Congrats to LSU in the AP Poll

[BamaDoc77]

In case Cajuns dont party enough.

[jloutlaw]

Originally Posted by BamaDoc77

<Pinching myself as I say it...it hurts to say>
"Congrats"

What he said and good luck this weekend. As a Bama fan I hate to admit it, but I'll be pulling for LSU.

[Beer Doctor]

Congrats to the BIG TEN. Even after stinking it up early they still have two top five teams. GO [SIZE=7]BADGERS[/SIZE]

[The Korean]

Originally Posted by jloutlaw

What he said and good luck this weekend. As a Bama fan I hate to admit it, but I'll be pulling for LSU.

Just so you don't feel bad pulling for LSU, this weekend, I pulled for Bama, I hate FSU and Bowden even more, if it an SEC team against another conference I'll always pull for the SEC.

[preludese111]

Originally Posted by Beer Doctor

Congrats to the BIG TEN. Even after stinking it up early they still have two top five teams. GO [SIZE=7]BADGERS[/SIZE]

I've been pulling for Wisconsin, but I don't see any Big Ten teams doing much against other top 10 teams, unfortunately. This seems to be an off year or two for the Big Ten.

[jdbwolverines]

Can someone please tell me how Florida can loose at home to an unranked team and only drop to #9 in the AP and #7 in the Coach's poll??? All the while other teams loose on the road to team better than Auburn and drop many more places. Sure the SEC is good, but this is taking the bias a little far isn't it?

[preludese111]

Well, the thing is, Auburn isn't that bad(not saying they're any good), and Oklahoma lost to Colorado, and they're still ranked higher than a ton of teams who should be much higher. Also, Auburn-FLA seems to be a bit of a heated match, so anything can happen. I'm not saying it's right, but there are worse cases out there than that. How did SoCal stay in the top ten last year after losing to two unranked teams? Politics. That's the only logical answer, since better teams with better seasons were left behind them in the rankings.
When questioning the polls, you have to keep one thing in mind: they mean nothing and are inaccurate, almost all the time. It is quite political and preseason rankings hold way too much weight on the rest of the season. The polls are stupid, and it will all get worked out when everyone plays who they need to play.
BTW, when seeing OSU so high, I have to laugh inside b/c it's a joke. They're not as good as last year and they weren't too great last year and they play nobody this year, which brings up another point: teams like that get courtesy rankings. If OSU were matched up w/ half the teams in the top 25, I doubt you'd be seeing the ESPN analysts picking them to win much. That's my 2 cents. Moral of the story, don't put too much worry into the polls. It'll work out when games are played.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by preludese111

Well, the thing is, Auburn isn't that bad(not saying they're any good), and Oklahoma lost to Colorado, and they're still ranked higher than a ton of teams who should be much higher. Also, Auburn-FLA seems to be a bit of a heated match, so anything can happen. I'm not saying it's right, but there are worse cases out there than that. How did SoCal stay in the top ten last year after losing to two unranked teams? Politics. That's the only logical answer, since better teams with better seasons were left behind them in the rankings.
When questioning the polls, you have to keep one thing in mind: they mean nothing and are inaccurate, almost all the time. It is quite political and preseason rankings hold way too much weight on the rest of the season. The polls are stupid, and it will all get worked out when everyone plays who they need to play.
BTW, when seeing OSU so high, I have to laugh inside b/c it's a joke. They're not as good as last year and they weren't too great last year and they play nobody this year, which brings up another point: teams like that get courtesy rankings. If OSU were matched up w/ half the teams in the top 25, I doubt you'd be seeing the ESPN analysts picking them to win much. That's my 2 cents. Moral of the story, don't put too much worry into the polls. It'll work out when games are played.

That's why I'd like to see a playoff system.

[Genevapics]

Originally Posted by preludese111

... How did SoCal stay in the top ten last year after losing to two unranked teams? Politics.

What politics are you inferring?

Originally Posted by preludese111

That's the only logical answer, since better teams with better seasons were left behind them in the rankings.

Which teams should have been ranked ahead of Southern Cal?

Look, it is okay to dislike or hate Southern Cal, I have no problem with that. But it gets really old when you continue to bash them because you feel they are not deserving. Just exactly what is your beef with Southern Cal?

Since Pete Carroll arrived, Southern Cal's record is as follows:

2001: 6-6
2002: 11-2
2003: 12-1
2004: 13-0
2005: 12-1
2006: 11-2

That's 65-12 over 6 seasons. Now, I don't know about you but that is pretty impressive to me. Name one other team in the country that can boast those numbers. There maybe a few, but I cannot think of any. And with regards to last year, after losing to the bRuins, Southern Cal went to the Rose Bowl and destroyed a good (not great) Michigan team.

So, I'll ask you again, "What politics are involved with regards to Southern Cal's rankings in the polls?"


And if this is the case...

Originally Posted by preludese111

... When questioning the polls, you have to keep one thing in mind: they mean nothing and are inaccurate, almost all the time. It is quite political and preseason rankings hold way too much weight on the rest of the season. The polls are stupid, and it will all get worked out when everyone plays who they need to play.

... why do you continue to bring up Southern Cal? Didn't the end of the season work out the way it should?

[preludese111]

B/c they get the benefit of the doubt every time, even when not deserving. I put in several examples, so don't get upset b/c I used SoCal; I didn't single them out only. It's not a beef with them, IT'S A BEEF WITH THE SYSTEM. It has nothing to do with SoCal. They lost to 2 unranked teams last year and were in the top ten. That makes absolutely no sense, given the fact that there were some 2 loss teams that only lost to ranked teams and I believe a team or two that lost only once that didn't get a generous ranking(I'm busy, so I don't have time to look up individual teams, sorry) so don't try to justify it. If you want to pick apart everything I say b/c you disagree with it b/c of your obvious bias, go ahead, but I'm not going to play along. I think I was pretty even in picking apart the system, not SoCal.
BTW, you're arguing once again about nothing that I said. I never said SoCal hasn't been impressive in recent years. I just think, as others do as well, that they get the nod b/c they are SoCal and rake in the big bucks better than anyone else and are well-off politically. Once you realize it's not SoCal that I'm bickering about, you'll understand the point. I was pointing out how inaccurate the rankings are.

[Genevapics]

That's just it, I have no bias. I stated in another thread that I thought LSU was deserving of the No.1 spot this week.

Here is the point, you make these accusations, yet provide no proof. I understand you are busy, fair enough, but when you get some free time, how about providing all of us here with the facts that you claim prove your point.

As far as Southern Cal bringing in the big bucks... myabe TV revenue, but certainly not Gate Receipts. Southern Cal doesn't travel as well as many other team around the country and certainly does not generate the type of Gate revenue that say a Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Florida, Penn State, etc. do.

Again, do us all a favor and provide facts when you make these types of statements.

[preludese111]

Boise State: 13-0
Fairly easy schedule, but SoCal's wasn't too difficult either. Regardless, they were undefeated and a good team.

Auburn: 11-2
Only losses were to ranked teams, and with the same record and a harder schedule than SoCal, it's not very disputable that this record meant more.

Louisville: 12-1
As much as I dislike Big East teams getting much recognition right now b/c of easy schedules and no defense, they were legit and had a good season.

It doesn't really matter anyway, it's just the rankings. They are typically inaccurate and it's pretty clear. Honestly, for a while, Georgia was ranked above USC after we beat them and only lost to LSU(under the spread, mind you). It makes no logical sense, that's how it goes.

I'd like to see LSU and SoCal see each other in the national title. LSU is a solid team, as is SC and a good PAC 10-SEC battle would be pretty cool this year.

[ragin' cajun]

It's been awhile since I've posted... work kinda got in the way. I have only one thing to say

[Genevapics]

... first, let me thank you for providing the information with which you make your claim. I appreciate that.

Let me see if I can make you understand where I am coming from in this argument:

You make the claim that the two teams that Southern Cal lost to, were unranked. That is both true and false. If you look at the Final Regular Season BCS Standings (12/3/06, which is before the Bowl Games) both Oregon State and UCLA were ranked. [Link: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2...chive_bcs.html ] Oregon State finished the season 10-4, ranked No. 22, while UCLA finished the season 7-5, ranked No. 25 in the country. Again, these are the Final Regular Season BCS Rankings (12-03-06) taken at the end of the Regular Season.

It is true that when we lost to both Oregon State and UCLA, neither team was ranked at the time. If this is your argument, then you are correct. The question is, "Which is more important? The ranking of a team when you lose to them or their ranking at the end of the season?"

When we lost to Oregon State, we were 6-0 and ranked No.3 in the country behind Ohio State and Michigan (both 8-0) [Link: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/b...gs_102206.html ]. The following week, the BCS Poll had Southern Cal ranked No. 8 in the country. [Link: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/b...gs_102906.html ]. Oregon State was not ranked in the BCS Top 25 in this poll. Also remember, that Southern Cal lost to Oregon State (at Corvallis, OR) by a score of 31-33... on the road. So, Southern Cal dropped five (5) spots after losing to an unranked 4-3 Oregon State team... again, on the road.

When Southern Cal lost to UCLA, in Pasadena, CA, the final score was 9-13 and the Trojans were No. 2 in the country, behind 12-0 Ohio State and in front of 11-1 Michigan. At the time of the loss, UCLA (6-5) was not ranked in the BCS Top 25, but Oregon State had clawed its way to No. 24, with a record of 8-4 [Link: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/b...gs_112606.html ]. In addition, 4 of UCLA's losses were to teams on the road... two of which finished the BCS Final Regular Season Poll ranked: No. 11 Notre Dame and No. 18 Cal. [Link: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/b...gs_120306.html ]. Clearly, UCLA was a little better than what their record indicated. Southern Cal, dropped 3 spots and finished the season ranked No. 5 in the BCS Final Regular Season Poll.

Now, let me make sure this is clear: Southern Cal went on the road and lost to two (2) teams that finished ranked in the Final Regular Season BCS Poll, by a combined total of 6 points. What other team in the country could make that claim? None. Maybe, just maybe, the Pollster’s knew what they were doing by ranking Southern Cal where they did.

[Note: In the Bowl Games, (BCS Rankings) No. 5 Southern Cal beat No. 3 Michigan, 32-18; No. 22 Oregon State beat unranked Missouri (8-4 entering Sun Bowl), 39-38; No. 25 UCLA lost to unranked Florida State (6-6 entering Emerald Bowl), 27-44.]

Now, let's take a look at the teams you have chosen that should have been ranked ahead of Southern Cal:

No. 8 Boise State (12-0):

Beat No. 22 Oregon State, 42-14, in Boise, ID.

They played No. 10 Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl and won that game 43-42.


No.6 Louisville (11-1):

Beat No. 22 Oregon State, 63-27, in Louisville, KY.
Lost to No. 13 West Virginia, 44-46, in Morgantown, WV.
Beat No. 16 Rutgers, 56-5, in Louisville, KY.

They played No. 15 Virginia Tech in the Gator Bowl and lost 24-35.


No. 9 Auburn (10-2):

Lost to No. 12 Arkansas, 10-27, in Auburn, AL.
Beat, No. 2 Florida, 27-17, in Auburn, AL.
Lost to unranked Georgia (9-3) 15-37, in Auburn, AL.

They played Nebraska in the Cotton Bowl and won 17-14.


No. 5 Southern Cal:

Beat No. 11 Notre Dame, 44-24, at Los Angeles, CA.
Beat No. 12 Arkansas, 50-14, at Fayetville, AR.
Beat No. 18 California, 23-9, at Los Angeles, CA.
Lost to No. 22 Oregon State, 31-33, at Corvallis, OR.
Beat No. 23 Nebraska, 28-10, At Los Angeles, CA.
Lost to No. 25 UCLA, 9-13, at Pasadena, CA.

Southern Cal went on to beat No. 3 Michigan, 32-18, in the Rose Bowl.

Let me reiterate this one more time: Southern Cal lost two games, on the road, to Final Regular Season BCS Ranked Teams, by a combined total of 6 points. In addition, they played 6 Final Regular Season BCS Ranked Teams during the course of the season. What other team can make that claim? Again, none!

Now, if you really want to gripe, you can make a claim that Boise State (12-0) should have played No. 1 Ohio State (12-0) in the BCS CHampionship Game, instead of Florida. In reality, that is a stretch! Florida’s schedule was much tougher than Boise State’s. I will say this though, I believe Boise State would have beaten Ohio State.

Now, can you really say, that Boise State, Louisville or Auburn should have been ranked ahead of Southern Cal? If you really believe so, I would like to read your argument.



Let me make this quite clear to you: I am a Southern Cal alum (Class of 1984) and I love my alma mater dearly. That said, I try to be objective when it comes to these types of debates. I certainly have nothing against you, nor South Carolina. None of this is personal. But I will stand up and defend Southern Cal when I think someone is clearly taking shots at them, which IMO, I believe you have done.

I read in one of the threads, where you stated that you are 19 years of age. Maybe that is part of the problem, you haven’t seen as much CFB as some of us. But in this case, I really do not think it is a matter of age. IMO, I think you dislike Southern Cal because of what they have accomplished since the arrival of Pete Carroll. Certainly that is your right to dislike them. Maybe you think Southern Cal plays in a weak conference. The PAC-10 is not the best conference in the country, but it is certainly no slouch either. Maybe you feel Southern Cal doesn’t play physical football; they are too much of a finesse team. Ask the fine folks from around the country (Arkansas, Auburn, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Iowa, Kansas State, Texas, and Oklahoma) to see if Southern Cal can play smash mouth football with the best in the land. Or maybe, just maybe, Southern Cal has been a little too successful under Pete Carroll; after all, Southern Cal is 65-12 (excluding the 2007 season) under his watch.

The motto at Southern Cal is and always has been, “We will play anybody, anywhere, anytime.” Now, if you dislike a team because of that approach, then my friend, you dislike what is right about CFB.

As always, it was a pleasure debating you. Best of luck to South Carolina the rest of the season.


FIGHT ON!

[preludese111]

I respect your opinion, and appreciate your respect, in turn. It's always good debating with you.
I still say, I have no beef with SoCal, just the system. Good luck to Southern Caifornia as well, it'll be a hell of a season and will be entertaining.