Tweet
Last night was not a playoff. Many of you seem to think it was. Unfortunately, we don't have playoff games *yet.* I guess because some corporate TV goob(s) scheduled both games (that mattered and the majority of people wanted to watch) at the exact same time and this is throwing people off. Oh, let us not forget that USC won too. And Hawai'i lost; they were felled by BSU. Then we have the ever so important, Syracuse over Notre Dame game.
There were only a few games on yesterday, unlike most Football Saturdays when they're games on all day - and most of them don't matter in the big picture. However, they are still on TV for us to watch if we so choose. This could also be another reason for the "playoff syndrome." I might add, both of these games hurt USC, yet they still moved up in the polls - somehow. Though I don't know how you anyone in the football world can consider beating Hawai'i and/or who was it? Notre Dame? Anything to brag about or add those games into strength of schedule (which somehow thrust USC to #2)… Then, even after yesterday, they were again thrust to #1. ::scratches head::
Personally, I'd also like to see LSU and USC play (but just for fun, as USC has not earned the right to play LSU). However, USC should have to play better teams to get such a good ranking and be considered "the best team in the BCS." Who did they beat? Auburn back when Auburn was over hyped and ranked #7? That was the first game of the year. That's when some people got together and "guessed" at who should start out ranked where. Back when Auburn graced the pages of Sports Illustrated. Those people guessed wrong and it only helped USC.
I don't see how USC can possibly be ranked any better than TCU really. So therefore I don't believe that LSU should have to play USC - who somehow got a good ranking without doing what the rest of the teams in the top 10 had to do - which is simply play people who have top 25 football teams. Even though they were hurt yesterday by 2 games, LSU still didn't make it to the #1 position and they played another top 10-ranked team… How about this, I'll rank USC #1 and send the #2 and #3 teams to the National Championship. Is there a rule against this?
Hell, Colgate went 13-0. Or is it 14-0? Maybe they should play USC? Neither of them played anyone who mattered to the rest of the college football world... Oh, Colgate isn't in the BCS though are they? Well -- dadgum. How about TCU and USC? They have around the same schedule strength… That would be fair. Then again, USC has a decent offense but I don't know that the offense could make up for their terrible defense. USC has so many points scored on them per capita that it would be logical to say that any team could compete. They win games but they are far from impressive as a whole. I wish someone would give them a good schedule so people could see if they are any good or not. That would be nice.
It comes to this:
OU deserves to play in the National Championship and to be ranked #2 behind LSU. They are 10-1 and have played the hardest schedule in the NCAA. OU was beaten by a 15th ranked K State team. K State - who has been the hottest team in that league - period. They have 3 loses and this is only because their QB was out for a while due to an injury. Also, this is the only reason why K State wasn't ranked higher. Then again, OU didn't win their conference - should that be a prerequisite to going to the National Championship game? I personally don't know. However, the way the rules stand, winning your conference is not a prerequisite.
LSU deserves to play in the National Championship game - there is no doubt about that. Really, the only team who played another opponent within their own conference who was ranked in the top 10 was LSU, and it wasn't even a game worth watching. LSU simply walked the Dawgs.
I don't know how OU being beat by a number 15 team can be much different than USC never playing a 15th ranked team? The BCS people are going to have to make up a playoff system. That's the only way to really find out who should go to the NC game. Even then, if they take the top ten teams at the end of the year, there will always be teams who don't get to go to the playoffs that should. Likewise, there will always be teams who get to go who shouldn't - like (IMO) a mediocre Tennessee team would go while Florida - who only seems to get better as the season continues, wouldn't go. But, that's just how it is going to have to be.
Above, I said last night was not a playoff. However, if it were - we'd be seeing LSU and USC playing for the NC. This is assuming it was a playoff game (which I stress again, it wasn't). So, one day, they (whoever they are) will figure out that the only way to get the best overall team is to have a playoff. When this happens, and your favorite team gets beat in the playoffs - that's just that. No excuses. You play to win your conference. You play to get in the playoffs. Then you play to win the playoffs. Then you play in the NC game at the end of the playoffs (assuming you make it that far). Then you can either cry for a year (or make excuses) or you get brag for a year. At least the best teams would play. They wouldn't count (or worry) so much on who ranks #3 because that #3 team would get a chance to prove to the football world that they deserve to play for the National Championship. No more bickering about who should go. The ultimate goal is to find out which team is "the best." The only way to do that is on the field. As it stands, teams don't have that option. As it stands, these teams must rely on coaches who don't watch games, reporters who not only don't watch the games, but they also tend to follow the leader in their reporting, and computers who are good at doing math problems fast (whoop-a-tee-do).
Or, should we take the top teams from each conference (after the conference championships) and send them to a playoff game? That's an interesting idea also. However, I don't think it would work. But, it would be interesting.
The sportswriters, coaches and/or computers can't decide anything accurate in the polls. The sportswriters just follow each other, the coaches in the SEC don't watch the PAC 10 or otherwise (and visa versa), and the computers - well, the computers are no help. Again, how can these people vote when two of the biggest games are on at the same time? Men are pretty good at channel surfing and switching back and forth, but they just aren't that good. How can the coaches actually watch each game they are supposed to vote on? They can't. They read the papers and watch highlights that are gathered by a generally biased (sometimes uninformed) media. They tend to be more interested in their own football program. This is supposed to be an important vote.
The bottom line is that something needs to be done to correct the situation. Though the BCS is young and has kinks in it - I am still an advocate for the playoff system. The whole point is to find out who is number one. There will never be a system that will be perfect, but the playoff system is the best way to find out who is "The Best Team In College Football." Because, as I mentioned before, to find out who is the best team in college football, the teams have to do this on the field. They have to play to find out who is the best. Now they don't have that chance. No one can tell who is the best relying on coaches, reporters and computers.
There were only a few games on yesterday, unlike most Football Saturdays when they're games on all day - and most of them don't matter in the big picture. However, they are still on TV for us to watch if we so choose. This could also be another reason for the "playoff syndrome." I might add, both of these games hurt USC, yet they still moved up in the polls - somehow. Though I don't know how you anyone in the football world can consider beating Hawai'i and/or who was it? Notre Dame? Anything to brag about or add those games into strength of schedule (which somehow thrust USC to #2)… Then, even after yesterday, they were again thrust to #1. ::scratches head::
Personally, I'd also like to see LSU and USC play (but just for fun, as USC has not earned the right to play LSU). However, USC should have to play better teams to get such a good ranking and be considered "the best team in the BCS." Who did they beat? Auburn back when Auburn was over hyped and ranked #7? That was the first game of the year. That's when some people got together and "guessed" at who should start out ranked where. Back when Auburn graced the pages of Sports Illustrated. Those people guessed wrong and it only helped USC.
I don't see how USC can possibly be ranked any better than TCU really. So therefore I don't believe that LSU should have to play USC - who somehow got a good ranking without doing what the rest of the teams in the top 10 had to do - which is simply play people who have top 25 football teams. Even though they were hurt yesterday by 2 games, LSU still didn't make it to the #1 position and they played another top 10-ranked team… How about this, I'll rank USC #1 and send the #2 and #3 teams to the National Championship. Is there a rule against this?
Hell, Colgate went 13-0. Or is it 14-0? Maybe they should play USC? Neither of them played anyone who mattered to the rest of the college football world... Oh, Colgate isn't in the BCS though are they? Well -- dadgum. How about TCU and USC? They have around the same schedule strength… That would be fair. Then again, USC has a decent offense but I don't know that the offense could make up for their terrible defense. USC has so many points scored on them per capita that it would be logical to say that any team could compete. They win games but they are far from impressive as a whole. I wish someone would give them a good schedule so people could see if they are any good or not. That would be nice.
It comes to this:
OU deserves to play in the National Championship and to be ranked #2 behind LSU. They are 10-1 and have played the hardest schedule in the NCAA. OU was beaten by a 15th ranked K State team. K State - who has been the hottest team in that league - period. They have 3 loses and this is only because their QB was out for a while due to an injury. Also, this is the only reason why K State wasn't ranked higher. Then again, OU didn't win their conference - should that be a prerequisite to going to the National Championship game? I personally don't know. However, the way the rules stand, winning your conference is not a prerequisite.
LSU deserves to play in the National Championship game - there is no doubt about that. Really, the only team who played another opponent within their own conference who was ranked in the top 10 was LSU, and it wasn't even a game worth watching. LSU simply walked the Dawgs.
I don't know how OU being beat by a number 15 team can be much different than USC never playing a 15th ranked team? The BCS people are going to have to make up a playoff system. That's the only way to really find out who should go to the NC game. Even then, if they take the top ten teams at the end of the year, there will always be teams who don't get to go to the playoffs that should. Likewise, there will always be teams who get to go who shouldn't - like (IMO) a mediocre Tennessee team would go while Florida - who only seems to get better as the season continues, wouldn't go. But, that's just how it is going to have to be.
Above, I said last night was not a playoff. However, if it were - we'd be seeing LSU and USC playing for the NC. This is assuming it was a playoff game (which I stress again, it wasn't). So, one day, they (whoever they are) will figure out that the only way to get the best overall team is to have a playoff. When this happens, and your favorite team gets beat in the playoffs - that's just that. No excuses. You play to win your conference. You play to get in the playoffs. Then you play to win the playoffs. Then you play in the NC game at the end of the playoffs (assuming you make it that far). Then you can either cry for a year (or make excuses) or you get brag for a year. At least the best teams would play. They wouldn't count (or worry) so much on who ranks #3 because that #3 team would get a chance to prove to the football world that they deserve to play for the National Championship. No more bickering about who should go. The ultimate goal is to find out which team is "the best." The only way to do that is on the field. As it stands, teams don't have that option. As it stands, these teams must rely on coaches who don't watch games, reporters who not only don't watch the games, but they also tend to follow the leader in their reporting, and computers who are good at doing math problems fast (whoop-a-tee-do).
Or, should we take the top teams from each conference (after the conference championships) and send them to a playoff game? That's an interesting idea also. However, I don't think it would work. But, it would be interesting.
The sportswriters, coaches and/or computers can't decide anything accurate in the polls. The sportswriters just follow each other, the coaches in the SEC don't watch the PAC 10 or otherwise (and visa versa), and the computers - well, the computers are no help. Again, how can these people vote when two of the biggest games are on at the same time? Men are pretty good at channel surfing and switching back and forth, but they just aren't that good. How can the coaches actually watch each game they are supposed to vote on? They can't. They read the papers and watch highlights that are gathered by a generally biased (sometimes uninformed) media. They tend to be more interested in their own football program. This is supposed to be an important vote.
The bottom line is that something needs to be done to correct the situation. Though the BCS is young and has kinks in it - I am still an advocate for the playoff system. The whole point is to find out who is number one. There will never be a system that will be perfect, but the playoff system is the best way to find out who is "The Best Team In College Football." Because, as I mentioned before, to find out who is the best team in college football, the teams have to do this on the field. They have to play to find out who is the best. Now they don't have that chance. No one can tell who is the best relying on coaches, reporters and computers.
Comment