It's widely acknowledged that if USC wins out (which they should do, they are considerably better than either ND or UCLA), they will (rightfully) face OSU in the national title game.
This from a team that lost to the pros:
-starting QB -both RBs -nearly the entire offensive line
and on and on...truly a remarkable year for a team to go through that kind of turnover and still play for the national title.
<< <i>Dirtmonkey the Ducks are not Oregon State !!!! Geez.....
Why don't you guys discuss this in a couple of weeks. Past scores do not mean chit. Its who's playing well at the end of the season and who has the speed. IMO the Big Ten is slow compared to others.
Ken >>
Oooops, my bad. I guess I had confused myself into thinking that USC had lost to the best team in the state of Oregon, not the second best And believe me, Michigan & OSU aren't slow this year.
<< <i>This is in response to dirtmonkeys comment about Arkansas playing some crappy out of conference games. First off we all play out of conference games. Yes Arkansas, like most other Universities play some out of conference games but that does not keep to the fact that we beat Auburn when they were #2 in the BCS and held strong against Tennessee and South Carolina. So lets not get into the crappy out of conference game stuff. I have to back my Razorbacks on that. Sure were not Michigan or OSU but we are making headway..............Semper Fi. >>
My point is that unlike conference games, teams schedule their out of conference games and it's their choice as to who they decide to match up with. With the exception of USC, Arkansas scheduled some extremely lousy schools (aka cupcakes) from terrible conferences. If one is going to discuss the BCS, they have to discuss this "crappy out of conference game stuff". That is why USC is rated ahead of Florida and probably also your Razorbacks, even though they lost to a worse rated team than both of them did. If they (Arkansas & Florida) chose to play tougher teams and had actually won, both would be closer or even possibly ahead of USC in the polls. And don't get me wrong, I still like to watch Arkansas and hope they beat down Florida.
<< <i>It's widely acknowledged that if USC wins out (which they should do, they are considerably better than either ND or UCLA), they will (rightfully) face OSU in the national title game. >>
Rightfully - lol. Michigan loses to current BCS #1. Notre Dame loses to current BCS #2. Arkansas loses to current BCS #3. Florida loses to BCS #12. USC loses to current BCS #????? Damn, the list I'm looking at doesn't seem to go any lower than 25. If they have a top 50 though, the Beavers (aka the second best team in Oregon) might make it. Again, I think Michigan and even Florida are more worthy of the game because they lost much better teams that USC did. Again, guess the debate is futile until after USC finishes the season though.
Go NOTRE DAME!!! (Holy crap, I almost threw up in my mouth after saying that)
Who knows what other teams are going to do in the next two games. Can make all the predictions until the cows come home.
If it were today, it should be OSU v MICH and rightfully so.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Wow, the USC hate is alive and well....I guess the anti-west coast bias continues to rear its ugly head.
Instead of focusing on who these teams have lost to, why don't you focus on who they've beaten, instead? That will give you an idea of the quality of the teams...and you'll see that USC has beaten some very, very good teams.
Oh well, let the whining begin when USC rolls to another national championship.
<< <i>Again, I think Michigan and even Florida are more worthy of the game because they lost much better teams that USC did. Again, guess the debate is futile until after USC finishes the season though. >>
You seem to focus too much on that one USC loss and those close USC wins and not balance that with USC's much tougher out of conference schedule. Yes USC lost to the beavers and had close games against average teams....but, they had by far the toughest out of conference schedule amongst the remaining teams in contention. Add to that the fact that 10 of USC's 12 opponents are bowl eligible. I'm not saying we should ignore USC's loss to Oregon State. I'm saying that we should take in the entire picture and not focus on one aspect of a team's championship portfolio. With college football, it's especially difficult to determine which team is the strongest. There are far too few games played to make a reasonable and accurate determination of which team is better. Add to that differences found within conferences, the inherent fear of most programs to schedule a tough out of conference schedule and the lack of a playoff/tournament and you get a muddled ranking system. Unfortunately, with football being a physically brutal sport (hence, teams can only play once a week) and the NCAA's inability to implement some sort of playoff system (because of the profit driven BCS), you cannot increase your sample size or have a scenario where all of these teams have a chance of facing one another. But, it does stimulate the type of conversations were having in this thread. So, I guess there is some use.
<< <i>Wow, the USC hate is alive and well....I guess the anti-west coast bias continues to rear its ugly head.
Instead of focusing on who these teams have lost to, why don't you focus on who they've beaten, instead? That will give you an idea of the quality of the teams...and you'll see that USC has beaten some very, very good teams.
Oh well, let the whining begin when USC rolls to another national championship. >>
I have no reason to hate USC. This "anti-west coast bias" you speak only exists in the heads of those on the west coast. I did not deny that USC was the best team a couple of years ago. To me, it seemed pretty obvious. So quit whining when people don't think USC is the best. Maybe they have seen them struggle against poor teams in games this year as I have. That's why I don't believe that they are the second best team. As far as the teams they have beaten, they certainly beat a strong Arkansas team handily. They beat an overrated Cal team. Sure, Cal is exciting and has a potent offense, but they haven't beaten a current top 25 team. The best team Cal has beaten is Oregon (7-4). They got bumped pretty hard by Tennessee and USC, their only opponents that I believe are currently in the top 25. They also beat Nebraska, who hasn't beaten anybody in the top 25 either. I understand most teams don't get an opportunity to play more than 1-2 teams that are ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season, but Michigan did play these current BCS teams. OSU #1, Notre Dame #5, Wisconsin #8 and Penn State #25. USC will end up playing 4 as well, #5 ND, #6 Arkansas, #19 Cal and #22 Nebraska. Michigan played better opponents on average of those 4. Granted, they lost one of them, but they did lose to an actual BCS team that happened to be ranked #1 and it was at Columbus and only by 3. The winning percentages of the Big 10 and Pac 10 are quite similar, so it's hard to say that USC played a far superior schedule to Michigan, if in fact, they even did at all.
As I said before, I would really have to give the nod to Florida if they beat FSU (easy) and beat Arkansas in the SEC championship. They did lose to a BCS team and played in a tough conference. My knock against them is poor preconference scheduling and close games to some bad teams, but in the end they lost to a much better team than USC did in my opinion.
In the end, it's an interesting discussion but this debate may be for not if USC loses to Notre Dame, Florida loses to FSU & then beats Arkansas followed by the NCAA putting Notre Dame on suspension because they have a stupid looking mascot. BTW, does that 3 name podunk QB from USC live in his own house or has he been supplied with one for a cheap rate as well?
<< <i>Again, I think Michigan and even Florida are more worthy of the game because they lost much better teams that USC did. Again, guess the debate is futile until after USC finishes the season though. >>
You seem to focus too much on that one USC loss and those close USC wins and not balance that with USC's much tougher out of conference schedule. Yes USC lost to the beavers and had close games against average teams....but, they had by far the toughest out of conference schedule amongst the remaining teams in contention. Add to that the fact that 10 of USC's 12 opponents are bowl eligible. I'm not saying we should ignore USC's loss to Oregon State. I'm saying that we should take in the entire picture and not focus on one aspect of a team's championship portfolio. With college football, it's especially difficult to determine which team is the strongest. There are far too few games played to make a reasonable and accurate determination of which team is better. Add to that differences found within conferences, the inherent fear of most programs to schedule a tough out of conference schedule and the lack of a playoff/tournament and you get a muddled ranking system. Unfortunately, with football being a physically brutal sport (hence, teams can only play once a week) and the NCAA's inability to implement some sort of playoff system (because of the profit driven BCS), you cannot increase your sample size or have a scenario where all of these teams have a chance of facing one another. But, it does stimulate the type of conversations were having in this thread. So, I guess there is some use. >>
Please don't find me rude, but you seem to contradict yourself. You start by saying that USC has a much tougher out of conference schedule, but then follow it up by saying how difficult it is to determine how tough an opponent is throughout the rest of your post. If this is the case and we go by your logic, how do we know that USC has had a tougher out of conference schedule? Isn't it possible that Central Michigan (Michigan opponent) could have beaten Nebraska? Maybe Vanderbilt could beat Cal too. You're saying that it's really hard to know, so maybe Michigan actually had the toughest preconference.
This is why one must resort to numbers, because otherwise the season would have more "what if" scenarios than it already does.
Where was this anti west-coast bias last year? Remember ESPN showing nonstop re-runs of USC being one of the greatest teams ever (#2 I think)?
Funny how that played out
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Please don't find me rude, but you seem to contradict yourself. You start by saying that USC has a much tougher out of conference schedule, but then follow it up by saying how difficult it is to determine how tough an opponent is throughout the rest of your post. If this is the case and we go by your logic, how do we know that USC has had a tougher out of conference schedule? Isn't it possible that Central Michigan (Michigan opponent) could have beaten Nebraska? Maybe Vanderbilt could beat Cal too. You're saying that it's really hard to know, so maybe Michigan actually had the toughest preconference. >>
You're right. I was trying to make two points in one paragraph. I should have made a qualification on my first point. My first point is that one should consider the entire picture when debating which team should play in the championship game. I felt that you were too focused on one aspect of that picture. My second point is that picture i speak of is too muddled to begin with. I should have added a third point, which is a caveat to my first point: Given my second point, my first point is based solely on the limited information we know, which is USC lost to what is perceived to be an average team, but played and beat what are perceived to be better out of conference teams. I guess my first point is more abstract. Take in the entire picture and dont focus on just one specific part. gestalt ideology, i guess.
<< <i>This is why one must resort to numbers, because otherwise the season would have more "what if" scenarios than it already does. >>
The problem is, the numbers are not all that reliable to begin with. So, there really are a lot of "what if" scenarios. More than there should be.
<< <i>Where was this anti west-coast bias last year? Remember ESPN showing nonstop re-runs of USC being one of the greatest teams ever (#2 I think)?
Funny how that played out >>
He meant "anti west coast buy-us". People not on the west coast were mad last year because USC got away with having their best player getting benefits from an agent and them not getting put on probation for it.
<< <i>Where was this anti west-coast bias last year? Remember ESPN showing nonstop re-runs of USC being one of the greatest teams ever (#2 I think)?
Funny how that played out >>
He meant "anti west coast buy-us". People not on the west coast were mad last year because USC got away with having their best player getting benefits from an agent and them not getting put on probation for it. >>
Oh, you must be talking about the $100,000 Bush and his family enjoyed last year. Did you see that house they lived in, rent free? Now that's an episode of "Cribs" I would watch.
Stealing shoes from a local Footlocker is a much more serious offense
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>You're right. I was trying to make two points in one paragraph. I should have made a qualification on my first point. My first point is that one should consider the entire picture when debating which team should play in the championship game. I felt that you were too focused on one aspect of that picture. My second point is that picture i speak of is too muddled to begin with. I should have added a third point, which is a caveat to my first point: Given my second point, my first point is based solely on the limited information we know, which is USC lost to what is perceived to be an average team, but played and beat what are perceived to be better out of conference teams. I guess my first point is more abstract. Take in the entire picture and dont focus on just one specific part. gestalt ideology, i guess. >>
LOL - I often try to make up to five points in one sentence, so no problem.
Well I think that my arguements have shown that I have taken into consideration many things when debating this. USC losing to Oregon St is just one of my major points. I've said that I did feel that they probably did play one of the best non conference schedules of all of the teams, but... I also feel like they play in the worst conference overall of the 3 conferences being mentioned (SEC, Big 10, Pac 10). The fact that they struggled in what I perceive to be a poor conference is also key. As I also mentioned, I'm bothered by how they lost to Oregon St. They were out of the game by the end of the third quarter, but made a late run to make the game look closer than it was. Fact is, a team like Michigan (aside from their loss) really only showed weekness in one game... the Ball St affair. And to be honest, the game wasn't really close (and never in doubt) after the first quarter until late. They really dominated every other game they played. With USC, Washington drove the field down deep into USC territory before running out of time. Against Washington St, they intercepted the ball near the end zone to win. They were tied late with Arizona St before driving for the winning TD. If they have troubles beating these teams and even getting dominated by a 7-4 team, do you really think they're good enough to beat Michigan, let alone Ohio St?
<< <i>Where was this anti west-coast bias last year? Remember ESPN showing nonstop re-runs of USC being one of the greatest teams ever (#2 I think)?
Funny how that played out >>
He meant "anti west coast buy-us". People not on the west coast were mad last year because USC got away with having their best player getting benefits from an agent and them not getting put on probation for it. >>
Oh, you must be talking about the $100,000 Bush and his family enjoyed last year. Did you see that house they lived in, rent free? Now that's an episode of "Cribs" I would watch.
Stealing shoes from a local Footlocker is a much more serious offense >>
C'mon now, that agent did that out of the kindness of his heart. Reggie just thought people gave house like that away, so there's no real violation there. They (Bush & his family) obviously didn't think they were doing anything wrong. That's why they moved out once the story broke.
Listen to the UT fanboi wild with accusations...how did those pan out? Or was it just a wild accusation made by an overeager yahoo sports reporter trying to make a name for himself?
I don't seem to recall those accusations EVER being proven, or any fallout from it for Bush and/or his family.
Don't hate, UT boy, congratulate that USC is a more successful program than UT will ever be.
<< <i>Listen to the UT fanboi wild with accusations...how did those pan out? Or was it just a wild accusation made by an overeager yahoo sports reporter trying to make a name for himself?
I don't seem to recall those accusations EVER being proven, or any fallout from it for Bush and/or his family.
Don't hate, UT boy, congratulate that USC is a more successful program than UT will ever be. >>
There was no arguement from anybody as to whose house it was and who was living there. It was also established that the amount they were paying in was well under market value. Further, I heard as recently as a month ago that parts of this investigation are still going on by the NCAA. It's obvious something fishy was going on, but some are just so Reggie struck that they don't want to admit it.
Yahoo sports and the 'investigators' who have been hounding this case, trying to make a name for themselves, are doing just that. There's no meat here, and surely nothing that would cause Bush to lose his Heismann, to cost USC any games/titles, or anything drastic at all.
Back on topic, here's hoping that USC wins out and takes their rightful spot in the title game.
Don't hate? HA! Uh, UT won the National Championship, just in case you forgot.
Funny how Reggie's family vacated the house less than 24-hours after the report came out. Even though they were completely innocent and did absolutely nothing wrong, they ran out of there faster than you can say, "Isn't that a sport agent's house?".
Sure. Right. Nothing to see here, move along...
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Quit derailing the thread, please. This is not about Bush, your man crush on him, or how UT has been exposed as one year wonders.
Please stop flaming and instigating arguments, troll. If you want to talk about Bush and the false accusations brought against him and his family, start a thread. DON'T DERAIL.
Back on topic...does anyone see a scenario where USC doesn't play for the title if they win out?
Back on topic...does anyone see a scenario where USC doesn't play for the title if they win out? >>
I don't see it any other way....
but what happens if USC beats ND and then gets beat by UCLA while ARK beats FL???
Who goes then?
also, Axtell....you or Stalin should change your avatar. Everytime I see what I think is him making a comment (not written in the form of a short letter) it's you!
Yeah, going 45-5 in the past 4 years is a one year wonder
Michigan is the second best team in the nation, without a doubt.
USC goes and it's because of ratings, not because of what's happened on the field.
Crying shame to be honest and the #1 reason college football needs a playoff system.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
USC goes because they are most deserving year in and year out...can't argue with back to back national championships, and a bad defensive game away from a third.
Michigan had their shot at the national title game and they blew it - there are no 'do overs' in football...perhaps you're thinking of the playground. So what if they are the second best team in the nation? There won't be any second chances.
All will be for naught if USC loses, but I don't see either ND or UCLA mounting a serious challenge to USC.
<< <i>I'm still going out on a limb and saying ND wins Saturday.
stone me later if I'm wrong. >>
At least they should cover
And PS - USC won 1 1/2, not 2. LSU has another throphy in their case that says so
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>USC goes because they are most deserving year in and year out...can't argue with back to back national championships, and a bad defensive game away from a third.
Michigan had their shot at the national title game and they blew it - there are no 'do overs' in football...perhaps you're thinking of the playground. So what if they are the second best team in the nation? There won't be any second chances.
All will be for naught if USC loses, but I don't see either ND or UCLA mounting a serious challenge to USC. >>
Ummm, well because the championship is supposed to be a game between the two best teams. It's not supposed to be between the best team and a team that was good a couple of years ago. And as I explained earlier, there have been do overs in football. Please check your records for the Florida/Florida St match-ups of 1996 if I recall correctly. Hell, plenty of the conference championship games are "do overs". USC lost to a crappy team, so that should eliminate them from any consideration. BTW, you claim that Michigan had their shot at the national title game. The game they played and lost against OSU was no different than the game USC lost to OSU (not to be confused with the good team). It was a conference matchup where one team lost to another and nothing more. The fact that it was built up as a prelude to a championship means nothing.
We keep acting like there is one right answer here and there isn't. There are valid reasons for both USC and Michigan going to play OSU, fact is most of the country doesn't want to see a rematch including me, I'd rather have OSU validated as champion if they beat USC, not Michigan again.
<< <i>I'm sure if you are so confident in ND covering you've got a large wager on it, right? Right? >>
I'll make a wager with you on the spread.
ND covers + 7.5 (per bodog as of right now) and the loser can't post on CU, as in the whole site, for one week.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I'm sure if you are so confident in ND covering you've got a large wager on it, right? Right? >>
I'll make a wager with you on the spread.
ND covers + 7.5 (per bodog as of right now) and the loser can't post on CU, as in the whole site, for one week.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I'm sure if you are so confident in ND covering you've got a large wager on it, right? Right? >>
I'll make a wager with you on the spread.
ND covers + 7.5 (per bodog as of right now) and the loser can't post on CU, as in the whole site, for one week.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>We keep acting like there is one right answer here and there isn't. There are valid reasons for both USC and Michigan going to play OSU, fact is most of the country doesn't want to see a rematch including me, I'd rather have OSU validated as champion if they beat USC, not Michigan again. >>
Hey Mike. Would you have liked to see a rematch game for the title in '93
<< <i>Um no if there was a BCS then it would have been ND vs Nebraska. That was without a doubt the biggest fraud team ever to be crowned national champs.
Edited to add a photo for dirtmonkey.
>>
LOL, I'm not sure if they were the biggest but it would be a close race. Again, it shows that the voters don't know much... The same voters that would put USC up there this year
Well we could probably agree that Michigan and ND have the two best fight songs and USC one of the worst, but what do you expect from a college that has a prophylactic for its mascot.
<< <i>Well we could probably agree that Michigan and ND have the two best fight songs and USC one of the worst, but what do you expect from a college that has a prophylactic for its mascot. >>
On Wisconsin is up there as well... among others... Down the Field OSU. Illinois Loyalty... the Big Ten really has the best fight songs...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
I put the st. where it should be.
man, tough crowd tonite !
Signed ; The bumbling fool
This from a team that lost to the pros:
-starting QB
-both RBs
-nearly the entire offensive line
and on and on...truly a remarkable year for a team to go through that kind of turnover and still play for the national title.
<< <i>Dirtmonkey the Ducks are not Oregon State !!!! Geez.....
Why don't you guys discuss this in a couple of weeks. Past scores do not mean chit. Its who's playing well at the end of the season and who has the speed. IMO the Big Ten is slow compared to others.
Ken >>
Oooops, my bad. I guess I had confused myself into thinking that USC had lost to the best team in the state of Oregon, not the second best
<< <i>This is in response to dirtmonkeys comment about Arkansas playing some crappy out of conference games. First off we all play out of conference games. Yes Arkansas, like most other Universities play some out of conference games but that does not keep to the fact that we beat Auburn when they were #2 in the BCS and held strong against Tennessee and South Carolina. So lets not get into the crappy out of conference game stuff. I have to back my Razorbacks on that. Sure were not Michigan or OSU but we are making headway..............Semper Fi. >>
My point is that unlike conference games, teams schedule their out of conference games and it's their choice as to who they decide to match up with. With the exception of USC, Arkansas scheduled some extremely lousy schools (aka cupcakes) from terrible conferences. If one is going to discuss the BCS, they have to discuss this "crappy out of conference game stuff". That is why USC is rated ahead of Florida and probably also your Razorbacks, even though they lost to a worse rated team than both of them did. If they (Arkansas & Florida) chose to play tougher teams and had actually won, both would be closer or even possibly ahead of USC in the polls. And don't get me wrong, I still like to watch Arkansas and hope they beat down Florida.
<< <i>It's widely acknowledged that if USC wins out (which they should do, they are considerably better than either ND or UCLA), they will (rightfully) face OSU in the national title game. >>
Rightfully - lol. Michigan loses to current BCS #1. Notre Dame loses to current BCS #2. Arkansas loses to current BCS #3. Florida loses to BCS #12. USC loses to current BCS #????? Damn, the list I'm looking at doesn't seem to go any lower than 25. If they have a top 50 though, the Beavers (aka the second best team in Oregon) might make it. Again, I think Michigan and even Florida are more worthy of the game because they lost much better teams that USC did. Again, guess the debate is futile until after USC finishes the season though.
Go NOTRE DAME!!! (Holy crap, I almost threw up in my mouth after saying that)
If it were today, it should be OSU v MICH and rightfully so.
Instead of focusing on who these teams have lost to, why don't you focus on who they've beaten, instead? That will give you an idea of the quality of the teams...and you'll see that USC has beaten some very, very good teams.
Oh well, let the whining begin when USC rolls to another national championship.
<< <i>Oh well, let the whining begin when USC rolls to another national championship. >>
The won't if they end up 10-2 or 9-3. Bruins are much more formidable than Beavers.
<< <i>Again, I think Michigan and even Florida are more worthy of the game because they lost much better teams that USC did. Again, guess the debate is futile until after USC finishes the season though. >>
You seem to focus too much on that one USC loss and those close USC wins and not balance that with USC's much tougher out of conference schedule. Yes USC lost to the beavers and had close games against average teams....but, they had by far the toughest out of conference schedule amongst the remaining teams in contention. Add to that the fact that 10 of USC's 12 opponents are bowl eligible. I'm not saying we should ignore USC's loss to Oregon State. I'm saying that we should take in the entire picture and not focus on one aspect of a team's championship portfolio. With college football, it's especially difficult to determine which team is the strongest. There are far too few games played to make a reasonable and accurate determination of which team is better. Add to that differences found within conferences, the inherent fear of most programs to schedule a tough out of conference schedule and the lack of a playoff/tournament and you get a muddled ranking system. Unfortunately, with football being a physically brutal sport (hence, teams can only play once a week) and the NCAA's inability to implement some sort of playoff system (because of the profit driven BCS), you cannot increase your sample size or have a scenario where all of these teams have a chance of facing one another. But, it does stimulate the type of conversations were having in this thread. So, I guess there is some use.
<< <i>Wow, the USC hate is alive and well....I guess the anti-west coast bias continues to rear its ugly head.
Instead of focusing on who these teams have lost to, why don't you focus on who they've beaten, instead? That will give you an idea of the quality of the teams...and you'll see that USC has beaten some very, very good teams.
Oh well, let the whining begin when USC rolls to another national championship. >>
I have no reason to hate USC. This "anti-west coast bias" you speak only exists in the heads of those on the west coast. I did not deny that USC was the best team a couple of years ago. To me, it seemed pretty obvious. So quit whining when people don't think USC is the best. Maybe they have seen them struggle against poor teams in games this year as I have. That's why I don't believe that they are the second best team. As far as the teams they have beaten, they certainly beat a strong Arkansas team handily. They beat an overrated Cal team. Sure, Cal is exciting and has a potent offense, but they haven't beaten a current top 25 team. The best team Cal has beaten is Oregon (7-4). They got bumped pretty hard by Tennessee and USC, their only opponents that I believe are currently in the top 25. They also beat Nebraska, who hasn't beaten anybody in the top 25 either. I understand most teams don't get an opportunity to play more than 1-2 teams that are ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season, but Michigan did play these current BCS teams. OSU #1, Notre Dame #5, Wisconsin #8 and Penn State #25. USC will end up playing 4 as well, #5 ND, #6 Arkansas, #19 Cal and #22 Nebraska. Michigan played better opponents on average of those 4. Granted, they lost one of them, but they did lose to an actual BCS team that happened to be ranked #1 and it was at Columbus and only by 3. The winning percentages of the Big 10 and Pac 10 are quite similar, so it's hard to say that USC played a far superior schedule to Michigan, if in fact, they even did at all.
As I said before, I would really have to give the nod to Florida if they beat FSU (easy) and beat Arkansas in the SEC championship. They did lose to a BCS team and played in a tough conference. My knock against them is poor preconference scheduling and close games to some bad teams, but in the end they lost to a much better team than USC did in my opinion.
In the end, it's an interesting discussion but this debate may be for not if USC loses to Notre Dame, Florida loses to FSU & then beats Arkansas followed by the NCAA putting Notre Dame on suspension because they have a stupid looking mascot. BTW, does that 3 name podunk QB from USC live in his own house or has he been supplied with one for a cheap rate as well?
<< <i>
<< <i>Again, I think Michigan and even Florida are more worthy of the game because they lost much better teams that USC did. Again, guess the debate is futile until after USC finishes the season though. >>
You seem to focus too much on that one USC loss and those close USC wins and not balance that with USC's much tougher out of conference schedule. Yes USC lost to the beavers and had close games against average teams....but, they had by far the toughest out of conference schedule amongst the remaining teams in contention. Add to that the fact that 10 of USC's 12 opponents are bowl eligible. I'm not saying we should ignore USC's loss to Oregon State. I'm saying that we should take in the entire picture and not focus on one aspect of a team's championship portfolio. With college football, it's especially difficult to determine which team is the strongest. There are far too few games played to make a reasonable and accurate determination of which team is better. Add to that differences found within conferences, the inherent fear of most programs to schedule a tough out of conference schedule and the lack of a playoff/tournament and you get a muddled ranking system. Unfortunately, with football being a physically brutal sport (hence, teams can only play once a week) and the NCAA's inability to implement some sort of playoff system (because of the profit driven BCS), you cannot increase your sample size or have a scenario where all of these teams have a chance of facing one another. But, it does stimulate the type of conversations were having in this thread. So, I guess there is some use. >>
Please don't find me rude, but you seem to contradict yourself. You start by saying that USC has a much tougher out of conference schedule, but then follow it up by saying how difficult it is to determine how tough an opponent is throughout the rest of your post. If this is the case and we go by your logic, how do we know that USC has had a tougher out of conference schedule? Isn't it possible that Central Michigan (Michigan opponent) could have beaten Nebraska? Maybe Vanderbilt could beat Cal too. You're saying that it's really hard to know, so maybe Michigan actually had the toughest preconference.
This is why one must resort to numbers, because otherwise the season would have more "what if" scenarios than it already does.
Go Irish!!!!!!!!
<< <i>Hey dirt.............
Go Irish!!!!!!!!
I've had their fight song in my head for three days now...
Oh yeah, and that "puke in my mouth" thing too
Funny how that played out
<< <i>Please don't find me rude, but you seem to contradict yourself. You start by saying that USC has a much tougher out of conference schedule, but then follow it up by saying how difficult it is to determine how tough an opponent is throughout the rest of your post. If this is the case and we go by your logic, how do we know that USC has had a tougher out of conference schedule? Isn't it possible that Central Michigan (Michigan opponent) could have beaten Nebraska? Maybe Vanderbilt could beat Cal too. You're saying that it's really hard to know, so maybe Michigan actually had the toughest preconference. >>
You're right. I was trying to make two points in one paragraph. I should have made a qualification on my first point. My first point is that one should consider the entire picture when debating which team should play in the championship game. I felt that you were too focused on one aspect of that picture. My second point is that picture i speak of is too muddled to begin with. I should have added a third point, which is a caveat to my first point: Given my second point, my first point is based solely on the limited information we know, which is USC lost to what is perceived to be an average team, but played and beat what are perceived to be better out of conference teams. I guess my first point is more abstract. Take in the entire picture and dont focus on just one specific part. gestalt ideology, i guess.
<< <i>This is why one must resort to numbers, because otherwise the season would have more "what if" scenarios than it already does. >>
The problem is, the numbers are not all that reliable to begin with. So, there really are a lot of "what if" scenarios. More than there should be.
<< <i>Where was this anti west-coast bias last year? Remember ESPN showing nonstop re-runs of USC being one of the greatest teams ever (#2 I think)?
Funny how that played out
He meant "anti west coast buy-us". People not on the west coast were mad last year because USC got away with having their best player getting benefits from an agent and them not getting put on probation for it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Where was this anti west-coast bias last year? Remember ESPN showing nonstop re-runs of USC being one of the greatest teams ever (#2 I think)?
Funny how that played out
He meant "anti west coast buy-us". People not on the west coast were mad last year because USC got away with having their best player getting benefits from an agent and them not getting put on probation for it. >>
Oh, you must be talking about the $100,000 Bush and his family enjoyed last year. Did you see that house they lived in, rent free? Now that's an episode of "Cribs" I would watch.
Stealing shoes from a local Footlocker is a much more serious offense
<< <i>You're right. I was trying to make two points in one paragraph. I should have made a qualification on my first point. My first point is that one should consider the entire picture when debating which team should play in the championship game. I felt that you were too focused on one aspect of that picture. My second point is that picture i speak of is too muddled to begin with. I should have added a third point, which is a caveat to my first point: Given my second point, my first point is based solely on the limited information we know, which is USC lost to what is perceived to be an average team, but played and beat what are perceived to be better out of conference teams. I guess my first point is more abstract. Take in the entire picture and dont focus on just one specific part. gestalt ideology, i guess. >>
LOL - I often try to make up to five points in one sentence, so no problem.
Well I think that my arguements have shown that I have taken into consideration many things when debating this. USC losing to Oregon St is just one of my major points. I've said that I did feel that they probably did play one of the best non conference schedules of all of the teams, but... I also feel like they play in the worst conference overall of the 3 conferences being mentioned (SEC, Big 10, Pac 10). The fact that they struggled in what I perceive to be a poor conference is also key. As I also mentioned, I'm bothered by how they lost to Oregon St. They were out of the game by the end of the third quarter, but made a late run to make the game look closer than it was. Fact is, a team like Michigan (aside from their loss) really only showed weekness in one game... the Ball St affair. And to be honest, the game wasn't really close (and never in doubt) after the first quarter until late. They really dominated every other game they played. With USC, Washington drove the field down deep into USC territory before running out of time. Against Washington St, they intercepted the ball near the end zone to win. They were tied late with Arizona St before driving for the winning TD. If they have troubles beating these teams and even getting dominated by a 7-4 team, do you really think they're good enough to beat Michigan, let alone Ohio St?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Where was this anti west-coast bias last year? Remember ESPN showing nonstop re-runs of USC being one of the greatest teams ever (#2 I think)?
Funny how that played out
He meant "anti west coast buy-us". People not on the west coast were mad last year because USC got away with having their best player getting benefits from an agent and them not getting put on probation for it. >>
Oh, you must be talking about the $100,000 Bush and his family enjoyed last year. Did you see that house they lived in, rent free? Now that's an episode of "Cribs" I would watch.
Stealing shoes from a local Footlocker is a much more serious offense
C'mon now, that agent did that out of the kindness of his heart. Reggie just thought people gave house like that away, so there's no real violation there. They (Bush & his family) obviously didn't think they were doing anything wrong. That's why they moved out once the story broke.
I don't seem to recall those accusations EVER being proven, or any fallout from it for Bush and/or his family.
Don't hate, UT boy, congratulate that USC is a more successful program than UT will ever be.
<< <i>Listen to the UT fanboi wild with accusations...how did those pan out? Or was it just a wild accusation made by an overeager yahoo sports reporter trying to make a name for himself?
I don't seem to recall those accusations EVER being proven, or any fallout from it for Bush and/or his family.
Don't hate, UT boy, congratulate that USC is a more successful program than UT will ever be. >>
There was no arguement from anybody as to whose house it was and who was living there. It was also established that the amount they were paying in was well under market value. Further, I heard as recently as a month ago that parts of this investigation are still going on by the NCAA. It's obvious something fishy was going on, but some are just so Reggie struck that they don't want to admit it.
Back on topic, here's hoping that USC wins out and takes their rightful spot in the title game.
Funny how Reggie's family vacated the house less than 24-hours after the report came out. Even though they were completely innocent and did absolutely nothing wrong, they ran out of there faster than you can say, "Isn't that a sport agent's house?".
Sure. Right. Nothing to see here, move along...
Please stop flaming and instigating arguments, troll. If you want to talk about Bush and the false accusations brought against him and his family, start a thread. DON'T DERAIL.
Back on topic...does anyone see a scenario where USC doesn't play for the title if they win out?
<< <i>
Back on topic...does anyone see a scenario where USC doesn't play for the title if they win out? >>
I don't see it any other way....
but what happens if USC beats ND and then gets beat by UCLA while ARK beats FL???
Who goes then?
also, Axtell....you or Stalin should change your avatar. Everytime I see what I think is him making a comment (not written in the form of a short letter) it's you!
Michigan is the second best team in the nation, without a doubt.
USC goes and it's because of ratings, not because of what's happened on the field.
Crying shame to be honest and the #1 reason college football needs a playoff system.
Michigan had their shot at the national title game and they blew it - there are no 'do overs' in football...perhaps you're thinking of the playground. So what if they are the second best team in the nation? There won't be any second chances.
All will be for naught if USC loses, but I don't see either ND or UCLA mounting a serious challenge to USC.
stone me later if I'm wrong.
<< <i>I'm still going out on a limb and saying ND wins Saturday.
stone me later if I'm wrong. >>
At least they should cover
And PS - USC won 1 1/2, not 2. LSU has another throphy in their case that says so
<< <i>USC goes because they are most deserving year in and year out...can't argue with back to back national championships, and a bad defensive game away from a third.
Michigan had their shot at the national title game and they blew it - there are no 'do overs' in football...perhaps you're thinking of the playground. So what if they are the second best team in the nation? There won't be any second chances.
All will be for naught if USC loses, but I don't see either ND or UCLA mounting a serious challenge to USC. >>
Ummm, well because the championship is supposed to be a game between the two best teams. It's not supposed to be between the best team and a team that was good a couple of years ago. And as I explained earlier, there have been do overs in football. Please check your records for the Florida/Florida St match-ups of 1996 if I recall correctly. Hell, plenty of the conference championship games are "do overs". USC lost to a crappy team, so that should eliminate them from any consideration. BTW, you claim that Michigan had their shot at the national title game. The game they played and lost against OSU was no different than the game USC lost to OSU (not to be confused with the good team). It was a conference matchup where one team lost to another and nothing more. The fact that it was built up as a prelude to a championship means nothing.
<< <i>I'm still going out on a limb and saying ND wins Saturday.
stone me later if I'm wrong. >>
You're already stoned.
I'm sure if you are so confident in ND covering you've got a large wager on it, right? Right?
<< <i>I'm sure if you are so confident in ND covering you've got a large wager on it, right? Right? >>
I'll make a wager with you on the spread.
ND covers + 7.5 (per bodog as of right now) and the loser can't post on CU, as in the whole site, for one week.
But it's apparent you want nothing more than to be a loudmouth buffoon AGAIN with your derailing, troll like behavior, I am done with this thread.
Now, quit derailing threads I post in. I don't appreciate it - and neither does this forum.
<< <i>I'm sure if you are so confident in ND covering you've got a large wager on it, right? Right? >>
I'll make a wager with you on the spread.
ND covers + 7.5 (per bodog as of right now) and the loser can't post on CU, as in the whole site, for one week.
Go throw a grand down via an online bet, post the screenshot of it, or shut yer yap.
<< <i>I'm sure if you are so confident in ND covering you've got a large wager on it, right? Right? >>
I'll make a wager with you on the spread.
ND covers + 7.5 (per bodog as of right now) and the loser can't post on CU, as in the whole site, for one week.
<< <i>We keep acting like there is one right answer here and there isn't. There are valid reasons for both USC and Michigan going to play OSU, fact is most of the country doesn't want to see a rematch including me, I'd rather have OSU validated as champion if they beat USC, not Michigan again. >>
Hey Mike. Would you have liked to see a rematch game for the title in '93
Edited to add a photo for dirtmonkey.
<< <i>Um no if there was a BCS then it would have been ND vs Nebraska. That was without a doubt the biggest fraud team ever to be crowned national champs.
Edited to add a photo for dirtmonkey.
LOL, I'm not sure if they were the biggest but it would be a close race. Again, it shows that the voters don't know much... The same voters that would put USC up there this year
Funny pic BTW. Dada Da Da Da Dada Da Da!!!
<< <i>Well we could probably agree that Michigan and ND have the two best fight songs and USC one of the worst, but what do you expect from a college that has a prophylactic for its mascot. >>
On Wisconsin is up there as well... among others... Down the Field OSU. Illinois Loyalty... the Big Ten really has the best fight songs...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.