Official 2007 NCAA Football Season

[ACCBiggz]

Florida - Ranked.

Kansas State - Ranked. (Okalhoma couldn't drop out anyway unless the human polls dropped them significantly which couldn't happen anyway.)

California - Unranked.

That's cut and dry. It's very simple.

Absolutely not. They've consistantly been the best over that time span. Period.

[Mofoticon]

Finally overrated Wisconsin is about to go down, this will be one of 3-4 losses this year for them.

[ACCBiggz]

Illinois and Indiana are playing well, except Illinois has much better talent than the Hoosiers.

Bobby....Jimbo.....WHY DIDN'T XAVIER LEE START THE SEASON!?

Edited October 6, 2007 by ACCBiggz

[TheSqauredCircleMessiah]

USC would have been in the Title game the last like .... 6 years.

That's just a flat lie. The year they were left out they lost to an unranked team whereas LSU and Oklahoma lost to ranked teams. That's pretty clear cut, black & white to me. Just because they were flashy and had Reggie Bush doesn't mean anything. And honestly, with the love fest the media had for them, that sparked the huge rise in the talks.

I made these picks before the games...

#9 Florida (4-1) @ #1 LSU (5-0)

Kansas (4-0) #24 Kansas State (3-1)

#20 Cincinnati (5-0) #21 Rutgers (3-1)

#25 Nebraska (4-1) #17 Missouri (4-0)

#15 Virginia Tech (4-1) #22 Clemson (4-1)

#4 Ohio State (5-0) #23 Purdue (5-0)

#12 Georgia (4-1) Tennessee (2-2)

#10 Oklahoma (4-1) #19 Texas (4-1)

#5 Wisconsin (5-0) Illinois (4-1)

Edited October 6, 2007 by TheSqauredCircleMessiah

[HailtotheYo]

Florida - Ranked.

Kansas State - Ranked. (Okalhoma couldn't drop out anyway unless the human polls dropped them significantly which couldn't happen anyway.)

California - Unranked.

That's cut and dry. It's very simple.

But aren't you the one that says pre-season polls are pointless, worthless, and mean nothing ? The Florida team in question here would be the perfect example. Ranked when they beat LSU .... yes, but 8-5 for the season. What means more ? The fact that they had a pre-season ranking or the fact that they finished 8-5 ? Point is, ranked at the time or not, Florida WAS NOT THAT GOOD.

And just saying that you give the best and clear reason, doesn't mean that it is the best and clear reason.

Regardless, a system that allows for multiple undefeated teams when the season is finished, allows for teams that didn't win their conference to play for the national title, and creates more controversy that it solves simply isn't the answer.

[ACCBiggz]

I bet the other 17 teams who have played the for BCS share of the national championship did not enter the title game on a losing streak.

[ACCBiggz]

But aren't you the one that says pre-season polls are pointless, worthless, and mean nothing ?

[DMN in the House]

Pac 10 dosen't need a conference championship game, everyone plays everyone else.

If you can't win your own conference, how the hell are you supposed to be the National Champion?

[ACCBiggz]

Pac 10 dosen't need a conference championship game, everyone plays everyone else.

Edited October 6, 2007 by ACCBiggz

[naiwf]

# 5 Wisconsin and # 8 Kentucky have already lost. LSU/Florida will guarantee us at least one more loss in the top 10, and Georgia (#11 or 12 depending on the poll) is down 28-0 at the half. Just another turbulent weekend in college football.

[ACCBiggz]

One can only hope Florida loses with Urban Meyer injuring himself on the sideline.

[HailtotheYo]

The fact remains, that the BCS does not equitably determine the national champion. At the start of every seasn, not all teams have the same chance at winning the national title. That, is a fact.

The conference title games do something that the BCS doesn't. It pits the two best teams in the respective conferences based on WIN/LOSS records ONLY in order to crown the proper champion. The conferences that don't have a title game have the possability of having more than one undefeated team because they don't all play each other every year. How does that solve anything ? If you can't determine the best school in your conference, then how can you determine a national title ?

Hell, it isn't just the national title games that are trash .... the majority of the BCS picks for games are a joke.

Notre Dame's embarrasment ? Kansas State getting boned in '98 and '99 ? The Mack Brown begging debacle that screwed Cal ? '00 FSU over teams that were better head to head ? Louisville and Boise State getting shafted in '04 ? '98 Arizona was 10-1 but lost out to 9-2 Florida and 8-3 Syracuse ? Undefeated Marshall, Tulane, Utah ?

So much has gone wrong, and so little has gone right with the BCS. The system DOES NOT WORK.

[ROC]

The SEC scares me with its goodness this year. Everyone in it is so good that I fear, especially with a game like LSU/Florida tonight, that they'll knock themselves out of the title picture. I won't argue that the Pac-10 sucks, because they most definitely don't, but there stands a much bigger chance that SC will win that conference over everyone else, whereas here, I truly don't know.

[ACCBiggz]

Kansas State getting boned in '98 and '99 ?

[HailtotheYo]

You keep lumping in teams and years together. BCS changes almost every year to try and get a better system. After the first year they made a change, then the second year KSU was even further back in the rankings.

A system that has to be changed every year or every other year should be scrapped because if it has to be constantly changed, then it doesn't work (which is the whole point here). Also, KSU was #8 in '99 4 BCS bowls X 2 teams apiece = 8. hhmmm

The Mack Brown begging debacle that screwed Cal ?

Can't blame that on the BCS, you can't beg the computers... you beg the human voters. Blame the AP and bowl selectors.

I absolutely can. The BCS equation involves what ? 2/3 of the equation for the BCS at that time was the AP poll and Bowl selectors. Again, the SYSTEM doesn't work.

Notre Dame's embarrasment ?

Again 2/3 of the BCS is human and they've always overrated ND, then bowl selectors try to pick the best fan base to draw crowds and dollars, something ND has. Can't put that on the BCS, once again, that's all human... that's what always happens.

No, the BCS has special exemptions for Notre Dame. That in itself is bullshit. That in itself is yet another reason that the SYSTEM is flawed. ND gets its own set of rules. Uh, no, that just doesn't work. It isn't all human. So, it went back to what ? Money ... and THAT is what the BCS system is all about.

At the start of every seasn, not all teams have the same chance at winning the national title. That, is a fact.

And those teams still lose so it works out.

Ignorance must be bliss. Utah, Tulane, Marshall, Boise State ..... they didn't lose. At the beginning of the season they had no real shot at the national title. Fact.

All the BCS does is rank the teams, they don't select who goes to what bowl. That's up the bowl selectors. There were 6 teams at the time that could go to a BCS bowl outside of USC/OU. 4 of those 6 were BCS Conference Champions, making them automatic. Utah got an automatic bid for being 6th and you still had Texas, California, and Georgia ranked ahead that selectors would look at with larger fan bases and a higher ranking. BSU and UL played each other in a thrilling game that the Cards won.

Not exactly. The BCS does pick who goes to the bowls ... the BCS bowls. Again, that's the point here. Larger fan base ? So what, the whole point of this is the 'best team(s)' not money. That's part of the reason why the BCS won't ever work properly. A larger fan base doesn't mean a better football team.

'98 Arizona was 10-1 but lost out to 9-2 Florida and 8-3 Syracuse ?

Once again, 6 remaining bids after the national title game. 4 other conference champions, 2 at large spots. UCLA was the Pac 10 champion, not Arizona. It was KSU that really got hit hard that year, which they changed the rule the next year for.

Wait a minute, didn't you just kind of say up at the top of the post that KSU was further back (in essence didn't matter) but now they're slighted more so than Arizona ? Weird. Florida wasn't the SEC champion and had one more loss than Arizona. Syracuse was the Big East champion true, but had 3 losses.

The BCS system was built by the 6 power conferences. So you honestly couldn't be surprised by the Utah/Marshall/Tulane thing, in fact the BCS has helped them a lot by forcing them and other schools to schedule tougher out of conference games. Which in turn helps their attendance when they sign home and away series contracts.

Yes, the system was built that way. In the interest of revenue plain and simple. I'm not surprised by the Utah/Marshall/Tulane thing, but that doesn't mean we sweep it under the rug as though it either didn't happen, or isn't significant. The last five years have shown us that the so called 'lesser' teams/conferences in fact DO deserve a legit shot at the title just the same as any BCS conference school. The BCS has hurt just as much as helped these kind of schools because now no one will schedule Boise State and the like for fear of being upset. Sure, they fell off, but a few years ago Fresno was trying to schedule the big boys but no one would do it. Attendance ? Hey great, they have more fans. Again, fans don't = wins.

The conference title games do something that the BCS doesn't. It pits the two best teams in the respective conferences based on WIN/LOSS records ONLY in order to crown the proper champion.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: BigXII. That's all I have to say about that. :lmao:

Uh, ok. Even the Big 12 pits the two best teams in the Big 12 in terms of record in its title game ... just like the ACC/SEC/MAC/CONF USA

Pac-10 does. Big East does. The only one that does not is the Big 10. Big10 has thought about adding a 12th team, but the coaches are dead set against it because of the title game adding another game to the schedule.

Ok, I mis-worded that. The conferences that don't have a title game run the risk of having multiple teams tied for the title. Such as the Pac-10 which in the BCS era has seen four years of co-champions including a year with three teams tied at the top. The Big East has had two including the JOKE four way tie. The Big 10 has had five years of co-champions including two years with three teams tied at the top. Not exactly decisive outcomes.

The adding another game argument is a joke in itself. There are already many teams (with a bowl game) that play 12 to 14 games a year. To put the conference title game in effect, you take out one of those cream puff 1-AA games at the start of the season ........ unless you're Michigan, and you just drop the game all together.

[ACCBiggz]

A system that has to be changed every year or every other year should be scrapped because if it has to be constantly changed, then it doesn't work (which is the whole point here). Also, KSU was #8 in '99 4 BCS bowls X 2 teams apiece = 8. hhmmm

[naiwf]

USC actually lost to Stanford at HOME :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[ACCBiggz]

This may be the greatest day ever.... LSU and OSU fans went insane at the games.

[ROC]

This may be the greatest day ever.... LSU and OSU fans went insane at the games.

[ACCBiggz]

They showed the decible meter win they announced the USC score, 115db. The bench was jumping up and down, then Florida put another FG through and killed the momentum.