-
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.
Espn says it's pretty much official OU vs LSU for the Championship.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: kalster
Originally posted by: Millennium
How is USC getting raped? They played ONE top 25 team, whereas LSU played like 6. LSU lost to a ranked Florida team and USC lost to an unranked and incredibly terrible CAL team. Yeah, USC is getting raped.It's easy to tell who the real football fans are here.
man enuf for the day, u need some rest for another day of SC bashing tommorow 😀
get over it, LSU is playing OU,
and ur an Auburn fan arent u lol 😀
I am, but LSU beat Auburn a lot worse than USC did. I'm not a LSU fan at all, but you USC people are being silly to suggest you were robbed. You had to have had a good team to have been robbed, and USC has played one top 25 team all year.
i wasnt suggesting anything
and beating a pre season no 1 in the first game of the year at their home ground in form of a shutout is pretty big anyway
IF you are going to rip on USC, at least get your facts straight....Auburn was a top 5 team when USC played them..Wash St is a ranked team, Cal is going to a bowl - not a terrible team at all - in fact, Cal put 28 on the board against K.St - how many did Oklahoma put on the board against K.St?
and HOW THE HECK do you figure LSU beat Auburn "a lot worse" than USC did? Isn't 31-7 comparable to 23-0? Aren't they pretty much the same? Come on - at least keep some objectivity!
USC fans, don't despair - any scenario with 3 one-loss teams would create this - lets say Oklahoma went to the Rose Bowl instead of USC, and they clobber Michigan, while the LSU-USC game has a sloppy ending...you get the picture.....
a playoff is the only way around this...
and HOW THE HECK do you figure LSU beat Auburn "a lot worse" than USC did? Isn't 31-7 comparable to 23-0? Aren't they pretty much the same? Come on - at least keep some objectivity!
USC fans, don't despair - any scenario with 3 one-loss teams would create this - lets say Oklahoma went to the Rose Bowl instead of USC, and they clobber Michigan, while the LSU-USC game has a sloppy ending...you get the picture.....
a playoff is the only way around this...
Just my opinion, but do you guys not remember that Oklahoma beat damn near everyone on their schedule by a large margin all year long??? DId they not top the polls all year long? Do they not have only 1 loss just like LSU and USC???
There is no doubt that OU dominated nearly every opponent by a large margin. Even with the loss to K-State, they deserve a shot in the Sugar Bowl.
There is no doubt that OU dominated nearly every opponent by a large margin. Even with the loss to K-State, they deserve a shot in the Sugar Bowl.
CAL is subpar, I am an Auburn fan, and we were so overrated it wasn't even funny. We were preseason ranked, and I would have to say that doesn't count because we were ranked 17th in one poll and 6th in the other. Not sure what cracked you smoked to come up with the whole Top 5 thing. Secondly, LSU dominated Auburn, and USC's win looked a lot better than it was. It was 10-0 at the half whereas LSU scored 21 in the first FREAKING quarter. Thirdly, Auburn's 7 points in that win were near the very end of the game as was USC's last score. LSU beat Auburn a lot worse than USC did. Did you watch either game? I'll bet you didn't see the full 60 minutes of both of them like I did. Finally, you can't consider a preseason ranking to have any respectability when it comes to determining the quality of opponents that a team faced. It if had been later in the season then sure, but Auburn ended up 7-5 and unranked.
LSU is a much better team, and USC didn't play anyone all year. The only reason USC is ranked higher than LSU is because LSU lost later in the season. Maybe you aren't a real football fan, but I prefer to have a team that lost to a ranked team than a team that didn't play anyone and lost to CAL. Time of a loss shouldn't matter compared to WHO you lost to. BTW, USC will get blown out by Michigan.
Originally posted by: Millennium
How is USC getting raped? They played ONE top 25 team, whereas LSU played like 6. LSU lost to a ranked Florida team and USC lost to an unranked and incredibly terrible CAL team. Yeah, USC is getting raped.It's easy to tell who the real football fans are here.
The problem with comparing strength of schedule is that you can't predict who is going to have a good year and who isn't.
USC went out and scheduled Notre Dame and Auburn out of conference. That meant a LOT more when they made the schedule than it does today. It CERTAINLY was a lot better looking than La. Monroe, Arizona, W. Illinois and La. Tech.
In typical BCS fashion, the system takes control away from a team and puts it in the hands of the teams that they play. USC would have gotten into the Sugar Bowl if Notre Dame or Hawaii would have won Saturday. That is ridiculous. Granted, if USC could have beat Cal, this wouldn't have been an issue, but it is still a VERY flawed system.
Sure OU deserves a shot.
So does LSU. They basically dominated all of their opponents and won by large margins (including a conference championship game that they won by 20 points).
So does USC. They dominated nearly all of their opponents and won by large margins, including shutting out then-#5 Auburn in the first game of the season and destroying Washington State. Also, since the Auburn game, they have scored NO LESS than 31 points in a game, and have scored more than FOURTY a game for the past seven games.
PlatinumGold
Lifer
let's talk quality wins for a sec. OU's loss to KState was HUGE in that it was a CONFERENCE Championship. a loss in the CONFERENCE Championship should have knocked OU TOTALLY out of the BCS race.
they are an AT LARGE bid (wild card anyone)?? AT Large bid should get a shot ONLY at the #3 v #4 game.
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: Millennium
How is USC getting raped? They played ONE top 25 team, whereas LSU played like 6. LSU lost to a ranked Florida team and USC lost to an unranked and incredibly terrible CAL team. Yeah, USC is getting raped.It's easy to tell who the real football fans are here.
The problem with comparing strength of schedule is that you can't predict who is going to have a good year and who isn't.
USC went out and scheduled Notre Dame and Auburn out of conference. That meant a LOT more when they made the schedule than it does today. It CERTAINLY was a lot better looking than La. Monroe, Arizona, W. Illinois and La. Tech.
In typical BCS fashion, the system takes control away from a team and puts it in the hands of the teams that they play. USC would have gotten into the Sugar Bowl if Notre Dame or Hawaii would have won Saturday. That is ridiculous. Granted, if USC could have beat Cal, this wouldn't have been an issue, but it is still a VERY flawed system.
You deal with reality and not "should have could have would have." The fact is that USC has played ONE ranked team all year and LSU played like 5 or 6. That's all there is to it. Seriously, how the hell can you say a loss to CAL is better than a loss to Florida?
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: Millennium
How is USC getting raped? They played ONE top 25 team, whereas LSU played like 6. LSU lost to a ranked Florida team and USC lost to an unranked and incredibly terrible CAL team. Yeah, USC is getting raped.It's easy to tell who the real football fans are here.
The problem with comparing strength of schedule is that you can't predict who is going to have a good year and who isn't.
USC went out and scheduled Notre Dame and Auburn out of conference. That meant a LOT more when they made the schedule than it does today. It CERTAINLY was a lot better looking than La. Monroe, Arizona, W. Illinois and La. Tech.
In typical BCS fashion, the system takes control away from a team and puts it in the hands of the teams that they play. USC would have gotten into the Sugar Bowl if Notre Dame or Hawaii would have won Saturday. That is ridiculous. Granted, if USC could have beat Cal, this wouldn't have been an issue, but it is still a VERY flawed system.
You deal with reality and not "should have could have would have." The fact is that USC has played ONE ranked team all year and LSU played like 5 or 6. That's all there is to it. Seriously, how the hell can you say a loss to CAL is better than a loss to Florida?
I didn't say that a loss to call was better than a loss to Florida.
What I am saying is that the BCS almost requires you to predict the future and schedule teams that will do well for you to have a shot at the title game.
If you would have compared the pre-season schedules of USC and LSU, which one would you have said was tougher? I agree that you have to be realisitic and deal with what it IS, not what it should be. But the fact remains that you can't KNOW what it IS. That is the biggest flaw in factoring strength of schedule as it pertains to a team's strength.
I am not a USC fan, I am not an LSU fan and I am not an OU fan. I am a college football fan. As a college football fan, it seems a bit ludicrous to me that a team that didn't even win a SHARE of their conference championship is playing in the "national championship game".
I am a Michigan fan, and part of me wants USC to beat UM just so there is a split poll and the BCS has to suck on it. That is how much I hate this system.
I am not arguing that. It's easy to look back and go "Duh, they should have beat Auburn." But that wasn't the case at the beginning of the year.
What I am saying is that USC had to get prepared for (what was then) a big game. They had to come out and prove that they could beat what people thought was a good SEC team, on the road, nevermind the fact that it is the first game of the season.
That is a test. Maybe it is not as big of a test and we thought it was then, but it was.
I hear what you are saying. But, as you just noted yourself, "maybe it is not as big of a test as we thought it was then." Well, we thought it was going to be a big game. However, it wasn't. USC should have won easily. That is what strength of schedule shows. Sure, it can be a crap shoot each year and impossible to "schedule good teams" because you never know. However, any team should realize that and if they "get screwed" at the end of the year, so be it. USC tried. Had they beat a mediocre at best Cal team, there would be no debate. The BCS looks at the entire season and in this case, I feel the 2 best teams are playing. Human polls are an illogical way to rank things. I'll take computer produced numbers over humans anyday. They start with insane predictions like Auburn being #1.
I'm not a BCS fanboy or anything. However, I do feel we have the best matchup possible for the championship game.
I would hardly consider the Rose Bowl to not be at least a reach around. Especially when it is in traditional form, ie Big Ten vs Pac-10.
Frankly, when you have 3 one loss teams, there will be someone left out of playing for the national championship, at least in the current BCS system. Someone with one loss is going to not be allowed to contend for it. And I think, in all fairness, when there are three teams with one loss, the two teams that played the hardest season should get the shot.
well its funny that the only 2 teams common in LSU and USC's schedule were Arizona and LSU and with LSU having leading defense in teh nation and all that mumbo jumbo, it was USC whose defense shutout both Arrzona and Auburn
u wanna argue with me that LSU's win over Auburn was better, go ahead, i have no interest in arguing with u on that, its subjective ne way
USC wasnt tested agreed, that doesnt make them bad
i dont see y you keep whining about CAL being subpar,
considering that they put 21 point more than the nation's leading offense and defense against Kansas state itself suggest they are decent atleast
as someone pointed out USC's out of conference schedule looked much better at the beginning of year, and just coz it didnt pan out into a good out of conference schedule at the end of the year doesnt mean they suck
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
