For those who think college football should have a tourney, do you also believe that the kids who play a sport that already takes up all of their time both pre, post and during the season should have to put more time and work, especially those who are playing the game not for a chance to play in the NFL?
-
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.
USC did NOT get robbed
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nitsuj3580
Platinum Member
Go check the pre-season rankings. I believe Auburn, Oregon St, Arizona St, Notre Dame, and Washington were preseason Top 30 teams. Is it USC's fault that those teams didn't live up to expectations thus lowering USC's SOS significantly.
Saying USC didn't play anyone is just wrong and ignorant.
nitsuj3580
Platinum Member
Originally posted by: Millennium
SOS doesn't take into account preseason rankings. It isn't LSU's fault that they didn't have a tougher schedule either. The preseason rankings mean jacksh!t, because if you go back and look at WHEN they played teams, LSU played 5 or 6 that were ranked, and USC played one. Also, USC lost to CAL, and LSU lost to Florida. There is a huge quality difference in those opponents right there. BTW, it's not like USC has just scheduled those teams this year. Teams are scheduled years in advance, and if they wanted to be assured of a tough schedule they should have scheduled FSU and Miami who are perennially good.
Everyone can't play FSU and Miami every year so obviously that can't even be a suggestion. If you have the perennial top 20 teams playing each other amongst themselves, year after year to 'assure' themselves of a good schedule, how is that good for football? Might as well get rid of all the conferences then. Schools are going to start dividing up in little 'elite' groups saying you're aren't as good as us so you can't be a part of our group and play us Yah, that's a great idea.
I also disagree knocking a team because of one freakin loss. Every team is going to have a bad game but at least it took triple OT for them to lose. Sure they lost to a lesser quality school than LSU, but a loss is a loss. The way they won the rest of their games should overcome that one loss easily. I'm not just standing up for USC either, just using them as the most obvious example. I'd be curious if you think OU shouldn't be there also since the didn't win their conference and got blown out. Whoopdee Doo. It's hard to take conference championships seriously when only two of the big conferences play them leaving an unlevel playing field in terms of having to win more games to maintain perfection (since that's the only way for a team to truly assure themselves a shot at the title in this POS BCS system)
USC, LSU, OU, Michigan, etc are all awesome schools and something has to be done to give them a shot at the title.
Originally posted by: nitsuj3580
Originally posted by: Millennium
SOS doesn't take into account preseason rankings. It isn't LSU's fault that they didn't have a tougher schedule either. The preseason rankings mean jacksh!t, because if you go back and look at WHEN they played teams, LSU played 5 or 6 that were ranked, and USC played one. Also, USC lost to CAL, and LSU lost to Florida. There is a huge quality difference in those opponents right there. BTW, it's not like USC has just scheduled those teams this year. Teams are scheduled years in advance, and if they wanted to be assured of a tough schedule they should have scheduled FSU and Miami who are perennially good.
Everyone can't play FSU and Miami every year so obviously that can't even be a suggestion. If you have the perennial top 20 teams playing each other amongst themselves, year after year to 'assure' themselves of a good schedule, how is that good for football? Might as well get rid of all the conferences then. Schools are going to start dividing up in little 'elite' groups saying you're aren't as good as us so you can't be a part of our group and play usThat's exactly what playoffs WILL do.
Under the current system USC was NOT robbed, because they played a weaker schedule. Deal with it. USC's Water Polo team is awesome.
I believe the BCS contract requires the coaches' poll to vote the winner of the BCS championship game #1 (and likely require the loser to be voted #2). The AP does not have to adhere to such requirements which is why the split championship remains a possibility. The only place Michigan would have a chance to leap anyone would be in the AP poll.
-Tom
I think the BCS should do this: Use the current BCS format or maybe a retooled version to decide the top 4 or 8 teams that will compete in a small tournament for the national title. The bowls could be used as either the first or final round of the tournament. This kind of format would make everyone happy. I think the BCS would work well under a system like this and the fans/schools would have a tournament like divisions I-AA, II, and III already have.
-Tom
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
-
-
