If U R Not The Best Team In Your Conf How R U The Best In The Nation ?
- Thread starter ELVIS
- Start date
marlins should give back WS title.
syracuse should give back national hoops title
i do see what youre getting at, but dont agree
bottom line is they all have one loss.
and oklahoma's lost was to the best team of the 3 by FAR
if anything, okie should be a definite and all debate should be between usc and lsu
syracuse should give back national hoops title
i do see what youre getting at, but dont agree
bottom line is they all have one loss.
and oklahoma's lost was to the best team of the 3 by FAR
if anything, okie should be a definite and all debate should be between usc and lsu
how many losses did kstate have in conference 2
how many did ou have 1
in the big 10 or pac 10 they would be champions
the bcs system is messed up but so are the conferences
and if ou is so bad why would they be favored over lsu and usc
and lastly the 2 teams kstate lost to were osu and texas
didnt ou beat them by 40 and 50 respectively; one game does not make a season thats why they have the bcs; if the old system was in place; all three teams would be playing in different bowls
how many did ou have 1
in the big 10 or pac 10 they would be champions
the bcs system is messed up but so are the conferences
and if ou is so bad why would they be favored over lsu and usc
and lastly the 2 teams kstate lost to were osu and texas
didnt ou beat them by 40 and 50 respectively; one game does not make a season thats why they have the bcs; if the old system was in place; all three teams would be playing in different bowls
Just because OU is #1 in the BCS doesn't make them the best team in the nation.
They have EARNED the #1 BCS ranking, which qualifies them for a shot at the "BCS National Championship". They might not win the "AP's national championship", or the "coaches poll championship".
The way the current system is set up, there isn't anything you can do about it. I guarantee there will be tweaking this next year, but until then. . . that's life.
They have EARNED the #1 BCS ranking, which qualifies them for a shot at the "BCS National Championship". They might not win the "AP's national championship", or the "coaches poll championship".
The way the current system is set up, there isn't anything you can do about it. I guarantee there will be tweaking this next year, but until then. . . that's life.
THESE ARE ALL BS COMPUTER BASED RANKINGS TO BEGIN WITH. BY THE WAY, DON'T USE SYRACUSE, GMAN2, AS THEY GOT BETTER AS THE YEAR PROGRESSED AND WENT ON A 6 GAME WINNING STREAK. OU LOST THEIR LAST GAME OF THE YEAR. BESIDES ARK BEAT TEXAS. REGARDLESS, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I THINK BECAUSE THESE $$ GRUBBING BIG CONF THAT CONTROL EVERYTHING WILL NOT SUPPORT A PLAYOFF. IF THE TOP 4 TEAMS PLAYED AND OKY WON I WOULD BE PLEASED. I DON'T GIVE A $HIT WHO WINS, BUT IT IS CRAP YOU CAN GET KILLED IN A GAME AND STILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE TOP 3 TEAMS. :shrug:
ALSO, WHY IS OU FAVORED ? BECAUSE OF THE BETTING. OU IS FAVORED BECAUSE IF THEY WERE NOT THE $$ BET ON THE GAME WOULD NOT BE EVEN. THE LINES ARE SET BECAUSE OF $$ IT DOES NOT ENSURE WHO IS BETTER.:nono:
ALSO, WHY IS OU FAVORED ? BECAUSE OF THE BETTING. OU IS FAVORED BECAUSE IF THEY WERE NOT THE $$ BET ON THE GAME WOULD NOT BE EVEN. THE LINES ARE SET BECAUSE OF $$ IT DOES NOT ENSURE WHO IS BETTER.:nono:
Last edited:
I keep going back to NCAA Hoops.
Most conferences have a tourney that will have the automatic birth to the tourney as the prize.
I like to think the reason is they want the team playing the best basketball at the end of the season to be their representative in the tourney. Afterall, a NCAA championship by a team within the conference will add credibility to the conference.
The closest thing in football to a conference tourney is the championship games in the SEC & Big 12. Now the reason they have theirs is because not all teams play each other. What if one division is loaded & the other is not? You need to have a championship game with representatives from each division to determine the conference champion.
So, if there was a playoff in football & the Big 12 could only pick one team to represent them, who do you think that would be?
Remember, the winner of the Big 12 Championship game gets an automatic birth to the BCS game. Why do you think that is?
KSU deserves to be in the Sugar Bowl more than Oklahoma.
Most conferences have a tourney that will have the automatic birth to the tourney as the prize.
I like to think the reason is they want the team playing the best basketball at the end of the season to be their representative in the tourney. Afterall, a NCAA championship by a team within the conference will add credibility to the conference.
The closest thing in football to a conference tourney is the championship games in the SEC & Big 12. Now the reason they have theirs is because not all teams play each other. What if one division is loaded & the other is not? You need to have a championship game with representatives from each division to determine the conference champion.
So, if there was a playoff in football & the Big 12 could only pick one team to represent them, who do you think that would be?
Remember, the winner of the Big 12 Championship game gets an automatic birth to the BCS game. Why do you think that is?
KSU deserves to be in the Sugar Bowl more than Oklahoma.
Although I really don't care for this system, I think it ended up where it should. In my mind, OK is the best team in the country, followed by LSU. I don't give the Pac-10 much credit for a strong confrence. While the Big 12 field 3 of the top 15 (OK, Tex, and K St.) and SEC field 4 (LSU, Tenn, Georgi, and Fla.) USC is the only Pac10 rep in the BCS top 15.
um, didnt USC lose to the california bears!!! give me a break. Using your logic: "How can a team that lost to the Cal bears be in a national championship game" Oh wait, since it happened weeks ago it is less important.
If the big 12 didnt have a conference championship game (not all conferences have conference championship games) we wouldnt be even talking about who the best team in the nation is.
If the big 12 didnt have a conference championship game (not all conferences have conference championship games) we wouldnt be even talking about who the best team in the nation is.
exactly; the reason everyone is pissed is because lsu fans know and usc fans know that ou now has a purpose and you all know when ou has a purpose what happens to the teams they face; they get taken to the woodshed; and usc knows that if lsu gets taken to the woodshed which very well could happen; and usc plays a close game or more than likely gets beaten; then ou will take over #1 in both polls; wideopen said it best; just because you lose early does it make it any less important; which loss is worse a loss to an 11 win big xii champ kstate team or a team with 6 losses who is playing in the silicon motorola alamo humanitarian bowl; regardless of the margin of victory; i will take a loss to kstate a team that beat cal versus a loss to a crappy cal team
You can honestly sit there & say that terrible performance was due to "Not having a purpose"
A Big 12 championship means nothing to Oklahoma.
You might need to take off some homer glasses or you will start looking like Scott.
And for the record, I was not implying that USC/LSU are better than Oklahoma. I was responding to the post that I made regarding KSU being better than Oklahoma.
A Big 12 championship means nothing to Oklahoma.
You might need to take off some homer glasses or you will start looking like Scott.
And for the record, I was not implying that USC/LSU are better than Oklahoma. I was responding to the post that I made regarding KSU being better than Oklahoma.
z2000
I am not a homer because I have not said anything unreasonable or far fetched. Everything I say is backed up with good analysis. Maybe a USC double digit win over Michigan will get all you who call me a homer to apologize. Michigan is a legitimate top 4 team in the nation playing USC in the best bowl game.
FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!
I am not a homer because I have not said anything unreasonable or far fetched. Everything I say is backed up with good analysis. Maybe a USC double digit win over Michigan will get all you who call me a homer to apologize. Michigan is a legitimate top 4 team in the nation playing USC in the best bowl game.
FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!
i never meant to imply that ou did not have purpose in that game all i meant to say is if you look over the last 3 years when ou has been challenged they seem to always come to the challenge; not being a homer at all; i thought kstate deserved to win the game but ou did not have a terrible performance either; they had 400 yards of offense and out fd kstate and only gave up one sack; they just could not put the ball in the end zone and i give all the credit to kstate; lets not forget though kstate is a top 10 team with a top 5 defense; i think people are putting too much on ou and not giving kstate enough credit; they arent cal or anything like that
bbk........seems like there's a whole lot of justifying going on here. K st beat a very inexperienced Cal team in the opening game by 14 in their own backyard, just like the OU game at arrowhead. The reason Tedford took the game was to get some experience for his young team. I keep seeing you make the case the OU game was close. Come on. 35-7 is not close. In fact, we here on the west coast consider that a blowout. As long as the system is set up this way, it will always be up for debate. You make a valid point about OU having to play one extra conf championship game. I don't see that as fair at all but that's the unique setup college football has and to completely discount it seems wrong. Also, cf has always boosted teams who are winning and dropped teams in polls who lose late. It's always been that way. In the end, they all have one loss and LSU/Ou are in and USC out. So let it go. The reason I come to this site anyway it to get tips/insight on plays each week. And one thing i will say about USC, look at their season and you'll see they covered every week except the Cal game. And I played the 2nd half of that game to easily win back my play for the game. So please respect SC for that alone. I don't think OU or LSU covered all but one game and that's why we're all here....i think.
Your comment on Michigan wacking USC, you might consider SC's 11-1 record against the spread and the fact Navarre can be shaky away from the big house. A mediocre Pac 10 team, Oregon, from the oh so weak pac 10, wacked Mich in late sept. In the end it was a 4 point game but for all purposes was over by halftime.
Enjoy bourbon street. I'll take the mountains and the sunshine and beautiful girls in Pasadena along with a play on SC no matter the spread.
Your comment on Michigan wacking USC, you might consider SC's 11-1 record against the spread and the fact Navarre can be shaky away from the big house. A mediocre Pac 10 team, Oregon, from the oh so weak pac 10, wacked Mich in late sept. In the end it was a 4 point game but for all purposes was over by halftime.
Enjoy bourbon street. I'll take the mountains and the sunshine and beautiful girls in Pasadena along with a play on SC no matter the spread.
daft-
SC did not cover against BYU either, so technically, they are 10-2. Both Michigan & USC are going into that game with a pretty impressive ATS streak.
Scott-
The reason you are called a homer is because you dont seem to give credit to other teams & come across as there being no way any team can be as good as USC.
Example, SC & Ohio State are competing for number 2. Instead of giving credit to Ohio State, it's SC this & SC that.
SC & LSU a last week, the same thing happens. LSU schedules patsies, SC had the toughest schedule last year....
I hope you watched that LSU game & came away as impressed as I did. They are a very solid football team & deserve a lot of credit.
I hope you are right about SC-Michigan. I see SC coming away with a double digit win. I thought you saw a close game (like four points). Are you changing your prediction & putting your account on the -6.5?
SC did not cover against BYU either, so technically, they are 10-2. Both Michigan & USC are going into that game with a pretty impressive ATS streak.
Scott-
The reason you are called a homer is because you dont seem to give credit to other teams & come across as there being no way any team can be as good as USC.
Example, SC & Ohio State are competing for number 2. Instead of giving credit to Ohio State, it's SC this & SC that.
SC & LSU a last week, the same thing happens. LSU schedules patsies, SC had the toughest schedule last year....
I hope you watched that LSU game & came away as impressed as I did. They are a very solid football team & deserve a lot of credit.
I hope you are right about SC-Michigan. I see SC coming away with a double digit win. I thought you saw a close game (like four points). Are you changing your prediction & putting your account on the -6.5?
1. Is the goal of the current system (or any non-playoff system) to pit the two best teams in the nation against each other for the national title?
2. Is it possible that the two best teams in the country in any given year are in the same conference?
If the answer to both those questions is YES, then all the bitching in this regard is meaningless. For instance, say hypothetically that the best two teams in the country really are Florida and Georgia. If that is really true, then we want a system that will allow a championship game to pit those two against each other. I realize that they will have already played each other, but it's still possible that the loser of that regular season game is still the second best team in the nation. The same could happen if the two teams were in opposite halves of the same conference, even if one of them didn't make it to the conference champ game. There should NOT be a rule that automatically eliminates non-conference champions from the title game.
Another unwritten rule seems to be "late season losses should count worse than early season losses." I have to ask why, since in no sport I've ever heard of is this case by any rule I've ever heard of until playoffs actually start. In NCAA football-there is only one playoff game and this is the championship game. All other games preceding that game should be evaluated equally.
If the aim was to evaluate the whole season to see who actually earned championship berths (especially in terms of tie breaker scenario in which we found ourselves), you have to question how humans arrived at voting USC #1 instead of #3 like 6 out of 7 computer polls. Answer, because of human biases towards late season losses and humans inability to make overall judgements about what has actually been achieved during the season. That is why the computer polls were added and ironically now that they have corrected an injustice people don't like it.
2. Is it possible that the two best teams in the country in any given year are in the same conference?
If the answer to both those questions is YES, then all the bitching in this regard is meaningless. For instance, say hypothetically that the best two teams in the country really are Florida and Georgia. If that is really true, then we want a system that will allow a championship game to pit those two against each other. I realize that they will have already played each other, but it's still possible that the loser of that regular season game is still the second best team in the nation. The same could happen if the two teams were in opposite halves of the same conference, even if one of them didn't make it to the conference champ game. There should NOT be a rule that automatically eliminates non-conference champions from the title game.
Another unwritten rule seems to be "late season losses should count worse than early season losses." I have to ask why, since in no sport I've ever heard of is this case by any rule I've ever heard of until playoffs actually start. In NCAA football-there is only one playoff game and this is the championship game. All other games preceding that game should be evaluated equally.
If the aim was to evaluate the whole season to see who actually earned championship berths (especially in terms of tie breaker scenario in which we found ourselves), you have to question how humans arrived at voting USC #1 instead of #3 like 6 out of 7 computer polls. Answer, because of human biases towards late season losses and humans inability to make overall judgements about what has actually been achieved during the season. That is why the computer polls were added and ironically now that they have corrected an injustice people don't like it.
z2000
I said if the line was USC -3 or -4 i would bet HUGE on it. I was "hoping" vegas would throw that line out. I will not bet HUGE USC -7. I might bet HUGE on the ML, but i rather have -200 not -250. I am going to wait and see how USC heals up from injuries and hope the line goes down. I really wanted USC to open up -3 over Michigan. Did not get what i wanted.
Felonious Monk
Nice write-up but i disagree with you on early vs late losses. USC this year for example, is "VERY" young team. So they lost to CAL in triple OT @CAL in their 4th game of year. Cal did play very well. Since USC was and still is a VERY young team, they have gotten better every game since. USC not only won every game since CAL, they covered the vegas spread as well. Also USC blown out every opponent since CAL and scored OVER 43pts in every game. USC is playing the best football right now.
Since there is no playoff system, you cannot afford to lose a game. So you have to justify losing early (especially on road) more vs losing late. If USC was in the Sugar Bowl i would much rather USC play LSU because OU just got spanked and did not win their conference. If USC beat OU big deal. LSU is playing great football now so i would want USC to beat LSU.
I believe in rewarding a team who gets better each game, vs team who takes a step backwards. Now if OU would have beaten KSU by 1pt in UGLY fashion, i would still be 100% for OU playing in Sugar Bowl. They would have zero losses but since they did lose (and happen to get spanked and not win conference) they are now same playing field with USC and LSU. USC and LSU both stepped up their game and playing great football now, OU messed up. Congrats to OU for unbelievable season but IMO they do not deserve to be in the NC over USC and LSU.
FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!
I said if the line was USC -3 or -4 i would bet HUGE on it. I was "hoping" vegas would throw that line out. I will not bet HUGE USC -7. I might bet HUGE on the ML, but i rather have -200 not -250. I am going to wait and see how USC heals up from injuries and hope the line goes down. I really wanted USC to open up -3 over Michigan. Did not get what i wanted.
Felonious Monk
Nice write-up but i disagree with you on early vs late losses. USC this year for example, is "VERY" young team. So they lost to CAL in triple OT @CAL in their 4th game of year. Cal did play very well. Since USC was and still is a VERY young team, they have gotten better every game since. USC not only won every game since CAL, they covered the vegas spread as well. Also USC blown out every opponent since CAL and scored OVER 43pts in every game. USC is playing the best football right now.
Since there is no playoff system, you cannot afford to lose a game. So you have to justify losing early (especially on road) more vs losing late. If USC was in the Sugar Bowl i would much rather USC play LSU because OU just got spanked and did not win their conference. If USC beat OU big deal. LSU is playing great football now so i would want USC to beat LSU.
I believe in rewarding a team who gets better each game, vs team who takes a step backwards. Now if OU would have beaten KSU by 1pt in UGLY fashion, i would still be 100% for OU playing in Sugar Bowl. They would have zero losses but since they did lose (and happen to get spanked and not win conference) they are now same playing field with USC and LSU. USC and LSU both stepped up their game and playing great football now, OU messed up. Congrats to OU for unbelievable season but IMO they do not deserve to be in the NC over USC and LSU.
FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!
