*BCS Top 5 Standings Shakeup*

[brunell8]

Huge Buckeye fan here - I have to agree that OSU had an easier schedule than they normally do, however, based on what I'm seeing below, you fail to mention that the Big 10 has EIGHT teams playing in bowls this year (ranked or not) with two more that were bowl eligible. That's 10 of 11 teams in the conference. That's hardly a cupcake conference when you consider they beat up on each other. The old addage "better to lose early than late" still applies in college football (though not as much the way this season has gone). Maybe that's why LSU schedules La. Tech for game 10 this season? tOSU should be playing either Georgia or Va. Tech, but I think they can beat any of them. The Illinois game was a fluke, and not a very good game for the refs (all announcers and "experts" agreed to this). But hey, the Bucks lost, we moved on, and we'll see what happens against LSU (playing a home game) for the NC.

Historically? In the last decade at least how can you say that UW has been as strong as Tech?? They are good, but they are not on the same level of Tech unless you go back for a while before VT was serious contenders.

The Big 10 most definitely was one of the weaker conferences this year.

SEC: LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee (Hands down the strongest conference)
This year either these conferences are fairly equal:
{
Big 12: Kansas, Texas, OU, Mizzou
ACC: VT, UVA, Clemson, Virginia, BC
}
PAC-10: USC, Arizona St., Oregon (Assuming healthy Dixon)
Big East: WVU, South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn
Big 10: OSU, Illinois, Wisconson
....
....
WAC: Hawaii, Boise State
MW: BYU

Obviously more detailed than that based on the strength of other teams in the conference, but Big 10 clearly isn't as strong as it once was and that OSU is #1 and not #4 or #5 based purely on reputation.

-Kevin

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: brunell8
Huge Buckeye fan here - I have to agree that OSU had an easier schedule than they normally do, however, based on what I'm seeing below, you fail to mention that the Big 10 has EIGHT teams playing in bowls this year (ranked or not) with two more that were bowl eligible. That's 10 of 11 teams in the conference. That's hardly a cupcake conference when you consider they beat up on each other. The old addage "better to lose early than late" still applies in college football (though not as much the way this season has gone). Maybe that's why LSU schedules La. Tech for game 10 this season? tOSU should be playing either Georgia or Va. Tech, but I think they can beat any of them. The Illinois game was a fluke, and not a very good game for the refs (all announcers and "experts" agreed to this). But hey, the Bucks lost, we moved on, and we'll see what happens against LSU (playing a home game) for the NC.

Historically? In the last decade at least how can you say that UW has been as strong as Tech?? They are good, but they are not on the same level of Tech unless you go back for a while before VT was serious contenders.

The Big 10 most definitely was one of the weaker conferences this year.

SEC: LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee (Hands down the strongest conference)
This year either these conferences are fairly equal:
{
Big 12: Kansas, Texas, OU, Mizzou
ACC: VT, UVA, Clemson, Virginia, BC
}
PAC-10: USC, Arizona St., Oregon (Assuming healthy Dixon)
Big East: WVU, South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn
Big 10: OSU, Illinois, Wisconson
....
....
WAC: Hawaii, Boise State
MW: BYU

Obviously more detailed than that based on the strength of other teams in the conference, but Big 10 clearly isn't as strong as it once was and that OSU is #1 and not #4 or #5 based purely on reputation.

-Kevin

So they had 2 bowl eligible teams got passed over....how many other BCS conferences can say the same?

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: brunell8
Huge Buckeye fan here - I have to agree that OSU had an easier schedule than they normally do, however, based on what I'm seeing below, you fail to mention that the Big 10 has EIGHT teams playing in bowls this year (ranked or not) with two more that were bowl eligible. That's 10 of 11 teams in the conference. That's hardly a cupcake conference when you consider they beat up on each other. The old addage "better to lose early than late" still applies in college football (though not as much the way this season has gone). Maybe that's why LSU schedules La. Tech for game 10 this season? tOSU should be playing either Georgia or Va. Tech, but I think they can beat any of them. The Illinois game was a fluke, and not a very good game for the refs (all announcers and "experts" agreed to this). But hey, the Bucks lost, we moved on, and we'll see what happens against LSU (playing a home game) for the NC.

all that means is they all scheduled cupcakes for half their wins, then took the rest out of each other.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: brunell8
Huge Buckeye fan here - I have to agree that OSU had an easier schedule than they normally do, however, based on what I'm seeing below, you fail to mention that the Big 10 has EIGHT teams playing in bowls this year (ranked or not) with two more that were bowl eligible. That's 10 of 11 teams in the conference. That's hardly a cupcake conference when you consider they beat up on each other. The old addage "better to lose early than late" still applies in college football (though not as much the way this season has gone). Maybe that's why LSU schedules La. Tech for game 10 this season? tOSU should be playing either Georgia or Va. Tech, but I think they can beat any of them. The Illinois game was a fluke, and not a very good game for the refs (all announcers and "experts" agreed to this). But hey, the Bucks lost, we moved on, and we'll see what happens against LSU (playing a home game) for the NC.

Historically? In the last decade at least how can you say that UW has been as strong as Tech?? They are good, but they are not on the same level of Tech unless you go back for a while before VT was serious contenders.

The Big 10 most definitely was one of the weaker conferences this year.

SEC: LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee (Hands down the strongest conference)
This year either these conferences are fairly equal:
{
Big 12: Kansas, Texas, OU, Mizzou
ACC: VT, UVA, Clemson, Virginia, BC
}
PAC-10: USC, Arizona St., Oregon (Assuming healthy Dixon)
Big East: WVU, South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn
Big 10: OSU, Illinois, Wisconson
....
....
WAC: Hawaii, Boise State
MW: BYU

Obviously more detailed than that based on the strength of other teams in the conference, but Big 10 clearly isn't as strong as it once was and that OSU is #1 and not #4 or #5 based purely on reputation.

-Kevin

You have to win a grand total of 6 games to become bowl eligible. Congratulations, the weak teams beat up on the other weak teams to accumulate 6 wins for a 1 over .500 season.

Bowl eligible teams mean nothing because I'll guarantee you any (or almost any) SEC team who isn't bowl eligible right now would be well over bowl eligible if they played in the Big 10.

-Kevin

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Should have been LSU and Georgia in the title game. Once again the BCS gets it horribly wrong.

UGA could have had their shot if they didn't lay a big egg in Knoxville. Why should a team that finished 2nd in their division get a shot at the NC? All this UGA talk is just crap. Someone need to tell Richt that the season starts prior to Oct 7th.

UGA was the consensus #4 team last week, but all of a sudden the previous #7 and #9 teams (who won AS EXPECTED) are better than them? Despite the fact that UGA is the best overall team in the SEC East and the fact that voters already knew they couldn't be SEC champs they ALL voted them above LSU last week.

Sorry UGA, you're probably one of the two best teams in country, but you don't "deserve" to play for it. To appease the voters Georgia would have been better off losing to Vanderbilt or Western Carolina instead of UT, a team that's actually half-way decent. What kind of sense does that make?

 

[brunell8]

How about you look into that crystal ball and give us the scores of all bowl games? We can clean up at Vegas. You can't guarantee anything. My point was everyone saying how weak the Big 10 is. They have nearly the entire conference save one team is eligible for a bowl. While the Big 10 is playing each other, SEC teams are playing the likes of La. Tech, La. Monroe, Western Carolina, La. Lafayette, Gardner-Webb, Eastern Kentucky, etc. The out of conference schedule for OSU is still stronger than most, if not all, SEC teams.

I personally think OSU-LSU will be a very good game, and neither team should expect a blowout. Harping on last year's NC game means nothing, just like OSU's record against SEC teams means nothing, and the history of either team means nothing. This is one game in the here and now - may the better team win. We'll see who that is on January 7th.

Bowl eligible teams mean nothing because I'll guarantee you any (or almost any) SEC team who isn't bowl eligible right now would be well over bowl eligible if they played in the Big 10.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

My point was everyone saying how weak the Big 10 is. They have nearly the entire conference save one team is eligible for a bowl.

And my point was you have to win a measly 6 games in a very weak conference (This year it is weak whether you want to believe it or not).

While the Big 10 is playing each other, SEC teams are playing the likes of La. Tech, La. Monroe, Western Carolina, La. Lafayette, Gardner-Webb, Eastern Kentucky, etc. The out of conference schedule for OSU is still stronger than most, if not all, SEC teams.

Lets assume that the out of conference schedule for OSU is stronger than most. The SEC teams don't have very weak teams in their conference (Not saying there aren't teams that are poor in the SEC, but what is poor in the SEC could arguably be middle of the pack to upper echelon in other conferences). What do you want them to do schedule top ranked teams out of conference and play the already top ranked teams within the conference??

I personally think OSU-LSU will be a very good game, and neither team should expect a blowout.

You of course are entitled to your opinion, but OSU is outclassed in almost everyway (Though they do, in my opinion have a distinctively better coach in Tressel).

-Kevin

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5
UGA was the consensus #4 team last week, but all of a sudden the previous #7 and #9 teams (who won AS EXPECTED) are better than them? Despite the fact that UGA is the best overall team in the SEC East and the fact that voters already knew they couldn't be SEC champs they ALL voted them above LSU last week.

Conf champs carry more weight than 2nd place in your division of 6 teams.

Originally posted by: Alkaline5Sorry UGA, you're probably one of the two best teams in country, but you don't "deserve" to play for it. To appease the voters Georgia would have been better off losing to Vanderbilt or Western Carolina instead of UT, a team that's actually half-way decent. What kind of sense does that make?

UGA has the best team in the SECe after the date I mentioned, Oct 7th. Unfortunately the season began much earlier. And UGA could still have lost to UT and made the SECCG if they had beaten the pitiful Gamecocks.

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Here's a quick hint in case you ever regain your sanity and come back to the real world.
LSU isn't as good as ESPN says they are.

That is a tough call. LSU is kind of bipolar this year. The LSU that played VT early this year could be as good as ESPN says they are. They could also be as bad as they were in the first half of the Tulane game. There is really no way of knowing which LSU team will show up.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Alkaline5
UGA was the consensus #4 team last week, but all of a sudden the previous #7 and #9 teams (who won AS EXPECTED) are better than them? Despite the fact that UGA is the best overall team in the SEC East and the fact that voters already knew they couldn't be SEC champs they ALL voted them above LSU last week.

Conf champs carry more weight than 2nd place in your division of 6 teams.

Originally posted by: Alkaline5Sorry UGA, you're probably one of the two best teams in country, but you don't "deserve" to play for it. To appease the voters Georgia would have been better off losing to Vanderbilt or Western Carolina instead of UT, a team that's actually half-way decent. What kind of sense does that make?

UGA has the best team in the SECe after the date I mentioned, Oct 7th. Unfortunately the season began much earlier. And UGA could still have lost to UT and made the SECCG if they had beaten the pitiful Gamecocks.

True enough, but how can you continue to defend the ludicrous inconsistencies of the voters from this week to last?

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Here's a quick hint in case you ever regain your sanity and come back to the real world.
LSU isn't as good as ESPN says they are.

That is a tough call. LSU is kind of bipolar this year. The LSU that played VT early this year could be as good as ESPN says they are. They could also be as bad as they were in the first half of the Tulane game. There is really no way of knowing which LSU team will show up.

they just need to hope dorsey gets healthy in the next 50 days.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Also just to continue my points:

OSU's schedule (Both in conference and OoC):
YSU -- They play in the Gateway Division-- never heard of them? Because no teams in their can hold a candle to any of the top ranked teams.
Akron -- One of the worst teams in the MAC conference (A conference that is weaker than even the WAC)
Washington -- The weakest team in the PAC-10 (Which is also a very average division this year)
Northwestern -- Outside of Minnesota, the weakest team in the Big 10... They lost to DUKE!!
Minnesota -- WEAKEST TEAM in the Big 10. They one a whopping 1 game this year against Miami Ohio.
Purdue -- 3rd weakest team in the Big 10. They got their 7 wins by playing ND, Minnesota, N'western, E Illinois, Toledo....
Still not a single legit team with Purdue being the closest
Kent St. -- WORST TEAM in the MAC East.
Michigan State -- One step up from Purdue, middle of the pack in Big 10. They could be considered border line legit except they lost to Michigan, NORTHWESTERN, and Iowa. I would give ya a half a point here, but Ohio won by 1 TD
PSU -- Middle of the pack Big 10 team. It pains me to say this because I love PSU, but they are horribly inconsistent. But we can give you a half a point here because they at least got votes for a ranking and were ranked at one point.
Wisconsin -- Better Big 10 team, but earned their ranking by beating up on teams like The Citadel. It is ranked so I have to give you points here, but does not deserve its ranking in anyway shape or form.
Illinois -- Hey a solid legit team. Its going to a BCS bowl and everything. Granted it is overrated, but definitely a legit matchup for you guys.... Except you lost to them.
Michigan -- App. State anyone... you can argue they made a turn around, but we can give you a half point here too.

So all tallied up-- .5 + 1.0 + 1.0 + .5 = 3.0 ... except you lost to 1 of the 2 legit teams so really 2.0.

Now lets make the magical journey into the land of the SEC:

LSU:

Miss St. -- Definitely legit. They beat Kentucky, Alabama, Auburn. Outside of Arkansas, all of their losses are against highly ranked teams. 1 point.
VT -- DEFINITELY legit. Beat Clemson, UVA, BC. LSU killed us (Injuries, as much as I want to make it an excuse, cannot excuse that many unanswered points). Another point.
M. Tennessee -- Definitely a cupcake team. Play in the Sun Belt conference and are only avg within there.
South Carolina -- Definitely legit, beat Georgia, Kentucky and held a close game with LSU. 1 point.
Tulane -- Middle of the back in Conference USA... nothing more needs to be said.
Florida -- Definitely legit. Heisman candidate QB kept them in it and LSU still managed to win it. Another point.
Thats quite a schedule so far...
Kentucky -- Definitely a legit team with a very good QB. A point... too bad they lost in triple overtime.
Auburn -- Legit, though slightly inconsistent. Beat Florida, Alabama and Arkansas. Another point.
Alabama -- Does this schedule end? This team I will only give a half a point because, despite beating very good teams, they also lost to not so great teams *cough* ULMONROE *cough*. .5
La. Tech -- A bottom of the division WAC team, obviously very weak.
Ole Miss -- Even though they play in the SEC, they have losses that are inexcusable and and only wins against weak teams.
Arkansas -- Defintely legit.. unfortunately LSU lost in triple OT again.
Tennessee -- Definitely legit-- probably should have beaten, or at least hung with Alabama, but convincingly beat Georgia. Final point.

So all tallied up-- 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.5 + 1.0 + 1.0 ... 8.5... except they lost 2x triple overtimes. A loss is a loss so a 6.5.

6.5 is a whole heck of a lot bigger than 2.0-- its not even close. Even if you argued against some of the teams I gave or didn't give points to, it will not be enough to make up that deficit.

-Kevin

Edit: Even if I give OSU a point for a non-existent championship game that they still could have lost they are still are not accumulating half the points LSU has.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Here's a quick hint in case you ever regain your sanity and come back to the real world.
LSU isn't as good as ESPN says they are.

That is a tough call. LSU is kind of bipolar this year. The LSU that played VT early this year could be as good as ESPN says they are. They could also be as bad as they were in the first half of the Tulane game. There is really no way of knowing which LSU team will show up.

LSU was truly dominant that game, but you have to keep in mind that VT wasn't healthy so that is part, and it was just a poorly played game by VT. I would say LSU has the potential to be that good, but the results of that game are slightly skewed.

-Kevin

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Alkaline5
UGA was the consensus #4 team last week, but all of a sudden the previous #7 and #9 teams (who won AS EXPECTED) are better than them? Despite the fact that UGA is the best overall team in the SEC East and the fact that voters already knew they couldn't be SEC champs they ALL voted them above LSU last week.

Conf champs carry more weight than 2nd place in your division of 6 teams.

Originally posted by: Alkaline5Sorry UGA, you're probably one of the two best teams in country, but you don't "deserve" to play for it. To appease the voters Georgia would have been better off losing to Vanderbilt or Western Carolina instead of UT, a team that's actually half-way decent. What kind of sense does that make?

UGA has the best team in the SECe after the date I mentioned, Oct 7th. Unfortunately the season began much earlier. And UGA could still have lost to UT and made the SECCG if they had beaten the pitiful Gamecocks.

True enough, but how can you continue to defend the ludicrous inconsistencies of the voters from this week to last?

What inconsistencies? They are supposed to vote each week who they think is best and did that. They may have thought UGA was a better 10-2 team than LSU last week but an 11-2 SEC champ is always better than a team that's not. Having seen both teams play I still think LSU is a better team than UGA. Look at the losses by each team and tell me that doesn't make sense.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Here's a quick hint in case you ever regain your sanity and come back to the real world.
LSU isn't as good as ESPN says they are.

That is a tough call. LSU is kind of bipolar this year. The LSU that played VT early this year could be as good as ESPN says they are. They could also be as bad as they were in the first half of the Tulane game. There is really no way of knowing which LSU team will show up.

LSU was truly dominant that game, but you have to keep in mind that VT wasn't healthy so that is part, and it was just a poorly played game by VT. I would say LSU has the potential to be that good, but the results of that game are slightly skewed.

-Kevin

But here is the difference. VT fans will say the score does not reflect what could have been had the team been completely healthy. They got destroyed.

On the other hand, LSU hasn't been healthy for the majority of the season and they lost two games in 3OT. They are now going to have more than a month to get healthy and back into the same form they were for that VT game. OSU, beware.

Also, to the poster a couple ahead of me, Tennessee did NOT beat Florida.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Here's a quick hint in case you ever regain your sanity and come back to the real world.
LSU isn't as good as ESPN says they are.

That is a tough call. LSU is kind of bipolar this year. The LSU that played VT early this year could be as good as ESPN says they are. They could also be as bad as they were in the first half of the Tulane game. There is really no way of knowing which LSU team will show up.

LSU was truly dominant that game, but you have to keep in mind that VT wasn't healthy so that is part, and it was just a poorly played game by VT. I would say LSU has the potential to be that good, but the results of that game are slightly skewed.

-Kevin

But here is the difference. VT fans will say the score does not reflect what could have been had the team been completely healthy. They got destroyed.

On the other hand, LSU hasn't been healthy for the majority of the season and they lost two games in 3OT. They are now going to have more than a month to get healthy and back into the same form they were for that VT game. OSU, beware.

Also, to the poster a couple ahead of me, Tennessee did NOT beat Florida.

True you can make arguments either way, but either way you slice it (And this is coming from a VT student) unhealthy or not, VT should have kept it closer than that. I will guarantee you that VT if we played LSU in the championship would be very close-- I would give LSU 7.5 point favorites (Slightly more if you really stretch it)-- VT has improved that much.

My bad on the Tennessee thing, I'm changing it right now. I forgot which school I was looking at the L for haha. Thanks for the heads up.

-Kevin

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Alkaline5
UGA was the consensus #4 team last week, but all of a sudden the previous #7 and #9 teams (who won AS EXPECTED) are better than them? Despite the fact that UGA is the best overall team in the SEC East and the fact that voters already knew they couldn't be SEC champs they ALL voted them above LSU last week.

Conf champs carry more weight than 2nd place in your division of 6 teams.

Originally posted by: Alkaline5Sorry UGA, you're probably one of the two best teams in country, but you don't "deserve" to play for it. To appease the voters Georgia would have been better off losing to Vanderbilt or Western Carolina instead of UT, a team that's actually half-way decent. What kind of sense does that make?

UGA has the best team in the SECe after the date I mentioned, Oct 7th. Unfortunately the season began much earlier. And UGA could still have lost to UT and made the SECCG if they had beaten the pitiful Gamecocks.

True enough, but how can you continue to defend the ludicrous inconsistencies of the voters from this week to last?

What inconsistencies? They are supposed to vote each week who they think is best and did that. They may have thought UGA was a better 10-2 team than LSU last week but an 11-2 SEC champ is always better than a team that's not. Having seen both teams play I still think LSU is a better team than UGA. Look at the losses by each team and tell me that doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

I agree with you completely. It is very unfair to Georgia. There is no rule saying you have to win your conference to play for the NC but it seems that the voters don't like for it to happen.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

I agree with you completely. It is very unfair to Georgia. There is no rule saying you have to win your conference to play for the NC but it seems that the voters don't like for it to happen.

There aren't any rules, but how can you penalize VT for a loss to LSU at the beginning, yet Georgia shouldn't.

Also, they didn't make it to the conference championship and there is no guarantee that they would have won it if they had gone. What if they had lost? You want them to advance for doing nothing like Ohio St.?

-Kevin

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

I agree with you completely. It is very unfair to Georgia. There is no rule saying you have to win your conference to play for the NC but it seems that the voters don't like for it to happen.

What's unfair to UGA is that their coach didn't start coaching until an embarrassing loss to SC, a blowout loss to UT and a squeaker vs Vandy.

Why should a team that isn't good enough to win their conf division be good enough to play for a NC? I would agrue that OU, VT and USC are all more deserving of a title shot than UGA.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

I agree with you completely. It is very unfair to Georgia. There is no rule saying you have to win your conference to play for the NC but it seems that the voters don't like for it to happen.

There aren't any rules, but how can you penalize VT for a loss to LSU at the beginning, yet Georgia shouldn't.

Also, they didn't make it to the conference championship and there is no guarantee that they would have won it if they had gone. What if they had lost? You want them to advance for doing nothing like Ohio St.?

-Kevin

You bring up OSU, and that just makes it more confusing. If your conference has a CG, then the voters want you to win it, but if not then you don't even need to beat the second best team in your conference (Illinois) to get a invite to the NC.

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

I agree with you completely. It is very unfair to Georgia. There is no rule saying you have to win your conference to play for the NC but it seems that the voters don't like for it to happen.

There aren't any rules, but how can you penalize VT for a loss to LSU at the beginning, yet Georgia shouldn't.

Also, they didn't make it to the conference championship and there is no guarantee that they would have won it if they had gone. What if they had lost? You want them to advance for doing nothing like Ohio St.?

-Kevin

You bring up OSU, and that just makes it more confusing. If your conference has a CG, then the voters want you to win it, but if not then you don't even need to beat the second best team in your conference (Illinois) to get a invite to the NC.

in the pac-10 every team plays everyone, i like that better than cg, if sec did that, (at the cost of scheduling 1 less ooc team, they play la-monroes and middle tenn anyway), both ga and lsu would not be in consideration like they are now,

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

I agree with you completely. It is very unfair to Georgia. There is no rule saying you have to win your conference to play for the NC but it seems that the voters don't like for it to happen.

What's unfair to UGA is that their coach didn't start coaching until an embarrassing loss to SC, a blowout loss to UT and a squeaker vs Vandy.

Why should a team that isn't good enough to win their conf division be good enough to play for a NC? I would agrue that OU, VT and USC are all more deserving of a title shot than UGA.

You lost all credibility when you brought up USC. How does a team with only one victory over a ranked opponent who literally lost in the "biggest upset ever" (pointspread) to Stanford deserve to play for the NC more than a team that is 2-1 against the current Top 25? They only even won their conference because Oregon kept losing after Dennis Dixon went down. Do you believe everything you hear on ESPN?

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

I'm not saying UGA is better or worse than LSU on the season. I'm saying that when a team goes 1-1 in a 2 week span and moves from #1 to #7 back to #2 and bypasses a team that went 1-0 in the same time span and was ranked 3 spots ahead, then someone wasn't paying attention when they voted. How is that not the very definition of "inconsistent"?

I agree with you completely. It is very unfair to Georgia. There is no rule saying you have to win your conference to play for the NC but it seems that the voters don't like for it to happen.

There aren't any rules, but how can you penalize VT for a loss to LSU at the beginning, yet Georgia shouldn't.

Also, they didn't make it to the conference championship and there is no guarantee that they would have won it if they had gone. What if they had lost? You want them to advance for doing nothing like Ohio St.?

-Kevin

You bring up OSU, and that just makes it more confusing. If your conference has a CG, then the voters want you to win it, but if not then you don't even need to beat the second best team in your conference (Illinois) to get a invite to the NC.

in the pac-10 every team plays everyone, i like that better than cg, if sec did that, (at the cost of scheduling 1 less ooc team, they play la-monroes and middle tenn anyway), both ga and lsu would not be in consideration like they are now,

It would cost a lot more than 1 less ooc game. It would take 11 games for the SEC to play everyone in conference.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5
You lost all credibility when you brought up USC. How does a team with only one victory over a ranked opponent who literally lost in the "biggest upset ever" (pointspread) to Stanford deserve to play for the NC more than a team that is 2-1 against the current Top 25? They only even won their conference because Oregon kept losing after Dennis Dixon went down. Do you believe everything you hear on ESPN?

How many current top-25 has OSU beaten? Trust me, I see plenty of football and USC is playing very well right now plus they won their conf. Doesn't matter how it happens.