College Football 2008: Who's Number 1?

[Danoff]

Utah, USC, Texas, and OU/Florida will claim they're the best team in the nation. Who do you think is best?

I think nobody's resume is/will be better than Utah's. But 'SC looked pretty amazing killing Penn. Texas already beat OU, so if OU beats Florida, Texas has a claim. If Florida beats OU, it's less clear.

I was at the Texas-Ohio game in AZ, and I have to say I was impressed by the amount of booing that went on when BCS officials were introduced. Maybe a season like this well help change things.

My final standings:

1) Texas
2) Utah (strength of schedule keeps them out of 1st)
3) Florida/OU (depending on outcome tomorrow)
4) USC

I can see an argument for putting OU ahead of Utah in the event of a blowout against Florida.

 

[Omnis]

I say hold a playoff.

 

[Danoff]

I stand by my previous standings.

1) Texas
2) Utah
3) Florida
4) USC

Good article on the subject: http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/t...-really-deserves-the-no-1-ranking?eref=fromSI

Omnis: Wouldn't it be nice? But right now, all we have is speculation.

 

[Pupik]

I think we'll never see a playoff.

The NCAA likes seeing tongues wagging long after the BCS Championship is played. It wouldn't be so bad if the BCS wasn't a flawed system, although having 8-10 New Year's Day bowl games and then having writers and coaches choose their own favorites within 24 hours wasn't much better (at least two teams could claim the spoils of victory).

Yeah, playoffs. I would love to see it, but I fear it's never going to happen; many conferences enjoy their rivalries too much, which honestly is the real backbone of the sport, not the BCS. Face it, the BCS matters to about 15-25 programs, and the rest are looking for respectability.

Rankings for a playoff system would likely still be based on writer's and coaches opinions, which matters for nearly diddly-squat for the first three weeks/polls, anyhow. So the 5th or 9th or 17th team is still going complain about bias because they're left out.

 

[DaddyVDUB]

I thought that was already settled...Florida.

 

[Danoff]

I thought that was already settled...Florida.

Why, because they beat OU? Texas already did that. Then there's Utah who never lost to anyone, and USC who always thinks they're the best.

 

[Pupik]

Of course, the flaw in the Big XII was they way they decide the champion of the division: It was a three-way tie between Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. Instead, the Big XII tie-breaker for the division was who has the higher BCS ranking at the end, which is far from the best way to do it. Or at least, Missouri shouldn't have been in the North division.

BCS does take into account strength of schedule, and opponents' strengths against other opponents (as well as writers' and coaches opinions) but after all, Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral site. Even though points for/against is no longer part of the equation, I suppose the dismantling of Texas Tech by OU was impressive to some writers, who probably also felt Bob Stoops should be given one more chance to prove that he can win a title game in this decade.

If it weren't for momentum, East Coast-bias, strength of conference, and TV popularity contest, USC and Texas could have been in the BCS title game, and possibly even Penn State.

Wait, that's a lot of things. It seems a lot of FBS college football championships are won on paper, and not on the field.

 

[Danoff]

Recently some have been comparing the college football ranking process to a figure skating competition - where style points are very important.