Week-by-Week Predictions Top 25 Teams

#26
#26
emainvol said:
that may very well line up for one of the least entertaining bowl seasons in history. Anyone wanna take in WVU v. TCU with me?
Click to expand...

Well, actually I was two BCS teams short, so the committee would have to pick two more from this group. Not sure how that would work out, but I would think the 11-1 team and Michigan would go so the Rose Bowl could have it's precious Pac-10/Big10 split.

West Virginia at 11-1
USC at 10-2
Florida at 10-2
Virginia Tech at 10-2
Michigan at 10-2
Iowa at 10-2

One thing's for sure, it would be interesting. I don't think Louisville and TCU would end up getting matched-up. Louisville would probably play in the Sugar against the SEC winner and TCU either the Fiesta or Orange.
 
#27
#27
Just some friendly observations:

It seems you don't give enough credit to homefield. You have teams losing at home to teams with similiar or lesser talent than the home team.

You're overrating Georgia Tech a lot
You're overrating UCLA alot
You're underrating Notre Dame, as much as I hate to say it
You're underrating Oklahoma a ton
You're overrating Texas A&M
You're underrating Clemson

I can tell you this much: this was far more fun to read than most any NCAAF material because you didn't stick to the preseason norm. You made some BOLD predictions, and I think I've seen enough from you here to know that if and when one of them goes to the pooper, you'll admit it. :)

Awesome posts!
 
#28
#28
I predicted Notre Dame to lose 4 games on another thread...those being Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, and USC. I think this year things don't go easy for the Irish, I think what mostly drives all this will be the collapse of the heisman touted qb.
 
#29
#29
dan4vols said:
I predicted Notre Dame to lose 4 games on another thread...those being Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, and USC. I think this year things don't go easy for the Irish, I think what mostly drives all this will be the collapse of the heisman touted qb.
Click to expand...

I've seen and hard a solid number of people predicting this kind of thing. I guess I can understand it, but I think they lose 2 games MAX. The offense should probably stay on course, and the defense will improve more than people expect, IMHO. And Stanford isn't any good. The game @ GT is going to be tougher than Stanford, on paper. :)
 
#30
#30
VolinArizona said:
The game @ GT is going to be tougher than Stanford, on paper. :)
Click to expand...

It depends on which GT team shows up. I see a lot of them down here and on any given day they can beat the best team in the country or lose to Wake Forest.
 
#31
#31
GAVol said:
It depends on which GT team shows up. I see a lot of them down here and on any given day they can beat the best team in the country or lose to Wake Forest.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. A GT team that doesn't show up is still a tiny bit better than Stanford.
 
#32
#32
I give them a little more credit than that. They have a good defense and at least one serious weapon on offense. I think they'd beat the daylights out of Stanford 9 times out of 10.
 
#33
#33
sjt18 said:
Feasible or wouldn't be smashed by the establishment?

A "feasible" system would be to develop 6-8 D-1 Conferences, let the lesser bowls host championship games for them, let next level bowls host playoff games for them, then let the 5 bowls currently in the BCS alternately host the championship as they do know.

The lesser bowls would probably even make more money. TV would make more money. The biggest problem would be that fewer teams would be involved.
Click to expand...

No way anyone is going to agree to that. Think how often UT would miss going to a bowl game if that were the case. Think about South Carolina. They would probably never have seen a bowl game in this system and likely would not in the future, either. No school would want this system. Also, you would have even more teams screaming about being left out of the playoffs than currently complain about being left out of the BCS championship.
 
#34
#34
kptvol said:
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. When did Ohio State and Texas ever finish clearly 1 and 2? And if the clear cut number 1 and number 2 teams play in the national championship, how is it wrong to claim that the BCS did what it was supposed to do? It is supposed to match 1 vs. 2. It worked last year. Several announcers pointed that out. That doesn't make them stupid. I will give you 5 billion dollars if you can come up with a better system that is even remotely feasible.
Click to expand...


Obviously I goofed and meant to say USC and Texas. My point is that it didn't take a magic formula to determine that USC and Texas were 1-2. So, yeah, well, let's all applaud the wonderful BCS that pitted USC and Texas against each other. As for a better system, if there are more than two undefeated teams with legitimate schedules (i.e. not WVU) or several one-loss teams, a playoff would be much better than a system that is based on computers and a popularity contest. The human polls are stupid, because they are also just ladders. From week to week, the polls never appear to me to be based on the teams' entire body of work. They are only based on the rank you entered that week with and what you did that week, which makes it very unlikely for a team that begins the season outside of the top 15 or so to be able to climb into the top two spots at the end. As for a feasible playoff system, they are plenty of ways to do it, and the NCAA and its member schools would find a way if they really wanted to. In fact, I could use 5 billion dollars, so why not have an 8-team playoff with the first round taking place the week after the conference finals and the semifinals taking place on New Year's Day and the title game the week after that. The four teams that lose in the first round could even go on to play in other holiday bowl games. The first round could take place on campus sites or neutral sites. They would have to move quickly to sell tickets, but they already do that for basketball. As for which 8 teams, beyond the 6 automatic bids (if we kept all 6), a selection committee could fill the remaining spots. The best part is we'd know going in that winning the SEC would always be enough to play for the NC. The only "flaws" in my idea is the first round could conflict with finals week, and some people may think playing up to 16 games are too many for college kids to physically be able to do.
 
#35
#35
kptvol said:
No way anyone is going to agree to that. Think how often UT would miss going to a bowl game if that were the case. Think about South Carolina. They would probably never have seen a bowl game in this system and likely would not in the future, either. No school would want this system. Also, you would have even more teams screaming about being left out of the playoffs than currently complain about being left out of the BCS championship.
Click to expand...


Look man, I do like my system better than his, but, in regards to your criticism, I would rather have a 1-2 loss team complain about not being placed in the top 8 than an undefeated Auburn team finishing 3rd and out of what is basically a 2-team playoff.
 
#36
#36
The key word missed was "feasible." It doesn't matter if you would rather have your system in place. No NCAA team is going to want your system. UT wasn't in the top 8 in 2004, yet finished with on of the best records in the country. Did they not deserve to get some postseason attention with a bowl game? They wouldn't have made the playoffs. Do you think it would have been fair to exclude the second best team in the SEC? I'll bet everyone would be complaining if that happened, and everyone would be whining about what a terrible system is in place.
 
#38
#38
I would think that making the upper tier bowls a part of the playoff system would actually help the lower tier bowls. If the same teams play in several bowls as part of a playoff, then the lower bowls can get better matchups, say 8-3 teams instead of 6-5 teams.
 
#39
#39
ukvols said:
I never said anything about doing away with all of the bowls.
Click to expand...

This would still result in a lot of teams being excluded from bowls. Teams like Memphis deserve to go to a bowl when they put together a good season.
 
#40
#40
The whole point of my argument is that we don't have a playoff because the people making the decisions don't want one, not because it would not be feasible to do so. In regards to the BCS, it will "work" in a year like last year, when two teams very clearly finish 1-2. In a year like OrangeSquare has predicted, the BCS would be a train wreck. Gee, I can't wait for it to tell us which two out of several one-loss teams get to play for the NC.
 
#42
#42
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
I would think that making the upper tier bowls a part of the playoff system would actually help the lower tier bowls. If the same teams play in several bowls as part of a playoff, then the lower bowls can get better matchups, say 8-3 teams instead of 6-5 teams.
Click to expand...

I still don't think it would help that much. Non-playoff bowls would essentially become the NIT.
 
#44
#44
Sorry, I should clarify. I would not use the bowls until the semifinals. They just added a BCS game. That would be the final. In regards to the smaller bowls looking like the NIT, I think you're right, but I also think that they already look like the NIT right now. I now want to share my bowl-viewing habits. I find the bowls to become more and more interesting as they get bigger on the way to New Year's Day. After the Rose Bowl, I peak until the title game. The games between the Rose and the title game (the other BCS games after I have already watched one) look like the NIT to me, and I don't care to watch, with the exception of last year's Sugar Bowl. Perhaps I'm the only one who feels that way during the bowls.
 
#45
#45
Well if the people making the decisions don't want one, it isn't going to happen, obviously. I think there are a lot more people that don't want playoffs, as well. The playoff selection process would ultimately just be some form of the BCS formula, anyway. All the same complaints would still arise. Plus, you'd probably have to shorten the season, because college teams don't want to play 16-17 games a year. That would mean less Big Orange football if we didn't make the playoffs.

Additionally, there are way too many contracts with various TV networks that would prevent any type of playoff system. All these contracts end at different times, and will be renewed at different times. Unless some network collaboration occurs, a playoff system is not feasible. For instance, ABC would never be happy about letting NBC host the playoff bowls. It would make their own bowls seem less attractive. The business side alone of a playoff proposition makes it unfeasible.
 
#46
#46
Aside from the non-important detail that the maximum would be 16 games (12+1+3), I agree with everything you said expect the part about the TV contracts. After the contract to show the BCS bowls expires, everybody could bid on showing the playoffs. But, you're right, it will probably never happen.
 
#47
#47
kptvol said:
This would still result in a lot of teams being excluded from bowls. Teams like Memphis deserve to go to a bowl when they put together a good season.
Click to expand...
What do you consider to be a good season? When I look at the bowl lineups after the regular season, I see a lot of 6-5 teams going to bowls. IMO, that's not a good season, and they are being rewarded for mediocrity.
 
#48
#48
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
What do you consider to be a good season? When I look at the bowl lineups after the regular season, I see a lot of 6-5 teams going to bowls. IMO, that's not a good season, and they are being rewarded for mediocrity.
Click to expand...

Vanderbilt going 6-5 would be the equivalent of UT going undefeated. Should the 'Dores ever again pull off such a season, I think they deserve to go to a bowl. 6-5 may not be acceptable at UT, but for kids at some schools, that would be a miracle season.
 
#49
#49
OrangeSquare said:
I think Purdue finishes in the top 5 of the Conference, and Notre Dame almost always has problems with a few of those Big 10 Teams they should beat.....(See Purdue, Michigan St). I obviously agree with you on Michigan.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly - and I do - Notre Dame crushed Purdue 49-28 @ Purdue last year. Wasn't last year the year Purdue had all 11 starters on defense back? Granted, Purdue DID score more points on ND than a team probably a little closer to your heart, but ND's defense was atrocious last year...Bottom Line - I think you're wrong about Purdue, but you could be right about Michigan - they're better than a lot of people give them credit for.
 
#50
#50
GAVol said:
You dug all the way through that just to see if the Irish got dissed didn't you? :wink2:
Click to expand...


Nah - I've been reading the board for a couple years since the ND - UT game in 2004. And since I married a UT grad I'll cheer for them when their not playing ND. I usually see some level-headed opinions on here - that Purdue prediction just looked like a pick from someone using their heart rather than their head.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top