This week's version of what's wrong with the BCS...

[Rockerbraves]

Stick to the flimsy argument that the BCS is better than what we had (though I would argue it isn't).

Doesn't surprise me any Big 10 or Pac 10 fan would prefer the old traditional system. Since the creation of the BCS exactly how many nayional champions have these two conferences produced? You have to admit, prior to the BCS it seem like both the Big 10 and Pac 10 were awarded alot more National Championships.

[detlef]

Doesn't surprise me any Big 10 or Pac 10 fan would prefer the old traditional system. Since the creation of the BCS exactly how many nayional champions have these two conferences produced? You have to admit, prior to the BCS it seem like both the Big 10 and Pac 10 were awarded alot more National Championships.

Actually, assuming that you're talking about a reasonable time frame, like about as long before the BCS as there have been years since we absolutely do not "have to admit".

 

For the Pac 10, UW was awarded the NC in 91. USC had not been awarded a pre-BCS NC since 78 and UCLA won their only NC in 56.

 

Michigan was awarded a NC in 97 and every other Big 10 (I forget when Penn St joined but they were awarded in 82 and 86, both of which would have preceded the fair time frame to make this a suitable comparison) and every other Big 10 team hadn't won a pre-BCS title for some time before that.

 

So, you've got the Pac 10 with 1 since and 1 in the same time period prior and the Big 10 with 1 since and 1 in the time frame prior.

 

So, sorry, but you're wrong here.

[Rockerbraves]

Actually, assuming that you're talking about a reasonable time frame, like about as long before the BCS as there have been years since we absolutely do not "have to admit".

 

For the Pac 10, UW was awarded the NC in 91. USC had not been awarded a pre-BCS NC since 78 and UCLA won their only NC in 56.

 

Michigan was awarded a NC in 97 and every other Big 10 (I forget when Penn St joined but they were awarded in 82 and 86, both of which would have preceded the fair time frame to make this a suitable comparison) and every other Big 10 team hadn't won a pre-BCS title for some time before that.

 

So, you've got the Pac 10 with 1 since and 1 in the same time period prior and the Big 10 with 1 since and 1 in the time frame prior.

 

So, sorry, but you're wrong here.

The program entered a new golden age upon the arrival of head coach John McKay (1960-1975). During this period the Trojans produced two Heisman Trophy winners (Mike Garrett and O.J. Simpson) and won four national championships (1962, 1967, 1972 and 1974). McKay's influence continued even after he departed for the NFL when an assistant coach, John Robinson (1976-1982), took over as head coach. Under Robinson, USC won another national championship in 1978 (shared with Alabama; ironically, USC defeated Alabama, 24–14, that same

[detlef]

The program entered a new golden age upon the arrival of head coach John McKay (1960-1975). During this period the Trojans produced two Heisman Trophy winners (Mike Garrett and O.J. Simpson) and won four national championships (1962, 1967, 1972 and 1974). McKay's influence continued even after he departed for the NFL when an assistant coach, John Robinson (1976-1982), took over as head coach. Under Robinson, USC won another national championship in 1978 (shared with Alabama; ironically, USC defeated Alabama, 24–14, that same

Dude, have you decided to take up Sgt. Ryan's torch of making stupid arguments? What, in your above post, refutes anything I wrote in mine? I said USC's last pre BCS title was in 78. You just said the same.

 

Now, if your initial argument was that the Big 10 and Pac 10 won more National titles in the 70 odd years prior to the BCS than in the 12 or so years since, well that's great. Point proved. I, of course, went with the bold assumption that we were going to be talking apples to apples, and thus looking at a similar period of time. My bad.

 

By god I hope you're fishing.

Edited October 28, 2009 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

Dude, have you decided to take up Sgt. Ryan's torch of making stupid arguments? What, in your above post, refutes anything I wrote in mine? I said USC's last pre BCS title was in 78. You just said the same.

 

Now, if your initial argument was that the Big 10 and Pac 10 won more National titles in the 70 odd years prior to the BCS than in the 12 or so years since, well that's great. Point proved. I, of course, went with the bold assumption that we were going to be talking apples to apples, and thus looking at a similar period of time. My bad.

 

By god I hope you're fishing.

I think you're the one fishing here. My point was that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are the biggest losers from the creation of the BCS. So I understand why they prefer the old tradional system that assures them a higher profile in college football.

 

Oh and I like the way you took USC only down decade in football to make your point.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I think you're the one fishing here. My point was that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are the biggest losers from the creation of the BCS. So I understand why they prefer the old tradional system that assures them a higher profile in college football.

 

Oh and I like the way you took USC only down decade in football to make your point.

 

The point is that at the end of each year of the BCS there has been just as much controversy as there was prior. Nice to see that you completely missed the point, and just broad-brushed me as "only a Big Ten or Pac 10 fan would feel this way". Almost every single year, there was a big question mark as to the ultimate champion and/or who they should have been playing, starting in that first year.

 

1998: Tennessee won, but several teams with 1 loss might have been more deserving than the Florida State team they ultimately played.

1999: Virginia Tech played one of the weakest schedules of any team to ever make the "title game", SEC Champion Alabama, Michigan (who beat Bama in the orange Bowl), or Nebraska would have made much more formidable opponents. Not to mention Wisconsin.

2000: Where do I start? You had 3 1 loss teams, all great, but only one was selected to play undefeated Oklahoma. Miami beat FSU, Washington beat Miami, somehow FSU gets the nod? FSU was great, but no one would be able to convince any Miami or Washington fan that they weren't as good.

2001: Easily the biggest black eye on the BCS, as Nebraska somehow gets in without even winning it's own division, and getting destroyed in there season finale giving up 60+ to Colorado. 2001 Miami was one of the best teams of all time, so I don't think it would've mattered who they played, but certainly a stronger case could have been made for Pac 10 Champion Oregon, who creamed that same Colorado team.

2002: BCS gets it right by default, as Ohio State and Miami were the last of the unbeatens, though, in a playoff, there were several good teams that could've easily competed against those 2 schools, including USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, and my Hawkeyes.

2003: Oklahoma loses there championship game in embarassing fashion, yet somehow remains #1 in the BCS despite being #3 in both the major polls. LSU beats them in the Sugar Bowl (home game) and USC wins the Rose Bowl and gets the AP National Championship (a check-mate scenario in this argument on its own as clearly, split titles can still happen)

2004: Ultimate proof that even if you're an UNDEFEATED SEC Champion (not a fluke 2 loss team) that you still could get screwed over. Undefeated Auburn gets snubbed because they weren't chosen as one of the "2 best" teams... in August. Not to mention, Utah was undefeated as well.

2005: See 2002, though both USC and Texas were 2 of the best teams of all time

2006: Florida wins, but do any of us no for certain they were a true champ?

2007: LSU same thing x 10 because they had 2 losses

2008: Florida, again, Texas beats Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets the nod, we know at least between those 2 teams, Florida didn't get the better opponent. Not to mention 1 loss USC, or even undefeated Utah

 

So 10 years of controversy, how is that any different than previous years. You get different match ups, but you still get a split title here and there, and you still have the same debate at the end of the year. Nothing has changed, just that there is a lot more money to be had (which is all that matters to anybody calling the shots).

[detlef]

I think you're the one fishing here. My point was that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are the biggest losers from the creation of the BCS. So I understand why they prefer the old tradional system that assures them a higher profile in college football.

 

Oh and I like the way you took USC only down decade in football to make your point.

Why would I pick a period longer than the BCS has been around? You do want an accurate comparison, don't you? The BCS has been around for about a dozen years, so you've got to go back a similar time frame or your point is flawed. So, you want to go back to 78? To USC's shared title? Great, then we can also include their shared title in '03 and guess what, now it's 2 in the 20 years prior and 2 in the 12 years since.

 

Hell, even the Michigan title I referenced in '97 was shared. So, in the reasonable time frame before the Big 10 had one shared title and in the time since, they've got one unanimous one. Sounds like you could even call that an improvement.

 

Again, is your point that the Pac 10 won more in the nearly 70 years prior to the BCS than in the 12 years since? Well, so has the SEC and pretty much everyone else. But that's not really all that interesting, no is it.

 

Long story short, you didn't look it up, assumed that we'd find a bunch of Pac 10 and Big 10 teams as NC in the years leading up to the BCS, and the data didn't pan out. Now you're scrambling.

 

Face it, no reasonable person would look at this argument and not agree that you're flat out wrong.

 

And remember, I'm an SEC guy. Just one still capable of rational thought.

[untateve]

2006: Florida wins, but do any of us no for certain they were a true champ?

 

I know it for certain.

[detlef]

The point is that at the end of each year of the BCS there has been just as much controversy as there was prior. Nice to see that you completely missed the point, and just broad-brushed me as "only a Big Ten or Pac 10 fan would feel this way". Almost every single year, there was a big question mark as to the ultimate champion and/or who they should have been playing, starting in that first year.

 

1998: Tennessee won, but several teams with 1 loss might have been more deserving than the Florida State team they ultimately played.

1999: Virginia Tech played one of the weakest schedules of any team to ever make the "title game", SEC Champion Alabama, Michigan (who beat Bama in the orange Bowl), or Nebraska would have made much more formidable opponents. Not to mention Wisconsin.

2000: Where do I start? You had 3 1 loss teams, all great, but only one was selected to play undefeated Oklahoma. Miami beat FSU, Washington beat Miami, somehow FSU gets the nod? FSU was great, but no one would be able to convince any Miami or Washington fan that they weren't as good.

2001: Easily the biggest black eye on the BCS, as Nebraska somehow gets in without even winning it's own division, and getting destroyed in there season finale giving up 60+ to Colorado. 2001 Miami was one of the best teams of all time, so I don't think it would've mattered who they played, but certainly a stronger case could have been made for Pac 10 Champion Oregon, who creamed that same Colorado team.

2002: BCS gets it right by default, as Ohio State and Miami were the last of the unbeatens, though, in a playoff, there were several good teams that could've easily competed against those 2 schools, including USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, and my Hawkeyes.

2003: Oklahoma loses there championship game in embarassing fashion, yet somehow remains #1 in the BCS despite being #3 in both the major polls. LSU beats them in the Sugar Bowl (home game) and USC wins the Rose Bowl and gets the AP National Championship (a check-mate scenario in this argument on its own as clearly, split titles can still happen)

2004: Ultimate proof that even if you're an UNDEFEATED SEC Champion (not a fluke 2 loss team) that you still could get screwed over. Undefeated Auburn gets snubbed because they weren't chosen as one of the "2 best" teams... in August. Not to mention, Utah was undefeated as well.

2005: See 2002, though both USC and Texas were 2 of the best teams of all time

2006: Florida wins, but do any of us no for certain they were a true champ?

2007: LSU same thing x 10 because they had 2 losses

2008: Florida, again, Texas beats Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets the nod, we know at least between those 2 teams, Florida didn't get the better opponent. Not to mention 1 loss USC, or even undefeated Utah

 

So 10 years of controversy, how is that any different than previous years. You get different match ups, but you still get a split title here and there, and you still have the same debate at the end of the year. Nothing has changed, just that there is a lot more money to be had (which is all that matters to anybody calling the shots).

Oh, and had rocker not tossed me that grapefruit of people "having to admit" something that the data shows is absolutely not the case, I would have been more inclined to focus on a big picture argument such as this. That being, that there have been maybe 3-4 years that the BCS delivered us what the Bowls could not, a matchup between two teams that it was rather safe to say were the two teams who deserved to be playing for the title but were not in conferences that traditional bowl tie ins would pit against one another.

 

So, it's not so much that people think the bowl era was better. Rather, if you're going to blow it up, why no do so in favor of a system that actually works more often than it doesn't?

 

Oh, and I have no question the Gators were the champs in '06. IMO, the BCS got it right that year, though they had to kind of sleaze out to do so. While I absolutely think FL should have gone ahead of UM, UM still got "robbed" because they were #2 after the last game they played and got jumped in the polls while idle. That, in itself is lame even if the right team ultimately got chosen.

Edited October 29, 2009 by detlef

[darin3]

I gave up on arguing with Rockerbraves after about three minutes. As long as it benefits his beloved LSU, he's not going to budge, no matter how much sense you make. Good luck.

[detlef]

I gave up on arguing with Rockerbraves after about three minutes. As long as it benefits his beloved LSU, he's not going to budge, no matter how much sense you make. Good luck.

I need to follow your lead on this one.

[wildcat2334]

The point is that at the end of each year of the BCS there has been just as much controversy as there was prior. Nice to see that you completely missed the point, and just broad-brushed me as "only a Big Ten or Pac 10 fan would feel this way". Almost every single year, there was a big question mark as to the ultimate champion and/or who they should have been playing, starting in that first year.

 

1998: Tennessee won, but several teams with 1 loss might have been more deserving than the Florida State team they ultimately played.

1999: Virginia Tech played one of the weakest schedules of any team to ever make the "title game", SEC Champion Alabama, Michigan (who beat Bama in the orange Bowl), or Nebraska would have made much more formidable opponents. Not to mention Wisconsin.

2000: Where do I start? You had 3 1 loss teams, all great, but only one was selected to play undefeated Oklahoma. Miami beat FSU, Washington beat Miami, somehow FSU gets the nod? FSU was great, but no one would be able to convince any Miami or Washington fan that they weren't as good.

2001: Easily the biggest black eye on the BCS, as Nebraska somehow gets in without even winning it's own division, and getting destroyed in there season finale giving up 60+ to Colorado. 2001 Miami was one of the best teams of all time, so I don't think it would've mattered who they played, but certainly a stronger case could have been made for Pac 10 Champion Oregon, who creamed that same Colorado team.

2002: BCS gets it right by default, as Ohio State and Miami were the last of the unbeatens, though, in a playoff, there were several good teams that could've easily competed against those 2 schools, including USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, and my Hawkeyes.

2003: Oklahoma loses there championship game in embarassing fashion, yet somehow remains #1 in the BCS despite being #3 in both the major polls. LSU beats them in the Sugar Bowl (home game) and USC wins the Rose Bowl and gets the AP National Championship (a check-mate scenario in this argument on its own as clearly, split titles can still happen)

2004: Ultimate proof that even if you're an UNDEFEATED SEC Champion (not a fluke 2 loss team) that you still could get screwed over. Undefeated Auburn gets snubbed because they weren't chosen as one of the "2 best" teams... in August. Not to mention, Utah was undefeated as well.

2005: See 2002, though both USC and Texas were 2 of the best teams of all time

2006: Florida wins, but do any of us no for certain they were a true champ?

2007: LSU same thing x 10 because they had 2 losses

2008: Florida, again, Texas beats Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets the nod, we know at least between those 2 teams, Florida didn't get the better opponent. Not to mention 1 loss USC, or even undefeated Utah

 

So 10 years of controversy, how is that any different than previous years. You get different match ups, but you still get a split title here and there, and you still have the same debate at the end of the year. Nothing has changed, just that there is a lot more money to be had (which is all that matters to anybody calling the shots).

 

 

great post -

 

excellent reminder of what a joke of a system the BCS is. Every other sport decides it on the field and celebrates the champion. Even tho we thought NE was better than the NYG, there was zero controversy or debate after they lost the SB - the way it should be.

 

fwiw - I think the 06 Gators were impressive at the end of the season, but I have no doubt LSU does not win a playoff in '07 and I have serious doubts '08 FLA could beat USC.

[wildcat2334]

The point is that at the end of each year of the BCS there has been just as much controversy as there was prior. Nice to see that you completely missed the point, and just broad-brushed me as "only a Big Ten or Pac 10 fan would feel this way". Almost every single year, there was a big question mark as to the ultimate champion and/or who they should have been playing, starting in that first year.

 

1998: Tennessee won, but several teams with 1 loss might have been more deserving than the Florida State team they ultimately played.

1999: Virginia Tech played one of the weakest schedules of any team to ever make the "title game", SEC Champion Alabama, Michigan (who beat Bama in the orange Bowl), or Nebraska would have made much more formidable opponents. Not to mention Wisconsin.

2000: Where do I start? You had 3 1 loss teams, all great, but only one was selected to play undefeated Oklahoma. Miami beat FSU, Washington beat Miami, somehow FSU gets the nod? FSU was great, but no one would be able to convince any Miami or Washington fan that they weren't as good.

2001: Easily the biggest black eye on the BCS, as Nebraska somehow gets in without even winning it's own division, and getting destroyed in there season finale giving up 60+ to Colorado. 2001 Miami was one of the best teams of all time, so I don't think it would've mattered who they played, but certainly a stronger case could have been made for Pac 10 Champion Oregon, who creamed that same Colorado team.

2002: BCS gets it right by default, as Ohio State and Miami were the last of the unbeatens, though, in a playoff, there were several good teams that could've easily competed against those 2 schools, including USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, and my Hawkeyes.

2003: Oklahoma loses there championship game in embarassing fashion, yet somehow remains #1 in the BCS despite being #3 in both the major polls. LSU beats them in the Sugar Bowl (home game) and USC wins the Rose Bowl and gets the AP National Championship (a check-mate scenario in this argument on its own as clearly, split titles can still happen)

2004: Ultimate proof that even if you're an UNDEFEATED SEC Champion (not a fluke 2 loss team) that you still could get screwed over. Undefeated Auburn gets snubbed because they weren't chosen as one of the "2 best" teams... in August. Not to mention, Utah was undefeated as well.

2005: See 2002, though both USC and Texas were 2 of the best teams of all time

2006: Florida wins, but do any of us no for certain they were a true champ?

2007: LSU same thing x 10 because they had 2 losses

2008: Florida, again, Texas beats Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets the nod, we know at least between those 2 teams, Florida didn't get the better opponent. Not to mention 1 loss USC, or even undefeated Utah

 

So 10 years of controversy, how is that any different than previous years. You get different match ups, but you still get a split title here and there, and you still have the same debate at the end of the year. Nothing has changed, just that there is a lot more money to be had (which is all that matters to anybody calling the shots).

 

 

great post -

 

excellent reminder of what a joke of a system the BCS is. Every other sport decides it on the field and celebrates the champion. Even tho we thought NE was better than the NYG, there was zero controversy or debate after they lost the SB - the way it should be.

 

fwiw - I think the 06 Gators were impressive at the end of the season, but I have no doubt LSU does not win a playoff in '07 and I have serious doubts '08 FLA could beat USC.

[Rockerbraves]

great post -

 

excellent reminder of what a joke of a system the BCS is. Every other sport decides it on the field and celebrates the champion. Even tho we thought NE was better than the NYG, there was zero controversy or debate after they lost the SB - the way it should be.

 

fwiw - I think the 06 Gators were impressive at the end of the season, but I have no doubt LSU does not win a playoff in '07 and I have serious doubts '08 FLA could beat USC.

Surprise a Pac 10 fan calling the current BCS a joke. Like I said before it's not perfect but it's certainly better than what was in place prior.

 

Think most would agree one reason why the Big 10 and their tag along little Pac 10 sister conference finally decided to come aboard the BCS was due to the fact Michigan/Big10 fans felt cheated when the Wolverines got dropped to #2 after winning the 1997 Rose Bowl. Their fear was that if they didn't join that this could happen again.

 

In hindsite, you gotta wonder if that was the right move for those conferences if their only interest was winning football national championships.

 

How many potential more NC would the Pac 10 and Big 10 have if the BCS was not in place?

 

Let's see? For argument sake, we'll assume that Miami would have lost their bowl game anyway to say the SEC Champion Georgia Bulldogs and Ohio State would have won the Rose over Washington State to capture the 2002 title and USC would have taken care of business vs. Michigan to secure their 2004 championship.

 

1. 2003 - the media darlings USC would have certainly been awarded the NC

2. 2005 - USC would have been awarded a NC again by beating Penn State thus eliminating Texas

3. 2006 - Whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC

4. 2007 - Again whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC

Edited October 29, 2009 by Rockerbraves

[Rockerbraves]

And remember, I'm an SEC guy. Just one still capable of rational thought.

Detlef, didn't you say you were originally from Pac 10 country?

 

Just wondering???

Edited October 29, 2009 by Rockerbraves

[giggity]

Rocker, I'm pretty sure you are the only college football fan I have ever come across who is a fan of the current BCS system. Only someone who is scared that their team couldn't actually win a playoff against the premier teams in college football would want it to stay how it is. As a college football fan I would LOVE to see Ohio State have to prove that they are better than "just the best of the weak Big10". I would LOVE to see if USC is actually as good as everyone always thinks they are. Most of all, I would LOVE to see if the SEC is as good as advertised. I think you are the one that is scared, not all the rest of us.

[detlef]

Surprise a Pac 10 fan calling the current BCS a joke. Like I said before it's not perfect but it's certainly better than what was in place prior.

 

Think most would agree one reason why the Big 10 and their tag along little Pac 10 sister conference finally decided to come aboard the BCS was due to the fact Michigan/Big10 fans felt cheated when the Wolverines got dropped to #2 after winning the 1997 Rose Bowl. Their fear was that if they didn't join that this could happen again.

 

In hindsite, you gotta wonder if that was the right move for those conferences if their only interest was winning football national championships.

 

How many potential more NC would the Pac 10 and Big 10 have if the BCS was not in place?

 

Let's see? For argument sake, we'll assume that Miami would have lost their bowl game anyway to say the SEC Champion Georgia Bulldogs and Ohio State would have won the Rose over Washington State to capture the 2002 title and USC would have taken care of business vs. Michigan to secure their 2004 championship.

 

1. 2003 - the media darlings USC would have certainly been awarded the NC

2. 2005 - USC would have been awarded a NC again by beating Penn State thus eliminating Texas

3. 2006 - Whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC

4. 2007 - Again whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC

I think when you make a bold statement and that bold statement is proven to be undeniably wrong, you need to own that before you can then go on speculating what may or may not have happened and trying to pass it off like a forgone conclusion.

 

Just sayin'

 

And while you're at it, explain why in 2007, 2 loss "media darling" USC would have jumped all the way from 7th to 1st, ahead of both LSU and UF who also won their bowl games.

 

Further, you do realize, it's hard to make the "media darling" claim when both LSU and USC had 2 losses that year and yet LSU was ranked ahead of them both going into the bowls as well as after USC dispensed with #3 Mich and LSU took care of ND, a team that everyone and their brother knew was completely and totally overrated as well as not even ranked in the top 10?

Edited October 29, 2009 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

Rocker, I'm pretty sure you are the only college football fan I have ever come across who is a fan of the current BCS system. Only someone who is scared that their team couldn't actually win a playoff against the premier teams in college football would want it to stay how it is. As a college football fan I would LOVE to see Ohio State have to prove that they are better than "just the best of the weak Big10". I would LOVE to see if USC is actually as good as everyone always thinks they are. Most of all, I would LOVE to see if the SEC is as good as advertised. I think you are the one that is scared, not all the rest of us.

The discussion isn't about the playoffs it's whether the BCS is a complete failure. Think if you polled most SEC fans (with the possible exception of Bama fans) and most other conferences they would prefer the BCS over the old traditional system while Pac10 and Big 10 fans wouldn't.

 

If you look back on this thread this is what I said and what I am discussing. Not the playoffs.

 

--------------------------------------

BCS system isn't perfect, but it's certainly better than what college football use to have.

 

The complaints I hear about the BCS rankings are similar to the ones I hear from fans of the lower classifications teams in high school when their team beats one of the better highest classification teams. They are always disappointed with the overall State rankings. For some reason they truly believe because they beat one good higher classification team that means they could do the same week in and week out.

 

Say what you want but the Cincy, TCU and Boise teams are 3A or 4A teams competing against 5A.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Rockerbraves

[detlef]

Detlef, didn't you say you were originally from Pac 10 country?

 

Just wondering???

Yes I am and this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are incapable of making or backing up a solid point.

 

BTW, as a kid, I was a UW fan and was freaking pissed off when they got jocked out National Championships several times. Once when they delivered a dominant Jan 1 victory knowing the whole time that undefeated BYU had pretty much locked it up with their last second victory over an average Michigan team.

 

I also wished that UW could have played Miami for all the marbles in the early 90s.

 

As I've said before. It's not so much that I like the old way, I just think that if you're going to "fix" something, then go ahead and fix it.

[Rockerbraves]

Further, you do realize, it's hard to make the "media darling" claim when both LSU and USC had 2 losses that year and yet LSU was ranked ahead of them both going into the bowls as well as after USC dispensed with #3 Mich and LSU took care of ND, a team that everyone and their brother knew was completely and totally overrated as well as not even ranked in the top 10?

I'm confussed what year are we talking about? 2007 or 2006?

 

You never did answer my other question. Were you originally from Pac 10 country?

[detlef]

I'm confussed what year are we talking about? 2007 or 2006?

 

You never did answer my other question. Were you originally from Pac 10 country?

Actually, I did and right above your post.

 

As for the year in question, it's always hard to determine which year one is talking about when it comes to college football because they start in one and finish in the other. None the less, you reference both '06 and '07 and one of those years conforms to the one I spoke about above. The year that USC was likely in the driver's seat to play OSU in the title game but pooped the bed vs UCLA. There is no way they would have gotten voted #1 in either poll even if they had gotten to play #1 and undefeated OSU in the Rose Bowl.

[detlef]

Now, as to why those linked to the Pac 10 and Big 10 are more inclined to say it was better before...

 

Back in the day, while both the SEC and Big 12 (or versions thereof) had bowl tie-ins, they were largely against whomever. While both conferences obviously took great pride in winning their bowl game, it really couldn't be for bragging rights against a set "enemy"

 

The Big 10 and Pac 10, on the other hand, had that with the Rose Bowl. As a kid, it was a big deal.

 

Needless to say, the BCS undermines this many years. If USC crushes the 2nd best team in the Big 10, big freaking deal. Now that doesn't trump all, but the attitude among fans of those conferences is, if you're going to mess with our rivalry, the least you could do is actually mess with in in favor a system that isn't nearly as useless in determining the #1 team as the old way.

 

It's really that simple.

[Rockerbraves]

Actually, I did and right above your post.

 

As for the year in question, it's always hard to determine which year one is talking about when it comes to college football because they start in one and finish in the other. None the less, you reference both '06 and '07 and one of those years conforms to the one I spoke about above. The year that USC was likely in the driver's seat to play OSU in the title game but pooped the bed vs UCLA. There is no way they would have gotten voted #1 in either poll even if they had gotten to play #1 and undefeated OSU in the Rose Bowl.

If you are talking 2006, I'm not sure about that because Buckeyes were quote unbeatable that season and IF the Trojans would have done what the Gators did they certainly would have gain the media's full attention. Ironically LSU may have had their best team in 2006 if not for this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESgoMBi6d3g

[detlef]

If you are talking 2006, I'm not sure about that because Buckeyes were quote unbeatable that season and IF the Trojans would have done what the Gators did they certainly would have gain the media's full attention. Ironically LSU may have had their best team in 2006 if not for this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESgoMBi6d3g

Again, forgive me for not just taking your word for it that USC would leap-frog 5 teams ranked ahead of them, despite 2 losses, into the top spot considering that you've made verified inaccurate statements about things that actually happened in this thread alone.

 

If anything, in the pre-BCS era there's a precedentfor crowning an undefeated school from a smaller conference champ a la BYU in '84. Thus, Boise St would have as much say in it as anyone.

[detlef]

4 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

4 Members: detlef, darin3, RFFL Chump, Rockerbraves

darin, I know, I know. I just can't help myself.