USC did NOT get robbed

[dave127]

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?

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The only thing the BCS got right this year was making the Rose Bowl as it should be, Big 10 vs. Pac 10. The BCS needs to be kicked to the curb just for messing with that.

ZV

It's all karma.

The Rose Bowl gets boned two years in a row.

Then, thanks to the BCS system, it backdoors into a game that will decide the AP national champions.

Uh no it doesnt, it only crowns the AP champ if USC wins. If USC loses, the winner of the Sugar will be #1 in all polls.

If Michigan wins, they will be ranked #2 in all polls. Its extremely unlikely Michigan could jump the winner of the Sugar in the human polls.

 

[digitalsm]

 

[Mill]

USC doesn't deserve to be in the Sugar, because they didn't play anyone all year and they lost to call. They didn't get robbed and they won't beat Michigan.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The only thing the BCS got right this year was making the Rose Bowl as it should be, Big 10 vs. Pac 10. The BCS needs to be kicked to the curb just for messing with that.

ZV

It's all karma.

The Rose Bowl gets boned two years in a row.

Then, thanks to the BCS system, it backdoors into a game that will decide the AP national champions.

Uh no it doesnt, it only crowns the AP champ if USC wins. If USC loses, the winner of the Sugar will be #1 in all polls.

If Michigan wins, they will be ranked #2 in all polls. Its extremely unlikely Michigan could jump the winner of the Sugar in the human polls.

Maybe you read into my post a bit too much.

The Rose Bowl will HELP decide who is the AP national champion.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: Millennium
USC doesn't deserve to be in the Sugar, because they didn't play anyone all year and they lost to call. They didn't get robbed and they won't beat Michigan.

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.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: Millennium
USC doesn't deserve to be in the Sugar, because they didn't play anyone all year and they lost to call. They didn't get robbed and they won't beat Michigan.

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.

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.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: Millennium
USC doesn't deserve to be in the Sugar, because they didn't play anyone all year and they lost to call. They didn't get robbed and they won't beat Michigan.

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.

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.

Auburn, Oregon St, Notre Dame, and Washington have always been solid programs that are frequently ranked throughout the past few years so it's not like USC is scheduling perennial cream puffs a la a Virginia Tech for example (who get burned for it every year by losing 3-4 games each year at the end of the season). To go off and say USC didn't play anyone because they had some bad luck as a result of other schools not playing up to their typical caliber is just a cop out to justify they shouldn't be playing in the title game.

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.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: Millennium
USC doesn't deserve to be in the Sugar, because they didn't play anyone all year and they lost to call. They didn't get robbed and they won't beat Michigan.

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.

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

That'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.

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The only thing the BCS got right this year was making the Rose Bowl as it should be, Big 10 vs. Pac 10. The BCS needs to be kicked to the curb just for messing with that.

ZV

It's all karma.

The Rose Bowl gets boned two years in a row.

Then, thanks to the BCS system, it backdoors into a game that will decide the AP national champions.

Uh no it doesnt, it only crowns the AP champ if USC wins. If USC loses, the winner of the Sugar will be #1 in all polls.

If Michigan wins, they will be ranked #2 in all polls. Its extremely unlikely Michigan could jump the winner of the Sugar in the human polls.

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

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580
[

USC, LSU, OU, Michigan, etc are all awesome schools and something has to be done to give them a shot at the title.

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

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Avatar26 There has never been, nor will there EVER be, a perfect system. Even those who created the BCS have admitted some changes need to be made. The long and the sort of it is: Will be a split championship, get over it and just enjoy the games!

No it won't Michigans pass offense is just way to much for USC's extremely weak pass defense which is ranked over 100 nationally. USC is going to get burned early and often by the Michigan WRs, its not going to be a close game. USC is HIGHLY over ranked. They are simply the media darling, realistically they shouldnt be ranked #1, thier schedule does not warrant it. Look at who theyve played(or lack of who they played) and how many teams they played that finished over .500. USC didnt get robbed. IMHO based on how the season went the teams should be ranked like this OU LSU Michigan OSU USC Texas Miami Tennesse FSU Kansas State Georgia Miami(Ohio)

well looks like teh 100 ranked pass defense choked Michigan's way too much pass offense

 

[Ns1]

ouch

thanks for bumping this thread hahahaha

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Avatar26 There has never been, nor will there EVER be, a perfect system. Even those who created the BCS have admitted some changes need to be made. The long and the sort of it is: Will be a split championship, get over it and just enjoy the games!

No it won't Michigans pass offense is just way to much for USC's extremely weak pass defense which is ranked over 100 nationally. USC is going to get burned early and often by the Michigan WRs, its not going to be a close game. USC is HIGHLY over ranked. They are simply the media darling, realistically they shouldnt be ranked #1, thier schedule does not warrant it. Look at who theyve played(or lack of who they played) and how many teams they played that finished over .500. USC didnt get robbed. IMHO based on how the season went the teams should be ranked like this OU LSU Michigan OSU USC Texas Miami Tennesse FSU Kansas State Georgia Miami(Ohio)

well looks like teh 100 ranked pass defense choked Michigan's way too much pass offense

Actually their pass rush did, but carry on.