What the h*** happened to OSU?

[BillR]

Whew, Bill. Lemme catch my breath............ NOW your saying Michigan should be #1. That's what it looks like your sayin' if you think Michigan could beat the two top ranked teams in the country, cause I personally wanted OU to play USC in the Sugar instead of LSU. That woulda been a cake walk compared to a team like LSU. Now the Sooners will have to actually prepare to play.
Terry

Terry-
Chill out a little... :laugh3:
I said that Michigan is playing very well right now (ask Ohio State!), and should give USC a good game. It will DEFINATELY be more interesting to watch than LSU stomping on a overrated OU team. I also think the result would be the same regardless of which of the three teams (UofM, USC, LSU) OU played. I personally don't think OU is in the same caliber as the other 3, and that will be painfully apparent during the Sugar. Any of the three would beat OU by at least a few TDs. OU has been exposed, and BOTH polls agree! The BCS has AGAIN failed to put the two best teams in the final game. LSUs "championship" will be tainted, and they'll never get to find out if they really were the best. But OU will be NO CHALLANGE for the Tigers at all.
Remember a few years ago when Nebraska got stomped in the Big12 title game by Colorado (62-36!) and the BCS saw fit to put them in the "championship" title game anyway, where they were promply smashed by Miami! Oregon would've given the 'Canes a MUCH better game. Same story, different teams, same result. At least then the top team in the polls WAS in the game!
Sugar- LSU by 17, no contest!
Rose- USC by 7, but could easily go the other way if Navarre gets a hot hand.

And I won't even hit you with "I told you so..." later on! :laugh3: :wave:

 

[OT]

Terry-
Chill out a little... :laugh3:
I said that Michigan is playing very well right now (ask Ohio State!), and should give USC a good game. It will DEFINATELY be more interesting to watch than LSU stomping on a overrated OU team. I also think the result would be the same regardless of which of the three teams (UofM, USC, LSU) OU played. I personally don't think OU is in the same caliber as the other 3, and that will be painfully apparent during the Sugar. Any of the three would beat OU by at least a few TDs. OU has been exposed, and BOTH polls agree! The BCS has AGAIN failed to put the two best teams in the final game. LSUs "championship" will be tainted, and they'll never get to find out if they really were the best. But OU will be NO CHALLANGE for the Tigers at all.
Remember a few years ago when Nebraska got stomped in the Big12 title game by Colorado (62-36!) and the BCS saw fit to put them in the "championship" title game anyway, where they were promply smashed by Miami! Oregon would've given the 'Canes a MUCH better game. Same story, different teams, same result. At least then the top team in the polls WAS in the game!
Sugar- LSU by 17, no contest!
Rose- USC by 7, but could easily go the other way if Navarre gets a hot hand.

And I won't even hit you with "I told you so..." later on! :laugh3: :wave:

Let's count the all Americans shall we? LSU-1, USC-3, OU-6. How about Heisman candidates? USC's left last year. Nagurski winners? OU-1. I could go on and on. I wouldn't call that overrated.

Look, we could do this forever and and still find reasons that OU is better than USC.
The point is, USC and Mich. still get to play for a "national championship" and OU and LSU get to play for THE national championship.

Oh, and I know you don't know any better, but to tell an OU fan to chill out is to tell the Pope that he's got next round, it just won't do any good. OU as well as Bama fans are the most passionate fans in the nation. In Oklahoma, we eat, sleep, breath, and bleed football, but basketball's catchin' up. You see, when OU loses, it leads to depression, divorce, and suicide, no sh!t. We have radio stations devoted to it. OU fans don't merely hope, they expect to play for national championships every year. Man, I can't chill out, it's not in my makeup. I can argue this from now on. I live for it.

Terry

 

[Markm80521]

OU as well as Bama fans are the most passionate fans in the nation. In Oklahoma, we eat, sleep, breath, and bleed football, but basketball's catchin' up. You see, when OU loses, it leads to depression, divorce, and suicide, no sh!t. We have radio stations devoted to it. OU fans don't merely hope, they expect to play for national championships every year. Man, I can't chill out, it's not in my makeup. I can argue this from now on. I live for it.

Terry

Not just Bama, it is life blood in the south in general. Tuscaloosa is a fun place to see football though. NEW THREAD - MOST EXCITING/ COOLEST STADIUM (NCAA) you've been to. My heart will always be with the Dawgs and Sanford (tween the hedges) but when I walked into Neyland (Tennessee) for the first time.... OH MY GOD:gee:

 

[OT]

Remember a few years ago when Nebraska got stomped in the Big12 title game by Colorado (62-36!) and the BCS saw fit to put them in the "championship" title game anyway

Your right about one thing, they did get stomped, but you need to get your facts straight. 1- it was a reg. season game at Colorado, CU played Texas in the Big 12 champ. game. 2-Nebraska started their skid with that game, they went 6 and 6 the next season. 3-Given the stength of schedule and margin of victory by NU throughout the season, technically they should have been better than Oregon, not even the almighty AP or coaches polls foresaw what would become of the Huskers. 4-Promptly after that nat'nl champ. game they took margin of victory out of the equation. So yeah, Oregon woulda made a better opponent for Miami, but it still doesn't change the fact that USC lost a game in a weak conference. It is what it is.

Terry

 

[BillR]

Let's count the all Americans shall we? LSU-1, USC-3, OU-6. How about Heisman candidates? USC's left last year. Nagurski winners? OU-1. I could go on and on. I wouldn't call that overrated.

Look, we could do this forever and and still find reasons that OU is better than USC.
The point is, USC and Mich. still get to play for a "national championship" and OU and LSU get to play for THE national championship.

Terry

Should we start counting 1st place votes from BOTH polls? Nah, didn't think so...
I feel bad for LSU. They don't get to find out if they really could've beaten the best team in the country.
Trust me, if USC wins the Rose bowl, the Sugar will be truly irrelevent. The TRUE national champion will have been decided, and LSU never got a chance to show what they could do against the #1 team.

 

[OT]

Bill, I'd buy alll this talk about the human polls being what determines the #1 team if they actually determined the #1 team. Those polls, are only part of the big picture, as you appear to be blocking out. I know, your just nostalgic for the old days. Me too, there wasn't a damn conference championship game back then to derail a team. But since it is 2003, we have to put up with the BCS and the champ. games for the strong conferences, Right , wrong, or indifferent.

 

[BillR]

Your right about one thing, they did get stomped, but you need to get your facts straight. 1- it was a reg. season game at Colorado, CU played Texas in the Big 12 champ. game. 2-Nebraska started their skid with that game, they went 6 and 6 the next season. 3-Given the stength of schedule and margin of victory by NU throughout the season, technically they should have been better than Oregon, not even the almighty AP or coaches polls foresaw what would become of the Huskers. 4-Promptly after that nat'nl champ. game they took margin of victory out of the equation. So yeah, Oregon woulda made a better opponent for Miami, but it still doesn't change the fact that USC lost a game in a weak conference. It is what it is.

Terry

You ARE correct about Colorado vs. Nebraska. NU didn't even make it to the conference final, yet they were selected by a computer to play Miami.

USC lost a game, by 3 points, in 3 OTs!
OU got their a$$es handed to them by 4 TDs! I say put the margin of loss in the equation somewhere!!

Pac-10 a weak conference? Maybe, but the Big-12's not all it was a few years ago, either. USC did everything it could've done (minus one game) and finished the season as the #1 team IN BOTH POLLS! They DESERVED a chance to play LSU and see who the best REALLY is.

 

[OT]

USC lost a game, by 3 points, in 3 OTs!

OU got their a$$es handed to them by 4 TDs! I say put the margin of loss in the equation somewhere!!

At least it was an uncharacteristic loss by OU.
USC still lost to an unranked team that they just couldn't seem to figure out.

NU didn't even make it to the conference final, yet they were selected by a computer to play Miami.

The computer doesn't know when a team loses or even if it was a championship game. That year up to that point Neb. was unbeaten, that's what the computer sees.

 

[BillR]

Think about it though...
Wouldn't the Rose and Sugar this year make awesome semi-final games? That's how it shakes out. #2 vs #3, LSU gets OU at home.
#1 vs #4, USC gets Michigan at home.
The final game is the missing piece, so really nothing's being settled or decided as to who the "best" is. Pretty sad...

 

[Markm80521]

So let me get this straight. It sounds like we all are agreeing that LSU should be facing the #1 team - wether that is OU with 1 loss - or - USC with 1 loss is what we are trying to determine!? A loss is a loss right? so what would you (NOT THE BCS OR THE ANY OF THE OTHER POLLS) use as a determining factor? Forget the polls, the ratings etc. What would you use? Let me start.

#1 who the loss was to. (i.e. opponent schedule)
#2 Strength of schedule

Anything else? I mean really what else could you possibly use to try and pick a team? <DON'T say the BCS because we are pretending that it doesn't exist (we wish)> Let's now see how one loss and the relative strength of those opponents (i.e. their record and SCHEDULE) compare with each other, and the answer is???? OU and LSU.

 

[OT]

Well, we know my answer already. But to go along with Mark, here goes.

OU's strength of schedule: 8 Big12 teams are over .500
All non-conf. games were with previous year's bowl winner
All non-conf. games were with prev. year's Conf. Champs
Opp. win/loss record is 86 and 74
OU lost to 10 and 3 KSU

USC's strength of sched. most telling stat is opponent's win/ loss is 70 and 75
USC lost to 7 and 6 CAL

LSU's strength of sched. Well, let's just say it's better than USC's
Opp. win/loss record is 80 and 80
LSU lost to 8 and 4 Florida

Top two is : OU#1 and LSU#2

 

[Bones]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree here. The "championship" game is a complete farce when the top team in the country is not in it, AND when you (OU) lose by THAT many points to the #13 team you don't deserve a shot at the "title", however worthless it is.
JMO...

Now you're going to get me pulled into the fray

What you don't understand is that KSU isn't a 13th ranked team.
Their standing was because of three losses that occurred during a time when the QB was out D/T injuries. Prior to that, they were ranked #5. They have won out the rest of the season and have shown themselves worthy of the prior BCS spot. It was even said by a few "in the loop" early in the season, that KSU was a Nat'l champion possibility.

Where is Florida ranked at this time? (16th and they came into the year 21st)
Where is California? (BTFoutame, I don't even see a vote to put them in the top 25 now. They did get 2 votes for top 25 about the second week of the season.)

LSU, USC, and OU all have one mark in their loss column. OU lost to the best of the three "spoiler" teams. OU should be in the Sugar Bowl.

If this were a loss to Nebraska in their prime, this would all be a non-issue. If this loss would have come early in the season, this would be a non-issue.
If KSU got the respect they have shown due to them, this would be a non-issue.

The teams are matched, now let's let'em play.

Bones :skull1:
GO CATS!!!

 

[BillR]

So let me get this straight. It sounds like we all are agreeing that LSU should be facing the #1 team - wether that is OU with 1 loss - or - USC with 1 loss is what we are trying to determine!? A loss is a loss right? so what would you (NOT THE BCS OR THE ANY OF THE OTHER POLLS) use as a determining factor? Forget the polls, the ratings etc. What would you use? Let me start.

#1 who the loss was to. (i.e. opponent schedule)
#2 Strength of schedule

Anything else? I mean really what else could you possibly use to try and pick a team? <DON'T say the BCS because we are pretending that it doesn't exist (we wish)> Let's now see how one loss and the relative strength of those opponents (i.e. their record and SCHEDULE) compare with each other, and the answer is???? OU and LSU.

For one loss teams, you could use several other factors.
#3 When the loss happened- Shows how a team is playing NOW!
#4 margin of loss!- Did they lose a hard-fought game, or were they blown out?

The BCS is too much of a sham to ever "tune" to this degree though. It won't happen, and this year MORE people will be screaming for it's demise after a split "championship".
When two teams are crowned "champion", there really isn't one!

 

[BillR]

Bill, I'd buy alll this talk about the human polls being what determines the #1 team if they actually determined the #1 team. Those polls, are only part of the big picture, as you appear to be blocking out. I know, your just nostalgic for the old days. Me too, there wasn't a damn conference championship game back then to derail a team. But since it is 2003, we have to put up with the BCS and the champ. games for the strong conferences, Right , wrong, or indifferent.

Terry-
Are you saying that conference championship results shouldn't count in poll rankings because they're extra games?
By that logic, why count BOWL games in the fray? All teams don't get to play in those either. If it only takes one postseason loss to "derail" a team, just let the final poll results stand as the championship. let the bowls be just for a show or giant party.
If the bowls mean something, the conference title games should figure into the mix. The bowls ARE a type of playoff, pitting two good teams from different conferences. But in their current form, they DON'T determine who REALLY has the right to call themselves "the BEST".

 

[Markm80521]

:tear:

For one loss teams, you could use several other factors.
#3 When the loss happened- Shows how a team is playing NOW!
#4 margin of loss!- Did they lose a hard-fought game, or were they blown out?

The BCS is too much of a sham to ever "tune" to this degree though. It won't happen, and this year MORE people will be screaming for it's demise after a split "championship".
When two teams are crowned "champion", there really isn't one!

These are, if you think about it, gray areas. Let me explain;

#3 When the loss happened - USC lost against an unranked opponent in their (3rd?) game of the year? and OU lost to KSU a ranked opponent after regular season play (keep in mind the team knew that via the BCS they had 1st locked up) Not saying they threw the game but definitely NOT a motivating factor.

------I am not seeing how you can use this to your (USC's) advantage. I mean that is the only reason to bring this example up am I right?

#4 Did they lose a hard fought game - So because OU was "blown out" by a ranked opponent and USC "fought hard" against a MUCH WEAKER (CAL) unranked opponent then USC's loss again isn't as much of a loss as OU's ???? Wow, when I repeat what you're saying I think that USC's loss seems much more damning when you struggle against an opponent that you should beat 57-0.

------I understand where you're coming from with these points but in a case where there are 3 teams vieing (arguably 4) for the #1 spots you can't tailor the loss info to your liking. It has to be black or white. Relative time (of the loss) in the season does NOT give an indication of how they are currently playing unless they've lost a string of games. How they played in the particular loss is a telling sign for opponents to read a weakness that has been exposesed and in the case of KSU they just looked REALLY GOOD. But regardless a loss is a loss and to determine any importance of that loss you must look at the opponents relative strength, schedule and standings.

NOW, all of this said, USC IS a strong team. All three are REALLY strong teams arguably the best in the country. A decision has to be made though and when that decision is made via what we (or at least I - a good black and white example by rockcrawlinxj on numbers) then USC loses out by a FRACTION but loser none the less. I agree it is easier to lose out when it is obvious (GA lost to LSU twice - even though the first game was by 7 and our kicker who was 47 of 48 missed three fga's in a row:wierd but when it is by this fine of a margin it will alwys be tooo little for the team losing out to stand on BUT... you shouldn't have lost to an unranked team! (unranked because of the strength of their schedule and W/L's)

 

[BillR]

:tear:

These are, if you think about it, gray areas. Let me explain;

#3 When the loss happened - USC lost against an unranked opponent in their (3rd?) game of the year? and OU lost to KSU a ranked opponent after regular season play (keep in mind the team knew that via the BCS they had 1st locked up) Not saying they threw the game but definitely NOT a motivating factor.

------I am not seeing how you can use this to your (USC's) advantage. I mean that is the only reason to bring this example up am I right?

#4 Did they lose a hard fought game - So because OU was "blown out" by a ranked opponent and USC "fought hard" against a MUCH WEAKER (CAL) unranked opponent then USC's loss again isn't as much of a loss as OU's ???? Wow, when I repeat what you're saying I think that USC's loss seems much more damning when you struggle against an opponent that you should beat 57-0.

------I understand where you're coming from with these points but in a case where there are 3 teams vieing (arguably 4) for the #1 spots you can't tailor the loss info to your liking. It has to be black or white. Relative time (of the loss) in the season does NOT give an indication of how they are currently playing unless they've lost a string of games. How they played in the particular loss is a telling sign for opponents to read a weakness that has been exposesed and in the case of KSU they just looked REALLY GOOD. But regardless a loss is a loss and to determine any importance of that loss you must look at the opponents relative strength, schedule and standings.

NOW, all of this said, USC IS a strong team. All three are REALLY strong teams arguably the best in the country. A decision has to be made though and when that decision is made via what we (or at least I - a good black and white example by rockcrawlinxj on numbers) then USC loses out by a FRACTION but loser none the less. I agree it is easier to lose out when it is obvious (GA lost to LSU twice - even though the first game was by 7 and our kicker who was 47 of 48 missed three fga's in a row:wierd but when it is by this fine of a margin it will alwys be tooo little for the team losing out to stand on BUT... you shouldn't have lost to an unranked team! (unranked because of the strength of their schedule and W/L's)

I see your point, but let's use an example of how WHEN a loss occurs can be a telling factor...
In 2000, Nebraska was ranked #1 and played Colorado toward the end of the season (maybe last game). They got SMOKED 62-36. The BCS put them in the title game anyway, and Miami crushed them also. If KSU was a tough game for OU, I'd agree. But KSU blew out OU, not even a contest. You don't lose like that at the end of the season and still expect to be considered worthy to play for the title.
I also agree with there possibly being 4 teams worthy of the title. I've read at least one writer's scenerio where LSU and OU play a sloppy game, and Michigan crushes USC in the Rose, that Michigan would get more than a few 1st place votes in the AP poll. Michigan's playing really well RIGHT NOW, and that's the key to a bowl victory or playoff success. For me, OU getting spanked like they did by KSU brings back memories of Nebraska in 2000. I see a major butt-whuppin' coming to OU by the Tigers.

 

[OT]

Bill, it's good that you can keep using the same NU/CU game to fit your needs, but in reality we don't just see somthing like that happen every time a team loses big, beginning of the season or end. Case in point is Texass this year after the whoopin' by OU, or Texass 2 years ago. I could find other games but why should I keep finding reasons that prove that you're just digging for some rational explaination why USC should be considered the best at this point. My point is this, good teams don't win 95% of their games by 30+ and just roll over and die after a crushing defeat, spanking, slapping, drudging, smearing, skunking, or whatever kind of loss it was. The 2001 NU team that lost to CU is only one of the exceptions to the rule. USC is a fine team and worthy of the first place votes that they got THIS week by objectionable humans. At least the BCS isn't objectionable (except of course for the AP and coach's poll part of it).

 

[Markm80521]

I see your point, but let's use an example of how WHEN a loss occurs can be a telling factor...
In 2000, Nebraska was ranked #1 and played Colorado toward the end of the season (maybe last game). They got SMOKED 62-36. The BCS put them in the title game anyway, and Miami crushed them also. If KSU was a tough game for OU, I'd agree. But KSU blew out OU, not even a contest. You don't lose like that at the end of the season and still expect to be considered worthy to play for the title.
I also agree with there possibly being 4 teams worthy of the title. I've read at least one writer's scenerio where LSU and OU play a sloppy game, and Michigan crushes USC in the Rose, that Michigan would get more than a few 1st place votes in the AP poll. Michigan's playing really well RIGHT NOW, and that's the key to a bowl victory or playoff success. For me, OU getting spanked like they did by KSU brings back memories of Nebraska in 2000. I see a major butt-whuppin' coming to OU by the Tigers.

I guess I just can't draw conclusions on that type of information. Colorado did smoke Nebraska. I actually was at the game. It was quite boring. I don't think however that it was an indication of Nebraska losing to Miami. Miami was going to roll over ANY team in 2000. AND I MEAN ROLL AND ANY. They were MEN amongst BOYS in 2000.

You know hindsight is always 20/20 or at least we think it is. Every season is unique and I don't see how you can apply a "formula" to OU's chances via a NU(OU)/CU(KSU) game and(=) NU(OU) losing to Miami(LSU). I mean, if that didn't occur in 2000 you would just continue back to the last similar scenario right? I am looking at current situation through black and white details NOT examples from several years ago and two differnt teams with completely different dynamics.

I'll be honest with you. I hope that LSU stomps OU and USC stomps M. Selfish reasons are BCS will look even worse (unfortunately still the best thing going) and the SEC will have the official #1 nod. Everyone else can complain all they want. HOWEVER I think that OU is a very strong team and has the chance to win big still over LSU (LSU is a young team with a lot of raw talent). In the end the old addage rings true - "jealousy is the root of all evil." - SUCKS TO BE Usc! GO TIGERS!:laugh3:

 

[BillR]

I could find other games but why should I keep finding reasons that prove that you're just digging for some rational explaination why USC should be considered the best at this point.

I don't need to rationalize anything. USC IS the #1 team in the country according to BOTH polls. Michigan is the only one with a chance to take that away. Like I said, it just a sham that both LSU and USC don't get to find out who's REALLY the best.

 

[BillR]

I'll be honest with you. I hope that LSU stomps OU and USC stomps M. Selfish reasons are BCS will look even worse (unfortunately still the best thing going) and the SEC will have the official #1 nod.

The first part WILL happen, mark my words.
LSU will get only half a title though, if USC wins. Two champs mean NO real one, little crystal football be damned. :laugh3: