XRpredator

AssClown SuperPowers
Damn Yankees
Aug 2, 2000
13,510
19
Riddle me this, silly peoples: How does a #2 and #3 team play for a national title, while the #1 ranked team plays #4 for no shot whatsoever?

Oklahoma? whatever! Let my right now give my congratulations to the Eastern Champion, whoever wins the Sugar Bowl. All of us over here on the west side of the Rockies will know the truth, the USC Trojans (love 'em or hate 'em) will be the National Champions after they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Freakin' eastern bias :|
 

Jon K.

~SPONSOR~
Mar 26, 2001
1,354
4
Pred; USC ain't the only one getting screwed here. When LSU wins the Sugar, there will be discourse throughout the land about who the "real" champion is.

Unless USC gets beat by Michigan. Even then; Michigan will claim to be the "real" champion.

Sort of like Langston.
 

BEEF706

Sponsoring Member
Jan 24, 2002
1,566
0
Pred, much as I hate the BCS, (and don't get me started, playoffs now!!!) you really can't compare the USC's pac 10 cake walk with an SEC schedule Sorry, but most of the PAC 10 couldn't survive 1/2 of an SEC schedule, that's why we need playoffs, until we do ALL BOWL GAMES ARE JUST EXIBITIONS. ( not that I won't be watchin') :flame:
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
You PAC 10 bashers might want to check out some NFL rosters.  Plenty of PAC 10 players there - not sure of the current stats, but as a general rule there are more PAC 10 players on NFL rosters than any other conference.  You might ask a few of those guys about the Pac 10 'cakewalk'.

I heard on ESPN that if Notre Dame had beat Syracuse last Saturday, the copmuter would have put USC in the national championship game!  How can anyone possibly defend a system like that?

BTW, the only blemish on USC's record was a multiple overtime loss to Cal.  That was a GREAT college football game.  Cal played out of their minds at home and deserved to win that day, but it was CLOSE.  I'll bet if Cal had not blown a 4th quarter lead against Oregon the computer would have put USC as #1.  

I am not a USC fan, but they got jobbed.  They need to do some serious fixing to the BCS computer program if they want to keep any credibility.
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,555
2,237
Texas
Everybody bashes the BCS. Everybody bashed the polls. No one has come up with a solution that is do-able for the universities. There are revenues (far fewer teams would see TV rev), expenses and a TON of other issues that have to be worked-out... who's stopping the play-off system from happening? The UNIVERSITIES. The smaller programs will suffer. The big programs will get bigger and wealthier. As it is, even smaller programs at the bottom of the pile can get a Bowl Invitation and the big fat CHECK that comes with it for not only them but some for their conference as well. Maybe somebody will figure it all out. Until then, they use the BCS, get over it.

Good thing you have the keys Pred! But who's gonna drive ya? :p

Psst...Pred... the BCS decides the champs, not the polls, remember? That's the system that's agreed to and used. Since taking on this system, why are polls still here? The polls are nothing more than one of many factors used to determine the #1 and #2. Those are the rules everyone is playing by.

And if the Writer's and Coach's polls didn't jive? It was because of that and the "Hypothetical National Champion" that the BCS came to be. We ended up with Dual National Champions without it. Say what? The BCS isn't perfect, but IMHO, it's at least based on math.

The problem? A loss no one believed would happen. When you look at the schedules, how badly OU dismantled everyone, all year, #1 offense, #1 defense, the loss, when compared to the other top 2 team's losses.. (ie; USC losing to a high school team called Cal), the numbers still came out with OU ahead. The BSC is there to consider THE WHOLE YEAR. If USC had a schedule that was even close to LSU or OU, it would be different. At the very least, it's based on crunching the numbers rather than opinion.

Another negative to all of this; it was reported all week (prior to the game) that OU didn't even "need" to win the K-State game to stay in the Sugar Bowl! Since when in college ball do have a throw-away game? The play-off scenario could bring the same situation and it seems to me that's what some don't like... it could end-up like the NFL, ie; you've got a play-off spot secured before the last game, so you hold-out all your starters and just go thru the motions. Even with no play-off, that's what just happened to OU in a way. Sad.

Do I like the BCS? Nope. Do I like the polls? Nope. Give us play-off's. As it is, three teams "could" be up for the title game, but only two can play. The good thing about all of this is, it may effect a change.

We all sound like moto dad's anyway. Too bad for the PLAYERS. All they did was hang it out all year and becuase the media, the fans and the powers that be can't come-up with a system that makes THEM happy, the players suffer.
 

XRpredator

AssClown SuperPowers
Damn Yankees
Aug 2, 2000
13,510
19
I agree that playoffs are the key, and it could be done. And we could still have bowl games. I'm no Papa Joe Chevalier, but it don't take a mental giant to figure out how to do a playoff system. Hell, it works in every other division of NCAA football!

And don't worry, I can drive myself just fine in the ol' Whaaaambulance :debil:

and another thing, don't go thinking I'm a fan of USC (the University of Spoiled Children), I just think there is an eastern bias in all facets of college sports.
 

Smitty

Alowishus Devadander
Nov 10, 1999
707
0
Pred, don't forget OU still isn't across the Mississippi and we all bitch about the Eastern Bias all day long just like you. Ever wonder why ESPN can't quit talking about a sophomore wide reciever on a very mediocre football team winning the Heisman?

Ever heard Mike Lupica talk about us? I actually saw Corso say White shouldn't win the Heisman because we basically win by too much and haven't had any close games!!!! CORSO Do you think JASON may have anything to do with tthe scoring??? Last year we didn't score 50 a game.

BTW, the ideal scenario is OU plays LSU, USC plays Michigan, winners play one more to settle the deal.

And as one last note. Imagine OU, LSU, USC all lost in wk 1 to the respective teams (KSU, Cal, FLA) and the remainder of their seasons compared, can anyone deny that OU would still be number one in that comparison? HUGE defeats of Texas, OSU, and Tech. 50 pts a game, #1 D. The Human polls simply reflect the timing of the loss, in other words if we still had 3, 6, 9 more games to play the outcome of the human polls could certainly reverse.
 

Smitty

Alowishus Devadander
Nov 10, 1999
707
0
Don't forget that K State is currently ranked 10th, Florida is 17th, and Cal is not ranked, didn't even recieve a vote.
 

BEEF706

Sponsoring Member
Jan 24, 2002
1,566
0
Sorry Dave, but even if they have a lot of NFL plyers, they DO NOT have the top to bottom strength of the SEC, You think Oregon State or Stanford could play in the SEC? How about CAL? USC looks like a great football team, but I don't think they have played a very tough schedule. Of course the real key to all of this is if a playoff system were established then we woulden't be using up all of this bandwidth with arguments that can't be settled on the field. (PS, I know I have an SEC bias, UGA class of 82 :) )
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
Beef, Oregon State and Stanford are not strong every single year, but it wasn't that long ago (2001) that Oregon State beat a highly touted Notre Dame team 41-9 in the Fiesta Bowl.  Its amazing how often the PAC 10 teams surprise the 'experts' on New Year's Day. 

Regarding Stanford, they do pretty well for an 'academic' school.  What % of UGA or SEC players could even get admitted to Stanford? 

BTW, I found a website that shows there are currently 31 Cal players active in the NFL.  I'll bet USC has far more.  Last info I could find for your Georgia Bulldogs was for 2000, when there were 20 players on the NFL opening day rosters.   The same page says Florida had 34 NFL players. 

Playing in the Pac 10 is no cakewalk.  The teams and coaches are talented, and they play good football. 

Go Bears! (Class of '84)
 
Last edited:

BEEF706

Sponsoring Member
Jan 24, 2002
1,566
0
Nope not a lot of Bulldawgs in the academc class to get into Stanford, heck not even a lot of UGA football players who could get into UGA without help, :o (and as much as I love college football the SEC IS too much about big$ games and not enough about kids in school) and I don't really think the PAC10 has always been a cakewalk, I do think it was this year. BTW, one of my very favorite athletes of all time was from CAl. Steve Bartkowski, QB for my woeful Atlanta Falcons, got to play on a softball team with him once, he was our centerfielder, I was the catcher, he threw a ball to me form the fence that got to me on the fly and nearly knocked me down, those NFL qb's have some major arm strength.
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
Bartkowski!  Now you are talking!  One of many outstanding Cal QBs.  If memory serves me correctly, he was a Pac-10 baseball player, too.  Must have been a pretty good softball team!

BTW, you got me thinking about conferences & relative strength.  As a PAC-10 guy, I like to point out the NFL stats as IMO that is a way to eliminate the media and polling bias.  Just found this report from the NFL Player's Association.

http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/Which_Schools_Produced_The_Most_NFL_Players_1998-2002.pdf

It lists the top 36 schools in terms of most NFL players from '98 thru '02. 

Guess how many Pac-10 teams make the list?

EIGHT of the top 30 schools.  Not bad for a weak conference with no top-to-bottom strength . ;)

BTW, Georgia is #15 on the list. 

The report also shows % of players that start in the NFL and % that got degrees.
 
Last edited:

Timr

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jul 26, 1999
1,972
6
Originally posted by dirt bike dave

It lists the top 36 schools in terms of most NFL players from '98 thru '02. 

Guess how many Pac-10 teams make the list?

EIGHT of the top 30 schools.  Not bad for a weak conference with no top-to-bottom strength . ;)

BTW, Georgia is #15 on the list. 

The report also shows % of players that start in the NFL and % that got degrees.

How many of those players from the PAC 10 in the NFL play defense.  I'm going to guess not too many.  There's no doubt that the PAC 10 can run the "West Coast offense", and there's talented QBs, Recievers, and even offensive lineman.

But, look at this stat:  In USC's last game of the season, against non-ranked Oregon State, they gave up 543 yards in total offense.  While the score shows one thing, that shows that they are beatable by a team that has some real offensive power. 
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,555
2,237
Texas
Gotta agree with that.
Just do a search on some of the NFL greats. There are soo many that came from schools you've probably never heard of. I don't think there's really any correlation between making it to the NFL and how good the college team was.

Where you are in the draft is probably effected by that, but how many #1 picks actually paid off?

BTW: the coaches/ap polls have split the "National Championship" between two schools, 7 times since 1970.
 

XRpredator

AssClown SuperPowers
Damn Yankees
Aug 2, 2000
13,510
19
Originally posted by Okiewan
. . . do a search on some of the NFL greats. There are soo many that came from schools you've probably never heard of.
aren't those called the "directional" schools?

Southeast Central Middle Northwest State College . . . ;)

I would almost bet that in the list of "greats", more come from Division II and III schools than Division I
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
Not only are their plenty of NFL players from the PAC 10, there are also plenty of coaches with PAC 10 ties. 

So you guys are saying that hundreds of players and dozens of coaches go from the PAC 10 to the NFL, and that says absolutely nothing about the quality of the teams in the conference?.   :silly:  

I know there is no "I" in Teamwork yada yada yada, but let's not get ridiculous. 

BTW, there was one west coast team that sent nine of its players to the NFL, including five pro-bowlers and three hall of famers.  No other college team can boast that. And their best player was injured in a Senior game and never played in the NFL, so it could have been ten players, six pro-bowlers and four hall of famers.   

That team was undefeated and untied one year, so maybe there is just a little tiny correlation between NFL skill and college success. Oh, and BTW, it was a real team with real teamwork.  

To further make the point about bias against west coast football, the team I am describing was only ranked 14th in the national polls at the end of the year.  See, they played a soft schedule full of west coast cream puffs and they  were'nt really very good. ;)
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
BTW, I don't mind the concept of the BCS, but they need to refine how they calculate the points.  IMO, the rankings should give slightly more weight to recent games. 
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,555
2,237
Texas
Originally posted by dirt bike dave
BTW, I don't mind the concept of the BCS, but they need to refine how they calculate the points.  IMO, the rankings should give slightly more weight to recent games. 

Holding the #1 rank ALL year and spanking everyone in your path then means nothing? Having #1 offense and #1 defense ALL year, means nothing? Add up points for and points against RANKED teams. What's it look like? Fact is, if there is ONE PLACE where the BCS does better than the polls it's NOT getting excited about ONE game. An awsome season dictated by ONE game? Please. Keeping the emotion out of the equation. What other team sport does it matter "When" the loss occured? (Other than a playoff.. duh)

This IS the system we use (BCS). While not perfect by any streach, it's better than emotional opinions. Such as yours :)
 

Jon K.

~SPONSOR~
Mar 26, 2001
1,354
4
Okie; it is hard to say, but perhaps a #1 ranking defense or offense would be a bit tougher to get against the Dawgs, Hawgs, Tigers, and Gators.

Sort of like Beef said.

Of course; it is not their fault that they play in the PAC10. :laugh:

Oh yeah, GEAUX TIGERS!!
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
LOL, Okie. :cool:

I agree that the formula was known by everyone in advance, so you can't change it now.  So OU vs. LSU it is.

However, IMO the title game should be played by the two teams who are playing the best football at the end of the season, instead of it being an award for the best overall season.  A playoff would prove who's playing the best at the end of the year,  but I can see the huge logistical problems for the schools.  Overall, the BCS is an improvement over no BCS, though.

What I don't like about the system is that teams are rewarded for running up the score, and punished if their opponents don't run up the score in their other games.   Also, if a team you beat in October has a bad hair day in November and loses by fluke to a sub 0.500 team, your October victory now means less according to the computer.  That's just wrong, IMO.
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
Saw this on another board and could not resist.  The REAL National Champ is McPherson College!



College National Champs Who Should It Be??

This sums it all up

I know there is a huge debate on who should be #1 this year... USC, OU, or LSU. Throw Michigan in there, maybe K-State had Roberson not been hurt. I would like to cast my vote for McPherson College in Mcpherson, KS. Yes, they were hurt by their 6-4 record, and the fact that one of their wins came against an Indian Reservation team, but still.... if you follow the list of who beat whom, it only makes sense. Consider that....


"We are powerless to stop the mighty McPherson attack!"
McPherson College BEAT
Kansas Wesleyan WHO BEAT
Bethel College WHO BEAT
Whitworth College WHO BEAT
Menlo College WHO BEAT
Cal Lutheran WHO BEAT
Pomona College WHO BEAT
Trinity University (TX) WHO BEAT
Centre College WHO BEAT
Franklin & Marshall WHO BEAT
Gettysburg College WHO BEAT
Waynesburg College WHO BEAT
Frostburg State WHO BEAT
Salisbury State WHO BEAT
Catholic University WHO BEAT
LaSalle WHO BEAT
Marist College WHO BEAT
Central Connecticut State WHO BEAT ... Monmouth (NJ) WHO BEAT ... Georgetown WHO BEAT ... Cornell WHO BEAT ... Bucknell WHO BEAT ... Towson State WHO BEAT ... Lafayette College WHO BEAT ... Princeton WHO BEAT ... Brown WHO BEAT ... Yale WHO BEAT ... Columbia WHO BEAT ... Harvard WHO BEAT ... Northeastern WHO BEAT ... Maine WHO BEAT ... Villanova WHO BEAT .... Temple WHO BEAT ... Middle Tennessee State WHO BEAT ... Troy State WHO BEAT ... Marshall WHO BEAT ... Kansas State WHO BEAT...
Oklahoma

So, sorry Sooners, you lose. What about LSU you ask? Follow the above down to K-state and then consider: Kansas State WHO BEAT ... California WHO BEAT ... USC WHO BEAT ... Auburn WHO BEAT ... Tennessee WHO BEAT ... Florida WHO BEAT
LSU



And USC?? Sorry, but no. Again follow to K-State losing and consider: Marshall WHO BEAT ... Kansas State WHO BEAT ... California WHO BEAT
USC
 

Jon K.

~SPONSOR~
Mar 26, 2001
1,354
4
All arguments crumble in the face of such overwhelming logic! :laugh:

Good stuff!
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,555
2,237
Texas
However, IMO the title game should be played by the two teams who are playing the best football at the end of the season, instead of it being an award for the best overall season.
You have GOT TO BE KIDDING! So you can lose your first 6 and get hot in the last 6 and go to the big show?

You must now stand in the corner for that statement mister! What sport has EVER been judged/played like that?
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
The Superbowl?

I didn't say throw the whole season out, just give teams a bonus for coming together and playing the best football in the nation at the end of the season. 

Bottom line is the conference title game SHOULD matter more than your first (non-conference) game of the year.  If you can't win your conference title in November or December, that should hurt your ranking more than a loss in the first game of the year.  JMHO.

If you are going to call it a national title game, the ideal winner is the team who can beat all others on the day the game is played.   Maybe OU is that team, but coming off a big loss they have quite a bit of convincing to do.
 
Top Bottom