Monday morning buffet

It’s a short week, so let’s get it off to a good start.

  • The Quad looks at its #65 team, Vanderbilt.  From the easier-said-than-done department:  “If the team can locate depth at running back and have two of its young, talented receivers step up, the Commodores will do better than the 19.2 points and 256.2 yards of total offense it averaged per game a season ago.”
  • Nick Saban Fights The Power – with contract extension news.  It’s a win-win for everybody!  (Including Les Miles.)
  • Rex Robinson hooks up with Brandon Bogotay.
  • CFR cites this great quote from Steele:  “There is no way that you could find a single #7 team in the country the last 12 years that had a legitimate claim to being in the national title game.” B-b-b-but Cinderellas, fellas!
  • It’s all good in Knoxville – except for that pesky quarterback thing, you know.
  • Matt Hayes counts up all of the non-conference games, and finds that the BCS conference schools left a little too much on the table:  “In the six BCS leagues, there are 57 games against I-AA teams and 111 against non-BCS, Division I teams. That’s 168 chances where teams from BCS leagues could’ve played.” And check out his worst game of the season.
  • Promises, promises from Michael Adams “I don’t think we’re going to see the 30-year tenures in ADs anymore than we are in college presidents these days…” Anybody got a calendar?


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, College Football, Don't Mess With Lane Kiffin, Georgia Football, Media Punditry/Foibles, Michael Adams Wants To Rule The World, Nick Saban Rules, SEC Football

7 responses to “Monday morning buffet

  1. Macallanlover

    As a proponent of the 8 team playoff, I have little issue with Steele’s comment. Usually there is solid consensus around a maximum of 2-3 teams at year’s end, but that misses the point of why we need 8 teams, and not a Plus 1: it legitimizes the eventual champion by taking away the argument of 98% of the fans.

    With the six BCS conferences guaranteed a spot, and a fair way to select the 2 wildcards, you at least have included all the legitimate players. Since the conferences can use any means they choose to select their representative, all their affiliates have had their shot during the season. (You could even have a “play-in game” between the two highest rated mid-majors and give them a guaranteed spot. Last year that would have been Utah and Boise St., with the winner and one wildcard qualifying.)

    I cannot think of a season where you cannot make a decent case for at least two teams as a NC. That is why I feel we have never had a single national champion in D1 CFB. The collegiate basketball, baseball, golf, etc. process doesn’t always crown the best team, but it does shut everyone else up about who is the champ. Without a playoff system in CFB, we will always have dissenters. Until then the arguments about schedules, conference strength, and polls will always result in doubt about who really is “top dawg” in the minds of a sizable portion of the CFB universe.


    • I cannot think of a season where you cannot make a decent case for at least two teams as a NC.

      Not even 2005? Who else besides Texas?


      • Mike In Valdosta

        ’05 Texas-USC may have been the best two teams but they still landed in the MNC based upon polling. Whose to say one, or both, of these teams wouldn’t have stumbled if forced to win 4 games in 4 weeks? With a bracket like this, do Texas and USC still make it? Maybe, but I think Vince Young has a much harder time carrying a team for 4 hours than for 1.




        Penn St


      • Dawg93

        Senator – you are correct about 2005 but that was also a year in which only 11 regular season games were played. Personally I think Maclallan is right but it’s mostly due to the advent of the 12-game schedule. Adding that extra game means you have a tougher time ending the season like 2005 with 2 undefeated teams playing for the title and all other teams having at least 1 loss.

        The years in which there were 12 regular season games (2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008) only ONE of those years was there a BCS title game with 2 undefeateds and everyone else with 1 loss (2002).

        I just think having the 12th game brings more teams into the nat’l title picture.


      • Macallanlover

        Good question because that is a year where a large percentage of fans (not 98%) feel the system got it right; and it may have. But as Mike points out, could Texas have withstood having to win three straight games against highly rated teams? They played two strong teams that year and won both games by three. Victories to be sure, but not dominating performances.

        Penn State only had one loss, by two points on the road to Michigan. UGA as champion of the best conference in CFB has a case. No SEC team has ever lost a BCS title game so it is unproven the winner of that conference isn’t the best every year (OK, a stretch, but still true. That is why every conference has to be given a chance just to shut them up.)

        I think USC had the best team/talent that year, but they lost any right to claim anything because they got their chance and blew it. I am not sure if any of the USC teams would win a playoff, they just never face that grueling a schedule to know. I give them credit for taking on all comers to boost their schedule strength but the PAC 10 is just a weak test.


  2. 69Dawg

    The pesky little problem at UT makes what CMR does at UGA as far as getting elite QB’s all that more amazing. UT can’t get one and we have 4 on the roster.


  3. mattregaw

    UT’s issues will be worked out, I still think they are about 3 solid years from getting back to the force they were under Fulmer but they will get there.

    Nice Site–