NCAA Fraud Exposed! [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Grid Iron

12-08-2003, 12:06 PM

A great sports weekend. Why is that, you say? Well, I'll tell you.

The USC football program finally paid the price for the fraud it has perpetrated on the people of this country all year long. USC had no right to play in that championship game given the weak quality of their opponents this season. LSU and Oklahoma busted their butts and played quality teams. Any rational person has to agree that the BCS got it right and proved that the AP writers and head coaches are all imbeciles. It would have been a tragedy if a team of USC's quality made it to the Sugar Bowl. No, it would have been an embarassment to the American way of life.

The facts don't lie. USC went 11-1 and played only one team that finished the season in the Top 25 (#14 Washington State). USC's only loss came at the hands of UNRANKED Cal.

LSU and Oklahoma, on the other hand, went 12-1, each playing one additional game than USC. Further, both LSU and Oklahoma lost to RANKED teams, unlike USC. Last, LSU played four games against ranked teams (#11 twice, #17 and #18). Oklahoma played three ranked teams, two of which finished the year in the top 10 (#5, #10).

Given this hard data, I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about.

In any case, the whole issue will be moot at approximately 5:00 pm PST on January 1, 2004, as the Trojans walk slowly back into their locker room, crying like little school girls, after being exposed as the biggest imposters in NCAA history on national TV, having lost to the Michigan Wolverines by a score of 49-13. Only then, will the world finally wake up and smell what the Trojans have been shovelin' all year long.

Hail to the Victors.

:)

mckerney

12-08-2003, 12:13 PM

But they haven't lost since September! And it was only by one point, who cares if it was to a bad team. Losing by one point to a Division 3 team would be better than losing by more than 20 to a top 15 team!

:rolleyes:

Leonidas

12-08-2003, 12:18 PM

So your point is you will take more joy from your team beating an overrated team than beating the number one team in the country?

primelord

12-08-2003, 12:25 PM

I hate the strength of schedule argument as to why USC doesn't deserve to be in the championship game. I am not going to argue which teams should be in, but to say USC doesn't deserve to go because of their schedule is just silly.

First of all teams schedule their games years in advance. BYU and Hawaii were both tougher teams when they originally scheduled those games. And Auburn was a pre-season top 5 team. They didn't turn out to be as good as everyone thought, but how would USC know that when they scheduled the game.

As for their loss to Cal. Road conference games are always tough games. They shouldn't have lost that game, but that doesn't mean it was a cupcake game either. And as for OU and LSU playing more top 25 teams. All of their top 25 games were in conference. Including USC's. It's not like LSU and OU went out and scheduled more top 25 opponents. They just played the people on their schedule just like USC did.

And finally USC finished with an overall SOS rating of 37. LSU finished with 29. It's not like there was a massive difference there. So while I am not certain I disagree with the two teams that are in the championship game. I absolutely don't think SOS is a valid reason for keeping USC out of it.

Honolulu_Blue

12-08-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Grid Iron

In any case, the whole issue will be moot at approximately 5:00 pm PST on January 1, 2004, as the Trojans walk slowly back into their locker room, crying like little school girls, after being exposed as the biggest imposters in NCAA history on national TV, having lost to the Michigan Wolverines by a score of 49-13. Only then, will the world finally wake up and smell what the Trojans have been shovelin' all year long.

Hail to the Victors.

:)

I really can't speak for the rest of this post, but I really liked the way it ended. Strong, vivid imagery. Bold predicition. Great soundtrack. Very uplifting. Just the type of feel-good ending you like to see during the holiday season.

heybrad

12-08-2003, 12:40 PM

Its interesting that you point to the ranked teams that OU and LSU beat right after pointing out that those polls are determined by imbeciles.

Isnt this what we heard last year going into the Orange Bowl? Iowa was going to kill USC. Brad Banks was going to show why he should have won the Heisman.

Trojans wipe the floor with Iowa.

Edited so John will not torture and/or kill me.

MrBug708

12-08-2003, 12:40 PM

USC played the toughest SOS last year. Their schedule this year contained 5 teams that started the year on the Top 25

Please dont make me defend USC. I really hate it

WSUCougar

12-08-2003, 12:43 PM

Hey, Grid Iron, I know it's hard to type with an erection blocking the keyboard, but give us a break, huh?

Yeah, LSU played four real powerhouses outside of the SEC: LA-Monroe, Western Illinois, La Tech, and Arizona (the Pac-10 doormat). USC whipped Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, and Notre Dame. Cal ended 7-6; Florida (which beat LSU) ended 8-4. Is that such a huge difference?

And yes, the SEC has more ranked teams, but LSU had the benefit of that extra game to hurtle over USC in the BCS.

I have no beef with LSU - they are a very good team that deserves a shot. But USC is ranked #1 in both polls, and has done nothing to deserve getting bumped. Oklahoma should be the one bumped out for getting pasted in their championship game.

Bottom line is the BCS blows (IMO). You don't need to rip on USC for that cause. :rolleyes:

ISiddiqui

12-08-2003, 12:50 PM

USC had no right to play in that championship game given the weak quality of their opponents this season.

As others have pointed out, the quality of their opponents was better when they scheduled them. Just because their big-time non-conference opponents had sub-par years and their conference foes did not play as well as expected (and yet they still ended with a SOS of 37) does not make it their fault. It ain't like they tried to duck the good teams. Auburn, especially, was ranked in the Top 10, and that was the first game on the list.

TroyF

12-08-2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by primelord
I hate the strength of schedule argument as to why USC doesn't deserve to be in the championship game. I am not going to argue which teams should be in, but to say USC doesn't deserve to go because of their schedule is just silly.

First of all teams schedule their games years in advance. BYU and Hawaii were both tougher teams when they originally scheduled those games. And Auburn was a pre-season top 5 team. They didn't turn out to be as good as everyone thought, but how would USC know that when they scheduled the game.

As for their loss to Cal. Road conference games are always tough games. They shouldn't have lost that game, but that doesn't mean it was a cupcake game either. And as for OU and LSU playing more top 25 teams. All of their top 25 games were in conference. Including USC's. It's not like LSU and OU went out and scheduled more top 25 opponents. They just played the people on their schedule just like USC did.

And finally USC finished with an overall SOS rating of 37. LSU finished with 29. It's not like there was a massive difference there. So while I am not certain I disagree with the two teams that are in the championship game. I absolutely don't think SOS is a valid reason for keeping USC out of it.

People cannot have it both ways. If SOS isn't important, lets talk about Miami (OH) or Boise State. They finished with one loss too.

I've never tried to make the arguement that LSU is a better team than USC. (Though after watching LSU's last two games, I think they'd be hard to handle for just about anyone) I have made the arguement LSU is more "deserving," as is Oklahoma.

People cannot talk about how a team like TCU should be eliminated because of the SOS factor and then say that USC deserves to go because the SOS isn't their fault.

The facts are the facts. USC only played a single top 25 team all year. LSU played 5 that finished there. Given those circumstances, which team was more likely to lose a single game?

If I hadn't given you team names at the start of the year and gave the same scenario, what would your response have been? What if I'd added that one team played in the 6th best BCS conference, while the other one played in the best?

This is a no brainer. The BCS did its job this year. The computers did what they were supposed to do, they took the human factor out of the equation and looked at who the more deserving team was.

If USC beats Michigan, they'll have a split title. If they want to feel ripped off, maybe they could talk to Paterno who's finished with ZERO losses multiple times and not been declared the champion.

Until there is a playoff, this is the best we have. It sucks, but the sucky system made the right call this year.

John Galt

12-08-2003, 12:55 PM

Grid Iron

12-08-2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Leonidas
So your point is you will take more joy from your team beating an overrated team than beating the number one team in the country?

I am a very petty, and bitter, man.:mad:

Why am I bitter? Because if the the idiot in charge of scheduling Michigan's football games hadn't sent the Wolverines on the road to Oregon this year, Michigan would probably be playing in the Sugar Bowl.:)

Ksyrup

12-08-2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Hey, Grid Iron, I know it's hard to type with an erection blocking the keyboard, but give us a break, huh?

Yeah, LSU played four real powerhouses outside of the SEC: LA-Monroe, Western Illinois, La Tech, and Arizona (the Pac-10 doormat). USC whipped Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, and Notre Dame. Cal ended 7-6; Florida (which beat LSU) ended 8-4. Is that such a huge difference?

And yes, the SEC has more ranked teams, but LSU had the benefit of that extra game to hurtle over USC in the BCS.

I have no beef with LSU - they are a very good team that deserves a shot. But USC is ranked #1 in both polls, and has done nothing to deserve getting bumped. Oklahoma should be the one bumped out for getting pasted in their championship game.

Bottom line is the BCS blows (IMO). You don't need to rip on USC for that cause. :rolleyes:

Nobody would be bitching right now if the polls didn't matter, and the computers that factor when you lose took that out of consideration. The teams that ended #1 and #2 based on pure numbers would deserve to go, no questions asked.

But, as it stands, there are two portions to the "Miss College Football America" pageant - (1) Polls and (2) Stats. All three teams faired equally well in the Talent Competition, and USC won the Gown Competition, but it didn't place as well in the Swimsuit Competition. That, and the judges thought their choice of music was too modern for a serious figure skating competition. Where do they think they're skating, with Brian Boitano and Rudy Galindo in Ice Wars? Plus, when you fight a nobody before your home crowd, you're entitled to the benefit of the doubt and a split decision.

That's basically what this boils down to, when you factor in the subjective vote. This time, the subjective was trumped by the objective.

ISiddiqui

12-08-2003, 01:00 PM

People cannot have it both ways. If SOS isn't important, lets talk about Miami (OH) or Boise State. They finished with one loss too.

Fine, let's talk about them. I think conference champs should have a shot at the title. Let 'em compete!

Grid Iron

12-08-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Hey, Grid Iron, I know it's hard to type with an erection blocking the keyboard, but give us a break, huh?

It's actually not that difficult. I've had lots of practice since I got my broadband connection.;)

Honolulu_Blue

12-08-2003, 01:05 PM

heybrad

12-08-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Grid Iron
I am a very petty, and bitter, man.:mad:

Why am I bitter? Because if the the idiot in charge of scheduling Michigan's football games hadn't sent the Wolverines on the road to Oregon this year, Michigan would probably be playing in the Sugar Bowl.:)
[begin sarcasm]

Why should it matter that they went to Oregon. If you listen to everybody here, Oregon is a Pac 10 school so that should have been a cupcake victory. How can Michigan be the #4 team when one of their losses is to Oregon, a team that finished below Cal in the Pac 10 standings? I, mean, my God, below Cal!!!

[/end sarcasm]

TroyF

12-08-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by heybrad
Its interesting that you point to the ranked teams that OU and LSU beat right after pointing out that those polls are determined by imbeciles.

Isnt this what we heard last year going into the Orange Bowl? Iowa State was going to kill USC. Brad Banks was going to show why he should have won the Heisman.

Trojans wipe the floor with Iowa State.

And the Trojans may very well wipe the floor with Michigan, LSU, and OU too. (I'll let the Iowa State comment slide, they played in the Humanitarian Bowl last year) :)

That's not really the point, is it?

I can easily say that the same pollsters who voted on the top 25 are idiots for rating USC #1.

Florida, Ole Miss, and Georgia all deserve to be in the top 25. I don't hear a single person debating that.

Likewise, I don't really hear a rallying cry that any of USC's other opponents belong in the top 25 outside of Washington State. Who else would you put there?

As for the people who ripped on USC last year, look at this LSU team. I heard a ton of national announcers who said the LSU fraud would be exposed in the SEC title game. (it wasn't only our very own mckerney who felt that way) Oops. :)

SlapBone

12-08-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by TroyF

I've never tried to make the arguement that LSU is a better team than USC. (Though after watching LSU's last two games, I think they'd be hard to handle for just about anyone)

To top it off LSU has a distinct home field advantage now in the Sugar Bowl. ;)

Cringer

12-08-2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Hey, Grid Iron, I know it's hard to type with an erection blocking the keyboard, but give us a break, huh?

Thats a big erection! :eek:

Ever think of an adult film career?

Chief Rum

12-08-2003, 01:32 PM

heybrad said it right. I find it ironic that Grid Iron talks so animatedly about USC's road loss to Cal and how that means USC doesn't deserve to go, and then laments that his team would have been in the Sugar Bowl had they not played another, similar team from the same conference on the road and lost. Of course, USC lost a close one in triple overtime to a conference foe who got lucky a few times. Michigan got blown off Autzen Field by a pretty bad Oregon team. And this doesn't even mantion that Iowa loss...

...but, like I said in one of the other threads on this same topic, the BCS, by its rules, got the right teams in the Sugar Bowl. Based on the information we have, LSU and OU have the statistical right to be the two teams in the game.

The thing I don't get, though, is why people like Grid Iron automatically see the BCS result as a determination that USC is worse than OU or LSU. And why those same people are ripping on USC for its schedule, without acknowledging that the Trojans clearly made an effort to schedule a strong schedule (better than LSU and even with OU, in fact), but it just exploded in their faces when a handful of their non-conference foes were much worse than expected, and the Pac-10 overall happened to have its worst year since 1999.

SOS is an important factor in determining who should go to the national championship game, but it doesn't determine the quality of that team, just the teams that team has faced. People call the coaches and writers idiots because they don't vote the way the BCS has it, but it seems to me these people are either biased LSU or OU fans, or they haven't watched USC play a game all year.

The fact is, the coaches and writers are intimately familiar with what makes quality in their sport. They should--it's their job. So when they watch someone on TV or on the playing field, they can tell what a good team is. And those individuals felt USC was every bit, and maybe better, than either LSU or OU. USC was just as dominant in its games. I don't think you could make much of a statistical argument that LSU or OU is actually a better team than USC. You can't make an argument that USC is better than LSU or OU either, but then those teams aren't getting disparaged simply because their schedule went whacky on them this year.

So make the connection, folks. SOS != quality of team. I watched all three teams a few times, and USC is every bit as good as those other two, and on the "championship game will feature the top two teams" scale, USC has every right to complain about not being in that game, because it is nowhere near out of the question that USC is not one of the top two teams in the nation.

So BCS got it right, but that doesn't mean USC is worse thasn LSU or OU. There.

This really hurts, you know? You guys know I am a UCLA fan, just like MrBug. Please don't make me support my hated rival by making quick assumptions and forcing me to respond to your utter inanity. Thank you.

CR

sterlingice

12-08-2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by TroyF
People cannot have it both ways. If SOS isn't important, lets talk about Miami (OH) or Boise State. They finished with one loss too.

Oh, shut up, TroyF. You're worse than Geraldo and the tomb or that guy who revealed magicians secrets. They're both dead now (and replaced by clones) and you soon will be, too.

Those in the know are all watching the PlainsCapital Illuminati Fort Worth Bowl for the real national title game between 11-1 TCU and 12-1 Boise State. Everyone knows Bob Stoops lost the Big 12 Title game because he's member number 35-- but perhaps I've said too much. I'll just leave you with this: don't you think it's odd the highly favored and only undefeated team out there, also known for always winning the big game choked against Bill Snyder? And wasn't it odd that Jason White kept clutching his non-throwing arm? Hmm? ;)

SI

Samdari

12-08-2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Hey, Grid Iron, I know it's hard to type with an erection blocking the keyboard, but give us a break, huh?

Hmm, I've never had a problem.

HornedFrog Purple

12-08-2003, 01:55 PM

Oh I thought this was about Jackie Sherrill... carry on

sterlingice

12-08-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Grid Iron
I am a very petty, and bitter, man.:mad:

Why am I bitter? Because if the the idiot in charge of scheduling Michigan's football games hadn't sent the Wolverines on the road to Oregon this year, Michigan would probably be playing in the Sugar Bowl.:)

And isn't this the problem that got us here in the first place?

"Let's not schedule tough games because we'll never see the national title game" so we get to see games like LSU-LaMonroe, LSU-LaTech, LSU-Arizona, and LSU-WIllinois so that teams can get in the title game. Oh crap, you mean that's what happened? And you wonder why I think LSU should have to stay home...

SI

Grid Iron

12-08-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Don't blame the scheduling guy, blame the special teams coach.

Agreed.

DeToxRox

12-08-2003, 02:08 PM

It should never matter when a team loses, a loss is a loss.

And if we didn't have a BCS, ALL THREE TEAMS WOULD BE IN THREE DIFFERENT BOWL GAMES.

THINK PEOPLE! THINK!

SlapBone

12-08-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by sterlingice
WIllinois

SI

So I was correct. Wisconsin and Illinois are actually 1 state. If you look at the outline we can call it Florida-North.

Passacaglia

12-08-2003, 02:53 PM

"LSU and Oklahoma, on the other hand, went 12-1, each playing one additional game than USC."

You guys, the numbers don't lie. LSU and Oklahoma are 12-1, and USC is 11-1. Therefore, the 12-1 teams deserve to go, and the 11-1 teams do not.

Seriously, I thought that was the funniest part of the post. Hate to disagree with a Michigan fan.

illinifan999

12-08-2003, 03:28 PM

The real NCAA Fraud is that the Illini are not in the national title game. ;) :p

Go Oklahoma!

ISiddiqui

12-08-2003, 03:33 PM

And if we didn't have a BCS, ALL THREE TEAMS WOULD BE IN THREE DIFFERENT BOWL GAMES.

So? If we didn't have a BCS, we wouldn't have this BS idea that there is a a definative national champion. We could console ourselves realizing the national champion was simply a subjective measure so it really didn't matter who won.

TroyF

12-08-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
So? If we didn't have a BCS, we wouldn't have this BS idea that there is a a definative national champion. We could console ourselves realizing the national champion was simply a subjective measure so it really didn't matter who won.

Why have that idea anyway? I didn't think Florida State should have played Oklahoma a couple of years ago. I thought it should have been Miami. I thought Oregan should have played Miami a year or two later.

Until college football gets a true playoff system in, there won't be a true national champion. . . only a mythical one, no matter how hard they try to rationalize things.

ISiddiqui

12-08-2003, 03:44 PM

Why have that idea anyway?

Apparently that is what the BCS wants us to believe (ie, a 'true' national champion). And many people also buy that line.

Grid Iron

12-08-2003, 03:49 PM

This lively discussion has been quite interesting. However, I think we can all agree on following:

1. There should be a playoff system rather than the BCS; and

2. USC is overrated and has perpetrated a fraud on everyone.

:)

Glad to see we reached a consensus. Just like the NCAA football rankings . . .:D

ISiddiqui

12-08-2003, 03:50 PM

However, I think we can all agree on following:

1. There should be a playoff system rather than the BCS; and

2. USC is overrated and has perpetrated a fraud on everyone.

Yes, and HELL NO :p.

USC should go to the national championship game.

12-08-2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by sterlingice
And isn't this the problem that got us here in the first place?

"Let's not schedule tough games because we'll never see the national title game" so we get to see games like LSU-LaMonroe, LSU-LaTech, LSU-Arizona, and LSU-WIllinois so that teams can get in the title game. Oh crap, you mean that's what happened? And you wonder why I think LSU should have to stay home...

SI

Once again, let's set this straight.
First, LSU has nothing to be ashamed of in its schedule. LSU's final strength of schedule was respectable though nothing to brag about. But it was, in fact, better than USC's SOS. Additionally LSU played and defeated more top 25 teams than either OU or USC. Those facts should end the argument that LSU got in due to a weak SOS.

In fact, the opposite is true. LSU fans honestly thought its SOS was going to keep LSU OUT of the top two, and it came down in the end to absurd things like Notre Dame losing to Syracuse Saturday that made the difference between USC and LSU. Had ND beaten Syracuse, LSU would have still been ranked #2 in both human polls and likely would still have been ranked #2 or #1 in all the computer polls, and yet would have been ranked #3 by the BCS due to SOS. That would make no more sense than USC's current situation.

Additionally, lest you, too, buy in to the lie that LSU deliberately concocted a weak schedule, LSU was originally scheduled to play Marshall and Bowling Green in 2003 rather than ULM and W. Ill. Bowling Green dropped early and Marshall dropped late. I forget why Bowling Green dropped, but Marshall dropped for a Thursday night TV game. LSU had no control over that. Troy St., often mentioned as an LSU potential 2003 opponent, was a stopgap measure that quickly fell thru. In the end, LSU had little choice but to schedule ULM and W. Ill. based on other teams dropping LSU. Additionally, LSU scheduled Arizona on the assumption that it would be a good matchup with a decent Pac 10 team. LSU did not expect Arizona to be a doormat in 2003. I'm not sure anyone else did, either. (As an aside, LSU played at Va Tech in 2002. Va Tech was supposed to play at LSU in early 2004, but Va Tech dropped LSU a few weeks ago, again for a Thursday night TV game. That game was rescheduled for 2007. So LSU is now looking for an early home opponent for 2004 and will have difficulty scheduling a decent one. But I'm sure some people will blame LSU if they end up with a weak opponent to replace Va Tech.)

Let's remember that LSU ended up the ONLY team of the three ranked #2 or #1 in EVERY human and computer poll used by the BCS. Neither USC nor OU can make that claim.

My view of this mess is that OU, USC, and LSU can all make legitimate claims to being in the Sugar Bowl. My own view is that USC and LSU should be playing, but I also understand the OU arguments.

Buccaneer

12-08-2003, 08:41 PM

My view of this mess is that OU, USC, and LSU can all make legitimate claims to being in the Sugar Bowl.

Why? If the playoffs started last weekend (which is one way of looking at it), OU would already be eliminated and KSU would move on. Seems like everyone is making a claim for OU to be in the championship game (or final four) but they didn't even make it out of the first round. Instead we have a team with 3 losses getting a shot but not OU. In the BCS (and in a bowl system), OU's success this season gets them to the top tier. In a playoffs, they are nothing but losers. Satisfied?

12-08-2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Why? If the playoffs started last weekend (which is one way of looking at it), OU would already be eliminated and KSU would move on. Seems like everyone is making a claim for OU to be in the championship game (or final four) but they didn't even make it out of the first round. Instead we have a team with 3 losses getting a shot but not OU. In the BCS (and in a bowl system), OU's success this season gets them to the top tier. In a playoffs, they are nothing but losers. Satisfied?

?
Actually I prefer a playoff, but we're not having a playoff this year. We're using the BCS system. I think in the present system all three teams can make justifiable claims to be in the Sugar Bowl. After all, the #1 team in the BCS rankings certainly can calim that the BCS rankings speak for themselves, since that is the system everyone is playing under. But, as I've said, I think USC has a better claim than OU, though I guess you should say it is a 'loose constructionist' claim re the BCS rather than a 'strict constructionist' claim. I think a playoff would be great, because among othe reasons you would eventually see a 7 or 8 seed win the national championship, which would really be fun to watch. After all, regardless of who people want to claim has the best team, any of the top 8 teams this year would be capable of making a title run under the right circumstances.

Craptacular

12-08-2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by WSUCougar

but LSU had the benefit of that extra game to hurtle over USC in the BCS.

...
Oklahoma should be the one bumped out for getting pasted in their championship game.

This is the problem with some conferences having championship games and some not having them.

jerem77

12-09-2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by sterlingice
Oh, shut up, TroyF. You're worse than Geraldo and the tomb or that guy who revealed magicians secrets. They're both dead now (and replaced by clones) and you soon will be, too.

Those in the know are all watching the PlainsCapital Illuminati Fort Worth Bowl for the real national title game between 11-1 TCU and 12-1 Boise State. Everyone knows Bob Stoops lost the Big 12 Title game because he's member number 35-- but perhaps I've said too much. I'll just leave you with this: don't you think it's odd the highly favored and only undefeated team out there, also known for always winning the big game choked against Bill Snyder? And wasn't it odd that Jason White kept clutching his non-throwing arm? Hmm? ;)

SI

Here's a thought: Could Oklahoma have thrown this game, knowing they would still be in the title game, in order to get a second Big 12 team in the BCS?

Also, there was a poll on ESPN as to who should be in the title game. LSU vs USC was winning by a vast majority with over 100,000 votes in.

sooner333

12-09-2003, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by jerem77
Here's a thought: Could Oklahoma have thrown this game, knowing they would still be in the title game, in order to get a second Big 12 team in the BCS?

No.

First of all, I don't think this merits a response more than that, but Texas was, in all likelihood going to get the at-large that Oklahoma currently has had OU won.

jerem77

12-09-2003, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by sooner333
No.

First of all, I don't think this merits a response more than that, but Texas was, in all likelihood going to get the at-large that Oklahoma currently has had OU won.

That's fair, especially since my question was not so much a serious question, but more of a,"What if a Super model asked me on a date?" kind of question.

Samdari

12-09-2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by DeToxRoxDVHStyle
It should never matter when a team loses, a loss is a loss.

And if we didn't have a BCS, ALL THREE TEAMS WOULD BE IN THREE DIFFERENT BOWL GAMES.

THINK PEOPLE! THINK!

Actually, I think that if we had the system before the Bowl Coalition, we could have ended up with largely the same matchups. Michigan/USC is obvious. Kansas State was the Big 8/Big12 champ, and would be in the Orange. LSU would be in the Sugar. OU would have been a free agent, but basically would be choosing between the Sugar and Fiesta. Is there any reason to think they would not go after LSU and the championship.

Last year, the BCS got the best matchup, which would not have happened in the old system. This year, we got the same matchups.