Who or what is more overrated?

[JLEW1818]

CBS sports question of the day.

[JLEW1818]

I chose 8 team playoff.... b/c i think 4 teams is plenty...

Virginia Tech, I think they will go to another BCS bowl game this year, making them NOT overrated.. I believe most magazines have them at about 7-10 ... which is about right.

Terrelle Pryor, is going to be a great player... can you really say he is overrated ?? not yet... he aint getting that much hype yet.... so not him

Erin Andrews ... if you think she is overrated ... those are fighting words... hehe

Bowl games might be the best time of the year? not overrated

[ndpruitt03]

I chose bowl games. They don't really matter.

[CK Sooner]

Virginia Tech. They are the Oklahoma State of the ACC.

[JLEW1818]

Virginia Tech. They are the Oklahoma State of the ACC.

but they win the ACC

[CK Sooner]

but they win the ACC

Is it really that hard? If Baylor was in the ACC they would make a run at it.

[JLEW1818]

I don't think so...

They beat Cincy last year ... held them to 7 points.. how many did we hold them to? haha... (not that i really care)

[Curly Bill]

Playoffs = most overrated.

Wouldn't solve any problems, would just create different ones.

[CK Sooner]

I don't think so...

They beat Cincy last year ... held them to 7 points.. how many did we hold them to? haha... (not that i really care)

Well the last years Missouri team would.

[OUAlumni1990]

Who in their right mind would ever call Erin Andrews overrated?

[JLEW1818]

they played great against northwestern....hehee

those bastards lots me money!!!!!!!!!! didn't cover my spread!! bastards

[JLEW1818]

Who in their right mind would ever call Erin Andrews overrated?

agree.... but somebody is going to do it!!!! AND IT'S GOING TO BE YOU BADGER!!!! I'M WAITING ON IT!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

[RedstickSooner]

I thought about putting Erin simply because some of you seem as enamored with her as, say, ESPN is with Tim Tebow. The question isn't which of these are lousy. Just, which are overrated.

But, clearly, even if I don't share your complete devotion to Erin, an 8 team playoff is lame. Four teams is enough. (I prefer Bonnie Bernstein to Erin Andrews. It's just a personal preference thing.)

[ndpruitt03]

Playoffs = most overrated.

Wouldn't solve any problems, would just create different ones.

It would actually make the regular season mean something if done right. Right now the regular season means very little to nothing. Especially in big conferences and with the top teams annually. You can lose a game or two and still win it all. Then the post season means nothing too because the games are a month later.

[JLEW1818]

Bonnie is kinda cute

[JLEW1818]

It would actually make the regular season mean something if done right. Right now the regular season means very little to nothing. Especially in big conferences and with the top teams annually. You can lose a game or two and still win it all. Then the post season means nothing too because the games are a month later.

disagree 100%

Every game matters right now.... see USC vs Oregon State last year........ see Penn State vs Iowa last year..

an 8 team playoff would make regular season games less meaningful...

haha

[ndpruitt03]

disagree 100%

Every game matters right now.... see USC vs Oregon State last year........ see Penn State vs Iowa last year..

an 8 team playoff would make regular season games less meaningful...

haha
Not if it is done right. In fact a 16 team playoff works if done right. Florida lost a game last year in the regular season. LSU lost 2 games the year before, I can go on and on with examples over the years of teams that may have not gotten in. But also if lose a game or two then the season doesn't matter because you got a bowl game anyway that's meaningless. When there were about 15 to 20 bowl games it was great. You lose 3 games you may not go bowling. But now there's 40 bowl games and over half the teams in Div 1a get in a playoff. To give you an idea of how big a percentage of teams get in. Add all the playoffs together in Div 1 basketball and about 1/3rd of all teams in Div 1 get into the post season. College season's regular season is complete diluted by the bowls right now. Nobody realizes it though.

[JLEW1818]

But every game matters in college football... you claim that a tourny would make every game matter more, not true.

having 16 teams, means you can lose a game and it won't matter. as far as teams wanting to go to a championship..

now i understand that if there was a 16 team tourney it would make more "bowl" games matter... but not make more regular season games matter.... i get where u are coming from tho.

[ndpruitt03]

But every game matters in college football... you claim that a tourny would make every game matter more, not true.

having 16 teams, means you can lose a game and it won't matter. as far as teams wanting to go to a championship..

now i understand that if there was a 16 team tourney it would make more "bowl" games matter... but not make more regular season games matter.... i get where u are coming from tho.

Every game does not matter in college football.

Here's how you do playoffs right.

8 teams you have the home teams in the first round and have the home teams listed by higher seeds in a BCS type system. Being a top 4 team gives you an advantage of playing a home playoff game. This would make it real important to be a top 8 team and even more important to be a top 8 team. Home field advantage in football is sometimes impossible to overcome with top teams.

16 teams have the 11 conference champs and 5 at large teams. Have every league determine a conference champ in some way(through a conference title like some do or through what the Pac 10 does and play every one vs everyone) You would have to have some type of independent clause also. If they have 9 wins or something they get an auto bid or something. This would hurt the playoff some but Notre Dame fans wouldn't be pissed off. But after all the teams get in you seed them by rankings have have home games for the first 2 rounds.

Both of these would make the regular season matter MORE than it does right now. Right now the season only matters if you are undefeated or a top 3 team all year. Outside of that the regular season basically means nothing. There is no difference between the BCS bowls(outside of the NC game) and the Independence. They are all equally worthless because so many teams get in a bowl. If you just have the playoffs the season would actually matter.

[JLEW1818]

for teams that want to win a championship under the current system.. every game does matter....

did the Oregon State loss matter for USC??

Okay, so under the current system... which game can the Sooners lose and still go to the national title game?

every game matters for championship teams... I'm not even talking playoffs... I'm just saying every game does matter for teams that want to go to the National Title game... did the Tech loss matter for Texas???? yes

[ndpruitt03]

for teams that want to win a championship under the current system.. every game does matter....

did the Oregon State loss matter for USC??

Okay, so under the current system... which game can the Sooners lose and still go to the national title game?

every game matters for championship teams... I'm not even talking playoffs... I'm just saying every game does matter for teams that want to go to the National Title game... did the Tech loss matter for *Texas*???? yes

Did the OU game against Texas really matter? Not after they lost to Tech. That's OU's biggest game of the year and that game really didn't matter at all. That's the bowl system for you.

[JLEW1818]

At the time it did matter tho. and before the season the game mattered.... how would your way fix anything??? then that would mean that the tech ou and texas losses didn't matter b/c they would still go the tourney...


can you answer the question. did the USC and Penn State losses matter?

[CK Sooner]

Every game does not matter in college football.

Here's how you do playoffs right.

8 teams you have the home teams in the first round and have the home teams listed by higher seeds in a BCS type system. Being a top 4 team gives you an advantage of playing a home playoff game. This would make it real important to be a top 8 team and even more important to be a top 8 team. Home field advantage in football is sometimes impossible to overcome with top teams.

16 teams have the 11 conference champs and 5 at large teams. Have every league determine a conference champ in some way(through a conference title like some do or through what the Pac 10 does and play every one vs everyone) You would have to have some type of independent clause also. If they have 9 wins or something they get an auto bid or something. This would hurt the playoff some but Notre Dame fans wouldn't be pissed off. But after all the teams get in you seed them by rankings have have home games for the first 2 rounds.

Both of these would make the regular season matter MORE than it does right now. Right now the season only matters if you are undefeated or a top 3 team all year. Outside of that the regular season basically means nothing. There is no difference between the BCS bowls(outside of the NC game) and the Independence. They are all equally worthless because so many teams get in a bowl. If you just have the playoffs the season would actually matter.

You don't make sense.

[silverwheels]

Bowl games in the current system are overrated. If we're going to have them, at least have the old tie-ins. Screw the Fiesta Bowl.

Erin Andrews is also overrated. Am I saying she's not attractive? No, but everyone with a Y chromosome drools over her like she's the only good-looking chick on the planet. She's not even the best-looking lady that reports on sports (see Melanie Collins of the Big Ten Network, among others).

Also, if a playoff were implemented, 8 teams seems to be the right number proportionally to the number of teams in the top division. But all of the logistics of a playoff would be too much trouble, so just go back to the old system and don't give out a championship at the end, since it's not the right system for that.

And no, every game certainly does not matter in the current system, and I hate it when people say that. If that were true, every team would have an equal shot at playing for the national championship at the start of the season, but that's not the case. Nearly half of the division is, for all intents and purposes, ineligible for the BCS title game before the season starts, regardless of their record at the end of the season. And for most teams, one loss and their hopes at the title are shot as well.

[JLEW1818]

of course teams are going to lose games and still get in ... Like OU and Florida this year .... but what about years like 2004 and 2005 ?

[JLEW1818]

Bowl games in the current system are overrated. If we're going to have them, at least have the old tie-ins. Screw the Fiesta Bowl.

Erin Andrews is also overrated. Am I saying she's not attractive? No, but everyone with a Y chromosome drools over her like she's the only good-looking chick on the planet. She's not even the best-looking lady that reports on sports (see Melanie Collins of the Big Ten Network, among others).

Also, if a playoff were implemented, 8 teams seems to be the right number proportionally to the number of teams in the top division. But all of the logistics of a playoff would be too much trouble, so just go back to the old system and don't give out a championship at the end, since it's not the right system for that.

And no, every game certainly does not matter in the current system, and I hate it when people say that. If that were true, every team would have an equal shot at playing for the national championship at the start of the season, but that's not the case. Nearly half of the division is, for all intents and purposes, ineligible for the BCS title game before the season starts, regardless of their record at the end of the season. And for most teams, one loss and their hopes at the title are shot as well.



but every BCS conference school has an equal shot.

the other conferences is another debate.

[silverwheels]

but every BCS conference school has an equal shot.

And that's not the point I was making, nor is it fair. Utah did what was asked of them last year and had to settle for a non-championship bowl game. They can't control how strong the teams in their conference are, nor is it that easy for them to just join a BCS conference. The current setup is not fair for everyone, which is my main problem with it. The human polls would be next on the "problems with the current (and old) system" list.

[ndpruitt03]

At the time it did matter tho. and before the season the game mattered.... how would your way fix anything??? then that would mean that the tech ou and *Texas* losses didn't matter b/c they would still go the tourney...


can you answer the question. did the USC and Penn State losses matter?

If you want to keep the bowls and make the regular season matter,

1) decrease the number of bowls to the low 20s

2) Move the Bowl games back a few weeks and end in mid December instead of new years. Maybe have the bigger bowl games around Christmas at the latest Yes this takes way from New Years prestige. There's always been New Years Bowl day prestige in the past. But when the Humanitarian Bowl gets a New Years Day bowl that pretty much throws that out of the discussion.

3) Have the 1 vs 2 team play then instead of bowls choosing who they get make it 3vs 4 all the way down to 9vs10 or whatever the rankings are based off of conference champs. And don't automatically give the NC game winner away. Let's say that the 3rd ranked team and the 2nd ranked team are close in rankings or the top 3 are all neck and neck and the 3 team wins and somehow through computer rankings or through the poll rankings because of how impressive they were over how impressive they were jumps to number 1 they should still have a shot at the NC. This could make those bowl games actually matter.

4) Either make everyone have a conference or get rid of those games. It hurts conferences that have them more than anything else.

[JLEW1818]

Utah could start with winning their conference consistently, if they are so good and deserving. ... i know it's still kinda unfair, since they were undefeated... but it would help their case if they won it more.

[ndpruitt03]

but every BCS conference school has an equal shot.

the other conferences is another debate.

You really think Oklahoma State or Baylor or even Tech actually have a shot at the National Title this year? How about Northwestern or Vanderbilt or Stanford or anyone else in the PAC 10 not with the initials USC have a shot?

[JLEW1818]

Yes they do, win all their games in a BCS conference and you will go to the national title game.... (except Auburn during 04, but play a harder non-conference)

Now your saying teams don't have a shot b/c they are not as good... that's not the debate... if Oklahoma State wins every game this year, they will go to the national title game....

Now, i really don't get what your saying, now your saying its not fair, b/c teams are not as good. hahahahahahahahah

[JLEW1818]

THAT'S WHY EVERY GAME MATTERS... IF YOUR BAYLOR ... WIN EVERY GAME!..IF YOUR ANYBODY... WIN EVERY GAME.... (bcs conference)

[ndpruitt03]

Utah won every game twice and hasn't won a national title, Boise State won every game and has no national titles to speak for.

[silverwheels]

Utah could start with winning their conference consistently, if they are so good and deserving. ... i know it's still kinda unfair, since they were undefeated... but it would help their case if they won it more.

The MWC has only been around since the 1999-2000 season, and Utah has won at least a share of the conference 4 times, including two undefeated regular seasons.

[JLEW1818]

Utah won every game twice and hasn't won a national title, Boise State won every game and has no national titles to speak for.

I said BCS conference

and I'll agree with you, the Non -BCS schools is another debate...

[JLEW1818]

The MWC has only been around since the 1999-2000 season, and Utah has won at least a share of the conference 4 times, including two undefeated regular seasons.

so would you consider them an Elite team?

[ndpruitt03]

Utah went undefeated and beat Pitt in the BCS with Urban Meyer as their coach. There is no reason a Non BCS undefeated doesn't deserve a shot especially in conferences like the WAC and MWC that have gotten stronger over the recent years. WAC had Hawaii make a BCS game and get killed. Boise has been strong a lot of years. MWC last year had 3 or 4 really solid teams also and have had a consistent TCU team that beat us one year.

[ndpruitt03]

so would you consider them an Elite team?

Who cares about elite team? Where they possibly the best team in the country last year? Yes

[JLEW1818]

So now the WAC and the MNC are as strong as the Big 12 and SEC ?

[CK Sooner]

Who cares about elite team? Where they possibly the best team in the country last year? Yes

Wait, your saying Utah was the best team in the country last year?

:D:D:D

[JLEW1818]

Who cares about elite team? Where they possibly the best team in the country last year? Yes

if that's a national title game... do they still beat Alabama? I think Alabama would play way different....

which makes me somewhat agree with you on things...

[JLEW1818]

I would be more in favor of a plus 1....

[silverwheels]

so would you consider them an Elite team?

What does that have to do with anything, least of all the point we're discussing?

[JLEW1818]

Like yall are saying tho.... the game "mattered" for Utah... it didn't really "matter" for Alabama.

that's why I'm more in favor of a plus one system... Still makes all the games meaningful.

[silverwheels]

Yet, on the other end of the spectrum, if there are more spots in a playoff, more teams would be fighting for those spots, thus more games, especially in the last month of the season, would be more "meaningful". So, still, that's not a good argument against a small playoff. Now if it were 16 teams, then you have a point. Even 8 teams would still create a bunch of drama in the regular season, which so many people seem intent on preserving.

[JLEW1818]

but can you really say 16 teams deserve a shot at the title??? the point of the BCS was to try and get the 2 best teams

[ndpruitt03]

Yet, on the other end of the spectrum, if there are more spots in a playoff, more teams would be fighting for those spots, thus more games, especially in the last month of the season, would be more "meaningful". So, still, that's not a good argument against a small playoff. Now if it were 16 teams, then you have a point. Even 8 teams would still create a bunch of drama in the regular season, which so many people seem intent on preserving.

I agree especially if there's no bowl games, and having a home game in the first round. It would basically be the same as a 4 team playoff.

[silverwheels]

No, and I didn't say that 16 teams did deserve a shot. Of course, how can you tell how many teams truly deserve a shot, when the regular season is only 12 games long (rounding off, that's 10% of the teams in 1-A), and the strengths of conferences and individual schedules differ vastly across the board. While I harbor a pretty strong dislike for the BCS, I can understand the problems with instituting a playoff, and I can also see why people would be against it.

[ndpruitt03]

but can you really say 16 teams deserve a shot at the title??? the point of the BCS was to try and get the 2 best teams
The only reason I like a 16 team playoff is to put all the conference champs in a playoff.

[JLEW1818]

i mean don't get me wrong... a 16 team tourney would be fun to watch

[Curly Bill]

It would actually make the regular season mean something if done right. Right now the regular season means very little to nothing. Especially in big conferences and with the top teams annually. You can lose a game or two and still win it all. Then the post season means nothing too because the games are a month later.

Did you read this to see if it made any sense before posting it?


...what does having the postseason games a month after the regular season have to do with what they mean?

[JLEW1818]

name more than 1 team that has lost 2 games, and still won a bcs title

[RedstickSooner]

If you want to keep the bowls and make the regular season matter,

1) decrease the number of bowls to the low 20s

2) Move the Bowl games back a few weeks and end in mid December instead of new years. Maybe have the bigger bowl games around Christmas at the latest Yes this takes way from New Years prestige. There's always been New Years Bowl day prestige in the past. But when the Humanitarian Bowl gets a New Years Day bowl that pretty much throws that out of the discussion.

3) Have the 1 vs 2 team play then instead of bowls choosing who they get make it 3vs 4 all the way down to 9vs10 or whatever the rankings are based off of conference champs. And don't automatically give the NC game winner away. Let's say that the 3rd ranked team and the 2nd ranked team are close in rankings or the top 3 are all neck and neck and the 3 team wins and somehow through computer rankings or through the poll rankings because of how impressive they were over how impressive they were jumps to number 1 they should still have a shot at the NC. This could make those bowl games actually matter.

4) Either make everyone have a conference or get rid of those games. It hurts conferences that have them more than anything else.

Okay, couple things. First, you seem to be going under the mistaken assumption that bowl games are somehow regulated by someone -- and that there would, therefore, be someone who had the power to just go and "cut" some bowls.

Simply isn't true. The only group that could cut those bowls are the bowls themselves -- and obviously 20 bowls don't want to eliminate themselves.

More importantly, if some group (like the NCAA) truly did have that power, they could use it much more effectively by simply enforcing some competition during the season. I've long maintained that the biggest change we should push for would be to give the NCAA power to schedule 2 games a season, for each team. Some competition committee could have control over that scheduling, basing it on the previous year's final rankings & records, etc.

There is nothing which would benefit the sport more than to force teams to have some good competition during the season. If we had more proper competition during the season, we wouldn't have to resort to computers, tea leaves, and coaches who don't have time to watch games deciding who deserved to play in the best bowl games.

It'd be good for ratings, good for competition, and good for proving which teams were the best -- on the field. Not in some formula.

Suggesting that an expanded playoff somehow *increases* the importance of every regular season game is absolutely ludicrous. Lemme put it as simply as I can:

Under the current system, the only way to guarantee a shot is to go undefeated. And even then, some years (2004), you'll get left out.

Under an 8 team playoff system, you know all you've got to do is end up in the top eight. And if you're an elite team, you know full well that means you can drop a game and make it.

Move the bowls to mid-December? WTF? Dude, you just don't get it. Bowl games aren't some mathematical performance, executed for the sake of convenient bracket resolution. They're a holiday-time celebration of the world's greatest sport. If we do anything, it should be to add a second round of games a week after new year's, with the national championship game one week after that.

Me, Id mostly like to better fill up the week between Christmas and New Year's. Pull a couple bowls from New Year's Day, and increase the quality of the games during that week. But, again, there's no regulation of bowl games. So we'd have to convince them financially, or with pressure from the broadcasters.

I do agree with how they should assign teams. The current BCS bowl team selection process is retarded. (Thanks, Rose Bowl, you giant sucktacular pimple on our true national sport's taint.) It should rotate each season which bowl is in which position, and BCS numbers should assign teams. Not individual bowls picking teams based on which conference they have man-love for, or which team travels best. Like you said, the best game is #1 vs #2 for the crystal football, then there's a really good game between #3 and #4, a darned good one between #5 and #6, etc.

And, frankly, all of those games should be good matchups. everyone is up against someone who had a similar level of success during the season, so nobody ends up getting stuck playing someone that isn't worthy of them. The only sucky game should be the final 1 or 2 BCS bowls, which can get whatever automatic-berth conference champ dregs are left after the top 6 have been slotted.

Still, like I said earlier in this post, the biggest change we need is better in-season competition, and we'd have to have someone like the NCAA force it on teams. In the current world, teams are timid and know that if they schedule too many good foes, they're pretty much guaranteeing they won't make it to the Big Dance.

[ndpruitt03]

Did you read this to see if it made any sense before posting it?


...what does having the postseason games a month after the regular season have to do with what they mean?
They make the games mean less because so much time passes and also teams aren't used to playing in games as much as they were. Teams lose their rhythm on both sides of the ball. Bowl games are usually the worst played games of any post season games in any league.

[Curly Bill]

They make the games mean less because so much time passes and also teams aren't used to playing in games as much as they were. Teams lose their rhythm on both sides of the ball. Bowl games are usually the worst played games of any post season games in any league.

That doesn't answer the question. The games may not be well played because of the extended time off, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of those games.

Try again.

[JLEW1818]

or we could just kick the pac10 and big10 out

[badger]

I vote Erin Andrews.

[JLEW1818]

I vote Erin Andrews.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

knew it

[Curly Bill]

I vote Erin Andrews.

You don't lust after Erin Andrews? ;) ;) ;)

[JLEW1818]

agree.... but somebody is going to do it!!!! AND IT'S GOING TO BE YOU BADGER!!!! I'M WAITING ON IT!!!! :D :D :D :D :D





:pop:

[badger]

:pop:

i didn't even look at the rest of the thread - i saw the poll, was like "hmm, erin andrews... sideline reporter... whatev" and she got my vote.

keep in mind that it's that beyonce that prevented ou's own stacey dales from getting that role.

[Curly Bill]

Stacey and Erin....I like the both of them. :hot:

[bluedogok]

You Erin fans may want to checkout Barstool Sports (http://boston.barstoolsports.com/).

[OUAlumni1990]

You Erin fans may want to checkout Barstool Sports (http://boston.barstoolsports.com/).

:D

[BoulderSooner79]

I vote Erin Andrews.

I knew it.... You prefer Bonnie Bernstein.

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's useless. Even if it is her it's only good for about a quarter stroke!

[soonerfan28]

USC's offense.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Eight team playoff. Simply because I don't think any 2-loss team should have any shot at winning a national championship. In a four team playoff, this is even possible.

Virginia Tech a close #2.

[Crucifax Autumn]

You Erin fans may want to checkout Barstool Sports (http://boston.barstoolsports.com/).

I do freelance writing for a company that provides content for websites. It didn't take long for a customer to request an article about this incident obviosly hoping for a load of hits to their website. I of course jumped on it!


ESPN hottie and fan favorite Erin Andrews has joined the growing list of celebrities caught sans-clothes on video.

While rather short, the video is quite revealing and shows plenty of Erin's finer qualities! The Erin Andrews peephole video has raised legal protests from both ESPN and Andrews' attorney. Through a statement released by Andrews' attorney, she claims the video was taken without her knowledge and vows to bring criminal charges to the yet unidentified perpetrator to "ensure that others are not similarly violated".

This is a contrast to the statement to the site that published the video from ESPN that states "It has come to my attention that you have posted on your site pictures of a young, blonde woman" while never affirming that the video is indeed the actual Erin Andrews.

Erin Andrews has been an ESPN reporter since 2004, beginning with coverage of the NHL. Since then she has been a sideline reporter during ESPN's coverage of NCAA football. She is currently featured in EA Sports' NCAA Football 2010 alongside ESPN superstar Kirk Herbstreit.

ESPN has repeatedly asked that the video be removed. However, much like other revealing celebrity videos, it has been re-uploaded repeatedly. It seems that the Erin Andrews peephole video will remain available despite all the legal wrangling. Andrews, who recently made headlines after being hit by a foul ball hit by New York Mets infielder Alex Cora in the chin, will join the ranks of many other celebrity hotties who in one way or another have been "unveiled" thanks to the viral nature of the internet.

[jumperstop]

That's useless. Even if it is her it's only good for about a quarter stroke!

I hope you are refering to something else, but i'm afraid you're not...

[Crucifax Autumn]

And yeah...If I was speaking my mind I woulda called Kirk a dooshbag, but I'm trying to make money dammit!

[Crucifax Autumn]

I hope you are refering to something else, but i'm afraid you're not...

What else? Swimming ferchristssake! lol

[jumperstop]

I voted for the 8 team playoff. Too many people are on the playoff bandwagon, and if there is a realistic option it would have the be a 4 team playoff.

[JLEW1818]

Seen a lot of Va Tech votes..... explain....

I think between 7-10 is right where they need to be.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I think it has more to do with the fact that it's big news that a huge college that was a powerhouse a few years back being ranked in that area is the issue. I mean really? A perpetually high ranked team being in the top ten warrants as much attention as they are getting? Really?

Big Effin deal...shut up until they are undefeated halfway through the season!

[JLEW1818]

true... and they play Alabama week 1.... so we will see how that goes.

[oudivesherpa]

Who in their right mind would ever call Erin Andrews overrated?

A trappists monk, living in a cave.:D

[silverwheels]

Well, I thought Erin was overrated before, but that was before I saw her without clothes. My...uh...opinion of her...has gone up.

[ndpruitt03]

Eight team playoff. Simply because I don't think any 2-loss team should have any shot at winning a national championship. In a four team playoff, this is even possible.

Virginia Tech a close #2.

LSU 08

[JLEW1818]

Well, I thought Erin was overrated before, but that was before I saw her without clothes. My...uh...opinion of her...has gone up.

:hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot:

[JLEW1818]

LSU 08

freak year... but were they the best team in the nation? I honestly think they were.

[ndpruitt03]

freak year... but were they the best team in the nation? I honestly think they were.

I'm not really sure if they were. But we'll never know. Did Florida lose 2 games the year before?

[JLEW1818]

naw just 1... and Ohio State was undefeated, during the 2006-07 season

[ndpruitt03]

naw just 1... and Ohio State was undefeated, during the 2006-07 season

That's right even though Michigan should have been number 2. No one wanted to see an OSU/Mich rematch.

[goingoneight]

Any answer that isn't "Bowl games" is wrong.

In college football's post season, only one game "matters." Unless you like crowning 7-6 teams "champions."