GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > Entertainment
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Entertainment TV, movies, music, books, sports, radio...

» GC Stats
Members: 331,014
Threads: 115,704
Posts: 2,207,359
Welcome to our newest member, zaannagogleto16
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 12-08-2003, 10:07 AM
doubleblue&gold doubleblue&gold is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 139
Last week everyone----media, coaches, polls---said that even with a loss, OU would play in the Sugar Bowl. So.....when it happened, why is everyone now surprised??

Yes, it's a shame that someone misses out (USC) But the BCS was made to take the emotions out of the process. The AP and Coaches Pols are SUBJECTIVE.

It was bad that OU lost to K State. But the OBJECTIVE criteria places them number 1.

OU did win the regular season Big XII Championship----just like all those that don't play a conference championship game. If you have to win a conference championship game to go to the BCS games, then ALL teams have to play one.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 12-08-2003, 06:30 PM
Kevin Kevin is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,669
Quote:
Originally posted by amycat412
Our conference is not typically weak. Last season we had the hardest schedule in the nation--because of our conference. Not sure what happened this year... hope its better next year and we still beat all of them.

(snip)

But yes, OKlahoma not being punished for its bad loss at end of season, but USC paying for our opponents losses. The system is VERY VERY flawed. .. that is something OU, LSU AND USC fans can agree on.
That's the system everyone agreed to. As far as last season.. it has nothing to do with this season. This year, the PAC-10 is weak. USC had lots of wins in a weak conference. So did TCU. Doesn't necessarily make them that great (although USC would kill TCU given the chance).

I think the system worked. The teams that played the best consistant football through the most difficult circumstances got in.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 12-08-2003, 06:46 PM
Moxie Moxie is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 263
LSU did play some 1AA teams, but the teams in the SEC are consistently good, solid teams. Ole Miss, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennesee, Florida...the SEC is arguably one of the strongest conferences in the country. Have any of you watched LSU play this year? they are a fantastic ball team. if we did play USC, i have no doubt in my mind that we would beat them and show everyone that LSU deserves the respect and recognition it is just starting to get. perhaps all 3 teams deserve to be up there...but they can't be. i understand that there is controversy and i definitelty agree that there can be arguments for everyone's side - but for now, the BCS is how it's decided on. hopefully a less controversial system will soon arise.
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 12-08-2003, 06:51 PM
Kevin Kevin is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,669
Snipped from a sports site:

http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

With all due respect to #3 USC, the teams most deserving of invitations to the Sugar Bowl are #1 Oklahoma and #2 LSU.

All 3 teams have 1 loss, and USC simply has not beaten anywhere near the caliber of teams that Oklahoma and LSU have beaten: Oklahoma has beaten #5 Texas, and LSU has beaten #12 Georgia twice.

Based on teams' current rankings, Oklahoma and LSU have each played 2 games vs. better teams than USC's toughest opponent, and they have each played 5 games vs. better teams than USC's 2nd-toughest opponent.

USC has not played a current top-15 team, and the Trojans are only 2-1 vs. the current top-40, despite playing #38 and #40
The best team USC has beaten is #18 Washington St., while The 2nd-best team USC has played is #38 Cal, which beat the Trojans.

Oklahoma and LSU have each lost only to a current top-25 team (#16 Kansas St. and #24 Florida, respectively), and they have combined for 9 wins over teams currently ranked higher than Cal.

As the following list shows, USC has posted only 2 of the 10 best wins by these 3 teams (based on teams' current rankings):
1. Oklahoma over #5 Texas,
2. (tie) LSU over #12 Georgia (regular season),
2. (tie) LSU over #12 Georgia (SEC championship game),
4. USC over #18 Washington St.,
5. Oklahoma over #19 Oklahoma St.,
6. LSU over #20 Arkansas,
7. LSU over #23 Mississippi,
8. Oklahoma over #31 Texas Tech,
9. Oklahoma over #32 Missouri, 1
0. (tie) USC over #40 Auburn,
10. (tie) LSU over #40 Auburn

In sum, the Trojans' top wins are over much worse teams than the Sooners and Tigers have beaten, and the Trojans' loss is to a much worse team too: Oklahoma and LSU deserve to play in the Sugar Bowl.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 12-08-2003, 08:08 PM
amycat412 amycat412 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,847
Send a message via AIM to amycat412
Look I never said Oklahoma and LSU didn't deserve to be there (or didn't mean to imply that). My point is that there are three teams and the BCS failed this year when the #1 team in human polls is left out...causing a split championship if USC wins the Rose Bowl--one of the reasons the BCS was created.

I would have loved for USC to have the opportunity to play Oklahoma or LSU. I am extremely confident that we would beat LSU. Oklahoma would give us a great game, but I am not sure we would win that one.

At least our loss was in triple OT. I can live with being the only undefeated in regulation time team of the 3.

And you'll notice, most media touting Sugar as #2 LSU against #3 Oklahoma and Rose as #1 USC against #4 Michigan.

Simply put--this will not end up simply. It will be a contested championship IF USC wins Rose Bowl and MUCH of the PEOPLE (not computers) WILL consider USC the champs.

And when it comes right down to it-- I think the USC-Michigan matchup is a great one too. Its just unfortunate that there is no easy solution this year and that the winner of the Sugar bowl this year will have a footnote added to their championship with all this controversy.

Bottom line: BCS is not working, and will have to change. If this many people are upset, something is wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 12-08-2003, 08:21 PM
amycat412 amycat412 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,847
Send a message via AIM to amycat412
good perspective on the goods and bads of BCS

From los angeles times: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...home-headlines

BCS Should Be Sent Out to a Football Junkyard
by Chris Dufrense

The bowl championship series reminds us that it is not unlike a used car held together with parts collected at a salvage yard.

Sunday?

Well, you could say old BCS Betsy blew another gasket.

The BCS was a clunker when it was created in 1998 and has leaked oil every year since.

This year's outrage is an outrage but it's only the latest.

In 2000, Miami was outraged when it beat Florida State but lost the No. 2 BCS spot to Florida State by .34.

In 2001, Colorado and Oregon were outraged when Nebraska slipped into the title game by the margin of .05.

This year's miscarriage of justice is the worst, by far, in the six-year history of the BCS.

It's also true all BCS politics are local.

In case you were on a space mission and missed it, USC finished No. 1 in both polls Sunday but finished third in the BCS standings by the margin of .16.

So the BCS messed up again, so what's new?

For the third time in six years, it messed up a perfectly good No. 1 vs. No. 2 match-up and a lot of travel plans.

BCS Coordinator Michael Tranghese said Sunday this system is still better than the system before, which is sort of like comparing diseases.

You do have to say that every time the BCS breaks down, someone with a wrench is willing to fix it.

First, the BCS started with three computers in the formula, said, "nah, that's no good," and expanded to seven.

When Miami felt it got robbed in 2000, the BCS added a "quality win" component to the formula.

In 2001, after No. 2 Oregon finished No. 4 in the BCS, the commissioners demanded the "margin of victory" component be removed from the formula.

The BCS has been tweaked more than Michael Jackson's nose.

The bottom line here is that as long as there is no playoff in college football, the BCS remains college football's best-worst answer.

This is not comforting, I know, but college presidents are not about to approve of a full-blown NFL playoff, so why not try to fix the wretched thing the best we can?

Sunday's USC disaster will, in the very least, hasten change after the current contract ends following the 2005 season.

Sunday's disaster will put the most logical next BCS-plan on a fast track. And that plan is simply to go back to the old bowl system and then have a one-game playoff after those games. This is known in BCS circles as "BCS-plus" and it never sounded so good.

In BCS-plus, you could use the dreaded BCS standings only as a way to pit No. 1 vs. No. 2 after the major bowl games are played.

Naturally, the futuristic ideas of 2006 will not satisfy today's bloodlust, so we need a few immediate solutions:

No team should qualify for the national title game unless it wins at least a share of its conference title. It's simple, it's fair, and it's one line in the BCS contract.

The BCS made a horrible decision two years ago when it did not add this provision after Nebraska advanced to the BCS title-game without winning its own division of the Big 12.

The major conference commissioners hemmed and hawed but ultimately failed to act, and now it's come back to haunt them.

"We probably thought we would never get bitten again, but here we are," Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen said Sunday.

Had the clause been in place, Oklahoma would have been out this year and the Sugar Bowl would have pitted USC vs. LSU for the undisputed national title.

Would anyone have had a problem with that?

If there is no dispute over No. 1 and No. 2 in the polls, chuck the BCS standings off the highest overpass. Only use the BCS standings if there is conflict in the human polls.

Get rid of the BCS computers unless operators make their systems open for inspection. How can anyone trust a system in which the winner is decided by a .16 computer burp and no one has to explain the how or the why?

Hansen just about hit the roof when LSU passed USC in six of the seven BCS computers. Hansen noted that one computer guy had Miami of Ohio rated ahead of USC.

"That's so absurd," Hansen said. "I don't see how we can live with these rankings."

Demand that the USA Today/ESPN coaches reveal their votes. This isn't North Korea, after all, we're an open society.

We're not accusing any of the 63 voting coaches of cooking the books, but consider that Oklahoma, after a 35-7 loss to Kansas State, received eight first-place votes. It's interesting to note that had Oklahoma fallen to No. 2 in the coaches' poll instead of No. 3, USC would have finished ahead of LSU in the BCS and played Oklahoma for the national title.

This outcome would have saved the coaches the embarrassment of having USC at No. 1 but not playing in the national-title game. Wouldn't you like to know who those eight coaches are?

In the end, obviously, a college football playoff is the only true way to settle this mess

"I don't know how to fix the system other than to play it off," USC Coach Pete Carroll said.

Nice thought, except it just is not going to happen. If you want to pen a letter, address it to the major college presidents who will not allow a playoff to happen.

The BCS has failed, yes, but it has tried.

The BCS standings were only concocted because, after the Rose Bowl joined the BCS, several AP voters told conference commissioners they did not want to have a direct impact in making the No. 1 vs. No. 2 game.

So, the BCS standings were born.

Also, as bad as this year's mess is, consider this: There are three one-loss teams in the top five and, because of this colossal BCS hemorrhage, all three get a chance to play for at least a share of the national title.

For all the wrong reasons, and in a weird, twisted and illogical way, this year's upheaval may not be the worst thing that ever happened.

The Rose Bowl is, for the first time since 2001, um, happy.

The granddaddy of all bowls has a traditional Pac-10-Big Ten match-up and quite frankly, a dynamite game with a half-share of the national title at stake.

"I've always looked at it as the single greatest tradition in college football," Michigan Coach Lloyd Carr said of the Rose Bowl.

Gee, it's been a long time since someone's said that.

After all the screaming is done, I truly believe we'll recover from this.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 12-08-2003, 08:53 PM
absolutuscchick absolutuscchick is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: In the Arizona Sun!!!
Posts: 1,548
Send a message via AIM to absolutuscchick
Quote:
Originally posted by amycat412
I will be wearing my F*&^ the BCS shirt ALL MONTH
Where do I get one!!! I want one!!!
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 12-08-2003, 09:33 PM
Thrillhouse Thrillhouse is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Intercontinental Champion
Posts: 2,715
Its not the trojans fault that their confrerence stunk this year. They tried to schedule good games, Notre Dame was preseason top 15 and Auburn was #6 when SC played them.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 12-08-2003, 09:46 PM
The1calledTKE The1calledTKE is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Georgia Bulldog Country
Posts: 7,632
Send a message via AIM to The1calledTKE Send a message via Yahoo to The1calledTKE
Would we hear as many complaints if USC was third in the human polls but made it to the BSC championship and the the 1# team wasn't in it? Seem like most the people complaining are USC fans. The article in the Atlanta Journal Constituion today agreed the BCS got it right and USC has no right to bitch. If I can find the article online I will post it.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 12-09-2003, 01:24 AM
Kevin Kevin is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,669
Quote:
Originally posted by Thrillhouse
Its not the trojans fault that their confrerence stunk this year. They tried to schedule good games, Notre Dame was preseason top 15 and Auburn was #6 when SC played them.
Doesn't matter who's fault it is. Their schedule was #53 in the nation. That's just the truth of it.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
Reply With Quote
  #461  
Old 12-09-2003, 09:19 AM
Thrillhouse Thrillhouse is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Intercontinental Champion
Posts: 2,715
But schedules are made years in advance... Its not like USC made an easy schedule on purpose to skate through and its not their fault the PAC 10 sucks this year. I have yet to hear a good argument anywhere about any of the three teams and I have been reading about this stuff for two days.

LSU gets in only because they beat a Georgia team that they already beat once. I'm not so sure LSU could beat Florida or Tennessee. USC shouldn't get punished because they don't have a confrerence title game. If the SEC didn't have one, LSU would be going elsewhere. Thats also why I still like OU in the game, they won their regular season crown like SC did.

(edited for spelling)

Last edited by Thrillhouse; 12-09-2003 at 09:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 12-09-2003, 01:55 PM
PiEp299 PiEp299 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: God's Country
Posts: 339
Send a message via AIM to PiEp299
Quote:
Originally posted by Thrillhouse
But schedules are made years in advance... Its not like USC made an easy schedule on purpose to skate through and its not their fault the PAC 10 sucks this year. I have yet to hear a good argument anywhere about any of the three teams and I have been reading about this stuff for two days.

LSU gets in only because they beat a Georgia team that they already beat once. I'm not so sure LSU could beat Florida or Tennessee. USC shouldn't get punished because they don't have a confrerence title game. If the SEC didn't have one, LSU would be going elsewhere. Thats also why I still like OU in the game, they won their regular season crown like SC did.

(edited for spelling)
LSU's schedule was made the same way, that's why Arizona was on it (signed on in '95 when UA was in the top 10). The 2 IAA teams on their schedule were a result of 2 other IA teams backing out a month before the season started. The Pac 10 always sucks, if USC played in a real conference their SOS would be better.

LSU beat a UGA team that was #5 in the BCS..TWICE! Find that on OU or USC's schedule...you won't. It's funny how no one thought LSU would beat them again but when they do it's looked at as an easy win. Actually LSU lost to #17 Florida, but they'd probably smack around #7 UT (while USC lost to an unranked Cal team and OU to the #10 team). Also, if the SEC didn't have a championship game, LSU would still have won the conference title as well.

I'm sure UM's coach is thanking us all right now. He's not going to have any problem getting his team focused or motivated in practice or to play USC at all, and that's not a good thing for USC.

Last edited by PiEp299; 12-09-2003 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 12-09-2003, 02:25 PM
wreckingcrew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think you all are confusing the Big XII Championship game with the Big XII Basketball tournament.

In football, there is no such thing as a "regular season" title. OU is the Big XII South Champion, that's it.

You can have the best record in the Big XII, but you must win the championship game to be the Champ.

Kitso
KS 361
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 12-09-2003, 03:08 PM
AUDeltaGam AUDeltaGam is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Music City
Posts: 2,180
All I have to say about the OU/LSU game:

BOOMER SOONER!

Get those tigers!
__________________
DGAlumna
WAR EAGLE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 12-09-2003, 03:11 PM
amycat412 amycat412 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,847
Send a message via AIM to amycat412
Interesting how the LSU fans are junping down USCs throat in this thread...

I never said LSU doesn't belong in the game. I personally think it should be LSU-USC. A case can be made for each of the 3 1 loss teams being in the Sugar Bowl. As a USC fan, I was simply stating WHY I though we should be there instead of Oklahoma and why I don't think our schedule is all that much weaker than LSU's. LSU did not pass us in SOS until Boise State beat Hawaii. That is the very last game of the very last day of the regular season for college football, so I think LSU beating their chests about how hard their schedule is is a bit overblown. Yes you played some great teams and beat them, that is why you are one of the 3 best teams in the country right now and playing for a share of the national championship.

And, LSU played one more game than us, and that one more game helped their case for SOS. Had season ended for them w/o SEC champ game--they would not have passed us. You needed the Georgia win and a loss by at least one of our 2 past opponents on Saturday to beat us. Put in the mathmatical equation of the BCS--that means our SOS's are relatively even.

In my eyes, if anyone was going to not be in the game it is Oklahoma, soley because they lost that last game. And there are arguments against my argument as well.

Just interesting to me how many people are biased against USC. And for what reason? Tradition? Money? Location? Attitude? I've been trying to figure it out since 1987. lol

Last edited by amycat412; 12-09-2003 at 03:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.