So...Now What?

floridajacket

floridajacket

The Real DB Cooper
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
17,799
So a Rutgers team that beat UNC 21-16 and South Florida 22-20 is leading the Big East. Still, it will be a travesty if they win out and don't play for the MNC. Except for a thrashing of Miami, their resume would be just as good as a perfect WVU or Louisville season. Not that I think Rutgers could actually slip into #2, but it should still happen.

However, Rutgers has a game left in Morgantown before that and they will most likely lose to WVU. At that point, the Big East will take the team out of Louisville, WVU and Rutgers with the highest BCS ranking, probably WVU. Whoever they pick, though, will not go to the BCS Championship game.

This leaves a cluster for the team to play the OSU/Michigan winner. But, assuming they win out, it looks like it will come to an extremely close battle between Texas and Florida. The two are now .8017 and .7998 in the BCS rating, with the computer polls strongly favoring Florida and human polls liking Texas.
Look for a lot of intense debate, vote watching and computer cursing over the next month between these two fanbases.

There's also the possibility that we have a 1996 repeat with Michigan and OSU playing each other again. I'm sure the computers will rightfully want that to happen, but I'm thinking the human polls will make sure it won't, with Texas and Florida still one-loss teams.

So, here's how the BCS games might look if Texas got the nod:

BCS: OSU/Michigan vs. Texas
Rose: OSU/Michigan loser vs. USC/Cal winner
Fiesta: ND vs. Boise State
Sugar: Florida vs. WVU
Orange:GT (hopefully) vs. Auburn

Note: Fiesta gets ND because the bowls that lose automatic bids to the BCSCG get to pick a team first.

If Florida got the nod:

BCS: OSU/Michigan vs. Florida
Rose: OSU/Michigan loser vs. USC/Cal winner
Sugar: ND vs. Auburn
Orange: GT vs. WVU
Fiesta: Texas vs. Boise State

Personally, I'm hoping for Florida to go to the MNC game. (BTW, I'm not actually a Florida fan. My font only indicates that I'm from Florida) I'd like a game against a new team like WVU instead of Auburn, although that WVU spread offense scares the hell out of me. Also, Texas would likely have a rematch with OSU if they got the BCSCG bid. Considering how OSU dominated Texas earlier in the year, I'd rather not see that matchup again.
 
I think Florida has a better chance at the Championship game if they run the table. This is because their schedule would include a big win in the SEC Championship game to pad their resume'.

Any thoughts?
 
I don't think WestVirginia is a great team, but I think we don't match up well with them. They are built like Clemson, but with a Quarterback that can run it too. I'd rather not play them if we could help it. Shoot Outs are not our thing.
 
GTROY said:
I think Florida has a better chance at the Championship game if they run the table. This is because their schedule would include a big win in the SEC Championship game to pad their resume'.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is a very tough question.

First, Texas definitely has the human polls in their corner, mainly because Texas lost earlier in the year. And if the pollsters actually consider still putting Florida higher, they just think "well, Texas lost to the best team in the land while Florida lost to Auburn."

However, the computer polls know that the Big 12 is crap this year. Despite all the talk of how the ACC is down, the Big 12 is actually rated as the worst BCS conference by the computers. Florida's wins against LSU and Tenn. far surpass Texas wins against OU and Neb. Also, it's worth mentioning that Texas lost big AT HOME to tOSU while Florida had a close game against Auburn on the Plains.

Florida really deserves the bid over Texas. Although Texas might get a small boost from playing TAMU, a Florida victory over Arkansas will give them a clear advantage in the computer rankings.

Will that be enough to overcome the human polls? I just don't know.
 
JoeCakeEater said:
I don't think WestVirginia is a great team, but I think we don't match up well with them. They are built like Clemson, but with a Quarterback that can run it too. I'd rather not play them if we could help it. Shoot Outs are not our thing.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely, Joe.
 
I just have the feeling we end up against a Big East opponent in the Orange Bowl.

playing a Big East team is a no-win situation because they lack national respect....and will come in with a giant chip on their shoulder for multiple reasons.
We were FAR better off playing an SEC opponent.
I am bummed.

Multiple press sources from CFN to Fox to ESPN have already started billing Rutgers as a team of "rudy's"...blah blah blah.

I want some SEC blood!!!
 
I think Fla. is over rated...

I think the whole SEC is over rated. Fla. may still lose
their last game. I don't think they will even be in the
mix for the title hunt.

I'm not going to bore you with all of my reasons for
the above statements, just say they are my opinion.
 
I would rather play an SEC team than a Big East team.
 
Am I the only one who sees a parallel to 1990?

It's amazing to me that GT fans, of all people, would be giving Rutgers grief about only being undefeated because of being in a weak conference (not all folks here and on the Hive are doing so and this isn't directed at any particular poster or post).

Consider back to the 1990 season. We came out of nowhere to be undefeated. We went up to UVA who was ranked very high at the time and beat them in a game that was, to me, eerily similar to last night's Rutgers-L'ville game. We remained unbeaten and from many sources got little respect. Why did we get so little respect? Most felt we didn't play enough good teams and were in a weak football conference.

Hmmm... well all we could do was play the teams on our schedule, right? The ACC had some good teams, right? So what if the conference wasn't a perennial powerhouse conference. We deserved to be the National Champs! How is this different from Rutgers situation (except for the fact that their toughest game was at home and our was on the road).

By the way, I completely understand about US not wanting to play Rutgers and wanting an SEC team. My comments have NOTHING to do with that and aren't addressed at all to folks who just prefer to play an SEC opponent. I TOTALLY get that and agree.
 
Re: Am I the only one who sees a parallel to 1990?

Well, I think the ACC in 1990 was stronger than the Big East this year, but that's just me maybe. I don't think it matters anyway as I expect WVU to beat Rutgers and relegate them to the #3 spot for the BE when all is said and done.
 
The case for Rutgers

In 1869, Rutgers defeats Princeton 6-4 in the first college football game ever played. At that moment in time, Rutgers was on top of the college football world, the best record in all of college football.

Since that time though Rutgers has fallen from their lofty perch. Sure, there have been a couple of undefeated seasons, 9-0 in 1961 and 11-0 in 1976, but these stellar seasons only brought rankings of #15 and #17 respectively in the final polls, revealing what the college football world thought of the program.

Last night #15 Rutgers defeated #3 Louisville 28-25 to take over 1st in the Big East and control their own destiny in reaching a BCS bowl, with a road game @ #10 West Virginia looming.

Rutgers played a helluva game last night. What will this victory over a previously undefeated, highly ranked Louisville team that boasted one of the most powerful offenses mean for Rutgers when the new polls come out next week?

Looking at the AP and USA Today, I can see Rutgers climbing over Boise St., Tennessee, LSU, Arkansas, West Virginia and Louisville, placing them at #9 in the polls. USC vs Cal and USC vs ND, as well as Ohio St. vs Michigan present opportunities for teams ahead of them in the polls to lose.

But how high should Rutgers really climb this week? The BCS cynic in me says hey, they defeated the #3 team in the nation, they are undefeated, why not slot them at #3 in the polls. This won't happen and perhaps for good reason. No one knows what would happen if Rutgers faced off against any of the teams currently ahead of them in the polls, or even some (GT) who are below them in the polls.

But then again, Rutgers has faced their schedule and they are undefeated. Here's a look at some common opponents of Rutgers and other ranked teams, or teams that were ranked at the time of their meeting with the common opponent.

Rutgers 21 ...UNC 16
#8 Notre Dame 45 ...UNC 26

Rutgers 33 ...Illinois 0
#1 Ohio State 17 ...Illinois 10
#16 Wisconsin 30 ...Illinois 24
Iowa 24 ...Illinois 7

Rutgers 34 ...Navy 0
#8 Notre Dame 38 ...Navy 14

Rutgers 28 ...#3 Louisville 25
#10 West Virginia 44 ...Louisville 34
Miami 24 ...Louisville 7

Come December 2nd, I do expect Rutgers to lose to West Virginia, making all this a moot point. But for now, I say rank Rutgers at #3.
 
In !990 ....

we jumped from #16 to #7 when we defeated then #1 ranked Virginia. I would expect Rutgers to make a similar leap to the #9-10 spot as a result of winning last night. It will be a tough road for them to get close to the top if some of the teams in front of them don't lose.
 
Most of the Big East may indeed be crap, but anyone who thinks that WV or Louisville or Rutgers aren't good hasn't watched them.

Rutgers is a quality football team, and should have beaten Louisville by more than they did, were it not for some ST blunders. Lets not forget how Louisville CRUSHED Miami.
 
Re: Am I the only one who sees a parallel to 1990?

JOJATK said:
It's amazing to me that GT fans, of all people, would be giving Rutgers grief about only being undefeated because of being in a weak conference ... Consider back to the 1990 season ...
Click to expand...

Excellent analogy, JOJATK. It sickens me for any undefeated BCS conference champ to not get a shot at the title. It nearly happened to us in 1990.
 
Re: Am I the only one who sees a parallel to 1990?

mm42 said:
Excellent analogy, JOJATK. It sickens me for any undefeated BCS conference champ to not get a shot at the title. It nearly happened to us in 1990.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference. Even though we had been horrible for many years prior to 1989.5 and 1990, we were still Ga. Tech.
Most of the voters and plenty of fans in general still remembered Tech as a powerhouse program from the not so ancient history in 1990.

The problem for Lville, Rutgers, West Va and Boise State is they have zero history of champion pedigree. West Virginia, because of their successful days under Don Nehlan, and because of their first half blowout of uga in last year's Sugar would have probably played for a title if they had gone undefeated this year.

I have no problem with possible flash in the pan teams having to prove their mettle for more than a year or two.

If we were 9-0 right now, I believe we would be #3. At 8-1, we would be behind most of the other one loss historical power teams in the top 10.
 
Re: Am I the only one who sees a parallel to 1990?

pocket_watch said:
There is a big difference. Even though we had been horrible for many years prior to 1989.5 and 1990, we were still Ga. Tech.
Most of the voters and plenty of fans in general still remembered Tech as a powerhouse program from the not so ancient history in 1990.
Click to expand...

What sort of fantasy land do you live in? We were screwed by the AP in 1990. What memories of glory are you talking about? We won the Coaches poll by 1 - ONE - vote! That is an absolute slap in the face to the only undefeated team. The last undefeated team ignored by the AP before that was from the WAC!
 
No fantasy land at all. We were unranked coming into the 1990 season, and didn't turn any heads outside of Atlanta before beating #1 uva. That win got us to #7 I believe, which was a meteoric rise from not being ranked at all in September.

The AP and the UPI were polls, and that is all. Voters formed their opinions before the season and wouldn't move somebody out down or up unless they had to.
We didn't have any respect before the season, and there were simply too many teams in front of us to do what we did.
We did get screwed by the CU officials in both the Mizzu and ND game. (Only time I have seen the ish get a bad call I think), and should have won the AP too, but it was a miracle that we got half of a title! So many teams in front fell on their faces.

Now, if there were no polls during the season, and the only vote occurred after all the games were played, we would have probably won both. That's not the way it worked then or now though.

As you recall, we started 1991 ranked very highly. If we had produced the same results as the year before, it would have been a very different story.
I happen to like it that way.
 
Well, you can officially throw my scenarios with Auburn out the window.

At one point, the Georgia LB Trey Battle had more interceptions (3) than Auburn receivers had receptions (2). At least Reggie wasn't the worst quarterback in Division I-A today.
 
Yep, looking more and more like a potential Orange Bowl match-up with West Virginia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top