| |
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
|
|
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 9, 2007
|
|
TALL --
You know I love my Trojans, but I am going to give it to you on this one. LSU was more deserving than my boys (although a lot of other teams I think could have beat OSU that night), but I still think it should have been OU because of their last game and how they utterly defeated the #1 team in the nation. But, LSU showed what it was capable of and destroyed OSU. Interestingly, with a less body of work WVU could have got in and I am not sure if anyone would be happy with OSU vs WVU. That is why we need that blessed playoff.
Thinking back to 2003...
If let's say USC did play OU and LSU played Michigan and both USC and LSU won... would their have been a split title that way? I don't think so.
Peace.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
RC,
The BCS was designed to determine and match the #1 and #2 team in the BCS NC game, as per the FORMULA. I am sorry that you feel that it failed in 03, but that is far from accurate. It worked. The outcome may not have been what you or USC desired, but that does not mean that it did not match the #1 and #2 teams, AS PER THE FORMULA. It did.
It has done so in each of the 10 years it has been in existence. The outcome has not always been what we want or think is the best match-up, but it has always given us #1 vs. #2. Changes have been made over the years as the outcomes of that arithmetic has been less than desirable. Most notably were the years when NEB and OU made it and did not even win their conference.
Today, the formula has boiled down to the voters with the line share of power in the formula, 2/3rds and the computers 1/3. With the voters in that position, we have already seen the effects of that enhanced position. In the last 2 years, we have seen non-conference champs left out of the game. MICH, KAN and UGA have all been shunned for conference champs. Last year saw LSU get the nod over VA TECH, even though the computers had VA TECH #1. Looks like the winner of the head to head game will get the nod. No more FLA ST's going ahead of MIA.
Think what you want about the BCS, but its mission of giving us #1 vs. #2 was and still is an admirable one. I doubt there would be many MICH or NEB fans pass up the chance to see those 2 teams square off in 97 vs. sharing the NC. Without the changes that the BCS brought about, the past 2 years would have seen the OSU in the Rose Bowl and FLA and LSU in the Sugar. I, for one am glad that did not happen.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
|
SECFan, even despite your rampant homerism you usually repond more intelligently than that.
"USC was not good enough to even make the game"
Really? If I recall correctly USC was ranked #1 in BOTH polls at the end of the season. The fact that the computers left them out of the national title game was utterly ridiculous, and is the reason why the rules were changed after that year.
Is that not an accurate statement? Did USC NOT make the BCS NC game and finished 3rd when the formula was applied and the arithmetic computed? The bottom line is that the polls were but a fraction of the overall formula, and the powers that be set it up that way because of the very flaws inherent in the polls over the years. It is not by accident that the year before the BCS went into effect the writers and coaches gave us split NCs. They wanted more than just to have voters decide the outcome, especially when the voters could not even agree.
Every conference and every team signed on to the formula and like it or not, given the computers, SOS, and quality win component, even with a head start of being #1 in both polls USC was unable to hold that position or the #2 position and finished #3. Dont blame the formula for the outcome it gave us that year. It worked. USC was not good enough to make the BCS NC game as PER THE FORMULA, as it took more than just being ranked #1 in the polls to get there. Sorry.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
but I still think it should have been OU because of their last game and how they utterly defeated the #1 team in the nation.
Just another in a long line of inconsistencies RC? Why is OU beating MO in a rematch of a regular season game, worthy of a BCS NC game berth?
Do we need to go back and copy all your posts where you discount and dismiss SEC teams that have rematches in the SEC CG? No, I didnt think so.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 22, 2007
|
|
If let's say USC did play OU and LSU played Michigan and both USC and LSU won... would their have been a split title that way? I don't think so.
Geez....... for the same reason that the AP voted for USC....because of "stage presence", because they are more beautiful under the lights and on the red carpet, because they know Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Brittney Spears!!
Thanks goodness our football team is just better, because we will never get any love if it comes down to the vote between the glitz and glamour of Hollywood and the family values of Baton Rouge? Dont you get it, just being in LA is worth 3-5 spots in the polls as proved by the fact thay are up there again this year but lost a myriad of players.
Everybody has 5 stars HS Studs without expereince making them...."an unknown commodity", but USC unknown five stars get the benefit of the doubt.
Put it this way, if they are really so much more talented then why have they only garnered on NC in the last 30 years? ONE.
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Only 31 of 60 coaches had LSU/OSU 1 and 2
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 26, 2007
|
|
