NationStates Jolt Archive

yet again the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) has failed to inspire me to watch the national title game. after USC destroyed Notre Dame at home, SC is #2, dropping Michigan to #3. What gives? USC's one loss came to a dismal Oregon State team that is unranked. Michigan's one loss came to #1 ranked Ohio State in the last game of the season.

once again, it seems like the BCS rewards Pac 10 teams for having schedules that go later than the Big 10.

Not only that, the only undefeated team other than Ohio State in the AP Top 25, Boise State, isnt even near any position to compete for the national title game and instead must settle with a measly bowl game.


what is your take on the latest ratings and the BCS?

Isn't the BCS supposed to be the fix for the even more unsatisfactory previous system? I don't follow college football much, except for the unavoidable here in Colorado (we suck, by the way), but it does seem as though there could be a more equitable system. Maybe single combat between the coaches?

Isn't the BCS supposed to be the fix for the even more unsatisfactory previous system? I don't follow college football much, except for the unavoidable here in Colorado (we suck, by the way), but it does seem as though there could be a more equitable system. Maybe single combat between the coaches?

ha.

i think the way to go would be something like the NCAA tournament style... you get the best teams together and make a playoff bracket. that would be so much more enjoyable for all.

plus there would be college football bracketing and more betting. that would be fun.

ha.

i think the way to go would be something like the NCAA tournament style... you get the best teams together and make a playoff bracket. that would be so much more enjoyable for all.

plus there would be college football bracketing and more betting. that would be fun.

Betting will definitely sell the idea, though you have to be careful. Even though we have the premier betting and gambling city on Earth, Americans are oddly uncomfortable with it. They do it but they also feel guilty about it. I like the idea of December Dementia to go along with March Madness.

what is your take on the latest ratings and the BCS?Much ado about nothing? :D

ha.

i think the way to go would be something like the NCAA tournament style... you get the best teams together and make a playoff bracket. that would be so much more enjoyable for all.

plus there would be college football bracketing and more betting. that would be fun.

Divisions 1-AA, II, and III all have playoffs. Why not I-A?

Much ado about nothing? :D

How about this? Ahem ... "Inequity in college football is spiralling out of control. College football, being a traditional pastime of the United States (under God, indivisible), needs to be placed on a sound, fair (and balanced) basis, so that it is clear and obvious which team is the National Champion. To this end, I propose that the President take the matter in hand and issue an Executive Order mandating the creation of a bracketed playoff system, based on the NCAA Basketball system. To keep the pure sport of College Football ... pure, the Executive Order will specify harsh penalties for persons caught betting on the games. In order to enforce this, the already extant warrantless wire-tap legislation will be used to record conversations between known bookmakers and all other citizens. Those apprehended placing bets on College Football will initially be interned in work camps prepared by the government until their citizenship can be formally removed. Afterwards, they will be sold to the colleges on which they were betting."

That's actually hard to do, y'know?

Divisions 1-AA, II, and III all have playoffs. Why not I-A?

i hear that its because bowl sponsors wont get as much revenue, but thats a bunk concept because there are more meaningful games to sponsor.

honestly, who watched anything other the Orange, Fiesta, and Rose bowls last year?

yet again the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) has failed to inspire me to watch the national title game. after USC destroyed Notre Dame at home, SC is #2, dropping Michigan to #3. What gives? USC's one loss came to a dismal Oregon State team that is unranked. Michigan's one loss came to #1 ranked Ohio State in the last game of the season.

once again, it seems like the BCS rewards Pac 10 teams for having schedules that go later than the Big 10.

Not only that, the only undefeated team other than Ohio State in the AP Top 25, Boise State, isnt even near any position to compete for the national title game and instead must settle with a measly bowl game.


what is your take on the latest ratings and the BCS?Fuck Michigan. If you can't even win your own conference, you don't have any business playing for the national championship.

Fuck Michigan. If you can't even win your own conference, you don't have any business playing for the national championship.

I heard that argument on Around the Horn, but it is not a valid argument because they were not given a neutral field to decide the Big Ten Championship on. Michigan certainly looked good enough to make it a different result were the game played on a neutral field.

Also, if we stick to the BCS we have to go with whoever is the second best team. If we eliminate Michigan so that another team gets a chance, then the BCS might as well be thrown out for a tournament.

I actually do think that USC is probably the second best team, though.

The BcS is a crappy system. Wisconsin should be higher than Notre Dame. Wisconsin's only loss was to Meeechigan, and that was only a 5 point loss. ND got blown out by Meeechigan at South Bend.

Fuck Michigan. If you can't even win your own conference, you don't have any business playing for the national championship.

Homefield advantage has a bigger impact than most people realize. That is especially true at the Horseshoe during such a rivalry. Odds makers always give 3 points to the home team. That was a 3 point game. Theoretcially,they tie on a neutral field. (then we have OT) At the big house, Meeechigan wins.

BTW, Oklahoma won it a few years ago and failed to win their conference.

The BcS is a crappy system. Wisconsin should be higher than Notre Dame. Wisconsin's only loss was to Meeechigan, and that was only a 5 point loss. ND got blown out by Meeechigan at South Bend.

Wisconsin really got no love all season, and it really brings Michigan down, too. Everyone is busting a nut over USC's schedule, but they didn't beat anyone of Wisconsin's caliber (and I am sick of hearing about Arkansas, fluke bullshit out of down SEC, did anyone see the Ark-Ala game? It was horrible!).

Homefield advantage has a bigger impact than most people realize. That is especially true at the Horseshoe during such a rivalry. Odds makers always give 3 points to the home team. That was a 3 point game. Theoretcially,they tie on a neutral field. (then we have OT) At the big house, Meeechigan wins.Doesn't matter. If we're not going to have a playoff, we've got to go with what we have, and in my opinion, if you don't win your conference, you don't get to play for the big one. In the record books, it's a loss. In the standings, it's a loss. They had their shot and couldn't close the deal. Sucks to be them this year.

BTW, Oklahoma won it a few years ago and failed to win their conference.
Yep. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. If you're not the best in your conference, you're not the best in the nation.

Wisconsin really got no love all season, and it really brings Michigan down, too. Everyone is busting a nut over USC's schedule, but they didn't beat anyone of Wisconsin's caliber (and I am sick of hearing about Arkansas, fluke bullshit out of down SEC, did anyone see the Ark-Ala game? It was horrible!).

Wisconsin is a good team. I saw them whoop are asses when they came down to West Lafayette.

Now if yo want to talk about an easy schedule, look at Purdue's. We had a Big 10 schedule without Michigan and OSU. If we had them on our schedule, I doubt we would've been bowl eligible.

If UCLA beats USC, several good things happen.

1. The Rose Bowl will have a chance to be Pac 10 vs Big 10.

2. Ohio State vs Michigan in the championship game might be catastrophic enough to put a playoff into next season's schedule.

3. USC will go into the bowl season with a losing streak. It has been, what, eight years since that happened?

If UCLA beats USC, several good things happen.

1. The Rose Bowl will have a chance to be Pac 10 vs Big 10.

2. Ohio State vs Michigan in the championship game might be catastrophic enough to put a playoff into next season's schedule.

3. USC will go into the bowl season with a losing streak. It has been, what, eight years since that happened?

catastrophic?! you think Michigan vs. Ohio State as the natl. championship game would be catastrophic?!

did you even watch the game?

Fuck Michigan. If you can't even win your own conference, you don't have any business playing for the national championship.

Then fuck USC as well. USC lost to Oregon State (IN THE PAC 10 CONFERENCE) and Oregon State isnt even ranked. Michigan lost to #1 Ohio State and, regardless of whatever conference you play in, losing to the best ranked team in the country is better than losing an unranked game.

BCS=Flawed System

FALSE!!!!!

BCS=Complete and total bullshit of the nth degree.

Flawed system gives them WAY to much credit.

and if anyone wants to discuss ease of schedule, lets talk USC for the moment.

USC had the priveledge of playing one of the most overranked teams in the nation, Notre Dame. Their secondary was vulnerable all day to both USC (in both games) and Michigan, the only high caliber offense teams that theyve played. So why was Notre Dame ranked #6 going into the game? beats me. they were dominated by michigan at the beginning of the season, and apparently everyone forgot.

weve got 2 one loss teams in the picture, so why dont we choose the one that lost last and lost to the #1 team in the country?

Then fuck USC as well. USC lost to Oregon State (IN THE PAC 10 CONFERENCE) and Oregon State isnt even ranked. Michigan lost to #1 Ohio State and, regardless of whatever conference you play in, losing to the best ranked team in the country is better than losing an unranked game.

Way to miss the point. USC, if it beats UCLA, will be the PAC-10 champ. Michigan, no matter what else happens will not be their conference champ. That's Ohio State.

Winning your conference should mean something. If USC loses to UCLA and Florida beats Arkansas, Florida belongs in the big game over Michigan. Barring a playoff, that's how I feel--if you're not good enough to win your conference, you're not good enough to play for the national championship.

But I'll tell you the big reason Ohio State v Michigan Part 2 won't happen--money. No conference wants to see the kind of cash that comes from being in a title game go to two schools in the same conference. They'd try to find a way to get Boise State in that game before allowing that.

From what I've seen, USC has been playing inspired football of late, and is not playing like it's the same team that lost to Oregon State. Instead it's playing like a number 2 team.

Way to miss the point. USC, if it beats UCLA, will be the PAC-10 champ. Michigan, no matter what else happens will not be their conference champ. That's Ohio State.

Winning your conference should mean something. If USC loses to UCLA and Florida beats Arkansas, Florida belongs in the big game over Michigan. Barring a playoff, that's how I feel--if you're not good enough to win your conference, you're not good enough to play for the national championship.

But I'll tell you the big reason Ohio State v Michigan Part 2 won't happen--money. No conference wants to see the kind of cash that comes from being in a title game go to two schools in the same conference. They'd try to find a way to get Boise State in that game before allowing that.

Excellent point.

ha.

i think the way to go would be something like the NCAA tournament style... you get the best teams together and make a playoff bracket. that would be so much more enjoyable for all.

plus there would be college football bracketing and more betting. that would be fun.

Division II has a playoff. They start with 16 teams and in 5 weeks there is a National Champion. In Division I, we would need to start with either 16 or 32 seeds. Then the tourney would have to start on the weekend after Turkey day, for 32 seeds, or the next weekend if we pick 16 seeds. I think it would be easy to pick the best 16 teams in Division I, just not the best 1 team. The tourney can figure that out.

Division II has a playoff. They start with 16 teams and in 5 weeks there is a National Champion. In Division I, we would need to start with either 16 or 32 seeds. Then the tourney would have to start on the weekend after Turkey day, for 32 seeds, or the next weekend if we pick 16 seeds. I think it would be easy to pick the best 16 teams in Division I, just not the best 1 team. The tourney can figure that out.

32 teams is way too many, and I'd say we're stretching it at 16. I mean, right now Tennessee is #16 in the BCS. Does anyone outside Knoxville really think that Tennessee belongs in a national championship discussion this year, or that they'd have a shot at running the five weeks? In basketball, you can get hot and come up against cold teams, but in general, when you're talking about football, the biggest reason there's a difference between numbers one and sixteen is a talent disparity. OSU just has significantly better players than Tennessee does this year. I'd say run with the top 8, and in 3 weeks you've got a champ.

And this would be the first week matchups with the current BCS rankings:

OSU vs. Boise St.
USC vs. Wisconsin
Michigan vs. Louisville
Florida vs. LSU

I'd be interested in seeing those matchups, way more than Louisville vs. Auburn, for example.

Division II has a playoff. They start with 16 teams and in 5 weeks there is a National Champion. In Division I, we would need to start with either 16 or 32 seeds. Then the tourney would have to start on the weekend after Turkey day, for 32 seeds, or the next weekend if we pick 16 seeds. I think it would be easy to pick the best 16 teams in Division I, just not the best 1 team. The tourney can figure that out.

The Nazz is right about 32 being too many; 64 teams works in basketball because there are over 300 schools playing. There are 119 (I believe) teams in 1-A football, so 32 teams would be over a quarter of them. Plus, it's hard to work.

I had an idea for a playoff that would work something like this:

Sixteen teams are selected from the 11 conferences and five at-large teams. A purely objective RPI-like formula picks the five at-large teams; everyone is seeded 1-16 by that formula as well. The conference champions should be Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Rutgers (I'll assume they beat WVU), Ohio State, Houston, Ohio (I HAVE to pick my alma mater), BYU, USC, Florida, Middle Tennessee State, and Boise State. At-large teams are (and I'm guessing) Lousiville, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Virginia Tech. For those 16 teams, the first round of the playoffs takes place next weekend. The eight losers can play in bowl games on New Year's Eve or New Year's Day...let's say the Outback, Cotton, Gator, and Capital One Bowls go to these teams, and all others who just missed play on New Year's Eve or before.

The Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls rotate the national championship game as the did under the BCS. Two bowls that don't get that game get the four quarterfinalists who lost, and a third bowl gets the semifinalists who lost. The games with the quarterfinalists would be on New Year's Day; the semifinalists would play the day after. The national championship game would always be on the Saturday after New Year's Day...unless that day is a Friday or a Saturday, in which case it plays on January 3rd.

Teams that don't make the playoffs can always participate in bowl games anyway; there are plenty of them, and it's doubtful that a playoff would take away from those games. After all, Purdue would be in the Champs Sports Bowl playoff or no playoff, and the alums of Purdue University would still look forward to seeing them play. Frankly, why it is the NCAA doesn't do this is beyond me.

The Nazz is right about 32 being too many; 64 teams works in basketball because there are over 300 schools playing. There are 119 (I believe) teams in 1-A football, so 32 teams would be over a quarter of them. Plus, it's hard to work.

I had an idea for a playoff that would work something like this:

Sixteen teams are selected from the 11 conferences and five at-large teams. A purely objective RPI-like formula picks the five at-large teams; everyone is seeded 1-16 by that formula as well. The conference champions should be Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Rutgers (I'll assume they beat WVU), Ohio State, Houston, Ohio (I HAVE to pick my alma mater), BYU, USC, Florida, Middle Tennessee State, and Boise State. At-large teams are (and I'm guessing) Lousiville, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Virginia Tech. For those 16 teams, the first round of the playoffs takes place next weekend. The eight losers can play in bowl games on New Year's Eve or New Year's Day...let's say the Outback, Cotton, Gator, and Capital One Bowls go to these teams, and all others who just missed play on New Year's Eve or before.

The Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls rotate the national championship game as the did under the BCS. Two bowls that don't get that game get the four quarterfinalists who lost, and a third bowl gets the semifinalists who lost. The games with the quarterfinalists would be on New Year's Day; the semifinalists would play the day after. The national championship game would always be on the Saturday after New Year's Day...unless that day is a Friday or a Saturday, in which case it plays on January 3rd.

Teams that don't make the playoffs can always participate in bowl games anyway; there are plenty of them, and it's doubtful that a playoff would take away from those games. After all, Purdue would be in the Champs Sports Bowl playoff or no playoff, and the alums of Purdue University would still look forward to seeing them play. Frankly, why it is the NCAA doesn't do this is beyond me.
Being the jaded and cynical one that I am, I'm sure it comes down to money. Maybe it's sponsorship and maybe it's TV time, but I'm sure money is at the root of this BCS silliness.

And I also agree - We can certainly pick the best 8 teams out of the coaches polls or the BCS standings and be happy with the results.

Being the jaded and cynical one that I am, I'm sure it comes down to money. Maybe it's sponsorship and maybe it's TV time, but I'm sure money is at the root of this BCS silliness.

And I also agree - We can certainly pick the best 8 teams out of the coaches polls or the BCS standings and be happy with the results.

It's always money, and I don't think it's cynical to say so. And hey, I'm all over the top 8 teams, even though it would mean that right now, my alma mater would be the last team on the outside looking in. Of course, in this scenario, if the Hogs beat the Gators in the SEC championship, they would be in the top 8 and be part of the mix.

It's always money, and I don't think it's cynical to say so. And hey, I'm all over the top 8 teams, even though it would mean that right now, my alma mater would be the last team on the outside looking in. Of course, in this scenario, if the Hogs beat the Gators in the SEC championship, they would be in the top 8 and be part of the mix.

Actually, I think we could include all 11 conference champs, throw in some byes and have a really good tournament that starts on T-day and ends on New Years. There'd be a few off weeks, but the games can be staggered so that there's always a playoff weekend. That should encourage the TV money anyway.

And the losers can still play in the Also Ran Bowl on New Year's Eve/Day/Week

Way to miss the point. USC, if it beats UCLA, will be the PAC-10 champ. Michigan, no matter what else happens will not be their conference champ. That's Ohio State.

Winning your conference should mean something. If USC loses to UCLA and Florida beats Arkansas, Florida belongs in the big game over Michigan. Barring a playoff, that's how I feel--if you're not good enough to win your conference, you're not good enough to play for the national championship.

But I'll tell you the big reason Ohio State v Michigan Part 2 won't happen--money. No conference wants to see the kind of cash that comes from being in a title game go to two schools in the same conference. They'd try to find a way to get Boise State in that game before allowing that.

Well shit, lets get Georgia Tech in the championship, how about Oklahoma/Nebraska, they won their conference so they should be up there, right?

The BCS is about finding the two best teams, putting them on neutral turf and letting them play. If the two best teams come from the same conference, so be it.

BCS = Flawed System

Is it stating the obvious day?

The NCAA wants the money that they can get for having every single bowl game sponsered. They can't get that kind of money with a sixteen team playoff. And that's just how it is, unless the NCAA decided that money isn't important. :rolleyes:

Well shit, lets get Georgia Tech in the championship, how about Oklahoma/Nebraska, they won their conference so they should be up there, right?

The BCS is about finding the two best teams, putting them on neutral turf and letting them play. If the two best teams come from the same conference, so be it.

Nope. Oklahoma and Nebraska didn't do well enough outside of their conference to warrant playing for the national championship. And Michigan didn't do well enough inside their conference to warrant playing for the national championship. But if USC beats UCLA, they have done both. And if USC falters, but Florida beats Arkansas, they'll have done both. Michigan had their chance, in my opinion, to play for the national championship. They came up four points short. Sucks to be them.

And as for your comment about the purpose of the BCS, well that's either silly or naive, take your pick. The BCS is about making money for the elite conferences, and nothing more. If it were all about finding the two best teams, there would be a playoff, simple as that.

Is it stating the obvious day?

The NCAA wants the money that they can get for having every single bowl game sponsered. They can't get that kind of money with a sixteen team playoff. And that's just how it is, unless the NCAA decided that money isn't important. :rolleyes:

I just explained in my above post how the NCAA could do just that AND have a playoff. Seriously. They will make MORE money from my idea, not less. And we will get to watch MORE football, not less. I fail to see what's so bad about either of those ideas.

BTW, wheres the love for Boise State?:p

BTW, wheres the love for Boise State?:p

Good question. I would gladly include them in a 16-team playoff as cannon fodder for a Wisconsin or an Oklahoma.

BTW, wheres the love for Boise State?:p

Good question. I would gladly include them in a 16-team playoff as cannon fodder for a Wisconsin or an Oklahoma.

They're 8th in the BCS, which is about right because they didn't play anyone strong outside their conference. Now, you can accuse OSU and Michigan of being chickenshit, because they both played teams in Boise State's conference, and not Boise State, but I imagine that both would have rolled BSU.

They're 8th in the BCS, which is about right because they didn't play anyone strong outside their conference. Now, you can accuse OSU and Michigan of being chickenshit, because they both played teams in Boise State's conference, and not Boise State, but I imagine that both would have rolled BSU.

OSU's nonconference schedule was paltry except for Texas, and Texas didn't turn out as good as people thought. Granted, going into Texas and winning is a big win, but Texas 2006 isn't Texas 2005. If they were, the game would have been a lot closer.

Also, neither OSU nor Michigan played a team in Boise State's conference. OSU's non-conference schedule was Northern Illinois, Texas, Cincinnati, and Bowling Green. Northern Illinois and Cincinnati were half-decent mid-majors. Texas was the defending national champs. Bowling Green lost to fucking Temple. That has "sad" written all over it.

OSU is not really chickenshit. Neither is Michigan; they did schedule Notre Dame. Scheduling one top-10 team and a bunch of decent mid-majors is not chickenshit. Scheduling one top-10 team to pad a schedule of shitty mid-majors might be.

If you want chickenshit, look at Florida. Their SEC schedule is tough, but their non-conference schedule is putrid. Southern Miss is decent. Central Florida is pitiful. Western Carolina is a sad-sack 1-AA team that lost to the likes of Liberty and Wofford. And Florida State's pretty bad this year...just barely bowl-eligible. That's why it's hard to make a case that they deserve to go to the national title game. I'd pick two-loss Notre Dame over Florida even if Florida won the SEC.

OSU's nonconference schedule was paltry except for Texas, and Texas didn't turn out as good as people thought. Granted, going into Texas and winning is a big win, but Texas 2006 isn't Texas 2005. If they were, the game would have been a lot closer.

Also, neither OSU nor Michigan played a team in Boise State's conference. OSU's non-conference schedule was Northern Illinois, Texas, Cincinnati, and Bowling Green. Northern Illinois and Cincinnati were half-decent mid-majors. Texas was the defending national champs. Bowling Green lost to fucking Temple. That has "sad" written all over it.

OSU is not really chickenshit. Neither is Michigan; they did schedule Notre Dame. Scheduling one top-10 team and a bunch of decent mid-majors is not chickenshit. Scheduling one top-10 team to pad a schedule of shitty mid-majors might be.

If you want chickenshit, look at Florida. Their SEC schedule is tough, but their non-conference schedule is putrid. Southern Miss is decent. Central Florida is pitiful. Western Carolina is a sad-sack 1-AA team that lost to the likes of Liberty and Wofford. And Florida State's pretty bad this year...just barely bowl-eligible. That's why it's hard to make a case that they deserve to go to the national title game. I'd pick two-loss Notre Dame over Florida even if Florida won the SEC.
We'll be rooting for Georgia Tech on Saturday.

We'll be rooting for Georgia Tech on Saturday.

I'd say I would too, just to get Wake Forest out of the picture, but no one wants to have two-loss Wake Forest in the national title game. The ACC's in the toilet this season.

A lot of miracles would have to happen to get two-loss Oklahoma into the title game. Beyond that, the Big 12's out.

Rutgers is sunk. If WVU beats them, Louisville wins free and clear against UConn, and the stars align, Louisville could go.

Ohio State's in. Wisconsin and Michigan are, by all accounts, out.

No one in Conference USA has fewer than three losses. No three-loss team makes the title game. They play a different team from Ohio.

That different team from ohio's going to the GMAC Bowl. At least they're going somewhere.

BYU's unbeaten in the Mountain West, but any time they play a decent team, they get killed. Scratch the Mountain West.

USC needs to beat UCLA and they're in. If not, chaos ensues.

Everyone in the SEC has two losses...except Florida. Florida needs USC to lose.

The Sun Belt has no one with fewer than five losses. Scratch them entirely. They deserve poop.

As for the WAC...well, Boise State is undefeated. That means poop to us.

I'd say that my BCS rankings are as follows:

If USC wins, they're in.
If not, next up should be Michigan. Michigan beat Wisconsin. Wisconsin should go to the Rose Bowl if Michigan doesn't.
If we were discounting Michigan AND Wisconsin, I'd take Louisville next, and then Rutgers if they have only one loss. Rutgers barely beat Louisville. After that comes Boise State.
If we can't take Boise State, THEN gimme Florida. And then Notre Dame.

I'd Wisconsin should go to the Rose Bowl if Michigan doesn't.It's too late. Wisconsin already signed up for the Capital One Bowl.

The BCS is about finding the two best teams, putting them on neutral turf and letting them play. If the two best teams come from the same conference, so be it.

The BCS is about money, and who has it.

Way to miss the point. USC, if it beats UCLA, will be the PAC-10 champ. Michigan, no matter what else happens will not be their conference champ. That's Ohio State.

Winning your conference should mean something. If USC loses to UCLA and Florida beats Arkansas, Florida belongs in the big game over Michigan. Barring a playoff, that's how I feel--if you're not good enough to win your conference, you're not good enough to play for the national championship.

But I'll tell you the big reason Ohio State v Michigan Part 2 won't happen--money. No conference wants to see the kind of cash that comes from being in a title game go to two schools in the same conference. They'd try to find a way to get Boise State in that game before allowing that.

Not winning your conference isnt a good enough reason to be benched from the national championship picture, especially in the Big 12 with the way the conference is shaping up with the return of big names like Nebraska.

The Pac 10 is a mediocre conference at best. Aside from interconference play, USC plays teams like Oregon, Oregon State, etc. etc. that historically see poor recruiting talent. Even teams like UCLA and Cal havent been able to put up consistent years, at least not in the Pete Caroll age and vs. USC.

sure USC has a good defense... hell, its even better than the one that lost in last years Rose Bowl. but their offense is lacking at best. being down 14 at the beginning of the 4th to Oregon State was a joke and the VASTLY OVERRANKED Notre Dame secondary has proven weak against any formidable offense (ask Michigan about that one)

honestly, if we're going with style points (because thats all this stupid BCS system loves, anyway) id have to pick Michigan because they lost to the best team in the nation, while USC lost to an unranked Oregon State team.

[QUOTE=Ice Hockey Players;12013839]The ACC's in the toilet this season.[/ QUOTE]

no joke.

what happened to the 'bama and florida programs? they took HUGE losses this year.

The Pac 10 is a mediocre conference at best. Aside from interconference play, USC plays teams like Oregon, Oregon State, etc. etc. that historically see poor recruiting talent. Even teams like UCLA and Cal havent been able to put up consistent years, at least not in the Pete Caroll age and vs. USC.

Give USC some credit, though; they won non-conference games against Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. Most teams don't play non-conference schedules like that. That's three good teams. Michigan didn't play three good teams. Ohio State didn't play three good teams, at least not three BCS contenders. Malign the Pac-10 all you want; USC's non-conference schedule makes up for it.

Give USC some credit, though; they won non-conference games against Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. Most teams don't play non-conference schedules like that. That's three good teams. Michigan didn't play three good teams. Ohio State didn't play three good teams, at least not three BCS contenders. Malign the Pac-10 all you want; USC's non-conference schedule makes up for it.And it's that strength of schedule that his them number two in the BCS right now, which is where they belong.