Posted on 01/08/2008 7:50:51 AM PST by meandog
***That’s not what it’s there for—it’s supposed to create a good national title game.***
To which, they get another “F”!!! What they did do was just what you say it is NOT suppose to do: They took a team which travels well from a weak conference that had NO business being there.
I don’t disagree with you. USC and Oregon were good teams. And any given year UCLA or Stanford or U-Cal can have a good team. There is just no comparison when it comes to the SEC or Big12. I think the Big East ranks just under the competitive level of the PAC-10 but are similar in their competitive level in the last year or two.
oh, that’s right, losses in overtime don’t count...heck let’s just let them count a 1/2, so now you only have one loss, and still not in regulation.
If Kentucky took you to overtime, right there is a problem.
That you lost to them in overtime, is another bigger one.
And they do for the most part save for the QB position. Take Teebow out of the Gator offense and what to they become?
The point spread had USC favored by 41 (it was the biggest loss versus the spread in the history of the NCAA).
I know that Stanford won only four games.
I know that Oregon lost their QB and then went on to lose four games, but then making a good showing in the bowl game, and I believe that Oregon is BETTER than USC.
I know that UCLA gave lowly Notre Dame its’ first of three wins for the season (Pac-10 playing out of its’ conference)
I know that Pac-10 Arizona State at 10-3 got stomped by Texas in the bowl game.
I know that California was ranked # 2 at one point and finished the season with 6 loses
Ahhh the true meaning of SEC
S orry at
E xhibiting
C lass
The Superdome.
The National Title game was set by the voters, not the BCS. Its hands were tied in selecting Ohio State.
S uperior to
E very
C onference
***The National Title game was set by the voters, not the BCS. Its hands were tied in selecting Ohio State.***
So, should we conclude that the BCS, in trying to prevent a school from playing just because they “travel well” as you say, was given a shot at the national title when they didn’t deserve it because the BCS’s “hands were tied?”
Sounds like another reason for changes. Let’s face it: OSU kept a good ranking because they were OSU. They played in a weaker conference this year but were kept in a high ranking because they were OSU. A number of other teams in hind sight were more deserving of a shot at the title. Yes, because the BCS’s hands are tied, they create scenarios that they are suppose to prevent.
Oh, well, when people start to tune out because games have no interest, then I suppose changes will happen. If I remember, the Big-10 and Pac-10 both still lobby against a 4+1 or 5+1 format. My opinion is that they realize that they are the weakest of the major conferences and wouldn’t get many shots at a title.
To be clear, here’s how the system works:
The BCS national title game is obligated to select #1 and #2, as determined by (mostly) the polls. The computers have a vote, but it’s not really worth much. So the final polls had OSU and LSU ranked 1 and 2, so off they went.
The other “BCS Bowls” are left to choose their participants. The Rose gets the winner of the Big Ten and Pac-10. Because Ohio State was off to the title game, the Rose Bowl got Big Ten runner-up Illinois. It also got USC as the Pac-10 winner.
Sugar Bowl gets the SEC champ. Since LSU was in the title game, the Sugar took Georgia, instead—Tennessee was ranked too low in the BCS polls to go.
Orange Bowl gets the ACC champ. VaTech, off you go.
Fiesta Bowl gets the Big 12 champ. Welcome to Tempe, Oklahoma.
In addition, the winner of the Big East is guaranteed a berth, as well as a conference champion who is in the top 12 in the standings and not in one of the above-named conferences. Congrats, Hawaii. You’re in.
So that leaves a few spots left: Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange still have slots to fill, and West Virginia and Hawaii must be two of the three. The Orange bowl picked first and for some reason took Kansas. I would have thought that West Virginia / Va Tech would have been the better draw, but whatever. That left West Virginia and Hawaii. Fiesta chose next and took West Virginia. The Sugar took Hawaii because it had to. Mizzou gets left out.
A truly great team has a decent backup QB and rallies to cover the deficiencies of backup QB. Come on, Mark Sanchez was a five-star, bluest of blue-chip recruit who everyone in the country wanted. He should be up to the task.
It's because the Big Ten and the Pac-10 have the Rose Bowl, which is the best. It has aura that no other bowl has. Why would the Pac-10 and Big Ten voluntarily give that up? The only way I could see the Big Ten and Pac-10 actually agreeing to a plus one scenario is if the Rose Bowl decided to abandon the Pac-10 / Big Ten ties. Absent that, it won't happen.
I’ve always wondered how that worked out.
But what about the Rose Bowl in - what was it - 2004? 2005? Michigan v. Texas? Everyone thought Cal would go and lost by two votes, those of the Texas coach (who begged for votes on TV) and his brother) so it was Big 10 yes, Pac 10 no. I’ve never understood why Cal didn’t get the nod there. I think that was the year USC was in the title game.
So what, I will never visit San Francisco so what does that prove.
Nice break down. We need a playoff system because despite the fact that you understand, and i do (albeit after much hard thinking) to, its simply stupid.
***It’s because the Big Ten and the Pac-10 have the Rose Bowl, which is the best. It has aura that no other bowl has.***
This year it was the toilet bowl.
***Why would the Pac-10 and Big Ten voluntarily give that up? The only way I could see the Big Ten and Pac-10 actually agreeing to a plus one scenario is if the Rose Bowl decided to abandon the Pac-10 / Big Ten ties. Absent that, it won’t happen.***
Who says they have to give it up? First of all, when the Rose hosts 1 v. 2, they do give it up so there is some incentive. Secondly, there is nothing that requires tradition to give up its selection in a plus 1 format. But, when you play Ill. as USC in a plus 1 format, you kinda write yourself out of contention for a title game for the sake of your tradition.
I think the real reason is that the Pac-10 is weak and the Big-10 is weak. Thus, you won’t get many shots at a title.
There are several top teams that were young this year. The annonucers at fox absolutely suck. Be grateful you did not have to watch this duo in the sugar bowl. If you did, then you know what I mean.
I don't know about that one; I remember that game pretty well--and as you note, USC went to the title game, but I'm not sure how Texas got in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.