|
Post by trojanpridev on Dec 4, 2011 22:00:02 GMT -5
Wow, we're the last game to the national championship? AWESOME. Never thought I would see Clemson in a game this big. Tajh Boyd brought it yesterday. I hope Barkley stays so next year I can see Clemson be even better with an experienced Boyd and a USC team that can contend for the title.
|
|
|
Post by BOOM! #WDE on Dec 4, 2011 22:14:19 GMT -5
Wow, we're the last game to the national championship? AWESOME. Never thought I would see Clemson in a game this big. Tajh Boyd brought it yesterday. I hope Barkley stays so next year I can see Clemson be even better with an experienced Boyd and a USC team that can contend for the title. There is a game or two between the Orange Bowl and the Bullpoop National Championship game. In other news, glad to see Auburn get the Chik-fil-a Bowl against Virginia. Should be a good game. Glad to see us get back into the top 25 in the BCS. After the schedule we played... we deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanpridev on Dec 4, 2011 22:26:25 GMT -5
Ohhhh snappp, I can't wait to watch Eric Page rape Air Force. Toledo is a damn fine team.
|
|
|
Post by SMTTT! on Dec 5, 2011 1:10:30 GMT -5
BCS makes no sense to me once so ever.
Southern Miss beat a No. 6 Houston, while shutting down the number one offense in the nation and thrashing a damn good defense, yet we moved up two spots. We went 11-2, and we're only ranked 21.
I would've thought with the win over Houston we would have at LEAST gotten around #15-#18, but we didn't even break the freakin' top 20.
|
|
SuperTiger
Mid-Carder
Three Quarters past Six
Joined on: Jul 14, 2011 18:07:16 GMT -5
Posts: 86
|
Post by SuperTiger on Dec 5, 2011 13:26:58 GMT -5
BCS makes no sense to me once so ever. Southern Miss beat a No. 6 Houston, while shutting down the number one offense in the nation and thrashing a damn good defense, yet we moved up two spots. We went 11-2, and we're only ranked 21. I would've thought with the win over Houston we would have at LEAST gotten around #15-#18, but we didn't even break the freakin' top 20. That's the problem. The entire system is screwed up. On average 32% of the people who have a Harris Poll vote don't even vote, and don't even get me started with the Coaches poll. Then you have the computers, which have no accountability for one another. All of the formulas are secret except one. The only one that isn't is I think Wes Colley's. Go search for his formula and research his rankings. They've been wrong countless times over the years, so if he's wrong, how do we know the other five computers aren't wrong either? I mean the whole system is crap. How does Oklahoma fall to #14 and Baylor go to #12, especially after Oklahoma got massacred? Then Texas and Auburn are both ranked. Really? I don't care what their schedule is. They're both 7-5 and both of them had some pretty embarrassing loses with few marquee wins to back them up. The fact that we have some 8-4, and even 9-3 teams that aren't ranked over Auburn and Texas is terrible. And now we have Southern Mississippi two spots below Houston? Is that a joke? For starters Houston fell 3 spots too many to begin with. Secondly the fact Southern Mississippi is so close, but not ahead of Houston is a laughing matter. Also did TCU even move, like at all? Overall as a whole, this week's standings are the worst of the season, yet they're suppose to be the most important, and taken the most seriously. Anyone else smell the irony from a mile away?
|
|
|
Post by Cult Member BriGuy on Dec 5, 2011 14:11:27 GMT -5
VT and Michigan are only in the Sugar Bowl because they are "brand names" and will bring a lot of people to the game aka $$$
|
|
|
Post by Tim Tebow™ on Dec 5, 2011 14:57:25 GMT -5
The BCS screwed up a lot of things this year.
I'll tell you what, I may honestly be looking forward to OSU/Stanford more than LSU/Bama. It is gonna be a great game.
|
|
|
Post by SMTTT! on Dec 5, 2011 15:06:59 GMT -5
BCS makes no sense to me once so ever. Southern Miss beat a No. 6 Houston, while shutting down the number one offense in the nation and thrashing a damn good defense, yet we moved up two spots. We went 11-2, and we're only ranked 21. I would've thought with the win over Houston we would have at LEAST gotten around #15-#18, but we didn't even break the freakin' top 20. That's the problem. The entire system is screwed up. On average 32% of the people who have a Harris Poll vote don't even vote, and don't even get me started with the Coaches poll. Then you have the computers, which have no accountability for one another. All of the formulas are secret except one. The only one that isn't is I think Wes Colley's. Go search for his formula and research his rankings. They've been wrong countless times over the years, so if he's wrong, how do we know the other five computers aren't wrong either? I mean the whole system is crap. How does Oklahoma fall to #14 and Baylor go to #12, especially after Oklahoma got massacred? Then Texas and Auburn are both ranked. Really? I don't care what their schedule is. They're both 7-5 and both of them had some pretty embarrassing loses with few marquee wins to back them up. The fact that we have some 8-4, and even 9-3 teams that aren't ranked over Auburn and Texas is terrible. And now we have Southern Mississippi two spots below Houston? Is that a joke? For starters Houston fell 3 spots too many to begin with. Secondly the fact Southern Mississippi is so close, but not ahead of Houston is a laughing matter. Also did TCU even move, like at all? Overall as a whole, this week's standings are the worst of the season, yet they're suppose to be the most important, and taken the most seriously. Anyone else smell the irony from a mile away? The fact that we aren't ranked above Houston pisses me off like crazy. We won the freakin' C-USA championship, yet Houston is ahead of us. I understand we lost to mediocre UAB and Marshall, but how are we not ranked above the team we just beat 49-28 PLAYING IN HOUSTON? I would've been happy had we been ranked #19 and Houston were ranked lower.
|
|
|
Post by trojanpridev on Dec 5, 2011 15:17:10 GMT -5
I still can't comprehend how VT got an at large bid. They had NO note worthy wins, and got massacred by Clemson twice. Baylor deserved a bcs spot over that pos hokie team. Silly, silly, silly.
|
|
SuperTiger
Mid-Carder
Three Quarters past Six
Joined on: Jul 14, 2011 18:07:16 GMT -5
Posts: 86
|
Post by SuperTiger on Dec 5, 2011 15:26:59 GMT -5
I still can't comprehend how VT got an at large bid. They had NO note worthy wins, and got massacred by Clemson twice. Baylor deserved a bcs spot over that pos hokie team. Silly, silly, silly. Because Virginia Tech has a bigger fanbase than Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, and Boise State. The bowls want to maximize their profit by bringing in teams with the biggest fanbases. They're almost never looking for the best match-up, just for the most profit. It's the reason I'm so pissed about the way these bowls shook out this year. We have 10-2 and 11-1 teams playing 6-6 teams in some cases. It's pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Dec 5, 2011 21:28:23 GMT -5
I have no problems with how the BCS turned out. There is absolutely nothing....zero...zip...zilch in the BCS bylaws that state you have to win your conference or even play for your conference championship. The BCS, when invented in 1997, simply stated that it wanted to pit the #1 and #2 teams in the Nation together to create a unanimous National Champion. With the exception of 2000 and 2004, I feel the BCS has been accurate on their choices. This year is no different. Oklahoma St coach Mike Gundy said "would teams rather see a 3-6 game or a 36-39 game?" I hate to spoil this for him but OKst couldnt score 36 or 39 on either LSU or Alabama.
Besides, most people are too young to remember the old format for bowl selection. It sucked seeing something like #1 Nebraska vs # 4 Miami (in the Orange Bowl) and #3 Michigan vs #17 UCLA in the Rose Bowl and when #4 and #17 wins...#2 and # 4 become Co-National Champions...Sooo stupid
|
|
SuperTiger
Mid-Carder
Three Quarters past Six
Joined on: Jul 14, 2011 18:07:16 GMT -5
Posts: 86
|
Post by SuperTiger on Dec 7, 2011 15:55:58 GMT -5
While I agree with you 100% that the Bowl Coalition and the Bowl Alliance were trash, there is still one big difference between those systems and the BCS. Those systems wanted to provide the best bowl match-ups. No where in the contracts did it say the goal was to pit #1 vs. #2. Had those systems included the Rose bowl (Or just the Pac-10 and Big-10 to simplify things) they may have worked better. The bottom line with those systems, is that they didn't use bias polls to select who was going to their bowl games. Each bowl's committee actually sat down and put some thought into who they were selecting for the bowl game. (spare the auto-bids) Did it work in its 6? years? I'd say the Coalition did a decent job, and would have worked really well if it just included the Big-10 and Pac-10, but the Alliance was horrible. Back in those days, there just wasn't a lot of framework in the system. With the BCS, we have more framework set, but that framework is protected by Plexiglas walls. Edit: Ok did some extra research. The Bowl Coalition didn't really have a lot of issues. It just excluded the Big-10 and Pac-10 as well as the Rose Bowl. The Bowl Alliance was the trashtastic one, and the one your referencing to in your post Alistar. They did want to pit #1 v #2 and they to excluded the Rose Bowl. When they failed that's when the BCS came in. Either way, no matter how you slice it, the successors to each of these systems are not learning from their past mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Dec 7, 2011 22:36:36 GMT -5
While I agree with you 100% that the Bowl Coalition and the Bowl Alliance were trash, there is still one big difference between those systems and the BCS. Those systems wanted to provide the best bowl match-ups. No where in the contracts did it say the goal was to pit #1 vs. #2. Had those systems included the Rose bowl (Or just the Pac-10 and Big-10 to simplify things) they may have worked better. The bottom line with those systems, is that they didn't use bias polls to select who was going to their bowl games. Each bowl's committee actually sat down and put some thought into who they were selecting for the bowl game. (spare the auto-bids) Did it work in its 6? years? I'd say the Coalition did a decent job, and would have worked really well if it just included the Big-10 and Pac-10, but the Alliance was horrible. Back in those days, there just wasn't a lot of framework in the system. With the BCS, we have more framework set, but that framework is protected by Plexiglas walls. Edit: Ok did some extra research. The Bowl Coalition didn't really have a lot of issues. It just excluded the Big-10 and Pac-10 as well as the Rose Bowl. The Bowl Alliance was the trashtastic one, and the one your referencing to in your post Alistar. They did want to pit #1 v #2 and they to excluded the Rose Bowl. When they failed that's when the BCS came in. Either way, no matter how you slice it, the successors to each of these systems are not learning from their past mistakes. I had completely forgotten about the Coalition and Alliance...Im dating myself but I was going back even further (mid to late 80s) when basically it was whomever of the top 4 teams had the better bowl game got a share of the National Championship. Basically 1 could beat 2 by a FG and get on Share and 3 could be 4 by 35 and get a share of the other. Soooo dumb. Would playoffs give us a clear cut winner? Sure, but really in the end, Outside of 2000 and 2004 its hard to say the best team in the country didnt end up being the National Champion.
|
|
|
Post by BOOM! #WDE on Dec 8, 2011 15:53:50 GMT -5
Oh, I remember 2004...
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 23:40:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2011 18:49:53 GMT -5
The thing I hate about the BCS is the fact that 9-3 teams can get into BCS bowl games if they win their conference championship. In my opinion, NO conference should get an automatic BCS bid. Of course, this will never happen, considering all the major conferences want is money.
|
|
|
Post by trojanpridev on Dec 9, 2011 11:17:51 GMT -5
Was that the year USC demolished Oklahoma and Auburn went undefeated? I cannot remember if that was in the same season or not. Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush vs Jason Campbell and Ronnie Brown/Cadillac would have been more competitive than USC vs Jason White and that awful Oklahoma team.
|
|
|
Post by BOOM! #WDE on Dec 9, 2011 11:20:20 GMT -5
It sure was. Auburn had such a damn good team. If there was anyone who could beat USC that year, it was Auburn. Instead, we had to watch Chokelahoma get bent over the table. Guess we could always pull an Alabama and CLAIM a National Championship, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Dec 9, 2011 11:21:38 GMT -5
Was that the year USC demolished Oklahoma and Auburn went undefeated? I cannot remember if that was in the same season or not. Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush vs Jason Campbell and Ronnie Brown/Cadillac would have been more competitive than USC vs Jason White and that awful Oklahoma team. Yup, by far the dumbest choice Ive ever seen the BCS make. No way was that Oklahoma team as good as or better then Auburn...or USC for that matter. The BCS defense was "look how poorly Auburn played in the Sugar Bowl".....well, its kinda hard to be excited for a game you shouldnt be playing in. Look how well Oklahoma played in the Title game....Turrible! 2000 wasnt as bad, I guess it was more "opinion" but still FSU shouldnt have been near the game.
|
|
|
Post by trojanpridev on Dec 9, 2011 11:32:07 GMT -5
It seems like, since they took the title away from us, that Auburn should have been awarded the title of 04 champion. Kind of like how Vince Young should be the heisman after they vacated it from Bush.
What was the deal with 2000? I don't remember that(I wasn't old enough to comprehend sports).
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Dec 9, 2011 11:42:07 GMT -5
It seems like, since they took the title away from us, that Auburn should have been awarded the title of 04 champion. Kind of like how Vince Young should be the heisman after they vacated it from Bush. What was the deal with 2000? I don't remember that(I wasn't old enough to comprehend sports). FSU was 10-1 (with a loss to Miami) Miami was 10-1 (with a loss to Washington) Washington was 10-1 with a loss to Oregon) By looking at that, Washington beat a Miami team that beat FSU. Washington should have probably gone on to the title game. However, an argument can be made for Miami as well as their loss to Wash was at the first of the season and much like Bama this year a loss to a top ranked team (wash) is better then a loss to a lower ranked team (oregon). Also the old rule of "its better to lose early" comes in to play for Miami as well here. Either way, Oklahoma should have played Washington or Miami and FSU should have been in the Champ Sports Bowl. It sure was. Auburn had such a damn good team. If there was anyone who could beat USC that year, it was Auburn. Instead, we had to watch Chokelahoma get bent over the table. Guess we could always pull an Alabama and CLAIM a National Championship, lol. In a way they "kinda" did. Tuberville and Auburn bought the players National Championship rings.
|
|