Bcs Keeps Tinkering

#27
#27
Originally posted by milohimself@Apr 26, 2005 10:57 PM
There were 5 undefeated teams out of the regular season in '03?
Click to expand...

no but there were 3 teams deserving to play in a bowl game made for 2.

and it usually doesnt happen like that.

u said one team got screwed, well usc got screwed in 2003
 
#28
#28
it may not happen again this yr (3 undefeateds) but what about 1 undefeated team and 4 teams with only one loss? what then somebody will get screwed just ask Oregon
 
#29
#29
Oh whatever... We'll see how it plays out. I think that the Big Ten will collapse under its own weight at the top end and fail to produce any undefeated teams, Texas will lose its central running component in Cedric Benson that allowed them to do what they did in 2004. Louisville may very well go undefeated, but the Big East is a joke and people know it. That conference is about on the same level as the Mountain West now. And I don't think any team in the ACC is good enough to go undefeated, maybe even one-loss.

With our hard schedule, it's up to the Vols to tell everybody whats up.
 
#30
#30
Bowling Green had a solid team last year, but I think Auburn's 12-games before the bowls provided more total competition than the 12 games played by Oklahoma and USC. The fact that they ran the SEC and finished 3rd before the bowls is a bad sign.
 
#31
#31
Originally posted by Vols4life+Apr 26, 2005 9:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vols4life @ Apr 26, 2005 9:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-U&#045;T@Apr 26, 2005 12:09 PM
PLAYOFF&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Click to expand...

Will never happen the universities presidents love that bowl money :good: [/quote]
Even if there is a playoff, the bowls will exist. Imagine that the current BCS bowl games are actually playoff games. The remaining bowls and system will remain intact. There will actually be more high dollar games with a playoff system + the remaining bowls. However, the University presidents are scared of the NCAA becoming involved in how the money is divided. Currently, the conferences keep all the bowl money and divide within the conference. If the playoff comes under the supervision of the NCAA, they will control the money. That is where the problem lies. If the NCAA assured the conferences that the playoff money could be administered the same way the BCS money is, then I think the playoff would come alot sooner.
 
#32
#32
This just in . . .

The "Plus 1" formula will go into effect in 2006.
 
#36
#36
Originally posted by checkerboard_charly+Apr 26, 2005 10:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (checkerboard_charly &#064; Apr 26, 2005 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Volstorm@Apr 26, 2005 10:35 PM
Bowling Green and Houston are better than Citadel.
Click to expand...

yes i agree

auburn should never have played the citadel....but they handed us our butts twice.[/quote]
It was a conspiracy. :naughty:

Bowling Green ended up 9-3 and received the 27th most votes in the final AP and Coaches polls. They are not a crappy team&#33;

BG was originally scheduled to play Auburn, but then pulled out to go play Oklahoma to get more &#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;.

Auburn, left out to dry, had to find another opponent only months before the season started.

You guys can blame them for settling on Division 1-AA Citadel, but realistically, schools make their schedules years in advance. Auburn supposedly could not find a better opponent in the time they had. I for one don&#39;t blame Auburn.

BG&#39;s greed screwed Auburn and gave the OU the shot at USC in the BCS Big Game.
:bad:

Conspiracy, I say.
 
#37
#37
Totally, I mean that&#39;s what happened. Thousands of people coast to coast get together and frame Auburn specifically for the purpose of preventing their title run&#33; Before they knew it even happened&#33; Genius&#33;

USC was an undefeated defending national champion and Oklahoma just flat-out looked bettern than Auburn during the regular season. Auburn, you didn&#39;t make it to the title game. Get over it. And don&#39;t try and clame a national championship from it, lest ye be as bad as the other bammers west of ya.
 
#38
#38
:p

I was kidding about it being a conspiracy. That is my dry humor.

I hate Auburn, but I will defend a fellow SEC school whenever I think they are being screwed, and it ended up that they got hosed&#33; And I believe it is due in part to an anti-SEC bias by the national sports media.

I didn&#39;t realize we had so many people on this board that will defend a Big 12 school and a PAC-10 school over a fellow SEC school.

Serious question: if UAB pulled out today to go play, say Michigan because they could get a few more &#036;&#036;&#036; by playing there, who could UT get to replace them on our schedule?

:peace2:
 
#40
#40
Originally posted by TroyCG@Apr 27, 2005 11:23 AM
I didn&#39;t realize we had so many people on this board that will defend a Big 12 school and a PAC-10 school over a fellow SEC school.
Click to expand...

Not many people, just Milo... We are still trying to get his orange colored glasses fitted, but he has a strangely shaped head.... :question:
 
#41
#41
I&#39;ve got a pair of orange glasses. It&#39;s just that there&#39;s not an ounce of blue on them, so quit trying to make me defend Auburn. Any other SEC school can lose all their games for all I care.
 
#43
#43
Originally posted by milohimself@Apr 27, 2005 6:14 PM
I&#39;ve got a pair of orange glasses. It&#39;s just that there&#39;s not an ounce of blue on them, so quit trying to make me defend Auburn. Any other SEC school can lose all their games for all I care.
Click to expand...

Well, since the BCS has announced that it is bringing back &#39;strength of achedule&#39; to some degree in how it calculates the rankings, it hurts UT when other SEC schools lose "all their games".

Also, having sucessful programs in other SEC schools helps UT financially (i.e. revenue sharing). And, since I am an employee of UTK, my own self-interest wants the &#036;&#036;&#036;&#036; to flow into the AD Department.
:D
 
#44
#44
Originally posted by milohimself@Apr 27, 2005 9:58 AM
Hey 2345, looks like we&#39;re gonna be going to ASU in January &#39;06. Not the Rose Bowl.
Click to expand...

It starts with the 06 college regular season&#33;&#33; So you two will still be heading to pasadena for the NC game :D
 
#45
#45
Originally posted by GAVol@Apr 27, 2005 9:15 AM
This just in . . .

The "Plus 1" formula will go into effect in 2006.
Click to expand...

Don&#39;t get people too excited. :blink: "Plus 1" sounds like an extra game between bowl participants &#39;after&#39; the bowls, when in fact it is just a 5th BCS bowl game played at one of the 4 BCS bowl sites. Essentially, instead of 8 BCS teams, there will be 10. All but #1 and #2 will play in the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar. Then, the #1 and #2 teams will play in the NC game on a rotating basis between the 4 bowls. Essentially, in January 2007, the Fiesta Bowl will host 2 BCS bowl games.
 
#46
#46
With bowl games officially worth millions of dollars and the dates set for years, talk about a pain to move them for playoffs
 
#48
#48
Originally posted by allvol@Apr 29, 2005 3:48 PM
Don&#39;t get people too excited.  :blink:  "Plus 1" sounds like an extra game between bowl participants &#39;after&#39; the bowls, when in fact it is just a 5th BCS bowl game played at one of the 4 BCS bowl sites.  Essentially, instead of 8 BCS teams, there will be 10.  All but #1 and #2 will play in the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar.  Then, the #1 and #2 teams will play in the NC game on a rotating basis between the 4 bowls.  Essentially, in January 2007, the Fiesta Bowl will host 2 BCS bowl games.
Click to expand...

So they can get in two more at large teams I assume. No doubt it&#39;s in response to all the crying that Cal did about not making a BCS game, not to mention all the crying that ESPN did on their behalf. Talk about a team who needs to shut up and get over it. Texas Tech showed us why Texas deserved to go instead of Cal. Besides, Texas is a top ten team year after year (ouch, did I actually say that?). What is Cal? A one year wonder :rolleyes:
 
#49
#49
Cal could have lost by 100, they still deserved to be in the Rose Bowl more than Texas. It&#39;s the exact same stuff that you guys complained about for Auburn.

So, if you believe that Cal complained too much, then you have NO room at all to say Auburn got screwed. You defend one, you defend them both. Both teams were victim of the exact same thing.
 
#50
#50
Cal could have lost by 100, they still deserved to be in the Rose Bowl more than Texas.
Click to expand...

They played what? One ranked team all year? And got their a&#036;&#036;es handed to them in that one?

It&#39;s the exact same stuff that you guys complained about for Auburn.
Click to expand...

First of all, I&#39;ve never complained for Auburn. My point is that there is no way anyone can say for certain that Chokelahoma deserves to go ahead of Auburn, nor can anyone say for certain that Auburn should go ahead of Chokelahoma, or, for that matter, that USC should be ahead of either of them. It&#39;s all a matter of opinion. The only way to determine for certain who should be the odd man out, so to speak, is to decide it on the field, and that will never happen short of a playoff. So yes, Auburn did get screwed, but if the reverse had been true, then it would have been OU who had gotten screwed. Whichever of the three had been left out would have been screwed because they all deserved to be there

Now back to the Cal vs Texas issue. The same holds true, however, there was not a MNC on the line. Cal can make the argument that they deserved a BCS slot, but Texas can make the same argument. Texas got it, and Cal didn&#39;t, so the talking heads are crying for the coaches to reveal their votes. What a crock of s**t. Coaches have enough to concern themselves with without some moron bitching about who Phil Fulmer or Mack Brown voted for. They can vote whoever they want to wherever they want them, and, quite frankly, it&#39;s nobody elses business.

So, if you believe that Cal complained too much, then you have NO room at all to say Auburn got screwed.
Click to expand...

Maybe they did, maybe they didn&#39;t. My comment was more of a comeback to your comment that Auburn needs to shut up and get over it. Look, Cal isn&#39;t the first deserving team to be shut out of a BCS bowl (K State in 98 comes to mind), nor is Auburn the first deserving team to be shut out of the MNC game (I&#39;m thinking Ohio St 98, Miami 00, USC 03, not to mention the several times prior to the BCS that deserving teams got shut out.) They need to fix the problem with a true playoff (and most playoff formats I&#39;ve seen would&#39;ve included Auburn as well as Cal and Texas), and quit trying to put a friggin band-aid on it.

You defend one, you defend them both. Both teams were victim of the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Good point :thumbsup: That&#39;s why they need to scrap the BCS and get a true playoff.

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top