2008 National Champions (NCAAF)

[bigt2k4]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a fan of the SEC, and it sucked in 2005 and 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it didn't.

[tdarko]

Meb,

I said:

[ QUOTE ]
So you simply can't say there isn't incentive b/c there is 12.75 MILLION dollars worth of incentive (between the Rose and Capital One Bowl).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Rose and the title game both pay 17 mil. The Capital paid 4.25. The goal at the beginning of the year is to play in the National Title game and Wisconsin will NEVER play in that game with that schedule unless there are extreme circumstances, USC was going to the title game with a win over UCLA b/c of its non-conference schedule...seriously, how is that not incentive?

If there isn't incentive then why do so many teams (look at many of the Pac-10 non-conference schedules) slip in some beefy non-conference games if there isn't a reason/incentive? So you are saying they are taking a chance at losing to a tough team when there isn't anything to gain from beating that tough team? That is crazy.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Meb,

I said:

[ QUOTE ]
So you simply can't say there isn't incentive b/c there is 12.75 MILLION dollars worth of incentive (between the Rose and Capital One Bowl).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Rose and the title game both pay 17 mil. The Capital paid 4.25. The goal at the beginning of the year is to play in the National Title game and Wisconsin will NEVER play in that game with that schedule unless there are extreme circumstances

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly believe that if Wisconsin goes undefeated next year they won't play in the title game?

[capone0]

SEC didn't have a top flight program in 2005:

They had a bunch of teams in the top 25.

BCS Standings before BCS Bowls:

7: UGA
9: Auburn
12: LSU
17: Florida

2004-

They had Auburn "competing"

AP Poll before Games:

2-Auburn
7-UGA
16-LSU

I think the SEC is MUCH stronger at the top this year then it's been in a while.

[MyTurn2Raise]

The side issue is that Wisconsin, while an improved and respectable program, is not seriously playing for national titles.

They love years like this year, where they will end up in the top5 despite not being a top5 team.

If they run the table, they'll be in the game. This is the remote possibility. Otherwise, they are quite happy to be building up huge records and new years' bowls.

Until tOSU won in 2002, the notion of Big10 teams playing for the national title was unheard. Big10 teams played for the Rose Bowl. The national title was never the goal. At least it wasn't from my time following the conference from the early/mid 80s through the 90s. Some of that thinking still lingers today. I think only Ohio State and Michigan have made the switch over.

Wisconsin builds its schedule to build wins and stay around the top10. If they do this for many years, they might contemplate stepping it up some.

[capone0]

Iowa in the past has competed for 1 title and has been top 15 in a bunch of years since 2002.

2002-#3 Before the Bowl Season (8th After AP)
2003-#13 Before the Bowl Season (8th after)
2004-#8 Before the Bowl Season (8th after)
2005-Not Ranked
2006-Not Ranked

Not sure what their future prospects are though. Wisconsin your right about but that's saying more than a bunch of other teams you might also consider "contenders" right now.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meb,

I said:

[ QUOTE ]
So you simply can't say there isn't incentive b/c there is 12.75 MILLION dollars worth of incentive (between the Rose and Capital One Bowl).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Rose and the title game both pay 17 mil. The Capital paid 4.25. The goal at the beginning of the year is to play in the National Title game and Wisconsin will NEVER play in that game with that schedule unless there are extreme circumstances

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly believe that if Wisconsin goes undefeated next year they won't play in the title game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wisconsin could go undefeated and be shut out of the national title game next season. For example, next year if someone in the SEC goes undefeated and the USC-Nebraska winner goes undefeated, Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl, not the NCG.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meb,

I said:

[ QUOTE ]
So you simply can't say there isn't incentive b/c there is 12.75 MILLION dollars worth of incentive (between the Rose and Capital One Bowl).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Rose and the title game both pay 17 mil. The Capital paid 4.25. The goal at the beginning of the year is to play in the National Title game and Wisconsin will NEVER play in that game with that schedule unless there are extreme circumstances

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly believe that if Wisconsin goes undefeated next year they won't play in the title game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wisconsin could go undefeated and be shut out of the national title game next season. For example, next year if someone in the SEC goes undefeated and the USC-Nebraska winner goes undefeated, Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl, not the NCG.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah its possible, but its a very slim chance. He's stating there is no way wisconsin makes the national championship with their schedule.

[tdarko]

"yeah its possible, but its a very slim chance. He's stating there is no way wisconsin makes the national championship with their schedule."

No I didn't, I said it would have to be extreme circumstances...which is only one scenario, Wisconsin running the table with no or one other team. If any team has the same record as Wisconsin ever, Wisconsin won't be the team picked for homecoming. So once again, why wouldn't you increase your SOS for the more liklihood of having the same record as a fraternity of other teams? Wouldn't you agree that Wisconsin running the table next year is far less likely than them being a 1 loss team (though I believe they will lose more than one game)?

[TheRover]

TTU is gonna pwn. Harrell will be a beast now that he has experience.