Official 2003 NCAA Football Thread

[AOII_LB93]

Can I just say that I am not nor have I ever been a Southern Cal fan, but man...they got SCREWED this year. Oh well....at least they will get to play to a filled up Rose Bowl.

BCS=BS

[absolutuscchick]

Originally posted by bethany1982
The C needs to come out of the BCS.

AGREED!!!!

Some serious changes need to be made...I mean its def better than before the BCS came along, but there are some serious flaws, and a playoff system is desperately needed!!!

**Hoping that serious changes are made within the coming months

[Thrillhouse]

USC got jobbed big time. How does the #1 team in both polls not get to the title game? I understand about everything that goes into the BCS numbers but the fact of the matter is, the coaches and media all think USC is the best team in the country. It should be OU vs USC.

[chopper816]

Originally posted by Thrillhouse
USC got jobbed big time. How does the #1 team in both polls not get to the title game? I understand about everything that goes into the BCS numbers but the fact of the matter is, the coaches and media all think USC is the best team in the country. It should be OU vs USC.

it should be usc and lsu, if ou cant win their conference title, than they shouldnt get a chance at a national title, theres no way to justify ou being in the national title game this year. ou is 3rd in both polls, so are you saying the 2nd team in both polls should get screwed and not go to the national title game? if you think the #1 team in both polls should go to the title game, then shouldnt the 2nd team in both go too????

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by chopper816
it should be usc and lsu, if ou cant win their conference title, than they shouldnt get a chance at a national title, theres no way to justify ou being in the national title game this year. ou is 3rd in both polls, so are you saying the 2nd team in both polls should get screwed and not go to the national title game? if you think the #1 team in both polls should go to the title game, then shouldnt the 2nd team in both go too????

Thats the beauty of the argument. Everyone has their own take on which two teams should be there.

In my eyes, OU dominated the whole year and was talked about as possibly one of the best teams ever. If 3 teams all have one loss, why does it matter when they lost? I truly believe that OU and USC are still the two best teams in the country but thats just my opinion. LSU beating the same team twice doesn't do anything for me, Georgia wasn't that great of a team this year.

We can go on an on about this but there hasn't been this much debate and outrage since the 97 split national title which was the reason for the BCS system.

[chopper816]

Originally posted by Thrillhouse
Thats the beauty of the argument. Everyone has their own take on which two teams should be there.

In my eyes, OU dominated the whole year and was talked about as possibly one of the best teams ever. If 3 teams all have one loss, why does it matter when they lost? I truly believe that OU and USC are still the two best teams in the country but thats just my opinion. LSU beating the same team twice doesn't do anything for me, Georgia wasn't that great of a team this year.

We can go on an on about this but there hasn't been this much debate and outrage since the 97 split national title which was the reason for the BCS system.

this ou team isnt anywhere near one of the best teams ever. i read an article about this actually, when the 03 sooners where compared to 95 nebraska and 71 nebraska, teams that are considered the best ever. 95 and 71 nu each played 4 teams in the top 10, 03 ou, 0 teams. 71 and 95 nu average score/game, over 50, 03 ou, under 50. the list goes on, in all categories compared, 03 ou was no better than 2nd in one category, and 3rd in the others.

i agree that this sooner team is good, but to say that theyre one of the best ever, is simply overrating them. personally i believe 95 nebraska is the best ever, and the computer rankings have 95 nebraska the best ever, there was no team that could even keep the score respectable against them, and they never got blown out either.

i still cant see the arguement about how the top 3 teams all have one loss, that may be so, but at least two of them won their conference titles. ive said it before and ill say it again, if you cant win your conference title, then you dont deserve to go to the title game, no matter what you did the rest of the season, nebraska shouldnt have gone two years ago, and ou shouldnt be going now, and if they win it, the title will be tainted in my eyes....

[Kevin]

How can you make the argument that USC should go because they won their conference? They didn't play a conference title game?!

If OU had been in the same situation, they'd be undefeated right now.

OU lost to a team that beat the team that USC lost to..

OU's strength of schedule is WAY stronger than USC's.

The only argument that USC has is when they lost. Why should that matter? It's a good thing we have computers. They don't care when you lost.

[chopper816]

Originally posted by ktsnake
How can you make the argument that USC should go because they won their conference? They didn't play a conference title game?!

If OU had been in the same situation, they'd be undefeated right now.

OU lost to a team that beat the team that USC lost to..

OU's strength of schedule is WAY stronger than USC's.

The only argument that USC has is when they lost. Why should that matter? It's a good thing we have computers. They don't care when you lost.

the fact is that theyre still the pac 10 conference champs, and ou didnt win the big 12. if the big 12 didnt have a game and ou wouldve had it, then so be it, the circumstances would be different, the fact is 2 of the 3 teams have the conference title.

usc has more arguments than when they lost, they have more arguments about not being there than ou does. face it, if i was on a team that was #1 in both polls, id be pissed that im out of the mix.

bottom line, the bcs sucks, i still stand by what i said earlier about a playoff.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by chopper816
the fact is that theyre still the pac 10 conference champs, and ou didnt win the big 12. if the big 12 didnt have a game and ou wouldve had it, then so be it, the circumstances would be different, the fact is 2 of the 3 teams have the conference title.

usc has more arguments than when they lost, they have more arguments about not being there than ou does. face it, if i was on a team that was #1 in both polls, id be pissed that im out of the mix.

bottom line, the bcs sucks, i still stand by what i said earlier about a playoff.

Yup.. Playoffs would be great.

I don't think you can consider non-championship-playing teams to be on the level with those that do play for it when considering which one is better.

It's apples to oranges. They never played that game. Would they have won it? Maybe... maybe not.

I know lots of people don't want OU in the champ game... as an OU fan though, I'll take it

[amycat412]

All 3 teams are deserving of a shot... And I am biased, but--

1, USC is the only team of the 3 to be unbeaten in regulation time. We lost by 3 in triple OT
2. We played 6 teams who were ranked in the top 25 WHEN WE PLAYED THEM. I don't understand the concept of being penalized for what happens to these teams AFTER we beat them.
3. OK our conference fell apart, but we beat them (except Cal), the way a #1 team should, by an average of 26 pts a game.
4. LSU played 3 non div 1 games?? I may have the # wrong, I am too worked to look it up, but I remember reading it in LA Times this morning, they named 2 teams that LSU played that don't have a hope of competing w an average Pac 10 team
5. Oklahoma is a great team who had a bad night, BUT they got SMACKED in the last game of the year. You are supposed to get better as year goes on. USC lost in Sept.
6. How can a team that did not win its conference be playing for national title. I agree OU is great team and they do deserve a shot based on their skill--but w all the screwy rules the BS has, I am amazed that there is not one excluding a team who does not hold their conf title from the title game
7. BCS totally failed. It was designed to prevent split championships, which we will have this year. Mich is good team, but, sorry folks, USC will spank them... And it was designed to not have bowl matchups repeat reg season games --but it is, in Orange with Miami and FSU.

Amy
I will be wearing my F*&^ the BCS shirt ALL MONTH

[amycat412]

Originally posted by ktsnake
How can you make the argument that USC should go because they won their conference? They didn't play a conference title game?!

If OU had been in the same situation, they'd be undefeated right now.

OU lost to a team that beat the team that USC lost to..

OU's strength of schedule is WAY stronger than USC's.

The only argument that USC has is when they lost. Why should that matter? It's a good thing we have computers. They don't care when you lost.

USC doesn't have a chance for a conference title game. Only conferences w 12 teams have them.

Irony is, if we had chance to play it, we'd have the extra game in our scheds that OU and LSU have and would likely have made up enough points to be in Sugar bowl.

We are .16 behind LSU with one fewer game. Huh, go figure.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by amycat412
USC doesn't have a chance for a conference title game. Only conferences w 12 teams have them.

Irony is, if we had chance to play it, we'd have the extra game in our scheds that OU and LSU have and would likely have made up enough points to be in Sugar bowl.

We are .16 behind LSU with one fewer game. Huh, go figure.

I don't think the Pac-10 would have a problem convincing someone like BYU to come aboard

I guess USC is having to pay for the shortcomings of its weak conference...

[astroAPhi]

I'm flying into San Antonio on Dec 23 and flying out the 29th. I want to beg my parents to change our tickets so I can watch Nebraska in the Alamo Bowl. I hope my cousin gets some playing time.

[amycat412]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I don't think the Pac-10 would have a problem convincing someone like BYU to come aboard

I guess USC is having to pay for the shortcomings of its weak conference...

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.

I was thinking U of Nevada (Reno) and UNLV as 11 and 12 for Pac 10. Cool thing about Pac 10 is it has all these natural rivalries-- USC-UCLA, Cal-Stanford, Oregon - Ore State, WA- WA State, AZ-ASU ... So I would think they'd want to keep that tradition going. SDSU seems like a good choice in terms of it being a big school, but no offense to SDSU fans, they'd be dragging our strength of sched down, too. And the other SD schools not suited to Pac 10... So... doubtful we'll see a Pac 12 anytime soon.

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.

[Thrillhouse]

Amycat, Michigan isn't as bad as last years Iowa team. SC will win but it won't be a laugher like last year. I myself wondered how Iowa was so good in the regular season last year.


Chopper, I never said OU is one of the best ever, thats something that had been creeping up in pulbnlications and newspapers lately.


Anyway, I am still bothered by the fact that LSU beat a team twice and is rewarded for it. Line USC up against Washington St again and USC would get an easy win again much like LSU did. They also had a schedule that included 1AA Western Illinois, Louisiana Monroe, Arizona, and Louisiana Tech. USC attempted to play tough teams in the non confrerence slate but they couldn't help it if Notre Dame and Auburn weren't what they were expected to be. Oklahoma was also dominant all year and it shouldn't matter when you lose.