Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Who SHOULD be #2 in the BCS?


theeohiostate
 Share

Recommended Posts

You're absolutely right it's my perception. It's everyones perception. I'm just tired of hearing how Ohio State has to prove something OOC, because the Big Ten was down (only based on perception). I just feel that if the SEC wants to chirp about there conference leaders playing someone OOC, it's the pot calling the kettle black. That said, I am of the opinion, that the SEC is a damn good conference, and my perception is they are the best conference. But come bowl time, that won't mean anything, and we'll see which conferences are good, and which are bad.

 

Correction, if you have been reading any of this, not everyones perception!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe your right...I think OSU pads their schedule with weak OOC ...(Great it worked.) I'm begining to think we are not as good as I once thought...OH NO...HERE COMES THE SLEEPLESS NIGHTS.

 

Good Luck to your Tigers I think they are most deserving a spot in the title game to bad they lost a couple of conference games...but seeing it's the SEC I can understand. I'm sure the mighty Tigers would have easily whipped us poor Mid-Westeren schools, BUT they are not in the BIG TEN they are part of THE SEC so they will be overlooked again. I suppose LSU will get to play Wisconsin in the Capital One Bowl. I hear it's a nice place to vacation.

 

By the way here's LSU's mighty schedule for this season

9/2 UL Lafayette W 45-3...(WOW...pretty big ballers here.)

9/9 Arizona W 45-3 (Here's a underated Wildcat squad.)

9/16 at Auburn L 7-3 (LOSS)

9/23 Tulane W 49-7 (Please stop scheduling these killer teams)

9/30 Miss State W 48-17

10/7 at Florida L 23-10 (ouch out of the Title picture)

10/14 Kentucky W 49-0

10/21 Fresno State W 38-6 (very weak this season but hey they were good last year)

11/4 at Tennessee W 28-24

11/11 Alabama W 28-14

11/18 Ole Miss W 23-20 OT (hmmm...that's right the mighty SEC) Overtime huh..Yeah.

11/25 at Arkansas W 31-26

 

LSU TIGERS 2005 below

############################################################

2005 Schedule

CFN Prediction: 10-1

2005 Record: 11-2

Preview 2005 predicted wins

 

9/10 at Arizona St W 35-31 (Where did ASU end up last year???) and the Tigers squeak by.

9/24 Tennessee L 30-27 OT

10/1 at Miss State W 37-7

10/8 at Vanderbilt W 34-6

10/15 Florida W 21-17

10/22 Auburn W 20-17 OT

10/29 North Texas W 56-3..(This team is in Texas so they must be good) I think there was a movie about NTU with Kathy Ireland as the kicker I will give y'all points on that one she is hot.

11/5 Appalachian St W 24-0 ( WHEW APP STATE....LOOK OUT I understand what your talking about take on the world)

11/12 at Alabama W 16-13 OT

11/19 at Ole Miss W 40-7

11/26 Arkansas W 19-17

12/3 SEC Championship

Georgia L 34-14

12/30 Peach Bowl

Miami W 40-3

 

Amazing that a here, here got this response!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you say Ohio State needs to PROVE themselves outside of the big ten, well so does Florida. So does Arkansas. So does Auburn. So does LSU. None of those teams have major OOC wins. And yet somehow, Ohio State needs to prove something. Bottom line, is no matter who Ohio State faces (looks like USC) glendale, whether its michigan or usc, they will be 13-0. National Champs.

 

 

Wow, we seemed to be on the same page now. Believe it or not we AGREE. I'm not picking on Ohio State or the Big Ten. That's why I think bowl games should match teams from different conferences. You're 100% correct in my opinion. LSU, Florida, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Louisville etc. all have something to PROVE. Matching up LSU with Florida in the Sugar (although LSU fans would love another crack at the Gators) would not be in the best interest of college football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, not having a playoff between USC and Michigan to see who would face OSU is really gay. But since college football doens't want to put these kids through anymore games due to allot of gay excuses,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree here somewhat. The BCS and NCAA Division 1 football is a crock! The NCAA's big thing a couple years back when every team played an 11 game regular season was that a playoff would add an extra game to those participants' schedules. Due to injury, schoolwork, blah, blah, blah, they didn't want to do that. So what happens? Now, every team plays a 12 game regular season schedule anyway. So what was the freekin' point of that? To silence the playoff talk altogether? The NCAA is so full of sh*t! I say drop the 12th regular season game and have the top 8 in a playoff. 4 of those teams would be eliminated after round 1 so anything after 12 games would only affect 4 teams.

So get used to it people. As long as we have this bullsh*t system in place, we're always going to have arguments about who should play who and who deserves what. It's a total crock. At least we all agree on one thing this year, OSU deserves to be one of the 2 in the NC game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will go USC with a win over UCLA. Taking the head-to-head stuff you have provided, which is compelling, USC has beaten more quality opponents this year. USC has beaten potentially TEN bowl-eligible teams this year while Michigan has beaten potentially five. To me, that is a big deal. The Big Ten plus one is not that good this year. I know that isn't Michigan's fault but it is what it is. Looking at the big picture, I want the team that has beaten the best over the course of time.

 

 

Fight on - nice win over the Domers. Since we USC homers are not allowed to comment here, I'll have to let others speak for me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree here somewhat. The BCS and NCAA Division 1 football is a crock! The NCAA's big thing a couple years back when every team played an 11 game regular season was that a playoff would add an extra game to those participants' schedules. Due to injury, schoolwork, blah, blah, blah, they didn't want to do that. So what happens? Now, every team plays a 12 game regular season schedule anyway. So what was the freekin' point of that? To silence the playoff talk altogether? The NCAA is so full of sh*t! I say drop the 12th regular season game and have the top 8 in a playoff. 4 of those teams would be eliminated after round 1 so anything after 12 games would only affect 4 teams.

 

 

The only downside of a playoff, IMHO, is that not every game will count as much as it does now. Like in the NFL, if you took care of business early, you'd sit your stars in the last 1-2 games and coast into the 'second season'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...ht&lid=tab4pos1

 

 

BCS takes subjectivity to disturbing new level

 

 

LOS ANGELES -- So, USC or Michigan?

 

 

That's the only real question left to answer in a season where a national championship matchup will be determined by -- and how stupid is this? -- "style" points.

 

 

I hate the BCS. I hate it because the two best teams in the country aren't going to play in the national title game. Instead, No. 1-ranked Ohio State is going to face a very good, but moderately flawed USC team.

 

 

If it were up to me -- and a slightly less-flawed Michigan team -- the BCS would be swimming with the fishes. It would be ruled unconstitutional. If you uttered its initials, you would be required to eat a very large bowl of FieldTurf.

 

 

So while the rest of the NCAA's Division I-AA, II and III qualifiers are in varying stages of 16-, 24- and 32-team football playoffs, we're stuck with BCS computer standings, mathematical formulas and a "system" so screwed up that it sees a therapist twice a week. It ought to be called the FAC (Flip A Coin).

 

 

That's what happened when the assorted (and occasional clueless) coaches and Harris Poll members sat down to fill out their top 25 ballots late Saturday evening and Sunday morning. They had to choose between 10-1 USC, which beat overrated Notre Dame, 44-24, Saturday night at the Coliseum, or 11-1 Michigan, which defeated the same Irish team by 26 points more than two months ago at South Bend.

 

 

 

 

Pete Carroll and USC have to like their BCS chances after beating Notre Dame.The Trojans still have to beat UCLA at the Rose Bowl next Saturday, but if they do, the general consensus is that they'll be in Glendale, Ariz., for the Jan. 8 national championship. There are worse things that could happen, such as Florida somehow squirming its way into the title mix. And nobody outside the greater Gainesville area wants that, do they?

 

 

No, it's going to come down to USC or Michigan -- and splitting strands of hair.

 

 

Is USC's likely 11-1 regular season record better than Michigan's 11-1 mark?

 

 

Is USC's 20-point win against the Irish at home better than the Wolverines' 26-point win on the road?

 

 

Is USC's two-point loss at then-unranked Oregon State worse than Michigan's three-point loss at No. 1 Ohio State?

 

 

Is USC's schedule, which could include 10 bowl teams, more impressive than Michigan's schedule, which features seven bowl teams?

 

 

There are no right or wrong answers to any of these questions. That's the curse of the BCS. It takes subjectivity to a disturbing new level.

 

 

I think Michigan is the second-best team in the country. You might think USC is the team best equipped to play undefeated Ohio State. If you do, I've got no problem with your choice. The differences between the Trojans and the Wolverines are as thin as the drawstrings on the Bill Belichick-like sweatshirt Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis wore on the Coliseum sidelines.

 

 

Of course, you're not going to get much out of Weis when it comes to choosing between USC and Michigan. When I asked him if USC was the best team the Irish faced this season, Weis launched into a seemingly prepared script.

 

 

"It's too dangerous of territory for me to tread," he said, "so I'm going to avoid that one."

 

 

Weis' talking points were repeated by Notre Dame's players.

 

 

"I don't really care," said Irish safety Tom Zbikowski, when asked to choose between USC and Michigan. "I don't have an opinion."

 

 

And this from ND cornerback Mike Richardson: "I'm not really inclined to say anything about that."

 

 

Were the Irish under Weis' orders not to discuss any compare-and-contrast scenarios between the two teams?

 

 

A small pause. "We're not supposed to," said Richardson.

 

 

 

 

Dwayne Jarrett's three TD catches had the Trojans jumping against the Irish. The Trojans weren't as shy. Wide receiver Dwayne Jarrett, who would have been a no-brainer Heisman finalist if he hadn't struggled with injuries earlier this season, said USC deserved a place in the championship game if it beat UCLA.

 

 

"Oh, yeah, definitely," said Jarrett, who was virtually uncoverable during a seven-catch, 132-yard, three-touchdown night. "We believe we're up there with the best of the best."

 

 

"I think that's the matchup everybody wants to see," said Trojans tailback Desmond Reed. "Big-time talent. Big-time matchups across the field. If I was a fan, I'd pay to see it."

 

 

Even USC coach Pete Carroll, who usually blows off all the BCS-scenario talk, was (for him) in campaign mode.

 

 

"We played a heckuva schedule," he said. "We'll play anybody anywhere, and I think we'll be hard to beat."

 

 

Actually, I think Ohio State will be hard to beat. If Oregon State can solve the Trojans, so can the Buckeyes. And if Ohio State can beat Michigan once, it can beat it twice, even on a neutral field.

 

 

Hey, here's a thought: wouldn't it be neat to see the Wolverines play the Trojans in, ta-da, an actual playoff game? You know, just like the rest of the NCAA? Then we wouldn't have to endure the Michigan-or-USC microanalysis.

 

 

To quote the wise Desmond Reed, I'd pay to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...ht&lid=tab4pos1

If Oregon State can solve the Trojans, so can the Buckeyes.

 

The Beavers didn't 'solve' USC, we let 4 turnovers and a punt return TD happen in some sort of bizarre group of mental breakdowns, plus Jarrett wasn't healthy. USC is peaking now (as usual with Pete's teams,) on both sides off the ball, and will give the Buckeyes a great game.

 

That is, assuming we take care of business at the Rose Bowl this weekend. I'm not counting out the Bruins yet...

Edited by Coffeeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, we seemed to be on the same page now. Believe it or not we AGREE. I'm not picking on Ohio State or the Big Ten. That's why I think bowl games should match teams from different conferences. You're 100% correct in my opinion. LSU, Florida, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Louisville etc. all have something to PROVE. Matching up LSU with Florida in the Sugar (although LSU fans would love another crack at the Gators) would not be in the best interest of college football.

 

 

 

We always agreed rocker. I have never once stated I was in favor of a rematch. Michigan didn't take care of business. You may not like my reasons, but they are my reasons and I personally feel they are quite valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only downside of a playoff, IMHO, is that not every game will count as much as it does now. Like in the NFL, if you took care of business early, you'd sit your stars in the last 1-2 games and coast into the 'second season'...

 

 

 

Depends on the format. If you're automatically qualifying conference champions, then this will absolutely not be the case. How many conference championships are decided before the last weekend? Not many. And as for any at-large qualifyer, they would have to play to the bitter end, to impress voters and what-not that they deserve to be in. Plus, I will never believe that Michigan would sit players vs Ohio State, and vice versa. USC and UCLA would never do that. Florida-FSU same thing. I reject that theory. You gotta remember, in the NFL, you're competing against 31 other teams. There is a clear cut tiebreaking system. In college football, you have to impress voters, and computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the format. If you're automatically qualifying conference champions, then this will absolutely not be the case. How many conference championships are decided before the last weekend? Not many. And as for any at-large qualifyer, they would have to play to the bitter end, to impress voters and what-not that they deserve to be in. Plus, I will never believe that Michigan would sit players vs Ohio State, and vice versa. USC and UCLA would never do that. Florida-FSU same thing. I reject that theory. You gotta remember, in the NFL, you're competing against 31 other teams. There is a clear cut tiebreaking system. In college football, you have to impress voters, and computers.

 

I can agree on most of this, maybe. But as a coach, you'd get crucified if your star got hurt in a 'meaningless' (OK, less-than-meaningful,) game before the playoffs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree on most of this, maybe. But as a coach, you'd get crucified if your star got hurt in a 'meaningless' (OK, less-than-meaningful,) game before the playoffs....

 

Coffeeman makes a good point here. In last year's NCAA 64 tounament our coach was approached by our AD Skip Bertman who knows a thing or two about winning National Champonships in college baseball about what his plans were for Thomas (NBA 1st rounder who was banged up abit) in the SEC basketball tourney. He asked the coach a simply question. Was he in the NCAA Tourney to make a good showing or to win it all? Coach Brady got his message and sat Thomas for the SEC tourney last year which certainly hurt LSU chances in the conference championship tourney. However Thomas had a chance to heal and was a major reason why LSU reached last year's final 4.

 

Not sure if that's a good example because like Brian said you would think teams would not have the ability to sit their star players and risk not make the playoffs. However look at USC they had their conference wrapped up and they still had a few games left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its hard to compare b-ball to football, since they play so many more games. I'm liking Brian's logic more and more - it would be hard to keep your stars out of the big rivalry games, even if you had the conference wrapped up, like USC this year. Presumably, 'style points' (read: big win margins) would still be important due to the voting component, which does not exist in the NFL.

 

But if you could schedule those games earlier in the year, you could coast a bit at the end. Or vice versa, maybe you'd sit your stars early in the year against the wimpy teams, just to save a little wear and tear. Aww, now I'm just confusing myself...

Edited by Coffeeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its hard to compare b-ball to football, since they play so many more games. I'm liking Brian's logic more and more - it would be hard to keep your stars out of the big rivalry games, even if you had the conference wrapped up, like USC this year. Presumably, 'style points' (read: big win margins) would still be important due to the voting component, which does not exist in the NFL.

 

But if you could schedule those games earlier in the year, you could coast a bit at the end. Or vice versa, maybe you'd sit your stars early in the year against the wimpy teams, just to save a little wear and tear. Aww, now I'm just confusing myself...

 

 

Think we all agree the potential bad (maybe losing another game or Little Johnny not being able to watch his favorite player on the field) that could happen should a team elect to sit players is well worth the reward of a playoff system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you aren't talking about 33 at large bids either. You're talking about 2, MAYBE 4 at the most. Simple mathmatics. It would be rare that you could sit your stars. Not only that, but seeding in the playoff would be very important as well. Again it all depends on the structure of the playoff, and the format. If you're talking about 1 or 2 rounds at home sites, then you definately want to play every game your hardest, because home field advantage means soooo much in college football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you aren't talking about 33 at large bids either. You're talking about 2, MAYBE 4 at the most. Simple mathmatics. It would be rare that you could sit your stars. Not only that, but seeding in the playoff would be very important as well. Again it all depends on the structure of the playoff, and the format. If you're talking about 1 or 2 rounds at home sites, then you definately want to play every game your hardest, because home field advantage means soooo much in college football.

 

 

Good point about the home field advantage. That would certainly be worth fighting for!

 

Wasn't the brightest in economics, so I'll ask the question. Do you think a playoff would encourage or discourage tougher out of conference competition? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beavers didn't 'solve' USC, we let 4 turnovers and a punt return TD happen in some sort of bizarre group of mental breakdowns, plus Jarrett wasn't healthy. USC is peaking now (as usual with Pete's teams,) on both sides off the ball, and will give the Buckeyes a great game.

 

That is, assuming we take care of business at the Rose Bowl this weekend. I'm not counting out the Bruins yet...

 

 

 

So if OSu beats SC by 17 pts, is that giving them a good game. Last year was a great game because Vince Young single handedly kicked the snot out of that defense and was better thatn leinart, Bush and Lendale combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what happens a team will be on the outside looking in and complaining they had every right to be in the championship game ... and they would be right. But the writers will vote in the prettiest matchup and the winner will be crowned by popular vote.

 

 

+1

 

The team with the biggest PR budget has the best chance of getting into the NC game now that they made the computer rankings less important which happen to be after LSU was crowned BCS NC leaving USC out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if OSu beats SC by 17 pts, is that giving them a good game. Last year was a great game because Vince Young single handedly kicked the snot out of that defense and was better thatn leinart, Bush and Lendale combined.

 

 

 

Which is 10 x better than anyone on the OU roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only downside of a playoff, IMHO, is that not every game will count as much as it does now. Like in the NFL, if you took care of business early, you'd sit your stars in the last 1-2 games and coast into the 'second season'...

 

 

I don't understand your reasoning here. What makes the last 2 games unimportant? If USC rests their starters against ND and UCLA and gets beat, then they won't be in the playoff. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your reasoning here. What makes the last 2 games unimportant? If USC rests their starters against ND and UCLA and gets beat, then they won't be in the playoff. Simple.

 

 

If USC was in a playoff system this year, we won the Pac10 title vs. Cal 10 days ago. So we 'might' (not likely) be tempted to coast a bit in the last two to avoid injuries, esp. if we'd also locked up homefield advantage for the first 1-2 rounds. But, as Brian said, we would likely still be jostling for the seeding, so sitting the stars wouldn't be easy. Plus, they are huge rivalry games, and these kids are not all in it for the NFL $.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If USC was in a playoff system this year, we won the Pac10 title vs. Cal 10 days ago. So we 'might' (not likely) be tempted to coast a bit in the last two to avoid injuries, esp. if we'd also locked up homefield advantage for the first 1-2 rounds. But, as Brian said, we would likely still be jostling for the seeding, so sitting the stars wouldn't be easy. Plus, they are huge rivalry games, and these kids are not all in it for the NFL $.....

 

 

The more I think about it....... even with a top 8 playoff, we'd still have screaming fromthe #9-12 teams saying they should be included. A never ending cluster f*ck. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information