached from reality, but you're off by a factor of 50%.

Further, you insist on ####ting all over any actual college football conversation in this thread.

You and Christo are spot on:Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN

Big 12, ABC/ESPN & Fox will announce 13-year media rights deal Friday worth $2.6B, worth $20M per school, sources told @ESPN.

Yes, $20M is about what was expected. The "bloggers" everyone was quoting all along was saying $25M or $30M a year and that FSU/Clemson would take the extra $10M/year. It's only $3M/year per school which isn't going to cause anyone to look because they would lose that $3M easily in travel costs for the entire athletic department.

I just hate to break it to you but you are arguing against the wind here. I'm not aware of anyone here who threw around the $30MM figure and said FSU or Clemson would come running. As a matter of fact, I'm on record saying I would like the Big 12 to add Louisville and Cincinnati to get back to 12.

Not arguing with anyone and didn't quote you either. I even said the "bloggers". To be specific Chip Brown and the guy from WV that calls himself The Dude. They were throwing around those kind of numbers all spring to encite the FSU crowd. Cappy certainly took the bait, for example.

you're a ####ing weirdo. I'm so happy your already irrelevant team lost in excruciating fashion the other night.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Great job of going out of your way to prove my point, professor. Find me one instance of Christo or I saying anything about a 30 million dollar tv contract.

No ####. It's $2.6 billion.

30 million per team per year. You know the numbers all the WVU bloggers and Dr D-Bag here were posting that FSU would be begging to get.

I didn't realize that I was a WVU blogger since you continue to use "you guys." See, in the non-conference honk world, we don't refer to everyone that covers or is a fan of any single team in the entire conference "you guys." I know that's tough to understand for a dim bulb such as yourself.Also, nobody said $30 million per team. Somewhere in the low $20s was mentioned. I realized you're detached from reality, but you're off by a factor of 50%.

Further, you insist on ####ting all over any actual college football conversation in this thread.

You and Christo are spot on:Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN

Big 12, ABC/ESPN & Fox will announce 13-year media rights deal Friday worth $2.6B, worth $20M per school, sources told @ESPN.

Yes, $20M is about what was expected. The "bloggers" everyone was quoting all along was saying $25M or $30M a year and that FSU/Clemson would take the extra $10M/year. It's only $3M/year per school which isn't going to cause anyone to look because they would lose that $3M easily in travel costs for the entire athletic department.

I just hate to break it to you but you are arguing against the wind here. I'm not aware of anyone here who threw around the $30MM figure and said FSU or Clemson would come running. As a matter of fact, I'm on record saying I would like the Big 12 to add Louisville and Cincinnati to get back to 12.

Not arguing with anyone and didn't quote you either. I even said the "bloggers". To be specific Chip Brown and the guy from WV that calls himself The Dude. They were throwing around those kind of numbers all spring to encite the FSU crowd. Cappy certainly took the bait, for example.

I hope you know that "the Dude" is a joke in WVU circles as well. He throws crap against the wall to generate hits. And... Chip Brown... really?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I hope you know that "the Dude" is a joke in WVU circles as well. He throws crap against the wall to generate hits. And... Chip Brown... really?

Absolutely and been saying that for months. It's the handful of guys here that keep mocking me that were quoting those two clowns like everything was the gospel and I tried to tell them the money numbers they were quoting never made sense.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

you're a ####ing weirdo. I'm so happy your already irrelevant team lost in excruciating fashion the other night.

Good luck against Wake Forest. Hopefully they won't beat your irrelevant program for the 5th time in 7 years.

 

[roadkill1292]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.

So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?

This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

To me those creampuff games were much like NFL preseason. In other words they tell you nothing about your team.

 

[Premier]

you're a ####ing weirdo. I'm so happy your already irrelevant team lost in excruciating fashion the other night.

Good luck against Wake Forest. Hopefully they won't beat your irrelevant program for the 5th time in 7 years.

My "irrelevant" team is ranked in the top-5. You will never, ever see Georgia Tech ranked that high again.

 

[gump]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

No fans want those cream puff games. Season ticket holders have enough home games, and many travel to the neutral site or away game anyway...which gives them the chance to see stadiums they otherwise never would. The only upside I see is providing a breather in the middle of difficult conference runs....which the early season game doesn't do anyway.This isn't a new idea for some by the way.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

Nobody likes those games. You can find plenty of complaining by me about some of UF's opponents from past years. That said, I know what taking home dates away from Gainesville would do to that city. There are many business that run in the red all year long and rely on those fall Saturdays to turn a profit.

 

[gump]

Regarding the LSU-UW debate....isn't the LSU LT out this week, and possibly longer?

 

[psychobillies]

Regarding the LSU-UW debate....isn't the LSU LT out this week, and possibly longer?

Out for the Year. One of tyhe best players on the team.My link

 

[Tiger Fan]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Regarding the LSU-UW debate....isn't the LSU LT out this week, and possibly longer?

Out for the Year. One of tyhe best players on the team.My link

It's a big loss, but we're deep; and the guy likely to fill in is a 6th year senior, so it's not like there's a true freshman replacing him.

 

[psychobillies]

Regarding the LSU-UW debate....isn't the LSU LT out this week, and possibly longer?

Out for the Year. One of tyhe best players on the team.My link

It's a big loss, but we're deep; and the guy likely to fill in is a 6th year senior, so it's not like there's a true freshman replacing him.

Yeah. It'd be nice if Collins was ready, and maybe he is, but we'll see.

 

[roadkill1292]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

I'm beginning to see that the "boys" part of "fanboys" is bothersome to many. I'll stop saying it if it means we can all play nice. Do I have to stop using "factory," too? That's a pretty useful term. Is there an identifying phrase that you all would prefer?

 

[Moe.]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

I'm beginning to see that the "boys" part of "fanboys" is bothersome to many. I'll stop saying it if it means we can all play nice. Do I have to stop using "factory," too? That's a pretty useful term. Is there an identifying phrase that you all would prefer?

lol. I'm noticing that when I use a derogatory term to refer to a large group of people that they don't seem to like it. Interesting.

 

[roadkill1292]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

I'm beginning to see that the "boys" part of "fanboys" is bothersome to many. I'll stop saying it if it means we can all play nice. Do I have to stop using "factory," too? That's a pretty useful term. Is there an identifying phrase that you all would prefer?

lol. I'm noticing that when I use a derogatory term to refer to a large group of people that they don't seem to like it. Interesting.

Why is "fanboys" more derogatory than "fans?" They both have negative connotations to me.

 

[Moe.]

I think you're alone in thinking that the word fan has a negative connotation.

edit: not looking to derail the thread or anything here, I just thought that post that I replied to was kinda funny. I doubt anyone really cares if you want to use the word fanboy to describe college football fans.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

"fans" is a rather generic term, "fanboys" is way worse.

 

[The Commish]

"fans" is a rather generic term, "fanboys" is way worse.

I blame Apple. roadkill, you should use the term "honks" going forward to avoid any confusion.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think you're alone in thinking that the word fan has a negative connotation.

Here, anyway.

 

[gump]

I think you're alone in thinking that the word fan has a negative connotation.

Here, anyway.

I for one am insulted to be called a fan of Alabama football.I also play a lot of golf....whatever you do, dont call me a golf fan.

 

[MAC_32]

Regarding the LSU-UW debate....isn't the LSU LT out this week, and possibly longer?

It'll matter against other teams, but not Washington, they're not strong enough up front.Last night's game was tough to watch and it's going to get a tough read on Graham all year if Pitt doesn't get better, but he doesn't look all the way back yet himself. Doubt we'll get much out of a beating at Va Tech, so I may back burner him until the ND game is and see where he is then. Syracuse is a Friday night game though, so if I'm around I may dial that up too.

 

[Tiger Fan]

How do you factory fanboys (really, I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion in this thread -- you're all quite nice) feel about the SI article this week about more quality early season inter-conference games and fewer ritual slaughters of the creampuffs? Jerry Jones and places like the Georgia Dome are throwing around enough money to make these games almost as lucrative as staying home and killing Savannah State. Plus the playoff selectors are vowing to weigh strength of schedule heavily in their decision making.So will you be pumped about your team going to a neutral site against a fellow heavyweight or will you miss those comfortable no-sweat games at home against the cupcakes?This is a really good trend for fans at large like me but I could see where the die hards may lose a little something in the exchange.

The SEC fans are constantly accused of being "fanboys" and the SEC is constantly being accused of playing creampuff OOC schedule. We debunked this myth last year, can't remember which thread. But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.As an LSU season ticket holder, I want all good non conference games. I sold my entire season ticket package this year except for the Bama game. Partly due to schedule conflicts, but partly b/c the home schedule sucks this year. We scheduled Washington a few years back when they were better, but we're still a 24 pt favorite there.

I'm beginning to see that the "boys" part of "fanboys" is bothersome to many. I'll stop saying it if it means we can all play nice. Do I have to stop using "factory," too? That's a pretty useful term. Is there an identifying phrase that you all would prefer?

I could care less what words are used...I don't take it personally at all. I think there we usually have really good college FB discussion in the FFA..but there are a few trolls that will go without being named. It's best to just ignore them and not reply at all...b/c that's all they're looking for.But what confuses me wrt "fanboys" is that I'm not sure if the rest of the college FB world understand that in the current system (and arguably in the future playoff system) you want your conference be the best conference. Clearly, the SEC has been the best conference for the BCS era, thus you hear it more from the SEC guys.I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

 

[BigJohn]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Is SOS used to decide who gets into the playoffs?I hate the Steelers with a passion. If the Bengals and Steelers are tied on the last week of the season and Pittsburgh plays the Browns, you better believe I'm cheering for Cleveland.

 

[Tiger Fan]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.apples and oranges.

 

[bentley]

As a fan of a team the plays in the preeminent neutral site FB game, I think they're a great idea. For years, I grudgingly paid $200+ per game to watch Texas clobber Southeastnorth Louisiana State just to ensure priority tickets to OU. I'm sure that the local chambers of commerce probably have differing opinions.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

 

[Moe.]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

Agreed. The NFL also has a relatively even playing field, a 16-game regular season, somewhat balanced schedules within your division(excepting two games), and only 32 teams total. So again it's apples to oranges. I think everyone understands that the system sort of forces this on you, but I think in some cases it's a little deeper than that. I like to root for teams from my region regardless of conference. Last weekend I was pulling for Tulsa to beat Iowa State.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

But the recent trend is for the top SEC teams to play at least one school from a BCS conference every year.

My team may go 0-12 in its first season, but amazingly, UMass is the only school in the country this season that plays its entire non-conference schedule against BCS schools.I understand the needs for the "cupcake" matchups, from both perspectives. But college football would be more interesting for the fans with more marquee non-conference matchups like Alabama-Michigan or LSU-Oregon, not fewer.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

People only "have" to vote for their rivals if they put value in the "championship". Let's not fool ourselves, folks have rooted for conferences since before the BCS and will root for them post BCS. I'm not sure why they want to frame it as if they "have" to because of the BCS. That's just silly.

 

[Tiger Fan]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

gotcha...i agree

 

[Tiger Fan]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

People only "have" to vote for their rivals if they put value in the "championship". Let's not fool ourselves, folks have rooted for conferences since before the BCS and will root for them post BCS. I'm not sure why they want to frame it as if they "have" to because of the BCS. That's just silly.

I'm too young (33) to know whether or not people rooted for conferences before the BCS...but I would have to imagine that it's a lot more prominent now than it was 15 years ago.In the 4 team playoff system, it still behooves you to come from a strong conference; b/c the 4 teams aren't regulated to solely the conference champs.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think it has to get to 8-16 team playoffs before it starts to go away, too much at stake now as far as other teams results go.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Crap! LSU's best O-Linemen, LT Chris Faulk, a projected 1st round draft pick, is out for the season with a knee injury.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Regarding the LSU-UW debate....isn't the LSU LT out this week, and possibly longer?

Out for the Year. One of tyhe best players on the team.My link

It's a big loss, but we're deep; and the guy likely to fill in is a 6th year senior, so it's not like there's a true freshman replacing him.

Yeah. It'd be nice if Collins was ready, and maybe he is, but we'll see.

Collins will probably move to LT and Dworaczyk will go to RG.

 

[prefontaine]

People only "have" to vote for their rivals if they put value in the "championship". Let's not fool ourselves, folks have rooted for conferences since before the BCS and will root for them post BCS. I'm not sure why they want to frame it as if they "have" to because of the BCS. That's just silly.

This is part of the silo effect that college athletics will always have as long as 100+ teams play in the top division. Won't matter the sport or the number of games or number of teams in the playoff. Only 1 team will will a national championship. But 114 want to feel good about themselves.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

People only "have" to vote for their rivals if they put value in the "championship". Let's not fool ourselves, folks have rooted for conferences since before the BCS and will root for them post BCS. I'm not sure why they want to frame it as if they "have" to because of the BCS. That's just silly.

I'm too young (33) to know whether or not people rooted for conferences before the BCS...but I would have to imagine that it's a lot more prominent now than it was 15 years ago.In the 4 team playoff system, it still behooves you to come from a strong conference; b/c the 4 teams aren't regulated to solely the conference champs.

I'm 38 and it's been a staple of the south for as long as I've paid attention to college football (about age 10) though I've never understood it. I'll go as far as it being at least part of the reason I had a problem pulling for teams in the SEC or the ACC.

 

[The Commish]

People only "have" to vote for their rivals if they put value in the "championship". Let's not fool ourselves, folks have rooted for conferences since before the BCS and will root for them post BCS. I'm not sure why they want to frame it as if they "have" to because of the BCS. That's just silly.

This is part of the silo effect that college athletics will always have as long as 100+ teams play in the top division. Won't matter the sport or the number of games or number of teams in the playoff. Only 1 team will will a national championship. But 114 want to feel good about themselves.

But this isn't equally common in all the fan bases

 

[gump]

I agree with Commish that culture plays a part....just like the BCS does. I've described before the way the '25 Alabama team was cheered across the southern part of the country as they returned from the first big southern football win over a northern or western team at the '25 Rose Bowl vs Washington.

 

[Tiger Fan]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

People only "have" to vote for their rivals if they put value in the "championship". Let's not fool ourselves, folks have rooted for conferences since before the BCS and will root for them post BCS. I'm not sure why they want to frame it as if they "have" to because of the BCS. That's just silly.

I'm too young (33) to know whether or not people rooted for conferences before the BCS...but I would have to imagine that it's a lot more prominent now than it was 15 years ago.In the 4 team playoff system, it still behooves you to come from a strong conference; b/c the 4 teams aren't regulated to solely the conference champs.

I'm 38 and it's been a staple of the south for as long as I've paid attention to college football (about age 10) though I've never understood it. I'll go as far as it being at least part of the reason I had a problem pulling for teams in the SEC or the ACC.

Gotcha. I would still think it's probably happening much more now.It's probably got to do with the whole "Southern Pride" thing...which isn't a necessarily a bad thing. I will fully acknowledge that some southerners hide their racism in "Southern Pride", but there are a lot of southerns who are generally proud of where they are from. Whole separate debate though.

 

[prefontaine]

yeah, all that's true. I also think for a long time many felt like there was a voting bias against the Southern schools because of population bases. Everyone talks about the SEC bias now but they bias has at least come about because they keep winning on the field and so it's pretty hard to argue against it. But it wasn't that long ago that an undefeated Auburn had to sit at home and watch others play for the MNC.

 

[scottybo]

 

[Christo]

I guess it really doesn't matter when you can award yourself championships:

Texas A&M Picked Up Two National Championships, Two Conference Titles Over The Summer

Barry Petchesky

You're looking at two photos of Texas A&M's Kyle Field, both via Rant Sports. The top was taken last season, the bottom snapped just this week. Pretend this is one of those "spot the differences" bar games, and see if you can tell what's new. Yep, the Aggies' history managed to get a lot more storied over the offseason.

Two "new" national titles, in 1919 and 1927. Two new Big 12 championships, in 1997 and 2010.

The reason is because the NCAA has never had an official D 1-A/FBS national champion. Even in the modern era, the winner is merely the "BCS Champion." (The NCAA does name a national champion, but it's the FCS winner, where there's actually a playoff in place. Yes, your defending college football national champions are the North Dakota State Bison.)

Competitive sport hates a void. So, over the years, there have been numerous attempt to decide a champion, relying on either pure math, or a poll of educated voters. Especially in the early days of college football, these systems were developed with regularity, and were eradicated just as quickly, and were often in direct competition with each other. At times in the 1920s, there were more than 10 competing systems. It wasn't weird for five or six different schools in any given year to have a claim to a title. Texas A&M isn't strictly inventing championships, but it's citing more obscure ones, that even in their time weren't taken that seriously.

• In 1919, either Harvard or Illinois won the title, depending on who you talked to. But the National Championship Foundation, which was formed in 1980, polled its voters to choose retroactive championships for every year dating back to 1869. For 1919, they declared a three-way tie between Harvard, Notre Dame, and Texas A&M.

The Billingsley Report, the creation of programmer Richard Billingsley, also retroactively declared champions beginning in 1996, including the undefeated 1919 Aggies. It is purely mathematical, arguably quite flawed, and has become an actual component of the BCS Standings.

• In 1927, Illinois was the closest thing to a consensus champion those confusing 1920s could offer. But the Sagarin Ratings, the computer formula devised in the 1980s by Jeff Sagarin and more familiarly used for basketball, declared the Aggies the national champs that year.

The conference titles are easier to sort out.

• In 1997, the Aggies finished first in the Big 12 South—though with the third best record in the entire conference. In the conference title game, they were blown out by Nebraska. They're still claiming that year as a conference championship.

• In 2010, there was a three-way tie in the Big 12 South, with Texas A&M coming in third by the tiebreaker of overall record. (There was also a tie in the North division, meaning that literally every team that finished above .500 can technically boast a conference championship that season.) The Aggies didn't even go to the conference title game, but still claim the conference title.

It's called the "mythical" national championship, but a better term for A&M's titles are technical. Sure, they had national championships, according to someone—but they're only valid if you're willing to accept all those other great national champions over the years, like the Centre College Praying Colonels in 1919, Tom Osborne's 9-3 Huskers in 1981, or Boise State in 2006. In other words: enjoy those fake titles, Aggies. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Texas A&M Aggies "win" two additional football national titles this summer [Rant Sports]

http://deadspin.com/5941380/texas-am-picked-up-two-national-championships-two-conference-titles-over-the-summerF'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Alabama...but it helps LSU for Alabama to be a great team. I will root for any SEC team as long as it helps LSU. Is it really that confusing

This is what is wrong with current college football. Do NFL fans root for a division rival because they need their SOS to be higher? I've never heard that once in my life.

Well the NFL and NCAA have different methods of getting into the post season...I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not In the NFL 99% of the time it makes sense for you to root against your division rival.

apples and oranges.

That's my point, the NFL has a better system where you don't HAVE to root for your main rivals.

People only "have" to vote for their rivals if they put value in the "championship". Let's not fool ourselves, folks have rooted for conferences since before the BCS and will root for them post BCS. I'm not sure why they want to frame it as if they "have" to because of the BCS. That's just silly.

I'm too young (33) to know whether or not people rooted for conferences before the BCS...but I would have to imagine that it's a lot more prominent now than it was 15 years ago.In the 4 team playoff system, it still behooves you to come from a strong conference; b/c the 4 teams aren't regulated to solely the conference champs.

I'm 38 and it's been a staple of the south for as long as I've paid attention to college football (about age 10) though I've never understood it. I'll go as far as it being at least part of the reason I had a problem pulling for teams in the SEC or the ACC.

Gotcha. I would still think it's probably happening much more now.It's probably got to do with the whole "Southern Pride" thing...which isn't a necessarily a bad thing. I will fully acknowledge that some southerners hide their racism in "Southern Pride", but there are a lot of southerns who are generally proud of where they are from. Whole separate debate though.

Tough to say. It's certainly more prevalent now because of the media coverage, internet etc. It's tough to say if it's different than it was though. All I know is, going to UGA and SC games as a kid, I heard it every game at both stadiums and I heard it some at ACC basketball games though not as consistently.

 

[Guest]

I guess it really doesn't matter when you can award yourself championships:

Texas A&M Picked Up Two National Championships, Two Conference Titles Over The Summer

Barry Petchesky

You're looking at two photos of Texas A&M's Kyle Field, both via Rant Sports. The top was taken last season, the bottom snapped just this week. Pretend this is one of those "spot the differences" bar games, and see if you can tell what's new. Yep, the Aggies' history managed to get a lot more storied over the offseason.

Two "new" national titles, in 1919 and 1927. Two new Big 12 championships, in 1997 and 2010.

The reason is because the NCAA has never had an official D 1-A/FBS national champion. Even in the modern era, the winner is merely the "BCS Champion." (The NCAA does name a national champion, but it's the FCS winner, where there's actually a playoff in place. Yes, your defending college football national champions are the North Dakota State Bison.)

Competitive sport hates a void. So, over the years, there have been numerous attempt to decide a champion, relying on either pure math, or a poll of educated voters. Especially in the early days of college football, these systems were developed with regularity, and were eradicated just as quickly, and were often in direct competition with each other. At times in the 1920s, there were more than 10 competing systems. It wasn't weird for five or six different schools in any given year to have a claim to a title. Texas A&M isn't strictly inventing championships, but it's citing more obscure ones, that even in their time weren't taken that seriously.

• In 1919, either Harvard or Illinois won the title, depending on who you talked to. But the National Championship Foundation, which was formed in 1980, polled its voters to choose retroactive championships for every year dating back to 1869. For 1919, they declared a three-way tie between Harvard, Notre Dame, and Texas A&M.

The Billingsley Report, the creation of programmer Richard Billingsley, also retroactively declared champions beginning in 1996, including the undefeated 1919 Aggies. It is purely mathematical, arguably quite flawed, and has become an actual component of the BCS Standings.

• In 1927, Illinois was the closest thing to a consensus champion those confusing 1920s could offer. But the Sagarin Ratings, the computer formula devised in the 1980s by Jeff Sagarin and more familiarly used for basketball, declared the Aggies the national champs that year.

The conference titles are easier to sort out.

• In 1997, the Aggies finished first in the Big 12 South—though with the third best record in the entire conference. In the conference title game, they were blown out by Nebraska. They're still claiming that year as a conference championship.

• In 2010, there was a three-way tie in the Big 12 South, with Texas A&M coming in third by the tiebreaker of overall record. (There was also a tie in the North division, meaning that literally every team that finished above .500 can technically boast a conference championship that season.) The Aggies didn't even go to the conference title game, but still claim the conference title.

It's called the "mythical" national championship, but a better term for A&M's titles are technical. Sure, they had national championships, according to someone—but they're only valid if you're willing to accept all those other great national champions over the years, like the Centre College Praying Colonels in 1919, Tom Osborne's 9-3 Huskers in 1981, or Boise State in 2006. In other words: enjoy those fake titles, Aggies. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Texas A&M Aggies "win" two additional football national titles this summer [Rant Sports]

http://deadspin.com/5941380/texas-am-picked-up-two-national-championships-two-conference-titles-over-the-summerF'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

WTF?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I agree with Commish that culture plays a part....just like the BCS does. I've described before the way the '25 Alabama team was cheered across the southern part of the country as they returned from the first big southern football win over a northern or western team at the '25 Rose Bowl vs Washington.

Wow, you are old.

 

[prefontaine]

F'n aggies. Looks like they're going to fit into the SEC better than expected.

Not sure how this is any different than anyone else. Are you saying only SEC schools do this? Because that's totally delusional. Some examples from around the country - Cal claims 5 total, 4 in the 1920s, 1 in the 30s- Cornell claims 5 also from the same time period with 3 of them being the same as Cal's- Illinois claims 4 from the same time period- Pitt claims 8 from prior to the AP poll era (1936)- Of the 11 titles Michigan claims, 8 predate the AP poll - USC has 3 from this period as well as some really fuzzy claims on some others (for instance in 1939, when there was an AP poll, they were only ranked #1 by a computer program built in the 1980s as #1. No poll, magazine, etc from that time period gave them the award as they tied 2 games and two other teams won all their games, yet it's on their list) - SMU claims 1981 and 1982. I #### you not (for those that don't remember, this is the Pony Express days and they were not voted #1 in either poll in either year). Anyway, A&M is now the 4th school to claim 1919 (Harvard, Centre, and Illinois all have already done this). They are the 3rd school to claim 1927 (Georgia, Illinois). I find it all very amusing but I hardly blame A&M or anyone else for doing so if their claim is remotely legitimate. Until someone puts down a set of rules of what counts and what doesn't, imo, all schools should claim such titles.