Sooners are going down!

Is that a fast food chain that serves crow? </font>[/QUOTE]Not only are the crows served,
they raised from the egg!

Be sure to try our no-carb,
lo-fat, no-taste "humble pie" for desert

 

Auburn struggled to beat Va Tech, who was in a off year. There is no reason to suspect that Auburn woudl have fared any better against USC. OU-Auburn would have probably been a good game. Or Auburn-Utah.

 

The thought that the Big 12 is a bunch of little leaguers is ridiculous! Do you realize all the national titles that have come from such schools as Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, etc? Now this past year they may not have been as strong as the SEC, but they are not a group of nobodies.

As Pastor Larry said, Auburn struggled to beat Va Tech, and they would have gotten pounded by USC just as Oklahoma did. Florida lost in their bowl game. Alabama lost in their bowl game. LSU got beat in their bowl game. So it is not like the SEC just dominated all their bowl games. They are a good strong conference, but the Big 12 is a tough conference as well, as are a couple others.

So please do not give me this stuff about OU being a second class team. They were every bit as good as any SEC team, and last night any team in the country would have gotten drilled by USC, it was their night and they are the class of college football this year. Case closed

And I am not a Big 12 homer either, I graduated from a Big Ten School and spent most of my life in Big Ten country.

 

I do not buy into the argument that Auburn would have played as poorly as Oklahoma last night. Matchups are always different between different sets of teams. I thought all along that Oklahoma played in the weaker conference and should have been the team left out of the Orange Bowl. Auburn had a much better secondary than Oklahoma. There is no reason to expect that Campbell would have thrown the interceptions that White threw.

It's a pity that NCAA Division I-A football continues to crown only a mythical national champion.

As far as I am concerned I will always consider Auburn to be every bit as much the 2004 "national champion" as Southern Cal is.

 

I don't think it is that Auburn would have played as poorly. It simply wouldn't have mattered. USC was simply too good last night. When a team struggles with Va Tech, it should be obvious that they are not going to beat USC. In fact, a team combined of OU and Auburn probably wouldn't have beaten USC last night.

 

We will never know and that is why college football is way down the list of the best sports out there. These bowl games stink and decide nothing. Until a playoff comes (just like 1-AA) we will never know who the real best team is. By the way, anyone can lok at the schedules and twist around which team is best.

For example, USC struggled in 5 games this year and was fortunate in a couple of them:

Va Tech 24-13
Stanford 31-28
Cal 23-17
Oregon St 28-20
UCLA 29-24

Auburn struggled some too:

LSU 10-9
Bama 21-13
Tenn 38-28
Va Tech 16-13

USC played 3 ranked teams and 0 cupcakes
LSU played 5 ranked teams and 2 cupcakes

USC got lucky against Cal, the same team that got destroyed by Tx Tech (Big 12 team)

You can twist these around until your blue in the face, but the bottom line is we will never know until a playoff comes around.

Aloha.

 

It's a shame that style and margin of victory have become more important than simply winning games in Division I-A.

 

Oh, please.

The next thing you're liable to say is that USC should be in the Super Bowl opposite the Colts.

 

QUOTE]The next thing you're liable to say is that USC should be in the Super Bowl opposite the Colts. QUOTE]

I think you mean opposite the Patriots. The Colts aren't going to make it to the Superbowl.

 

Tennessee, didnt think about Texas being UT and orange. huh, oh well, vols won bigger anyway. that was actually the vols biggest bowl game win ever if im thinking right. and was almost their second bowl game shut out. the only time they have ever shut a team out was against, ya tou guessed it, the aggies

 

Oh, please.

The next thing you're liable to say is that USC should be in the Super Bowl opposite the Colts. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm ... I don't know ... that would be a close game ... no seriously, college and pro are vastly different. No comparison.

As for a playoff, we don't need one and shouldn't have one. Let the mystique be the debates that fuel from year to year. No one can seriously question that USC is the best team in the country. I mean that. If you question that, you didn't watch much football, or you have a rooting interest in a team or conference. I am no Pac10 fan by any means. But USC was dominant. Don't take away from it because you are upset. Auburn should have played a better schedule. They can't complain. VaTech is not nearly as good as OU, and Auburn beat VT by 3; USC beat a much better OU teams by 30 something (wasn't it?). A sane argument cannot be made for Auburn.

A playoff wouldn't solve that because of the upset factor. Playoffs don't always give the best team. And if the goal of a national championship is to find the best team in the country, this is how you do it. If the goal is to find the best team of a tournament, then have a playoff. I am for the former. I think we should go back to the old way.

 

You know, Pastor Larry, that you can't compare scores of different games. Surely you've seen the comparisons through the years where one team beat another team who beat another team who beat another team, etc., etc., etc., and you end up with some college that no one would ever dream of being a national champion being better than the team that won the mythical Division I-A national championship.

After all, Miami beat New England. So if New England wins the Super Bowl this year, using your reasoning, a good case could be made that Miami is the best team in the NFL.

 

If there is "no comparison," how do you know that?

Take a couple of " n't "s out of that sentence and you would have it right.

It's a sport, not a "mystique."

Then what happens with your "mystique?"

Make up your mind ... is it a good thing or not to be table-pounding all over the joint that "__ is #1!"; "No! *** is #1!"; "You're both wrong! +++ is #1!!"

Contracts for games or series of games are made years in advance, and if one team escapes from that contract, the other team has to replace them on the schedule, and often only a 1AA team, or even Div. II, may be available. And you never know what qulity a team is going to be when that particular season finally comes that you play them. The scheduling problem-- or excuse-- is one thing that a playoff series would help to solve.

And USC beat than same VA Tech team by what? 3 or 4? I don't think they had any other common opponent.

But voting does, huh?

Then who was the best team last year? LSU or USC? It would have been great to see them settle it on the field. And the winner of that game would have been the winner of a diminutive 'tournament.' Yet it still would have been one of the 2 that you claim should have hateful, venomous arguments all off-season.

It's taken decades to get this far, from where there was often no chance of even the #1 team from playing the #2 team. And it has been lucrative. The only way to make it more lucrative is to more in the direction of a playoff.

 

Being a Sooner football fan for several decades now, I remember a lot of good games and a lot of bad games over the years.

I remember going to Virginia one summer many years ago to work in concrete for my uncle and going to the barber. I remember sitting in the barber's chair talking with the barber and him asking me "when is that great Oklahoma football team going to be back?"

I remember telling him about rumors that Barry Switzer may be coming to OU as head coach and that if he did... they'd be back. I remember the excitement I felt when I heard that Barry Switzer was officially coming to OU... and he brought 'em back. Now it seems like just a few blinks ago and... well... I think you know what I mean.

I remember so many names of great players through the years I thought they'd never be able to replace. But the names keep coming (for the most part, anyway)

I remember some bleak and dismal years, too.

I remember many a time thinking what untold numbers of fans of many different teams in many different sports also thought over the years... that ol' reliable: 'wait till next year'.

I've 'waited till next year' many times over the years. Oh well...

Last years loss to LSU was sorta like that... 'wait till next year'. Then this years loss was even worse.

So I guess it's wait till next year again... except it won't come down to such a disappointing finale next time around. They'll probably go about 7-4.

Hats off to USC, though... they put on a dominant performance... they could beat anybody in the country.

In a lot of ways I wish it had been USC-Auburn... they would've beaten Auburn convincingly, too...

Not as bad, you say? It doesn't matter... USC would've still won. The only stat that really matters and that people really remember is that W-L, isn't it?

Besides, had it been Auburn-USC, then at least Oklahoma would've probably finished ranked # 2 and Sooner fans could pound our fists and argue about how we got cheated... lol...

Another thing... Vince Young and Texas might just get some serious attention from a lot of people this coming year.

 

Boomer Sooner, Boomer sooner, boomer sooner, boomer sooner,
Boomer Sooner, Boomer sooner, boomer sooner, boomer sooner,
Boomer Sooner, Boomer sooner, boomer sooner, boomer sooner,
Boomer Sooner, Boomer sooner, boomer sooner, boomer sooner,

 

Ahahaha... thanks SaggyWoman...

 

Besides... NASCAR'll be running again before too long...

 

Boomer sooner bombed and was doomed sooner than you assumed.

 

Yeah!!!


But why did they forget how to play football??