ESPN - #1 Ranked team could be left out of Sugar Bowl

[ScottVib]

ESPN is reporting that should USC be #1 in both polls tomorrow, it is possible that USC will be #1 in both polls, but the Trojans would be left out of the Sugar Bowl.

If Oklahoma falls to #3 in both polls, with LSU #2 then OU - LSU could be the BCS Title Game Matchup (yep #2 vs. #3); while USC is the #1 team in America, could win it's bowl game, and still not win the "official" National Championship.

Tomorrow's BCS announcement got a lot more interesting today. Man I'd love to see the BCS explode by not getting the consensus #1 team in America into the title game.

[The_herd]

It would make the BCS bowl games VERY interesting. With Michigan and USC playing each other and Oklahoma playing LSU, should USC win its game I'm betting the AP writers vote USC #1 regardless of what happens in the other game and we end up with the split national title the BCS was supposed to prevent.

[sooner333]

First of all, don't just go and assume that Michigan won't beat USC. Second of all, there is no official national championship. The AP gives a trophy, the Coaches gives a crystal ball, and I'm sure the Football Writers Association of America gives a trophy as well at the end of the year. The NCAA...nothing...no plaque...nothing.

It's still mythical...the BCS gives us a good starting ground for debate (and has given us an ending point every time). This time, there will be much debate if USC can win the Rose Bowl.

[DeToxRox]

I just love the fact Texas isn't going to a BCS game.

[Ragone]

I guarentee you'll they'll work out some sort of bogus system to jumble the ratings up to justifiy the matchup..

Just watch.. I wouldn't be so quick to put usc #1 either.. lsu will get 1st place votes..

[kingfc22]

If USC was knocked out of the BCS title game, then I might (can't believe I'm going to say this) root for the Trojans to beat my beloved Wolverines just to KILL this stupid BS, oops I mean BCS system.


edited to add "title game"

[pjstp20]

Please, if youre ranked number one in the two polls youre gonna be number 1 or 2 in the BCS. The problem now is deciding which of the one loss teams deserve to be in the title game. USC/LSU/OU being number one in both polls and not going to the title game is NOT an issue because it won't happen.

People try to make up scenarios to destroy the BCS system when it self destructed itself this year, without any wild speculated scenarios.

[MrBug708]

Michigan will get it's ass handed to them if they play USC.

[Tekneek]

The people out there who want a playoff system have been busy cooking up all the things that have to happen to make the BCS implode. It almost all came together yesterday the way they were hoping it would. I love it. I am wanting playoffs, and since I prefer that in reality, I usually use that system in TCY.

[The_herd]

Just watch.. I wouldn't be so quick to put usc #1 either.. lsu will get 1st place votes..

In the coaches poll USC leads LSU by 55 votes, in the AP they lead by 60. Simply put, they will not make up that much ground.

USC/LSU/OU being number one in both polls and not going to the title game is NOT an issue because it won't happen.

I wouldn't dismiss the likelyhood of this happening. If USC is #1 in both polls, according to ESPN's BCS "guru" (who has been very accurate this season), LSU and Oklahoma will be 1 and 2. LSU is estimated to lead USC in at least 6 of the 7 computer polls, and because of Hawaii's loss last night, probably all 7. You factor in quality win factor for Oklahoma and strength of schedule for LSU and it does appear that USC could be ranked #1 in both human polls and #3 in the BCS.

[clintl]

I hope that happens, for two reasons - I'm for anything that makes the BCS look completely ridiculous, and I hate USC.

[cmp]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Michigan will get it's ass handed to them if they play USC.

Don't count on it. It would be a very good game.

[Daimyo]

Everyone blames the BCS, but maybe its the human polls that have it wrong?

[rexallllsc]

Let's just go back to the traditional bowl alignments...then after the bowls, take the top two teams in the BCS, and let them play a "National Championship" game two or three weeks after the bowl games (the week before the Super Bowl?)

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Everyone blames the BCS, but maybe its the human polls that have it wrong?

I think this is a VERY accurate statement. Look, I think USC has an outstanding football team. Yet, who have they played?

Auburn on the road. The same team LSU trounced. Outside of Washingtton State, UCS didn't play a team all year that finished in the top 25. LSU played 4 such games, including a team in Georgia that only lost one other time all season.

The SEC is the #1 ranked conference. The PAC-10 is rated as worse than the Big East. I've been a PAC-10 supporter the last few years. Not this year. I watching a lot of PAC 10 football and the conference just sucks.

LSU, IMHO, is clearly the team most deserving of being #1 in the polls. OU is probably the most deserving in terms of the computers.

[cthomer5000]

Well, at the worst we get a traditional Rose Bowl matchup, which ain't too bad.

[Leonidas]

What's funny is the BCS was designed to correct errors made in the polls. For years everyone grumbled about how the polls decided everything and it was an imperfect system. Now they do this BCS thing to kill the poll reliance, and every year when the BCS ratings don't match the polls the powers that be make changes to the BCS formula so it will more closely resemble polls.

I do think this whole mess will result in a pretty good set of bowl games. Here's what was projected coming into the weekend:

Sugar - OU vs USC (obviously a great game)
Rose - UM vs LSU (probably a great game, but not a matchup to generate much excitement outside Michigan and Lousiana)
Orange Miami vs OSU (rematch of the title game and a matchup just about everyone around the country wants to see)
Fiesta - FSU s Texas (who the hell cares?)

Now how it looks like it will be
Sugar - OU vs LSU (National title game, may be diminished with the Sooners still there, but its the title game nonetheless)
Rose - UM vs USC ( traditional Rose Bowl that suddenly has lots of interest around ther nation, should be a hell of a game)
Orange - Miami vs OSU (no change, still a game everyone wants to see)
Fiesta - FSU vs K State (still not great interest, but maybe more than with UT because folks want to see if K State is for real)

Obviously the Rose Bowl is the big winner from yesterday. It suddenly becomes a game that means something. A national champion could be decided by this game. The other bowls stay about the same.

[clintl]

No team is deserving of playing for the "national championship" as long as polls and software are used to determine the matchup.

[kcchief19]

The ridiculousness of the B(C)S is that it only works when you have two clear-cut No. 1 and No. 2 teams. They were naive enough to think that if they added the computer polls and strength of schedule into the mix, we would accept whatever scenario comes out of a mess like this. There is no consensus on who should play in the title game this year, so there will be an argument any way it shakes out. Which, sadly enough, is also something that the B(C)S creators love -- they think the controversey is good for college football because it gets people talking.

What would really make the playoff people happy is if the B(C)S people do what they have been talking about doing in response to this year's mess -- create a new "national title" game after the bowls between the top two winning teams from the B(C)S bowls. Picture this scenario -- LSU beats OU, Michigan beats USC in the Rose, Miami beats Ohio State in the Orange and Florida State beats K-State in the Fiesta. When all is said and done, Michigan would probably end up playing LSU for the title.

How would that make MORE sense? Now, instead of having three one-loss teams to choose two for a title game, we have a one-loss team in and THREE two-loss teams to choose from for their opppoenent. Brilliant.

The solution is so simple -- eight team playoff, six bids to existing B(C)S conference champions and two bids to the highest-rated other conference champions based on computer formula. One requirement -- a conference must play a championship game to be eligible for the playoffs. And the solution to the Notre Dame dilemma -- get in a freakin' conference.

In essence, this would be a 16-team playoff with the title games. Most everyone seems to agree that you shouldn't have a shot at a national title if you don't win your conference, so there should be no sobbing that Miami, Ohio gets into the playoff and Oklahoma doesn't. There's no crying from the non-B(C)S conferences -- they get their shot.

[kingfc22]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Michigan will get it's ass handed to them if they play USC.

That's the same thing that OSU fans were saying too. If this is the matchup, this will be the best bowl game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by pjstp20
Please, if youre ranked number one in the two polls youre gonna be number 1 or 2 in the BCS. The problem now is deciding which of the one loss teams deserve to be in the title game. USC/LSU/OU being number one in both polls and not going to the title game is NOT an issue because it won't happen.

People try to make up scenarios to destroy the BCS system when it self destructed itself this year, without any wild speculated scenarios.

Looks like this ain't made-up scenario after all.

[rexallllsc]

Originally posted by kcchief19
One requirement -- a conference must play a championship game to be eligible for the playoffs.

This wouldn't work for the Pac-10...

[pjstp20]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Looks like this ain't made-up scenario after all.

Wow, well I'll stick my foot in my mouth on this one. This is rediculous and if I were a USC fan Id be livid.

Now let me ask this: Is the winner of the OU-LSU game automatically the National Champion or does USC still have a shot?

[Craptacular]

USC can win a share of the title by being voted #1 in the A.P. poll. Only the coaches' poll must declare the BCS title game victor as the champion.

[The_herd]

The coaches poll has to vote for the winner of the OU-LSU game, but the AP can vote for whoever they want.

[The_herd]

You beat me to that one.

[pjstp20]

Of all three teams with one loss, USC lost to the weakest team. Notre Dame lost the title in 93 for the same reason; even though they beat the number 1 team that year (FSU) and they both had the same number of losses.

[Easy Mac]

I think the coaches have to vote for the winner while the AP picks whoever... or its the other way. One way or another, we could (will) end up with split champs as long as USC wins

[pjstp20]

So your telling me there could be 2 national champs? I thought the BCS was supposed to put an end to that.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Leonidas

Orange - Miami vs OSU (no change, still a game everyone wants to see)

By the way, what happened here? I didn't see the BCS selection show, so does anyone know why we're getting Miami - FSU?? Did the Orange Bowl pick the matchup, or was the Fiesta Bowl able to snag OSU before the Orange Bowl could.

[The_herd]

The Orange Bowl was basically left with those 2 teams.

[Craptacular]

I figured so much. I wouldn't have thought that they would willingly take both those teams if OSU was available.

[mtolson]

The BCS makes absolutely no sense. LSU made it to #2 soley because they had a championship game. USC rating went from 6.90 to 6.15 after its final win while LSU went from 8.43 to 5.99. One week, both teams win and it made a 2+ point difference for LSU. Then Oklahoma, who also had a championship games, loses and they suffer no ill from it. Damn, can't have it both ways. Lose, no problem. Win, well lets lift your rating a bit.

USC strength of schedule went from 39 to 37 after the last game while LSU went from 54 to 29. Did beating the #5 team really warrant a 25 point jump. Damn, K-State strenght of schedule only got a 19 point jump after beating the #1 team. Sounds like someone really wanted LSU in the game.

And, how in the hell does a team that did not even win its conference make it to the championship game ? K-State wins the conference but Oklahoma could be the national champion.

Despite being #1 for the longest time, Oklahoma does not belong at #1 right now. They got paisted by the #15 team in the country and computers basically ignored the game. LSU will probably beat the crap out of them.

The only way to stop this crap from happening is to either not count the conference championship games in the BCS ratings or to have each conference play a championship game between #1 and #2 or between the division #1 team for conference that have divisions. LSU gained way to much for its conference championship win and Oklahoma did not lose enough for its championship loss.

I think the champship game should be between LSU and USC. Had USC played a championship game against Washington State and won ( they have already beat them once this year ) the BCS matchup would have been between LSU and USC (USC strenght of scedule would have increased enough to pass Oklahoma).

Just must 2 cents.

[Scholes]

Originally posted by mtolson
The BCS makes absolutely no sense. LSU made it to #2 soley because they had a championship game. USC rating went from 6.90 to 6.15 after its final win while LSU went from 8.43 to 5.99. One week, both teams win and it made a 2+ point difference for LSU. Then Oklahoma, who also had a championship games, loses and they suffer no ill from it. Damn, can't have it both ways. Lose, no problem. Win, well lets lift your rating a bit.

USC strength of schedule went from 39 to 37 after the last game while LSU went from 54 to 29. Did beating the #5 team really warrant a 25 point jump. Damn, K-State strenght of schedule only got a 19 point jump after beating the #1 team. Sounds like someone really wanted LSU in the game.

And, how in the hell does a team that did not even win its conference make it to the championship game ? K-State wins the conference but Oklahoma could be the national champion.

Despite being #1 for the longest time, Oklahoma does not belong at #1 right now. They got paisted by the #15 team in the country and computers basically ignored the game. LSU will probably beat the crap out of them.

The only way to stop this crap from happening is to either not count the conference championship games in the BCS ratings or to have each conference play a championship game between #1 and #2 or between the division #1 team for conference that have divisions. LSU gained way to much for its conference championship win and Oklahoma did not lose enough for its championship loss.

So you're lambasting LSU for moving way up for winning a "meaningless conference championship game" but think Oklahoma should be severely punished for losing theirs?

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by mtolson
And, how in the hell does a team that did not even win its conference make it to the championship game ? K-State wins the conference but Oklahoma could be the national champion

KSU won its division (the Big 12 North) just as Oklahoma won theirs. The division winners play to determine the conference champ, since they didn't play each other (even though they're in the same conference) during the regular season. And K-State was a better team.

[sooner333]

I don't think anybody "really wanted LSU in the title game" other than LSU fans. Quite frankly, that has to be the worst analysis I have ever heard in my entire life. Their schedule strength went up that much because they got to add a 10-1 team to their schedule again. USC only went up little because while they got a decent team to play, they also added two more losses to their opponents record.

LSU also got penalized by beating Georgia again by losing quality win points, however their losses do not count against Georgia in strength of schedule (you discount the games in which you played them).

Oklahoma had such a large lead in the computer polls (because they dominated all competition and all other teams had poor losses, although the LSU loss to Florida got better over time) that the loss did not drag them down very much. In addition, Kansas State helped their strength of schedule. The win over Texas maintained its quality win bonus because they finished #6 in the final rankings.

In normal years, when a team like USC doesn't just lose to a medocre Cal team. Or when a team like Notre Dame is a national power, we would have seen LSU-USC. This year, however, is much, much different. If you notice the Seattle Times Poll(Anderson-Hester Poll), you will see that record against 1-10 teams and 11-25 teams is highlighted. Oklahoma went 1-0 against top ten opponents. They recieved a bonus in the poll for that. They went 1-1 against 11-25 teams, getting help by the win against Oklahoma State and getting a reduction for the loss to Kansas State. Oklahoma did not suffer any losses outside the top 25 of that poll.

LSU, while they did not play a top 10 opponent, went 4-1 against teams in the top 25. They recieved bonus's for the two wins over Georgia , the win over Arkansas, and their victory over Ole Miss. The loss against Florida hurt. They did not suffer any losses outside of the top 25.

USC did not play a top 10 team, and went 1-0 against top 25 opponents. They got a bonus for beating Washington State. They also lost to a team outside of the top 25 in Cal. Now, I've read some statements from the poll, losing to a lesser ranked team (outside the top 25) will hurt you a lot more than losing to a quality team. In fact, they were saying the ONLY reason TCU was rated as high as they were before they lost to Southern Mississippi was because a lot of teams had lost to teams outside the top 25. So, the loss to USC hurt Cal a lot.

So looking at the Seattle Times poll, it is no surprise that OU finished #1, LSU #2, and USC a distant third. OU played and beat a top 10 team. LSU played and beat 4 top 25 teams, losing only one. USC beat their only top 25 team, but also lost to California, a team that was not even top 35. That loss hurt them a lot.

Like I said, this was an abnormal year. The only teams without losses outside the top 25 that were in the top 10 were OU, LSU, Miami of Ohio, and Texas. Normally that won't happen. The benefactors are OU and LSU. Humans don't look as far in depth into the issues as these computers. Not to say that human opinion isn't important. It obviously is, USC would be nowhere close to the .16 difference in the BCS if it weren't for the human voters.

I'm just trying to show why USC is the team left out. I'm also trying to show how the BCS isn't just a random thing. It was well thought out. The outrage, to the extent it has been thrown around in the media, is unjust. Conference Championship games can both help and hurt a team's cause. It helped LSU in strength of schedule greatly, it hurt OU in the sense they they might now have to settle for a split national title. Believe me, the loss still hurts. Anyway, that's the system we have, and I do prefer it to a playoff system, but that's just me and I think I could live with a playoff system if pulled off properly. I am not in favor of doing a one game playoff after the bowls. If it had to happen, I would like an 8 team affair with the 5 big conference champions (Throw the Big East out now, they aren't that great), one to two at-large bids, and one to two "other" conference champs. They would be seeded by the BCS. Conference champions would have to play a Championship game to decide the winner or would be forced to hope for an at-large bid.

[mtolson]

Originally posted by Scholes
So you're lambasting LSU for moving way up for winning a "meaningless conference championship game" but think Oklahoma should be severely punished for losing theirs?

No, not at all. I have nothing against LSU. I am lambasting the computer systems erratic calculations. On system has LSU at #9 only two weeks ago. If LSU's win againt a top five team warrents that result it is only fair that the #1 teams loss to the then #15 teams warrants to same type of move. Hell, one system had a team in the top 15 i believe as it's number 40

Never said the conference championship was meanless so why the quotes. I am simply stating that conferences with a championship get boosted slightly in the strenght of schedule depart by having to play one more game against a team that is more than likely ranked pretty high.

[mtolson]

Originally posted by sooner333
I don't think anybody "really wanted LSU in the title game" other than LSU fans. Quite frankly, that has to be the worst analysis I have ever heard in my entire life. Their schedule strength went up that much because they got to add a 10-1 team to their schedule again. USC only went up little because while they got a decent team to play, they also added two more losses to their opponents record.

LSU also got penalized by beating Georgia again by losing quality win points, however their losses do not count against Georgia in strength of schedule (you discount the games in which you played them).

Oklahoma had such a large lead in the computer polls (because they dominated all competition and all other teams had poor losses, although the LSU loss to Florida got better over time) that the loss did not drag them down very much. In addition, Kansas State helped their strength of schedule. The win over Texas maintained its quality win bonus because they finished #6 in the final rankings.

In normal years, when a team like USC doesn't just lose to a medocre Cal team. Or when a team like Notre Dame is a national power, we would have seen LSU-USC. This year, however, is much, much different. If you notice the Seattle Times Poll(Anderson-Hester Poll), you will see that record against 1-10 teams and 11-25 teams is highlighted. Oklahoma went 1-0 against top ten opponents. They recieved a bonus in the poll for that. They went 1-1 against 11-25 teams, getting help by the win against Oklahoma State and getting a reduction for the loss to Kansas State. Oklahoma did not suffer any losses outside the top 25 of that poll.

LSU, while they did not play a top 10 opponent, went 4-1 against teams in the top 25. They recieved bonus's for the two wins over Georgia , the win over Arkansas, and their victory over Ole Miss. The loss against Florida hurt. They did not suffer any losses outside of the top 25.

USC did not play a top 10 team, and went 1-0 against top 25 opponents. They got a bonus for beating Washington State. They also lost to a team outside of the top 25 in Cal. Now, I've read some statements from the poll, losing to a lesser ranked team (outside the top 25) will hurt you a lot more than losing to a quality team. In fact, they were saying the ONLY reason TCU was rated as high as they were before they lost to Southern Mississippi was because a lot of teams had lost to teams outside the top 25. So, the loss to USC hurt Cal a lot.

So looking at the Seattle Times poll, it is no surprise that OU finished #1, LSU #2, and USC a distant third. OU played and beat a top 10 team. LSU played and beat 4 top 25 teams, losing only one. USC beat their only top 25 team, but also lost to California, a team that was not even top 35. That loss hurt them a lot.

Like I said, this was an abnormal year. The only teams without losses outside the top 25 that were in the top 10 were OU, LSU, Miami of Ohio, and Texas. Normally that won't happen. The benefactors are OU and LSU. Humans don't look as far in depth into the issues as these computers. Not to say that human opinion isn't important. It obviously is, USC would be nowhere close to the .16 difference in the BCS if it weren't for the human voters.

I'm just trying to show why USC is the team left out. I'm also trying to show how the BCS isn't just a random thing. It was well thought out. The outrage, to the extent it has been thrown around in the media, is unjust. Conference Championship games can both help and hurt a team's cause. It helped LSU in strength of schedule greatly, it hurt OU in the sense they they might now have to settle for a split national title. Believe me, the loss still hurts. Anyway, that's the system we have, and I do prefer it to a playoff system, but that's just me and I think I could live with a playoff system if pulled off properly. I am not in favor of doing a one game playoff after the bowls. If it had to happen, I would like an 8 team affair with the 5 big conference champions (Throw the Big East out now, they aren't that great), one to two at-large bids, and one to two "other" conference champs. They would be seeded by the BCS. Conference champions would have to play a Championship game to decide the winner or would be forced to hope for an at-large bid.

Based on your name, I think your opinion may be a little jaded.

The BCS well thougt out ! What planet are you living on ? Where the hell do you think the computers get thier rating. They didn't make up the algorithms themselves. The are based on someone's mathmatical formulas. Your opinion doesn't appear to be in line with most other at this time. The BCS is bull. Plain and simple.

You make it sould like USC had a cake walk for a schedule. They beat two teams ranked #6 when they played them.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah, the BCS once again shows why it should be called the BS. We could have two national champions.... wasn't this the reason the BCS was created in the first place?

[kingfc22]

Just put the top 4 teams in a playoff. One extra game is NOT going to hurt anybody. Don't give me the students have exams excuse either. Money talks and a 4 team playoff would bring big money to these schools. Isn't their a lof of money to be had from the BS system anyways?

Yes, I did mean BS if you were wondering.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by kingfc22
One extra game is NOT going to hurt anybody.

Tell that to Willis McGahee.

[sooner333]

So, because they were ranked #6 at the time doesn't mean they were the sixth best team in the nation. Those pesky human polls had it wrong *gasp*. What if the team was unranked at the time, you beat them, then they are postseason #10 in the nation?

Look, I may be a Sooner fan, but I've been a BCS advocate forever. I thought Nebraska had a legitimate claim at the national title in 2001. They had better losses than Colorado throughout the season (remember, its based on the season of play) and won more dominatingly than Oregon. I do advocate using scoring margin to a certain extent (probably 25 points or so), btw. But this year is even more clear. We don't have teams with differing records and none of the teams played head to head (which sparked all of the controversy).

I'm just trying to show you that USC could legitimately be #3. It's like you don't read the logic behind that statement and just say "hey, the computers are stupid and the BCS is stupid." The BCS is logical and people don't like it because the whole thing isn't controlled by the media and coaches.

And while human beings make the computer programs to spit out rankings...they don't arbitrarily change the program throughout the year. Humans do change their thinking throughout the season. Computers don't say "I don't think TCU should be there because they aren't in a BCS conference" they look at the results of the games. To these computers, the games are all that matters. Look, USC played a soft schedule, the other one loss teams didn't. OU proved to be the best team in their conference throughout the season, based on the fact that they are still the highest ranked team, BCS or otherwise, in the Big 12.

[sooner333]

Originally posted by kingfc22
Don't give me the students have exams excuse either.

I think as long as the games were scheduled around exams, there wouldn't be a problem here. Especially considering the first round would likely be played on home sites. Otherwise the first round games would only be sparsely attended.

[ISiddiqui]

The BCS is logical

Eh? Why is the BCS logical? The computer polls are subjective as well, because they put different weights on different things showing the biases of the creators of the programs.

Look, USC played a soft schedule, the other one loss teams didn't.

This is where the '#6 team at the time' argument comes into play. USC didn't purposely try to play a soft schedule! They played teams that were ranked highly in the preseason polls! According the preseason polls, USC had games against 5 teams in the Top 25. Why should they be penalized for the lackluster seasons of the teams they thought would be good? Isn't that penalizing them for something they had no control over?

[sooner333]

I know its sad for USC that they played teams they thought would be good and then beat them. But you can't tell how good a team is by how good the other teams were in preseason rankings. Washington State was #46 in the AP poll in the preseason, so are you saying that win doesn't mean as much anymore? You can't have it both ways, and the only way to judge a season is to see who a team is played, and how good that team was during the year. A computer poll doesn't take into account the "preseason hype" either.

[ISiddiqui]

You can't have it both ways, and the only way to judge a season is to see who a team is played, and how good that team was during the year.

So then you are penalizing a team for playing those who it thought were good, but ended up not being so. It isn't their fault and yet they get penalized on it.

It is precisely the reason a playoff is needed in 1-A college football.

[sooner333]

Look, if you beat the preseason top 10...all of them, yet they all went on to win zero games. Is that an accomplishment? Not really, I would say, because they didn't win a game all season. Sure, its unfortunate, but these matchups are decided years in advance. It's just the way it is. Auburn still helped them out more than say, playing a team like Army. I dont' understand how you can consider saying a team is as good as they were in the preseason polls. And then you don't even acknowledge that I said Wazzou was #46 in the preseason polls. Please.

[ISiddiqui]

Look, if you beat the preseason top 10...all of them, yet they all went on to win zero games. Is that an accomplishment? Not really, I would say, because they didn't win a game all season. Sure, its unfortunate, but these matchups are decided years in advance. It's just the way it is.

So we should blame the team that scheduled these games against what it thought were the good teams? If the other teams don't win a single game then it isn't as impressive as it would have been, but they at least deserve a chance for the title if they won their conference and have an equal record to anyone else.

I dont' understand how you can consider saying a team is as good as they were in the preseason polls.

When did I say that? And why are you putting words in my mouth? To try to make your point?

I'm saying you shouldn't penalize a team for playing not as impressive opponents when they were thought to be good. It isn't like they were trying to duck playing good teams. It wasn't like they were playing 1-AA teams so they could win a lot. They scheduled what they thought were great teams. They ended up not being so (especially Auburn).

What do I care that Washington State was ranked 46? USC has to play them because of their conference. It isn't like they can jump out of their conference because it is weak that year.

And besides, it isn't like USC has the 100th strength of schedule or anything. They are 37th in the country. BEFORE the SEC Title Game, they were AHEAD of LSU in that. Is USC also penalized for not playing in a conference with a championship game? Perhaps.

Once again, precisely why a playoff is needed in 1-A college football. Put all the conference winners together (most teams in a conference play similar schedules) and add a few at-large teams. That'd clear this up in a second.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
So then you are penalizing a team for playing those who it thought were good, but ended up not being so. It isn't their fault and yet they get penalized on it.

It is precisely the reason a playoff is needed in 1-A college football.

Yes, I'll agree with that. Yet LSU really beat TWO top 10 football teams this year. It just happened that both time Georgia was the team and by beating them twice, it took Georgia out of the top 10.

TCU would have been penalized because Arizona turned into a turd after they had already scheduled the game a couple of years in advance.

LSU played nearly half of their schedule against top 25 teams. USC played one team in the top 25. Therefore, LSU had the tougher schedule and deserved to be voted #1 in the HUMAN polls IMHO.

As for the computers, they take into account the entire season. They don't put a snapshot on a single game. Over the course of the season, OU had the toughest SOS, the most quality wins (thanks to Georgia being knocked out of LSU's) and a loss to the toughest team of the bunch.

I hate the BCS as much as anybody, but I thought it got it right this year. These were the two most DESERVING teams to play for it all.

[Chief Rum]

I think based on the BCS rules, the BCS got it right.

I think based on reality, none of us really know which of these three teams are the best two. So a third team was guaranteed to be screwed no matter what, and that third team (whoever it would be) had just as legit an argument as any of the other two.

And I think it's ridiculous to have these issues when we could solve this with a playoff.

CR