Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who Will Win the BCS?
- Thread starter iDAG
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I eat my words, sir.
I'm more excited that if they beat Ohio, LSU's coach is now already up on the Michigan/Ohio rivalry.
A fun game to watch for an SEC (Arkansas) fan.
At the very least, don't reward teams who play weak schedules and go undefeated against the U of Little Sisters of the Poor.
like who? hawaii? certianly not kansas. they have proved their worth and lost to their big rival by 6 and gave NEB their worse loss in history EVER
I hope KU gets a share of title. no way should a 2 loss team who lost to UNRANKED opponents be nc. ku just lost to #4 mizzou by 6pts and beat the #3 team
it will be an interesting week
as you can tell im a ku fan
A fun game to watch for an SEC (Arkansas) fan.
yes it was. (UGA here)
exactly. and this game is more proof.
KU didn't play anybody, same as Ohio State. and this game just proved it. same for Hawaii
No matter how you slice it, it's a screwed up system. You'll always end up with inconsistencies.
LSU lost tough games in the toughest conference in NCAA Football. I can live with that, especially with this system.
to uk and arkansas (who was unranked and then killed by mizzou)
from now on osu and ou should be banned from the bcs bowls since the last couple appearances by each have been rather sad. they get in on name in my opinion lol. i bet mizzou vs west virginia would have been a good game
I know a lot of people will use the Arkansas and Kentucky games as ammo against LSU, but both were triple overtime losses from solid programs. It looks like Kentucky was ranked #18 at the time.
Arkansas fell apart after the regular season. At one point, we were ranked as high as #16. Coach Houston Nutt was fired, which was a mess, then we played terribly in our bowl game (without a real head coach, we were not prepared, and the decision making was ridiculous during that game).
Heck, I would love to see Mizzou vs. West Virginia though, that would be an interesting match.
as was nebraska which was #14 at the time they played usc. then KU scored the most pts ever on neb when they played.
there needs to be a playoff.have the bcs bowls be a playoff, but stagger them out each year
ie orange and sugar be opening games
the fiesta be semifinal
then rose be nc game
then rotate the order
there needs to be a playoff.have the bcs bowls be a playoff, but stagger them out each year
ie orange and sugar be opening games
the fiesta be semifinal
then rose be nc game
then rotate the order
First off, UGA didn't win their conference (yes, the best conference, but still), so there's no way they should be considered.
I am willing to bet that my USC Trojans, right now, at the end of the season, would compare favorably with ANY team in the nation, LSU included. As my boy Pete Carrol says, 'It seems like the BCS is determined not by which team is playing the best, but on the attractiveness of the season on the whole.'
C'mon, please let there be a playoff. USC.
I am willing to bet that my USC Trojans, right now, at the end of the season, would compare favorably with ANY team in the nation, LSU included. As my boy Pete Carrol says, 'It seems like the BCS is determined not by which team is playing the best, but on the attractiveness of the season on the whole.'
C'mon, please let there be a playoff. USC.
remember a few years ago when neb got killed by CU in the big 12 north and was still selected to play Miami in the nc game back in 01. the edge nebraska had over cu was so small. i remember a huge fuss about that. as cu won the big 12 and was number 3 in bcs by fraction of a pt, wheras neb was #2 but didnt win big 12
also remember when oklahoma lost its big 12 game vs colorado in 2003 and still played LSU in the BCS title game?
goes to show you dont have to win conference to be in the title game
these are the only example i know but i tend to only care about big 12 football and mwc football. there may be other conferences that had this type of scenario too but i cant recall them as i dont follow them
They're much more reluctant to now. But even logically, the conference championships (if they have one) are held near the end of the season, showcasing the team at the latest part in the season for evaluation. If you can't win against your conference at the end of the season, you shouldn't be playing in the national championship at the end of the season + 4 weeks.
What I'm trying to say is that I think the BCS has their priorities messed up. USC, the school I attend, got beaten by 41 point underdog Stanford...at home. I was there, and it was a horrific loss, it was a terrible week on campus after that. But as the season went on, we really found our groove, and I think we played the best out of any team in the nation at the end of the season. But the BCS would not look past our losses to Stanford (where a HUGE chunk of our defense and offense were injured (even more so than other teams plagued with injuries)) and Oregon (with our backup QB and still heavy injuries) even though EVERYONE knew at the end of the season that we posed the largest threat to any team that would play us since we were at full strength. It shouldn't be based solely on how you get there, it should be on if you are the best team in the nation when you are there. And I believe, along with a lot of sportswriters, that we were/are.
well the problem is the season is 12 games. each game is important and when you lose to a 41 pt underdog, it will hurt you no matter what. dont think that usc is the only team to deal with injuries. its part of the game
i say get rid of conference title games and just use overall records and tie breakers. its not fair how conferences like the pac 10 dont have title games whereas acc big 12 etc do
i say get rid of conference title games and just use overall records and tie breakers. its not fair how conferences like the pac 10 dont have title games whereas acc big 12 etc do
Losing to Stanford should hurt us, it was a terrible effort. I understand that injuries are a part of the game, but if you followed our injuries compared with other teams, ours were, by far, more devastating. My problem is how it was clear to everyone USC was the best or second best team in the nation by the end of the season (everyone commented how we're healthy, ready to go, etc.) yet they chose what game we would play based on earlier.
I'll make an analogy. Say the Boston Celtics, lost both Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to injury during the 20 game stretch. Obviously, they will be bad and will lose to a lot of teams they would normally beat. Once they are all healthy and playing together with KG, Allen, and Pierce, would it really be fair or logical to keep them out of the "big game" when it is so obvious that they are the best team (or among the best) at that moment?
yea but such is life in the sports world and real world. you have to go by results not potential. but i def see your pt. the question is how do you quantify the potential? by games and there's only a small amt of them unfortuantely
I agree with you here. But my problem is when that potential becomes realized. I think there should be something that accounts for the fact that the Trojans have great potential, then got everyone back healthy near the end of the season, and then realized that potential during the last few weeks. If nothing had been realized, then I completely agree with you.
I mean, even the Atlanta Hawks beat the San Antonio Spurs....
isnt this where pre season polls play a large part? if usc (preseason #1) would have won out, they would have been in title game. except they botched their season. thus it was thiers to lose in a sense
in my opinion preseason polls are exactly that, potential based
i know that in past years in bball KU got upset by Bucknell and Bradley in the NCAA tourney where KU was sooooooo much better but just had an off game which defined their season, and not to mention made me very upset! they had a much better shot of winning it all than those 2 teams but you have to play the game and win.
ncaa ftball is just like that currently except the whole season is treated like a playoff where essentially you have to be undefeated or be a 1 loss team to make the title game
i dont mind this too much but there are too many teams some years who are legit title contenders and an additional playoff needs to be formulated to correctly get the right one..
i would say have a 6 team playoff is the way to go. top 2 bcs teams get a bye week and yea go from there
edit: wow you know its late when you cant really understand what youve posted. i know i have some ingenius pt in there! haha
first off, Ohio State's conference doesn't have a championship game.
UGA lost the same number of games that LSU did. if only Tennessee would have lost to another SEC team.
what should have happened was UGA vs USC, at least.
