Thoughts on the BCS Bowl line up

1) That is false.

2) That is false, also.

It's clear that you have a rooting interest against Auburn for some reason that goes beyond their non-conference schedule.

Would be saying that the best two teams are in the BCS (non)Championship Game if Auburn had beaten Michigan in a non-conference game and the two teams were still USC and Oklahoma?

 

1) That is false.

2) That is false, also.

It's clear that you have a rooting interest against Auburn for some reason. </font>[/QUOTE]The only fair way to settle any of it is a playoff. Unfortunately, as long as there is a BCS that will not happen.

 

Yep.

 

To the Top!
BA (RTF) 1994
My Name isn't Eaglewing just because of that Isaiah passage!
These Tiger fans here in BR don't know the difference either. I think it is an arrogance thing, and it's much worse after LSU's National Championship last year.

And No! I am not going to N.O. Tuesday night!

Auburn only beat LSU by one point and in my opinion, it was a technacality a very questionable call! That game should have gone to OT and LSU would most likely have won it! (of course I live in Baton Rouge and I am bombarded with LSU propaganda)
The BCS worked just the way it is supposed to USC and OU are the 2 best teams and Auburn is #3 BTY it worked right last year too! But the AP did not.
Eaglewing&lt;&gt;&lt;
P.S. BTY Larry I prayed! God granted me Grace! And you are forgiven!

[ December 11, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: EaglewingIS4031 ]

 

1) That is false.

2) That is false, also.</font>[/QUOTE]No, not when you look at past years. Strength of schedule is a major factor. When you schedule weak teams, you fall. Auburn has no claim to being one of the two top teams because they played too easy of a schedule.

Not at all. I actually prefer SEC football to most others, except ACC, and I like a good SEC game over a bad ACC one. I like a bad SEC game over any other conference game with few exceptions. My biggest beef with Auburn is that Stephen Davis when there instead of going to Clemson.

I think Michigan is consistently overrated and gets way more credit than they should. I think Lloyd Carr is a mediocre coach at best.

But to be honest, I do have a rooting interest against Michigan. I just don't like them. I think they are arrogant without reason. Big 10 football is pretty weak, IMO. I rarely watch it, except for big games, like UM-MSU or UM-OSU. I would rather watch southern football. But having said that, if Auburn beat Michigan, they might have more of a claim. I don't know how the numbers would work out. But you have to remember that this is a numbers game.

I think what you are missing is that the numbers are computer numbers. This is not bias that kept them out. It was the objective numbers on the page. The only thing subjective are the AP and Coaches polls. All the other polls are computer generated I think and they are all combined into the BCS by computer. THe formula is set at the beginning of the year and doesn't get changed to keep some in and some out. Someone should do a test and put USC's and OU's non-conference results into Auburn's schedule and see what happens. That would be a good indicator I think.

The BCS was set up to match the two best teams, and the consensus is that it did just that.

 

If one wants to see a plethora of football polls, go to:

www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm .

 

I think we all have to admit that we cannot know that it achieved that as a certainty. Without a playoff system, the mythical national championship will continue to be mythical.

By the way, Pastor Larry, you are the only college football fan I have yet come across who doesn't have a rooting interest between USC and Oklahoma who actually defends the BCS system.

 

The BCS system is unfair.
I'll be boycotting their games.
I will be in Florida the morning of
the Orange bowl, but i'll be
traveling toward my home in Oklahoma.

We in Oklahoma are getting tired of
yelling "We're number 1" and holding
up two fingers It makes us look
like aggies

But the powers that be will only be
influenced by MONEY. So the only thing
that will work to get the BCS changed
and a real playoff installed, is
if Billions of dollars is withhead from
the system, ie. the boycott.

 

I defend it marginally only, Ken. For myself, I think OU and USC are the two best teams in teh country, and every poll agrees. That doesn't mean someone else couldn't beat them on a given day. It just means that top to bottom they are the best. But the best team doesn't always win.

Here's my point: If hte point of the national championship to be the best team in teh country? Or is it to win the right game at the right time? I prefer the former, and I think that is what makes it different than basketball or other college sports. I think the NBA you usually get the best team generally because of the 7 game series. If you beat someone four out of seven, you are probably better than they are. I think with MLB you sometimes don't because of hot streaks and cold streaks. Hitters that go blank in the October let you down.

But I think college football is different. You want the best team. But hey, it gives us something to talk about.

 

So are you opposed to the football playoffs in every other division of the NCAA, and to the playoffs in the NFL, and to high school football playoffs, and to the college and high school basketball tournaments where one bad game sends a team home?

 

No. As I said, I think college football is different.

 

IMHO the BCS Orange Bowl will feature
the two best college teams in the
country. Both teams are lead by
Hiesman Trophy winners. Sorry Auburn,
how long since you had a Hiesman winner?

 

Here's a thought...

How about the Fiesta Coachless Bowl.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_STANFORD_HARRIS?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=sports.htm

 

And how many Heisman Trophy winners are not the best players in college football as evidenced by their inability to be a great player in the NFL? Answer: Lots.

Auburn and USC should be in the BCS Championship. Oklahoma won the Big 12 where half the league, the North Division, is as weak as a newborn child.

I have no doubt that if Oklahoma had played Auburn's SEC Conference schedule that Oklahoma would not have gone through undefeated.

 

Great players in college are not always great players in the NFL because it is a different game. The Heisman is awarded to the best player in college football for a given year, not for a career, and not based on NFL potential.

 

Actually the Heisman is supposed to be awarded to the best player in college football. In truth it is almost always awarded to the best back in college. Or at least the best offensive player. How can anyone still take this award seriously?

Question: How many times was the Heisman awarded to defensive players?

Answer...only once. And that was to a player that also played WR. When was the last time a defensive player was even considered for the Heisman? I remember Hugh Green coming in second back in 1982 I believe. He should have won too, but the award is never for defensive players is it?

http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/heisman/heisman_trophy_winners.htm

BTW, the 'E' stands for end on the list, as in a WR as they called them in years past. It is not for defensive end. Backs have won it 63 times out of 68 years. (yawn)

And large colleges with the best ability to lobby for their candidate usually wins the award.

So then, the joke that is the Heisman trophy is really for the best back in the country and is never to be taken seriously by the fans. The NFL sure doesn't take the award seriously. They take it with a good laugh and a grain of salt, and so should we as fans. It is a nice trinket for the player that wins though. It makes quite the fine door stop though don't ya think?

 

Don't know; have to ask OJ and Ricky Williams!

 

I think the reason offensive players win it is because they are the ones who most affect the game. It is just the reality of football that you can win with 2 or 3 very good offensive players and bunch of adequate players. You can't win with an average bunch of players and a couple of very good defenders. Defenders do not affect enough plays to be considered game changers. You have the occasional play where a defender saves the game, but they are not getting enough touches. I think the year Woodson won the Heisman actually devalued the Heisman. There was no serious way that Woodson was the best player in college. He probably wasn't the best player in the Big 10 and maybe not the best player at Michigan that year. That was the year, if I remember correctly with Manning and Leaf, both of whom had blowout years. Woodson simlpy wasn't in their class of game player.

Overall, the Heisman doesn't mean that much anymore.

 

I couldn't agree more. Two schools are supposed to have the top four players in 1A football?

Bill

 

Here is an old story (2001) on the subject of defensive players with some other good links:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/preview01/s/defense.html

Of course to be fair the award should then be said to be for the best offensive player in college. They already have a Chuck Bednarik Trophy for the nation's best defensive player. Defense still wins championships most of the time though any way. Even in college.

Here is an interesting article from last year showing just how bogus the award is:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3681487/

Of course the only truly fair awards that will ever be given will be given by our Lord at the Judgement Seat.

[ December 13, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]