UT Football.Is it plausible to believe we can win it all?

#176
#176
jakez4ut said:
so? LSU won their division and beat the team in front of them for the SEC title.

again, the scoreboard doesn't lie.
Click to expand...

There are two scoreboards that say LSU is the third best team in the SEC in 2001. And one that says they are better than UT. There isn't one that says they are better than UF. Which one is lying?

Also, I'll entertain NFL comparisons when the NCAA trims it down to 32 teams.
 
#177
#177
kptvol said:
There are two scoreboards that say LSU is the third best team in the SEC in 2001. And one that says they are better than UT. There isn't one that says they are better than UF. Which one is lying?

Also, I'll entertain NFL comparisons when the NCAA trims it down to 32 teams.
Click to expand...
there's only one that matters. why don't you hang a banner then, claiming an SEC regular season title or a Co championship or something if that will make you feel better?

bottom line is that LSU won the SEC title game. and that gives them the title of SEC champs. you play the reg. season games to ge there. nothing is guaranteed. if you are scared to play in the title game for fear of losing it, fine. you want to win your conf, then go play for it.

and i only brought up the NFL stuff to illustrate what it really means to settle it on the feild. i did go on to say that i don't think the NCAA should move toward and NFL style playoff.
 
#178
#178
jakez4ut said:
there's only one that matters. why don't you hang a banner then, claiming an SEC regular season title or a Co championship or something if that will make you feel better?

bottom line is that LSU won the SEC title game. and that gives them the title of SEC champs. you play the reg. season games to ge there. nothing is guaranteed. if you are scared to play in the title game for fear of losing it, fine. you want to win your conf, then go play for it.

and i only brought up the NFL stuff to illustrate what it really means to settle it on the feild. i did go on to say that i don't think the NCAA should move toward and NFL style playoff.
Click to expand...

So settling it on the field only applies in the SEC championship game? Also, I never claimed that LSU wasn't SEC champs, but they weren't the best SEC team that year. If any SEC team deserved a shot at the title that year, it was Florida.
 
#179
#179
kptvol said:
Not really. There are two teams that might have a dog in that fight: Auburn 2004 and USC 2003. I've already explained why neither of them deserved a title.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the conference champion requirement, especially not in a tournament with 8 or less teams, (and there shouldn't be more) but why did USC not deserve a title in 2003? It's not their fault the BCS screwed over the number 1 team in both polls. They allowed a team in that lost by 4 touchdowns the game before.

As for Auburn, you could make a case for them to be deserving of a chance to play in the title game, but the bottom line is neither OU or USC had done anything wrong.
 
#180
#180
kptvol said:
So settling it on the field only applies in the SEC championship game? Also, I never claimed that LSU wasn't SEC champs, but they weren't the best SEC team that year. If any SEC team deserved a shot at the title that year, it was Florida.
Click to expand...

Why UF over UT? UF may have been better, but there was only one head to head game, and UT won in the Swamp. It's not like UF had a much better record.
 
#181
#181
kptvol said:
So settling it on the field only applies in the SEC championship game? Also, I never claimed that LSU wasn't SEC champs, but they weren't the best SEC team that year. If any SEC team deserved a shot at the title that year, it was Florida.
Click to expand...
where did you get that from?

and more speculation on your part about who was best or more deserving.

you know how i KNOW FLorida wasn't deserving? they didn't win the division, they didn't beat us. You know how i know LSU wasn't the 3rd best team? they beat us for the conf. title.

you saying FL was the "most deserving", is based on what? charity work? cause it sure wasn't wins and losses, which is how i thought this game deteremined who it's "best teams" were.
 
#182
#182
tvolsfan said:
Why UF over UT? UF may have been better, but there was only one head to head game, and UT won in the Swamp. It's not like UF had a much better record.
Click to expand...

Neither team really deserved it, but I'd give UF the nod over UT.
 
#183
#183
tvolsfan said:
Why UF over UT? UF may have been better, but there was only one head to head game, and UT won in the Swamp. It's not like UF had a much better record.
Click to expand...
why? what reason could possibly be put out there to show us why FL may have been better than us?

that question is answered in your next sentence. they weren't, because we won.
 
#184
#184
jakez4ut said:
you know how i KNOW FLorida wasn't deserving? they didn't win the division, they didn't beat us. You know how i know LSU wasn't the 3rd best team? they beat us for the conf. title.
Click to expand...

And we beat LSU, and Florida beat LSU. Those scoreboards were lying I suppose.
 
#185
#185
Wins and Losses? UF beat LSU and had a better record. Everyone knew who was a better team that year. LSU gets to hang the banner up, but in reality, if there was a tournament after to decide the national champ, Florida should get the shot.
 
#186
#186
jakez4ut said:
why? what reason could possibly be put out there to show us why FL may have been better than us?

that question is answered in your next sentence. they weren't, because we won.
Click to expand...

So?

We were 10-2 and they were 9-2. At least they didn't have a much better regular season conference record than them.
 
#188
#188
jakez4ut said:
why? what reason could possibly be put out there to show us why FL may have been better than us?

that question is answered in your next sentence. they weren't, because we won.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was wrong. And Florida was clearly better than LSU, because they won.
 
#190
#190
jakez4ut said:
:crazy: i only hope there's sarcasm in that post somewhere.
Click to expand...

Florida loses close game to second/first best team in the conference. UT loses game to third best team (LSU) and a really average UGA team. Florida would be more deserving, not necessarily better.
 
#191
#191
I guess UF was better than LSU in 2003. And Auburn should have played for the national title game. But then, obviously, it should have been Georgia, who proved to be better on the field. But of course, Vandy proved to be better on the field, so they should have had a shot.
 
#193
#193
jakez4ut said:
this really isn't a very hard concept. we've had this format for 15 years.
Click to expand...

I understand the concept. Can you understand the concept that maybe perhaps there is some possibility that a conference champion wasn't the best team in the conference? In basketball, UT won the SEC East in 2006. I guess someone should inform Florida that they were the third best team in the SEC.
 
#194
#194
kptvol said:
I understand the concept. Can you understand the concept that maybe perhaps there is some possibility that a conference champion wasn't the best team in the conference? In basketball, UT won the SEC East in 2006. I guess someone should inform Florida that they were the third best team in the SEC.
Click to expand...
now you're catching on.

but comparing Bball post season to football post season is a bit ridiculous at this point, they are completely different from one another.

but to your point, games were played, FL won them all, and won the national title. i have no problem with that. in fact, that's been my whole point all along.
 
#195
#195
jakez4ut said:
now you're catching on.

but comparing Bball post season to football post season is a bit ridiculous at this point, they are completely different from one another.

but to your point, games were played, FL won them all, and won the national title. i have no problem with that. in fact, that's been my whole point all along.
Click to expand...

So you are okay with Nebraska getting a shot at the national title? Go look through the history of 2001. They weren't conference champions, but there isn't anyone else that deserved it anymore.
 
#196
#196
kptvol said:
So you are okay with Nebraska getting a shot at the national title?
Click to expand...
no, not in the format it was presented, where only two teams get to play for it.

If Neb had been part of a 65 team tourney and won all of it's games, that's one thing.

in a two team situation where polls are the only determining factor as to who is the most deserving two teams to play for a national title, one of those teams should NOT be the 3rd place team in their own conf.
 
#198
#198
jakez4ut said:
in a two team situation where polls are the only determining factor as to who is the most deserving two teams to play for a national title, one of those teams should NOT be the 3rd place team in their own conf.
Click to expand...

First of all, you don't really have a 3rd place in the conference in a two division conference. Texas was first in the South. Colorado was first in the North, followed by Nebraska. Colorado was first in the Big 12. There's no frame of reference for Texas vs. Nebraska ranking.

Second, if there was a only single one-loss team in 2001 and it had been Florida, they would have deserved to play for the National Title even though they didn't win the SEC.
 
#199
#199
kptvol said:
First of all, you don't really have a 3rd place in the conference in a two division conference. Texas was first in the South. Colorado was first in the North, followed by Nebraska. Colorado was first in the Big 12. There's no frame of reference for Texas vs. Nebraska ranking.

Second, if there was a only single one-loss team in 2001 and it had been Florida, they would have deserved to play for the National Title even though they didn't win the SEC.
Click to expand...
well that kind of blows your "LSU was the 3rd best team" theory out of the water now doesn't it?

what is the point of having conf. champions then? apparently we don't need any designation of conf. champ. we'll simply rely on the polls to determine who the "best" team is and go as is. head to head, w/l etc......just won't matter anymore.

yes, that is obviously the way to go.

and i'm sure that when TN doesn't win the SEC this year, everyone will be of the opinion that it's no big deal.......cause what is the importance a conf. title? i mean, you can win the title, but you're not the best team, so who cares?

this may be one of the most ridiculous threads i've participated in.

to sum up:
  • Conf. Champ does not consititute best team in conf.
  • National champion doesn't require any qualification other than your place in the polls, regardless of where you place in your conf.
  • Teams will compete for the national title based on being "deserving" (to be defined later, but will not be required to include head to head, w/l, conf. championship).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top