• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dullard's College Football Week 14

dullard

dullard

Elite Member
Not much change other than Arizona St. losing and dropping a bit. Didn't drop enough in my opinion, but they did drop. Same goes for Texas A&M.

Sorry wyvrn, I wanted Notre Dame to drop below UTEP and Boston College for you. But instead since all 3 teams lost, Notre Dame went from a tie with those teams to a slight lead.

Place : W , L ( Win Rank , Score Rating ) Team name
01 : 11 , 0 ( 86.0 , 87.1 ) Southern Cal
02 : 11 , 0 ( 81.1 , 78.4 ) Oklahoma
03 : 09 , 1 ( 80.6 , 84.0 ) California
04 : 11 , 0 ( 78.4 , 78.0 ) Utah
05 : 10 , 1 ( 76.5 , 72.8 ) Texas
06 : 11 , 0 ( 74.5 , 72.3 ) Auburn
07 : 08 , 2 ( 69.0 , 68.0 ) Miami FL
08 : 11 , 0 ( 68.8 , 63.9 ) Boise St
09 : 9 , 1 ( 68.5 , 70.8 ) Louisville
10 : 8 , 3 ( 68.2 , 64.9 ) Arizona St
11 : 9 , 2 ( 66.1 , 63.7 ) Georgia
12 : 7 , 4 ( 65.5 , 63.3 ) Texas A&M
13 : 9 , 2 ( 64.9 , 61.7 ) LSU
14 : 9 , 2 ( 64.0 , 59.0 ) Iowa
15 : 8 , 3 ( 62.7 , 61.9 ) Florida St
16 : 9 , 2 ( 62.2 , 57.9 ) Michigan
17 : 9 , 2 ( 62.1 , 61.2 ) Virginia Tech
18 : 9 , 2 ( 62.0 , 55.6 ) Tennessee
19 : 8 , 3 ( 61.4 , 60.6 ) Virginia
20 : 7 , 4 ( 61.4 , 59.5 ) Oklahoma St
21 : 7 , 4 ( 60.3 , 58.0 ) Texas Tech
22 : 6 , 5 ( 58.9 , 57.5 ) Oregon St
23 : 9 , 2 ( 57.3 , 52.1 ) Wisconsin
24 : 6 , 4 ( 56.6 , 57.1 ) UCLA
25 : 7 , 4 ( 56.1 , 57.9 ) Purdue
26 : 7 , 4 ( 55.8 , 49.9 ) Colorado
27 : 7 , 4 ( 55.4 , 57.2 ) Florida
28 : 7 , 4 ( 54.7 , 50.7 ) New Mexico
29 : 8 , 3 ( 54.5 , 55.6 ) Fresno St
30 : 6 , 5 ( 54.0 , 51.7 ) Notre Dame
31 : 7 , 4 ( 53.8 , 51.3 ) Ohio State
32 : 6 , 5 ( 52.0 , 46.8 ) North Carolina
33 : 8 , 3 ( 51.8 , 49.7 ) West Virginia
34 : 8 , 3 ( 51.8 , 48.5 ) UTEP
35 : 8 , 3 ( 50.1 , 46.2 ) Boston College
36 : 8 , 2 ( 49.7 , 42.2 ) Navy
37 : 5 , 6 ( 49.6 , 50.2 ) Arkansas
38 : 6 , 5 ( 49.5 , 46.9 ) Clemson
39 : 7 , 3 ( 49.0 , 43.3 ) Pittsburgh
40 : 5 , 6 ( 48.6 , 46.3 ) Brigham Young
41 : 5 , 6 ( 47.8 , 47.5 ) Oregon
42 : 6 , 5 ( 47.8 , 44.3 ) Georgia Tech
43 : 6 , 5 ( 47.8 , 43.0 ) Iowa St
44 : 6 , 5 ( 47.7 , 48.4 ) Alabama
45 : 4 , 7 ( 47.3 , 49.9 ) Stanford
46 : 6 , 5 ( 47.2 , 45.1 ) South Carolina
47 : 5 , 6 ( 46.8 , 43.9 ) Washington St
48 : 8 , 3 ( 46.2 , 40.3 ) Memphis
49 : 6 , 5 ( 45.7 , 41.9 ) Wyoming
50 : 6 , 5 ( 45.6 , 45.5 ) Minnesota
51 : 5 , 6 ( 45.1 , 45.9 ) North Carolina St
52 : 4 , 7 ( 44.6 , 45.5 ) Kansas
53 : 7 , 4 ( 44.4 , 38.8 ) Alabama-Birmingham
54 : 5 , 6 ( 43.9 , 42.2 ) Air Force
55 : 6 , 5 ( 43.7 , 39.8 ) Syracuse
56 : 7 , 4 ( 43.5 , 40.1 ) Troy St
57 : 6 , 6 ( 43.3 , 39.2 ) Northwestern
58 : 6 , 5 ( 42.9 , 39.8 ) Cincinnati
59 : 8 , 3 ( 42.8 , 44.5 ) Bowling Green
60 : 5 , 6 ( 42.8 , 41.8 ) Missouri
61 : 5 , 6 ( 42.6 , 39.4 ) Nebraska
62 : 5 , 6 ( 42.5 , 41.4 ) Maryland
63 : 4 , 7 ( 42.1 , 42.0 ) Kansas St
64 : 5 , 6 ( 41.9 , 42.3 ) Michigan St
65 : 7 , 4 ( 41.7 , 38.4 ) Connecticut
66 : 6 , 4 ( 41.4 , 34.6 ) Southern Miss
67 : 4 , 7 ( 40.1 , 38.3 ) Colorado St
68 : 3 , 8 ( 39.8 , 38.6 ) Arizona
69 : 8 , 3 ( 39.8 , 37.4 ) Northern Illinois
70 : 5 , 6 ( 39.6 , 32.1 ) Louisiana Tech
71 : 7 , 4 ( 39.5 , 29.2 ) North Texas
72 : 8 , 3 ( 39.3 , 35.4 ) Toledo
73 : 8 , 3 ( 38.4 , 35.6 ) Miami OH
74 : 6 , 5 ( 38.3 , 32.2 ) Hawai`i
75 : 4 , 7 ( 37.3 , 39.8 ) Penn St
76 : 4 , 7 ( 37.0 , 34.1 ) Mississippi
77 : 5 , 6 ( 36.6 , 32.6 ) TCU
78 : 4 , 7 ( 35.8 , 33.8 ) San Diego St
79 : 4 , 7 ( 35.3 , 35.1 ) Wake Forest
80 : 5 , 6 ( 34.1 , 27.6 ) New Mexico St
81 : 6 , 5 ( 33.0 , 32.3 ) Marshall
82 : 3 , 8 ( 32.8 , 25.0 ) Baylor
83 : 5 , 5 ( 31.6 , 26.0 ) Tulane
84 : 4 , 6 ( 30.4 , 26.0 ) South Florida
85 : 4 , 7 ( 29.7 , 26.1 ) Rutgers
86 : 3 , 8 ( 29.3 , 28.2 ) Mississippi St
87 : 3 , 8 ( 28.2 , 24.5 ) Houston
88 : 3 , 8 ( 27.9 , 28.0 ) Indiana
89 : 5 , 6 ( 27.8 , 21.2 ) Middle Tenn St
90 : 3 , 8 ( 27.6 , 26.8 ) Illinois
91 : 3 , 7 ( 27.6 , 24.3 ) Rice
92 : 4 , 8 ( 27.3 , 23.4 ) Tulsa
93 : 1 , 10 ( 26.7 , 26.8 ) Washington
94 : 6 , 5 ( 26.3 , 20.4 ) Akron
95 : 5 , 6 ( 26.3 , 16.5 ) UL-Monroe
96 : 2 , 9 ( 26.0 , 23.2 ) UNLV
97 : 2 , 9 ( 25.6 , 26.4 ) Vanderbilt
98 : 2 , 9 ( 25.2 , 23.5 ) Kentucky
99 : 2 , 9 ( 25.1 , 22.6 ) Duke
100 : 5 , 7 ( 23.9 , 18.0 ) Nevada
101 : 3 , 8 ( 23.4 , 15.3 ) SMU
102 : 5 , 6 ( 23.0 , 23.5 ) Kent St
103 : 4 , 7 ( 22.2 , 17.5 ) UL-Lafayette
104 : 2 , 8 ( 21.3 , 19.4 ) Army
105 : 3 , 8 ( 20.5 , 13.0 ) Utah St
106 : 2 , 9 ( 19.3 , 16.4 ) Temple
107 : 3 , 8 ( 18.9 , 11.3 ) Arkansas St
108 : 2 , 9 ( 17.4 , 12.5 ) East Carolina
109 : 4 , 7 ( 16.2 , 14.5 ) Ohio U.
110 : 3 , 9 ( 14.5 , 5.3 ) Idaho
111 : 2 , 9 ( 14.4 , 10.4 ) San Jose St
112 : 4 , 7 ( 11.6 , 6.3 ) Eastern Michigan
113 : 4 , 7 ( 10.9 , 5.7 ) Central Michigan
114 : 2 , 9 ( 8.8 , 6.5 ) Ball St
115 : 2 , 9 ( 4.0 , 0.3 ) Buffalo
116 : 1 , 10 ( 1.7 , 0.7 ) Western Michigan
117 : 0 , 11 ( 0.0 , 0.0 ) Central Florida
 
Division I-AA top 25

Place : Score Rating ( W , L ) Team Name
01 : 40.9 ( 10 , 0 ) Harvard
02 : 38.9 ( 09 , 3 ) Georgia Southern
03 : 38.0 ( 10 , 2 ) New Hampshire
04 : 36.9 ( 10 , 2 ) Southern Illinois
05 : 34.9 ( 10 , 2 ) Furman
06 : 34.5 ( 10 , 2 ) William & Mary
07 : 34.3 ( 09 , 3 ) Eastern Washington
08 : 33.7 ( 10 , 2 ) Montana
09 : 32.2 ( 10 , 2 ) James Madison
10 : 31.6 ( 09 , 3 ) Delaware
11 : 30.7 ( 09 , 2 ) Cal Poly SLO
12 : 30.5 ( 10 , 2 ) Sam Houston St
13 : 29.1 ( 6 , 5 ) Villanova
14 : 26.8 ( 8 , 2 ) Pennsylvania
15 : 26.2 ( 8 , 3 ) Florida Atlantic
16 : 25.6 ( 7 , 4 ) Northern Iowa
17 : 25.3 ( 7 , 4 ) Portland St
18 : 23.9 ( 5 , 6 ) Hofstra
19 : 23.8 ( 5 , 6 ) Maine
20 : 22.9 ( 9 , 3 ) Lehigh
21 : 22.3 ( 5 , 6 ) Northeastern
22 : 22.0 ( 6 , 5 ) Massachusetts
23 : 21.2 ( 9 , 3 ) Western Kentucky
24 : 19.6 ( 9 , 2 ) Jacksonville St
25 : 18.4 ( 8 , 4 ) Northwestern St
 
I'm curious, since you sound like a broken record saying that Arizona St and Texas A&M are overrated, on a neutral field, who do you personally think wins? Each has lost to one of the worst teams in their conference, and their other loses have been to teams in your top 5.
 
Originally posted by: sciencewhiz
I'm curious, since you sound like a broken record saying that Arizona St and Texas A&M are overrated, on a neutral field, who do you personally think wins? Each has lost to one of the worst teams in their conference, and their other loses have been to teams in your top 5.
Click to expand...
Basically LSU and Iowa would have a good chance of beating one or both of them in my opinion. Basically those 4 teams all are good teams which have played horribly at times. However if they played a hundred times, I think LSU and Iowa would win more of the games than Arizona St and Texas A&M would have won.

There is always the mid level team who's strength matches perfectly a top level team weakness, so there could be others that I'm not thinking about that would win. But I personally would drop Texas A&M to 14th and drop Arizona St to 13th.

It is possible that due to the 4 losses, I'd move Michigan above Texas A&M in my own ratings. That is true even though I think A&M would beat Michigan. I have no faith in the other 2 loss teams (Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, etc).

Until Arizona St lost last weekend, I thought I was defending them, not trying to say they were overrated. But now they have shown a major weakness that can be exploited. That makes me change tunes.
 
There is always the mid level team who's strength matches perfectly a top level team weakness, so there could be others that I'm not thinking about that would win. But I personally would drop Texas A&M to 14th and drop Arizona St to 13th.
Click to expand...

Yeh, the Iowa team that got destroyed by ASU is not the same Iowa team that rolled over the rest of the Big 10. Had we played both ASU and Michigan at the end of the season instead of the beginning I think we would be undefeated.
 
1AA. Montana beat Northwestern St. (#1 Defense in all 1AA football) 56-7. And it looks like we dropped a spot from your last rankings, while EW scrapes out a victory over Southern Ill. and catapults above us? Hmm. Keep in mind, Montana also defeated EW earlier in the season.
 
People keep knocking Dullards rankings but they are in line with the BCS computers and frankly I find the BCS computers the best because they arent biased and are more accurate than a coach or writer that just glances at the final score and the previous rankings of the two teams that played.
 
Originally posted by: Alkaline5
Originally posted by: Mill
I can't even comment on this. I like you dullard, but this program is a POS.
Click to expand...
Let's see your computer rankings, then.
Click to expand...

WHY? What does MY ability to program computer software have to do with my opinion of footbal? Nothing!
 
Originally posted by: digitalsm
People keep knocking Dullards rankings but they are in line with the BCS computers and frankly I find the BCS computers the best because they arent biased and are more accurate than a coach or writer that just glances at the final score and the previous rankings of the two teams that played.
Click to expand...

Utah, California, and Texas are not ahead of Auburn in the BCS computers. Texas A&M and Arizona St. Being that high is criminal.
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: digitalsm
People keep knocking Dullards rankings but they are in line with the BCS computers and frankly I find the BCS computers the best because they arent biased and are more accurate than a coach or writer that just glances at the final score and the previous rankings of the two teams that played.
Click to expand...

Utah, California, and Texas are not ahead of Auburn in the BCS computers. Texas A&M and Arizona St. Being that high is criminal.
Click to expand...

Who did Auburn play in their non-conference games?

That is all.
 
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: digitalsm
People keep knocking Dullards rankings but they are in line with the BCS computers and frankly I find the BCS computers the best because they arent biased and are more accurate than a coach or writer that just glances at the final score and the previous rankings of the two teams that played.
Click to expand...

Utah, California, and Texas are not ahead of Auburn in the BCS computers. Texas A&M and Arizona St. Being that high is criminal.
Click to expand...

Who did Auburn play in their non-conference games?

That is all.
Click to expand...

Their SOS is fine. Their conference schedule makes up for it, but we can't help it Bowling Green's AD was an Oklahoma ticket salesman!
 
......The Loveliest Village On The Plains Truth

Auburn fans, I know you don't want to hear this, but these six words explain why the Tigers are unlikely to play in the Orange Bowl come January: Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel, Louisiana Tech.

Those three schools represent 1) Auburn's non-conference schedule this season and 2) nothing out of the ordinary. Look, it's not the players' fault. But the athletic administration at Auburn consistently schedules a trio of weak, non-bcs conference schools who agree to play at Jordan-Hare each year in order to pad both the Tigers' record and the athletic department's budget.

I crunched numbers. Actual chomping of data. Beginning with the 1993 squad that finished 11-0 while on probation (Terry Bowden's first season as Tigers coach), here is Auburn's out-of-conference combat record:

? 38 games overall

? 34 games played at Jordan-Hare, only four on the road

? Only two of those 38 opponents were ranked (Southern Cal both times) and the Tigers were 0-2 versus the Trojans in this period.

? Only seven of those 38 opponents are bcs schools (USC twice, Virginia twice, Syracuse twice, Georgia Tech) and in those games Auburn's record was 2-5.

Earlier this month Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville made a comment to the effect that he'd find it hard to believe a school from the SEC could finish undefeated and not be invited to play in the national championship game. Believe it, coach.

No school can control the quality of its in-conference opponents. You hope that they are tough enough to challenge you, but not so strong as to beat you. Oklahoma and Southern Cal were both fortunate in that they beat two schools, Texas and Cal, respectively, who have gone 10-1 and are in everyone's top eight.

Auburn, although it does play in the SEC, has beaten its in-conference competition, but no opponent this season has been as good as Cal or Texas. SEC folk -- I lived in Alabama and covered the conference exclusively for a year, and have returned many times since -- are usually correct when they argue that theirs is the best conference in the nation. However, the stifling parochialism displayed by Auburn (just one trip west of the Mississippi in the past 20 seasons) and its SEC kin has at last come back to bite the Tigers.

Not to mention -- although I'm about to -- that Auburn played seven home games (and four road) this season, which is about its average. Southern Cal, meanwhile will have played six and six; Oklahoma six home, five away (not including the Big 12 Championship game).

Auburn can control its non-conference slate, and year-in and year-out chooses to tackle patsies. A partial list of its non-SEC opponents from the past 11 seasons: Samford, Northeast Louisiana (three times), East Tennessee State, UT-Chattanooga, Appalachian State and Louisiana-Monroe (twice). Auburn, listen: Homecoming should only happen once a year.

Don't blame the players. And don't blame the system. But, if you agree that Auburn, Oklahoma and Southern Cal are the only three schools deserving of a bid for the Orange Bowl, well, then you have to play musical chairs with that trio. And you can't blame any one school for the quality of its in-conference foes. But while Southern Cal was scheduling Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, BYU and Colorado State (two of those games on the road) and Oklahoma was taking on Bowling Green, Houston and Oregon in Norman (at least one of those was a bcs program), Auburn stayed home, played three lambs and counted the gate receipts. And that, most likely, will make it the first undefeated SEC school not to play for a national title since ... the '93 Auburn Tigers.
Click to expand...



good article about Auburn's OOC scheduling
 
although I agree that it is a good schedule, it didnt mention that Auburn beat LSU, Georgia, AND Tennessee this year, who were all, by the way, ranked. No other team in a different division had such a schedule.
 
I like this better kalster:

So how to do the top teams really rank?
(The CFN Championship Formula, part two)
So which two teams actually deserve to play for the national championship and which teams deserve to be put in the BCS? Here's another look at the CFN Championship Formula (which is the same used for ranking all-time teams) looking only at what teams did on the field in a completely objective way. Wins don't lie.


After coming out with this a few weeks ago there have been plenty of thoughts and suggestions from the readers on how to improve it. Essentially, if you won a lot of games against teams with good records, you're fine. If you didn't play that many great teams, you get penalized. Taking many of the suggestions into account, here is the revised formula with the components.


Wins minus losses.
Quality Wins. The number of wins over teams that finish with a winning record. An added 0.25 is given to a Quality Win on the road. This doesn't count for wins over D-IAA teams.
Elite Wins. Wins over teams that finish with three losses or fewer. An added 0.25 is given to an Elite Win on the road.
Bad Wins. A win over teams with three wins or fewer. 0.25 is taken away for each of these wins. A win over a D-IAA team automatically counts as a Bad Win.
Bad Loss. A loss to a team with three wins or fewer. An additional 0.25 is tacked on for a Bad Loss at home. A loss to a D-IAA team automatically counts as a Bad Loss.
Elite Loss. A loss to a team with three losses or fewer. ) 0.25 is added to the total score.
Point Differential. Points for minus points against divided by 10.

By projecting the rest of the wins and losses the rest of the way assuming USC, Oklahoma and Auburn win out and Miami beats Virginia Tech and California beats Southern Miss (and using the current point totals) ...
1. USC ? Score: 23.86
2. Auburn ? Score: 23.57
3. Oklahoma ? 22.30
4. Boise State ? Score: 18.58
5. Miami ? Score: 18.15
6. California ? Score: 16.78
T7. Texas ? Score: 16.32
T7. Utah ? Score 16.32
9. Virginia Tech - Score 15.55
10. Iowa ? Score 15.26
Other notables: Louisville 14.84, Georgia 14.09, Michigan 13.67, Pittsburgh 11.36


O.K., so Boise State isn't the fourth best team in America, but this ranking is based on what teams have accomplished on the field. Would the Bronco pass defense be able to handle Cal? No, but that's an opinion and the whole idea is to make it as objective as possible. What's stunning about the Boise State score isn't just how high it is, it's how quickly it could change. A Hawaii win over Michigan State would bump the Boise State Quality Win score up to 4.25, but an Oregon State bowl loss would take one away. The real killer? Elite Wins over Fresno State and on the road against UTEP. If those two lose their bowl games, Boise State loses 2.25 points and would quickly sink. Also interesting to note is how this proves that California hasn't done as much as you might expect. Also interesting to note is how Iowa is so far ahead of Michigan. After the bowls all teams will be ranked 1-117 and will all be broken down by category.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: kalster
......The Loveliest Village On The Plains Truth

Auburn fans, I know you don't want to hear this, but these six words explain why the Tigers are unlikely to play in the Orange Bowl come January: Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel, Louisiana Tech.

Those three schools represent 1) Auburn's non-conference schedule this season and 2) nothing out of the ordinary. Look, it's not the players' fault. But the athletic administration at Auburn consistently schedules a trio of weak, non-bcs conference schools who agree to play at Jordan-Hare each year in order to pad both the Tigers' record and the athletic department's budget.

I crunched numbers. Actual chomping of data. Beginning with the 1993 squad that finished 11-0 while on probation (Terry Bowden's first season as Tigers coach), here is Auburn's out-of-conference combat record:

? 38 games overall

? 34 games played at Jordan-Hare, only four on the road

? Only two of those 38 opponents were ranked (Southern Cal both times) and the Tigers were 0-2 versus the Trojans in this period.

? Only seven of those 38 opponents are bcs schools (USC twice, Virginia twice, Syracuse twice, Georgia Tech) and in those games Auburn's record was 2-5.

Earlier this month Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville made a comment to the effect that he'd find it hard to believe a school from the SEC could finish undefeated and not be invited to play in the national championship game. Believe it, coach.

No school can control the quality of its in-conference opponents. You hope that they are tough enough to challenge you, but not so strong as to beat you. Oklahoma and Southern Cal were both fortunate in that they beat two schools, Texas and Cal, respectively, who have gone 10-1 and are in everyone's top eight.

Auburn, although it does play in the SEC, has beaten its in-conference competition, but no opponent this season has been as good as Cal or Texas. SEC folk -- I lived in Alabama and covered the conference exclusively for a year, and have returned many times since -- are usually correct when they argue that theirs is the best conference in the nation. However, the stifling parochialism displayed by Auburn (just one trip west of the Mississippi in the past 20 seasons) and its SEC kin has at last come back to bite the Tigers.

Not to mention -- although I'm about to -- that Auburn played seven home games (and four road) this season, which is about its average. Southern Cal, meanwhile will have played six and six; Oklahoma six home, five away (not including the Big 12 Championship game).

Auburn can control its non-conference slate, and year-in and year-out chooses to tackle patsies. A partial list of its non-SEC opponents from the past 11 seasons: Samford, Northeast Louisiana (three times), East Tennessee State, UT-Chattanooga, Appalachian State and Louisiana-Monroe (twice). Auburn, listen: Homecoming should only happen once a year.

Don't blame the players. And don't blame the system. But, if you agree that Auburn, Oklahoma and Southern Cal are the only three schools deserving of a bid for the Orange Bowl, well, then you have to play musical chairs with that trio. And you can't blame any one school for the quality of its in-conference foes. But while Southern Cal was scheduling Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, BYU and Colorado State (two of those games on the road) and Oklahoma was taking on Bowling Green, Houston and Oregon in Norman (at least one of those was a bcs program), Auburn stayed home, played three lambs and counted the gate receipts. And that, most likely, will make it the first undefeated SEC school not to play for a national title since ... the '93 Auburn Tigers.
Click to expand...



good article about Auburn's OOC scheduling
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a good article. What does past scheduling have to do with this year? This guy is a West-Coast writer with a bias. He says "I covered the SEC for a year" yeah, that clears up his bias. :roll:

At any rate, it isn't our team's fault that Bowling Green bought out our contract to play Oklahoma. OU paid their buyout fee, and we offered to match whatever they were getting paid. No go. The AD at BG was ther former Ticket Director at OU. We can't help it that Clemson backed out or that FSU wanted us to mutually agree to pull them off the schedule after Terry Bowden left. OU didn't schedule Oregon in advance, they got lucky that Oregon was dropped and they picked them up. BG was scheduled TEN YEARS AGO, so how can you blame the team?

Auburn has been the most consistent all year. We happened to pick a year in which Miss. State is down. A year in which Kentucky doesn't even have a winning record. A year in which Alabama is mediocre. I call it parity to an extent, but it doesn't take away the fact that the SEC is very tough conference to play in. The SECG is away and we will do fine. We did find in Neyland in the 2nd largest stadium in the nation. Talk about hostile!

I'm not saying OU should be left out.
I'm not saying USC should be left out.
I'm not saying AU should be left out.

I'm saying that the current system is fscked, and I said that last year. I also think that Auburn shouldn't be punished for BG buying out a contract, they shouldn't be punished because Sportswriters stuck with the same 1-2 teams all year while slowly moving AU up. Why should last year decide this year? If that was the case -- how did OU finish last year? 0-2! Lost to K-State(who lost their Bowl) and lost to LSU.

Why were they ranked so high?

Politics.
 
Heck yeah the system is fscked! This will be the SECOND year in a row that Texas is the highest ranked team to not go to a BCS bowl. And we're not talking about rank 10 or 11 here.... we're talking about 5th and 6th!
 
Originally posted by: shuan24
Heck yeah the system is fscked! This will be the SECOND year in a row that Texas is the highest ranked team to not go to a BCS bowl. And we're not talking about rank 10 or 11 here.... we're talking about 5th and 6th!
Click to expand...

I think Texas-Cal would have been a great game. UT would have won, but it would have been exciting.
 
the BCS system has a flawed assumption in that there will never exist more than one bowl eligible team in each conference. They assumed that in each (BCS) conference there will be exactly one dominating team, and that team should play the dominating team of another conference. What a cr0ck of sh!t. What happens when theres more than one dominating team in a conference? The lesser of the two gets the shaft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top