Well, now I’m cheering for LSU. I’m glad Michigan will be in the Rose Bowl, but now I’ve learned that if USC goes to the Sugar the SEC champ will be in the Rose Bowl? That’s BS. LSU better win and knock USC down on strength of schedule so we can have a classic Rose Bowl matchup.
USC vs. Michigan. Very old school. Very nice.
Screw that. As an 'SC fan, I’d much rather have another national championship than another Rose Bowl title. Plus, the Rose Bowl wasn’t always a PAC 10 vs BIG 11 thing.
Fair enough, but frankly, I don’t care one way or the other about USC. I just want the traditional Rose Bowl matchup as that’s the only Bowl game I care about. I don’t give a hoot about the national championship and probably won’t watch it. I will watch the Rose Bowl like I do every New Years Day and have done for the past 23 years. And I want my Pac 10 vs. Big 10 matchup.
So I shall be cheering for LSU in the coming week and then not caring about them or Oklahoma.
How about cheering for WSU then? If they could qualify for an at large BCS bid then maybe they could play against Michigan in the Rose Bowl, and USC could go on to end OU’s perfect season.
The University of Spoiled Children has only come to Ann Arbor once, back in the late 1950s.
I want them to have to play Michigan in the Big House on the corner of Stadium and Main in Ann Arbor.
In December or early January.
With the temperature at zero degrees.
In a snowstorm.
Um, WSU has no more games. They’re out of the BCS picture. Ranked 15th with three losses and no way to improve either their strength of schedule or their poll ratins? They’ll be in sunny San Diego playing in the Holiday Bowl against Nebraska or Texas.
LSU gets penalized for playing a fifth-ranked team (Georgia) twice. The benefits of defeating the team earlier this year is negated.
Exactly, capacitator. If LSU beats Georgia for the SEC championship, it will most likely knock Georgia out of the top 10 and thus take away LSU’s bonus for quality wins over Georgia.
Isn’t that somewhere in the neighborhood of the worst possible thing that can happen to a team (BCS-wise)? You get screwed no matter the outcome if you’re LSU.
Of course, I could be wrong and Georgia might not fall out of the top 10 and LSU would get a larger bonus…
You can only get one quality win bonus for each opponent. If you beat the same team twice, you get only one credit.
Well, it looks official. USC has gotten screwed. Sure, the idea sounded good, lets have the number 1 and number 2 teams in the country play for the national title. In theory it is a very good idea. Of course, in theory, communism was a good idea.
A team that loses in December should have that count more heavily than a team that loses in September. Also, shouldn’t a team have to win its conference for a shot at the national title?
Everyone is whining about the BCS being screwed, but here’s the Straight Dope:
The polls are wrong.
All the polls do is measure who has the longest winning streak. USC lost on September 27, LSU on October 11. If you want to argue that two weeks is a long time, be my guest, but that’s pretty foolish.
Oklahoma lost to Kansas State. Kansas State is a good team.
LSU lost to Florida. Florida is a good team.
USC lost to Cal. Cal is NOT a good team.
Oklahoma plays in the Big 12. The Big 12 is a difficult conference.
LSU plays in the SEC. The SEC is a difficult conference.
USC plays in the Pac-10. The Pac-10 was a frickin’ CAKEWALK this year.
I have a little bit of respect for those who say that Oklahoma should be excluded from the title game, because they lost BIG. But those who say that LSU should have been excluded from the Sugar Bowl are crazy.
P.S. Full disclosure – Buckeye fan, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight.
No, USC has not gotten screwed. The rules for the BCS were set out before the season started. USC screwed themselves by playing a weaker schedule than OU and LSU. I don’t understand the incredible whining coming from Pete Carroll. Yes, you are #1 in a single component of the BCS formula. That’s not enough. Maybe you (Pete) should look at the overall picture. This, “well, we’re really #1 and will win the national champion if we beat Michigan” drivel doesn’t hold any weight.
Full disclosure - Graduate of the University of Oklahoma.
Why should a later loss count more heavily than an earlier one? Do you know of any other sport where the timing of a regular season victory is relevant? I know of no conference that considers the date that a win or loss occurs relevant when considering breaking a tie. Why is this different?
Should a team have to win its conference to be eligible for a national title? Maybe, but it’s not in the formula. Should every conference have to have a championship game? Maybe, but it’s not in the formula. I know of no other collegiate sport that requires a conference championship to be eligible for a national championship. There may be some, I’m just not aware of any. The major sports don’t require it.
That is, indeed, the bottom line. It’s not like the rules changed midseason. We have three teams with one loss. One of those teams had an easier schedule that the other two. Too bad, so sad.
It’s good for the nonpartisan college football fan. There will be two great games to watch. I bet Michegan beats 'SC anyway. That’ll put an end to the fucking whining finally. That would be the exact game that would be played without the BCS by the way so what’s the difference?
Haj
Tell you this KRM. When LSU mauls Oklahoma in the Sugar, and USC wins the Rose Bowl, the BCS will be totally revamped.
Well, I got the Bowl matchup I wanted. A USC vs. Michigan Rose Bowl. Viva la BCS!
I don’t doubt it at all. As long as they set the rules before the season begins, I’ll have no problem with it.
BTW, do board rules say anything about placing wagers? I’d take that LSU/OU bet. Of course, I would have lost last night too. :mad:
I’m on record in other threads as hating the BCS, but at a minimum here is what I see needing changes:[list=1]
[li]Consider margin of victory again – the problem with the first BCS calculation was that it considered margin of victory but there was no cap, thus teams had to run up the score against their weaker opponents. No one liked that. The fix is to give credit for margin of victory up to 21 points. Teams that win convincingly should be rated higher than teams that just barely get by, (Ohio State comes to mind). If team A beats B by 21 and team C beats B by 1, doesn’t that say something about A vs. C? I think it does. [/li][li]Fix the way they calculate strength of schedule – Right now the formulas only look at the record of the teams on your schedule, not who those teams have played. [/li][li]Drop some of these computer polls, or force them to reveal how they calculate their rankings – One of the BCS polls right now has Miami (OH) at #3. I defy the BCS to find a single living person who believes Miami Ohio is the third best team in the nation. Any poll that is spitting out numbers like that needs to go.[/li][/list=1]
Well. it was an overtime loss. Not all that long ago, it would’ve been called a tie and USC would be undefeated. One of the problems of with th BCS is to treat all losses as equal. A loss in a stupid tiebreaker shouldn’t count against a team as much as a blowout loss does. And losing the margin of victory component was an incredibly stupid thing to do. What moron decided that?
Still, the BCS is better that the way things used to be. Playoff, of course, would be better.
KRM:
This is a completely nonsensical statement.
Hint: The schedules are picked before the season starts. Nobody knows how “difficult” their schedule will turn out to be until the season is over.
The fact is that USC scheduled what was expected to be a tougher schedule than LSU. They tried their hardest to get a tough schedule.
Unfortunately for them, the teams that were expected to be good (Notre Dame, Auburn, Hawaii, Arizona State, Washington, Washington State) ended up losing more games than expected.
And yet, even despite this misfortune, USC still had a better strength of schedule than LSU until the last game of the season.
So no, USC did not “screw themselves” by playing a weak schedule. They got screwed when the teams that they scheduled in the hopes of having a very tough schedule lost more games than expected, which, of course, is completely out of USC’s control. And LSU still only overtook them (if you can call it that, since neither team had any control over it) in strength of schedule in the very last week.
This is not to say I don’t think LSU deserves to go to the title game.
LSU should be playing USC for the title. Yes, that is unfair to OU.
But the current system will almost always be unfair to someone, and if it has to be unfair, then it should leave out the team that got blown out in their last game and failed to win their own conference.