USC might get a split championship!

[Rahllin]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

The statement about Oregon is the answer to your question. You reference the USC loss to a "mediocre" Oregon team. You attempt to validate your claim about Oregon with the losses to Arizona, UCLA and Oregon State. What you conveniently fail to mention is that Oregon lost its starting qb AFTER the USC played them. My statement holds a bit of truth to it in that case. If you actually watched them play, you would know that the Oregon team was far from mediocre before Dixon went down. Don't confuse my pointing out something in your post with it supporting some unrelated point, valid or not, in another post.

Ok, well my point still has some bit of truth as well... Oregon is apparently a mediocre TEAM... with one outstanding player.

On the other hand, after I left for work this morning I was thinking about your rebuttal to my previous statement, and how everyone here seemed to laugh about me saying that LSU went undefeated in regulation this year. Overtime is a relatively new rule... If you go back just 10 or so years, it would have made a world of difference. I'm not trying to use this statement as an argument for why LSU should be in the championship game at all, but I'm sure if USC's two losses this year were both in triple overtime, then you'd hear this over and over and over again, and you KNOW that is true, and USC would probably be ranked #1-3 in the AP.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by Rahllin

Ok, well my point still has some bit of truth as well... Oregon is apparently a mediocre TEAM... with one outstanding player.

On the other hand, after I left for work this morning I was thinking about your rebuttal to my previous statement, and how everyone here seemed to laugh about me saying that LSU went undefeated in regulation this year. Overtime is a relatively new rule... If you go back just 10 or so years, it would have made a world of difference. I'm not trying to use this statement as an argument for why LSU should be in the championship game at all, but I'm sure if USC's two losses this year were both in triple overtime, then you'd hear this over and over and over again, and you KNOW that is true, and USC would probably be ranked #1-3 in the AP.

You can spin it however you want. He wasn't the only starter lost to injury...

[zemekone]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

You can spin it however you want. He wasn't the only starter lost to injury...

so so true...

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

You can spin it however you want. He wasn't the only starter lost to injury...

If you look at the "top" teams this year, they all suffered injuries to key players and that did affect the outcome in some games. Dixon's loss probably meant more to Oregon because it ended his season and they lost other starters as well. IF they would have all stayed healthy then the PAC 10 MAY have been different this year. Injuries also affected USC but the injuries they suffered were not season ending. In my opinion, injuries to key players like Early Doucet and Glen Dorsey also had an impact on the games LSU lost.

Injuries are a part of football and the teams that come out on top usually find a way to win despite the injuries.

[Rahllin]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

You can spin it however you want. He wasn't the only starter lost to injury...

Do you really even read posts? or are you just skimming through and making assumptions. I never once attempted to personally bash Oregon or degrade them as a team. In my original post I referenced Oregon as being a mediocre team that beat USC in COMPARISON to the author of the article in the OP's link calling Arkansas a mediocre team that beat LSU. They had the same record as Oregon at the end of the regular season and if you watched them throughout the season you would know they had the ability to beat just about anyone on any given day if they were firing on all cylinders.

[parshooter]

I just don't understand the "losing in triple overtime is better than losing in regulation" thought process. I think it is worse. If you have that many chances to put someone away, and end up losing, you are worse for it. As I said before, if a team is that good, overtime is not an issue.

[Mbraud4]

Originally Posted by Cotton

I just don't understand the "losing in triple overtime is better than losing in regulation" thought process. I think it is worse. If you have that many chances to put someone away, and end up losing, you are worse for it. As I said before, if a team is that good, overtime is not an issue.

Ok, let m get this. Ur saying that losing in a very close game into multiple OTs is due to a team being worse than a team who loses by two touchdowns in regulation? I think everyone is beating a dead horse here.

[Simplified]

To kind of bring this to closure and back on topic. No way USC deserves to be part of the championship discussion. LSWHO will get beat like a rented mule on Monday and Ohio State will stand alone as number one.

[hornitosmonster]

We need a playoff system...until then we will always get years like this.

Does the LSU - OSU winner really deserve because a computer said so? No...

He had a playoff I think we would have seen USC vs. Georgia or USC vs. LSU.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by hornitosmonster

We need a playoff system...until then we will always get years like this.

Does the LSU - OSU winner really deserve because a computer said so? No...

He had a playoff I think we would have seen USC vs. Georgia or USC vs. LSU.

If we had a playoff system, we'd see that u$c would never make it to the playoffs...and if they did pull off a playoff bid, they certainly wouldn't have what it takes to win it...

Stomp'N'Rock,

Joseph

[parshooter]

Why does UGA keep popping up for national championship game consideration? Sure, they got hot at the end of the season, but didn't even make the SEC championship game.

[ttours]

USC lost to Stanford!!

Split this !!!


tt

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by hornitosmonster

We need a playoff system...until then we will always get years like this.

Does the LSU - OSU winner really deserve because a computer said so? No...

He had a playoff I think we would have seen USC vs. Georgia or USC vs. LSU.

HAD there been a playoff system in effect, Georgia would not have been in the picture because the Georgia Bulldogs DID NOT even win their division.

[Rahllin]

Originally Posted by Cotton

Why does UGA keep popping up for national championship game consideration? Sure, they got hot at the end of the season, but didn't even make the SEC championship game.

Because it the comment made wasn't in reference to the BCS championship game. He said "if there was a playoff system." Which if there was, the teams hot at the end of the season would be the ones likely to come off on top, more than likely USC, Gerogia, and possibly OU (not based off of bowl game performance). Then again... this year... with all the crazy stuff that has happened in college football, there is no telling who we would have seen in the big game after a playoff system.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by Rahllin

Because it the comment made wasn't in reference to the BCS championship game. He said "if there was a playoff system." Which if there was, the teams hot at the end of the season would be the ones likely to come off on top, more than likely USC, Gerogia, and possibly OU (not based off of bowl game performance). Then again... this year... with all the crazy stuff that has happened in college football, there is no telling who we would have seen in the big game after a playoff system.

To get in the "playoffs" in most sports (NBA being the exception) you would have to be either the winner or the runner up in your division/conference. That leaves Georgia out this year.