BCS-The Debate

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:09 pm

Michigan may be the second best team in the country but that's only speculation now, we know for sure that they are not the best.

Michigan has only to look at itself as to why they are not going to be in the Fiesta Bowl; they had a chance to win their way in and they lost, the Big Ten isn't as good as either the SEC or the Pac 10, any team whose non conference schedule includes Ball St., Central Michigan, and Vanderbilt should be discounted over a team that plays a full conference schedule then goes out and schedules games with Arkanasas and Nebraska. Hey Michigan, play somebody!!! Until you do you don't deserve a shot at the National title.

Michigan is 2-1 against top 25 teams, USC is 4-0.

Wisconsin is a joke, how can a team with no wins and only 1 game against a top 25 team be rated #7?

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:13 pm

Wisconsin may be ranked higher, but that doesn't qualify them as better. If Wisconsin played week in and week out in the SEC this year, they would struggle to make a bowl game.

And yes, in a system where only 2 teams have a chance to play for the national title in postseason play, if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't play for a national title. In formats where 65 or 16 teams play for titles, it obviously is not an issue.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:27 pm

You guys are spin drs.

goldy, OSU's schedule wasnt any different than MI's overall. Why is OSU #1?

USC wouldnt be 4-0 if they had to play the OSU in Columbus.

But neither of you spinsters can answer the question of : How do we get to forget about the loss to Oregon?

Irishmans Shanty · Post by **Irishmans Shanty** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:34 pm

Until Saturday, I watched USC zero times this year. I've seen ND play parts of several games. It took all of 3 drives to figure out that USC was better, faster, and more talented at nearly every single position.

I can't explain the USC loss to Oregon State and I can't explain their close calls to lesser teams. But I do know that Michigan, Ohio State, Boise St., or anyone else you want couldn't beat USC when they feel like playing. USC has a gear that nobody else can match. Period.

USC's second string would clearly be at least the #3 team in the Big 10.

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:38 pm

The same way Oklahoma's 35-7 loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 title game a few years ago was forgotten. A 33-31 loss to Oregon State at less than full strength is not indicative of how good a team USC is. Their wins over Oregon, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Cal, and Nebraska are a sign of this team's worth. Nebraska is a potential Big 12 champion, and Arkansas is a potential SEC champion. Michigan's 'quality wins' came over Wisconsin, Notre Dame, and Penn State, and none of those qualify anywhere near elite teams. Michigan had their shot at Ohio State, and they were clearly outclassed, let USC prove that they are the best.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:57 pm

Why is OSU #1?

They started #2 and beat #1 Texas, they then went on to beat #2 Michigan. The problem may be that there are pre season rankings, but OSU started at #2, beat #1, and hasn't lost since. That's why they're #1.

OSU did play a tougher schedule, though marginally. Notre Dame is nothing more than a publicity machine, they played 2 quality teams and were beaten by 20 each time.

I don't overlok a loss to Oregon St., but you have to realize that the Pac 10 is tougher than the big Ten and it's not even close, and USC had no let down games unlike Michigan who scheduled 3 of them. USC has the #3 toughest schedule in the country, Michigan has #38.

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:18 pm

I believe if you look up 'conundrum' in the dictionary, 'BCS' is one of the definitions.

Since there is no playoff system there's little chance that everyone will be happy with the way the no.1 and 2 teams are determined for the championship game. And even if there were a playoff there would still be arguments about teams that didn't make the playoffs and should be there.

Anyway, I'm with Breeze on this one, Michigan had their shot, they lost, now it's USC's turn. If USC loses to UCLA, then I'd be willing to argue for Michigan-OSU, the Sequel.

The only reason I haven't been gung ho for a playoff was overindulging on football on New Year's Day. I always loved the smorgasborg of games, the once great Cotton Bowl in the afternoon, the Rose Bowl starting in daylight and ending under the lights and the Orange Bowl at night in Miami with the Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl sprinkled in between.

With the BCS, the magic is gone, the games on New Year's Day don't mean anything. There's really no good reason for not having a playoff, if you take 16 teams you could get down to a championship game in 4 games, so there would be extra games for only a few teams. You could work the bowls into the system, but you'd only need 15 games so some of the minor bowls would have to be dropped. They could have the first 2 rounds in December, the semifinals on New Year's Day, and the championship game as it is now, about a week later. I would have to think they could bring in even more revenue than they do now.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:29 pm

goldy, the BCS has 3 Big Ten teams in the top 10.... #s 1,3 and 7

The Pac 10 has 2 in the top 25 with Cal at #21.

These things run in cycles but I dont see how this year the pac 10 is way better.

And here is another point:

When some loud bragger tries to put me down and says his school is great

I tell em right away: now what's a matter buddy aint yah heard of my school, its #2 in the country..........

koren808 · Post by **koren808** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:43 pm

The Big 10 may have some higher quality teams up top, but the Pac 10 is deeper this year.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:22 pm

Deeper from #50-80 in the nation maybe, but what does that matter? Those teams are pretty much interchangeable. Washington (the 2nd worst PAC 10 team) lost to USC 26-20 @ USC, Wash St (3rd worst) lost 28-22, Ari St (5th worst) lost 28-21. How good is USC really?

Had Ohio St lost to Michigan, would people be saying they blew their chance? No, they'd have a shot at redemption. The only reason Michigan was #2 & not #1 at the time of that game was because they weren't ranked as high in the preseason rankings. If they had swapped preaseason rankings, Michigan would have been #1 going in and OSU #2 even with them beating Texas. You can't take the #1 away from the #1 team until they lose, that is the sentiment throughout college football.

Also, what does timing of the loss have? Had Michigan lost to OSU in Week 6 instead of Week 10, I think they would be up at #2 right now. USC had time to get back up after their loss, that helped them a lot. Michigan has no redemption game.

These are the top 2 teams in football, no doubt. USC is #3 and shouldn't have a chance at playing in the nat'l championship.

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:40 pm

No doubt? That's extreme. Michigan barely beat Ball State and Iowa in close games, so the scores of game arguments isn't valid. Top to bottom, the Pac 10 was much better this year. There are no gimme games such as Illinois, Indiana, or Northwestern in the Pac 10. USC can compete with anyone in the country, especially with a fully healthy Dwayne Jarrett and Chauncey Washington.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:28 pm

Indiana & Northwestern aren't gimmie games, Illinois yes. I think Stanford qualifies as a sure win for the Pac 10 & the 2 Washington schools are pretty close this year.

koren808 · Post by **koren808** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:10 pm

If I remember correctly, Washington St. was ranked at one point.

Any team that allows 63 points to the Gophers is a gimme. Stanford is the only true gimme.

Like Breeze said, Michigan struggled against BALL ST. And this was late in the year. All of USC's close games were A) earlier in the year, and B) with Jarrett hurt.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:21 pm

The NCAA ranks strength of schedule purely by opponents wining %, of the 119 D1A football teams. The lowest Big Ten team, Wisconsin, came in at #85, the lowest Pac 10 team is Arizona St. at #52. Between Arizona St. and Wisconsin are 3 other Big Ten teams; Purdue, Michigan St., and Northwestern.

Many coaches in the Big Ten like to rationalize their patsy non conference schedule by saying how tough their conference is. USC goes out plays tough games and wins them, they deserve to be rewarded for that. Michigan goes out and finds MAC schools, they get what they deserve.

Other SOS:
Sagrin- USC-3, Michigan-13 (#1-Stanford) Sagrins top 10 are all Pac 10 teams, Wisconsin stumbles in at #85.
CBS- USC-2, Michigan-4 (#1-Florida) CBS ranks all teams 1 -119 and they have 1 Pac 10 team below #75 the Big Ten has 4.
SportsQuant- USC-15, Michigan-40 (#1 Tennessee) 4 of their top 5 are SEC teams. Wisconsin checks in at a meager 95

EREmpireStrikesBack · Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:56 pm

Again, what does it matter about the middle to bottom part of the conference? USC & Michigan should be able to beat them no problem regardless if they are #53 or #103, they are both not very good. The top end of the conference is what matters and being able to beat the better teams is a lot more, not barely beating the weak teams just because you are missing a WR.

USC is still living off the great teams it had before, had they not been great the last couple years, they would have never been ranked anywhere near they are now. Preseason rankings (USA Today poll: USC #3, Mich #15, AP: USC #6, Michigan #14) mean so much along with when you lose (USC: 7th game, Mich: last game). Just the name of USC kept them where they are in the polls.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:34 am

I agree with everything ER said and add: MI maybe struggled vs Ball State

but they didnt lose to a team as bad as Oregon State like USC did.

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:20 am

Oregon State is not a bad football team, they went 8-4 including winning 6 of their last with wins over USC and Oregon. Granted, USC should have won that game, but it's not as though the Beavers are a pushover.

If you look at the top of the conferences, they are not that much different either. Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin, are not that much better overall than USC, Cal, and Oregon. Cal would be a Top 3 team in the Big 10 and Oregon would certainly make a push for it.

USC is still an elite team with probably the best talent in the nation. They were ranked so highly because they deserved to be. John David Booty is a great QB and with 3 straight Top 5 recruiting classes they are loaded and have talent few can match. When they are firing on all cylinders the only team that can compete with them athletically and physically is Ohio State.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:59 am

Miami has great recruiting classes, why aren't they in the Top 25 then?

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:03 pm

EREmpireStrikesBack wrote:Miami has great recruiting classes, why aren't they in the Top 25 then?

Because they have no discipline, and poor coaching. And over the past few years, their recruiting classes have not been nearly as good as USC's.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:04 pm

BB, nobody is saying that USC is not an elite team. All we are saying.... is Give Peace a Chance.

No , I mean all we are saying is....they lost to Boofin Oregon State

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:11 pm

Well ER hinted that USC was living off its past teams, which is not true. Bottom line is both Michigan and USC are elite teams with 1 loss, Michigan's loss came against a better team, but USC's wins have come against better teams, so either side of the argument you are on, you have a case. I just feel that USC's ceiling is higher, and when they play their best game, they are the 2nd best team in the country, and they bring their best when the games are the biggest.

koren808 · Post by **koren808** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:19 pm

Since the Oregon St. loss, though, USC has won 4 straight games, and 3 of them were against ranked teams. Not only have they won, but they won convincingly. Their last 4 games:

@ Stanford: W 44-0
#21 Oregon: W 35-10
#17 Cal: W 23-6
#6 Notre Dame: W 44-24

This is how Michigan has ended the year:

@ Penn St.: W 17-10
Iowa: W 20-6
Northwestern: W 17-3
Ball St.: W 34-26 (and Ball St. had the ball inside the 10 with a couple minutes left)
@ Indiana: W 34-3
@ Ohio St.: L 41-38

Also, Michigan may be number 2, but we know that they aren't number 1. You can't say that about USC.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:09 pm

Difference though is Pac 10 football compared to Big 10 football. Those are the way games are in the Big 10, close and defensive. Pac 10 is a lot more about the offense because they are able to recruit the big play guys a lot easier than the Big 10 who get more of the grinders.

koren808 · Post by **koren808** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:26 pm

Think of how explosive Cal's offense is with Lynch and Jackson. The fact that USC held them to single digits is impressive.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:37 pm

Id rather see USC vs OSU. So would most people.

MI vs OSU...been there, done that.

But I am not in favor of making the decision based on what would be more entertaining to packerboy and I think thats what is being done, all be it , with some justification.