USC might get a split championship!

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by The Professor

whatever ... the Rose Bowl wasn't even the #2 bowl this year. Now UGA's rout of Hawaii -- THAT might be worthy of the #1 title.

I didn't think doctors were allowed to smoke crack.

[Rahllin]

One could argue that USC (11-2) looks better at this stage than Ohio State (11-1). The Buckeyes were beaten by this same Illini team just seven weeks ago in Columbus. It could be debated that the Trojans are superior to LSU (11-2), which bowed to a mediocre Arkansas team on Nov. 23

I didn't hear anything about how USC lost to a MEDIOCRE, (8-4) overall, Oregon team... or a pathetic Stanford team, nor even a mention about how LSU was undefeated in regulation this year... with their only losses being in triple overtime. I don't smell a biased opinion there or anything.
If USC jumped Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia Tech, Ohio State, AND LSU in the AP, then the AP is just showing how useless their poll really is.

[parshooter]

Originally Posted by Rahllin

... how LSU was undefeated in regulation this year... with their only losses being in triple overtime.

This is the funniest statement I've heard all year (and I've heard it a number of times). It doesn't mean sht if you lead in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th quarter. All that matters is who is leading when the game ends. If you are that good, you shouldn't have to take it to overtime

[jquirit]

Originally Posted by macjoe53

The game last night just proved that Hawaii had no business being in a BCS bowl. Georgia did a great job of proving that the WAC can't hang with the SEC.

That's a bit harsh (considering I'm from Hawaii and I was rooting for them, but I knew their chances were slim), but I look at is at least they were given the opportunity. Sadly UGA was just too much: too strong on the d-line and couldn't stop the running game until far too late. It was as many had feared, UGA was just too much speed and size for the smaller Hawaii team to deal with.

Though, by your reaction, I find it funny (yet a bit puzzling as someone on the outside looking in) that many of the BCS teams play teams from the WAC and other second-teir conferences and then their fans beat their chests about how awesome they are when they win. If these BCS teams are so great, why bother playing these games? Do they gain anything from playing the mid-majors other than padding the win-loss stats? If these things are already self-evident (by the sounds of your own statement), why do they waste their time playing the likes of Hawaii and Boise State during the regular season when they could be playing the likes of USC, Florida, tOSU, Michigan, LSU, and UGA on every weekend and truely find out who's the best? Every game would be a bowl match-up, and be a real indication of how a team matches up nationally. Wouldn't that be better?

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by jquirit

That's a bit harsh (considering I'm from Hawaii and I was rooting for them, but I knew their chances were slim), but I look at is at least they were given the opportunity. Sadly UGA was just too much: too strong on the d-line and couldn't stop the running game until far too late. It was as many had feared, UGA was just too much speed and size for the smaller Hawaii team to deal with.

Though, by your reaction, I find it funny (yet a bit puzzling as someone on the outside looking in) that many of the BCS teams play teams from the WAC and other second-teir conferences and then their fans beat their chests about how awesome they are when they win. If these BCS teams are so great, why bother playing these games? Do they gain anything from playing the mid-majors other than padding the win-loss stats? If these things are already self-evident (by the sounds of your own statement), why do they waste their time playing the likes of Hawaii and Boise State during the regular season when they could be playing the likes of USC, Florida, tOSU, Michigan, LSU, and UGA on every weekend and truely find out who's the best? Every game would be a bowl match-up, and be a real indication of how a team matches up nationally. Wouldn't that be better?

First off, look at the schedule that SEC teams play. They have to play more "major"conference games then colleges in some of the smaller (number of teams) conferences. So, do they play "powder-puff" games. Yes they do and they are expected to win. As some of the powder-puff opponents why they play and they tell you quite simply, it's the money. I personally don't know any LSU fans that went about beating their chest when the Tigers beat up on some of the smaller teams early in the year. (Don't get me wrong, they exist. I just don't know them personally.) But I do know quite a few who were calling Les Miles and idiot because the Tigers weren't scoring 70 pts or more per game.

What I personally believe is that good teams play better than the level of their competition. Take Hawaii out of the WAC and move it to the PAC 10 and I think it wouldn't take long for them to start seriously challenging other Pac 10 teams for BCS bowl games. They would elevate their level of play to be competitive. To me the big advantage that the Pac 10, Big 10, SEC and the other 2 BCS conferences have is their recruiting opportunities. I won't start an argument by saying the Southeaster part of the country has the best high school talent because there are too many great players from all over the country but I think Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida have more numbers than California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. That makes recruiting easier for SEC teams though USC doesn't seem to have a problem signing players from Louisiana and Texas.

[pistol]

Originally Posted by macjoe53

The game last night just proved that Hawaii had no business being in a BCS bowl. Georgia did a great job of proving that the WAC can't hang with the SEC.

So, did Mizzou do a good job of proving that the SEC can't hang with the Big 12? Wow, talk about an ass-whipping of a legit SEC program...

[krash]

I looked forward to the Georgia/Hawaii game as I had hoped it would turn out like the Boise State/Oklahoma game of last year. Alas, it wasn't to be. Georgia was too much for Hawaii. If they played each other 10 times this year, Georgia would win. Not that Hawaii under June Jones isn't a good program. It just doesn't have the advantages that a major conference has. It was stated during the game that Hawaii's recruiting budget is $50,000. Big 10, SEC, PAC10 etc have budgets 10 times that amount. Plus, players will to to a program where they can be seen and be competitive. On the whole, I would judge Hawaii's season as a resounding success.

As far as USC, the only thing I can say is STANFORD. If you beat this team, I could possibly see their point. But they lost. The BCS is the agreed upon system to bestow the National Title. Splitting the title would just be another vote for a playoff system. The winner of each conference would get a playoff spot. The rest of the teams that didn't win their conference would get to play in bowl games. Everyone wins. Sponsors get their games, schools get their money and a real national champion would be crowned. Without a playoff, we'll be discussing whose conference is the best with no way to validate it.

[boonedoggle]

Originally Posted by pistol

So, did Mizzou do a good job of proving that the SEC can't hang with the Big 12? Wow, talk about an ass-whipping of a legit SEC program...

Nah, Arkansas has been unpredictable and inefficient for the past few years. Pretty much a no brainier to go with Mizzou as the exception to the rule.

[Mark C]

I think it's a different type of play, from the eastern/southern schools to the western schools. At least to me it seems most of the schools west of the Mississippi focus on high-power offense. Those games regularly have combined scores >60 or 70 pts. The SEC and ACC games are more focused on defense with much lower scoring games. I think that's why hot shot QBs from western conferences don't fare as well in the NFL as southern/eastern QBs. But I've got nothing to back that up, just my impression after watching Kyle Boller and then Matt Leinart flop while Mike Vick and Vince Young had better careers.

[pistol]

Originally Posted by boonedoggle

Nah, Arkansas has been unpredictable and inefficient for the past few years. Pretty much a no brainier to go with Mizzou as the exception to the rule.

Was Florida losing to an unranked Michigan team an exception as well? I tell you what, if LSU loses, the SEC becomes extremely overrated. I was also reading quotes before the Arkansas-MU game, and one of the Hogs' players said, "they don't know they are playing an SEC team." I thought that quote epitomized SEC arrogance.

[boonedoggle]

Originally Posted by pistol

Was Florida losing to an unranked Michigan team an exception as well? I tell you what, if LSU loses, the SEC becomes extremely overrated.

well, you could also use the old "Heisman has lost the past 5 bowl games" in there too. Michigan has something to prove, and Florida played without passion. What can I say? I'll cry if LSU does the same.

[pistol]

Originally Posted by boonedoggle

well, you could also use the old "Heisman has lost the past 5 bowl games" in there too. Michigan has something to prove, and Florida played without passion. What can I say? I'll cry if LSU does the same.

I'm just saying the SEC isn't the end all be all for college football. It's a great conference, no doubt, but I'm tired of the SEC crowing about how much better they are than the other BCS conferences.

[boonedoggle]

Originally Posted by pistol

I'm just saying the SEC isn't the end all be all for college football. It's a great conference, no doubt, but I'm tired of the SEC crowing about how much better they are than the other BCS conferences.

Oh, and nothing about the AWESOME USC crowing about their deserving a split of the national championship? I guess the WAC should be in there too. They say THEY'RE the best, right?! Ah, it's all subjective!

[whiteboard]

Originally Posted by pistol

I'm just saying the SEC isn't the end all be all for college football. It's a great conference, no doubt, but I'm tired of the SEC crowing about how much better they are than the other BCS conferences.

I hear you. I find the whole my conference is better than your conference debates to be pointless mental exercises. Conferences don't play games, football teams do.

And you're only as good as the game you are playing in on any given game day. If this year proved anything, it's that.

[pistol]

Originally Posted by boonedoggle

Oh, and nothing about the AWESOME USC crowing about their deserving a split of the national championship? I guess the WAC should be in there too. They say THEY'RE the best, right?! Ah, it's all subjective!

I don't think I've ever heard ANYONE from the WAC crowing about how great their conference is, come on man! USC will always talk about how they need to be in the National Championship game; I wouldn't be too proud of beating Illinois. Illinois had no business being in the Rose Bowl. There's no way USC ought to jump from #6 to a tie for #1 simply because they beat a very mediocre Illinois team. Seriously though, the SEC is a good conference, but it's not hands down the best. In fact, the SEC's all time record against Big 12 teams is 19-17 (they are 43-43-6 against the old Big , that doesn't sound very dominant to me.