The title game has no bearing on the AP Poll. Only the Coaches.
They're supposed to take the entire season into account. Who had a better resume than USC? The ****** media even thought USC was the best team, but they never vote that way.
Not to mention that all 3 of the games we played against top 10 teams were blowouts.
Last edited by Lord Evolution on Jan 9th, 2009 at 08:30 AM
Glad to see Oregon State got some props after that big 3-0 Wind Bowl win over Pitt. And I'm only being half-sarcastic, because Pitt was actually hot (now "hot" for Pitt is considered a winning streak of over one game).
Hats off to Florida, the only team in college football history to WIN consecutive #1 vs. #2 matchups. The opportunity has only presented itself 3 times in history. One time in like the '40's, one when Ohio State beat Michigan and lost to Florida in '06, and this year.
One other thing: I was listening to 2 sport talk shows this morning. One was Mike & Mike and the other was local. Their entire coverage was around the BCS title game, and NONE of it had anything to do with what went on the field. It was all BCS system arguments. Then, I turned to G-105 when I lost the signals (I have an hour drive). G-105 is like a rude crew non-sports show. They were actually dissecting Tebow's jump pass!
And speaking of radio shows, who was the color guy for Fox's broadcast last night? He had some good points (the play-by-play guy was clueless - he was getting all geeked about OU "going for it on 4th down" in the second quarter when it was actually 3rd down), but with his quirky comments, he seemed more like a radio sports talk show goof.
__________________
Last edited by botankus on Jan 9th, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Our beat writer is the world's biggest ass. He is never going to give us a 1st place vote. I don't know where it came from, but pigs will fly and President's will cry on the day that Scott Wolf votes USC #1.
The title game doesnt force them to vote one way but it absolutely has bearing. The voters are going to look at the entire season but they are going to look heavily at who won that game.
Also you like USC's resume but look at the loss. Their loss is considerably worse than Florida's is. Mississippi was a good team (they beat a top 5, top 10, and top 20 team) and played 2 other ranked teams very tight. Florida had no shame in that loss (which was also only 1 point)
USC did not lose to anywhere near the same quality of opponent.
Also actually now that I look at it closer, Florida's wins were more impressive also.
I actually think theres a good chance USC is the best team in the county. But if I had to vote on this season Florida gets the vote. Personally I wish Florida would play texas (1vs4) usc would play utah(2vs3) then the winners play and no one can complain.
__________________
Last edited by forumcrew on Jan 9th, 2009 at 03:41 PM
Can you please tell me how losing at home to the #14th ranked team is better than losing away to the #18th ranked team who was in position to win the Pac-10 in the last week of the season?
Ole Miss and Oregon State are pretty equal in my eyes. OSU may even be better. Last I checked, Oregon State beat two ranked teams, played 4 teams in the top 10, including two teams in the top 3, and they nearly beat #2 Utah. So they beat #3 USC and went down the wire with #2 Utah.
Considerably worse loss my ass. The media would have you think that way. The way they just wrote off the Florida loss to Ole Miss, and how they held the USC loss to Oregon State against us the entire season.
The big difference between losses is that Florida lost at home.
Or does losing on your own field not matter to anyone anymore?
Last edited by Lord Evolution on Jan 9th, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Actually if you read the entire post with an open mind rather than just thinking "he's anti-USC" the entire time, you would see that I said I think USC is likely the best team in college football.
But to clarify the details here we go:
Oregon St. state beat:
#20 Pitt 3-0
#1 USC 27-21
Their other ranked opponents they played Utah tight but lost and then got killed twice:
#19 PSU won 45-14
#23 Oregon won 65-38
Ole Miss beat:
#4 Florida 31-30
#18 LSU 31-13
#7 Texas Tech. 47-34
Their other 2 ranked opponents they played well but lost to:
#20 Wake 30-28
#2 Alabama 24-20
You cant look at that and say that Ole Miss doesnt have a MUCH more impressive resume than Oregon State did.
And then to bring it back to Florida they DESTROYED teams ranked #4, #6, #25, #20 and then beat #1 TWICE.
USC beat #5, 23, 21, 8
So again I think theres a good chance USC is the better team. However Florida had the more impressive season.
__________________
Last edited by forumcrew on Jan 9th, 2009 at 05:14 PM
I hate the whole, "well, Team A beat Team B who beat Team C, etc...." thing, but since this seems to be the backbone of this argument, can I add that Ole Miss trounced a Texas Tech team that beat Texas while Oregon State's lucky handle on a bad snap was the difference in a 3-0 win over a Pitt team that not only lost to Bowling Green but would be blown to Jupiter by Texas Tech if they played each other.
I read that part. But I'm just saying, the media wrote off the Florida loss and guys like Doug Flutie kept bringing up Oregon State in relation to our chances of making the game over Florida or Oklahoma. Saying that if you lose to Oregon State, you don't deserve to go, or if you lose a game, you don't deserve to go, ignoring the fact that both Oklahoma and Florida had losses and that Florida lost to Ole Miss at home. That shaped people's perception. Not even mentioning Ole Miss, but constantly bringing up Oregon State was just plain wrong.
Everyone I argue with somehow thinks Florida's loss was better than ours. Take one look at Oregon State's schedule, and you'll be amazed they even won 9 games this season.
There's no doubt both losses were bad, but if I had to choose, I'd say Florida's 3rd quarter meltdown and blocked PAT at the end was a "better loss" than USC getting completely bullied and manhandled right out of the gates by the Beavers.
Oregon State played Penn State at the beginning of the season, as a matter of fact, the first game of the season, if you look back at recent years, they usually start off bad and get hot late in the season. It would have been a much more competitive game had they played Penn State at the end of the season.
So lets review.
Oregon State played #10 Oregon, #2 Utah, #3 USC, #20 Pitt and #9 Penn State.
That is an impressive schedule.
Ole Miss played #1 Florida, #6 Alabama and #12 Texas Tech
BUT, lets looks at their OOC schedule
Louisiana-Monroe, Samford, Memphis...COME ON!
So Oregon State and Ole Miss had the same amount of wins. Oregon State clearly had the better overall schedule and played more ranked teams. Just better competition on OSU's schedule. They don't pad their shit with teams like Samford or Louisiana-Monroe.
How on Earth is this the backbone of the argument?
I didn't realize losing by 6 and having the game come down to the wire was "getting completely bullied and manhandled". Did you turn the game off at halftime? You know better than that. Did you know USC pretty much shut OSU out in the second half of that game? If it weren't for a Sanchez pick that was returned to the 1 yard line, Oregon State would have had a big fat goose egg on the board, much like we did in the first half. Spare me, that game was played as even as the Florida game. Funny thing is, if it were in the Coliseum, there is no doubt in my mind we would have won that game. You see, we don't play well in Corvallis, we value home games, but we don't go out of our way to schedule 8 in a single season like the SEC.
No matter how you slice it, losing by 1 at home, is worse than losing by 6 on the road. Losing at home is worst period.
There is a reason why the team at home is given the advantage.
Just because Oregon State does not start playing well until later in the year you can't just dismiss a blowout. It does not matter when the game was played, they were blownout, plain and simple. Plus, it says a lot about a team if they can't play well in the beginning of the season.
I'm not gonna debate whether Florida or USC should be #1, because I don't watch enough College Football to do so, but you can't just say "Oh, don't count that Penn State-Oregon State Game, Oregon State usually starts the season cold so the score doesn't matter" That is a terrible reason.
But just looking at the Resumes:
Ole Miss > Oregon State.
Florida > USC
Re-read my post. Oregon State did NOT play more ranked teams. They both played 5 ranked teams. Oregon won 2 vs ranked teams, had 1 good one they lost and got DESTROYED twice. And one was very late in the year when you claim they are super hot.
Ole Miss also played 5 ranked teams and they beat THREE of them. THats 3 ranked wins vs 2 ranked wins. And the 2 losses they were VERY tight games, as in under 1 score.
Ole Miss is definitely superior to Oregon st this year. But even if we call them even Florida still has a more impress resume so USC still doesnt deserve higher than #3.
Ole Miss played 3 ranked teams, not 5. And they had 2 wins.
Oregon State played 5 ranked teams and had 2 wins. Oregon State also played better teams this season. They did not have a D-1AA team on their schedule, Ole Miss had one and they even threw a 2 mid majors in there. That's 3 automatic wins. See this is why teams can get away scheduling these kind of teams, because people like you who want to turn a blind eye to it. If you are going to sit here and tell me that Ole Miss had the better schedule, despite playing 2 mid major and 1 D-1AA team, and playing less ranked teams, then you're just lost. Having Louisiana-Monroe on your schedule is inexcusable, as is Samford and Memphis. I didn't think it was possible for a team in the SEC to playing a worse OOC schedule than LSU, I think we have just found that team.
So Oregon State, despite playing 4 teams ranked in the top 10, and no D-1AA/Mid-major opponents, has the worst schedule. Lets just assume that statement was made by a sane person and holds a bit of value.
.....OK I'm drawing a blank here. The statement remains ridiculous.
So Oregon State played better competition and came out with the same number of wins/losses. I give them the edge over Ole Miss. Add that to fact that Florida lost at home versus USC losing on the road, it's pretty easy to come tot he conclusion that USC's lost was better.
So lets looks at overall resume's for USC and Florida.
USC played and beat
#8 Penn State
#9 Ohio State
#10 Oregon
All blowouts
Florida played and beat
#13 Georgia
#6 Alabama
#5 Oklahoma
#21 Florida State
With Georgia and Florida State being the blowouts.
USC was beaten by
#18 Oregon State
on the road
Florida was beaten by
#14 Ole Miss
at home
Seems pretty even to me....until you notice that one little gem on Florida's schedule....
The Citadel Community College.
Seems crazy to me that you can get away with playing The Citadel. Teams should be disqualified from any National Championship race if they pad their schedule with FCS opponents.
Florida won the BCS Championship game, it would have been fitting if there was a split this season. How can there not be? You have Utah who is undefeated. You have USC who most feel is the best team in the country and you have Texas, who should have been in the Championship game over Oklahoma. Yet Florida is somehow #1 in all polls. Just seems ridiculously to me.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 9th, 2009 07:06 AM
