bouray

It's funny as I watched college football this weekend all I heard about is the fight between OU and AU for a shot to play USC in the Orange Bowl. Why does USC get an automatic bid into the game when all the teams are undefeated? I have several other questions that I decided to post just to get a feel for everyones opinion. But before answering, please look at the issue open minded and don't let team or conference allegiance blur the obvious.

--How much of the USC hype has to do with them being left out of the BCS last season? In my opinion, they are not as good as last years team. Last year they were really dominant in there offense, and while their D was good, it was far from the best in the country. Unfortunately, last year doesn't count anymore. If you look at the 3 teams fighting it out, they are all of the same calibur and deserving of a title shot. Each of the teams did what it took to win in the big games this year: OU-pulled it out against Tx A&M, OkState, and UT; USC got outgunned by Cal and Stanford and got the "W", but they did dominate ASU; and Auburn squeezed by LSU and dominated Georgia and Tenn.

--If the preseason polls had started with OU #10, AU #11, and USC #12, would all these folks in the media be clamoring for a USC team to be in the championship? If so, why? If not, is it fair for a team to get an automatic slide into the national championship cuz people felt they were going to have a good year? After viewing the first game of the season against Virginia Tech, you could see USC was not the same dominant team as last year. Wouldn't it be a little more fair to throw out the preseason rankings cuz they don't mean anything? Look at LSU, Miami, Georgia, etc for examples (all teams that started the year ranked very high, but lost games early on and are out of the championship picture).

--I hear all this talk about non-conference schedules and Auburn did have a very, very easy non-conference schedule (which is what is hurting them), but why doesn't an easy conference schedule hurt a team like USC since that is what hurts UTAH? I know that is not a very good comparison between the two conferences, but come on the PAC 10 has three good teams: USC, CAL, & ASU then a huge drop off; both the Big12 and SEC are having mediocre years, but they still have these teams in the top 25: OU, Texas, TAMU, OkState---AU, Georgia, LSU, Tenn, Florida (AP #25,most others about #26)---unfortunately a tougher conference with a conference championship game has become a hinderance in the title quest.

Unfortunately, with the system the way it is, someone is going to be left out...I just hope all the pollsters vote with their minds and not their hearts. Then again, each of these teams have at least one game left---maybe it will be decided for us on the field (I doubt it).

My wish for a national championship game: USC vs. Auburn. I think OU has shown itself to be very vulnerable against tough competition and these two teams have the better match up. My opinion only.

bond007

I think we should let the Vegas bookies decide. find out who would be favored (and by how much) in each of the following matchups... then go with their top 2!

USC-OU
USC-Auburn
OU-Auburn

runtuff

Well the AP pole came out and USC lost three first place votes over the last pole. Its interesting because they were idle. OU picked up one first place vote and Auburn picked up 2 first place votes. So much of this makes little sense at first. Auburn looked terrible for much of the game against Alabama and the point difference was really decided by a defensive TD. OU solidly beat a weak Baylor team and did not run up the score beyond the 35-0 as they liberally subbed in the second half. So what is going on, ESPN has been pushing Auburn as a Cinderella story. Many are buying it. They only lost 5 votes in the poles as they slid from a tie for second with OU to third. So almost losing does not seem to be that big a deal for Auburn, heck they gained two FIRST place votes. Its wacky, its college football. Its in many ways the opposite of Professional. All subjective, the BCS was supposed to fix some of these probl;ems, but just makes it a different form of being complicated. Its all fun to watch none the less. But I hope it comes down to two undefeated teams playing for #1 and not a split title!

djtestudo

They definately need a playoff system.

Do it like basketball. 11 automatic bids (one for each conference) and 5 at-large. A selection committee selects the at-large teams and seeds all 16. First round games on December 11, continuing four weeks with championship on New Year's Day.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

stevo

I like your idea, but I find it hard to give teams in the WAC, C-USA, MAC, sunbelt a spot in the playoffs when there are only 5 at large bids. I think any conferences that get automatic playoff spots should be a qualified conference, sort of like the BCS conferences.

Blackthorn

GO BUCKEYES! But I'm hardly a non-biased participant in this disucssion

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

bond007

they already have one! the BCS is a two-team playoff system.

djtestudo

Who decides what a qualified conference is?

What are the ""qualifications"?

Would you be willing to risk a 10-1 team from the Sun Belt not getting their chance in favor of an 8-3 team that finished second in the Big Ten, Big 12, or SEC?

Only five at-large bids makes everyone want to win their conference title while allowing the best non-winners (such as Cal or Wisconsin this year) to get in.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Justsomeguy

A playoff system for college football is about as dumb as it gets. The defining characteristic of college football is to play good games and dominate. Play with excellence every single week. Playoffs would dumb this down. To be honest that aspect of college football has me watching every week. At best, I catch two to three playoff games in an entire pro football season.

Also, the polls were adjusted to accommodate West Coast teams or more precisely, to put other teams ahead of REAL southern teams. To summarize my point, it allowedIt should be evident to most that the media just does not have a fondess for the South. Maybe it's just an opinion, but if LSU was kept out of the national championship last year, I do not think there would have been near the same response as we all witnessed at the end of last season.

Simply put, it does not matter if USC is the best team. They are undefeated and they are from California. With the current shitty "upgraded" BCS system, those two factors alone put them in the national championship.

Justsomeguy

I thought this was also very interesting. Pre-season polling is very fun. But, the traditional way of polling just is not getting done what needs to be done. Or atleast what is desired to be done. Polling should not only reflect the prior weeks, but it should more clearly represent that current week. If USC came off a bad week against Stanford and you place them ahead of Auburn, aren't you saying that the USC team could be Auburn? Obviously not if they played like they did in Stanford. Saying a team had an "off-week" is not enough justification. Yes, you have to consider their past as well as their situation. However, when you can look at a team and see they have obviously improved while another team hasn't, how can that not play a much larger role?

On Auburn's game vs. Alabama, I think alot of people fail to see how intense this game is. This is the biggest rivalry in college football hands down. No game even comes close to comparison. I think you're right, Auburn clearly did not play as well as recent weeks. They had an off-week, and again I do think you really have to take that into consideration(I believe pollsters did). If Auburn had scored another touchdown and Alabama would not have scored the touchdown in the last minutes of the fourth quarter, I wonder how polling may have been different. I know it's the biggest rivalry game and that often makes it tougher than even playing a top 5 team. But damn, if Alabama actually had a real quarterback(they're using 3rd string) and their top running back(Hudson), Auburn would have lost that game.

djtestudo

How would it dumb it down? It allows teams not named USC, Oklahoma, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, Texas, Auburn, etc. to have a real chance to be national champions, instead of how it is now.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Cross-Over

You know, I hate the fact that this debate even exists. There are so many factors involved, but they don't add up to a fair conclusion. Playoffs, thats the answer. Until the NCAA figures out how to generate the same revenue (it is all about the money, no question) from a playoff system as they do from the current system, it will not happen.

On a side note-
I remember how analysts were saying Oklahoma was head and shoulders better than everyone else last year and joked about how some of the lower tier NFL teams are lucky they don't have to play them. They went on to get smashed by KSU and then lose to LSU. Was Oklahoma a fluke, definitely not. They sure weren't as as dominant as portrayed though. That said, I don't think that any of the top 3 convincingly deserve a title shot over one of the other 3.

goddfather40

USC is not that much better. They are not as good as last year. I think those are somewhat consensus opinions. It is not a slam dunk that USC will beat Notre Dame or UCLA. A playoff system needs to be implemented quickly.

That being said I would like to dispute a few points brought up:

- The polls, especially the coaches poll, are not disproportionally weighted down with west coast voters. They didn't adjust the polls to accomdate West coast teams. The media conspriacy talk is stupid. The single determining factor in USC still being #1 ahead of the other two is the preseason poll.

- The PAC-10 is not as bad as others say, which is the case every year. Oregon State should have won at LSU, Arizona (the consensus worst team in the PAC-10) lost to Wisconsin only 9-7. Yes, I give you the fact that OU and Okla State beat Oregon and UCLA solidly. But with 3 top 20 teams compared to 4 top 25 for the Big 12 and 4/5 top 25 for the SEC, that is still not bad considering those conference do have 2 extra teams each.

- What if last year LSU was left out. Are you kidding, a team from the great and mighty SEC? There would've been a shitstorm like no other. Just like what's going to happen this year if Auburn is left out (justifiably so).

__________________
My name is goddfather40 and I approved this message.

I got ho's and I got bitches,
In C++ I branch with switches
-MC Plus+

boom29

I don't think being left out of last year's BCS is the reason for the USC hype. Before last year, experts/analysts were saying that USC was one year away from competing for the national championship. Basically, they were looking at 2004 (this year) as the year that USC would be at its best. Accordingly, when the preseason polls came out, they had USC at #1. I agree that this year's USC is not as potent offensively. Yet, I think the defense is just as good if not better than last year's.

I think the "clamoring" would the about the same that is going on for Auburn now, only that the arguments might vary a bit. However, in no way is USC getting "an automatic slide into the national championship." Last I checked, USC still had to play the games, and so far, they have won them all. USC has done nothing to show that they do not deserve the #1 ranking. Only three preseason #1 teams have gone on to win the national championship that same year since the early 90's, so if a team is not deserving things will sort themselves out. If anything, USC (and OU for that matter) was put in a better position to contend for the national championship, but in no way was it given to them. On the same note, OU started the season at #2, so you could make the same argument against OU that you make against USC of "sliding" into the championship, afterall, its the top two teams that get into the BCS championship game, not just #1.

Last year, it was strength of schedule that ultimately left USC out of the National Championship game. Nonetheless, while strength of schedule is not explicitly part of the BCS anymore, it still has its effect in the human polls. Also, if you look at each computer rankings' strenght of schedule ranking (though not included in the BCS equation) you'll see that even they disagree as to which team has a stronger schedule. I agree that the SEC is a stronger conference overall than the Pac-10, but I'm not so sure I'd say the same thing about the Big 12. As far as a conference championship game becoming a "hinderance," I will say that that is a decision that each conference decided to make. You can't force the Pac-10 to have a championship game, not to mention that most of these conference championship games are money driven.

Justsomeguy

I mean that teams like Auburn, FSU, Miami, and Oklahoma would not be required to be so dominant to be the national champion each. Why go 11-0 when you can go 9-2 and be the national champion. Also, remember that college teams are largely in control on their own schedules. With a playoff system why schedule tough games when you can schedule 11 Louisiana-Monroe's and Arkansas State's? Imagine how dominant Notre Dame would become if this were to happen.

I still believe it would not have been nearly as big of a deal had LSU been left out. Who exactly would cause the uproar? Three ESPN analysists? I doubt the liberal media would have felt as compelled to stick up for LSU. LSU fans and SEC fans would be pissed, but they don't have as much access to express their disappointment.

Exactly. But, can you really blame them?

djtestudo

You're missing one thing I said. You have a selection committee selecting the teams, just like in college. A team that schedules a full plate of teams like that wouldn't even sniff the playoffs. Plus, when you are in a conference, generally you have to play the teams in your conference which is at least eight games in most cases.

Plus, Auburn already has a horrendus OOC schedule (I think their total SOS is around 90th or something like that), so it already happens. This could eliminate that to a point.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

warrrreagl

As an Auburn fan, I know my only hope is for USC to lose. However, I believe they'll focus on the Notre Dame game because it's such a threat, and then they'll choke on the UCLA game.

At least that's what all my voodoo dolls and incantations are saying....

__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed.

Blackthorn

Ideally for me they would loose both! That's only because of an obnoxious cousin who thinks that USC could beat the New England Partiots.

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

boom29

I hate it when analysts/media or people in general talk about a college team being able to beat a pro team. Even if they're just joking, it still bothers me. The best college team will NEVER beat the worst pro team.

warrrreagl

I feel confidant that at least two college teams could handle the Dolphins.

__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed.

bouray

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Is it fair to have to leave a team out? Your saying that it wouldn't have been a big deal if a team that was clearly better than OU and as close to equal as possible (if not better than, we will never know) to USC was completely left out of the equation. Remember one thing: after last years standings only one team was the clear choice to be in the championship game---LSU was ranked #2 in AP, Coaches, and BCS...the controversy was that USC was ranked #1 in polls and #3 BCS and vice/versa for OU.

I would love to have a way for a clear champion to be decided, but economics dictates that it will never happen.

mattgical

SC is a second half team. Against Stanford, yes, they were down. But Oh, they have to play a second half too? Ok, SC shuts down Stanford to 0 points, 33 TOTAL YARDS offense. Win.

SC vs Oregon State. Oh ya, the game was played IN THE FOG with 20 feet of visibility!

How bad was the fog? The coordinators upstairs had to come down to the field because they couldnt' see! oh ya, SC Wins.

2003- SC 23 Auburn 0

Andrew

Auburn is the dangerous team. They should be number one.

runtuff

USC is having trouble in the rain. Or maybe ND is that good.

Andrew how can you say Auburn should be #1, they nearly lost to Alabama??!!

Auburn has an easy game next w/e against Tenn. and Oklahoma plays Colorado in the Big 12 title gamer.

mattgical

all SC haters please do not post anymore.

41-10 ....

in the words of Bob Davie, the former ND coach. "This is an insult. Notre Dame is not a 24 point under dog team. SC will not win this game."

rrrriiiiggghhttt.........

bouray

I give you that USC dominated auburn last year, but that is last year. No one should be given extra credit for what happened last year.

byesman

Ummm, Ohio State - Michigan, consistantly voted as the top college rivalry, and one of the best in Sports. I think that compares. In fact, i think it tops. But that's just my opinion (and about every other rivalry poll)

But the best team is the one decided by the media, because the media votes who they think is the best. It doesn't matter that Boise State won 22 in a row, everyone says that they can't compete with the big boys, so they don't get the chance. But you don't see any of the big boys scheduling them either. Personally, I was rooting for USC to lose, Auburn to lose, Oklahoma to lose, and then we could get Cal and Utah in the BCS Championship game. When the ratings start to suck, then maybe something will be done.

__________________
If after I depart this vale you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost,
forgive some sinner, and wink your eye at some homely girl.

H.L. Mencken

djtestudo

I will be rooting for UCLA, Tennessee, and Colorado this weekend so that we can see if the top three lose if the BCS people will have the cojones to put the two remaining undefeated teams in the Orange Bowl.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

quicksteal

After USC beat ND 41-10, in the coaches' poll USC lost 1 point, OU gained 2, and AU lost 1 (AU also stole one 1st place vote away from OU).

In the AP poll, USC gained 7 points, OU lost 1, and AU lost 6 (USC took 2 1st place votes each from the other two teams).

Obviously, Auburn had the less impressive week off. I don't understand--if 80% of the public wants to see an Auburn vs. USC championship game, why do the mysterious "poll voters" refuse to oblige?

archer2371

Utah and Boise State??? What the...wait, that would be one hell of a game, so many points..... But they wouldn't anyways, I'm also rooting for UCLA, Tenn. and Colorado, but for different reasons. Just think, a Cal/Texas Championship Game...aww who am I kidding, the Big XII North sucks so Colorado won't win, but it is a possibility for the other two to win.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."