As did everybody else... I don't think that it's bashing to hold that opinion...it certainly has some basis in fact. I don't think you bash Ohio State...I think that you are obsessed with us for some reason... But then you are from Michigan.
Stu, you seem to be a reasonable man.....you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one. As I and others have suggested and have witnessed, the incessant, one-sided recitations edited for effect and the overwhelming body of work would lead others to conclude differently.....imo, his shots are targeted and with intent. Everyone on this board is fully and painfully aware of his convictions....there is no reason for us to be updated on a daily basis.
There could be some truth in that living in Michigan for 30 years has something to do with it Stu.... :wink: The fact is though that OSU beat out damned good teams in Georgia and USC to play for the NC. Most felt either one could have given LSU a strong game. Both also had good chances to make the game but slipped just a little more than OSU overall for the season and of course WVa absolutely blew it, but then that gets back to the resume and the overall strength of schedule which just didn't fall very well for OSU last year as the rest of the Big Ten had some pretty big upset losses and didn't fare too well in the national standings. Basically not OSU's fault by any means that they made it but that doesn't mean the end results are any different with regard to the USC game. Thanks Stu for some level-headed discussion on this.
Well Bill....there have been about 20 BCS title game participants and so where would you rank Ohio State of last year out of that group of 20 in terms of resume in getting to the title game....most specifically what ranked teams did they beat....what was their overall strength of schedule ( Sagarin at #62) ..... and then finally how did they do against what kind of competition in the title game? I suppose you and BT would have last year's Bucks magically somewhere around the top 2 or 3 teams using that criteria out of 20???? Come on..... I don't have to agree with that kind of nonsense. And one other comment....I started this topic about top games for the upcoming season and the USC-OSU tilt is certainly at the top of the list not just because it is a great intersectional contest but because it clearly has national title implications.
MCG, The upset bonanza at the end of the year left both LSU with 2 losses and Ohio State with 1 loss as the teams at the end. You may not like the BCS formula and prefer one that gives the SEC preferred status. Somehow I guess you think it should have been LSU/Ga in the BCS game. Heck WVA totally blew it at the end with that bad loss to a bad Pitt team, that allowed Ohio State to sneak in to the game. It was just one of those years where everybody lost a couple of games, in spite of the LSU win I don't think based on their body of work they deserved to be in the game. But they did because things fell just right for them. Terry
MCG, our resume was the best one of the field at the end of the regular season as evidenced by our ranking in a nationwide ballot takiing all relevant variables into consideration - wins, losses, strength of schedule, etc. Now with the benefit of hindsight, you feel compelled to highlight any criticism of our accomplishments and to suggest that somehow our "resume" from last year will impact the polling for this year.....tell me this, if the results of last years teams are so material in the evaluation of this years title contenders, how can your Gators with 4 losses and a loss to a lowly Big 10 team for the 4th time in 6 tries even be in the discussion of title contenders? You are putting an awful lot of stock in last years "resume", I can't wait to hear this answer....it siimply can't work both ways. Based upon your criteria, whose "resume" was more worthy than ours? How many times have we had this discussion? I simply don't buy the argument that any team that has failed as in lose more often than another can somehow be more worthy.....
BT I have never said Ohio State should have taken a back seat and let someone else play the NC game because the system that we use for selection....the BCS...pointed soley to OSU as the top contender. I did say from the very start after that selection was made that their body of season long work was suspect and in spite of my early season prognostication that sheer motivation would propel the Buckeyes to victory should they make the title game that due to that suspect resume they could not...would not beat LSU. In watching the game I was right on the money. OSU was supremely motivated and tried their asses off and yet was down by three TDs with a few minutes left and it was clear LSU was the better team. You just cannot judge a team by the number of losses it has because the degree of difficuly in schedule is such a wide range for teams of different conferences. Any knowledgeable fan of college football in general knows that all things are not equal when it comes to schedules. Some conferences are just plain better than others. Some conferences have better coaches than others and recruit better athletes than others and these two categories of variance are where the SEC really does shine. Spurrier, Fulmer, Tubberville, Richt, Saban, Meyer and even Petrino. Check out their career win total and # of NCs. How about recruiting ratings over the last 5 years? The SEC stacks up very, very well overall. A week in....week out schedule in a conference like the SEC that goes 7-2 in the bowls is more than likely a much tougher test than a conference that goes 3-5 and has some horrendous out of conference losses like Minnesota to FIU. ( Bama to UL-Monroe notwithstanding :shock: ) Some years....maybe one day the Big Ten will be the dominant conference....but it wasn't last year and it doesn't appear to be much better this year. In judging BCS participants you absolutely must look at who their opponents were that they beat or lost to for that matter in order to gain the right perspective when judging NC title game worthiness. Past BCS title game performance by conference should also be a factor when trying to quantify the above. Look at the NCAA basketball playoffs. Past team and conference performance in the tourney is a strong factor in seeding teams by the selection committee. Football should and does most of the time work the same way.
LSU lost to freakin' Kentucky and Arkansas....please those are middle of the pack teams that most likely would have been hammered by Illinois. Things fell just right for the Tigahs and they played a great game in the BCS. But the were no more deserving of the BCS championship bid than any number of other teams. The forumula just worked for them, and it points out the flaws in the BCS forumula.
And it worked for OSU in spite of #62 ranked schedule. LSU had flaws no doubt but so did everybody else. Last year by the way Ky and Ark were pretty competitive and I absolutely don't think Illinois would have "hammered" either one of them.
......and don't forget M's loss to Appy State and destruction at the hands of Oregon but then you must somehow dismiss their defeat of Florida and your claim that the Gators were a more worthy challenger to LSU than were the Vols when we annoint the SEC. Given Oregons crushing of M in Ann Arbor if anyone has a claim it would seem to be our friends on the west coast but then we must dismiss SC's home loss to Stanford in the biggest upset - spread wise - in the history of the sport. And this little gem from you speaks volumes... "Bama to UL-Monroe notwithstanding" - what the he!! is that supposed to mean? In your argument you always dismiss our conference foes much superior record head-to-head -v- the SEC in the BCS era. Every time they are matched up in recent history our "weak" Big 10 competition wins at a rate of almost 2-1, superior for sure, seemingly compelling to a rational observer. You then switch gears and focus on last year alone, whilst simultaneously ignoring the obvious implications of the Gator "resume" last year as a material consideration for your Gators this year which is a crucial point of your "resume" argument......your using circular logic, selectively ducking contrary evidence and you must see that under those conditions an argument, any argument can't logically hold up. For your resume argument to have even a shred of credibility, you are going to have to explain how our "weak" Big 10 competition has thumped the "strong" SEC competition at the rate of almost 2-1 every time they have played in the BCS era......if you can't logically explain away that little nugget, you must see that your "resume" argument has no merit. There is an elephant sitting smack dab in the middle of your SEC room.....in fact there are several. I know, I know....."it's just a flesh wound". :roll:
Dave, For a SEC homer like your self of course Arky and Kentucky were pretty fair teams. For anybody else with an objective view they were medicore teams. As I said in a previous post probably Vandy is the only team you'd concede is a weak SEC team the rest of them you think should be in the top 25. Sort of like Les Miles comments on the PAC10 before the season in 2007 where he took shots at USC for not having played anybody. Terry
Terry, I will concede that Arkansas and Kentucky certainly were not elite teams last season. I think that goes without being said. However, neither was Illinois. You talk about Illinois like they were a juggernaut. In reality, they were a nice team who sneaked in a win over Ohio State (much like Ark and UK did against LSU with much more resistance I might add) and then they wrongfully got into the Rose Bowl just so the traditionalists could get a Big 10/Pac 10 matchup which is one of the things that is very wrong with college football. If the conference your bowl is affiliated with has a team good enough to get into the NC game, just let it go, don't choose a less than worthy opponent who gets offered up like a sacrificial lamb like Illinois was to USC. To suggest that Illinois was so much better than Ark and UK is a bit of a stretch. Good teams slip up sometimes, like LSU and Ohio State did to lesser opponents.
again, not true <r><QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> I don't just contend USC would have given them a strong game, I contend USC would have beaten their ass like a pinata.<br/> <br/> Georgia would have given them a good game/beat them close. The Zooker took his 'high caliber athletes' into the Rose Bowl and got a rude introduction into what speed is.<br/> <br/> But my point, like yours, is not based in fact. Just an opinion.</r>
First of all, you're giving scores from 2005 and 2006. Secondly, USC beat Illinois by a similar margin in the Rose Bowl last year as they beat Ark. in 2006. I'm not denying that USC is head and shoulders above 95% of the college football teams in America. I don't see what that has to do with my argument over the relative worthiness of Illinois, UK, and Ark as opponents. All three teams were average to good teams last season, not mediocre. Stanford, on the other hand, is a piss poor opponent and they beat USC so what's your point?
Bashing is still Bashing Dave no matter how you might want to frame it! You are right Corey, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is this, Georgia didn't earn the right to play in the SEC Championship game and should not have been considered for the BCS Championship game. My second opinion is that unlike your assertion of USC destroying LSU, my opinion is that it would have been a pretty good game with both teams having about an even chance to win. And my third opinion is that Ohio State earned the right to be one of the two teams.
....I wouldn't be so sure about that one.....Missouri beat the snot out of Arkansas 38-7 in one of the great routs of the bowl season. When Mizzou and the Illini hooked up earlier in the season, it took a turnover on the 1 yard line with under a minute to play to enable the Tigers to escape with a win. Btw, the Illini best player and spiritual leader, Juice Williams spent the last 3 quarters of that game on the sideline in civvies. I don't think there is any question that Illinois would be favored over either Kentucky or Arkansas and likely does a Mizzou-like number on them.
Aquila it's not so much wheter or not Illinois was a juggernaut or not, but if MCG was going to make Kentucky and Arkansas into tough teams, then Illinois is a tough team. They were over matched vs USC for sure. Bottom line is LSU lost to 2 middle of the pack SEC teams, one of them being their final home game with a lot on the line. They were fortunate that the game vs Ark didn't really mean anything as they had their slot in the SEC championship game locked up. The sequence of events and the formula let them in the BCS game, and they won. USC and Georgia probably were better teams at the end of the season but they didn't take care of business in the right sequence and didn't have another game to make up for the misteps in the season. It was crazy, if WVA beats Pitt they are in the NC game vs Ohio State. But as I said it was a year that defied explanation.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qU10TZs1ow0&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qU10TZs1ow0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>