# OT: The BCS is a joke



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Cal, 5th in the BCS rankings, is out. So the Rose Bowl gets Michigan vs. Texas. That sucks. Should have been Michigan/Cal. 

Utah vs. Pittsburg in the Fiesta Bowl? Boooorring. 

Auburn/Va. Tech in the Sugar Bowl. That should be a decent game. 

And of course, the national championship is USC/Oklahoma. 

PS. Oregon State gets the Insight bowl against...Notre Dame. Sweet.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

The BCS does suck. 

USC is a paper champion and shouldn't even be in the NC. Sure, they are undefeated ... but the best opponent they have faced is Cal and Cal hasn't faced anyone really. 

Heck, Cal should have lost to Southern Miss.

SOUTHERN MISS?!

Awful.

Get ready for a split NC again.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Cal, 5th in the BCS rankings, is out. So the Rose Bowl gets Michigan vs. Texas. That sucks. Should have been Michigan/Cal.
> 
> Utah vs. Pittsburg in the Fiesta Bowl? Boooorring.
> ...


hold on...I thought the Rose Bowl was always going to be the winner (or 2nd place finish if the 1st place winner is in the title hunt) in the Pac 10, outside of years where the Rose Bowl is the National Title game?


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

BCS is as much of a joke as any other system that's ever been used. People will complain no matter what. This season it seems more crazy, but that's because people recommended that strength of schedule and margin of victory be taken out of the formula.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

I feel bad for Utah. To get to a BCS bowl and have to play Pitt?!?!? Yuk. I'm sure they were dreaming of Miami, Florida State, OK...or the like.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I can't say I feel bad for Cal. They had a cake schedule and lost to their only real test. Their "key" win was against an ASU team that had 3 losses including one to ARIZONA! I think Cal got WAY to much credit for playing SC tough and maybe Cal should have tried to play a tougher OOC schedule, I don't know if that's possible, but they really didn't play a hard schedule. On that nore, the BCS does suck and all the games are going to be boring this year minus the Orange Bowl.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: OT: The BCS is a joke*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> hold on...I thought the Rose Bowl was always going to be the winner (or 2nd place finish if the 1st place winner is in the title hunt) in the Pac 10, outside of years where the Rose Bowl is the National Title game?


You read my mind!


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> I feel bad for Utah. To get to a BCS bowl and have to play Pitt?!?!? Yuk. I'm sure they were dreaming of Miami, Florida State, OK...or the like.


Don't feel bad for them, they're still getting one hell of a payday. I feel bad for Auburn, they're clearly the best team in the nation.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*You know I see people say*

That this team or that team deserves to be in the BCS championship game because of reasons like:

"Their schedule was tougher"
"Their point differential was higher"
"Because we think they are a better team"

Well you know what, those are all just opinions. These football players who play on the teams play their hearts out all year long for the chance to win a national championship, and year after year, a team (or sometimes several teams), get denied the chance of playing for the championship and proving their stuff. The fact is:

The BCS is the way it is because they do not want to deny the organization to make the large amount of money off the bowl games during the holidays each year. They do not care about the players, the teams, or the fact that many of these players only will get a chance to do something very few times in their lives. Many of these players will not get to go pro, and this is their chance to have a truly special moment. 

They do not care about the players on the teams, nor who wins the championship, they just care about making a lot of money off of college players that they don't have to pay. When they put their money where their mouth is, and put in a playoff system, then they will have my respect. Until then, they are money grubbing losers who are taking advantage of college athletes to make a lot of money.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> The BCS does suck.
> 
> USC is a paper champion and shouldn't even be in the NC. Sure, they are undefeated ... but the best opponent they have faced is Cal and Cal hasn't faced anyone really.
> ...


No kidding, they haven't played anyone, well, outside of the #4 team in the nation (according to both the coaches and the writers). Oh wait, they also took it to #9 VA Tech, but that's noting in comparison to the other schools...

OU clearly had a tougher schedule against #5 Texas and #21 Texas Tech. Simple math tells me that 21+5 = 26, and 26 is greater than 4+9 =13, therefore OU had a much more difficult schedule. Especially in a conference where teams have to do a lot less, to get ranked a lot higher.

Auburn with the same logic defeated the #7 and #11 ranked teams, 19 is greaters than 13.

Wait, I've totally ruined my point, so let me break down what I've posted.

Of the three teams, USC has beat the best team (according to the coaches and writers). USC is the only team to have played and beat two Top10 teams. All three schools have beat three Top25 schools. The only difference is that in the SEC and BigXII you can lose 4 games and still be ranked, where in the Pac10 it's much more difficult.

Oh, and bringing up the whole "paper champion", there's another disadvantage. Every game USC has had to defend their #1 ranking, something very few teams have been able to do the entire season, yet they did it. 

Well Play, I wanted to agree with you, but the facts changed my mind.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

In response to Cal getting screwed, well yes and no. 

The reason Cal got screwed it because they barely lost to the #1 team in the nation, and that was their only loss of the season. If you're going to have a one loss team, then you would hope the one loss would come to the best team in the nation, and it would be a close game.

The reason they didn't get screwed is because they should have seen it coming. This isn't the first year the Pac10 has got screwed. USC, Oregon, Oregon St, and Washington could very well have been the best or 2nd best team in the nation the years they were in the BCS, but the BigXII or some other "power conference" got the nod because of their football tradition. 

Also, on a more factual and serious claim, all the teams knew the system going into, and it's not like they changed in last week to put Texas in. When Al Gore won the popular vote, he didn't get screwed because that's how the system was for long before he was born. He knew the system, and while he had a reason why he got screwed, it wasn't valid because he knew the rules going into it. Is this a bad system, apparently when it messes up more times than it gets things right, but Cal didn't really get screwed.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Any championship system that doesn't have traditional playoffs is a joke if you ask me.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>HearToTemptYou</b>!
> Any championship system that doesn't have traditional playoffs is a joke if you ask me.


Amen


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> No kidding, they haven't played anyone, well, outside of the #4 team in the nation (according to both the coaches and the writers).


Yes, wow ... Cal. What a powerhouse. Who did they play again?

Oh wait. No one. 

So, they lost one game and beat up no ones. Good job. 



> Oh wait, they also took it to #9 VA Tech, but that's noting in comparison to the other schools...


USC took it to NO ONE. They barely beat Cal and VA Tech was in the game until the final minutes. Regardless of the score.

Then USC almost lost to UCLA yesterday. UCLA?! Then that super powerhouse Oregon State ... woo hoo. 



> OU clearly had a tougher schedule against #5 Texas and #21 Texas Tech. Simple math tells me that 21+5 = 26, and 26 is greater than 4+9 =13, therefore OU had a much more difficult schedule. Especially in a conference where teams have to do a lot less, to get ranked a lot higher.
> 
> Auburn with the same logic defeated the #7 and #11 ranked teams, 19 is greaters than 13.


Hmmm... the math I get is:

USC beat #7 and #19. The only ranked teams played so far. 
USC Schedule 

Auburn beat #4, #8, #5 and #15. 
Auburn Schedule 



> Wait, I've totally ruined my point, so let me break down what I've posted.


Yeah, I ruined your point too. Maybe you should restate it in a manner not so easily defeated.



> Of the three teams, USC has beat the best team (according to the coaches and writers).


Okay, I'll grant you that at the end of the year Cal is ranked higher than Auburn's wins. But, Cal hasn't played anyone to warrant such a high ranking. Cal's as much a joke ranking as USC.



> USC is the only team to have played and beat two Top10 teams.


Oh, really.

#4 - LSU
#5 - Georgia
#8 - Tennessee 

Those don't count? Wow. I missed the memo.



> All three schools have beat three Top25 schools.


I missed that one too. 

I see that USC has beaten two:

#7 - Cal
#19 - Arizona State

I see Auburn has beaten four:

#4 - LSU
#8 - Tennessee
#5 - UGA
#15 Tennessee (X2)



> The only difference is that in the SEC and BigXII you can lose 4 games and still be ranked, where in the Pac10 it's much more difficult.


Yeah, because there is there are these things called "competitive teams" in the SEC. Wherein the Pac-10, there is not.



> Oh, and bringing up the whole "paper champion", there's another disadvantage. Every game USC has had to defend their #1 ranking, something very few teams have been able to do the entire season, yet they did it.


Oh boy. I bet if we ranked Alabama #1 at the beginning of the season and played them against some high school teams they too would be undefeated. 



> Well Play, I wanted to agree with you, but the facts changed my mind.


Yeah, I can see that. But, I just wondering, since everythign you stated outside the defense of being number 1 every week to a bunch of scrubs, which fact was it exactly that changed your mind?

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>HearToTemptYou</b>!
> Any championship system that doesn't have traditional playoffs is a joke if you ask me.


I agree and disagree.

I do not believe that all the teams in the top 25 or even top 10 need to go to a playoff. That's FAR too many games and FAR too much missed school.

I think something along the lines of the top 5 teams. The top rank team is exempt. 

Round 1: #5 vs. #2, #4 vs. #3. 
Round 2: Winner of #5vs#2 vs Winner #4 vs. #3
Round 3: Winner of Round 2 vs. #1

or even just a one tier that plays #3 vs. #2 and then that winner vs. #1.

The rest go to bowl games.

Play.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: You know I see people say*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> That this team or that team deserves to be in the BCS championship game because of reasons like:
> 
> "Their schedule was tougher"
> ...


Well if they don't care about the players now, they surely wouldn't care about them if there was a tournament since a tournament would draw in more money than the BCS. That's not saying that I don't want a tournament, I just think people forget that the BCS, as bad as it may be, is the best system for deciding a national champion that college football has ever had.

Now to Tince's point, USC played in the worst BCS conference this side of the Big East. There are so many teams from small conferences making bowl games because there weren't enough Pac-10 teams who were bowl eligible. USC is #1 now, because they were #1 to start the season.

I think the main problem with the whole system now, is that the media has such a huge say in who plays in the National Championship game.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Being an ex-Cal, (as is SAR) I agree. It sucks. 
Had Cal run up scores late in games for the sole purpose of humiliating opponents then they go to the Rose Bowl? Give me a freaking break!
I mean, the story actually knocked Bonds/Giambi off the front page of the SF Chronicle.
Yeah, Michigan/Texas will excite a lot of folks in California. 
Must be a red state thing...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, wow ... Cal. What a powerhouse. Who did they play again?
> ...


Play, you've got to be kidding me... I think you're using the rankings of the teams when they played, not how they finished up. If I team is #1 at the start of the season, yet lose every game, the team that beat them first doesn't get credit for beating the best team in the nation come the end of the season.

USC Beat Cal, VA Tech, & ASU
Auburn Beat Tenn, Georgia, and LSU
OU Beat Texas, Texas Tech, and A&M.

That's 3 teams, any way you add it up. Auburn beat Tenn twice, so if you want to put the in the NC game, that's fine, just not over USC.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Sagarin Power ratings:

#1 - USC, 12-0, 8th most difficult schedule
#2 - Oklahoma, 12-0, 23rd most difficult schedule
#3 - Cal, 10-1, 16th most difficult schedule
#4 - Utah, 12-0, 57th most difficult schedule
#5 - Auburn, 12-0, 62nd most difficult schedule

Auburn's schedule was packed with cupcakes. The pac-10 is tough night in and night out. Considering USC and Cal only get one or two complete gimme wins a year, every week is a dogfight. (Sagarin rates the Pac-10 as the toughest conference) Heck, even Utah had a tougher schedule than Auburn. They have more of a claim that they should be in the NC game than Auburn. 

Incidentally, the toughest schedule of any team this season - Oregon State. All 5 losses to top 25 teams.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Sagarin Power ratings:
> 
> #1 - USC, 12-0, 8th most difficult schedule
> ...


And Saragrin means what to me?

Just some other schmucks opinion? 

Wow. Let me whip it out and grab a wet nap. 

Sorry, the Pac-10 is a joke conference. Always has been and always will be. And when Oklahoma beats USC by 20 soon, we will see that.

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> And Saragrin means what to me?
> ...


Yeah, your opinion is much more important than a guy who makes his living handicapping games and determining power rankings.

Please tell me more playmaker because I find zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Yeah, your opinion is much more important than a guy who makes his living handicapping games and determining power rankings.


Why is his so much more valued?

Did he somehow go to school to learn how to state his opinion? 

Does his opinion somehow hold more merit than other reporters who disagree? Because I would be willing to wager that not every reporter thinks the Pac-10 is anywhere near the best conference in the NCAA.



> Please tell me more playmaker


Well, I'd still like to know what merits this bumbling douchebag the ability to state things better than any other reporter. 

His opinion is valid ... just like any other Joe Blow. He's just tricked you into thinking he's important. 

Kind of like Stuart Scott.

Boo-yah!

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Why is his so much more valued?


He's a statistician with years of experience in computer rankings...he practically invented the practice. So yes, his opinion is more valued than that of somebody who thinks another team is superior because they happen to be from that person's home state.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Did he somehow go to school to learn how to state his opinion?


Not to state his opinion better, but to actually have a better opinion. 



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Does his opinion somehow hold more merit than other reporters who disagree? Because I would be willing to wager that not every reporter thinks the Pac-10 is anywhere near the best conference in the NCAA.


Yes, his opinion does hold more merit. Particularly in comparison to some biased reporter who thinks his local team's conference is the best. Most folks from the east coast, the south and much of the midwest never even get to see the west coast teams play. Sagarin's system has no biases. 



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Well, I'd still like to know what merits this bumbling douchebag the ability to state things better than any other reporter.


Again, I never said he can state things better than another reporter. He's simply correct more often than other reporters.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> His opinion is valid ... just like any other Joe Blow. He's just tricked you into thinking he's important.


No, not everybody's opinion is valid. If Joe Blow has never seen a football game and he says "University of Central Florida is the best team in college football." he is wrong. 



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Kind of like Stuart Scott.


I don't like Stuart Scott either.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> Boo-yah!
> 
> Play.


Whatever.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

We all know that USC, OU and Auburn are the heavyweights. Let USC play OU and Auburn play the Hokies. 

The winners of those games play two weeks later right before the super bowl for the undisputed national championship. I for one am sad from Jan3 to Supersbowl time from football withdrawel. This game would help! I don't think I stand alone with that thought.

It also solves the problem and makes those two winning schools a bunch more money having a second bowl. It's a win win for everyone and most of all, us the fans.

For those who say well what about Utah and Boise State I say with all sincerity "PLAY A REAL FREAKING SCHEDULE FOR A FEW YEARS THAN WE"LL TALK!" I think the Pac-10 needs two more teams!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> We all know that USC, OU and Auburn are the heavyweights. Let USC play OU and Auburn play the Hokies.
> 
> The winners of those games play two weeks later right before the super bowl for the undisputed national championship. I for one am sad from Jan3 to Supersbowl time from football withdrawel. This game would help! I don't think I stand alone with that thought.
> ...


How would that solve the problems? How do you pick Va. Tech? They suck. Cal, Utah and Texas are all clearly better than Va. Tech. Louiville and Boise State are arguably better.

See the point? The arguments will continue until there's a tournament.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

If anyone got screwed, it was the Beavs. They held their own against LSU, USC, *and* Cal.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> If anyone got screwed, it was the Beavs. They held their own against LSU, USC, *and* Cal.
> 
> PBF


losing 49-7 is holding our own?


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Va Tech sucks? What in the world are you smoking?

They lost how many players to the pros last year and still banged with USC all game long. They lost one other game by one point.

They beat Miami in Miami something no Pac-10 school could or would ever even entertain!!!!!

Here's a question for you Fork, name me one team in college football who has ever beaten FSU and Miami in the same year and gone on to win a national championship in the last two decades? 

Every team in the ACC now has to do that to get to a BCS bowl.


Think USC would like to become a member of our conference? Think again.

USC played a pro draft depleted V Tech team first game of the year and barely won. The rest of their schedule is a freaking joke outside of Cal. Oregon, OSU, Stanford, UCLA, UW, WSU, AZ give me a break. ASU was a mercy ranked team who also played nobody. Maybe that 30 point blistering USC gave the nobody wants to coach Irish you think means something? Wrong! It just means the Irish are crappy!

The Pac 10 is so sad this year it's not funny. The only conference worse is the Big East. 

USC didn't even have to play a championship game to get into the Orange Bowl. 


If Va Tech beats Auburn which I think they will, they should play the winner of USC/OU. Its would be the two best football team in the country at that time playing for it all.

Texas could not score against the Sooners.
Cal lost to USC and barely beat MSU.

UTah and Boise State play in worse conferences than the Pac-10
and in my eyes don't even deserve to be in the BCS discussion. They have beaten no one to get it.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> losing 49-7 is holding our own?


Well... okay... if ya wanna get technical about it...



PBF


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Va Tech sucks? What in the world are you smoking?
> 
> They lost how many players to the pros last year and still banged with USC all game long. They lost one other game by one point.
> ...


I was making a point by saying 'they suck' I know they're a top 5-8 team, but there's a huge question as to whether they're a top 4 team. (Even the coaches have them ranked at #9, behind Utah) Arbitrarily saying "These 4 get to play fot the NC and there will be no more complaining." is ridiculous. Utah, Cal, Texas, BSU...these teams will, rightly so, say the system was unfair and that thy deserved a shot at the NC. 

Your biases against those teams are silly. Did you even WATCH Utah play? Or Boise State? Those are two very, very good teams. Teams with two losses don't deserve to be in the BCS discussion. 

16 team playoffs or nothing.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I would love to see Utah or Boise State go from a game with USC to then play the Sooners in a playoff. Then we would never rank a team like those this high again. Case Closed!

You're fooling yourself to think Utah and Boise State have seen competition like they would week in and out in the SEC, ACC or Big 12.

Maybe in the Pac-10 they'd have done better.

Boise State and Utah don't have the line size on either side of the ball to bang with OU, USC, Auburn, Va Tech, Miami, Texas or FSU for that matter.

It should tell ya something that Utah's head coach is going to a real conference where he'll quickley find out he's not in Mormonville any longer.

As for letting the best two bowls play the winners it does make sense. Last year that would have put LSU vs USC two weeks later.


Fork did you really say that the Pac-10 is the toughest conference?

That's just dumb! How many Pac-10 schools are in bowls this year? USC, CAl and ?

The SEC is the best this year. I'm picking them over my own conference of the ACC and we have two of the three Florida schools in ours. Miami has more national championships by itself than the whole Pac 10 for the last two decades.

Your living in a fantasy!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> Fork did you really say that the Pac-10 is the toughest conference?


Based on strength of schedule, which takes into account the coaches' and sportswriters' opinions, it is.

But i'm sure that's trumped by your "PAC-10 sucks, let's see them play the ACC" argument. With all that evidence....that you failed to offer.



> That's just dumb! How many Pac-10 schools are in bowls this year? USC, CAl and ?


And UCLA and Oregon State. If you don't even know who made bowl games, it's hard to take your opinion seriously on the issue.



> I'm picking them over my own conference of the ACC and we have two of the three Florida schools in ours. Miami has more national championships by itself than the whole Pac 10 for the last two decades.


Which means precisely nothing about how strong the conference is *today*. Today, Florida State is a total pretender, which is shown everytime they play a strong program. Today, Miami is a top program but not anything like a title contender. And I say that as a fan of Florida State, having enjoyed watching their style of play throughout the '90s.

USC and Cal were both top-five teams this year. Cal was top four in both the coaches' poll and the AP poll. The Pac 10 was the toughest conference this year, even if they haven't been in past years.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

So Minstrel the coaches all around the league have said the Pac-10 is the strongest? When pre season? Cause it sure as hell is not now. Yet every person who's played football or is an announcer says it's the SEC hands down this year.

I'm not going to argue with you Minstrel, if you believe the Pac-10 is the toughest conference this year fine. Your just flat wrong and know very little about football to come to that conclusion.

I'd suggest you stop reading speculative stats and bias polls where coaches are anonymous with their votes and start watching some real football cause UCLA, and Oregon State are not adequate measuring sticks to how good CAL and USC are. Who has Cal played outside of USC and MSU? Who? USC has played Tech this year and Cal who else? Oh yeah the awful Irish. That'll get them ready for the Sooners.

I would also suggest to you that the Va tech team USC saw at kick off classic is far different from the one they would see today. Ya see most of Techs defense is freshman and so are their recievers. Tech was a very, very young team when they met USC and they hung with them all game long.




Minstrel, I went to the school you're calling a pretender and our teams history speaks for itself. You know that of course and are trying to rile me up. Wont work. FSU is a conerstone in football and even through our bad years of late we still go to a bowl every year. Papa Bowden is a legend and FSU makes no excuses!

This is the worse we'll ever be and that's still a New Years Day bowl, can you really say that about USC or CAL or for that matter any team in the Pac-10? Can you remember the last time FSU was not in a bowl or had a loseing season? I bet before you were born. Now I can remember the last time USC, AZ, UO, OSU, UCLA, UW,WSU, Stanford, CAL and ASU were out cause it's all the time. What you will call parody, we in the sunshine state simply call dominance! Now I'm sure you'll say it's cause FSU joined the ACC but even when we were independent and played the IRISH, Air Force, USC, FLorida and Miami yearly we kicked *** so I wouldn't attempt it. Same can be said for Miami and Vtech who were also independent for a ton of years.

I would love to see USC or Cal have to play Miami and Florida year in and out like we do. Not just when their having a good year and know the other team is depleted like USC did agianst VA Tech at the beginning of this year. 

As for the Canes if they didn't lose like 12 players to the pros in the first round this year they'd be playing Auburn. 
You also said Miami is a top program today? I guess you've missed the last two and a half decades and a bunch of national championships? They've been a top program and national contender for more than half of your life!

However,

As an ACC member we are quite confident that Tech will do just fine, no worries.

I apologize for not knowing that OSU and UCLA were going to bowls, didn't know they were even ranked at any point this year. Must be for the money huh? 

UCLA sure showed me alot against USC.

As a side note it's interesting to me that the hottest coach in the land from Utah could have gone to two vacant PAC-10 schools in UW and Stanford and chose to go to Florida. You know Minstrel that conference that's not as good as the Pac-10? Funny that Steve Spurrier could have taken one of those west coast jobs in a New York minute and he too went to the same conference the UTAh coach went to. What is that conferences name again?

Sure as hell isn't the Pac-10!


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> How would that solve the problems? How do you pick Va. Tech? They suck. Cal, Utah and Texas are all clearly better than Va. Tech. Louiville and Boise State are arguably better.
> 
> See the point? The arguments will continue until there's a tournament.


having a playoff will not stop the complaints. they still have to have some way to decide who gets in.

if it's 4 teams, who gets in? usc, ou, auburn, and then who? cal, texas, and utah all would have legit arguements.

make it 8 teams. then there is usc, ou, auburn, cal, texas, and utah. then there is boise state, louisville, georgia, virginia tech. who gets to go?

extend it out to 16 teams and there will still be the same problem.

no matter how they decide who the champion is, there will be lots of arguements and complaining. a playoff will fix nothing if there isn't a better way to decide who makes the playoff.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

I think that if LSU had gone on to play USC two weeks later last season no one would have complained and everyone would have excepted the winner of that game as the national champion.

Every year there are two major bowls that mean something for the national championship hunt. The two top teams in one and a third team who feels left out, right? So this year if USC beats the Sooners and Auburn beats Va Tech they should play in two weeks before the super bowls. The winner is the national champ.

IFFFFFFF the Pac-10 is really the best conference and USC wins and Auburn wins who everybody knows plays in the best conference then the winner of that game is undisputed, right?


As for teams like UTAH and Boise State they know they have not seen a tough enough schedule week in and out so their claim to USC, Auburn and the Sooners just doesn't hold water.

They should be glad their getting a major bowl bid at all. If these teams are really this good they should join the Pac-10 so the Pac-10 could finally have a championship game. Don't ya think? The Pac-10 needs a couple teams don't they?

However Utah's coach is going to the SEC. Wonder why? Are there not like two open jobs in the Pac-10 both at Stanford and UW?


Quirky he'd go to Florida!


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> I think that if LSU had gone on to play USC two weeks later last season no one would have complained and everyone would have excepted the winner of that game as the national champion.
> 
> Every year there are two major bowls that mean something for the national championship hunt. The two top teams in one and a third team who feels left out, right? So this year if USC beats the Sooners and Auburn beats Va Tech they should play in two weeks before the super bowls. The winner is the national champ.
> ...


adding an extra game would work some years but not others. last year it would have been perfect with lsu and usc playing and the winner being the real champ. but that's only because usc and lsu won their games. there were only 3 teams being considered last year. had michigan won, an extra game wouldn't have been needed.

it's the same way this year. ou and usc will play. auburn is playing virginia tech. if auburn wins, then adding an extra game would have made sense. if v tech wins though, they still have no business playing in an extra game for the national championship.

no matter what happens to decide the championship there will be complaining. some team will be left out. in college football there are so few games that teams will have similar records and it will be hard to decide who goes.

playoffs may be a better system, but it certaintly isn't a perfect system either. and neither is adding an extra game. the year they add an extra game after the bowl games is the year there are only two undefeated teams at the end and the game won't be needed.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey if Va Tech beats Auburn than USC just flat out wins the national championship. They beat VA Tech early this year.

They'll be no complaints from us ACC faithful.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Hey if Va Tech beats Auburn than USC just flat out wins the national championship. They beat VA Tech early this year.
> 
> They'll be no complaints from us ACC faithful.


so just have an extra games if there are two teams at the top?

what if auburn loses and utah wins their game? they would still be undefeated. should they be able to play the winner of usc/ou? or what about boise state?

i'm not saying that utah is as good as those other three teams, but if there is going to be an extra game added for auburn and ou/usc, why wouldn't utah be able to have the same? and boise state might even have more of a case than utah because they would have to beat a very good louisville game in their bowl.

my point is that no matter what they change the system to, there will always be problems and teams with legit arguements that get left out.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Terrible is a prime example of why the Pac-10 shouldn't be in the BCS. There are people who vote in polls that refuse to even give Pac-10 teams the chance to be #1 because they play out West and they are unwilling to take the time and watch them play.

It doesn't matter that football trends always start out West, and move East. The best players and best coaches are always going to head East because they don't have to overcome the bias part of the sports. Playing and coaching is hard enough at the college level that no person in their right might would want to make it more difficult on themselves, unless they had to.

Since 2000, the Pac 10 has gone 4-1 in BSC bowls. The beloved Florida schools have gone 4-5. That's the same amount of wins, but nearly double the games played. This is a scenario that will continue to play itself out because football is life down South, and out East, it's just another sport out West. Teams like Miami, FSU, and Florida are going to get multiple chances to prove they are the best, where the Pac-10 is just now getting their first crack at a national title game, despite having the hardest non-conference schedule of the power-conferences and having the same records as teams have got the privledge of playing in a National Title game.

The system is not set up for the Pac-10 or Big-10 to succeed, and that isn't going to change as long as we don't have a playoff and the passion for football is concentrated in the south and south-east. If USC wins the NC this year, people are going to say they got lucky because they didn't play the best team in the nation (Auburn). If they win next year, they'll say it's a down year for college football. Clearly just playing well isn't enough for a Pac-10 school to get respect.

Whenever a team like Cal only lost the #1 team in the nation by 4 points on the road, and managed to finish with 16th toughest schedule in the nation, gets beat out by Texas who didn't have near as good of a showing against the #2 team in the nation, and had the 19th toughest schedule, there's something wrong.

The pac-10 was still the toughest conference in the nation, because the core of that conference is better than the core of the BigXII or the SEC, and that's on a down year. The 
Saragin Rankings take the bias out of it, and breaks it down into factual information. I'll be the first to admit that on paper the BigXII and SEC seem to consistantly have two solid tams, but it's easy to go 10-1 when you've got 8 teams in your conference that aren't any good. The Pac-10 usually has 2-3 bad teams, that's a big difference.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Terrible is a prime example of why the Pac-10 shouldn't be in the BCS. There are people who vote in polls that refuse to even give Pac-10 teams the chance to be #1 because they play out West and they are unwilling to take the time and watch them play.

It doesn't matter that football trends always start out West, and move East. The best players and best coaches are always going to head East because they don't have to overcome the bias part of the sports. Playing and coaching is hard enough at the college level that no person in their right might would want to make it more difficult on themselves, unless they had to.

Since 2000, the Pac 10 has gone 4-1 in BSC bowls. The beloved Florida schools have gone 4-5. That's the same amount of wins, but nearly double the games played. This is a scenario that will continue to play itself out because football is life down South, and out East, it's just another sport out West. Teams like Miami, FSU, and Florida are going to get multiple chances to prove they are the best, where the Pac-10 is just now getting their first crack at a national title game, despite having the hardest non-conference schedule of the power-conferences and having the same records as teams have got the privledge of playing in a National Title game.

The system is not set up for the Pac-10 or Big-10 to succeed, and that isn't going to change as long as we don't have a playoff and the passion for football is concentrated in the south and south-east. If USC wins the NC this year, people are going to say they got lucky because they didn't play the best team in the nation (Auburn). If they win next year, they'll say it's a down year for college football. Clearly just playing well isn't enough for a Pac-10 school to get respect.

Whenever a team like Cal only lost the #1 team in the nation by 4 points on the road, and managed to finish with 16th toughest schedule in the nation, gets beat out by Texas who didn't have near as good of a showing against the #2 team in the nation, and had the 19th toughest schedule, there's something wrong.

The pac-10 was still the toughest conference in the nation, because the core of that conference is better than the core of the BigXII or the SEC, and that's on a down year. The 
Saragin Rankings take the bias out of it, and breaks it down into factual information. I'll be the first to admit that on paper the BigXII and SEC seem to consistantly have two solid tams, but it's easy to go 10-1 when you've got 8 teams in your conference that aren't any good. The Pac-10 usually has 2-3 bad teams, that's a big difference.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Terrible is a prime example of why the Pac-10 shouldn't be in the BCS. There are people who vote in polls that refuse to even give Pac-10 teams the chance to be #1 because they play out West and they are unwilling to take the time and watch them play.

It doesn't matter that football trends always start out West, and move East. The best players and best coaches are always going to head East because they don't have to overcome the bias part of the sports. Playing and coaching is hard enough at the college level that no person in their right might would want to make it more difficult on themselves, unless they had to.

Since 2000, the Pac 10 has gone 4-1 in BSC bowls. The beloved Florida schools have gone 4-5. That's the same amount of wins, but nearly double the games played. This is a scenario that will continue to play itself out because football is life down South, and out East, it's just another sport out West. Teams like Miami, FSU, and Florida are going to get multiple chances to prove they are the best, where the Pac-10 is just now getting their first crack at a national title game, despite having the hardest non-conference schedule of the power-conferences and having the same records as teams have got the privledge of playing in a National Title game.

The system is not set up for the Pac-10 or Big-10 to succeed, and that isn't going to change as long as we don't have a playoff and the passion for football is concentrated in the south and south-east. If USC wins the NC this year, people are going to say they got lucky because they didn't play the best team in the nation (Auburn). If they win next year, they'll say it's a down year for college football. Clearly just playing well isn't enough for a Pac-10 school to get respect.

Whenever a team like Cal only lost the #1 team in the nation by 4 points on the road, and managed to finish with 16th toughest schedule in the nation, gets beat out by Texas who didn't have near as good of a showing against the #2 team in the nation, and had the 19th toughest schedule, there's something wrong.

The pac-10 was still the toughest conference in the nation, because the core of that conference is better than the core of the BigXII or the SEC, and that's on a down year. The 
Saragin Rankings take the bias out of it, and breaks it down into factual information. I'll be the first to admit that on paper the BigXII and SEC seem to consistantly have two solid tams, but it's easy to go 10-1 when you've got 8 teams in your conference that aren't any good. The Pac-10 usually has 2-3 bad teams, that's a big difference.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Wow, I don't know what happened, but if someone can delete two of those (and this post), that would be great.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> Whenever a team like Cal only lost the #1 team in the nation by 4 points on the road, and managed to finish with 16th toughest schedule in the nation, gets beat out by Texas who didn't have near as good of a showing against the #2 team in the nation, and had the 19th toughest schedule, there's something wrong.


no there is not something wrong with texas being in over cal. there is a problem with pitt being in over cal.

texas and cal both deserve to be in bcs games. texas lost 12-0 to ou. they lost a close game to a top 3 team in the country. they were in the game until the final 5 minutes. cal lost 23-17(i think) to usc. they were in it until the final play. texas had to come back and beat kansas on the road in a game they played poorly in. cal needed a blocked extra point to help them struggle to a 10 point win against southern miss. texas struggled to a 2 point win against arkansas on the road. cal edged oregon by 1 at home. both teams had their bad moments in losses and poor showing in wins. cal's is a little better because their games were against slightly better teams.

but that is at least cancelled out by the quality wins that texas had. texas was down 35-7 before completely dominating oklahoma state to win 56-35. texas dominated texas a&m with a&m needing a lucky 100 yard defensive touchdown to break double digit points. texas completely dominated texas tech in lubbock. texas also dominated a missouri team that was ranked when the game was played. the final score was only 28-20, but the game was never in question. vince young didn't even play half the game because he was hurt and the team was sure enough they would win that young didn't come back in even though mock played terribly. cal's only win against a ranked team was dominating arizona state. texas had 4 wins over ranked teams.

cal has not beaten the types of teams that texas had beaten. the problem is not texas getting in over cal. the problem is that these are at this point at worst the 5th and 6th best teams in the country and the final bcs spot had to be decided between them.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

This is garbage! If USC beats the Sooners, USC is the best in my eyes. Auburn may gripe about it but that's life.

I have watched USC play many time this year and they have a great offense. They beat the hell out of a bunch of teams in the Pac-10 who are no where near their level. 

The game that sticks out to me the most is the game against Cal where neither team played a lick of defense but put up like 70+ points combined. That's great till you meat a defense that plans to hit ya. Lucky for Cal they'll play Texas Tech another high powered offense, low productive defensive team in their bowl.

However USC will not be that fortunate. The Sooners will come out to hit them and we'll see if the Trojans can handle their kind of pressure.

As for trends in football, they start with coaches and the legends have not left the east.

Bobby Bowden, Joe Paterno, Stever Spurrier, Saben, Lou Hotlz, Coker, Beamer, Stoops, Bear Bryant, Switzer, Jimmy Johnsen don't think these coaches are known for their west first trends.

If the football world is so bias against the Pac-10, USC would be in the Sugar Bowl playing Va Tech. I'll say this again, USC played Va Tech and Cal this year and that's about it.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Let's also remember that the Texas/ OU game is almost a home game every freaking year for Texas. This game has not been played in OK for how many years?

As for Pitt being in a BCS everyone knows this is garbage just like West Virginia playing FSU. 

Think about this Virginia is having to play Fresno State and the only games UVA lost this year was to Va Tech, Miami and FSU. Talk about a screw job. Virginia is the highest ranked team to play in this BS Bowl ever.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> cal has not beaten the types of teams that texas had beaten. the problem is not texas getting in over cal. the problem is that these are at this point at worst the 5th and 6th best teams in the country and the final bcs spot had to be decided between them.


Cal hasn't played teams the quality of who? The two non Top20 teams the Texas beat was unable to beat or schedule a top 25 team. Cal beat ASU, who is better than Texas A&M or Texas Tech (according to the BSC polls). ASU beat #11 Iowa pretty good, so they showed they're a solid team. Texas has the benefit of playing in a conference where you can be 7-4 and still be ranked because of the legacy of the BigXII. Pac-10 schools aren't given that luxary, despite being the toughest conference in the nation this year (on an admitted down year). 

I just don't see how you can make a case that Texas has done more than Cal to deserves being in the Rose Bowl over them. I strongly believe they could be the #5 or #6 teams in the country, but no way are they better than Cal.



> texas had 4 wins over ranked teams.


Just for the record, Texas only beat two teams that finished in the Top25 (#20 and #22). If you beat a team that was overated at the start of the sesaon, doesn't mean you get credit for beating one of the top teams of that season. So Texas beat two Top25 teams, and Cal has the best victory of either team.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Let's also remember that the Texas/ OU game is almost a home game every freaking year for Texas. This game has not been played in OK for how many years?


they play in dallas and it definately is not a home game for texas. i went this year. the crowd is split evenly. the game it at a neutral site and the crowd is half ou and half texas. half the tickets for texas fans, and half for ou.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Last time I looked Dallas was in Texas?

OU hates playing this game there. Two of my buddies played O line for the Sooners and they said it seemed to them like a home game for Texas.

Maybe they were bias though! 

I for one believe Cal should play Texas in the Rose Bowl and the Wolverines can go to the holiday.

Everyone wants to see if Cal can throw the ball against a real defense! I think they can but we wont know when the play Texas Tech!


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> Cal hasn't played teams the quality of who? The two non Top20 teams the Texas beat was unable to beat or schedule a top 25 team. Cal beat ASU, who is better than Texas A&M or Texas Tech (according to the BSC polls). ASU beat #11 Iowa pretty good, so they showed they're a solid team. Texas has the benefit of playing in a conference where you can be 7-4 and still be ranked because of the legacy of the BigXII. Pac-10 schools aren't given that luxary, despite being the toughest conference in the nation this year (on an admitted down year).
> 
> I just don't see how you can make a case that Texas has done more than Cal to deserves being in the Rose Bowl over them. I strongly believe they could be the #5 or #6 teams in the country, but no way are they better than Cal.


i already did. texas play 5 teams that were ranked at the time they played. that means that those 5 teams were playing like top 25 teams at the time of that specific game. texas came out 4-1. cal played only 2 such teams and went 1-1. the pac 10 was not the best conference in the league. they had 3 teams above .500. that's it. that's not a top conference. playing good teams and losing does not make you a good team. i'm not trying to say texas is better than cal. that really isn't even relevant. texas deserved to be in a bcs bowl just as much if not more than cal.



> Just for the record, Texas only beat two teams that finished in the Top25 (#20 and #22). If you beat a team that was overated at the start of the sesaon, doesn't mean you get credit for beating one of the top teams of that season. So Texas beat two Top25 teams, and Cal has the best victory of either team.


it matters that you beat teams that were ranked in the top 25 when you played. that helps judge how good the team was playing at the time of that game. missouri was ranked and was 4-1 when texas played and beat them. texas tech was 4-2 and coming off a 70-10 win over a nebraska team that won at pitt only a couple weeks before. oklahoma state was 6-2 and coming off a 3 point loss to ou where their kicker missed a field goal in the final seconds. texas a&m was 7-3 coming off a win against tech and a very close loss to ou. i would say those wins would mean something even if the team is no longer ranked because all were playing like a top 25 team at the time texas played them.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Last time I looked Dallas was in Texas?
> 
> OU hates playing this game there. Two of my buddies played O line for the Sooners and they said it seemed to them like a home game for Texas.
> ...


yeah dallas is in texas, but it's definately not just texas fans. it's still about a 4 hour drive from austin to get there and like i said, they have the stadium split in half with ou fans on one side and texas fans on the other. one side of the 50 is texas fans and the other side is ou. so it definately isn't a home game for either team.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

So the SEC only has two tough teams a year and the Pac-10 has four or five good schools every year? What the hell are ya saying?

Auburn
LSU
Georgia
Florida
Bama
Vols


These teams are good every year. Four of them have national championships and Auburn could split it this year.

The Pac-10 

USC
CAl







then 

ASU
OSU
U of O
UCLA
AZ they'll need three years for Stoops brother who came from the EAST to save them.

UW wont compete for years with the probation there on and they don't have a coach.
WSU back in the toilet
Stanford just fired their coach and their prior coach just got the boot with the Irish.

I'd say the Pac-10 has 8 teams that are barely posting winning seasons.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> So the SEC only has two tough teams a year and the Pac-10 has four or five good schools every year? What the hell are ya saying?
> 
> Auburn
> ...


You're just proving my point that people down south are bias. You say Alabama is good every year? So by your standards 27-22 over the past 4 years makes you good every year.

If that were the case, then USC, Cal, Oregon, Oregon St, UCLA, and Washington St should all be in the "good every year" teams for the Pac 10.

That's right, in the past 4 years, Bama would be the 7th best team in the Pac10. That's not even considering that the SEC's strength of schedule is almost always more weak than the Pac10.

Not to mention that we don't have teams like Vanderbilt who hasn't won more than 2 games a season in the past 4 years. I thought Arizona was horrible, but they've won almost double the amount of games as Vandy during the same time period.

I don't think the SEC is bad. I think they're one of the best conferences in the nation. I just dont' understand how I can easily defend a conference you consider so weak, and make it look better than the SEC. The SEC is top loaded (and that's not a bad thing), but from top to bottom, the Pac10 has a tougher conference. The stats prove it, and I'm confident that recent head to head result would prove it to. 

Even if the Pac10 weren't quite as good as the SEC, it's still a shame that so many really good teams haven't got a chance to play in the national championship game. This is the first time in the history of the BSC and Pac10 team can even attempt to prove they're the best team. Yet all the teams that get snubbed out of the title game, always seem to win comfortably in their BSC game.

It's not your SEC pride that bothers me, I don't blame you for thinking what you think, because there are good teams in the SEC. But to talk about the Pac10 like it's incredibly weak just doesn't give you any credibility when you have no stats to back it up. Most fans always use the weak conference and weak schedule excuses, but never use stats to back it up, because there usually isn't any.


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

SEC is a tougher conference..:yes: Followed by the ACC then maybe the Pac 10.>>>Get mad and say that we southeren folk are biased...Doesnt really matter to me, you know we're right. :laugh:


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

I also think a playoff system would help with all of the BCS nonsense.:grinning:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blaze_Rocks</b>!
> SEC is a tougher conference..:yes: Followed by the ACC then maybe the Pac 10.>>>Get mad and say that we southeren folk are biased...Doesnt really matter to me, you know we're right. :laugh:


That's a great though. I know the SEC should be better, since they're so rich in tradition. But I haven't found a solid stat that they have a better conference this year. The only conference ranking formula I've seen, ranks the Pac10 #1. But most southern fans don't like stats or numbers.

Sargin Conference Rankings

The formula for this puts little weight on the top and bottom teams, so USC and Cal are not the reason the Pac is rated #1.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> So Minstrel the coaches all around the league have said the Pac-10 is the strongest?


No, based on their rankings of the teams, among other things, the Pac 10 grades out the toughest. The coaches put Cal at #4 for a reason, and it's not because they're all West coast homers.



> I'm not going to argue with you Minstrel, if you believe the Pac-10 is the toughest conference this year fine. Your just flat wrong and know very little about football to come to that conclusion.


Of course you're "not going to argue," because you have no logic or evidence or your side. You're just an incredible homer for your school and school's conference.



> Minstrel, I went to the school you're calling a pretender and our teams history speaks for itself.


Are you capable of rational thought? "History" is not the same as this year. Do you need a dictionary to help you with this argument?



> FSU is a conerstone in football and even through our bad years of late


Exactly. When push comes to shove, you agree that FSU has been a pretender lately. History has nothing to do with right now. Thanks for rejoining reality.



> This is the worse we'll ever be and that's still a New Years Day bowl, can you really say that about USC or CAL or for that matter any team in the Pac-10?


I don't really care, because all I'm arguing is this year. Again, do you have the rational ability to separate other years from this year? You must think the Celtics are the best team in the NBA this year because of their glorious history.



> You also said Miami is a top program today? I guess you've missed the last two and a half decades and a bunch of national championships?


No, I didn't miss it. But someday it'll penetrate your head that I'm only discussing this season as far as Pac 10 strength, compared to the ACC.



> As a side note it's interesting to me that the hottest coach in the land from Utah could have gone to two vacant PAC-10 schools in UW and Stanford and chose to go to Florida. You know Minstrel that conference that's not as good as the Pac-10?


It's not all that interesting. Florida is a better football program that Stanford or UW. Again, try to apply some rational thought here....just because the Pac 10 was stronger this year, doesn't mean every Pac 10 program is superior to every SEC or ACC program. Do you think a coach would jump at the Duke football head coaching job, just because it's in the ACC? You're a hopeless dreamer if you think so.

All you are is a homer, Terrible. Not a praticularly knowledgeable college football fan.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> it matters that you beat teams that were ranked in the top 25 when you played. that helps judge how good the team was playing at the time of that game.


It does nothing of the sort. If a team was overrated, it often takes two or three losses for that team to fall out of the top-25 entirely. Happening to be one of the first two or three teams to beat that overrated team is just luck, not skill.

Cal was slated to play Southern Miss. early in the season, when they were still ranked, but didn't get a chance to because the game was postponed due to Hurricane Ivan. So they, unlike Texas, didn't get a chance to pad their early standing with a win over a "fake" top-25. They only got to play Southern Miss. after they had been thoroughly exposed as not being top-25 material and thus got no credit for the win.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> It does nothing of the sort. If a team was overrated, it often takes two or three losses for that team to fall out of the top-25 entirely. Happening to be one of the first two or three teams to beat that overrated team is just luck, not skill.
> 
> Cal was slated to play Southern Miss. early in the season, when they were still ranked, but didn't get a chance to because the game was postponed due to Hurricane Ivan. So they, unlike Texas, didn't get a chance to pad their early standing with a win over a "fake" top-25. They only got to play Southern Miss. after they had been thoroughly exposed as not being top-25 material and thus got no credit for the win.


that just isn't right. missouri was 4-1 and they were not a bad team at all going into the texas game. they deserved their ranking. up until that point they were a top 25 team. texas beat them and then some other teams beat them knocking them out, but that doesn't change the fact they were playing like a top 25 team when texas played them and didn't fall off until later. it does matter what teams are ranked when you played them.

what about a team like minnesota? they were undefeated and playing damn good football up until the michigan game and were ranked 13 and deserved that ranking. after losing to michigan by 3, it was like they became a different team and gave up on the season only winning one more game the rest of the way. that still doesn't change the fact that when michigan played and beat them, they were playing like a top 15 team in the country.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> that just isn't right. missouri was 4-1 and they were not a bad team at all going into the texas game. they deserved their ranking. up until that point they were a top 25 team. texas beat them and then some other teams beat them knocking them out, but that doesn't change the fact they were playing like a top 25 team when texas played them and didn't fall off until later. it does matter what teams are ranked when you played them.


Missouri was 4-1, but they were not deserving of a national ranking. The five teams they had played finished a combined 18-24. Their loss was to Troy! This "good" Missiouri team played 1 ranked opponent all season, and still only managed to go 5-6. They got dominated by Nebraska and Kansas. Clearly a team like that was not playing well, and by no means was ever a Top25 team. You're not going to be able to make a case that that was a good victory against a tough team. 

You can say the exact same thing for Minnesota. Sure they were great against unranked opponents. But when they played Michigan, Wisconsin, ad Iowa, they couldn't find a way to win. And they couldn't find a way to beat Michigan St or Indiana.

Trust me, being an Oregon fan, I know what it's like to have a cupcake preseason schedule, and despite a good record, you don't have a good team. In 2002 Oregon started out 6-0, all against unranked opponents, and then they played some real teams and fell apart losing 6 of their last 7. If the schedule had been reversed, Oregon would have started 1-6, and finished 7-6.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> Missouri was 4-1, but they were not deserving of a national ranking. The five teams they had played finished a combined 18-24. Their loss was to Troy! This "good" Missiouri team played 1 ranked opponent all season, and still only managed to go 5-6. They got dominated by Nebraska and Kansas. Clearly a team like that was not playing well, and by no means was ever a Top25 team. You're not going to be able to make a case that that was a good victory against a tough team.
> 
> You can say the exact same thing for Minnesota. Sure they were great against unranked opponents. But when they played Michigan, Wisconsin, ad Iowa, they couldn't find a way to win. And they couldn't find a way to beat Michigan St or Indiana.


at the time of the texas/missouri game missouri was 4-1 and playing well at that time. i never said they finished up the season good, just that at the time of that game, they were playing well. missouri killed ball st, baylor, and arkansas st. they beat colorado and lost a close game to a troy team that had just beaten marshall on the road. sure they had played some easy teams, but they were still playing well.

minnesota killed toledo. they ended up winning the mac. but i wouldn't even really count that because toledo started off the season terrible getting killed by minnesota and kansas. but since according to you, all that matters is the final rankings, i guess that should be a pretty impressive win. minnesota was a very good team until they lost a close game to michigan. then they pretty much gave up. that doesn't make michigan's win over them any worse.

and if this is how you want to judge teams, who the hell did cal play? no one. 5-6 air force, 5-6 new mexico state, 6-5 southern miss, 6-5 oregon state, 12-0 usc, 6-5 ucla, 3-8 arizona, 8-3 arizona state, 5-6 oregon, 1-10 washington, and 4-7 stanford. damn that is impressive. they lost to usc, killed arizona state, and everyone else they played can barely make a bowl game if that.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> and if this is how you want to judge teams, who the hell did cal play? no one. 5-6 air force, 5-6 new mexico state, 6-5 southern miss, 6-5 oregon state, 12-0 usc, 6-5 ucla, 3-8 arizona, 8-3 arizona state, 5-6 oregon, 1-10 washington, and 4-7 stanford. damn that is impressive. they lost to usc, killed arizona state, and everyone else they played can barely make a bowl game if that.


So Cal played a fairly weak preseason schedule, I could agree with you on that. They played three teams, that ended up 15-18, not a winning record. However, Texas had an equally easy schedule, with the three teams they played having a combined record of 15-18 (that's with North Texas going 7-0 in the #12 conference in the nation. 

So preseason is a wash. Now it goes back to the Pac10 being better than the BigXII, as the statsitics have proven. Oregon had the easiest schedule in the Pac10 this season, yet it was the 20th toughest in the nation! The average strength of schedule in the BigXII is 23, which is worse than the team with the easiest schedule in the Pac10! The Pac10 plays a hard schedule every year, and that's why their records aren't as good as some of the other power conferences. From top to bottom, the Pac10 had a hardest schedule than the BigXII.

Oregon St (1)
Arizona St (4)
Arizona (5)
Washington (6)
Stanford (7)
Southern Cal (8)
UCLA (11)
Cal (16)
Washington St (17)
Oregon (20)

Those are tough numbers to argue with.


Apparently I'm with the 2/3 majority thinking that Cal deserved it more, so I'm not alone... Check out the national poll


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> Oregon St (1)
> Arizona St (4)
> Arizona (5)
> ...


You're right. I don't understand why people can't get that the PAC-10 is, year in year out, tough as nails.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel, 

FSU has not missed a bowl in the past two decades or today so what's your point? They're still a damn good program with a winning record every flipping year. I would never say my school is a pretender. That's something a cheap shot artist like you says in the comfort of an alias.


If you mean they're a pretender cause they lost to Miami and Florida than I'd suggest that eight of the teams in the Pac-10 this year would also have been eliminated with these opponents.

You know Minstrel you bit and piece someones post to fit your arguement but leave out big chunks that destroy yours. Typical!

The anoymous coaches polls that you keep blithering about for Cal, give me a break even Tedford of Cal a few days ago said they needs to be reformed so coaches are held accountable for their votes.

Forgot to mention that didn't ya Minstrel the Embellisher, didn't fit your arguement I guess!

You know you say I know nothing about football and leave out every point in my post you can't rebuttle.










 

Another shocker!


Just so you know, FSU is in the ACC and the conference I've been saying is the best this year is the SEC. Guess that doesn't fit your arguement either. Good for you to say though!
Ignorant that you didn't pick that up in my posts.

I would question after reading your rebuttle if you have the ability to have this debate with me since you really didn't read my post completely.

Minstrel, I understand you believe you're the KING OF BASKETBALL BOARD DEBATES and that's sad enough for you as a reality to let this go for me as a fan and an ex football player.






:laugh:


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Playing the toughest schedule is half the battle guys. You actually have to win some of those games. Why do ya think Oregon State isn't ranked with such a tough schedule?

Ever wonder why the Irish are ranked every pre season and don't crack the top twenty by the end? Cause they play a wicked schedule and lose 4 to 5 games on it a year.

You have to beat these tough teams not just show up or have them on your schedule.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> Oregon St (1)
> Arizona St (4)
> Arizona (5)
> ...


the pac 10 played a tougher nonconference schedule than the big 12. that doesn't make it a better conference. playing a tough schedule really means nothing when you can't win the games. pac 10 teams played wisconsin, utah, iowa, oklahoma, lsu, boise state, oklahoma state, virginia tech, fresno state, and colorado. they only beat iowa and virginia tech. sure they can schedule top teams, but unless they are beating them, it doesn't make them the top conference.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Playing the toughest schedule is half the battle guys. You actually have to win some of those games. Why do ya think Oregon State isn't ranked with such a tough schedule?


It certainly doesn't help that they're not from the south. But, you're right, they probably shouldn't be ranked. But you can't look at their 6-5 record and say they're just like any other 6-5 team. The Pac10 can usually make a great case for why their teams are the best teams with similar records, which is what makes the conference more difficult than it looks.

Oregon St's five losses are against teams with a combined 50-6 record. So that's fairly understandable that they've lost 5 games, but I agree you shouldn't be ranked if you've lost that many games. You still can be considered a better team than some ranked teams.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Rocketeer has just nailed it!!! Best post if I do say so myself!


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Tince, With the same reasoning you're making about OSU is the same reason the Beavs are in a bowl against the IRISH who also follow that recipe.

Neither team should be in a bowl this year.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> the pac 10 played a tougher nonconference schedule than the big 12. that doesn't make it a better conference. playing a tough schedule really means nothing when you can't win the games. pac 10 teams played wisconsin, utah, iowa, oklahoma, lsu, boise state, oklahoma state, virginia tech, fresno state, and colorado. they only beat iowa and virginia tech. sure they can schedule top teams, but unless they are beating them, it doesn't make them the top conference.


You made another very valid point. Let's compare the Pac10's preseason record vs Top 25 teams, agianst the BigXII's record.

Pac 10: 2-6
Wins were against an avg 10th ranked teams.
Losses were against an avg 11th ranked teams

BigXII: 1-2
Win agains the #19 ranked team.
Losses were against an avg 8th rank teams.

I'm not seeing much of a difference that favors the BigXII. They clearly won't schedule the tough opponents, and their only win was against the #19 team in the nation.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Tince, With the same reasoning you're making about OSU is the same reason the Beavs are in a bowl against the IRISH who also follow that recipe.
> 
> Neither team should be in a bowl this year.


My reasoning was that a 5 loss team shouldn't be ranked, but they were probably better than ranked teams. If the same can be said about the Irish, I don't get how that proves neither team should be in a bowl.

My entire point is that a team with a harder schedule deserves the nod of over a team with the same record, and an easier schedule. Oregon St had the hardest schedule in the nation, and still qualified for a bowl game, so how does that prove that they shouldn't be in a bowl game? Please explain this to me.

You seem to be supporting teams that play easier schedules should get the benefit of the doubt. An considering you're standing up for Auburn, that would make sense. Your theory suggests that Boise St and Utah should play for the title because they had the easiest schedules and went undefeated. Personally I think the teams with the two most difficult schedules should get the nod.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> 
> 
> My reasoning was that a 5 loss team shouldn't be ranked, but they were probably better than ranked teams. If the same can be said about the Irish, I don't get how that proves neither team should be in a bowl.
> ...


Excellent points.

I still doubt they get it.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Excellent points.
> ...


Fork, should I just give up?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tince</b>!
> 
> 
> Fork, should I just give up?


Never give up!!!

It's a fight worth fighting.

I think I may give up though.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

One last vain attempt to explain why Cal got screwed.

There’s a website, www.masseyratings.com that averages about 100 different polls. Both human and computerized. Here’s what they say. 

USC has the #4 offense and #2 defensive ratings.
Oklahoma is #9 on offense, #1 on defense
Cal is #5 on offense, #5 on defense
Auburn is #12 on offense, #4 on defense.

By these rankings, USC is superior to all three others, but Cal and Oklahoma are actually even, Auburn the weakest of the 4. 

USC went 5-0 against the top 25 teams, beating the #4, #8, #13, #23 and #25.
Oklahoma went 4-0 beating the #6, #15, #18 and #19 teams.
Cal went 3-1, beating the #13, #23 and #25, losing to the #1 team
Auburn went 4-0, beating the #11, #12, #21 twice.

USC’s average opponent was #45.5
Oklahoma’s average opponent was #49.2
Cal’s average opponent was #49.8
Auburn USC’s average opponent was #75.9

Auburn has more cupcakes on their schedule than a grade school bake sale. #239 Citadel? #121 Louisiana Monroe? #136 Kentucky? Don’t break a nail boys. The Pac-10 schools only had one opponent higher than #100: Washington.

The PAC-10 is tougher game in/game out than the other conferences. Auburn basically had three bye weeks. They don’t deserve to be in the BCS and Cal does.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> You know Minstrel you bit and piece someones post to fit your arguement but leave out big chunks that destroy yours. Typical!


Hardly. I left out ravings like about how wonderful FSU is and how over the past two decades they've dominated because that's totally irrelevant to this year.



> Minstrel, I understand you believe you're the KING OF BASKETBALL BOARD DEBATES and that's sad enough for you as a reality to let this go for me as a fan and an ex football player.


You can make up silly titles all you like, it doesn't hide the fact that you have no grasp of logic or objectivity.


----------



## generalmcg (Apr 19, 2004)

Well guys I haven't been motivated enough to read through your pages of witty banter but I still have a few things to add to this wonderful discussion:

1. Cal did get screwed. As I see it there are only 2 consolations to this debauchery and they are: 

-USC smashing on OU

as well as....

-Cal completely dominating a worthless team.


2. I have to send my condolences to whoever the guy with the Alabama avatar is. You obviously have a complete SEC bias and despise the Pac-10 but isn’t nice that a worthless, overrated team like UW still managed to tear your “Crimson Tide” (whatever that is  ) up? Just a thought, but I think so. :yes:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>generalmcg</b>!
> Well guys I haven't been motivated enough to read through your pages of witty banter but I still have a few things to add to this wonderful discussion:


I would question whether you "added" anything.



> 1. Cal did get screwed.


Okay. I can live with that assessment. 



> -USC smashing on OU


HAHA!



> -Cal completely dominating a worthless team.


Well, considering they got plenty of preparation doing that all season long - they'll fit right in.



> 2. I have to send my condolences to whoever the guy with the Alabama avatar is.


Please, don't. The Tide doesn't need your "condolences".



> You obviously have a complete SEC bias and despise the Pac-10 but isn’t nice that a worthless, overrated team like UW still managed to tear your “Crimson Tide” (whatever that is  ) up?


What type of sentence is this?

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I can't even remember the last time the Tide played UW. It's probably been during this last while where the Tide has been struggling through probation. Because I'm stumped. 

Oh wait, you must be talking about college basketball. Hmmm... I don't even know how to respond except wow. 



> Just a thought, but I think so. :yes:


I guess that's what happens when you think (or try to formulate a sentence).

But, ho ahead cherish the feeling. Hold and coddle it. Because I don't believe you do much thinking, so enjoy it. I'm proud of you. I'm sure soon enough they will let you lick the stamps.

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> ....I can't even remember the last time the Tide played UW. It's probably been during this last while where the Tide has been struggling through probation. Because I'm stumped.
> 
> Play.


Well, playmaker, actually, his argument is worse than you may have thought...

Alabama has played Washington in football 4 times.

In 1986, Alabama beat Washington 28-6 in the Sun Bowl.

In 1978, Alabama beat Washington 20-17 in the regular season.

In 1975, Alabama beat Washington 52-0 in the regular season.

And in 1925, Alabama beat Washington 20-19 in the Rose Bowl.

Hey generalmcg, I've never heard a poorer argument. Nobody was talking about college hoops.


----------



## generalmcg (Apr 19, 2004)

Sorry guys but I didn't know I was "messaging" with you oh so highly educated <i>(*cough* yeah right *cough*)</i> folk of da' souf (is that how you guys spell it?). I mean I <i>definitely</i> should have remembered that down there you have to introduce arguments before you actually state them or else people <i>(*cough* you *cough*)</i> will get confused. Here let me spell it out for you: <b>UW</b>, that’s the Uni•ver•si•ty of Wash•ing•ton (just sound it out guys I'm sure you two can get it!), <b>beat</b> (I <i>certainly</i> hope you guys can get this one) <b>Alabama</b> (your favorite school!).

Now to elaborate where you were confused, my friends, I in fact <i>was</i> referring to basketball. I mean who would of thought, talking about basketball on a website called basketballboards.net!? What was I thinking!? I <i>totally</i> apologize guys I was waaaay out of line. Please forgive me and I solemnly swear that I will <i>never</i> talk about basketball on these boards again. I simply didn't know they changed the Portland (Jail)Blazers forum to one for college football. Silly me, but I'm sure you two will find it in your kind Southern-lovin' hearts to accept my apology.

Okay guys, since I was soooo out of line before, I'm going to make it up to you two by helping my crimson friend formulate his past paragraph (how kind!). So what we have so far is:



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> But, ho ahead cherish the feeling. Hold and coddle it. Because I don't believe you do much thinking, so enjoy it. I'm proud of you. I'm sure soon enough they will let you lick the stamps.


First of all I'm assuming (and I might be wrong as I'm not a soufy like you) that you meant "go ahead," not "ho ahead." You also need to put the comma after "ahead" not "but," because you have two sep•a•rate ideas in that sentence.
All right, so thus far we have, "But go ahead, cherish the feeling." See how fun formulating sentences can be (I bet you never even knew!)!

Well friends I'd like to go on but I'm afraid that I don't have as much time on my hands as you guys to post (2,196 and 2,000!? You dogs you!) on this wonderful new <i>college football</i> forum. Please forgive me but remember that if either of you ever, and I mean ever, need help “formulating” any more sentences again I'm more than happy to help my <i>(*cough* dispriveleged *cough*)</i> friends from da' souf.

For now I'm off to take some medicine for this crazy cold I have and then eat some good ol' watermelon and fried chicken but hopefully we can "message" again real soon.

“Play.”


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Once again Minstrel, this year FSU is in another big time bowl and although my team is not perfect, they are far from a pretender as you would so ignorantly throw out. 

You've said I'm a bias ACC "HOMER" even though I've given the nod to the SEC all year as the best conference and you wont rebut that cause it doesn't fit your arguement.

Picking and choosing again I see!

You've said all the coaches polls and rakings give the Pac-10 the strongest conference yet don't take into your great logic that even the great Pac-10 coaches like Tedford want these same polls reformed so coaches are accountable for their bias.

You've not addressed yet the Pac-10 tragic out of conference record THIS YEAR but then go on to say they are the best conference. How does that work for you? Oh that's right parody!

Crappy teams beating each other must mean dominance to you. 

CAL and USC are great teams the rest of the Pac-10 is a joke this year and you can spin it any way you want but no one but Pac-10 homers would even think to say they are the best conference.

Instead of posting your 13000 post trying turning on ESPN, you'll see who the experts really think the best conference is!

Don't take my word for it, take Corso's or Alberts anybody who gets paid to do this for a living. 

I'm done with you.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey generalmcg, 

I love a spirited debate as much as the next but be careful with all that southern bashing. It's not cool! Play is not the only person from the south on this board.



Thanks!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> 
> Picking and choosing again I see!


No, I actually decided to leave it be. I wrote a much longer reply to you, hitting each of your "points," but decided this petty back-and-forth was disrupting a much better discussion going on and edited it down to what you see.



> I'm done with you.


Thanks for being gentle.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>generalmcg</b>!
> 
> Now to elaborate where you were confused, my friends, I in fact <i>was</i> referring to basketball. I mean who would of thought, talking about basketball


...in a thread about college football? Yes, that was quite stupid. I'm glad that's apparent to you, as well.

Clearly, you're not very good at comprehending written words, but you *do* have enthusiasm. As long as you have that, the ability to read, and thus discover what a given thread is about, should follow eventually.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>generalmcg</b>!
> Now to elaborate where you were confused, my friends, I in fact <i>was</i> referring to basketball. I mean who would of thought, talking about basketball on a website called basketballboards.net!? What was I thinking!? I <i>totally</i> apologize guys I was waaaay out of line. Please forgive me and I solemnly swear that I will <i>never</i> talk about basketball on these boards again. I simply didn't know they changed the Portland (Jail)Blazers forum to one for college football. Silly me, but I'm sure you two will find it in your kind Southern-lovin' hearts to accept my apology.
> 
> “Play.”


<i>Why</i> were you talking about basketball though? The entire thread, from the title (OT: The BCS is a joke) and every single post is about FOOTBALL. NCAA men's basketball has no bowl games. There is no BCS. That's not what this thread was about.

In fact, if you're complaining about us being off topic in discussion of the BCS...why are you posting about the Washington Huskies? Isn't this is a Portland Trailblazers board?

BTW...In general, calling the Trailblazers the 'Jailblazers' is considered baiting. That's a rude and inconsiderate practice. Please stop.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>generalmcg</b>!
> 1. Cal did get screwed. As I see it there are only 2 consolations to this debauchery and they are:
> 
> -USC smashing on OU
> ...


yes cal got screwed by not being in a bcs bowl. but they did not get screwed by having texas placed in ahead of them. pitt and the bcs system is what screwed them. i'm not trying to say that texas is a better team, just that they are equally as worthy as cal. cal was ranked 5th in the bcs. that means 4 teams got in that were ranked under them. that is how they got screwed, not because texas is ahead of them.

and yes i think usc will beat ou and i think it will be by 14+ points.

cal and texas tech is different though. tech definately is not a completely worthless team and i expect them to give cal a game and wouldn't be surprised at all if they can pull out a win.


----------



## generalmcg (Apr 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> Hey generalmcg,
> 
> I love a spirited debate as much as the next but be careful with all that southern bashing. It's not cool! Play is not the only person from the south on this board.
> ...


Sorry man just trying to point out a few pretty obvious biases towards teams of a certain region. No disrespect intended (towards you at least).

I guess I <i>also</i> should apologize to my main man Minstrel (whoot whoot!) for talking about college basketball in a Portland <i>Trail</i>blazers forum. I'm an idiot what can I say! Still, the only thing I'm not really comprehending right now is that last sentence of yours (I mean I know you were trying to use commas all fancy-like but that's just ugly English! :no: ) 

And finally for my old pal Fork, I already apologized to you! I mean I can see you're disgusted by the fact that I would even consider bringing up (lets see if I can explain this) college basketball in a thread about college football in a message board for the Blazers in a website for basketball in general (let me take a breath real quick), but I said I'm sorry! I'm an idiot! I don't know the rules! I mean what do you expect for a guy with double digit posts!?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>generalmcg</b>!
> Sorry guys but I didn't know I was "messaging" with you oh so highly educated <i>(*cough* yeah right *cough*)</i> folk of da' souf (is that how you guys spell it?).


You need to understand three things:

(A) Portland is in a state called Oregon. Oregon is located in the north. 
I know this is hard for you to grasp, but it is actually true. 
Use this map to familiarize yourself with the continental landmass known as the United States of America. 
Learning Map 
Move your mouse around the map and it will highlight the states and capitals for you. 
(B) Trying to imitate the southern black dialect by using terms such as "souf" is considered quite racist and rude.
(C) There is a new concept called rapid transportation. Using this new concept, one can relocate from one area to another. Strangely enough, one doesn't even have to be from that location to visit or be a part of it for a few years. It's revolutionary. So while half your post is dedicated to insulting the south, I will let you know right now, I am not even from America. (much less the south)



> I mean I <i>definitely</i> should have remembered that down there you have to introduce arguments before you actually state them or else people <i>(*cough* you *cough*)</i> will get confused.


Actually, no, we weren't get confused. We just think it is the improper way to structure an argument. One must present the basis for their argument before they present some sort of factual evidence in order to back it.

It is also known as proper form to actually stay on topic. If, by chance, you happen to switch gears and try to introduce a new topic, you definitely should alert the audience. Again, this is just proper form.

See, if we were discussing cats and kittens and all of a sudden I said:

_"Skip fetches frisbees and chews my sneakers."_

It would come across very odd and out of place. Regardless of the fact that a person could probably deduce what I am referring to, it is still a poor addition to a conversation about cats and kittens. Especially when I don't state that I don't have cats, but I do have a dog that can perform tricks. 

You seem so educated, and hell-bent on trying to correct everyone, so I am sure you knew this already. 



> Here let me spell it out for you:


Please don't.



> <b>UW</b>, that’s the


No, I really got it before.



> Uni•ver•si•ty of Wash•in


No, really, I did.



> g•ton (just sound it out guys I'm sure you two can get it!),


But..


> <b>beat</b> (I <i>certainly</i> hope you guys can get this one) <b>Ala


This isn't even..



> bama</b>


Oh, well.



> (your favorite school!).


Not my favorite school. My undergraduate alma mater. 

While discussing alma maters, we ought to mention my graduate education done in the north. A little school with three initials ... jeez .... what were they again. Shoot. I know the school was just outside Boston. In, ummm... Cambridge. M, something. Something like MIT. Jeez... I just can't remember.



> Now to elaborate where you were confused


No, we weren't confused. We just thought you were extremely stupid and took the time to pick on you. Perhaps knowing that fact will help you feel good.



> my friends


Trust me, in sarcasm or jest or in all seriousness, I am sure I speak for the majority of this board when I say:

"We are not your friends, nor do we like you very much"



> I in fact <i>was</i> referring to basketball.


Why would you do that? Why would you talk about basketball when this entire thread was about the BCS? 

To my knowledge, and correct me if I am wrong, there has never been an NCAA men's basketball team ever involved in a NCAA college football bowl game. 

Therefore, what you were talking about was 180-degrees away from what we were discussing.

I mean, shoot, why not talk about the weather or how people in the Pac-10 have higher SAT scores. None of it is relevant to this argument.

Are you dense enough to actually believe it meant something?



> I mean who would of thought, talking about basketball on a website called basketballboards.net!?


I don't know. Who would have thought that in an OT (Off Topic) thread called "OT: The BCS is a joke" people would be talking about anything other than the BCS and college football to prove a point?



> What was I thinking!?


Like I intimated before, you probably weren't. More than likely, that pool of drool that forms on the desk below your head is an indication that any thinking you are doing is sub-standard and of very little benefit to any of us. 

Listen, that ache between your ears that you experience when you are trying to be witty is not a normal experience for the rest of us. 

Both of these things should explain to you why you were forced to ride on the small bus. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it wasn't because you were "special" like your Mom told you.



> I <i>totally</i> apologize guys I was waaaay out of line.


Well, you aren't forgiven. Please just go away.



> Please forgive me and I solemnly swear that I will <i>never</i> talk about basketball on these boards again.


Just do us a favor and avoid the boards altogether.



> I simply didn't know they changed the Portland (Jail)Blazers forum to one for college football. Silly me, but I'm sure you two will find it in your kind Southern-lovin' hearts to accept my apology.


(A) The thread title should have probably indicated that one, o' ye of little education.
(B) Again, refer above, Portland is in the north. So, if you are going to generalize about people, at least get the generality on the correct side of the Mason-Dixon line. 



> Okay guys, since I was soooo out of line before, I'm going to make it up to you two by helping my crimson friend formulate his past paragraph (how kind!).


Oh thanks. But you know what, I've got a better idea. Why not go find out what it feels like to take a swan dive off of a 10-story building and come back and report it to us. Okay? 

We'll be kind enough to start a thread about "swimming" so you will feel at home talking about trying to fly in the thread. (since it seems painfully obvious that you have no ability to stay on topic)



> See how fun formulating sentences can be (I bet you never even knew!)!


Actually, they were. The strange thing is - they quit being fun to construct around the age of 6. 

I know new ideas and concepts are exciting to the uninitiated and you feel the need to explain these new concepts to others. Truly though, sentence formulation is something we have long since quit being excited about.

So, you keep practicing. We will hold a silent vigil for you and pray that you can finally leave that high school of yours and venture out into the real world. In it you will be able to tighten screws with the best of them. 



> Please forgive me but remember that if either of you ever, and I mean ever, need help “formulating” any more sentences again I'm more than happy to help my <i>(*cough* dispriveleged *cough*)</i> friends from da' souf.


Don't hold your breath.

Wait ... no ... in fact, please do. Hold your breath. In fact, do so while jumping off the building I mentioned earlier.



> For now I'm off to take some medicine for this crazy cold I have and then eat some good ol' watermelon and fried chicken but hopefully we can "message" again real soon.


Again, if you continue to make racial generalizations, I will be forced to take action. It is not acceptable, even if you are completely and utterly handicapped.

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Play.


Play, you make me laugh. 

When Reef gets traded...I think I'll miss you most of all.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> Play, you make me laugh.


Thank you. I try to be amusing when I berate the moronic masses that seem to seep into our beloved Blazer's board.



> When Reef gets traded...I think I'll miss you most of all.


Awwww... I'll miss everyone here too. Especially because no other board is even close to as active as this place is.

Despite our inner bickerings (like any family have) we all seem to get along outside it all. 

That's cool.

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>generalmcg</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess I <i>also</i> should apologize to my main man Minstrel (whoot whoot!) for talking about college basketball in a Portland <i>Trail</i>blazers forum. I'm an idiot what can I say! Still, the only thing I'm not really comprehending right now is that last sentence of yours (I mean I know you were trying to use commas all fancy-like but that's just ugly English! :no: )


Coming from someone who uses italics on completely random words, or parts of words, that's amusing.

As a troll, I give you a 4 out of 10. You have the enthusiasm, but not a unique style or much intelligence.

Thanks for coming out.


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

Playmaker,

That is one funny post.

You are officially my hero.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NastyOne</b>!
> That is one funny post.


I try.



> You are officially my hero.


As I should be. 

Heh.

Play.


----------



## generalmcg (Apr 19, 2004)

Deleted. Take personal conversations and commentary, especially those utterly lacking in the topic of the thread, to PM's, please.


----------



## generalmcg (Apr 19, 2004)

Wow these guys are worse than refs, lets call it both ways boys. Hey just because you didn't get into MIT like my boy Play doesn't mean you should be hatin'. Respect the game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

This thread has outlived its usefulness. Closed.

Ed O.


----------

