If they're playing for a pro career, you might as well let them take a shot, rather than force them to go through the motions. Those who haven't got what it takes will play college ball, or try harder to get noticed in their 2nd/3rd/4th years.
Is draft exodus killing basketball? No, because there's always going to be a fresh supply of college kids and mebbe 1 in a hundred of them will turn pro. The rest will have to graduate, work, or play semi pro somewhere else.
Sport always carries the risk of injury. If your only talent involves the game, better to turn pro ASAP, and at least bank a couple of years of pro money in case you can't cut it, or get hurt.
PS, college players ought to have a few years of differed scholarship, so that they can play ball first and study later.
if you're gonna base your case on numbers and stats then you lose, that's what the computer does and that's how OU came out on top.
I suppose your argument uses no numbers. Except you mention rankings, which is a numbered list. And you factor in the losses of the opponents, which are numbers.
Horrible horrible horrible counter-argument you have there..
There are three 1-loss teams:
- 1 of them didn't win their conference. (the other two won their conferences)
- 1 of them was beaten by 4 touchdowns in their last game. (the other two lost by margins of 3 and 12).
I'm no USC fan, and if mcscgj is any indication their fans are irritating and eager to find conspiracy, but they should be in the championship game.
I agree with Bob Stoops, you shouldn't be in the championship game if you don't win your conference... or at least that was Bob's opinion in 2001. It seems to have changed now.
USC should be happy that they got to play in the Rose Bowl against a Big Ten team, like the Rose Bowl is meant to be. Plus win at least a share of the National Championship
Congrats to USC.....I think they and the winner of the BCS deserve a split. It's just one of those years that no system could have fixed.....someone was going to get left out. In the end it will work out just fine.
I suppose your argument uses no numbers. Except you mention rankings, which is a numbered list. And you factor in the losses of the opponents, which are numbers.
Horrible horrible horrible counter-argument you have there..
There are three 1-loss teams:
- 1 of them didn't win their conference. (the other two won their conferences)
- 1 of them was beaten by 4 touchdowns in their last game. (the other two lost by margins of 3 and 12).
I'm no USC fan, and if mcscgj is any indication their fans are irritating and eager to find conspiracy, but they should be in the championship game.
I agree with Bob Stoops, you shouldn't be in the championship game if you don't win your conference... or at least that was Bob's opinion in 2001. It seems to have changed now.
you really are a dickhead.
the fact of the matter is college football sucks. It is not designed to have a national champion and there only is a "national champion" because of money and betting.
There is nothing that makes OU or LSU or USC better than one or the other. The only way to prove anything is if they all played each other. if I said Cal would be LSU or OU if they were playing in the Sugar Bowl I'm sure you'd make some wiseass comment, but, they very well could. They beat USC, your "number one".
a loss is a loss. but when you lose to someone unranked, its much worse than losing to the other best team in your conference.
and the conference titles mean shit. so, who the **** cares about them. Bowles aren't decided by who wins what conference anymore. It means absolutely nothing.
Who really gives a shit. USC may be better than OU, they may not be. They may be better than LSU, they may not be. But they aren't going to play 2 more games to decide that. Even if USC was in the Sugar, you still wouldn't know. Who's to say LSU's one less should mean less
The reason you see OU in the discussion instead of LSU because there is no gripe about LSU being there. They won their conference and didn't get ass-raped at any point in the season, much less their last game.
But yes, there is a split no matter what happens in the Sugar Bowl.
--
applenut:
Coming from you, Sandy VaGina, I take that as a compliment.
Quote:
a loss is a loss. but when you lose to someone unranked, its much worse than losing to the other best team in your conference.
A loss is a loss... but it's not?
Kansas State is the 3rd best team in the BigXII, not the 2nd. Nebraksa might have something to say about them being 4th, even.
Meanwhile, California has the 4th best record in the Pac-10 (3rd best in-conference record).
Quote:
and the conference titles mean shit. so, who the **** cares about them. Bowles aren't decided by who wins what conference anymore. It means absolutely nothing.
Conference championship games mean nothing? Hmm... how did a 3-loss Kansas State team get in a BCS bowl?
well, being a "greenie" myself (roll wave roll), louisiana residents are about to become 712% more intolerable when the final gun sounds. the quarter's gonna be a mess tomorrow.
(p.s. but at least the sooners can't lay a claim to the national championship)
LSU's solid defense aside, White sucks major ass. wow, i have never seen a heisman look so pathetic. does he always shove the ball like that when he passes? or is he hurt?
well, if you listen to the commentators, he hurt his throwing wrist in the k-state game, and it was still bothering him for the game. plus, turf toe in the fourth quarter.
my opinion? heisman curse. aside from weurffel, heismans rarely get the job done. i blame the award taking too much time for the winners to attend ceremonies, interviews, etc. they lose focus, and get over-confident.
plus, it is increasingly rare that heisman trophy winners actually become good playesr in the nfl. of course, there are excptions -- barry sanders, ricky williams, woodson comes to mind. desmond howard was still a great kick returner in the nfl, though his reciving skills were always sub-par.
Comments
If they're playing for a pro career, you might as well let them take a shot, rather than force them to go through the motions. Those who haven't got what it takes will play college ball, or try harder to get noticed in their 2nd/3rd/4th years.
Is draft exodus killing basketball? No, because there's always going to be a fresh supply of college kids and mebbe 1 in a hundred of them will turn pro. The rest will have to graduate, work, or play semi pro somewhere else.
Sport always carries the risk of injury. If your only talent involves the game, better to turn pro ASAP, and at least bank a couple of years of pro money in case you can't cut it, or get hurt.
PS, college players ought to have a few years of differed scholarship, so that they can play ball first and study later.
-
applenut:
USC's loss was September 27th, their 4th game of the season.
Oklahoma's loss was December 6th, their 13th game of the season.
OU was a 14-point favorite over (11-4 - .733) Kansas State at a neutral site. They lose by 28; net change: 42 points.
USC was a 19-point favorite over (8-6 - .571) on the road. They lost by 3; net change: 22 points.
To me, flopping 22 on the road is more forgiveable than flopping 42 at a neutral site.
Originally posted by groverat
It's amazing USC was able to overcome those BigXII refs, eh mcsjgs?
-
applenut:
USC's loss was September 27th, their 4th game of the season.
Oklahoma's loss was December 6th, their 13th game of the season.
OU was a 14-point favorite over (11-4 - .733) Kansas State at a neutral site. They lose by 28; net change: 42 points.
USC was a 19-point favorite over (8-6 - .571) on the road. They lost by 3; net change: 22 points.
To me, flopping 22 on the road is more forgiveable than flopping 42 at a neutral site.
if you're gonna base your case on numbers and stats then you lose, that's what the computer does and that's how OU came out on top.
[B]It's amazing USC was able to overcome those BigXII refs, eh mcsjgs?
-
I thought the gentlemen from the Big 12 were very fair, perhaps even a bit more than fair, to Tommy Trojan. So there is honor in the Big 12 after all.
if you're gonna base your case on numbers and stats then you lose, that's what the computer does and that's how OU came out on top.
I suppose your argument uses no numbers. Except you mention rankings, which is a numbered list. And you factor in the losses of the opponents, which are numbers.
Horrible horrible horrible counter-argument you have there..
There are three 1-loss teams:
- 1 of them didn't win their conference. (the other two won their conferences)
- 1 of them was beaten by 4 touchdowns in their last game. (the other two lost by margins of 3 and 12).
I'm no USC fan, and if mcscgj is any indication their fans are irritating and eager to find conspiracy, but they should be in the championship game.
I agree with Bob Stoops, you shouldn't be in the championship game if you don't win your conference... or at least that was Bob's opinion in 2001. It seems to have changed now.
They seem to be getting left out of all these discussions.
And don't use Oregon as an example of a team getting screwed. There was no way in hell either they or Nebraska was going to beat Miami that year.
And I stand by the fact that a loss in week 12 shouldn't be weighted higher than a loss in week 4. A loss is a loss is a loss.
The title will be split...no big deal
USC should be happy that they got to play in the Rose Bowl against a Big Ten team, like the Rose Bowl is meant to be. Plus win at least a share of the National Championship
Congrats to USC.....I think they and the winner of the BCS deserve a split. It's just one of those years that no system could have fixed.....someone was going to get left out. In the end it will work out just fine.
Originally posted by groverat
applenut:
I suppose your argument uses no numbers. Except you mention rankings, which is a numbered list. And you factor in the losses of the opponents, which are numbers.
Horrible horrible horrible counter-argument you have there..
There are three 1-loss teams:
- 1 of them didn't win their conference. (the other two won their conferences)
- 1 of them was beaten by 4 touchdowns in their last game. (the other two lost by margins of 3 and 12).
I'm no USC fan, and if mcscgj is any indication their fans are irritating and eager to find conspiracy, but they should be in the championship game.
I agree with Bob Stoops, you shouldn't be in the championship game if you don't win your conference... or at least that was Bob's opinion in 2001. It seems to have changed now.
you really are a dickhead.
the fact of the matter is college football sucks. It is not designed to have a national champion and there only is a "national champion" because of money and betting.
There is nothing that makes OU or LSU or USC better than one or the other. The only way to prove anything is if they all played each other. if I said Cal would be LSU or OU if they were playing in the Sugar Bowl I'm sure you'd make some wiseass comment, but, they very well could. They beat USC, your "number one".
a loss is a loss. but when you lose to someone unranked, its much worse than losing to the other best team in your conference.
and the conference titles mean shit. so, who the **** cares about them. Bowles aren't decided by who wins what conference anymore. It means absolutely nothing.
Who really gives a shit. USC may be better than OU, they may not be. They may be better than LSU, they may not be. But they aren't going to play 2 more games to decide that. Even if USC was in the Sugar, you still wouldn't know. Who's to say LSU's one less should mean less
The reason you see OU in the discussion instead of LSU because there is no gripe about LSU being there. They won their conference and didn't get ass-raped at any point in the season, much less their last game.
But yes, there is a split no matter what happens in the Sugar Bowl.
--
applenut:
Coming from you, Sandy VaGina, I take that as a compliment.
a loss is a loss. but when you lose to someone unranked, its much worse than losing to the other best team in your conference.
A loss is a loss... but it's not?
Kansas State is the 3rd best team in the BigXII, not the 2nd. Nebraksa might have something to say about them being 4th, even.
Meanwhile, California has the 4th best record in the Pac-10 (3rd best in-conference record).
and the conference titles mean shit. so, who the **** cares about them. Bowles aren't decided by who wins what conference anymore. It means absolutely nothing.
Conference championship games mean nothing? Hmm... how did a 3-loss Kansas State team get in a BCS bowl?
This is obviously not your area.
(p.s. but at least the sooners can't lay a claim to the national championship)
commentator= "it's anybody's football game."
amazing...
EEEeeeekkkekkKKK
my opinion? heisman curse. aside from weurffel, heismans rarely get the job done. i blame the award taking too much time for the winners to attend ceremonies, interviews, etc. they lose focus, and get over-confident.
plus, it is increasingly rare that heisman trophy winners actually become good playesr in the nfl. of course, there are excptions -- barry sanders, ricky williams, woodson comes to mind. desmond howard was still a great kick returner in the nfl, though his reciving skills were always sub-par.
but all in all, heisman = kiss of death.
Of course, the real winner was LSU's coach: $2,500,001 is not chump change.