Oh please. Everyone knows there is an enormous bias against west coast football. Besides the 3 hour time difference with the media heavies in NY/Conn, the perception is that west coast football is for pass-happy pansies.
Real men play football in the midwest and south, where football is a religion. It's like the old days when Ohio State, Woody Hayes , "three yards and a cloud of dust" would roll into the Rose Bowl and get their butts handed to them by west coast teams.
The money-grubbing bowl porkers have fostered this boondoggle known as the BCS on the rest of us, and it has been wrong 3 of 6 years so far. And it's really wrong this year. Should have been USC vs LSU for national championship.
horse shit. currently, there is no playoff system, so every game is just as important as another, be it at the begining or end of the year. your just pissed because your team is now out of a BCS bowl. you know of course, that's the only reason we lost was to take a big dump on your parade. well... that and the fact that we did get our asses handed to us, but that's beside the point.
nah, i agree that early games should not be weighted as much as late. why? because, even as the pros show, the later the season wears on, the more information you have to work with going into each week of practice. early wins mean very little (just look at the collapses of the pros from some teams' huge starts). a championship team finishes strong, not weak.
getting blown out inside of the first few games just shows a lack of game film to review, team tendencies haven't been established, and game planning based on scouting reports. hell, it's all you;ve got at that point.
but if you blow a late season game badly, it's much tougher to make an excuse for the losing side, other than injuries.
Clearly they should simply add one more game . . . the winners of Rose and Sugar bowls: they would rake in cash and it would be gauranteed to be an exciting game!!!
Clearly they should simply add one more game . . . the winners of Rose and Sugar bowls: they would rake in cash and it would be gauranteed to be an exciting game!!!
you won't get any argument here. maybe it could be a case by case basis. 2 undefeated teams, then no need for an extra game.
horse shit. currently, there is no playoff system, so every game is just as important as another, be it at the begining or end of the year.
Only if one assumes that teams do not change throughout the year. Only someone who has never watched college football would say that.
Only someone who has never watched any sports ever would say that. Teams run hot and cold, and when three teams are neck and neck the two hottest should play for the prize.
The fact that there are no playoffs does not invalidate that.
Your guys are playing for the NC anyway, why not admit the obvious?
Quote:
your just pissed because your team is now out of a BCS bowl.
It's a valid concern, but I'm not really all that pissed about it. I'm not going to a bowl game anyway and if we win against WSU we'll finish in the Top 5. And we get the same money and practice days anyway.
Mack Brown benefits most from us going to a BCS bowl, and I would like to see Mack Brown fired. (A stance that won't change until we beat you $$$$ers.)
If OU wins the NC (which I think they will) that makes my Longhorns look better because at least we were ass-$$$$ed by the national champ.
Quote:
you know of course, that's the only reason we lost was to take a big dump on your parade. well... that and the fact that we did get our asses handed to us, but that's beside the point.
Like OU's 77-0 romp of A&M, it could have been worse. KSU laid off at the end after Sproles busted a 60-yarder.
If you've been paying attention I've been touting OU as the best college team this century, but that is contingent on them not getting skull$$$$ed by a 3-loss team on national television. Life is fickle that way.
I think OU wins, but I'd be nervous if I were an OU fan. They were exposed in a big big way. If you can run the ball and hit Jason White you can rattle this squad. They are very very mortal.
This is completely logical and matches common sense. Therefore, the bowl-mongers will not agree.
I don't know why people think bowls and playoffs are mutually exclusive.
Just put the playoff games in the major bowls. That's no less logical than the BCS system, which doesn't guarantee proper conference tie-ins (2002 Rose Bowl: Miami v. Nebraska).
USC beat the crap out of everyone in their conference and only lost to a team not in contention in 3 overtimes. I agree that the Pac-10 should have a CCG, but that doesn't mean you keep a team out of the NC game who rightfully should be there..
Did you watch this game?
Cal owned USC for the majority of the game. As was often the case this year, Cal started falling apart late and USC tied it.
But in overtime USC had multiple chances to capitilize and failed miserably.
Cal was predicted to finish near the bottom of the Pac-10 this year..... did much better than anyone expected but, realistically it should have been a freebie for USC.
Sorry, but if you aren't a conference champion, you don't deserve to play for the national title. 'Nuff said.
He's right. The BCS is worthless, always has been. I seem to recall Nebraska a few years back going to the national championship when I think Colorado should've??? Then those damn Cornhuskers got rocked in the title game. BCS blows, and should be killed after this year.
Eh, are you disagreeing with something I said? USC rolled every Pac10 team except the one they lost by 3 points in multiple overtimes.
OU was favored by 16 points over Kansas State.
USC lost in September. OU lost in December. Huge difference.
Clearly, though, you're criticizing people based on a game you didn't watch. USC's performance against Cal was uglier than OU's against Kansas State. Triple overtime was only a formality. And Kansas State beat Cal in the regular season, if you want to use common games as a standard (as the NFL likes to). I'm sorry, but you can't say that one one-loss team is more deserving than another based on when they lost during the regular season.
And the "OU didn't win the Big 12" arguments are dumb. OU does have the best record in the Big 12 (They're 8-1, Texas is 7-1, and KSU is 7-2), and they got stuck playing an extra game for monetary concerns. All three teams have legitimate arguments for being in the Sugar Bowl. It proves one of two things: 1. There should be a championship game, or 2. college football should reduce the emphasis on trying to find the "true" national champion. And as long as money is involved, the latter ain't gonna happen.
I guess that's why I go to a school without a football team.
Clearly, though, you're criticizing people based on a game you didn't watch.
What "people" am I criticizing?
Quote:
USC's performance against Cal was uglier than OU's against Kansas State. Triple overtime was only a formality.
Was USC out of it at halftime? Because OU was.
Cal got ahead by 14 at the half. They ended up winning by 3. USC outscored them in the second half.
Winning on a field goal in multiple overtimes isn't a "formality", I don't have to watch the game to see that.
Quote:
And Kansas State beat Cal in the regular season, if you want to use common games as a standard (as the NFL likes to).
And Texas beat Kansas State who killed OU who killed Texas. blah blah blah
Quote:
I'm sorry, but you can't say that one one-loss team is more deserving than another based on when they lost during the regular season.
You don't present a counter-argument here.
Quote:
And the "OU didn't win the Big 12" arguments are dumb. OU does have the best record in the Big 12 (They're 8-1, Texas is 7-1, and KSU is 7-2), and they got stuck playing an extra game for monetary concerns.
Was Texas screwed out of a national championship bid in 2001 when we had to play Colorado (we had already kicked their ass earlier in the year)? No, because we didn't take care of business.
You either win or you don't and when OU had to win they didn't. But the computers decided to put them in anyway when damn near every football fan, coach and analyst said otherwise. That's the problem.
[You either win or you don't and when OU had to win they didn't. But the computers decided to put them in anyway when damn near every football fan, coach and analyst said otherwise. That's the problem. [/B]
I'm not sure that every fan, coach, or analyst said otherwise. (I mean, I'm certainly a fan). I would personally have appreciated watching any of those 3 teams playing against each other.
I think, however, it all goes back to the BCS being a solution that was looking for the wrong problem. The assumption that there will always be two standout teams is clearly one that needs to be rethought, as 3 of the last four years have proved otherwise, with the 3 teams this year, Oregon losing out two years ago, and the Miami/FSU/Washington debacle three years ago. Which brings us back to the other point I made in the last post either. If we truly want to know who the "real" champ is, we should have a playoff, because every team plays such a different schedule (there were no common games between all three one-loss teams this year). Or, we should go back to the old system of bowl games which left us with split champions (although, if USC beats Michigan, we'll probably have a split champion this year) and lots of fun offseason debate (you know you liked arguing the merits of Michigan versus Nebraska back in 97). I'm not wholly convinced that there NEEDS to be one true national champion.
But as I said, my school doesn't play football, so what do I know? And yeah, you're right groverat. If Oklahoma had taken care of business, we wouldn't be having this argument (but what fun would that be?)
Everyone's talking about the polls like they're the "true" ranking. But the problem with the polls is that they're the only part of the BCS that's not objective. The coaches and journalists knew that all the computers (except the NYTimes) would still rank OU #1 and USC #3. They also knew that strength of schedule would favor OU and LSU. The polls are the only component that can thus react to the rest of the BCS formula.
Short version: coaches and journalists can't be trusted. They know who they want to see play in the bowls, know how their votes will affect the formula, and they adjust their rankings accordingly.
There's no solution to this, short of keeping the whole BCS formula secret. But the point is that the polls should be considered only one facet of the BCS, and the least reliable one.
The BCS may be objective but it has deep flaws (for which humans are to blame) which the pollsters at least the chance to correct. For instance the exclusion of margin of victory is a major gaffe. Politics have prevented one of the chief ways in which computers distinguish among good teams.
I enjoy Sagarin's ratings for instance but as he would be the first to tell you his ELO-Chess rankings are shit compared to his regular rankings which do include MOV. He has Miami of Ohio ahead of USC for Christ's sake. Miami of Ohio would win once in 20 games against USC. As good as they are for a MAC team, they got smoked by Iowa the only time they played a legit non-conference team. And yet that is in the BCS formula. Miami of Ohio has a computer average 6.00 whereas Iowa's is 15.83. A ten point difference and 6 of the 7 polls have Miami Ohio higher. Among other teams with lower computer averages than Miami Ohio are Texas, FSU, Miami, TN, GA, Purdue, KSU etc.
Iowa is obviously the better team and proved as much on the field. They killed Miami of Ohio last year as well though that's not relevant. But because Iowa plays much more difficult teams like Ohio State, Purdue and MIchigan State they have three losses. Of course, were Iowa to play Miami of Ohio's schedule they would probably go 13-0. Of course, were they to play Iowa's schedule Miami of Ohio would be They are higher of course because of a superior record, 12-1 vs. 9-3, which is silly. The record is weighed too heavily at the expense of SOS when comparing the BCS conferences to the non-BCS conferences and so you see inflated rankings for teams with good records in bad conferences. This used to be balanced out by inclusion of MOV whereby the sucker MCs were downgraded due to the pummelings they received at the hands of BCS conferences but no more. Everyone plays about 2/3rds of their games against teams within their conference and so for two thirds of a season any conference no matter how good or bad will have their teams accumulate net records of .500. The remaining third doesn't provide enough weight numerically to let records reflect the disparity among conferences. The computers struggle to find small distinction between team with equal records because they cannot incorporate the massive margins by which for example a Louisiana Monroe is worse than LSU.
They also fail to account for a head to head victory in cases of similar credentials, something which unfortunately the polls have been known to do sometimes as well.
In the best case, a human can distinguish between the quality of teams by more than wins and losses and schedule by examining how they play. It's certainly subjective, on the other hand given that you can predict correctly who will win 3/4ths of the games it certainly is not random either.
The SOS portion of the BCS is also flawed for the same reasons. Beating Connecticut works out to be about the same for your SOS as would beating Florida since UConn's direct 2/3rds component is 8-3 while FL's is 7-4. Michigan is only a tiny margin better than Northern Illinois. USC would have gotten as much help in SOS for beating Houston as they did for beating Auburn. There are tons of examples. It's just absurd. The main problem is that you have teams which are really operating in two different stratospheres with occasional crossovers in September that are not frequent enough for the superiority of the BCS sphere to show itself.
I will say this about conference championship games. Anyone who thinks they are some sort of terrible burden is tripping. Let's not forget that if neither USC nor LSU had played a conference championship game it would be USC with the better computer and SOS rankings as it was last week before LSU got to factor in GA again. Alternatively, had USC played and beaten WSU in a conference championship game then USC would have gotten enough of a bump to have stayed number two. If the situation were not such that LSU had the chance to better their BCS numbers in a CCG and USC didn't then LSU would be in the Rose otherwise. Of course they can be detrimental but let's not ignore the beneficial side.
Past that, a conference championship game is just one game in an 11-14 game season. Things or more specifically the challenges you face from other teams will never be equal as running with scissors suggested would be the case if everyone had CCG because the other games would not all be the same. In the Big 12 for example Texas and Oklahoma alternate two year periods where they have to play NE and KSU. Whoever has that pairing has the tougher schedule even though both work in a CCG conference. Some conferencs have good years, some have bad. USC happened to hit a bad year in their conference and it hurt them. Some teams get really nice byes in their conferences- MN had Purdue and Ohio State as their two Big Ten byes this year -- and some team out there had Arizona as its bye this year. Some teams play shit non-conference schedules (LSU had Louisiana Monroe, LA Tech, Western Illinois, and Arizona) and some teams don't (Colorado had Florida State, Colorado State, Washington State, and UCLA). Having a conference championship game means you've added one hard game but it doesn't mean one school with a conference championship game necessarily has it easier than one without. Compare Notre Dame's schedule to LSU's to see the numbers prove as much if you want.
"If we're in that position, it speaks for itself,'' Stoops said. "Our strength of schedule, our quality wins, everything they take into consideration, indicates that we've earned our way.
"We've had 13-14 straight weeks of being No. 1, carrying that burden the entire year, and playing pretty well. In the end, we're No. 1 in the BCS. I find no shame in that."
And CoD will appreciate his CCG whining:
"Other guys shouldn't be sitting home relaxing, (while) you've got a couple of conferences playing championship games," Stoops said. "Let's get everybody to play one if you want to include it in the BCS structure. To be fair, that would be the case. But I don't know if anybody's real concerned about being fair. It's just the way it is."
*sniffle* *sniffle*
Looks like Bob skipped the BCS ceremonies to get the sand out of his vagina.
Comments
Real men play football in the midwest and south, where football is a religion. It's like the old days when Ohio State, Woody Hayes , "three yards and a cloud of dust" would roll into the Rose Bowl and get their butts handed to them by west coast teams.
The money-grubbing bowl porkers have fostered this boondoggle known as the BCS on the rest of us, and it has been wrong 3 of 6 years so far. And it's really wrong this year. Should have been USC vs LSU for national championship.
Originally posted by running with scissors
horse shit. currently, there is no playoff system, so every game is just as important as another, be it at the begining or end of the year. your just pissed because your team is now out of a BCS bowl. you know of course, that's the only reason we lost was to take a big dump on your parade. well... that and the fact that we did get our asses handed to us, but that's beside the point.
nah, i agree that early games should not be weighted as much as late. why? because, even as the pros show, the later the season wears on, the more information you have to work with going into each week of practice. early wins mean very little (just look at the collapses of the pros from some teams' huge starts). a championship team finishes strong, not weak.
getting blown out inside of the first few games just shows a lack of game film to review, team tendencies haven't been established, and game planning based on scouting reports. hell, it's all you;ve got at that point.
but if you blow a late season game badly, it's much tougher to make an excuse for the losing side, other than injuries.
Originally posted by pfflam
Clearly they should simply add one more game . . . the winners of Rose and Sugar bowls: they would rake in cash and it would be gauranteed to be an exciting game!!!
you won't get any argument here. maybe it could be a case by case basis. 2 undefeated teams, then no need for an extra game.
horse shit. currently, there is no playoff system, so every game is just as important as another, be it at the begining or end of the year.
Only if one assumes that teams do not change throughout the year. Only someone who has never watched college football would say that.
Only someone who has never watched any sports ever would say that. Teams run hot and cold, and when three teams are neck and neck the two hottest should play for the prize.
The fact that there are no playoffs does not invalidate that.
Your guys are playing for the NC anyway, why not admit the obvious?
your just pissed because your team is now out of a BCS bowl.
It's a valid concern, but I'm not really all that pissed about it. I'm not going to a bowl game anyway and if we win against WSU we'll finish in the Top 5. And we get the same money and practice days anyway.
Mack Brown benefits most from us going to a BCS bowl, and I would like to see Mack Brown fired. (A stance that won't change until we beat you $$$$ers.)
If OU wins the NC (which I think they will) that makes my Longhorns look better because at least we were ass-$$$$ed by the national champ.
you know of course, that's the only reason we lost was to take a big dump on your parade. well... that and the fact that we did get our asses handed to us, but that's beside the point.
Like OU's 77-0 romp of A&M, it could have been worse. KSU laid off at the end after Sproles busted a 60-yarder.
If you've been paying attention I've been touting OU as the best college team this century, but that is contingent on them not getting skull$$$$ed by a 3-loss team on national television. Life is fickle that way.
I think OU wins, but I'd be nervous if I were an OU fan. They were exposed in a big big way. If you can run the ball and hit Jason White you can rattle this squad. They are very very mortal.
Originally posted by mcsjgs
This is completely logical and matches common sense. Therefore, the bowl-mongers will not agree.
I don't know why people think bowls and playoffs are mutually exclusive.
Just put the playoff games in the major bowls. That's no less logical than the BCS system, which doesn't guarantee proper conference tie-ins (2002 Rose Bowl: Miami v. Nebraska).
Originally posted by groverat
USC beat the crap out of everyone in their conference and only lost to a team not in contention in 3 overtimes. I agree that the Pac-10 should have a CCG, but that doesn't mean you keep a team out of the NC game who rightfully should be there..
Did you watch this game?
Cal owned USC for the majority of the game. As was often the case this year, Cal started falling apart late and USC tied it.
But in overtime USC had multiple chances to capitilize and failed miserably.
Cal was predicted to finish near the bottom of the Pac-10 this year..... did much better than anyone expected but, realistically it should have been a freebie for USC.
USC lost to an unranked team.
OU lost to Kansas.
Big difference.
Originally posted by BR
Sorry, but if you aren't a conference champion, you don't deserve to play for the national title. 'Nuff said.
He's right. The BCS is worthless, always has been. I seem to recall Nebraska a few years back going to the national championship when I think Colorado should've??? Then those damn Cornhuskers got rocked in the title game. BCS blows, and should be killed after this year.
OU was favored by 16 points over Kansas State.
USC lost in September. OU lost in December. Huge difference.
Originally posted by groverat
Eh, are you disagreeing with something I said? USC rolled every Pac10 team except the one they lost by 3 points in multiple overtimes.
OU was favored by 16 points over Kansas State.
USC lost in September. OU lost in December. Huge difference.
Clearly, though, you're criticizing people based on a game you didn't watch. USC's performance against Cal was uglier than OU's against Kansas State. Triple overtime was only a formality. And Kansas State beat Cal in the regular season, if you want to use common games as a standard (as the NFL likes to). I'm sorry, but you can't say that one one-loss team is more deserving than another based on when they lost during the regular season.
And the "OU didn't win the Big 12" arguments are dumb. OU does have the best record in the Big 12 (They're 8-1, Texas is 7-1, and KSU is 7-2), and they got stuck playing an extra game for monetary concerns. All three teams have legitimate arguments for being in the Sugar Bowl. It proves one of two things: 1. There should be a championship game, or 2. college football should reduce the emphasis on trying to find the "true" national champion. And as long as money is involved, the latter ain't gonna happen.
I guess that's why I go to a school without a football team.
Originally posted by agent302
.
It seems obviouse:
it couldn't have been that "ugly" if they lost in triple overtime --QED, and voila!! et tans pis!
perhaps you were just surprised that UCLA put up a good fight and read into that better-play than the even match that a triple overtime would suggest.
Clearly, though, you're criticizing people based on a game you didn't watch.
What "people" am I criticizing?
USC's performance against Cal was uglier than OU's against Kansas State. Triple overtime was only a formality.
Was USC out of it at halftime? Because OU was.
Cal got ahead by 14 at the half. They ended up winning by 3. USC outscored them in the second half.
Winning on a field goal in multiple overtimes isn't a "formality", I don't have to watch the game to see that.
And Kansas State beat Cal in the regular season, if you want to use common games as a standard (as the NFL likes to).
And Texas beat Kansas State who killed OU who killed Texas. blah blah blah
I'm sorry, but you can't say that one one-loss team is more deserving than another based on when they lost during the regular season.
You don't present a counter-argument here.
And the "OU didn't win the Big 12" arguments are dumb. OU does have the best record in the Big 12 (They're 8-1, Texas is 7-1, and KSU is 7-2), and they got stuck playing an extra game for monetary concerns.
Was Texas screwed out of a national championship bid in 2001 when we had to play Colorado (we had already kicked their ass earlier in the year)? No, because we didn't take care of business.
You either win or you don't and when OU had to win they didn't. But the computers decided to put them in anyway when damn near every football fan, coach and analyst said otherwise. That's the problem.
Originally posted by groverat
[You either win or you don't and when OU had to win they didn't. But the computers decided to put them in anyway when damn near every football fan, coach and analyst said otherwise. That's the problem. [/B]
I'm not sure that every fan, coach, or analyst said otherwise. (I mean, I'm certainly a fan). I would personally have appreciated watching any of those 3 teams playing against each other.
I think, however, it all goes back to the BCS being a solution that was looking for the wrong problem. The assumption that there will always be two standout teams is clearly one that needs to be rethought, as 3 of the last four years have proved otherwise, with the 3 teams this year, Oregon losing out two years ago, and the Miami/FSU/Washington debacle three years ago. Which brings us back to the other point I made in the last post either. If we truly want to know who the "real" champ is, we should have a playoff, because every team plays such a different schedule (there were no common games between all three one-loss teams this year). Or, we should go back to the old system of bowl games which left us with split champions (although, if USC beats Michigan, we'll probably have a split champion this year) and lots of fun offseason debate (you know you liked arguing the merits of Michigan versus Nebraska back in 97). I'm not wholly convinced that there NEEDS to be one true national champion.
But as I said, my school doesn't play football, so what do I know? And yeah, you're right groverat. If Oklahoma had taken care of business, we wouldn't be having this argument (but what fun would that be?)
Originally posted by pfflam
It seems obviouse:
it couldn't have been that "ugly" if they lost in triple overtime --QED, and voila!! et tans pis!
perhaps you were just surprised that UCLA put up a good fight and read into that better-play than the even match that a triple overtime would suggest.
UCLA?
it was ugly. they played uninspired football the majority of the game.
a national champion contender does not take games for granted.....USC tried to take the game for granted
Originally posted by applenut
it was ugly. they played uninspired football the majority of the game.
a national champion contender does not take games for granted.....USC tried to take the game for granted
it was ugly. they played uninspired football the majority of the game.
a national champion contender does not take games for granted.....OU tried to take the game for granted
Short version: coaches and journalists can't be trusted. They know who they want to see play in the bowls, know how their votes will affect the formula, and they adjust their rankings accordingly.
There's no solution to this, short of keeping the whole BCS formula secret. But the point is that the polls should be considered only one facet of the BCS, and the least reliable one.
Originally posted by BR
it was ugly. they played uninspired football the majority of the game.
a national champion contender does not take games for granted.....OU tried to take the game for granted
please take a look at opponents
thank you.
I enjoy Sagarin's ratings for instance but as he would be the first to tell you his ELO-Chess rankings are shit compared to his regular rankings which do include MOV. He has Miami of Ohio ahead of USC for Christ's sake. Miami of Ohio would win once in 20 games against USC. As good as they are for a MAC team, they got smoked by Iowa the only time they played a legit non-conference team. And yet that is in the BCS formula. Miami of Ohio has a computer average 6.00 whereas Iowa's is 15.83. A ten point difference and 6 of the 7 polls have Miami Ohio higher. Among other teams with lower computer averages than Miami Ohio are Texas, FSU, Miami, TN, GA, Purdue, KSU etc.
Iowa is obviously the better team and proved as much on the field. They killed Miami of Ohio last year as well though that's not relevant. But because Iowa plays much more difficult teams like Ohio State, Purdue and MIchigan State they have three losses. Of course, were Iowa to play Miami of Ohio's schedule they would probably go 13-0. Of course, were they to play Iowa's schedule Miami of Ohio would be They are higher of course because of a superior record, 12-1 vs. 9-3, which is silly. The record is weighed too heavily at the expense of SOS when comparing the BCS conferences to the non-BCS conferences and so you see inflated rankings for teams with good records in bad conferences. This used to be balanced out by inclusion of MOV whereby the sucker MCs were downgraded due to the pummelings they received at the hands of BCS conferences but no more. Everyone plays about 2/3rds of their games against teams within their conference and so for two thirds of a season any conference no matter how good or bad will have their teams accumulate net records of .500. The remaining third doesn't provide enough weight numerically to let records reflect the disparity among conferences. The computers struggle to find small distinction between team with equal records because they cannot incorporate the massive margins by which for example a Louisiana Monroe is worse than LSU.
They also fail to account for a head to head victory in cases of similar credentials, something which unfortunately the polls have been known to do sometimes as well.
In the best case, a human can distinguish between the quality of teams by more than wins and losses and schedule by examining how they play. It's certainly subjective, on the other hand given that you can predict correctly who will win 3/4ths of the games it certainly is not random either.
The SOS portion of the BCS is also flawed for the same reasons. Beating Connecticut works out to be about the same for your SOS as would beating Florida since UConn's direct 2/3rds component is 8-3 while FL's is 7-4. Michigan is only a tiny margin better than Northern Illinois. USC would have gotten as much help in SOS for beating Houston as they did for beating Auburn. There are tons of examples. It's just absurd. The main problem is that you have teams which are really operating in two different stratospheres with occasional crossovers in September that are not frequent enough for the superiority of the BCS sphere to show itself.
I will say this about conference championship games. Anyone who thinks they are some sort of terrible burden is tripping. Let's not forget that if neither USC nor LSU had played a conference championship game it would be USC with the better computer and SOS rankings as it was last week before LSU got to factor in GA again. Alternatively, had USC played and beaten WSU in a conference championship game then USC would have gotten enough of a bump to have stayed number two. If the situation were not such that LSU had the chance to better their BCS numbers in a CCG and USC didn't then LSU would be in the Rose otherwise. Of course they can be detrimental but let's not ignore the beneficial side.
Past that, a conference championship game is just one game in an 11-14 game season. Things or more specifically the challenges you face from other teams will never be equal as running with scissors suggested would be the case if everyone had CCG because the other games would not all be the same. In the Big 12 for example Texas and Oklahoma alternate two year periods where they have to play NE and KSU. Whoever has that pairing has the tougher schedule even though both work in a CCG conference. Some conferencs have good years, some have bad. USC happened to hit a bad year in their conference and it hurt them. Some teams get really nice byes in their conferences- MN had Purdue and Ohio State as their two Big Ten byes this year -- and some team out there had Arizona as its bye this year. Some teams play shit non-conference schedules (LSU had Louisiana Monroe, LA Tech, Western Illinois, and Arizona) and some teams don't (Colorado had Florida State, Colorado State, Washington State, and UCLA). Having a conference championship game means you've added one hard game but it doesn't mean one school with a conference championship game necessarily has it easier than one without. Compare Notre Dame's schedule to LSU's to see the numbers prove as much if you want.
From ESPN:
Stoops said the teams that play for the national title should at least have won a conference championship.
Stoops is changing his tune:
"If we're in that position, it speaks for itself,'' Stoops said. "Our strength of schedule, our quality wins, everything they take into consideration, indicates that we've earned our way.
"We've had 13-14 straight weeks of being No. 1, carrying that burden the entire year, and playing pretty well. In the end, we're No. 1 in the BCS. I find no shame in that."
And CoD will appreciate his CCG whining:
"Other guys shouldn't be sitting home relaxing, (while) you've got a couple of conferences playing championship games," Stoops said. "Let's get everybody to play one if you want to include it in the BCS structure. To be fair, that would be the case. But I don't know if anybody's real concerned about being fair. It's just the way it is."
*sniffle* *sniffle*
Looks like Bob skipped the BCS ceremonies to get the sand out of his vagina.