Looks like OU vs. Oregon is on for Sept. 18th....

[Avalanche]

Originally posted by SCOTT4USC

USC had more than enough people thinking they were the #1 team in the country. It was LSU, NOT USC, who was fortunate. NO ONE of significance is calling LSU the champ. LSU is ONLY co-champs because the coaches HAD to vote for LSU. Now, it's just not one poll calling USC champs over LSU. In the numerous non-coerced polls, USC was a unanimous NUMBER ONE!

Unanimous, SCOTT4USC???? How about this taken from the college football warehouse?

You asked if I could find one media outlet.... well, I found 17 (SEVENTEEN) (that's 1-7 or 16+1 or 15+2) === 17 outlets.

17 for LSU and 9 for USC. That ought to be enough.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 National Championships

Recognized National Championships

1 Louisiana St. USA Today/ESPN (Coaches Poll)
2 Southern California Associated Press

All National Championship Selections

Louisiana St.

1st-N-Goal
ARGH Power Ratings
Billingsley Report
Bowl Championship Series
Colley Rankings
David Wilson
Dunkel System
Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions and Tournaments
Harry DeVold
James Howell
Jeff Self
Massy Ratings
Peter Wolfe
Sagarin Ratings
Seattle Times
SW!-TECH Computer Ratings
USA Today/ESPN

Southern California

1st-N-Goal
Associated Press
CBS SportsLine
Congrove Computer Rankings
DKC Ratings
Football Writers Association of America
New York Times
Soren Sorensen
The Fleming System

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this enough material for you, SCOTT4USC???? Are these enough media outlets to support that LSU was the better team and known as the national champion? Is that enough for you??

Once again, despite you saying "woulda shoulda coulda" how many times has a PAC 10 team qualified for the national championship game EVEN before the BCS??????

 

[Scott4USC]

Avalanche

Good research, but you conveniently left out what i asked for. I said "find one MAJOR media outlet that says LSU is better." Quality, not quantity.

bbk :nono:

Isnt the FACT the PAC 10 has not won a NC in the BCS since it has been around supporting material and I dont know but how many NC has the PAC 10 won in the last 20 years. ???? I dont know can someone tell me please.

The argument is about strength of conference, not just the elite teams. Strength of conferences means top to bottom, so an argument of who has won the most titles is not much of an argument. For example, do you think the ACC was so tough because FSU was in the NC games so many times??? NO. FSU was in the championship game so many times because the ACC sucked. Same could be said about Miami and the Big East. So then why are you "trying" to make an argument supporting how tough a conference is based on National Title Appearances? It is not much of an argument. If LSU played in Conference USA and went undefeated every year, would that make Conference USA a strong conference because LSU is so highly ranked every year?

the reason why is because the PAC 10 is pitiful.

How is the Pac 10 pitiful? I guess next year if the Pac 10 goes 2-6 in bowl games and loses by an average of 10pts you will respect the Pac 10 as much as you do the Big 12. :lol:

I got an idea BBK, why don't you try posting your OWN opinion on who are the toughest conferences and REASONS behind it. Be productive. All you do is attack others opinions & analysis but you never can support your own. You show a lack of intelligence and are quite pathetic. :nooo:

 

[Avalanche]

Avalanche

Good research, but you conveniently left out what i asked for. I said "find one MAJOR media outlet that says LSU is better." Quality, not quantity.

Hmmmmmmmm so you don't respect the fact that 17 go with LSU huh? You're saying quality, not quantity. Is that the best you can do??????????

Listen, you are brainwashed. I show you 17-9 in favor of LSU over USC and all you can do is say quality not quantity???? Are you serious????????? Really serious????? Look at the "quality vs quantity" of the organizations that chose USC. You lose either way.

You are one brainwashed dude. You don't even know how stupid you sound.

Face it, 17-9 speaks for itself. Your counterargument to that is "quality not quantity" and that's all you can come up with. Talk about a lack of intelligence on your part... and that's indeed pathetic.

Go ahead and accuse the Seattle Times of that east coast bias while you're at it.

 

[mansa_musa]

You say 17-9! -- like it is a final score or an OOC record? Instead of bad math!

You listed for LSU 5 of the 7 BCS computer rankings components separately. Then you added the BCS & the poll they bought, the ESPN/USA Today coaches poll, separately, as well. I'm sure if you counted every AP writer who voted for USC, separately, the #'s wouldnt look so pretty! But, since you didnt know that the BCS was a computer ranking system, you probably didnt know that all those other computer rankings were all just pieces of it. & I'm sure you didnt know that a Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions & Tournaments even existed.

To say that 17 different "major" media outlets have declared LSU the champs is misleading.

BIG XII teams have to play these 2nd tier teams like NEB that was in the NC game a few years ago and won 9 games last year versus the Top Tier Teams USC faces like Cal which beat USC and lost 5 games and was even worse the year before and didnt they lose 10 games the year before that.

First, bbk, of Nebraska's 9 wins last yr -- show me one more impressive than Cal's wins over SC or Va Tech? Nevermind the fact that the Golden Bears played K St tougher in their season opener, than Oklahoma did in the Big 12 championship!

Second, you conveniently overlooked the fact that SC also plays WSU -- who stomped a mudhole in Texas' ass! & Oregon -- who beat Michigan early in the season!

Third, I believe the Big 12 has had a team lose all of its conference games every yr since 1998. Those teams are in the Big 12 also.

 

[bbk]

the team that beat that team that beat that team is the stupidest arguement in the world so give it up mansa
you are really reaching but good try
also 28-20 is not stomping a mudhole jackass; and i dont think 3-2 for the pac 10 is that impressive what that tells me is the big xii got in 8 teams and the pac 10 only 5; that tell me the pac 10 is pitifull for having only 5 teams; i would rather lose more games and get more in than only have a pitiful 5 get in.
one last thing; cal lost to UCLA (they freakin suck i mean really suck) and ou blasted them by over 30; so stop with all the they beat them and they beat them; like i said keep trying :nono: :nono:

 

[mansa_musa]

the team that beat that team that beat that team is the stupidest arguement in the world so give it up mansa

one last thing; cal lost to UCLA (they freakin suck i mean really suck) and ou blasted them by over 30

Too bad you couldnt find a "smart" argument to deflate Cal. You still didnt find that great Nebraska win that I asked you for.

i would rather lose more games and get more in than only have a pitiful 5 get in.

And you had the nerve to call my argument stupid! I also believe the Pac 10 won 4 bowl games (OSU, USC, WSU & Cal)! So not only were you inaccurate, but, stupid too! Also, UW was bowl eligible, but, declined an invite to a bowl.

2-6 impresses you more than 4-2! (Pac 10's 2 losses by a total of 9 pts, while 6 Big 12 losses by an avg of 10+ pts!)

Just keep on writing, eventually, you will say something smart. It's called the "due factor"! Idiot!!!!

 

[Avalanche]

You listed for LSU 5 of the 7 BCS computer rankings components separately. Then you added the BCS & the poll they bought, the ESPN/USA Today coaches poll, separately, as well. I'm sure if you counted every AP writer who voted for USC, separately, the #'s wouldnt look so pretty! But, since you didnt know that the BCS was a computer ranking system, you probably didnt know that all those other computer rankings were all just pieces of it. & I'm sure you didnt know that a Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions & Tournaments even existed. To say that 17 different "major" media outlets have declared LSU the champs is misleading.

Scott/mansa go tell that to the College Football Warehouse and tell them their numbers are skewed. :nono: :nono: By the way, dont tell me what I know and don't know. You asked me for ONE major media outlet and I provided well more than 1.

Originally posted by mansa musa AKA SCOTT4USC

Second, you conveniently overlooked the fact that SC also plays WSU -- who stomped a mudhole in Texas' ass! & Oregon -- who beat Michigan early in the season!

Third, I believe the Big 12 has had a team lose all of its conference games every yr since 1998. Those teams are in the Big 12 also.

Hey mansa/Scott4USC: How did USC do against Oregon last year????? Oh that's right, USC didn't half to play Oregon...... seems like you've conveniently left that out too. Don't tell me how great Oregon is because they beat Michican and USC didn't even play Oregon!!!!!!!!! Since USC didnt even half to play Oregon last year do we need to talk about why USC didnt make it to the national championship game??? You only had one tough conference game and that was against WSU - unless you count the game against Cal as tough, which you should, since you lost to a team that went 0-11 a few years ago. Perhaps that was tough after all!

You PAC 10 people will swallow anything and cling to the absolute weakest and most worthless claims to somehow validate your conference to get it over the mediocre class --- and thats fine -- but for you to call your conference tough or "the toughest" is absolutely insane.. quit talking about how not everyone in the Big 12 and SEC have to play eachother -- USC didnt even have to play Oregon. And if Oregon was good enough to beat Michigan, what does that say about that tough win against Michigan in the Rose Bowl for the "national championship." :nono: :nono:

 

[mansa_musa]

OK, Mr Hockalanche

The mansa_musa AKA Scott4USC thing tells me that you're getting a little upset & starting to act childish.

Don't tell me how great Oregon is because they beat Michican and USC didn't even play Oregon!!!!!!!!!

And you're trying to say that we "cling to the absolute weakest and most worthless claims."

OU didnt play Nebraska & wouldnt have played K St if the Wildcats didnt win their division. W/o K St, OU wouldnt have had any tough conference games. I dont count Texas or Ok St as tough, before you respond w those patsies.

By the way, bkalanche, you are the one telling me what you dont know. You asked me, what the Sagarin ratings are! You obviously didnt know that it was a computer ranking system & not a poll! There is a saying -- "It's better to remain silent & let someone think you're stupid, than to open your mouth & remove all doubt."

ps Cal was 1-10 a few yrs ago -- & their first game of the next season they were a DD fav @ Baylor! Cal dropped 70 on them!

 

[Avalanche]

Anything you'd like to add about USC not playing Oregon last year? Rather, anything you want to respond with AT ALL? Instead your response is talking about how OU didn't play Nebraska or K State in the regular season. What about the Oregon factor for USC? Did you somehow miss that or is that point being missed or dodged? USC didnt even have to play Oregon last year!!! Come on!! Don't dodge that. How many other "tough" Pac 10 teams are there outside of USC, WSU, and Oregon? USC played WSU and that's it and lost to Cal?!?! At least OU lost to K St and LSU lost to Florida --- both good teams although Florida was down.

BTW I would never ask someone what the Sagarin ratings are. I was being sarcastic to point out the flaw in your statement. I am simply pointing out that the BCS is not the only ranking system out there so you cant just blame it all on the BCS. There are lots of ranking systems out there that are computerized. Perhaps the PAC 10 needs to come up with their own computerized ranking system to take away that "east coast bias" and give those poor "tough" teams in the PAC 10 a chance.

You guys can spin it all you want -- If the computer systems are in the PAC 10's favor, you'd be clinging to that and take out the human emotion. Since the computers, which accurately calculate the SOS, arent in the PAC 10s favor, you guys are saying polls are more important.

You call Texas a patsy and then point out how WSU dominated Texas in the Holiday Bowl. What big deal is it to beat up on a "patsy" then?

And for the love of god, please quit talking about how teams in the Big 12 go winless in the conference and dont base your conference supremacy arguments on Baylor for christ sake! There are so many bad teams in the Pac 10 everyone in the conference is assured a win.

 

[mansa_musa]

I finally see why you are babbling on about Oregon. In one of my earlier posts I inserted SC when I should have inserted The Pac 10. I couldnt for the life of me understand why Oregon became so important to you. OK I will go back & make the change later. But, first things first!

What about the Oregon factor for USC? Did you somehow miss that or is that point being missed or dodged?

I thought that point to be so ridiculous, that it did not need a response. I am not the SC apologist that you make me out to be. Any list of teams I think are tough, you would do your best to break down based on recent performance.

I choose instead to say, that at the end of last season, I would have taken OSU or Cal to beat any team in the Big 12 save OU & KSU. And even then, I say that not to claim toughness in the Pac 10. But, to express how weak I thought the Big 12 was.

UCLA, UW & ASU would compete very well w the rest of the Big 12 save Texas, OU & K St.

There are lots of ranking systems out there that are computerized.

& there are plenty that are not computerized. Not any one of them is any more valid or "legit" than my (or your) opinion. If you remember, my point was that the BCS was no be all & end all. I didnt blame anything on it, I was trying to explain it to you! But, now I see, you already knew.

& about the computers, "which accurately calculate the SOS." SOS is the W-L's of your opponents (66%) & W-L's of your opponents opponents (33%). The SOS makes no adjustments for home v away, injuries, etc... You know those little things you like to know before you bet money. Now how can that possibly be an accurate calculation of SOS? But, you knew that too, you just said that to "point out the flaw in my statement," I'm sure.

USC played WSU and that's it and lost to Cal?!?! At least OU lost to K St and LSU lost to Florida --- both good teams although Florida was down.

Now, let's look at those OU, LSU & SC losses more closely:
--OU lost the Big 12 championship w an undefeated season on the line to a K St team that hadnt distinguished itself in any way, shape, or form up to that point. They lost by 28 pts & their offense led by the Heisman QB showed no heart & scored no points in the 2H!
--LSU lost a home game to a Florida team w a rookie QB. LSU's offense led by a sr QB, also failed to score in the 2H. Florida had only beaten SJSU & FAMU up to that point, if memory serves me.
--SC lost on the road to Cal w 2 rookie QB's squaring off. SC trailed at the half & forced OT. Eventually lost in the 3rd OT by a fg!

I, actually, think SC's loss was the most respectable of the three.

 

[Avalanche]

SC lost on the road to Cal w 2 rookie QB's squaring off. SC trailed at the half & forced OT. Eventually lost in the 3rd OT by a fg!

I, actually, think SC's loss was the most respectable of the three.

A loss to an unranked Cal team is the most respectable, eh?

Are you kidding????? :lol:

Cal lost to Colorado State at Cal :lol:
Cal lost at Utah :lol:

Cal had a nice season, esp with beating V Tech.... but only finished 8-6 and 5-3 in the Pac 10. An unranked team like Cal is the most respectable of the 3 losses by the 3 teams?

The Pac 10 spin doctors are in full bloom indeed.

 

[wareagle]

My GOD!!! Scott give it a rest:violin: :nooo: :lol2 :rant2:


The bottom line is this! BCS Title Game which is defined as the game in which the winner will be the College Football National Champ is LSU not usc.

argument over see you next year:nono:

 

[bbk]

I completely agree Avalanche; people keep talking about how bad of a loss the KState game was well did they not win 13 games and play in a BCS bowl; and its not like Florida is a pushover; the game was at home which is bad; but to lose against Cal a team that lost to CSU and Utah; that is god awful i dont care if it was at cal and i love how you guys act like the loss is better because it was in overtime. give me a physical break. That loss was pitiful plain and simple. Florida had 5 losses but they lose to teams like Tennessee and Florida State not Utah and CSU THE SPIN DOCTORS ARE AT WORK AND THE BS IS ADDING UP i also love how scottmunsa has the gall to say they were favord dd over baylor and hung 70 on them; god almighty you are reaching everyone beats baylor by 70 if they want to. you are comical munsa. you make me laugh; keep em coming

 

[Scott4USC]

completely agree Avalanche; people keep talking about how bad of a loss the KState game was well did they not win 13 games and play in a BCS bowl

NO, OU won 12 games last season.

I do not understand how anybody could give OU much respect last season. Yes they won 12 games which is nice but who did they beat that was so impressive? Or do you just care about W's instead of who they beat? Maybe beating Texas was impressive. Thats it. I was not impressed over any of the OU wins yet you are impressed by them? OU lost to the 2 best teams they faced by 28pts and 7pts. NOT IMPRESSIVE AT ALL. In addition, both games were played at the end of the season, where a team IMO should be playing their best football. Again, why would anybody be impressed by OU season? :shrug:

USC had 3 very impressive wins in my opinion. Opening the season @AUBURN with brand new QB and backfield was impressive. Dominating WSU was very impressive. Dominating Michigan in the Rose Bowl who many considered to be one of the hottest team in the country. 3 impressive victories. :thumb:

Then you people slam CAL for losing 6 games last season. What the F*** are you guys smoking? :nooo:

Lets see CALS OOC opponents.

@ #10 Kansas St. (in Kansas City)
Southern Miss
Colorado St.
@ #25 Utah
@ Illinois

THAT IS A FREAKING TOUGH OOC SCHEDULE. 3/5 games on the road and you people do not respect that? They went 2-3 in OOC play which I think was very respectable. 4 of the 5 OOC opponents were BOWL TEAMS this season. That does not impress you? :shrug: Lets not forget they played all 5 OOC opponents 5 consecutive weeks and this was a young CAL team with new QB!!!!

The 3 Pac 10 teams they lost too were:

Oregon St.
@UCLA
@Oregon

All 3 were bowl teams and they lost to UCLA and Oregon on the road by 3pts and 4pts. In addition, they beat USC during the season which only 2 other teams in 2 years have been able to do!!!

You people really are stupid to put down CAL for losing 6 games last year. REALLY STUPID! :nono:

If they played the BCS NC LSU schedule, CAL would have played for an OOC schedule:

Louisiana Monroe :lol:
@Arizona :lol: (down year for Arizona and horrible coach)
Western Illinois :lol:
Louisiana Tech :lol:

CAL would have smoked all 4 OOC teams, so CAL would have had ZERO OOC losses. In LSU regular season schedule, CAL prob. would have lost too Georgia (just like LSU should have lost to UGA, LSU was completely dominated in that game) and CAL would have had good even matched games against Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Florida (FL was horrible when LSU lost to them and had frosh QB)

So if CAL played mighty LSU schedule (#1 team in the SEC), CAL "at most" would have had 4 losses, but realistically prob. 2-3 losses last year. With some luck, CAL prob. could run the table with that schedule. Remember, CAL was able to beat USC, so they easily could have beat UGA or anybody in the SEC.

This is a great example of the difference between SEC and PAC 10. If CAL played in the SEC and scheduled the way the SEC schedules, CAL without a doubt would have a better record vs playing in the PAC and the way the Pac 10 schedules OOC opponents. GREAT EXAMPLE!!!!

 

[Avalanche]

CAL would have smoked all 4 OOC teams, so CAL would have had ZERO OOC losses. In LSU regular season schedule, CAL prob. would have lost too Georgia (just like LSU should have lost to UGA, LSU was completely dominated in that game) and CAL would have had good even matched games against Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Florida (FL was horrible when LSU lost to them and had frosh QB)

So if CAL played mighty LSU schedule (#1 team in the SEC), CAL "at most" would have had 4 losses, but realistically prob. 2-3 losses last year. With some luck, CAL prob. could run the table with that schedule. Remember, CAL was able to beat USC, so they easily could have beat UGA or anybody in the SEC.

Lets look at all of the "should haves" "would haves" and more "should haves" and a few more "would haves" and "if" and "with some luck" and some "probably" "could haves"

Lets point out how you conveniently forget about the rematch LSU had with Georgia in ATLANTA where LSU won 34-13.

You act like since Cal beat USC its almost like CAL should have been the national champion!!!

You ask what we're smoking???? You obviously are smoking some creeper because you don't realize how stupid you sound.

All I will say about Oklahoma's schedule is this: They had USC beaten in SOS. Now who's wrong? You or the rest of the world?

 

[Scott4USC]

Lets point out how you conveniently forget about the rematch LSU had with Georgia in ATLANTA where LSU won 34-13.

LSU dominated UGA the 2nd time they played, and UGA dominated LSU the first time. LSU should have been 1-1 against UGA and I do not think anybody would dispute that. Anyways, props to LSU for beating UGA twice. In my post, i said I think CAL would most likely LOSE to UGA. If you you read my analysis, i said for REGULAR SEASON that CAL's record would be better if they played in the SEC and LSU schedule vs playing in the PAC 10 and the way the PAC 10 typically schedules. I laid it all out there and I think I did a damn good job with it. I think there is no way CAL would lose more than 6 games playing LSU's schedule.

You act like since Cal beat USC its almost like CAL should have been the national champion!!!

No, you missed my point. I said since CAL beat USC, it is not unreasonable to think CAL could beat anybody on LSU's schedule. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE LOSS FOR CAL although I think UGA would beat CAL and maybe 3 other teams on LSU's schedule would be evenly matched with CAL.

You ask what we're smoking???? You obviously are smoking some creeper because you don't realize how stupid you sound.

Thats funny, you have yet to post your opinion with support behind it. All you can do is "attempt" to poke holes through others opinions. Thats quite pathetic and I get a big kick out of it.

All I will say about Oklahoma's schedule is this: They had USC beaten in SOS. Now who's wrong? You or the rest of the world?

Most if not all the computers had OU SOS ahead of USC. Remember, OU played 1 more game than USC and computers value wins. In addition, OU recieved .5 BCS pts for beating Texas, and USC recieved none for beating WSU because WSU lost UW. (WSU beat Texas in bowl game, which shows how flawed the computers are) That is why I have 3 problems with the computer systems.

1) They do not distinguish between HOME and AWAY victories or losses. Playing on the road is tough yet you do not get rewarded for it.

2) They reward a team for beating a 90th ranked Division 1 school for just winning and give a full loss to a team if they lose to a #10 ranked opponent by 1pt. WINS against anybody is worth so much more than a close loss to a somebody. Not right. That helped OU because many teams in the Big 12 sucked but were ranked highly by the computers because of WINS they got over the bottom feeders of the Big 12 and weak OOC.

3) MARGIN OF VICTORY. USC would have kicked ass in the BCS because they blew out all their opponents but they did not get rewarded for it. I agree with LEE CORSO in that there needs to be a margin of victory, capped out at 21pts (to prevent running up the score). For example, say LSU blows out every opponent but loses one tough game, and Ohio St. barely beats majority of their opponents and loses one tough game, shouldn't LSU get rewarded extra pts for being so dominant?

I think that is wrong so I do not based solely my opinion on the computers as I think you do. However, I do respect the computers to some degree and look at them to help form my opinion. I also think the computers are good for the BCS but need to be modified.

Here is the deal Avalanche. I gave my opinion, and I gave a detailed support behind my opinion. I have NO IDEA why you cannot respect any of MINE or mansa_musa posts. We always post substance in our posts and often hard core data. From reading your posts I do not "think" you lack intelligence (although your getting to that point), so I do not understand why you cannot be mature enough and give props to someones opinion that is well supported? I could never call someone names if they gave their opinion and reasonable support backing it up. I along with mansa_musa do this very well. You do not necessarily have to agree, and if you disagree,counter argue everything you disagree, say what you do agree with, then clearly state your own opinion, and have support behind it. You do NOTHING to convince anybody of your opinion yet you weakly attempt to try and tear others down and not provide anything to back up yours. I do not get it. How can you feel justified in doing so? :shrug:

 

[bbk]

I completely agree with you Madjack Thank you

 

[Scott4USC]

Madjack posted.....

This is a friendly forum for people to get together and help each other win for *FREE*

The same goes for "BASHERS". If you're here to cause trouble, you won't be here for long. Constructive criticism is good but bashing will not be tolerated in our *FRIENDLY* forums.

bash somebody = getting banned

BBK posted.....

I completely agree with you Madjack Thank you

:lol2 :bsflag :lol2

I practically fell off my chair reading this!!! :142lmao:

I attached below all the quotes from BBK towards Scott4USC, and all are seperate quotes from seperate posts. He completely bashed Scott4USC and made personal attacks. OVER 25 different times!!!!! This is one sick obsession he has over me. The irony is, he agrees with Madjack that if you bash somebody, you should get banned.

These are quotes from BBK, this week, from this very thread, and yet, he agrees with Madjack that bashers should get banned?

Towards Scott4USC

Scott
can you please give me some more crappy college basketball picks. I like wheny you try to act like a handicapper and end up looking like the fool you are. Who do you like in the final four so i can bet opposite.

Towards Mansa_musa

give it up mansa you are really reaching but good try also 28-20 is not stomping a mudhole jackass

:nono:

Here are the exact quotes from BBK towards Scott4USC, but remember when reading the quotes, BBK "completely agrees" with Madjack that bashers should be banned. :lol2

you are such a dipS#%t; why dont you respond to me and give me one impressive win that usc has

you are starting to sound like that fag homer scott

god almighty lets start a thread scott the biggest homer on the face of the year;

scott you are such a fagot homer please madjack get him off this site he brings no incite at all to anything about anything other than he is balls out homer;

that statement is completely acinine you dont freaking know that so shut up; god you are in idiot for saying stupid crap...

scott knows jack crap about anything

scott has no inside info other than the info that he is the biggest homer loser

Like I have said Scott brings nothing but biased homer crap please get this pathetic loser off this site

Can I get anyone that wants Scott4USC banned please post here
Hopefully Madjack can do something about this.

Stop posting Scott and trust me you will never hear from me. The only thing that is old is your obsession with USC and that is not a RUMOR its a FACT

Nice spin again Scott; Just keeping posting your crap and I will call you on it.

Scott is such a joke on this board;

another homer spin; beautiful; what a joke

you are hopefull scott hopeless; i actually voted in the poll you were gay and not a loser and i am going to have to switch that to a hopeless homer loser.

That is funny crap; I agree Scott is a Lucas impersonator; a wannabe

This just shows how completely pathetic Scott is. This just goes to show you how NOTHING Scott says is worth even looking at.

Lucas has absolutely no life. I figure if we dont respond to him on his threads he may just go away. And I know what everyone will say this moron will still respond in our threads.

get a life

I would guess Scott is going to say USC and because OU did not win their last 2 games that OU is the 5th best team over the last 4 years.

And now Scott has even sunk the lowest of all lows. I agree what a complete jerk.

Its a dead heat; i like scotts parents in a landslide

Just some spin keep it going lucas. You are so homerized its impossible to have a real conversation with you.

wish this joker would just get thrown off this site;

you are such a freakin moran you are making yourself look even worse; get a freakin life'

BBK

I completely agree with you Madjack Thank you

:nono:

 

[Avalanche]

Scott, my only issues with you are these:

1
You are a PAC 10 spin doctor. Everything is pro PAC 10 and even you have to admit that. You congratulate Oregon for scheduling Oklahoma but do not congratulate Oklahoma for scheduling Oregon. Its the same thing every time with you. PAC 10 PAC 10 PAC 10 PAC 10.

2
Your numbers are mixed and matched to support your arguments. You conveniently leave out key facts and figures. Do you somehow forget that LSU beat Georgia in the SEC Championship in Atlanta? I dont care if LSU "should have" lost to Georgia in round 1, just like I dont care that the computers "should" calcuate home vs away. If it is a big deal, it will be changed. The bottom line is that, under the current system, USC lost out on the national title game and lost out to Oklahoma in SOS. Now you dont have to agree with why that was the case, and that's fine, but the bottom line is that they lost out to OU and LSU. Just how many "should haves" and "would haves" are you going to come up with? If the word operated under "would haves" and "should haves" then you can make a case for Baylor to go 13-0 next season. Dreamworld is not reality. Reality is what the current system implements.

3
You pump up all of USC's opponents. Cal is suddenly going to be favored over the New England Patriots by -7 if you have a say in it. You say Michigan was considered by "many" to be one of the "hottest" teams in the country. Well who on earth considered Michigan one of the "hottest" teams in the country? You? Somehow you are trying to validate Michigan as a national title opponent for USC and the bottom line is they were ranked a distant #4 in the BCS and many other polls or computer rankings or whatever. A home game vs Michigan, to you, seems tougher than playing OU or LSU in the Sugar Bowl huh?

Cal loses to Colorado St and at Utah and somehow you think that's a good thing and tougher than the SEC conference schedule. While I will agree that the OOC for CAL vs LSU was in Cal's favor, who cares? The PAC 10 vs the SEC conference schedule is no comparison whatsoever. The SEC is way more dominant than the PAC 10 PERIOD.

You asked me to provide ONE major media outlet that called LSU the true national champion and I provided a ton of them.

4
You are inconsistent. Do we need to bring up the thread where you talked about how worthless the AP championship was a few months ago??? Now you act like it is more important than the BCS.

5
You claim the PAC 10 is the toughest conference and all you do is talk about USC. Well, are there 9 other teams in the PAC 10 or is it just the PAC 1?

For all the talk you do about USC's SOS you guys didnt even have to play Oregon in 2003. This means you played WSU and who else that was tough in the PAC 10? Cal? Ok, but ya lost that one.

6
You do your fair share of bashing yourself, Scott. You bash the Big 12 and the SEC and pick and choose your arguments. You can't hold a candle to the SEC conference schedule so you just talk about the OOC schedule. Same with the Big 12. Sure OU had it easy last year and didnt have to play KSU or Nebraska in the regular season, but did they earn the #1 ranking from August to January by deceiving the entire college football universe? Maybe so but either the entire universe is wrong or you are to not call OU a great, great team. You claim to not be "impressed" with OU and either you are the only correct person or the rest of the universe was pretty impressed with how dominant they were for most of the season.

BOTTOM LINE IS THIS

Look at your signature. It says USC 2003 National Champions.

Well, they were the co-national champions. Just by the way you sign things shows that you are clearly biased and looking for ANYTHING to cling to to support yourself.

You refuse to give LSU any credit or Oklahoma any credit.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the season. The BCS is what was in place at that time. You have to live with it!!! We all have to live with it.

And, by the way, you keep claiming I dont post anything factual. All I need on my side is the BCS. Thanks. That's factual enough. Did USC decide at the beginning of last year that they weren't going to be a part of the BCS? No. That's the system. The system has flaws, certainly. But if USC had made it to the NC game and LSU or Oklahoma hadn't you'd be hearing it from all the people who thought they deserved to go over USC. Since you guys were on the outside looking in, you have to simply accept it and deal with it.

BE HAPPY THAT ENOUGH PEOPLE FELT USC'S HARDSHIP THEY GAVE YOU HALF OF THE NATIONAL TITLE!!!

 

[Mr Hockey]

Thank you Avalanche. It is good to see that someone else sees how biased Scott is. Atleast you can debate with Mansa as he shows some open mindedness.


I've called Scott out on numerous occassions as he changes his story faster then a hooker changes clients.