The difference is the Tourney games mean something, each team ahs a chance to advance and keep their hopes alive of getting to the FF. There is no hope of getting to a FF or winning a title w/ all those bowl games.
NCAA Tournament Thread
- Thread starter CO-Gator
- Start date
The difference is the Tourney games mean something, each team ahs a chance to advance and keep their hopes alive of getting to the FF. There is no hope of getting to a FF or winning a title w/ all those bowl games.
So if Auburn didn't play a tough schedule, go find someone who played a tougher schedule...and ran the table.
Go grab Oregon's schedule. Get Boise State. Doesn't matter. Auburn had a tough SEC schedule. They ran the table. They were the best team all year. How can anyone argue against that lol.
Go grab Oregon's schedule. Get Boise State. Doesn't matter. Auburn had a tough SEC schedule. They ran the table. They were the best team all year. How can anyone argue against that lol.
It wasa tough sched...for college football but in reality it wasn't that tough yet they get a free pas to the title game. FOUR road games(w/ 3 being against bad teams)- that is a joke and another reason why CFB is a joke. Win a few tough/semi-tough games and you too can play for a Nat'l Title! In '01 Nebraska was humiliated in the Big 12 title game- losing 62-36 yet they played for the National Title a few weeks later. That's all we need to know about the CFB system.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 15,549
- Reaction score
- 2,652
Cliffs:
Auburn's schedule wasnt that tough despite the fact that it was one of the toughest in the nation and they were one of two teams to run the table.
So basically, if Im following the logic here correctly, every team in the country blows, amirite?
Pretty sure the BCS got it right in 2001. The best team in the history of college football was going to win no matter who they played.
Or in the tournament, you can win a garbage conference, get a decent seed, play average teams because of all the "upsets" and get a shot at a title.
Butler comes to mind.
Again, it was tough by CFB stabdards but 4 road games(3 against bad teams) and afew realtively tough home games does not make a sched tough. They basically had to hold serve at home and win one tough road game- that's not a difficult sched but that is waht CFB is all about. OSU made 2 title games having to play maybe 1-2 tough games a few years back when the Big 10 was awful.
That Miami team is ONE of the best ever and they would have beaten whoever they played(should beat OSU the next year too and I know they had the blown call but that game shouldn't have been close) BUT that doesn't take away from the fact that a team that was humiliated in their conf title game shouldn't have been able to play in the title game and lose to UM.
In the last 2 years Butler beat two 1 seeds, two 2 seeds and a 4 seed. In other words they played tougher teams en route to the Final than eiter Oregon or Auburn in football.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 15,549
- Reaction score
- 2,652
You still havent explained how they played a tough schedule, were the only team in the entire country to not lose a game, yet werent the best team. Im not trying to be a smartass, I just seriously cant follow the logic.
And in the end, Butler didn't win anything.
Auburn did. I'd say beating Alabama, LSU, and Oregon is more than equivalent to what Butler or UCONN did.
Auburn did. I'd say beating Alabama, LSU, and Oregon is more than equivalent to what Butler or UCONN did.
Playing 4 road games, 3 against bad teams, playing a few ranked teams mostly at home and playing a medicore S. carolina team in the SEC title game is not a tough sched. It might be tough by weak CFB stabdards but that's not a tough sched.
I never said Auburn wasn't the best team, I don't think we know the answer to that questions since they only played a few tough teams. A playoff would help truly determine a champion. Auburn was certainly worthy of playing in a title game based on the currect system and they were a worthy champ based on the current system but that current system is flawed.
Auburn had a much easier road to a title than Butler did.
Auburn had to win every single week to get there. That's very difficult in college football...especially in the SEC.
How does a playoff truly help determine a champion if you won't even say UCONN is the best team? Tournament doesn't find a better champion anymore than the BCS does. Was Duke the best team last year? No lol. Was Alabama? Not even a question.
every single week w/ all but 4 games at home including 3 cupcake road games.
The best team doesn't always win in any sport.
LSU in 2007 lost TWO games
UF lost a game in '06 and '08
OSU made 2 title games where they were humiliated b/c they beat 1-2 good teams- that's nonsense. if the NCAA worked like the BCS Carolina would have 20 titles instead of 5 NCAA TOurney titles. It's not the way to crown a champion.
It's not always a slam dunk team like 'Bama.
So who was better than LSU that year? Who was better than Florida?
Is it more difficult to win every single week in college football or win six games in the tournament...two of which are played close to home against scrubs.
LSU barely hung on to beat UNC while half the Heels team was suspended
UF lost 5 games inclduing losing 31-7 to Florida State
MUCH more difficult to win the NCAA Tourney b/c you have no margin for error. if you lose your season is over, in CFB the top teams can lose once or maybe even twice and still win it all.
Only some of the top seeds get 2 games close to home and only one game is against a "scrub". In 2009 the #1 seeded Heels played the SEC Champs in Rd 2., 8/9 games usually produce a good team to face the 1 seed in the 2nd game.