I haven’t seen a thread yet, so with the Grandaddy of 'Em All about to begin in an hour or so, let’s get with the predictions.
Michigan edges USC in the Rose. Close game. But USC has been beating nobodies all season and Michigan is a damn good team. Plus, the BCS has a tendency to be saved by fortuitous events.
Oklahoma annihilates LSU. They absolutely destroyed every team except KSU in a trap game looking ahead to the Sugar. Don’t look for them to make that same mistake against LSU. Oklahoma ends up with a united national title.
I was watching prebowlgamestuff this morning, and Terry Bowden (?) was saying that part of the BCS agreement with NCAA programs is that coaches HAVE TO vote the BCS winer as number one and that the coaches will indeed do so.
So, you will will have it 3 for 3 or maybe 2 for 3, if you count the BCS and each poll as separate.
But, the two old polls are figured into the BCS standings, so the BCS winner trumps both of the old polls. A rework is in order again, I fear.
No, there is no other BCS poll. The BCS is only used to determine the two teams in the national championship game. There is still only two polls - the coaches and the writers. The coaches are contractually bound to vote the winner of the national championship game #1 - but they can vote USC #2, rather than the loser of the Sugar if they like. The writers can pick whoever they want, of course.
And, it’s looking like I made a mistake on my Rose prediction as USC is absolutely manhandling Michigan in a way not reflected in the score. Hey, Michigan, care to get an offensive line?
I can’t believe people actually thought that Michigan could beat USC before the game started. Oregon, a mediocre team in the Pac-10, beat Michigan. And USC is much better than Oregon. If you had followed the Pac-10, like I have all season, you would have foreseen the way the Rose Bowl is going.
As for the Sugar, I predict LSU will win. They were rolling at the end of the year and Oklahoma choked in the last game of the season. LSU in a squeaker.
ftr, I didn’t call it BCS poll. It’s the BCS standings. And the two polls do indeed figure in as part of the BCS formula.
USC seems to handling Michigan rather well. If LSU wins, I vote to scrap BCS and start all over with a totally different system. I’m not smart enough to come up with any ideas, though…
And USC lost to Cal. Big deal. Michigan was on a big roll and were trouncing quality opponents like Purdue and Ohio State, rather than patsies like UCLA (who were whipped by a WAC team!) and Oregon State.
I’m aware that they do figure in as part of the BCS formula, but they don’t run the computers again after they’ve figured the #1 and #2 standings, there isn’t really a BCS championship. The BCS championship is the coaches’ poll. So there’s no 2 out of 3 or whatnot. Just 2 polls to determine the national championship - the coaches and the writers.
Well, USC totally outclassed Michigan, so there is no doubt that they’ll win their half of the split MNC.
It’s kind of a shame - not that LSU and OU don’t deserve to play each other - but I’d lay odds on USC beating either of them, and somewhat handily, to be honest.
And the trophy awarded at the end of that game is the Coaches’ poll trophy. And that’s the only trophy awarded at the end of that game. That should tell you something.
The BCS game determines the #1 ranked team in the Coaches’ Poll. There is no BCS Champion apart from the Coaches’ Poll champion.
It is not the poll that makes them BCS champion, it is winning the championship game that makes them champions. The poll is inconsequential to the game itself.
I have to wonder why so many people have so little respect for USC. They finished 3rd last year and returned a lot of starters. They didn’t, and generally never do schedule ‘soft’ teams. Remember, Auburn was ranked #5 when USC beat them in the opening game. Also, WSU was ranked 5 or 6 when USC beat them, and of course Wazoo seriously outplayed Texas a couple of days ago.
So many people said that USC couldn’t beat Michigan and they would be the best team that they had seen all year. Well they were, but turns out that USC happened to be the best team that Michigan had played. As such the Trojans will get a share of the national title and they have earned it.
As far as the BCS goes, this year was exactly the scenario that the BCS was supposed to avoid. Hopefully, the system will face either a major overhaul or even the scrap heap. They dodged one bullit when TCU finally lost, but they couldn’t dodge the fact that the #1 team wasn’t in their big game.
Just out of curiosity, what was the glitch this year? Because the championship game should’ve been between USC and OU (imho). I thought that was how it was going to turn out, even with the Big XII CG loss.
I really expected to see OU #2 and playing #1 USC. Then, whoever won wouldn’t have had any Bush/Gore type of problems.
I’m not convinced Keith Jackson, in his advanced age, actually realizes that there’s college football teams not in the Big Ten or Pac Ten. And I’m sick of people dismissing the computers. It’s nice to have something that objectively ranks teams, especially after a season of hearing the ESPN/ABC/Disney employees sucking up to the L.A. market by telling us USC is “clearly” better than LSU or Oklahoma.
USC can claim a national championship if they want, hell, Alabama seems to do it every other year. But the reason they aren’t playing in the national championship game is their relatively weak schedule. This schedule is only further weakened by playing Michigan instead of one of the MNC contenders. Sure, the system sucks, but the system sucked when Penn State when undefeated in 94, and you don’t hear them crying about it. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a team be “national champions” if there’s more than one of them.
But I hope this leads to a playoff. I’m sure it won’t, as long as the powers that be can make money off us this way, but it’s nice to dream.
Yeah, but Auburn was ranked that high based on pre-season hype before they had played a game. Auburn turned out to be seriously overrated. And USC did have a relatively soft schedule, through no fault of their own.
It’s not that I didn’t have respect for USC, I know they’re one of the three best teams in the country. However, their one loss was after a layoff, so I wasn’t sure if the break would affect their timing attack. Plus, Michigan was coming off a major roll which factored into it. Had it been with three games left in the season, no way I would have picked Michigan to even touch USC.
The BCS disagreed ;). OU had a tougher schedule and just edged out USC, IIRC. Oh, and if Notre Dame had beaten Syracuse, then USC would have in New Orleans.
LSU was #1 in the BCS no matter what.
The important part is the ‘no fault of their own’, as you indicated. They did TRY to schedule the tough teams. I don’t think they should be penalized because those teams underperformed.
I’m so happy that USC won and they’ll be ranked number one in the AP poll. Anything that tarnishes the BCS is fine by me. Why is the NCAA is so set against a playoff in Division I?
And this dragging the bowl games well past January 1 is getting ridiculous. I am so looking forward to the Humanitarian Bowl on Saturday. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ISiddiqui *
**The BCS disagreed ;). OU had a tougher schedule and just edged out USC, IIRC. Oh, and if Notre Dame had beaten Syracuse, then USC would have in New Orleans.
LSU was #1 in the BCS no matter what.
[quote]
**
No, it was OU that was #1 no matter what and LSU that just nosed in.
Well, the problem is you have three teams with 1 loss. You have two spots. The only really fair way is to take the two teams with the harder schedules.
The other thing is that both LSU and OU played more games than USC. So both of them have a better win-loss record, which should also be a factor, I think.