Let's Go Gators!

[FlaHawker 24]

[shredhead 21]

OU and Utah = co national champions

[TheBlade 3]

OU and Utah = co national champions

OU has to win first there, tough guy.

 

GO GATORS!!

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Gators are on the move, but it's still 0-0 towards the end of the 1st quarter.

[jocstrap 8]

OU

[FlaHawker 24]

24-14 GATORS

[Me_2006 14]

[Tom Brady] We're only gonna score 14 points? [/Tom Brady]

[jocstrap 8]

any consolation for a good game?

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

A few observations....

 

It was a good game and I thought the teams were pretty evenly matched. Florida had more in the tank and came up with huge goal line stops.

 

I would love to see a Florida/USC game. Actually, it would have worked out pretty well with a 4 team playoff this year adding USC and Utah.

 

Tim Tebow is good but I've never heard as much knob slobbering as I did on that Fox telecast last night. Good grief, he's not that great.

 

Florida receivers were awesome. I don't remember a dropped ball. They caught everything that came their way and made Tebow look pretty good.

 

Bradford has nice accuracy. He was let down by his receivers on a few different occasions....one being the game changing int. by Black. That was a perfect pass that should have been caught.

[ufeeboy 0]

National Champions!!!

 

 

[RLLD 3,928]

The, purported, best offense in the nation could not score from the 1 yard line on four attempts was a statement, and then they got shut down again from the 6.....

 

The sooners had a very good team, and deserved to be in that game, but Florida is at another level.

 

I don't think the sooners would be able to beat USC either, and I just wish i could have seen USC and Florida play; but the game last night was very entertaining, one of the better bowl games I have seen recently.

[t.j 35]

A few observations....

 

It was a good game and I thought the teams were pretty evenly matched. Florida had more in the tank and came up with huge goal line stops.

 

I would love to see a Florida/USC game. Actually, it would have worked out pretty well with a 4 team playoff this year adding USC and Utah.

 

It would have worked out terribly because USC and Utah were not in the top 4 at the end of the season. I've said it many times and I will say it again, an 8 team playoff is the only way to go.

 

That said, way to go Gators!!!

 

Florida receivers were awesome. I don't remember a dropped ball. They caught everything that came their way and made Tebow look pretty good.

 

Hernandez dropped one in the end zone. Harvin dropped a long one but in coverage. Murphy dropped a long one in the end zone that would have been a one-hander but I've seen a lot of tougher catches made this year. Not a real impressive passing night for Tebow but he did makes some great plays in the air, his long one to Nelson on the last TD drive was a rocket that was just out of reach of the underneath defender, and that jump pass was also a perfect throw across the body against pretty good coverage. He was very shaky early though, a couple of bad decisions, and also his first throw of the night on the screen to Demps was thrown way too hard at a guy who only has 15 catches in his career.

 

Bradford has nice accuracy. He was let down by his receivers on a few different occasions....one being the game changing int. by Black. That was a perfect pass that should have been caught.

 

Yep, Bradford played great.

[Tomahawk Chopper 0]

The, purported, best offense in the nation could not score from the 1 yard line on four attempts was a statement, and then they got shut down again from the 6.....

 

The sooners had a very good team, and deserved to be in that game, but Florida is at another level.

 

I don't think the sooners would be able to beat USC either, and I just wish i could have seen USC and Florida play; but the game last night was very entertaining, one of the better bowl games I have seen recently.

 

Okay, I have to respond to this. Florida at another level? They won the game, sure, but they didn't annihilate anyone to deserve such high grades. They won that game out right, fair and square, but I don't see them being way above and beyond at a different level. I don't think it's fair to say they (OU) couldn't beat USC, blah, blah, blah. That's an unfair assessment. First off, I hate OU. I don't like the Big 12, I despise the SEC (mainly because of Florida), but I do think there's something to be said when these teams are consistently in the Nat'l title hunt.

 

Really look at it all. Texas Tech beat Texas, who then gets beat by Ole Miss. Ole Miss beat Florida. I don't care if it was an extra point; a loss is a loss. USC is always good, however, they weren't undefeated. They dominated Ohio State, who barely lost to Texas in the final minute. The same Texas team claiming they were screwed out of a Nat'l Championship.

 

I'm not trying to start a war on here, but I am saying this: Bowl Games SUCK! Have your bowl games, but let's have them with true championship criteria. Top 8 teams do a playoff - then it doesn't matter who doesn't get to play who, because they didn't earn the opportunity. Now it's simply a coaches poll that's going to pull for their conference and a BCS program that still isn't right. Did I mention my dislike for Texas? As much as I don't like them, why weren't they in the championship game against OU? They both earned the right at the time of the selection to be in that game...

[RLLD 3,928]

Okay, I have to respond to this. Florida at another level? They won the game, sure, but they didn't annihilate anyone to deserve such high grades. They won that game out right, fair and square, but I don't see them being way above and beyond at a different level. I don't think it's fair to say they (OU) couldn't beat USC, blah, blah, blah. That's an unfair assessment. First off, I hate OU. I don't like the Big 12, I despise the SEC (mainly because of Florida), but I do think there's something to be said when these teams are consistently in the Nat'l title hunt.

 

Really look at it all. Texas Tech beat Texas, who then gets beat by Ole Miss. Ole Miss beat Florida. I don't care if it was an extra point; a loss is a loss. USC is always good, however, they weren't undefeated. They dominated Ohio State, who barely lost to Texas in the final minute. The same Texas team claiming they were screwed out of a Nat'l Championship.

 

I'm not trying to start a war on here, but I am saying this: Bowl Games SUCK! Have your bowl games, but let's have them with true championship criteria. Top 8 teams do a playoff - then it doesn't matter who doesn't get to play who, because they didn't earn the opportunity. Now it's simply a coaches poll that's going to pull for their conference and a BCS program that still isn't right. Did I mention my dislike for Texas? As much as I don't like them, why weren't they in the championship game against OU? They both earned the right at the time of the selection to be in that game...

 

See, you just cannot have it both ways......

 

Either Oklahoma was the "real deal" since a good part of the reason they were even IN that game had a considerable amount to do with their conference and schedule. If you look at their scoring stats in unison with this game you come away with the impression that their conference is not terribly strong and their stats were inflated as a result. Then they step in an play a truly good team and then cannot win......this is NOT the first time this has happened either. In a conference like the SEC Oklahoma is a 3rd or 4th place team, and in the Pac-10 always the brides-maid to USC.

 

The fact that they keep getting beat in these match ups is evidence that, while a good team/program, they actually belong in another bowl, playing teams at their level....and denying true contenders such as USC, their change to be in this game because Oklahoma managed to own the lesser competition in their conference(the mis perception being that it is better competition) is denying US the opportunity to see the best teams square off.

[Cuse9 129]

Here's what I don't understand about college football voters.

 

How can Utah be #2? It makes no sense at all.

 

Utah ends the season undefeated with victory over the #1 team in the nation most of the season. They had a quality win over a Oregon State team that beat USC. They beat four teams in the top 25.

 

Their schedule consisted of 6 Bowl teams: Colorado State (7-5), BYU (8-5) TCU (11-2), Air Force (8-5), Oregon State (9-4), Alabama (12-2)

 

So, when they vote for the National Champion they have to put Florida at #1. A power team from a power conference. They won the most important bowl against the "second best" team. Now if you go by that criteria, doesn't Texas and USC HAVE to be ranked ahead of Utah?!

 

USC, tougher schedule, the highest of all the "power" teams and it's from a power conference. Like Florida, they have one loss. Texas, again, one loss. Lost only one game to a top ten team in the last seconds of a game and they're from a power conference. They arguably should have been in the championship game.

 

So......how do the voters of college football justify giving Florida the National Championship and putting Utah at #2, ahead of USC and Texas. For the same reasons you would vote Florida #1, you have to vote USC and Texas 2 and 3. If you're going to put Utah ahead of USC/Texas, then why would you not put them ahead of Florida as well?! The final rankings are all based on assumptions anyway.

 

Bottom line: Utah got hosed, we need a playoff and the BCS sucks.

[t.j 35]

The BCS does suck, we do need a playoff, and Utah did get hosed by not getting a chance to play for the title.

 

That said, voting Utah at #2 isn't senseless. Florida and Alabama both played Utah at the end of the season, with a pretty similar result. That puts them pretty even to start. Utah did finish undefeated and play a decent schedule, but their schedule still does not compare to Florida's. According to the Colley Rankings (one of the computer polls), Florida had the #3 schedule in the country and Utah had the #73 schedule. Florida's loss was to a top-15 team. The only other top-15 team Utah played was TCU, and they beat them by 3. Florida played four teams in the top-15 and only the Ole Miss game was within single digits.

 

I think it ultimately hurt Utah that their big win was vs Alabama, a team Florida also beat. Had Utah beaten USC or something then there would probably be more buzz for the Utes as #1. As it is, the Utes and Gators had a pretty even resume as far as people could tell, and voters were understandably swayed by UF beating not only the #1 team that Utah would beat a week later, but the new #1 team the next game as well. Keep in mind also, Alabama had Andre Smith vs Florida but not vs Utah, and Florida did not have Percy Harvin vs Alabama.

USC and Texas don't have the resume Florida does this season, therefore it doesn't follow as you say that if Florida is ahead of Utah than USC and Texas must be ahead of Utah too. On the one hand, you contradict that point by pointing out that Utah beat a team (Oregon St.) that USC lost to. On the other hand, it's moot because Utah played the Beavers at home and USC did not. I don't think beating Oregon State at home should be considered a real significant win at all for Utah. PSU beat OSU at home, but got shelled by USC who lost at OSU.

 

I think Florida, Utah, USC, and Texas all have great arguments to be #1 and it's a shame that we have a system that didn't settle it. But, I don't agree with your premise that Utah either has to be #1 or #4. I think they're just right at #2, with 1,3,4 within 100 points of them in the AP voting. I think a lot of voters saw it your way, though and picked Utah as either #1 or #4. (In the AP poll where they can vote for whoever, USC got 16 first-place votes and that helped them average out as #2 . In the coaches poll they are not allowed to vote the non-BCS champ #1, and the lack of #1 votes hurt Utah and they averaged out as #4.)

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

The fact that they keep getting beat in these match ups is evidence that, while a good team/program, they actually belong in another bowl, playing teams at their level....and denying true contenders such as USC, their change to be in this game because Oklahoma managed to own the lesser competition in their conference(the mis perception being that it is better competition) is denying US the opportunity to see the best teams square off.

 

USC is not a true contender. They lost to Oregon St. who Utah beat. USC likes to whine about not getting their shot but then they need to take care of business in their own weakling conference.

 

Utah's the only one that got screwed here.

[Cuse9 129]

The BCS does suck, we do need a playoff, and Utah did get hosed by not getting a chance to play for the title.

 

That said, voting Utah at #2 isn't senseless.

My point of them being ranked #2 and making no sense is if they can't justify putting Florida ahead of Utah and then putting USC and Texas behind them for the exact same reasoning Florida is ahead of them....USC and Texas are behind them?! Do they deserve to be #2...absolutely. Does it make sense how/why they put them there...no.

 

I don't understand how college football can't understand there system is the most flawed system in ALL organized sports!

[t.j 35]

My point of them being ranked #2 and making no sense is if they can't justify putting Florida ahead of Utah and then putting USC and Texas behind them for the exact same reasoning Florida is ahead of them

 

I understood what you were saying the first time, I just don't agree with your reasoning. The logic you are trying to use does not follow from the situation. It doesn't make sense to put Florida, USC, and Texas in the same boat.

 

I don't understand how college football can't understand there system is the most flawed system in ALL organized sports!

 

It's about money first and tradition second. The flaws are not important in those contexts.

[Cuse9 129]

I understood what you were saying the first time, I just don't agree with your reasoning. The logic you are trying to use does not follow from the situation. It doesn't make sense to put Florida, USC, and Texas in the same boat.

It's about money first and tradition second. The flaws are not important in those contexts.

Ahh...that's where we disagree.

 

I don't see how you seperate Florida, USC and Texas.

 

Texas, one loss to #10 Texas Tech. SOS, 10

USC, one loss to Oregon St. #19 team. SOS, 9

Florida, one loss to Ole Miss #18. SOS, 4

 

I think all three are from great conferences, all three played a tough schedule, all three had a loss was to a respectable team, all three of them beat good teams and some great teams.

 

Anyway you look at it, all three teams played in a better conference, a harder schedule, had more impressive wins over Utah. So, IMO, if you rank one ahead of Utah, you should rank all three ahead of Utah.

 

I don't think you're right, but I don't think you're wrong...lol, I guess that's the beauty of college football's crappy Bowl system. Just think if the NFL did the same thing. Last year we would have had Dallas and New England for the Super Bowl. Sorry Giants, you're not as good. Noway could you beat the Pats or the Cowboys anyway, just like there is noway Utah could beat USC, Florida or Texas. College football....good grief.

[t.j 35]

Ahh...that's where we disagree.

 

I don't see how you seperate Florida, USC and Texas.

 

Texas, one loss to #10 Texas Tech. SOS, 10

USC, one loss to Oregon St. #19 team. SOS, 9

Florida, one loss to Ole Miss #18. SOS, 4

 

I think all three are from great conferences, all three played a tough schedule, all three had a loss was to a respectable team, all three of them beat good teams and some great teams.

 

Anyway you look at it, all three teams played in a better conference, a harder schedule, had more impressive wins over Utah. So, IMO, if you rank one ahead of Utah, you should rank all three ahead of Utah.

 

Firstly, the bolded part are all very vague criteria and do little to sort out anything. I can see why these criteria would lead you to your conclusion but I don't think they are deep enough points to bother with.

Secondly, I don't know where you're getting your rankings. According to Final AP, TTU is 12, Miss is 14, OSU is 18. Plus, Mississippi beat Texas Tech so that hurts Texas in a direct comparison to Florida, and it also hurts the validity of rankings that put Texas Tech ahead of Mississippi. USC has basically nothing in common with Florida in terms of common opponents, so from that premise alone I would be very hesitant to try to put them in the same boat.

Thirdly, I do not honor the premise of comparing three 1-loss team starting with judging who the one loss was to. That's what so many people did back in 2006 with Michigan and Florida. "Oh, Ohio State by 3 is a better loss than Auburn by 10," they said. That proved to be bogus way to compare teams when Florida beat Ohio State by 27.

 

Anyway, again the main reason I do not put them in the same boat, when you're talking about comparing them to Utah, is that Utah and Florida both played Alabama at the end of the year. That means you've got something good to compare Florida to Utah with that you don't have when comparing Utah to USC or Texas.

Shorthanded Florida beat full strength Alabama by as much as full strength Utah beat shorthanded Alabama, both on neutral fields. So that's in Florida's favor vs Utah. With USC or Texas, there isn't as good of a comparison so whatever people want to use to compare USC and Texas to Utah, It's not going to be the same.

Last but not least, per your own numbers Florida does have a better strength of schedule (and more wins by the way) than USC or Texas. That by itself is all you need to know in terms of having a valid reason to put Florida in a different boat, and Utah in between the boats. You may not think it's a huge difference in schedule, but why does the difference have to be huge?

[RLLD 3,928]

USC is not a true contender. They lost to Oregon St. who Utah beat. USC likes to whine about not getting their shot but then they need to take care of business in their own weakling conference.

 

Utah's the only one that got screwed here.

 

 

USC would maul Utah, comparing the two is folly.

 

That being said, Utah has a legitimate gripe, but the people running this show want to keep the club exclusive.

[Cuse9 129]

Last but not least, per your own numbers Florida does have a better strength of schedule (and more wins by the way) than USC or Texas. That by itself is all you need to know in terms of having a valid reason to put Florida in a different boat, and Utah in between the boats. You may not think it's a huge difference in schedule, but why does the difference have to be huge?

 

The Pac 10 doesn't have a conference title game, so of course USC will have one less win. Texas was denied a shot at the Big Twelve title game based on BCS rankings. So, to say Florida had one more win...weak. As for rankings I can't remember which ones they were. They are all somewhat close, so it's not that big of a deal. My point was they all lost to a decent team that was ranked.

 

As for the difference in schedule, it doesn't have to be huge and that caters to my point. The bold part of your answer to my response is exactly what makes a power team a power team. If three teams are even in all those aspects how can you find a difference? As for judging one loss teams judging by who they lost to, then how do you do it? The fact that they all lost to similar teams speaks of how close the three teams really are.

 

As for the shorthanded Florida beating Bama vs the shorthanded Bama getting beat by Utah. Utah controlled that entire game. It was 14 points, but it was actually a bigger beating than that. Florida had to score two fourth quarter TD's to overcome a three point deficit. Utah dropped 21 on Bama in the first quarter. Utahs victory was much more empahtic over Floridas victory. While I think Smith was a loss for Bama, he wouldn't have been able to slow down Utah's offense.

 

Bottom line is there is no criteria in college football. For the same reasons they'll tout one school they'll ridicule another. It makes no sense. For whatever reason they refuse to let the champion be determined on the field. They love how people will debate who should be/could be the "real champion". Rather than have a legit champ they like the arguements.

[Cuse9 129]

the people running this show want to keep the club exclusive.

EXACTLY!!

[t.j 35]

The Pac 10 doesn't have a conference title game, so of course USC will have one less win. Texas was denied a shot at the Big Twelve title game based on BCS rankings. So, to say Florida had one more win...weak.

 

I'm not saying a 12-1 team is necessarily better than an 11-1 team, but to play a tough schedule and play an extra game and still have the same number of losses is meaningful.

 

As for rankings I can't remember which ones they were. They are all somewhat close, so it's not that big of a deal. My point was they all lost to a decent team that was ranked.

 

I know that that's your point. And my point is that such a subjective criteria as to be not useful.

 

As for the difference in schedule, it doesn't have to be huge and that caters to my point. The bold part of your answer to my response is exactly what makes a power team a power team. If three teams are even in all those aspects how can you find a difference? As for judging one loss teams judging by who they lost to, then how do you do it? The fact that they all lost to similar teams speaks of how close the three teams really are.

 

How do you do it? By considering who they beat, and how they did it, of course. You can't summarize an entire season with just a simplistic evaluation of 1 game in a 13+ game schedule.

 

Bottom line:

-Florida's schedule is easier to compare to Utah's than USC's or Texas' schedules are.

-Florida's strength of schedule was better than USC's or Texas'

Thus you cannot tell me with any credibility that Florida and USC and Texas have to all be above Utah or all be below Utah.

 

As for the shorthanded Florida beating Bama vs the shorthanded Bama getting beat by Utah. Utah controlled that entire game. It was 14 points, but it was actually a bigger beating than that. Florida had to score two fourth quarter TD's to overcome a three point deficit. Utah dropped 21 on Bama in the first quarter. Utahs victory was much more empahtic over Floridas victory. While I think Smith was a loss for Bama, he wouldn't have been able to slow down Utah's offense.

 

Hogwash. All that means it that Utah started particularly strong and Florida finished particularly strong.

 

As for the impact of Andre Smith and his lack of impact on Utah's offense, I posted this on another board to an Alabama fan that was mistakenly blaming the defense for the loss:

 

Bama's defense had a tough day against a good offense, probably one of the best 2-3 offenses they've faced this season, one that deserves some credit rather than just saying Alabama's D didn't show up. I strongly disagree though that the loss was "more" about that side of the ball. Here's the Tide offense drive chart:

Alabama Drive Summaries

START QTR POSS. YARD PLAYS YARDS RESULT

15:00 1 02:39 ALA 28 5 -1 Punt

11:02 1 00:48 ALA 28 2 2 Interception

08:37 1 02:39 ALA 20 6 9 Punt

04:01 1 04:06 ALA 42 7 23 Field Goal Good

12:18 2 05:36 ALA 20 12 50 Field Goal Missed

05:28 2 00:00 ALA 27 0 73 Punt Return Touchdown

01:27 2 01:27 ALA 14 6 1 End of Half

14:45 3 03:04 UTAH 30 7 35 Passing Touchdown

10:04 3 05:43 ALA 29 9 39 Field Goal Missed

01:44 3 02:35 ALA 20 4 28 Punt

10:58 4 01:08 ALA 17 3 7 Punt

05:46 4 00:33 ALA 31 2 -4 Fumble

02:49 4 00:59 ALA 49 3 -8 Interception

 

Longest drive of 50 yards, 7 drives of less than 10 yards, sacked 8 times. Total of 12 drives, 208 yards, 3 turnovers, 10 points--that's pathetic.

 

Andre Smith would have made a huge difference in that game. Without him (and his backup who also got injured in the game) they couldn't pass protect to save their lives. MWC champs are known for having great offenses that can compete against anybody but where they weren't supposed to compete is when their defense is on the field. Smith's injury changed that. Without him the Tide could not move the ball, could not score points, and could not give their defense a rest or field position.

 

Bottom line is there is no criteria in college football. For the same reasons they'll tout one school they'll ridicule another. It makes no sense. For whatever reason they refuse to let the champion be determined on the field. They love how people will debate who should be/could be the "real champion". Rather than have a legit champ they like the arguements.

 

Again, I agree, the BCS sucks. The debates suck, a playoff would be much better than the debates.

I hate the people that argue that a playoff would make games less meaningful. That is garbage. There would be more meaningful games if you had a playoff because more teams would be in contention, and even the top teams would still be vying for seeding. Also, most of these games at the end of the season are rivalries and whatnot, it's a stupid premise to begin with to suggest they are not meaningful if they don't impact the championship.