Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who was the academic asswipe nerd that made up the whole "FBS" thing? I hate that acronym. Why not just say Division I football; it seemed to have worked for decades.
Meh.... who knows?
I will say that the 'BS' part of FBS does fit that division just fine, though.
Yeah, I'd say bitter because TCU (despite the few mistakes they had) still beat a rising SMU team on the road. Bama almost lost and Ohio State hung 73 on their opponent, yet Alabama is still #1?
I wouldn't call it much media hype for the Horned Frogs because TCU is still taking a backseat to Boise State, a school that JUST got into the FBS less than 20 years ago and doesn't have the same history TCU has.
You're probably just another one of those guys who thinks "because they're not one of the 'BIG BOYS', they shouldn't sit at the 'BIG BOY' table". It's real easy to claim that TCU would get killed if they were in one of these AQ Conferences when you know it's not gonna happen.
So no matter how you rank them, Boise State and TCU are both #3 and #5, respectively. Deal with it.
So why would you put them ahead of Michigan, USC, LSU or Auburn? Or any number of the undefeated teams behind them that has beat better teams than TCU has? If it isn't media hype-- then what is it? What has TCU done to deserve to be #5?
Also, Arkansas is a hell of a good team this year. Alabama still came out ahead against them. Oregon state is not a good team. So what other quality wins will TCU get (besides Utah-- if they can beat them)
James Madison is undefeated as well... They also beat Virginia Tech (just like Boise State did), so by your logic they should be ranked #3! They both have similar strengths of schedule!
There is a reason those aren't Automatic Qualifying conferences... it's because the mountain west and WAC don't have much depth conference wide... Sure, a couple teams may be fairly tough-- but they don't have to play tough games week in and week out like the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10... thus until those conferences get AQ status, I don't think either TCU or Boise State-- or any other non-AQ team should be admitted to the national championship game.
I will say that the 'BS' part of FBS does fit that division just fine, though.
I wholeheartedly agree.
FBS: Football Bowl Subdivision. WTF is a bowl "subdivision?" Seriously, it just sounds like something someone made up on a napkin in a bar, lol. Division I worked for dozens of years and makes a hell of a lot more sense. I just don't get it. Please stop using "FBS" JJG.
No, my logic is, THERE'S NO TRUE WAY TO RANK THESE TEAMS.
One thing you don't seem to get is that there's almost no point in ranking these teams, anyway. Anyone can lose to anyone at any time and games aren't played on paper. This is obvious as we've seen multiple powerhouse programs lose to Div. FCS schools recently.
Truly, the Top 25 rankings are just there for people to say, "I THINK this team is as good as #1 or #5 or even #120". Yet you act like there's an exact way to prove who's the best team in college football, which is too complex for ANYONE to do. So who are you to say who's great, who's good, who's overrated, and who's just terrible?
And the biggest thing is, there is little to NO control over which team plays which and what team goes to what conference. So it's a flawed argument to say that these Non-AQ teams aren't as good as they're ranked. This whole system is screwed up and because we have it, we get guys who say that these smaller, less known schools shouldn't have any real shot at the biggest games of the season, which is no doubt wrong, selfish, and elitist.
And what I see in TCU is a program that was down for a long, LONG time, but resurrected itself and has just as much of a shot as ANY school in this country to play for the bigger games. They play who they play and WIN. And that's all you can ever ask for any sports team.
So why would you put them ahead of Michigan, USC, LSU or Auburn? Or any number of the undefeated teams behind them that has beat better teams than TCU has? If it isn't media hype-- then what is it? What has TCU done to deserve to be #5?
Also, Arkansas is a hell of a good team this year. Alabama still came out ahead against them. Oregon state is not a good team. So what other quality wins will TCU get (besides Utah-- if they can beat them)
James Madison is undefeated as well... They also beat Virginia Tech (just like Boise State did), so by your logic they should be ranked #3! They both have similar strengths of schedule!
There is a reason those aren't Automatic Qualifying conferences... it's because the mountain west and WAC don't have much depth conference wide... Sure, a couple teams may be fairly tough-- but they don't have to play tough games week in and week out like the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10... thus until those conferences get AQ status, I don't think either TCU or Boise State-- or any other non-AQ team should be admitted to the national championship game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG
No, my logic is, THERE'S NO TRUE WAY TO RANK THESE TEAMS.
One thing you don't seem to get is that there's almost no point in ranking these teams, anyway. Anyone can lose to anyone at any time and games aren't played on paper. This is obvious as we've seen multiple powerhouse programs lose to Div. FCS schools recently.
Truly, the Top 25 rankings are just there for people to say, "I THINK this team is as good as #1 or #5 or even #120". Yet you act like there's an exact way to prove who's the best team in college football, which is too complex for ANYONE to do. So who are you to say who's great, who's good, who's overrated, and who's just terrible?
And the biggest thing is, there is little to NO control over which team plays which and what team goes to what conference. So it's a flawed argument to say that these Non-AQ teams aren't as good as they're ranked. This whole system is screwed up and because we have it, we get guys who say that these smaller, less known schools shouldn't have any real shot at the biggest games of the season, which is no doubt wrong, selfish, and elitist.
And what I see in TCU is a program that was down for a long, LONG time, but resurrected itself and has just as much of a shot as ANY school in this country to play for the bigger games. They play who they play and WIN. And that's all you can ever ask for any sports team.
I think you're misunderstanding my whole argument. I agree with you wholeheartedly. My point was very simplistic; wtf did they create some new term for the Division I level teams?
I'm also in total agreement with you about TCU. I'm a TCU fan and hope they run the table and get the national title.
Edit: Oops. I think I may have inadvertently responded to your post as a response to mine instead of cyclone's. My apologies.
It would be nice if there is a playoff-- but there is none yet. Thus we must deal with the system. And the way the system is set up-- it is completely absurd to let a team like TCU or Boise State play for a national championship. The reason? They don't play in conferences with enough depth.
I agree-- the rankings are fairly stupid and arbitrary. But oh well-- that's the way it is!
I think you're misunderstanding my whole argument. I agree with you wholeheartedly. My point was very simplistic; wtf did they create some new term for the Division I level teams?
I'm also in total agreement with you about TCU. I'm a TCU fan and hope they run the table and get the national title.
Edit: Oops. I think I may have inadvertently responded to your post as a response to mine instead of cyclone's. My apologies.
Yeah, I was responding to cyclone.... I should have quoted.... my bad.
It would be nice if there is a playoff-- but there is none yet.
We have a two team playoff. People forget what it was like when we truly had no playoff. #1 would play #8 and #2 would play #5 (or something like that). It sucked IMO.
The BCS is for sure better than the old poll system.
I personally would like to at least start with a +1 scenario.
It would be nice if there is a playoff-- but there is none yet. Thus we must deal with the system. And the way the system is set up-- it is completely absurd to let a team like TCU or Boise State play for a national championship. The reason? They don't play in conferences with enough depth.
I agree-- the rankings are fairly stupid and arbitrary. But oh well-- that's the way it is!
That doesn't matter when you get beat in the postseason by a team that "shouldn't have been there", (i.e., Utah over Alabama and Boise over Oklahoma)
That doesn't matter when you get beat in the postseason by a team that "shouldn't have been there", (i.e., Utah over Alabama and Boise over Oklahoma)
Boise was ranked higher than OU going into that game. Jes sayin. Rankings aren't always BS.
I don't know of any OU fan that would ever say BSU "shouldn't have been there" Obviously they should have.
Now, Hawaii in 2007, maybe you could say it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
