What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (1 Viewer)

Sure this doesn't need mentioning, but BYU as a conference partner poses some challenges, most notably the fact that they are forbidden from playing on Sundays.  Doesn't matter for Football, but there are other sports and no Sundays is a logistical challenge.

 
Also, re: Houston.  Isn't that largely a commuter school?  I think that's been a hindrance for them in the past, but I'm not positive.  It's a huge school, but again, I think it's largely a commuter college.  

 
General Malaise said:
Sure this doesn't need mentioning, but BYU as a conference partner poses some challenges, most notably the fact that they are forbidden from playing on Sundays.  Doesn't matter for Football, but there are other sports and no Sundays is a logistical challenge.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing this, but how difficult is it to just schedule BYU to play Saturday instead of Sunday? I don't get it. 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Why would I do that when I can get better odds in Vegas?  While I think Washington is improving, they are not close to winning the PAC 12 this year.  They may finally have a winning record in the PAC 12 at 5-4.  I see losses vs Stanford, at Oregon,  at Utah, USC.  Heck, I think they may lose at WSU and possibly at AZ.  
Click to expand...
To be fair, you did state 100-1 odds earlier in this thread.

Or at least that's how it came off.

Washington is legit.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Why would I do that when I can get better odds in Vegas?  While I think Washington is improving, they are not close to winning the PAC 12 this year.  They may finally have a winning record in the PAC 12 at 5-4.  I see losses vs Stanford, at Oregon,  at Utah, USC.  Heck, I think they may lose at WSU and possibly at AZ.  
Click to expand...
You said there is "absolutely no chance" that UW wins the Pac12.

If you actually believe that, then laying 100-1 odds is still just picking up money off the ground.

 
General Malaise said:
Also, re: Houston.  Isn't that largely a commuter school?  I think that's been a hindrance for them in the past, but I'm not positive.  It's a huge school, but again, I think it's largely a commuter college.  
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, Houston is a monster city. The nomenclature of commuter school might apply to Boise or Albuquerque but probably not Houston.  They have a respectable endowment, a large enrollment, in a heavily populated city in the heart of football country. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
Doesn't matter, Houston is a monster city. The nomenclature of commuter school might apply to Boise or Albuquerque but probably not Houston.  They have a respectable endowment, a large enrollment, in a heavily populated city in the heart of football country. 
Click to expand...
And even if the team sucks, they've still got those potential eyeballs.

Plus, Iowa State can have some company at the bottom of the standings.

 
Sounds like Texas politics are getting involved to get Houston into the Big 12. I didn't think about that when I said Houston wouldn't be in.

Interesting.

 
Capella said:
2003 and 04 obviously. 

Please don't try the losing the national title schtick here. I'd hate to think of you along the same lines as an auburn fan here. 

@FDAS fu
Click to expand...
Not schtick at all.  USC had the highest # of votes in the AP Poll that year.  That AP Poll was part of the formula that chose the two schools to compete for the BCS national championship.  LSU won the BSC national championship that year.  USC is a part of the Pac-10, which agreed to the criteria to select the BCS national champion.....which they won in 2004.

It's pretty simple really.

 
psychobillies said:
Some people recognize it, some people don't.  That's why the trophy is important, because if someone doubts that you won a championship, you can just point to it.  
Click to expand...
2003 truther?

it's recognized as a title on every website that tracks that sort of stuff. I imagine it's not popular in your state, but that's the way it goes. 

 
Capella said:
2003 truther?

it's recognized as a title on every website that tracks that sort of stuff. I imagine it's not popular in your state, but that's the way it goes. 
Click to expand...
Let's rewind back to the beginning of the 2003 season.  As a Florida State Fan, you are given the option of FSU to choose one or the other...which one are you picking?

1.  The most votes in the AP vote at the end of the season

2.  The BCS National Championship, earned by beating the #2 team in the BCS in the criteria that has clearly been laid out and agreed upon by all major conferences

 
Tiger Fan said:
Not schtick at all.  USC had the highest # of votes in the AP Poll that year.  That AP Poll was part of the formula that chose the two schools to compete for the BCS national championship.  LSU won the BSC national championship that year.  USC is a part of the Pac-10, which agreed to the criteria to select the BCS national champion.....which they won in 2004 and were subsequently stripped of, because they were dirty cheating ######s.

It's pretty simple really.
Click to expand...
corrected.   also, fake link, haha ead.

 
Tiger Fan said:
Let's rewind back to the beginning of the 2003 season.  As a Florida State Fan, you are given the option of FSU to choose one or the other...which one are you picking?

1.  The most votes in the AP vote at the end of the season

2.  The BCS National Championship, earned by beating the #2 team in the BCS in the criteria that has clearly been laid out and agreed upon by all major conferences
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a matter of preference. The AP poll presented a national title, it's fully recognized as one of college football's national titles and SC won it. 

 
Capella said:
Cool you got this all figured out. 

Btw, every legit site grants USC a title for 2003. This isn't some SEC school faking a half-dozen titles from the 50s. 
Click to expand...
They're just maintaining consistency with the pre-BCS years where they needed to list the various poll winners.

 
Fair enough, but the point of the BCS was to crown a true national champion. So I'll stick by my position that other poll champions have been irrelevant since.

 
Capella said:
Cool you got this all figured out. 

Btw, every legit site grants USC a title for 2003. This isn't some SEC school faking a half-dozen titles from the 50s. 
Click to expand...
It's pretty much the same thing.  Fake title.  Doesn't matter who made it up.

 
Capella said:
Cool you got this all figured out. 

Btw, every legit site grants USC a title for 2003. This isn't some SEC school faking a half-dozen titles from the 50s. 
Click to expand...
1936 is when the 'AP era' began, which is when you see that list of champs tighten up. And most sources use this 'AP' designation as the legitimizer....for example, Bryant has the most AP championships (6).

Since the AP poll was the one that chose USC, most will recognize it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gump said:
1936 is when the 'AP era' began, which is when you see that list of champs tighten up. And most sources use this 'AP' designation as the legitimizer....for example, Bryant has the most AP championships (6).

Since the AP poll was the one that chose USC, most will recognize it.
Click to expand...
That's true, but since that didn't really work, everybody signed up for the BCS system in order to determine a champion.  That made it unmistakably clear who the champion was.(for better or for worse)  USC couldn't even make the top 2 that year, so they have no business being called a champion.   

 
psychobillies said:
That's true, but since that didn't really work, everybody signed up for the BCS system in order to determine a champion.  That made it unmistakably clear who the champion was.(for better or for worse)  USC couldn't even make the top 2 that year, so they have no business being called a champion.   
Click to expand...
As usual, the NCAA didn't make it airtight...'everybody' didn't include everybody. They're  lucky the AP didn't go a different way more than once.

 
gump said:
Didn't they think the AP was aligned as part of the BCS?
Click to expand...
I was obviously talking about what the AP did after the BCS game determined the champion. You said they were 'lucky' as if they were somehow hurt by the AP selecting someone different.

I'm actually a little surprised that there's regular junkies in here arguing that the voted on by sportswriters winner is just as valid as the played on the field winner.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BLOCKED_PUNT
list index
Replies
16
Views
681
El Floppo
El Floppo
Andrew74
2025 FBG Stock Contest
2
Replies
77
Views
4K
Andrew74
Andrew74
Todem
Official Rush “Fifty Something Tour” Thread
2
Replies
93
Views
2K
Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top