Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Interests > Tilted Sports


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-07-2004, 09:48 PM   #41 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avail
SEC wasn't that good this year. If Auburn were to go undefeated in the SEC in previous years, I would whole-heartedly agree with you. Tennesee wasn't as good as previous years. They only beat 2-9 Kentucky 37-31 and 4-7 Mississippi 21-17. Georgia did OK this year but it was nothing to compared to earlier years. Florida.. Florida just went down the drain this season. Meyer has a good chance at restoring the franchise next year though. LSU didn't look like a national title team this year either..
I think whats missing here is that no conference was that good this year. They all seemed middle of the road. People just naturally consider SEC competition to be very tough. Teams seem just a tad more physical. However, what other conference could you really say was better than the SEC? I definitely do not see any.

Arkansas had a rough finish to their season, but they could have won other conferences. Also, why are people being so hard of Florida? Sure, they weren't what people are used to seeing, but they never lost by more than a touchdown. They should have beat Tennessee. LSU, Georgia, and Mississippi State were all games that could have easily gone the other way. Sometimes a solid team can just be caught by surprise. Just ask Arizona State.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
Hell, Utah played a tougher OOC schedule then Auburn:

Texas A&M
Arizona
Utah State
North Carolina
Yes, but you don't see 3 top 20 teams on their schedule. Not to mention having to play one twice. In fact, not even one.

Last edited by Justsomeguy; 12-07-2004 at 09:54 PM..
Justsomeguy is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 03:21 AM   #42 (permalink)
The GrandDaddy of them all!
 
The_Dude's Avatar
 
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
Hell, Utah played a tougher OOC schedule then Auburn:

Texas A&M
Arizona
Utah State
North Carolina
SEC was the best conference this year. if you go thru it undefeated, u should get in the mnc game. look at the sec.

auburn/lsu/georgia/florida/tennessee.

why does OU deserve mnc game? big xii south is the toughest division in the nation this year. ou/tx/tx-tech/aTm/oSu were all ranked at some point in the season.

pac10? cal/usc then who? i'd have loved to see ou/auburn,but ou/sc aint a bad matchup.

as for all the cinderalla non-bcs teams, .................... they dont deserve it one bit. utah beat aggy and that's it i wish utah got paired with auburn/tx/michigan so everyone could see once and for all how pathetic these teams are. we all know what happened to the horny toads last year :P
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal
The_Dude is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 05:20 PM   #43 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Dont worry about Utah. they'll get beat solidly by Pitt.

And as for Auburn's strength of schedule, they weren't supposed to be penalized for playing citadel...it wasn't there fault.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6632801/
Quote:
Auburn's life lesson?
Avoid I-AA teams
No. 3 Tigers likely to miss BCS title game because of weak schedule
Auburn and coach Tommy Tuberville, with little or no chance of playing for the BCS Championship, are probably wishing they hadn't played I-AA Citiadel now, writes NBCSports.com's Ray Melick.
COMMENTARY
By Ray Melick
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 4:03 a.m. ET Dec. 4, 2004

Blame it on Bowling Green.

That’s what Auburn fans will say, if the current BCS standings remain this way after Saturday’s conference championship games and the No. 3 Tigers are left standing on the outside looking in.

Blame it on Bowling Green, because the Falcons of the Mid-America Conference were scheduled to play Auburn this fall, but last spring asked out of the game against the Tigers to play — of all teams — Oklahoma.

Blame it on Bowling Green, because after the Falcons bought their way out of playing Auburn, it left the Tigers’ scrambling to find an available team, which turned out to be The Citadel.

So here we are, at the end of the season, with Auburn apparently boxed out of the national championship, just percentage points behind Oklahoma.

And why? For all the arguments for and against both the Tigers and Sooners, the underlying theme seems to always come back to strength of schedule.

Which brings us back to Bowling Green. The Falcons are 8-3, including the 40-24 loss to Oklahoma in the first game of the season. Auburn’s replacement, The Citadel, is a I-AA team with a 3-7 record, including the 33-3 loss to Auburn back in week four.

Take The Citadel out and put Bowling Green back on Auburn’s schedule, and the Tigers’ non-conference opponents’ schedule of Louisiana Monroe (5-6), Louisiana Tech (6-6) and Bowling Green (8-3) looks considerably better. Perhaps even better than Oklahoma’s non-conference schedule of Houston (3-8), Oregon (5-6) and the aforementioned Falcons.

Who knew that Bowling Green could be so important?
stevo is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 04:07 PM   #44 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: n hollywood, ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo22
Dont worry about Utah. they'll get beat solidly by Pitt.

And as for Auburn's strength of schedule, they weren't supposed to be penalized for playing citadel...it wasn't there fault.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6632801/
how can aubrun not be penalized for playing the citadel when teams set up their own out of conference schedule?!?!? the citadel's not even a division 1-a team!
uncle_el is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 04:08 PM   #45 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Richmond, VA
If you read the entire statement, it explained how Bowling Green opted out of a matchup with Auburn so Auburn had to find a team available to play and time was running out, so they had to play The Citadel.
Avail is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 06:09 PM   #46 (permalink)
Thank God hockey is back
 
lunchbox's Avatar
 
Location: Deeeeeetroit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avail
If you read the entire statement, it explained how Bowling Green opted out of a matchup with Auburn so Auburn had to find a team available to play and time was running out, so they had to play The Citadel.

I think it would be more fair to not blame auburn if we knew what the procedure of teams opting out of games. It doesn't seem logical to me that a team who is bound to playing another team can just say "oh sorry, we're not doing that anymore" seems to me the teams would have to agree or something to that effect in order for a team to opt out of a non-conference matchup. someone find out the rules and post them, then we'll decide who's fault it is. By the text alone, it sounds like Auburn allowed Bowling Green to buy their way out of the game, and if that's the case then its their own fault for not saying "no, eff you you're playing us."
__________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

-Douglas Adams
lunchbox is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 08:47 PM   #47 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Of course, they let BG out of the game, but they probably should have done some research first. They probably thought it wouldn't be that hard to find someone to play, but by then it was too late. I'm sure if they knew they had to play a 1-aa team they would never have agreed to let BG out of the game.
stevo is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 05:33 AM   #48 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunchbox
By the text alone, it sounds like Auburn allowed Bowling Green to buy their way out of the game, and if that's the case then its their own fault for not saying "no, eff you you're playing us."
This would be true if you were dealing with kids and kickball. Unfortunately, Universities can't act that way. Auburn probably could have found a more difficult opponent, however, I can recall several instances where this happened in the past 10 years.

By the way, didn't Auburn buy their way out of playing FSU a few years ago?
Justsomeguy is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 05:45 AM   #49 (permalink)
Thank God hockey is back
 
lunchbox's Avatar
 
Location: Deeeeeetroit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justsomeguy
This would be true if you were dealing with kids and kickball. Unfortunately, Universities can't act that way. Auburn probably could have found a more difficult opponent, however, I can recall several instances where this happened in the past 10 years.

By the way, didn't Auburn buy their way out of playing FSU a few years ago?

well I know it sounds ridiculous but if people are going to defend them with "its bowling green's fault" then i'm going to offend them with "its their own fault for letting them out of the game." I doubt it says anywhere that if a team wants out of a game you have to let them.
__________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

-Douglas Adams
lunchbox is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:30 AM   #50 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
I never said it was BG's fault, but you can't just go around saying Auburn should be punished for having a weak schedule and pointing out that they played citadel like they had scheduled it years in advance because they were too scared to play someone else. Believe me, they didn't want to play the citadel, they just got shafted.
stevo is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 02:38 PM   #51 (permalink)
Thank God hockey is back
 
lunchbox's Avatar
 
Location: Deeeeeetroit
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo22
I never said it was BG's fault, but you can't just go around saying Auburn should be punished for having a weak schedule and pointing out that they played citadel like they had scheduled it years in advance because they were too scared to play someone else. Believe me, they didn't want to play the citadel, they just got shafted.
and i'm just saying if they ALLOWED BG to opt out of the game by just paying them off, you can fault them.
__________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

-Douglas Adams
lunchbox is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 04:16 PM   #52 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunchbox
well I know it sounds ridiculous but if people are going to defend them with "its bowling green's fault" then i'm going to offend them with "its their own fault for letting them out of the game." I doubt it says anywhere that if a team wants out of a game you have to let them.
Fair enough. Remember though that there is alot of things in life that you really do not HAVE to do. However, if you do not do those things, there could be very bad results. I'm sure there is alot of politics involved in this situation that most of us probably will never know of nor care about.

However, I think the discussion is getting off on a tangent that most people already believe anyway. The problem is not with bowling green nor is it really with Auburn. The problem is with the NCAA. Of course, the media does not help a whole lot either.
Justsomeguy is offline  
Old 12-27-2004, 08:31 PM   #53 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Richmond, VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dude
we all know what happened to the horny toads last year :P
Yeah, they got beat by Boise State.
Avail is offline  
Old 12-29-2004, 05:42 PM   #54 (permalink)
Tilted
 
My Playoff Idea:
12 teams. 6 'major conferences champs' 6 'at large bids'
Commitee picks at larges. Utah and Boise St would have made it through a commitee with those undefeated seasons. This would also allow teams from the MAC and other mid-major conferences a chance.

Bracket: Seeds 1-4 get by-week the first week. 5-12 play normal bracket games. Winners from those 4 games play by-week teams. Winners from those play next game. Off Week. Those teams play for national championship.

Time frame: Start Thanks giving weekend. Play first three sets of games. Take time off over Christmas. Play championship game new years weekend.

TaDa, a true national champion.
mac03 is offline  
Old 12-29-2004, 07:30 PM   #55 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac03
My Playoff Idea:
12 teams. 6 'major conferences champs' 6 'at large bids'
Commitee picks at larges. Utah and Boise St would have made it through a commitee with those undefeated seasons. This would also allow teams from the MAC and other mid-major conferences a chance.

Bracket: Seeds 1-4 get by-week the first week. 5-12 play normal bracket games. Winners from those 4 games play by-week teams. Winners from those play next game. Off Week. Those teams play for national championship.

Time frame: Start Thanks giving weekend. Play first three sets of games. Take time off over Christmas. Play championship game new years weekend.

TaDa, a true national champion.
Who decides who the "major conferences" are?
__________________
"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
djtestudo is offline  
Old 01-03-2005, 04:40 PM   #56 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Salt Lake City
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Dont worry about Utah. they'll destroy Pitt.
Fixed that up for you.

Go Utes!
DewMan is offline  
Old 01-04-2005, 08:44 AM   #57 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMan
Fixed that up for you.

Go Utes!
Yeah. son of a bitch. that was one hell of a show. After seeing that performance I must say that I am impressed. That Utah has one hell of a football team.
stevo is offline  
Old 01-05-2005, 08:37 AM   #58 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
And with that USC pounding of OU there really isn't any doubt on who the national champions are.
stevo is offline  
Old 01-05-2005, 11:02 AM   #59 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
First off, Utah is going to get beat by Pitt. and Auburn-Utah?

As far as USC vs OU, I think the sooners have this one.

Good thing you nailed these predictions. Care to revise you stance on Auburn vrs Utah?
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-06-2005, 10:37 AM   #60 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Yeah....Auburn-Utah would have been a good game, but the Auburn-VT game was good as well. Utah should have played a top 10 team at least. I thought OU would put up a fight at least since USC struggled against teams earlier in the year. USC just came to play a championship game and OU didn't even show up. The sad part about all this is that this is the part of the year where we are farthest away from college football. I wish it were september again.
stevo is offline  
 

Tags
bcs


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360