# Roses and Sugar - Nat'l Champ Predictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 1, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161 "2004-01-01T20:43:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8797f3/32.png) [@The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Universe_Lashes_Out)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/61 "2004-01-03T20:45:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > \*\*And the year before that, when the BCS passed over Miami in favor of Florida State, a team Miami had already beaten. > > Miami lost only one game that whole year - to the Rose Bowl champion Washington Huskies - and clearly belonged in the championship game.\*\* Ah ha, more false impressions most likely rooted in media bias. Washington was more deserving than either FSU or Miami that year, but you NEVER heard them mentioned. They also only had one loss, and played a tougher schedule than either of the other teams. And for those that think head-to-head proves everything, they beat Miami, who beat FSU. The only fault with their resume was that they lost in the middle of the season (but so did FSU) instead of at the beginning like Miami. But ESPN loves Miami, not Washington, so that’s all you heard about. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8797f3/32.png) [@The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Universe_Lashes_Out)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/62 "2004-01-03T20:52:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BobT \* > \*\*Two years ago, BYU almost went undefeated. And when they were appearing on USC’s schedule then, the game looked like a good one. > > And who spoiled that perfect season for BYU? Hawaii. > > College football schedules are filled out years ahead of time. There’s not a lot of wiggle room to dump a team on short notice just because they’ve gone into the tank (as BYU did) \*\* TCU almost went undefeated this year, but I don’t think anyone would mistake them for a college football powerhouse when it comes to scheduling. Southern Miss spoiled their perfect season, but the same applies to them. Miami-Ohio almost went undefeated this year, but if you want a powerhouse you should still schedule the other Miami. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/63 "2004-01-03T20:56:53Z")
"And the year before that, when the BCS passed over Miami in favor of Florida State, a team Miami had already beaten. Miami lost only one game that whole year - to the Rose Bowl champion Washington Huskies - and clearly belonged in the championship game." The rest of Miami’s schedule that year, except for a few conference games, was filled with patsies. It’s likely that if they had played a stronger schedule, they might have had another loss. Maybe one benefit of the BCS is that we’re seeing more games like Miami/Tennessee, Auburn/USC, Arkansas/Texas, and so forth. We don’t know if these games would have been scheduled or not without the incentive of BCS rankings. The top two teams in the polls playing each other in the championship game is the BCS norm anyway. IIRC, this is only the third time it’s been otherwise. That’s a lot better percentage of 1 vs 2 matchups than existed before the BCS system was adopted. “Oh… and remember that Colorado, with two losses, was ahead of Oregon, with one loss, in the BCS.” That was as it should have been, if strength of schedule is to be a factor. After they played, if another BCS calculation had been run, Oregon would then have been ahead of Colorado. Do you suggest that when TCU was 10-0 this year, their BCS ranking should have been above USC, LSU, Michigan, all with one loss? Strength of schedule is either a worthy factor or it’s not. We can’t pick and choose when to use schedule strength and when to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8797f3/32.png) [@The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Universe_Lashes_Out)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/64 "2004-01-03T20:57:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Titan2 \* > \*\*Except in \*\* BobLibDem’s \*\* scenario all those games were played at the end of the season when your team supposedly should be at the top of your game barring injury,which none of those games had IIRC. Good example the LSU/Ga.title game.Absolute domination the 2nd time after a so so first win. > > Early season losses a lot of times are from poor motivation or the team’s not beginning to jell at the time.Takes time sometimes to be hitting on all cylinders. > > I think the bowl matchups (at least the BCS ones with the exception of Noles/Canes) shed light on “who’s the best”- \*\* right now \*\*,and that’s what I think it should be about in lieu of a “Superbowl” \*\* If you want who’s playing best right now, then sure, it should be LSU vs. USC. But the BCS is designed to match up the 2 best teams over the course of the season, and that’s what it’s done. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/65 "2004-01-03T21:21:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HowieReynolds \* > \*\*But the BCS is designed to match up the 2 best teams over the course of the season, and that’s what it’s done. \*\* No. The BCS was designed to make sure that there is a consensus national champion. In the past they got lucky when they overlooked the #2 team (and #2 and #3 one year) when the #1 team won the game. This year they (pretty much) assured a split championship. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/66 "2004-01-03T21:58:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Ah ha, more false impressions most likely rooted in media bias. Washington was more deserving than either FSU or Miami that year, but you NEVER heard them mentioned. If the BCS has chosen Washington, you would have a point. Personally, I thought they should have gone too. As it is, the BCS managed to pick the least deserving of the three teams. I am amazed at how little worth you give to head to head matchups. With identical records, a head to head matchup between the teams is the perfect tie breaker! It’s one thing to use strength of schedule… it’s quite another to make it more important than an actual game between the teams. > [@](#): > > That’s a lot better percentage of 1 vs 2 matchups than existed before the BCS system was adopted. Yeah, but its a lot worse than if we just had the #1 team play the #2 team every year. > [@](#): > > That was as it should have been, if strength of schedule is to be a factor. After they played, if another BCS calculation had been run, Oregon would then have been ahead of Colorado. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. And it is a perfect illustration of the failing of the BCS. The BCS put both Nebraska (who got blown out in their last game by Colorado) and Colorado (who had more losses than Oregon) ahead of Oregon. Oregon then annihilated Colorado **38 -16**. Oregon had a better record, and a better ranking in the polls. There is absolutely no way that strength of schedule should trump a better ranking, and a better record. The outcomes of the games prove it. Then again, as long as we are going to disregard head to head matchups, why not just disregard the outcomes of the games as well? Why not just declare a champion without playing any games, based only on whatever gibberish the computers spout out? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/67 "2004-01-04T03:30:51Z")
On the validity of the polls: Taken from today’s syndicated story by AP football writer Josh Dubow: “Some poll voters hope a split title will help lead to a more conclusive way of determining a champion. ‘I want to screw up the BCS’ said Scott Wolf of the Daily News in Los Angeles. ‘Hopefully this will force some change to the system. It exposed the shortcomings with a split championship. **If LSU had been left out, I’d vote them No. 1.** ’” (Bolding mine) So here we have one of the voters admitting in a national publication that he’s not concerned with voting for the best team. He’s using his vote to grind his own axe. Computers, properly programmed, won’t do that. How many others do similar things through the course of a season? That’s why there’s a place for a system that includes strength of schedule, computer rankings, AND polls. Maybe if every writer, every time, carefully evaluated the teams and cast honest votes the polls would be more valid. As we can see from the above, they don’t always vote ethically. ---
**Author:** ![stylize](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@stylize](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stylize)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/68 "2004-01-04T04:59:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe if every writer, every time, carefully evaluated the teams and cast honest votes the polls would be more valid. As we can see from the above, they don’t always vote ethically. As if the coaches poll, where they are contractually obligated to put the “BCS Title Game” champion as its number 1 instead of letting them choose who they think is the number one team in the country, is any better or “ethical.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2004, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/69 "2004-01-04T05:45:15Z")
Did I say the coaches poll was any better? The winner of the BCS championshjip game is the BCS champion. After the championship game, polls no longer have any bearing on that. Why they even publish a coaches poll after the game escapes me. So somebody can chant: “We’re number TWO”? ---
**Author:** ![51\_cent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/a88e57/32.png) [@51\_cent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/51_cent)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2004, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/70 "2004-01-04T07:45:37Z")
This will not ever happen in million years, BUT, I would make the Humanitarian Bowl in Boise Idaho the National Championship game. Play in snow and 20 degree weather. A late afternoon game when the sun goes down. A tough man contest! ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/71 "2004-01-05T08:45:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > **I’m almost positive that Oklahoma is going to destroy LSU.** :smack: 😉 😕 😉 😕 😉 ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/72 "2004-01-05T18:02:56Z")
Question for folks that thought LSU couldn’t hang with Oklahoma: Do feel that LSU is better than you thought? Or Oklahoma is worse than you thought? Or a little bit of both? … One thing I’ve noticed is that it seems the upper-level Big 12 teams have bit the dust pretty badly in the bowls. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/73 "2004-01-05T18:18:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bordelond \* > \*\*Question for folks that thought LSU couldn’t hang with Oklahoma: > > Do feel that LSU is better than you thought? Or Oklahoma is worse than you thought? Or a little bit of both? > > … > > One thing I’ve noticed is that it seems the upper-level Big 12 teams have bit the dust pretty badly in the bowls. \*\* I thought that LSU could hang with OU but I did think that OU would win. LSU looked a lot better (especially on defense) than I expected but that’s probably just because I hadn’t seen them play. I did see most of OU’s games this year and I can tell you that the team that played their last 2 games was completely different than the team that played the rest of the year. I’m not sure what the difference was. IMO it wasn’t just the competition. The only thing that comes to mind is poor preparation. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/74 "2004-01-05T18:21:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bordelond \* > \*\* > Do feel that LSU is better than you thought? Or Oklahoma is worse than you thought? Or a little bit of both? > \*\* Not sure about all that, but after watching them both in action, I feel pretty confident USC would have absoultly creamed either of them. It would have been embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/75 "2004-01-05T18:36:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gatopescado \* > \*\*Not sure about all that, but after watching them both in action, I feel pretty confident USC would have absoultly creamed either of them. It would have been embarrassing. \*\* \ Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. But I can’t fathom any NCAA team embarrassing LSU. YMMV. Come to think of it … USC didn’t embarrass Michigan. I know the game wasn’t as close as the score indicated – but _somebody_ stopped USC from hanging up 40+ points. Plus, one of USC’s TDs resulted from a fluke INT (off of a player’s foot as he was running in stride). ---
**Author:** ![Murcielago](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Murcielago](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Murcielago)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/76 "2004-01-05T21:05:37Z")
As you might expect, there is already talk about [some changes](http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_BCS_FUTURE?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) coming from inside the BCS membership. ## Unfortunately a playoff system is still off the table. From the article: As for a playoff: No chance. [Big East commissioner] Tranghese said college presidents won’t allow BCS leaders to even discuss it - even though a playoff would likely generate more revenue than the current 28-bowl system. ## “If we could blow up the bowls and have a full-blown playoff system, just see how much money we could make,” he said. “But it’s not about money. It’s about providing a lot of kids with a chance to play in a bowl.” Mm-kay, good thing they are so concerned about the “kids” (especially those who are 22-25 years old). ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/77 "2004-01-06T01:18:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bordelond \* > \*\*:smack: > > 😉 😕 😉 😕 😉 \*\* Whoops. So, want to hear my Super Bowl picks? I’ll vote for Oklahoma being a lot worse than I thought. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/78 "2004-01-06T01:27:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gatopescado \* > \*\*Not sure about all that, but after watching them both in action, I feel pretty confident USC would have absoultly creamed either of them. It would have been embarrassing. \*\* C’mon, **catfish**! What ya’ tryin’ to do? Stir up the waters a bit? If USC vs LSU came to pass, it would be something on the order of 17-13, 17-14 you pick 'em. Each team’s defense is too good for there to be any embarrassment. USC couldn’t embarrass Michigan, a team that is now a three time loser. What makes you think they’d do better against LSU? Michigan’s from a stronger conference? I think not. Big Ten in bowls, 3-5. SEC in bowls, 5-2. I _would_ pay good money to see the game, if they played. ---
**Author:** ![Squonk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squonk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squonk)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/79 "2004-01-06T05:21:47Z")
I meant to post this earlier, but didn’t have a chance. Re: computers and bowl games… Saturday’s Foxtrot ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161/80 "2004-01-06T06:06:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Do feel that LSU is better than you thought? Or Oklahoma is worse than you thought? Or a little bit of both? Oklahoma was worse than I thought. I expected LSU to win. All of Oklahoma’s “quality” opponents this year lost their bowl games. The whole conference was overrated. But what I didn’t expect was for Oklahoma to look so sloppy and bad. LSU didn’t look so great themselves. Their offense played poorly, and their quarterback looked bad. They looked like they were out of energy by the second half. At times it was almost a comedy of errors, and I wondered which team would give away the game first. A very debateable call saved LSU from giving up the ball on a fumble near their own end zone, which would have given OU a chance to tie. They couldn’t even run the clock out correctly. Overall, I don’t feel we saw LSU play to their potential. But I think USC would beat them by 10 to 14 points. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roses-and-sugar-natl-champ-predictions/222161.md?page=3)