Skip to content

Poll: Should top-ranked SEC team get title shot regardless?

(No, feces won’t get stirred up in the comments on this one.)

The Associated Press ran with a story Monday that, during his press conference today, LSU head coach Les Miles intimated that the top-ranked team in the SEC should get a shot at the BcS title because of the year-long grind the conference slate has become.

Here’s what Miles had to say, and what the Baton Rouge Advocate thinks Miles was inferring:

LSU is behind four undefeated teams, including two (Boise State and TCU)  from non-automatic qualifying conferences. Miles seemed to argue that BCS conference teams like an SEC champion should get the nod over similar mid-major teams. But he did it in a rather indirect way and admitted he was “being as evasive as I can be.”

“There’s no doubt that great teams can come from any conference, there isn’t any question,” Miles said. “But it’s that team that can prove over a length of schedule that it has played the best and deserves the opportunity to represent all of college football in that (BCS championship) game.”

The implication is that a team playing an SEC schedule should get the benefit of the doubt against teams that don’t play a schedule that puts a team in the same jeopardy.

So, what do y’all think?  Is it the SEC’s birthright to have a spot in the title game, even if that means a one-loss team like LSU/Auburn getting in at the expense of an unbeaten Boise State/TCU?  I’m guessing there might be an opinion or two on this one…

 

Permalink 100 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Auburn Tigers, Boise State Broncos, LSU Tigers, Mountain West Conference, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, TCU Horned Frogs
100 Responses to “Poll: Should top-ranked SEC team get title shot regardless?”
  1. seanmmartin says: Nov 15, 2010 6:40 PM

    If this ever happens, I will dismiss college football as a fad and hope its glory dies out shortly afterward.

  2. Slim Charles says: Nov 15, 2010 7:03 PM

    Christ, just shut up SEC. This makes me wish General Sherman knew how to finish a job.

  3. cometkazie says: Nov 15, 2010 7:05 PM

    People down here [Baton Rouge] have been so down on Miles the last couple of years it will be interesting to see the local reaction. Reminds me of the ’60s when the SWConference had really good teams that couldn’t get thru the season undefeated.

  4. edgy says: Nov 15, 2010 7:19 PM

    Year in and year out, you hear how the BCS teams are the only ones that deserve a berth in the title game because they play such a hard schedule and if the Boise States of the world want to be invited then they need to beef up their schedule. The problem is that the Big Boys don’t want any part of these teams (Don’t bring up any more of those phony stories about how Boise wants $1.8 million for a one off from Nebraska). They don’t win by playing them because their own fans won’t accept anything less than a 30 or 40 point rout and if they lose, you don’t want to be in the stadium when their fans stroke out (Look at how many people here pissed all over Virginia Tech 5 minutes after they lost to Boise).

    In 1984, the Big Boys had a chance to prove that the non-AQ teams weren’t worthy BUT they chickened out and instead, their fans, to this day, bitch and moan about BYU’s national championship because BYU played Michigan instead of the top “BCS” teams of that time. BYU was obligated to play in the Holiday BUT they were more than willing to play the #3 team, Washington, who lost to USC and weren’t headed for the Rose Bowl but the Huskies chose to take the Orange Bowl’s money and play the #2 Sooners, who were bound to the Orange, just as the Cougars were obligated to play in the Holiday bowl. That’s right, the 1984 Cougars INVITED the #3 team to play them but they chose not to play them. Bitch all you want but when Washington passed up a chance to play BYU, they, their fans and the other Big Boys lost their right to bitch about BYU’s national championship, especially since they tried to get other ranked teams to go to San Diego but they REFUSED (BTW, the Cougars didn’t forget that slight and the next year, the Huskies played against the Cougars and they were taken out behind the woodshed, 31-3).

  5. WingT says: Nov 15, 2010 7:28 PM

    @Edgy
    Damn Edgy, that was 26 years ago !

    Let it go dude, lol

  6. whitetrashking says: Nov 15, 2010 7:29 PM

    If Bozo State and T C Pew, played in the SEC they wouldnt even be 500, if there is any doubts about the SEC just ask Oklahoma, Ohio State, and what ever other chumps that have lost the championship the last 5 years, and after this year you can probly ask Oregy the same thing, SEC = Domination.

  7. superfbfan says: Nov 15, 2010 7:34 PM

    @ Slim Charles

    Sherman was superintendent of LSU before the war..just a coincidence?? i think not!! SEC is superior..rivalries and stadiums are over the top fanatical…athletes are top notch..coaches are best in the country…but after saying all that I think Boise (sorry TCU) should get a shot if their undefeated

  8. mrcowpatty says: Nov 15, 2010 7:34 PM

    And this is why BYU left the MWC. And because they didn’t want to be in a terrible conference and they want to keep all the money to themselves if they make it to a bowl game. They also don’t want to share their TV money. Just like the Irish.

  9. gamustangdude says: Nov 15, 2010 8:00 PM

    Does the SEC have 2 maybe 3 teams who would beat TCU or Boise? No question they do. However, the REAL question is…

    is LSU better than Bosie?

    is LSU better than TCU?

    if Auburn loses in the next two games, these will become viable questions. Untill then, it really doesn’t matter.

  10. edgy says: Nov 15, 2010 8:32 PM

    WingT, if ONLY. If I remember correctly someone on the Big Bigot side brought this up so I’m not the only one and frankly, you guys don’t want to hear it because it proves the point that everyone who believes in fairness has been saying for a long time: the BCS is a bunch of chicken sh*ts who would rather complain about the schedules of the non-AQ rather than work out an equitable solution. The Pac-10 (8) had to put up with this crap for a long time and then when they finally gained a footing as an equal, they never forgot that and that’s why they go to Boise and BYU and Hawaii and Fresno State and …… When Big Bigot Schools back East start going West, they’ll have earned the right to piss and moan but right now, it’s all a bunch of bull sh*t. Seriously, it’s tiring to hear the same bull over and over about how they need to play the Big schedule when the Big teams have proven that they’d rather avoid them and bitch rather than show up and get their asses handed to them.

  11. bender4700 says: Nov 15, 2010 9:57 PM

    Edgy,

    Those “phony” stories are REAL. You can deny it, but Alabama and Nebraska both stated Boise wants too much money and backed out of their “anyone, anytime, anywhere” crap challenge.

    Stop making up crap. Phony means FAKE. not very much real.

    Some people need education.

  12. bender4700 says: Nov 15, 2010 10:02 PM

    The SEC is overrated. Alabama is not a top ten team. THEY LOST TWICE!!

    I’m sick of the media pandering to the SEC and their over-involved fans. The fact is the East, West, and Midwest have a lot of fans, but not nearly as dedicated as the SEC. ESPN knows that, so naturally the SEC is going to be called the top conference in the country. ESPN wants viewers, they want HAPPY viewers. They also know they can gain a lot of that by making it sound like the SEC is just that much better.

    Auburn.

    That’s the only top team. LSU LOST to Tennessee, they were given another shot, but they did everything they could to lose. They have two close wins against teams they had NO business being close late. Alabama lost twice. South Carolina has a couple loses.

    Big Ten has several 1 loss teams. Big XII has Nebraska and Ok State, both 1 loss, with OSU’s coming against Nebraska.

    No conference is the top conference. It’s too subjective, and just because ESPN claims it, doesn’t make it legit.

    The WAC and MWC have some talent, they don’t have the talent level of the AQ’s, but there’s a lot of talent across the board. Parity, and all the recent changes to scholarships will do that.

  13. bender4700 says: Nov 15, 2010 10:03 PM

    *I know LSU won, but if you call that winning. well… sad win for sure.

  14. Walk says: Nov 15, 2010 10:16 PM

    Alabama did lose twice. They also played 6 teams in a row with a bye week before playing bama. Because of that schedule and the blatant unfairness of it a rule change was put in place to prevent a team from playing more than 3 teams that have a bye week on the schedule. As far as bama not wanting a piece of a non bcs team you got that backwards. Mal Moore the ad of alabama called boise and offered home and home to boise, boise did not even return the call.

  15. mattaylor4596 says: Nov 15, 2010 10:38 PM

    bender

    how much did alabama say BSU wanted? Nebraska paid San Jose $900k for a game but won’t pay BSU $1M????

    BSU’s asking price for a game like that is usually $1M which is high but not the most for a non AQ team.

    If you don’t believe me, ask yourself why the tide signed KENT STATE for $1.2MM to start the 2011 schedule but wouldn’t offer #3 BSU $1MM……the answer is those teams get nothing from playing a BSU or a TCU and saying they wanted TOO MUCH MONEY is just convenient.

  16. Deb says: Nov 15, 2010 10:40 PM

    @Slim Charles …

    What a vile thing to post on a football blog. If your teams can’t hang on the field, at least be man enough to take your losses with a hint of dignity. Whining to the point of someone who laid waste to half the country had done a better job is taking things a bit far.

    Since you brought it up … but during the Civil War, the South racked up twice the kills with half the personnel. No wonder SEC teams are superior.

  17. mattaylor4596 says: Nov 15, 2010 10:41 PM

    Bender

    BTW, the “anyone, anytime, anywhere” sh!t is Fresno’s mantra. don’t mix all us little guys up cause “we look the same”. You’re right, some people need education………

  18. mattaylor4596 says: Nov 15, 2010 10:44 PM

    Walk

    Do you have a link to that article where BSU didn’t return the call to the Ala. AD?

  19. gamustangdude says: Nov 15, 2010 10:53 PM

    Bottom line is this, non-AQ schools belong in non-aq bowls. It’s called the BCS national championship non-aq’s need not apply. Go work on the other systems in your school that characterize your school to be considered a non-aq, untill you get that fixed, you can cry all you want. You don’t deserve to play in the BCS national title game.

  20. diamondduq says: Nov 15, 2010 10:57 PM

    “Seriously, it’s tiring to hear the same bull over and over” and yet Edgy keeps coming with the same weak sh*t almost daily. No one disagrees there should be a playoff, but until there is a team like Boise St. or TCU needs to convince people they’re one of the 2 best teams in the country and quite frankly they haven’t. Blame it on their schedule, blame it on “no one wanting to play them”, blame it on anything but beating Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico St., or Northeast Vancouver by 100 doesn’t do anything for me and it shouldn’t do anything for anyone else. We saw essentially the same Boise St. and TCU teams last year play to a lackluster 17-10 final in a BCS game, no one was impressed then and no one will be impressed this year. So what if Auburn goes on the road and loses to the defending national champion? If Auburn loses to Alabama, in Alabama, and goes on to win the SEC Title, they should be in the National Title Game as they have shown through their body of work that they’re more deserving than either Boise St. or TCU and it shouldn’t matter that “they played the hand they were dealt” or “they beat everyone on their schedule” because they had weak hands and weaker schedules. Want to compare “marquee” wins? One team’s best win was by 3 on a neutral site against a team that lost to a 1-AA school by 5 at home. Another team’s best win was by 40 on the road against a top 5 opponent, which sounds good except that top 5 opponent got beat by 25 against a 5-5 team that had just lost back to back games against Navy and Tulsa (not exactly powerhouses). The third team has beaten the only two teams to defeat the defending National Champions which include the SEC East champions and make them the only loss for LSU. Which team, based on who they’ve beaten, has shown to be most deserving of playing in the National Championship game? And that’s without mentioning that the third team is one of two (they beat the only other one) to win 3 games against top 25 opponents. I’d say a 1-loss SEC team is definitely more deserving than either undefeated Boise St. or TCU, without question. That’s certainly not to say it’s an SEC birthright as Les Miles is implying but certainly this year it should be!

  21. edgy says: Nov 15, 2010 11:30 PM

    bender4700 says:

    Edgy,

    Those “phony” stories are REAL.

    ************************

    They ARE phony. Boise has NEVER asked for $1.8 million for a one off. It has NEVER happened. The school was willing to take a MINIMUM of $900k but wanted $1 million for a ONE GAME series. Nebraska is paying teams $800k and $900k to go to Lincoln but they say that $900k to $1 million is too much. That’s BALONEY. Either they pay Boise the $1 million for what will be a guaranteed ABC/ESPN telecast or they pay $800k to Wyoming and other teams to be telecast only in the Lincoln.

    You or any others think that they’re not worth $1 million? Well, bucko, they got $1.2 million to play
    Virginia Tech in PRIME TIME and they set a record for viewers. ABC will setup that kind of match up any day of the year and they’ll pony up enough to Boise and their opponent so Boise gets $1 million or more. Michigan State is also giving them $1.2 million, so YES, those stories are phony.

    Oh, BTW, Alabama has NEVER said that they offered Boise a game and were turned down. They said that they were not one of the teams that Boise has said that they’ve contacted. Don’t believe what you and others seem to “remember’ about the situation, look it up. The PHONY part of that story is that Alabama offered them a game. That’s what some of the Alabama fans are saying and so are the other Boise haters BUT the university has NEVER put that out as a fact; only that they were never contacted.

  22. Deb says: Nov 15, 2010 11:51 PM

    @diamondduq ….

    AMEN!!!! It is RIDICULOUS to come on these boards DAILY and RANT about the SEC being bigots. Ridiculous and infantile, considering that we’re discussing football. The SEC doesn’t control the BCS system. If you don’t like it, write them. We can’t change it. As diamondduq says the vast majority of CFT posters support a playoff system, so no one is arguing against having a more equitable arrangement in place. But we are arguing against giving teams that have not played difficult schedules a birthright into the championship game just because they skated into an undefeated season. You don’t want special treatment for Alabama, Florida and LSU? Well, I don’t want special treatment for Boise.

    @matttaylor4596 …

    I don’t know where you were when this was happening, but Boise was making BIG NOISE a couple of months ago about how they’d play any team, anytime, anywhere, yada, yada. They just weren’t bothering to call any big teams to try and set up a play date. Apparently it never occurred to them that when you are the challenger, you need to make the call. The Big Boys aren’t going to come to you.

    @bender4700 …

    That ESPN stuff you’re spouting is ridiculous. ESPN doesn’t set the schedules. ESPN doesn’t award the championship. No, Alabama isn’t a top 10 team with two losses–and it’s not ranked in the top 10.

  23. edgy says: Nov 15, 2010 11:59 PM

    diamondduq says:

    *************

    What’s a joke is that guys like you just don[t get it. These teams were more than willing to pay Boise money to leave Idaho when they made the jump from I-AA but once they started winning, they suddenly didn’t have room on their schedule or Boise was “asking for too much money.”

    Let’s not forget (and I won’t let you) that Boise approached Nebraska FIRST to fill the hole in the schedule that they both had in 2011 and Nebraska turned their noses up, even before any money was discussed and the only reason why Nebraska got back to them with THEIR offer was because Nebraska’s AD had to tap dance in front of Congress last year about the issue.

    I bet that you said that about a 1-loss SEC team before Utah beat Alabama, right?

    BTW, I enjoyed the game, especially because of the hard hitting defense and that fake punt that led to the winning score. I found it much more entertaining than Iowa (yawn) vs Georgia Tech (double yawn).

  24. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 12:10 AM

    Deb says:

    AMEN!!!! It is RIDICULOUS to come on these
    *************************

    Deb, Deb, Deb. You obviously can’t read because I’m NOT picking on the SEC Bigots, I’m picking on ALL the Bigots from all the BCS conferences east of the Rockies. I could give a rat’s ass whether they’re in the SEC or the Big-10 because it’s hilarious to watch to watch you guys get arrogant on each other (Like the time that the Big-10 guys were going after the SEC and their educational “standards”) and then turn all arr0gant against the West.

    Really, it’s hilarious that this is the ONLY conversation that unites the bigots. A couple of months from now, the Big 10 bigots will be back to saying what a bunch of hillbillies they have in the SEC.

  25. frank booth says: Nov 16, 2010 12:33 AM

    If Boise is starving so badly to play some big name teams, why don’t they offer up some money?

  26. frug says: Nov 16, 2010 1:51 AM

    @frank booth

    Because they literally can not afford to. According to the NCAA, for the 2008-2009 season Boise States’ total athletic expenditures amounted to $30.2 million dollars. For comparison, Alabama spent about $90.9 million, or more than triple what BSU did. In order for Boise to give up a home game it has to be promised either a large guarantee or a return visit from their opponents or it won’t be able to pay it’s bills. The same is not true for ‘Bama and other big names.

    (Numbers courtesy of the USA Today database)

  27. Walk says: Nov 16, 2010 2:24 AM

    In reference to the link for the alabama calling boise for a game i dont have a link available, i will see if i can find it. It ran on cft i believe about a month back.

  28. Walk says: Nov 16, 2010 2:28 AM

    Found it. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/24/alabama-ad-no-call-from-boise/

  29. allmaddenjack says: Nov 16, 2010 2:28 AM

    It’s birthright and you know it. War Eagle!

  30. rlr79 says: Nov 16, 2010 3:33 AM

    First off let me say that Boise State or TCU deserve a shot first, but even if we were to go to a one-loss team why would we go for a barely pull a win out of our ass LSU. If we chose a one-loss team it should be a Wisconsin, or Stanford because thier only losses came from tuff opponents, and they have for the most part crushed their compotition. Les Miles is an asshat. And the SEC is to over-rated.

  31. jrock28 says: Nov 16, 2010 6:23 AM

    Boise absolutely deserves a shot! Strength of schedule is all the excuse these “AQ” schools need to hide behind the fact that they are not near as dominant as Boise State. Which other school in the country has a better record over the last 3 years? Let’s not forget, this “high powered” offense and highest ranked team in the country, Oregon, is the same team that Boise State beat the last 2 years in a row. The other team being mentioned for a title shot, TCU, is the same team Boise State beat in the Fiesta Bowl last year. SEC teams, I don’t blame you, I wouldn’t take the chance of playing Boise State either I mean, what if you were actually exposed. Alas, until this financially corrupt system known as the BS, er BCS sorry, is revamped there is nothing we can do about it.

  32. wvugrad00 says: Nov 16, 2010 6:38 AM

    screw that, if you have a loss and there is an undefeated team ahead of you then too f’ing bad. This is the system the schools AD’s and chancellor’s created deal with it until a real playoff is instituted.

    I am so tired of these SEC schools trying to change the BCS rules after the fact because they are the “toughest” conference, which is BS anyway. One side of the SEC is good, the SEC overall is not that good

  33. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 6:59 AM

    @jrock28, wvugrad00, rlr79, edgy, matttaylor4596

    I’ll tell you what, despite the fact that a school has never lost a game, puts up 1000 yards of offense, shuts out their opponents week end and week out, guess what if they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game.

    If they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game

    If they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game

    If they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game

    If they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game

    If they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game

    If they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game

    If they are a non-BCS school, then they don’t deserve to play in the BCS National Championship Game

    I don’t care what they accomplished on the field, that point is moot; however what is not is the fact that they are a non BCS school. Therefore they shouldn’t play for the BCS Championship game. If two teams that play for the BCS title have two losses I don’t care, as long as they are the best two teams in the BCS. Guess what ALL

    Boise and TCU are non BCS game, so they don’t deserve, what they’ve accomplished on the field is cool, but it doesn’t matter.

  34. seanmmartin says: Nov 16, 2010 7:09 AM

    I usually don’t come back in here to talk, but I am having a hard time reading some of the stuff in here.

    If you don’t think Boise State is worthy of at least playing in the national championship, then I truthfully do not believe you have a good grasp on college football.

    Having said that, do I think Boise State will reach the title game? Not unless Oregon loses to Arizona and/or Oregon State, and/or Auburn loses to Alabama and/or South Carolina.

    TCU will not lose to New Mexico and will finish its year unbeaten. I think Boise State will jump TCU in the BCS over the next few weeks with wins over Fresno State and Nevada on national television. Its up to the top two BCS schools.

  35. Joseph says: Nov 16, 2010 7:22 AM

    Did I hear somebody say “playoff?”

  36. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 8:21 AM

    @seanmartin,

    If you don’t think Boise State is worthy of at least playing in the national championship, then I truthfully do not believe you have a good grasp on college football.

    Well if you think a Non-BCS school belongs in the BCS national championship, then you don’t have a grasp on college football.

    Who care why they are non BCS, the FACT is that they aren’t, and based on that FACT they shouldn’t be given a chance. That’s why the BCS title needs to disappear. Are Boise and TCU the best two teams in college football? Some argue yes some argue no. I used to try and argue the fact, but now my point is solely based on FACT not opinion. And the FACT remains; they are a Non-BCS school so by that single entity, they don’t deserve to play in BCS bowls nor the National Championship. Now argue that they are a BCS school and we’ll relook the “grasp on college football” statement.

  37. tjammin says: Nov 16, 2010 9:01 AM

    I don’t usually post on these types of discussion because there are no real correct answers when deciding who among undefeated teams should play for a mythical national championship. But, it seems to me everyone is overreacting to Miles’ comment. Look, he’s on the campaign trail. He’s playing politics, supporting his team’s case in the popularity contest that is the BCS. That’s it, and in that sense, he’s doing his job as a coach. The job of a D1 college coach today is, in part, to angle your team in the national discourse to look the most beautiful. As long as the way the “national champion” is decided rivals that of how Miss America is decided, it will be the coaches job to do whatever it takes to sell his program in this beauty contest. Ohio State, for example, is already trying to sway national discussion to leap-frog Wisconsin by saying “all the breaks went Wisconsin’s way”, and, “we know we’re a better team” etc, etc, because if they get one step ahead, they’ll be in the Rose bowl despite being on the losing end of that beat-down.

    Bottom line is this: its up to us as fans to not accept this. If we turn off our TVs to BCS games, they’ll have a tournament. As long as we don’t, they won’t. Money talks. Do we, as fans, have the discipline to boycott the BCS popularity contest?

    Finally, if non-AQ schools are disqualified out-of-hand from a “national championship” put those conferences back in the championship subdivision (D2). I’ve never heard of system where teams are automatically disqualified from a championship in any sport before; at least put them in a division where they’re allowed to compete.

  38. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 9:39 AM

    So, this link, from CFT, is supposed to be proof that Alabama called Boise and Boise refused their offer?

    1. READ the article. The person at NBC sports totally misconstrues what’s being said.

    2. READ the article on ESPN, that the CFT article references.

    In both instances, NO ONE from Alabama said that they called Boise and Boise refused their offer. What it says is exactly what I said, which is that the Alabama AD said that he had gotten no call from Boise State. No offer to or from Boise so no offer to be refused.

    As for the so-called demand for $1.8 million for one game in Lincoln, no one at Nebraska, either on or off the record, has ever proffered that amount. It has been said here many times by the anti-Boise people but it has never been articulated by an ACTUAL Cornhusker source.

  39. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 9:58 AM

    gamustangdude says:

    @jrock28, wvugrad00, rlr79, edgy, matttaylor4596

    ************************

    What an “enlightened” view you have. It’s funny but every time that they increase the size of the basketball field, Big Bigots come out of the woodwork and say that they and ONLY they, deserve the new berths. many people believe that the NCAA tournament is a perfect example the the Big Boys are supreme and that the little guys will never win it. The only problem is tat it goes against HISTORY. Texas Western has a title and so does Louisville and Wyoming and Utah and Marquette and UNLV. A lot of other teams that weren’t considered powers (part of a power conference) have also played their way into championship game but came up short. Yes, they came up short but they GOT there (Like last year’s Butler team).

    All these teams wanted was a chance to show what they had and that’s all the TCU and Boise want is a chance. You guys piss on them for not playing a national schedule but your teams won’t step up to the plate and much like UCLA did in basketball, they played the cards that they were dealt and gave the Big Boys the sh*t kicking that they deserved when they finally got a chance to play them.

  40. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 10:07 AM

    @edgy

    Again wasted time on your end, I’m not arguing that little schools don’t belong with big boys. My argument is much simpler, it’s the FACT these schools are non BCS, therefore they don’t belong in the BCS national championship game. My argument is that simple, there’s nothing to read in to, I’m not considering any numbers all that I am considering is the fact the these school are non-AQs/non-BCS whatever you want to call them. And because of being non-AQs non-BCS, they don’t deserve to be in the BCS national championship game. End of Story. (Please don’t look over the keyword here, it’s “BCS,” btw)

  41. seanmmartin says: Nov 16, 2010 10:18 AM

    gamustangdude,

    One FACT you’re overlooking is that the BCS, all eleven conferences and the three Independents all voted to allow non-BCS schools to reach BCS bowl games, which includes the national championship.

  42. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 10:33 AM

    @seanmmartin,

    ok you got me there, but what about this little clause..

    “No more than one such team from the non-BCS leagues can receive an automatic berth in one season.”

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3119690

    So even if both TCU and Boise finish 1 and 2, only one of them can play for the championship. the other will play in the “who gives a crap” bowl. Got to love college football!!

  43. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 10:37 AM

    gamustangdude says:

    @edgy

    **********************

    You can dress up a pig and call it Martha but it would still be a pig. Just because the BCS boys call themselves BCS doesn’t mean that they invalidate the rest of I-A or even I-AA. The BCS teams have tried to squeeze everyone out since the 1970s and they were successful for a time but now, they’ve been unable to stem the tide even though they keep trying to raise the I-A qualifications to force teams out of I-A (One of their proposals a few years ago would have ended up sending most of the MAC to I-AA). The reason for this is that as I-AA schools, they could only offer 63 scholarships and the more schools that they send to I-AA, the more athletes that they hope will choose to take their offers and build their depth charts.

    The BCS doesn’t want to invite the little guys to their party but they’re more than welcome to allow them to serve as their home fodder for a few hundred k. If they finally squeeze these guys out of I-A and there are only BCS teams, do you think that they’d only play against each other or is it more likely that they’d continue to schedule these same schools while they’re counting their wins rather than playing against each other?

  44. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 10:45 AM

    gamustangdude says:

    @seanmmartin,
    *******************

    Man, you really don’t know anything, do you? The top two teams are given automatic berths in the BCS National Championship Game.

  45. dkhhuey says: Nov 16, 2010 10:46 AM

    Yes, we all know the SEC is the center of the universe in every facet of every sport – yawn. Les Miles needs to unloosen his hat and shut the f@#$ up and coach football. Once you lose a game, you lose the ability to dictate anything. Ohio State could have / should have been in the title hunt this year but they showed up and sucked ass in Wisconsin and lost any seat at the title table, however, the difference being you don’t hear Tressel whining about it.

  46. diamondduq says: Nov 16, 2010 11:12 AM

    @Edgy, gotta love your “historic” references to irrelevant games. Utah over Bama? Really? A game by all admissions Bama didn’t even want to be in. Their season ended the moment they lost to Florida in the SEC Championship. After that they were playing for nothing while Utah was playing for everything. I could just as easily reference Hawaii and Georgia the year before, and Georgia had 2 losses!

  47. diamondduq says: Nov 16, 2010 11:32 AM

    @gamustangdude

    “No more than one such team from the non-BCS leagues can receive an automatic berth in one season.”

    1 and 2 still play eachother no matter what. And an automatic bid isn’t the same as an at large bid. Even if neither TCU nor Boise St. were playing in the National Championship, they could both go to a BCS game even though only 1 would be guaranteed of it. If you recall they played eachother just last year in, by all measurements, a clunker. That’s why it’s not likely the 2nd of those teams would be invited to a BCS game. The BCS doesn’t have to invite them and a school from a BCS conference would draw more fans and higher ratings. The only game that got lower tv ratings and lower attendance of last year’s BCS bowl games was Iowa and Georgia Tech and that’s because the Orange Bowl was obligated to take those teams, not to mention they were 2 lousy teams, not 2 undefeated teams. Look at the history. First non-BCS team in a BCS Bowl yielded the lowest TV ratings by over 2 and lowest attendance. The second occurence, had the 2nd lowest rating (to Louisville vs Wake Forest, give me a break) and lowest attendance. Third occurence, lowest rating. And we’ve already heard about that disaster last year.

  48. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 12:05 PM

    Damn, there goes my wishful thinking. Well if Boise and TCU play in the National Title Game, I’m watching soccer that day, or better yet Curling.

  49. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 12:23 PM

    It almost looks that if Oregan and Aurburn loses, LSU might jump Bosie in the BCS Rankings. Does that mean they should play for the title? I don’t know. But based on the computer rankings alone, (that’s if i’m reading them right) LSU is tied for number 3 and Boise is ranked number 6 (tied with Ok State). So if Oregan and Aurbun loses, it’s likley The human polls will have LSU at number 3 and the Computers might have them at number 2. While Boise might be either 1 or 2 in the human polls and number 4 in the computers (TCU, LSU, Stanford then Boise). Bottom line if Oregon and Aurburn loses, and Bosie is not number 1 in the human polls (or stanford loses), looks like they might get jumped by LSU.

  50. frank booth says: Nov 16, 2010 12:23 PM

    Edgy-

    The NCAA basketball tourney is a different animal. First, it’s a playoff system, unlike the BCS.

    Louisville was a powerhouse progam for years as was UNLV, even though they got their players under questionable circumstances. Smaller schools have always been a factor throughout the tournaments history.
    And you forgot small schools like Loyola, LaSalle, CCNY, USF, and Holy Cross in terms of National Championships.

    But since UNLV won in 1990, it’s been nothing but the perennial powerhouses winning championships.

    Juxtaposing college hoops and NCAA football just doesn’t work at all.

  51. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 12:38 PM

    diamondduq says:

    @Edgy, gotta love your “historic”
    *****************

    That’s it, make up excuses like people have been making up phony offers. Yes, Alabama was disappointed to be getting to enrich the SEC’s take in the bowls. Right. I’ll buy that….

  52. cwbyanth says: Nov 16, 2010 12:40 PM

    Automatic Qualification
    1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game.

    2. The champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, and Southeastern conferences will have automatic berths in one of the participating bowls through the 2013 regular season.

    3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

    •A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
    •B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

    This is taken form the BCS rules. Please notice that doesn’t say “BCS conference” when it talks about the championship game, it only refers to #1 and #2 in the BCS standings. If BSU or TCU is one of those, the let them play. I would guess that most people think the worst thing to happen out of that would be a blowout, but that could also be the best. I’m willing to bet about 95% of the people that post on here want some sort of playoff, and maybe that is what we need to get it. Anyone here willing to put up with a blowout to have a playoff?

  53. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 12:58 PM

    A wish there was a playoff system i really do, then we really get to see how good these “BC Busters / Small schools” are. Anyone could win one game, but Unlike Basketball, where you can’t compare the physicality of the game to Football, the small school won’t survive. A BSU or TCU might win in the first round or two, but eventually the toll of playing a run of “Big Boys” will take it’s toll. The “Big Boys” are more conditioned for it because of the physicality of SEC play (almost every game is a rivalry), or a BIG 12 play, PAC-10 Play, or the Big 10 play. Playing in the MWC or WAC is not the same as the BCS conferences (minus Big east and ACC this year). So playoff please so we can finally shut up the little guy.

    (Edgy if you use another basketball reference in a freaking College Football Post, we are taking away you computer)

  54. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 1:00 PM

    damn i wrote “toll” twice in the same sentence. Someone please proff read my work before i click submit, wait, who the hell cares…?

  55. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 1:10 PM

    frank booth says:

    Edgy-

    The NCAA basketball tourney is a different animal. First, it’s a playoff system, unlike the BCS.

    *******************

    Baloney, it’s the same thing. The very same Big Bigots are demanding that the non-“BCS” conferences of the NCAA be given fewer and fewer spots and when that doesn’t happen, they push for more spots but they want them for themselves. They REFUSE to play the mid-majors and even have ESPN as a willing partner to screw them over when they play the BCS Buster to give them ammo to point at before tournament time.

    Put a football playoff in place and what have you got? AT the very least, 8 spots with 6 of them guaranteed for BCS champions and one non-AQ, *IF* and ONLY *IF* they’re rated high enough and the very real possibility that if ND rates high enough that they also steal the spot from the non-AQ. This is no different from what they’re doing now, except they’ve dressed it up and called it a playoff. You’re too blind to that fact to understand that no matter what system we have, the Big Bigots will attempt to turn them away.

    Oh, and Louisville was NOT one of those big programs. The Ville was part of the Missouri Valley Conference when Crum took over and they didn’t get an automatic bid and the conference champion usually ended up in the NIT. A few years later, they moved to the Metro (Quick, anyone remember, how many automatic bids that the Metro got — give you a hint – it starts with a z). Denny built them into a power but they weren’t a “power” by Eastern standards.

    UNLV, yeah, Tarkanian built them into a power but again, they WEREN’T a “power” as far as the Eastern establishment were concerned. They were more known for their scandals than anything and the East NEVER let them forget that. Unlike a “power” team, UNLV can’t put up a 20-10 season and expect an invite to the Ball.

    BTW, never mind the fact that I mentioned runners up, right. Given the CHANCE, these teams prove their worthiness or lack thereof but that’s the problem, it’s the Big Bigots that won’t give them the chance. The expanded NCAA field has always been about getting more “BCS” schools into the tournament and it just galls them when the NCAA gives another automatic bid to a non-BCS conference (Which is why there are only 30 automatic bids when they could easily have 34 for the first round and the Big Boys never play in while the so-called unworthy CONFERENCE champions from what has been historically black conferences have to).

  56. diamondduq says: Nov 16, 2010 1:10 PM

    @Edgy, are you kidding me? You honestly think any Alabama players gave a sh*t about “getting to enrich the SEC’s take in the bowls”? Hell no! They went from a chance at playing Oklahoma for the National Championship to playing some BS team from a nothing conference for, well, nothing. Funny how you also neglect to comment on Hawaii getting their doors blown off by a 10-2 Georgia team that didn’t even win the SEC. You’re a complete joke. Go take some Geritol and change your Depends. All you do is make irrelevant comparisons from selected occurences in the past in a feeble attempt to support your completely non-sensical arguments about a current without any actual reference to the actual situation at hand.

  57. diamondduq says: Nov 16, 2010 1:14 PM

    “about a current” *situation “without”

  58. Walk says: Nov 16, 2010 1:15 PM

    Lol edgy that was hilarious. You are without a doubt the biggest troll on here and much loved by me too. Not only did you manage to compare football and basketball but you tossed in the race card as well.

  59. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 1:21 PM

    diamondduq says:

    @Edgy, are you kidding me? You honestly think any

    **********************

    You are a FOOL. Seriously, what was Florida’s excuse then genius? They had a chance to roll over and die as you characterize it and they kicked the crap out of Cincinnati. Do you just sit there at home like a monkey and just hit keys until you finally type out what you believe to be a coherent sentence? Really, that’s the biggest bunch of horse sh*t that anyone’s ever tried to use against the BCS Buster. Here’s a banana, Clyde – go back to your keyboard and try to type something intelligent next time.

  60. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 1:31 PM

    Walk says: Nov 16, 2010 1:15 PM

    Lol edgy that was hilarious. You are without a doubt the biggest troll on here and much loved by me too

    ******************

    Buckwheat, I’m only saying what a lot of other people are saying. Why don’t you go back and look at those teams and tell me that they’re NOT from historically black conferences.

    If you’d actually read and COMPREHEND what I’m talking about, you’d understand that I’m right. Do you believe that the NCAA classifications and the rules that define them are made by teams like Boise? The answer is NO. The Big Schools have always been trying to screw the small schools and year after year, they try to throw barriers in the way of the teams that aren’t their kind AND if they have their way, they’re going to start throwing out the trash of their conferences. If they could get down to 30 teams, they’d do it in a heartbeat because it would be more for them. You may not notice it now but hang around long enough and you’ll get the Big Bigots up North talking about the hicks and their SEC “lack of” education in the South. The only thing that unites them is when they pick on the WAC and MWC but they sure as hell hate each other on any other day. I hope that you don’t follow one of the middle to bottom schools in a Big Bigot conference because one day, you’re going to regret what they’ve got in store for them.

  61. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 1:40 PM

    I’m conviced, i figured out who edgy is?
    He’s actually Mel Gibson in character as Jerry Flecther.

  62. mrcowpatty says: Nov 16, 2010 1:43 PM

    I think Boise State and TCU should play for the National Championship. The game should be played in Boise. Start time about 8:00 MST. It might be a bit cold but who cares as long as they play, then they can shut the F up!

  63. Deb says: Nov 16, 2010 2:01 PM

    @edge …

    Touché … but surely you know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So though I have no bigger football enemy than Auburn, I can agree with allmaddenjack that, even with a loss, Auburn has earned a spot in the National Championship game over Lenny and Squiggy by virtue of playing a more difficult schedule. And I’d say the same about a one-loss Ohio State despite my previous battles with BrownsTown about the intelligence of Southerners (which, by the way, is bigotry because it involves negative stereotyping of people by region; you should find a more applicable, less melodramatic word to describe a football issue that annoys you).

    Rather than being so condescending (now there’s a word that more accurately describes how the established conferences react to upstarts) to fans of major conferences, why don’t you try seeing it from our perspective? Our teams play more difficult schedules. Boise mouths off about being willing to play anyone, anytime, anywhere instead of quietly calling ADs to set up real games. Why should our established teams bend over backward to accommodate a loudmouth wannabe when there’s nothing in it for us? (Ever see Rocky III?) Not like such a game would be a big ratings grabber.

    You can carry on ad nauseum about the BIG BANG THEORY of that Utah game, but all it means is that the 08 Utah team outplayed the 08 Bama team on that day. And for Bama, that day was the Pro Bowl after a Super Bowl defeat … a Pro Bowl in which Nick sat a key player.

    But why argue? Let’s get a playoff system and see how far Boise progresses through the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc. Suits me.

    @mrcowpatty …

    Boise v. TCU in the National Championship. Woo-hoo … that will be the lowest-rated championship in NCAA history. When they’re done, let’s let the winner play Alabama, LSU, then Auburn. Now those games I’d tune in to see. :)

  64. frank booth says: Nov 16, 2010 2:28 PM

    edgy says:
    Nov 16, 2010 1:10 PM
    frank booth says:

    Edgy-

    The NCAA basketball tourney is a different animal. First, it’s a playoff system, unlike the BCS.

    *******************

    Baloney, it’s the same thing….
    ===================================
    Edgy, you’re so wrong here. Mid-majors and big programs play each other on a regular basis during the season. Duke alone plays Gonzaga, Butler, and UAB this season, in addition to a grueling schedule against “power” teams. Mid-majors have an opportunity to prove themselves during the regular season.

    I don’t feel like going on. Arguing with a narcissist is a no-win situation.

    By the way, how tall are you?

  65. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 2:42 PM

    Deb says: Nov 16, 2010 2:01 PM

    @edge …

    *****************

    Deb, you do understand that I’m NOT a fan of Boise or TCU and that if you want to get into the whole scheduling thing then might I suggest you understand that from Boise’s point of view, what leg does some of these teams have to stand on?

    People suggest that Boise is avoiding playing teams like Nebraska and Alabama but the fact is the Boise called Nebraska FIRST and they told the Broncos to go to hell and they’ve never approached Alabama. Boise wants a home and home and oh, BTW, Michigan State and Virginia Tech have complied and to the tune of $1.2 million, which both will have recouped with the extra TV money that they will be getting (Tech canceled a home and home series against Syracuse, a much easier opponent then and NOW, to play Boise). Nebraska won’t pay $1 million or even $900k for a one off but Ole Miss will.

    When the teams back East can make trips out West or make it worth their while then you have a leg to stand on but while I’m going to give you that Alabama plays some tough teams AT the top, let’s not forget that they also play more than their share of laughable games IN the SEC and I’m not exactly sure where Duke and Georgia STATE fall in the pecking order but I don’t think that they scream top notch BCS competition.

  66. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 2:59 PM

    Wow, you name ONE team and suddenly, everyone is to believe that the mid-majors are getting loving from the Big Boys? What’s next, Villanova didn’t really beat Georgetown? Most of the Big Boys back East avoid a lot of the mid-majors, especially those out West. It’s why teams like BYU and Northern Iowa have to win their conferences because if you look at their “Top 25″ or “Top 50″ records, they’ve played almost no one because they can’t get anyone to play them. Mid-majors just like non-AQ in football present two problems: the major is EXPECTED to win and win BIG and if they don’t then the pollsters and their fans take them to task. You can talk the talk all day but until the Big Boys walk the walk and play more games against the mid-majors then they need to shut up as well about how those teams aren’t as worthy.

  67. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 3:04 PM

    I find it comical that you laugh at Alabama’s SEC play and at the same time fight for a Boise state football team that hasn’t proven jack shit this year. Unless you want to call beaten VT accomplishing something, but you can give James Madison that honor as well. I know, maybe it was the Oregon State win, but didn’t they lose to a 2-9 Washington State?
    Senile old people shouldn’t be allowed to type and think at the same time

  68. frank booth says: Nov 16, 2010 3:05 PM

    Edgy- in regards to your comments about Alabama’s schedule, EVERY team in the country has patsy’s on their schedule. Sure, Alabama plays Georgia State, plus the following 6 teams that are ranked or have been ranked at some point: Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, LSU, Mississippi State, and Auburn. Then, if they get through that, there is always the SEC championship.

  69. frank booth says: Nov 16, 2010 3:46 PM

    edgy says:
    Nov 16, 2010 2:59 PM
    Wow, you name ONE team and suddenly, everyone is to believe that the mid-majors are getting loving from the Big Boys? What’s next, Villanova didn’t really beat Georgetown? Most of the Big Boys back East avoid a lot of the mid-majors, especially those out West. It’s why teams like BYU and Northern Iowa have to win their conferences because if you look at their “Top 25″ or “Top 50″ records, they’ve played almost no one because they can’t get anyone to play them. Mid-majors just like non-AQ in football present two problems: the major is EXPECTED to win and win BIG and if they don’t then the pollsters and their fans take them to task. You can talk the talk all day but until the Big Boys walk the walk and play more games against the mid-majors then they need to shut up as well about how those teams aren’t as worthy.
    ===================================
    I named one team because I don’t have the time to go through the Top 25 and name every mid-major that they play, but if you take a look, there are plenty of them on the schedules.

    On the schedule for Northern Iowa this year:
    Syracuse, Iowa State, TCU, Iowa, Indiana, and New Mexico.

  70. frank booth says: Nov 16, 2010 4:30 PM

    Edgy- here’s a couple of others:

    Xavier plays Iowa, Florida, Cincinnati, plus Gonzaga and Butler in non-conference.

    Butler plays Duke, Louisville, Stanford, and Utah

    Gonzaga- K-State, Duke or Marquette, Illinois, Washington State, Notre Dame, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Wake Forest, Memphis

    Temple- Seton Hall, California, Maryland, Georgetown, Villanova

  71. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 5:52 PM

    frank booth says:
    Edgy- in regards to your comments about Alabama’s schedule, EVERY team in the country has patsy’s on their schedule.

    *

    First of all, I’m not making a negative comment about their schedule but that it’s silly to talk as if every team in the BCS plays a quality IN-CONFERENCE schedule from top to bottom.

    While I’m sure that you hate the term Big Bigot, what makes me laugh is the term “ranked.” Seriously, you talk about Alabama’s 6 ranked teams BUT two of them are no longer ranked and may never get back to being ranked. Of the 25 teams that started the season ranked, 9 of them are no longer among them while several others have been in and out of the rankings.

    Rank, as you and I know it is the silliest thing to use when it comes to judging teams and their opponents. At one time, Michigan was right up there in the rankings but don’t you think that it’s silly to say that a team can list their game against Michigan as a quality game one way or the other simply because they beat up on a bunch of bad teams to get to being ranked? As I’ve said over and over, rankings before they’ve played close to half of the schedule is stupid. The first 4 games are usually the out of conference games and then you’ve got some of the weakest in conference match ups for the first couple of weeks of conference play, after that.

    I won’t talk ranking because the biases of the rankings make it impossible for anyone outside of the BCS to get a fair shake. The coaches, for example, are distributed, by conference, fairly equal as they represent non-BCS vs BCS. The problem is that the guys that are supposedly casting the votes are unequally distributed because many of the coaches are BCS coaches because of their current position and/or former BCS head coaches or assistants at non-BCS schools and it shows when they vote. San Diego State, for example, would have easily been in the Top 25 before they played TCU, if they were in the Big East but after they played TCU, instead of rewarding them for playing a close game, the voters not only gigged TCU but they also gave the Aztecs less than half of the votes that they had the week before (Oregon barely got by an unranked Cal team, that was beaten senseless by USC, Oregon State and Nevada and yet, they were only gigged 6 points while TCU lost 22). Don’t talk to me about rankings.

  72. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 5:53 PM

    gamustangdude says:

    *******************
    Are you talking to me? Can’t you read? I didn’t laugh at all at Alabama’s schedule. What I laugh at is the way that people act as if SEC teams play quality from top to bottom. The fact is that they’re going to play 3 or 4 very good teams, a couple of eh teams and 2 trash and that’s just IN CONFERENCE. Add to that the silly teams like Georgia State. Oh and if you haven’t been paying attention, and you haven’t, I’ve been trashing Oregon for Portland State and New Mexico.

  73. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 5:55 PM

    Frank, seriously, you mention a mid-major and then named two mid-majors, New Mexico and TCU as one of their opponents. Really, do you even know what a mid-major is? Ok, New Mexico was 30-5 but TCU was 13-19.

    As for the rest, most of the mid-majors don’t get TOP NOTCH match ups and that’s why they end up getting gigged. A mid-major MUST win his conference OR win 28 or more games (and even that isn’t usually enough) just to make the bubble. Most of these teams don’t get top competition in order to gain entry into the tournament. FYI, genius, Iowa was 10-22 and Indiana was 10-21, Iowa State was 15-17, Other than 30-5 Syracuse, what do you think that list of teams means to Northern Iowa’s SOS? Northern Iowa is going to have the same kind of schedule that will require that they win their conference or else risk MAYBE getting into the NIT.

    Frankly, Temple is NOT in the same class as the guys out West and if you supposedly know something about basketball then you should know that. I can go around and look up NAMES and try to put NAMES to the list of opponents but why don’t you actually look up the teams before you spit out names.

  74. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 6:09 PM

    @edgy

    but at the same time you fight for Boise State and TCU and don’t even mention thier schedules. Comical.

    Trash teams, you might get away with Vandy or Ole Miss, Alabama didn’t play Vandy so you’re not talking about them. Tennessee, lost to the number one team in the country, and other SEC teams, that’s it.

    and your “Ehh” teams are ranked in the top 25, so if that’s “ehh”, then what’s not “ehh?”

    Comical.

  75. edgy says: Nov 16, 2010 8:04 PM

    gamustangdude says:

    @edgy

    but at the same time you fight for Boise State and TCU and don’t even mention thier schedules. Comical.

    ******************

    I don’t have to mention their schedule, Clyde (Here’s another banana) because — wait for it — you do every damn day. Hilarious, gay monkey boy.

    Again, RANKED means NOTHING. Christ, 9 of the preseason Top 25 are — gasp — NO LONGER IN THE TOP 25.

  76. gamustangdude says: Nov 16, 2010 8:19 PM

    ok so being in the top 30 or evan 40 in the country means nothing. Roger, if that’s your logic no wonder why most people call bull shit on half of the crap you mention. On the upside, you got name calling down to a personal forte.

    The point is you can point out “gimmie” games in everyones schedule. After a couple of games in the SEC/BIg 12/BIG 10 etc, you need em. However with Boise and TCU it starts at week one, and doesn’t end until Early December.

    You are garbage Edgy

  77. Deb says: Nov 16, 2010 10:01 PM

    @edge …

    Hate when you waste my time.

    Never said you were a Boise fan. Understand you’re arguing a principle that has nothing to do with personal fanship.

    Never mentioned Nebraska.

    Never said Boise contacted Alabama. Mal Moore specifically said Boise never called Alabama. That’s my point. If they want a seat at the table, then it’s their role to call ask, not the other way ’round. Mal Moore and Nick Saban are not calling Boise. And I’d want to slap the fire out of them if they did. If you want to call that bigoted, fine. But the top schools don’t need to be crawling to freakin’ Boise. Screw that!

    Let them pick up a phone and politely ask about setting up a game with Alabama. Of all the SEC schools, Saban’s the one most likely to work something out with them. And if the big YAPPER out there who was declaring anyone, anytime, anywhere meant a word of it, he’d have picked up the phone and called the National Champs.

    I’m tired of hearing how Boise tried to set up a game with Nebraska that fell through and somehow that’s supposed to mean every school in the known universe is afraid to play them. Puhleeze.

    Like I said, let’s have playoffs. Then they can win a seat at the table and go through the tournament. We’ll see how they do then. As for Alabama’s schedule, the SEC is tough enough by itself. But gee, it sure was swell of Slive and co. to set us up with SIX conference opponents coming off their bye weeks–including Auburn in the Iron Bowl. My how … equitable.

  78. wakiash says: Nov 17, 2010 8:37 AM

    Miles really needs to learn to keep his mouth shut. He is such an indescribable piece of lying *&^%!

  79. frank booth says: Nov 17, 2010 11:13 AM

    edgy says:
    Nov 16, 2010 5:52 PM
    frank booth says:
    Edgy- in regards to your comments about Alabama’s schedule, EVERY team in the country has patsy’s on their schedule.

    *

    First of all, I’m not making a negative comment about their schedule but that it’s silly to talk as if every team in the BCS plays a quality IN-CONFERENCE schedule from top to bottom.

    While I’m sure that you hate the term Big Bigot, what makes me laugh is the term “ranked.” Seriously, you talk about Alabama’s 6 ranked teams BUT two of them are no longer ranked and may never get back to being ranked. Of the 25 teams that started the season ranked, 9 of them are no longer among them while several others have been in and out of the rankings.

    Rank, as you and I know it is the silliest thing to use when it comes to judging teams and their opponents. At one time, Michigan was right up there in the rankings but don’t you think that it’s silly to say that a team can list their game against Michigan as a quality game one way or the other simply because they beat up on a bunch of bad teams to get to being ranked? As I’ve said over and over, rankings before they’ve played close to half of the schedule is stupid. The first 4 games are usually the out of conference games and then you’ve got some of the weakest in conference match ups for the first couple of weeks of conference play, after that.

    I won’t talk ranking because the biases of the rankings make it impossible for anyone outside of the BCS to get a fair shake. The coaches, for example, are distributed, by conference, fairly equal as they represent non-BCS vs BCS. The problem is that the guys that are supposedly casting the votes are unequally distributed because many of the coaches are BCS coaches because of their current position and/or former BCS head coaches or assistants at non-BCS schools and it shows when they vote. San Diego State, for example, would have easily been in the Top 25 before they played TCU, if they were in the Big East but after they played TCU, instead of rewarding them for playing a close game, the voters not only gigged TCU but they also gave the Aztecs less than half of the votes that they had the week before (Oregon barely got by an unranked Cal team, that was beaten senseless by USC, Oregon State and Nevada and yet, they were only gigged 6 points while TCU lost 22). Don’t talk to me about rankings.
    ===================================
    Edgy- you are a master of convenience. You’ll point out Northern Iowa as a bad example of a mid-major playing big programs, but you ignore Xavier, Butler, and Gonzaga.

    You try to pass off the Nebraska/Boise State fiasco as representative of some bias against Boise State, when there has only been one occurrence.

    And now you say that rankings don’t matter. Oh but wait, they do if over half the schedule is played- and then again, you say they don’t. Which is it?

    Edgy says “Rank, as you and I know, is the silliest thing when it comes to judging teams and their opponents”. What is a better way, Edgy?

    So far, with you, rankings don’t matter, and strength of schedule doesn’t matter. We don’t have a playoff system, so what is the best way?

    Also, the fact that 9 of the preseason Top 25 are no longer in the Top 25 means absolutely nothing, except that things change as the season wears on, and that the most inaccurate rankings are going to be when no one has played a game.

    Edgy, you are a fraud. You argue from the basis of “absence of evidence” and you wait for other people to produce examples without you providing any of your own. Yet, you spend more time than anyone else squawking on CFT. How about some quality over quantity?

  80. edgy says: Nov 17, 2010 12:59 PM

    gamustangdude says:

    ok so being in the top 30 or evan 40 in the country means nothing.

    ****************

    Look, if you sat down and looked at the RANKED teams and started touting them then you’re going to look like an imbecile. Oklahoma beat a RANKED Texas team. Raise your hand if you’re stupid enough to believe that Texas is worthy of being a ranked team. They beat Air Force, a team that wasn’t ranked then but was ranked a few weeks later. They lost to Texas A&M, a team that wasn’t ranked then but is now. They’re going to play Baylor, a team that isn’t ranked now but was recently. Ranked teams is a matter of opportunity and luck. When they played Texas, they were #21 but if they had opened up the season, they would have been #4.

    1. Rankings start from the preseason when no one has a clue as to what a team is going to be like by the end of the season or even the middle of the season. Unless a team at the top loses and keeps falling, they rarely lose their position and they’re hard to vote down later because they get into their conferences and people give them credit for conference play. They also run up the scores against non-conference foes so that they can curry favor with the voters. The Harris Poll waits several weeks but they might as well start as soon as the coaches because they release a nearly identical poll and rarely deviate from the coaches. In fact, they wait until long after the coaches poll is released and they crib from their poll to the point that they might as well not even release a poll themselves.

    2. Because of the make up of the voters in the coaches poll, BCS teams have a huge advantage and BCS teams will move in and out of the edges of the polls and it usually takes 4 losses to keep them out for good while a non-AQ may never see the inside of the Top 25 or even the Top 30 if they have more than 1 loss.

    3. BCS teams that beat other BCS teams, even crappy BCS teams continue to gain points and climb up the polls while non-AQ teams gain very little traction and it takes forever for them to get into the Top 25 and then every a slim win loses them points.

    You’re so entrenched in believing in the rankings and yet, you piss on a non-AQ team when they ARE ranked. You honestly can’t see that the system is stacked against them and that it’s a fraud. What’s funny is that you guys piss on the computers but you scream strength of schedule, which the computers take into account. One of the reasons why I’ve talked about TCU passing Boise was their strength of schedule but I haven’t said that they were the strongest of the top teams (but they’re both no worse than what Oregon has played so far). Oregon will play several teams that could or should be ranked but one of them, USC, is technically NOT ranked by the BCS so if you count them as a ranked team then you’re looking at their schedule on ESPN, which will show teams that are ranked in the BCS or the AP (USC was ranked #24 in the AP when they played Oregon but won’t show up this year in the BCS).

  81. edgy says: Nov 17, 2010 1:00 PM

    Deb says:
    @edge …
    Never mentioned Nebraska.
    *

    You never mentioned Alabama and yet, you seem more than willing to talk about them. If you didn’t mention Nebraska and don’t want to talk about them then don’t talk about Alabama.

    You’re tired. How do you think that the people of Boise feel when they have to listen to people who say that they should be upgrading their schedule and yet, the Big Boys won’t play with them. The only reason why Nebraska got back to them is that their AD had to tap dance in front of Congress. Short of joining a BCS conference, Boise’s not going to get any kind of respect back East. Hell, they played TWO BCS teams this year and that wasn’t good enough so adding a third isn’t going to make it any better. The whole argument is a red herring because the Big Bigots back East will come up with new and creative ways to diss the teams out West.

    Oh and I can’t help but laugh at “our perspective.” The Pac-10 is a BCS conference and yet, they don’t take the same snobbish attitude when it comes to Boise and you know why? It’s because they had to put up with that same crap themselves. It’s funny that people complain about TCU as well but TCU was a “BCS” team and part of a “BCS” conference 8 years before the SEC teams got together and they have 2 national champions and a history that’s as storied as many of their critics. Let’s not forget that it was just 1995 that the SWC disbanded and 4 of their “BCS” teams become part of the great unwashed (Just a little after South Carolina came from out of the cold and stopped being an independent and when the Big East came together to form what would later become a (guffaw) BCS conference).

    I’m all for a playoff but you apparently are under the mistaken impression that this will mean something. As far as THIS argument goes, it won’t mean ANYTHING. I guarantee you that Boise’s schedule would come up when some team gets left out because Boise got a spot and they didn’t.

  82. edgy says: Nov 17, 2010 1:03 PM

    frank booth says:

    Edgy- you are a master of convenience. You’ll point out Northern Iowa as a bad example of a mid-major playing big programs, but you ignore Xavier, Butler, and Gonzaga.

    ********************

    I’m not ignoring them, at all but why let the truth get in the way of your rant. The fact is that the majors don’t make it a habit to play these schools and that’s what hurts them when it comes NCAA time or are you not ever listening to what these guys are talking about when the selection show rolls around? How many times have you heard “Sure, they’re 20-16 but they’re 11- 6 against the Top 25 while (insert mid-major name) is 25- 6 but they’re only 2-0 against the Top 25 (because most teams avoid them). Last year, Butler got to play 7 in the Top 25 while Northern Iowa played 4. Gonzaga played 4, BYU played 1 and Xavier played 8. It’s because these schools don’t get to play as many games that they have to win big because if they don’t win their conference, there’s very little chance that they’re going to get an at-large bid.

    That’s totally bull on Boise. Do you think that Nebraska is the only team that has done this? Other than Alabama, which has only talked about how they haven’t gotten a call from Boise, no other school has come forward and I would guess it’s because they don’t want to look as if they’re ducking the Broncos. They don’t really have to worry too much because they can always go to the Pac-10, which is more than willing to do a home and home against them, as they’ve done for several years. Nebraska and others have tried to use the excuse that Boise wants too much money and yet, teams like Michigan State and Virginia Tech have shown that they’re willing to put up the money because it guarantees that they’re going to be on ABC or ESPN while Nebraska is playing Wyoming on some local Lincoln station.

    Of course, short of joining the Pac-10, there’s really nothing that Boise State can do that will make them worthy in your eyes because if they were to play and beat Alabama, Nebraska and Ohio State on the road, you’d point to the teams that they play in the MWC and we’d hear about how they don’t play the same schedule, week after week. This whole schedule BS is just that. As all of you have proven, there’s nothing that Boise State and TCU can do with their schedule to upgrade it, short of moving to a BCS conference. Of course, if they were smart, they’d move to the Big East or ACC because they’d go to the top of those conferences. The travel would be hell but they’d have the juice then right? Or would you guys finally downgrade those “BCS” conferences just because Boise State and not Cincinnati or Florida State was dominating….

    You just don’t have a clue about ranked teams. I won’t repeat what I wrote so why don’t you look up and read my thoughts about “ranked” teams.

  83. gamustangdude says: Nov 17, 2010 1:54 PM

    @edgy

    It’s very fishy to consider any championship prior to 1936, they was never a really CLEAR CUT winner. Multiple agencies claimed different champions, those “championships” claimed by TCU in 1935 / 1938 can be easily claimed by 5 / 3 other teams respectively.

    And your essay on your version of Ranked teams is another reason why people call BS on crap you mention.

  84. gamustangdude says: Nov 17, 2010 1:55 PM

    there not they THERE!!!!

  85. frank booth says: Nov 17, 2010 2:02 PM

    Edgy-

    Here is a good example of you arguing using an “absence of evidence”:

    That’s totally bull on Boise. Do you think that Nebraska is the only team that has done this? Other than Alabama, which has only talked about how they haven’t gotten a call from Boise, no other school has come forward and I would guess it’s because they don’t want to look as if they’re ducking the Broncos.

    You seem to want others to support their arguments with evidence, but apparently you don’t seem to need to.

    So, what other schools should come forward? What other schools have ditched the Broncos? I don’t want your assumptions- bring me some examples.

    Is it possible that Boise State doesn’t want to play some of these other schools during the regular season. Yes.

    In regards to college basketball, how many games should each of the Top 50 be playing against mid-majors, and which mid-majors should they be playing? Then again, if rankings don’t matter, how do we know what is the Top 25 or Top 50.

    You’ve brought this up, so I’m sure that you have some sort of answer.

    If big teams start focusing on mid-majors and beating them, giving up games against other more highly ranked teams, won’t that ultimately hurt their RPI?

    How many games per year does a mid-major really want to play against large programs?

  86. Deb says: Nov 17, 2010 4:45 PM

    @edge …

    Hope the guy who hit you was adequately fined because that’s a nasty concussion if it has you telling me what topics to address in my posts.

    What’s all this “out west” nonsense. I have tremendous respect for USC … or at least for the John McKay/John Robinson USC, and Bear Bryant was playing SC in the Stone Age. I respect Arizona and Washington. I consider Texas the West and don’t have any problems with the Longhorns, the Aggies, or Oklahoma. So can all the east v. west melodrama … although asking you to stop being melodramatic is like asking a meth addict to stop using.

    I’m always happy to talk about Alabama because that’s my team. Again, if you want a reservation at the nice restaurant, you’d better call the maitre d–because he’s not going to call you. Apparently Boise called one steakhouse, it didn’t work out, so they went home hungry and whined themselves to sleep. So much for anyone, anytime, anywhere.

    We all have our crosses to bear, edge. It was a heckuva sight harder for black players integrating Southern schools, for the white coaches inviting them into those schools, and for Southern coaches trying to gain respect for their schools when they couldn’t integrate fast enough to suit Northern BSers whose high schools still aren’t integrated TODAY. Don’t talk to me about BIGOTS. Don’t talk to me about HARD. Boise’s stubbed toe is child’s play compared to the struggles other football teams have faced in their history and you know it.

    You’re just carrying on about being the conscience of the site because you like to pontificate and love to hold yourself up as the moral authority of a blog site. Right and wrong are incidental, conscience pretty much nonexistent.

  87. confused731 says: Nov 17, 2010 6:49 PM

    I can not believe that an intelligent adult would go solely on won-lose records without considering strength of schedule. Lazy people use won-lose records because it is easier than having to research strength of schedule. This website makes researching strength of schedule very easy.

    Click on ‘www.msnbc.com’, then ‘sports’, then ‘ncaa fb’, then ‘standings’. The right-hand column is ‘vs top 25′. Data is displayed by conference. The SEC is the only conference to consistently play top 25 teams. Oregon, TCU & Boise State have only played 2 top 25 teams each.

    RANK/TEAM/WON-LOSS VS TOP 25
    1 Oregon (10-0) 2-0
    2 Auburn (11-0) 3-0 SEC
    3 TCU (11-0) 2-0
    4 Boise State (9-0) 2-0
    5 LSU (9-1) 4-1 SEC
    6 Stanford (9-1) 1-1
    7 Wisconsin (9-1) 2-1
    8 Nebraska (9-1) 2-0
    9 Ohio State (9-1) 1-1
    10 Oklahoma State (9-1) 1-1
    11 Alabama (8-2) 4-2 SEC
    12 Michigan State (9-1) 2-1
    13 Arkansas (8-2) 1-2 SEC
    14 Oklahoma (8-2) 2-1
    15 Missouri (8-2) 1-1
    16 Virginia Tech (8-2) 1-1
    17 South Carolina (7-3) 3-2 SEC
    18 Nevada (9-1) 0-0
    19 Texas A&M (7-3) 1-2
    20 Iowa (7-3) 2-2
    21 Mississippi State (7-3) 1-3 SEC
    22 Arizona (7-3) 1-1
    23 Utah (8-2) 1-1
    24 Miami (FL) (7-3) 0-2
    25 Florida State (7-3) 1-1

  88. stooker says: Nov 17, 2010 7:19 PM

    I wonder what the reaction of the football world would be if TCU and BSU were both invited to a BCS bowl with one playing an SEC team and the other, let’s say an Ohio State or Nebraska, and god forbid, winning. Fat chance of it happening, but the fallout would be interesting.

  89. Deb says: Nov 17, 2010 8:19 PM

    @stooker …

    confused731 in the post above yours summed up our point quite nicely. But if Boise or TCU managed to beat tough teams in a fair contest, there wouldn’t be any fallout from me. That’s why I advocate a playoff system, so they’ll get their shot at the championship but they’ll have to go through the hard-bitten teams of the SEC, Big 10, etc., to get there. Then they and their ridiculous champion would finally have to put up or shut up and we’d have some peace.

    But as you said, fat chance of that happening. :)

  90. edgy says: Nov 17, 2010 8:28 PM

    gamustangdude says:
    @edgy
    It’s very fishy to consider any championship prior to 1936, they was never a really

    *********

    That’s right, nothing matters except what happened 30 seconds ago, right? Hell, there was multiple recognized champions in the ’60s , ’70s and ’80s. Are you telling me that you think it’s fishy to consider those, as well? Get real.
    And the monkey types another sentence. You know, Frank types out intelligent retorts that I may not agree with but shows a lot more thought than your gobbledy gook and all you have to say is “me no understand crap you type.”

  91. edgy says: Nov 17, 2010 8:29 PM

    frank booth says:
    Edgy-
    *
    Here I defended you and now you come up with a stupid argument. Frank, name me any team other than those two that have come forward to say anything about Boise? Seriously, the ONLY team that said that they put an offer on the table and were rejected was Nebraska while Alabama ONLY said that they had heard from them. Please, in your infinite wisdom tell me which other schools have put any info out there? Do you think that they’re just being nice to Boise or is it more likely that they don’t want to be outed by Boise with proof that they WERE asked and they conveniently never called back? How can I bring up examples when the others are smart emough to kepe their mouth shut once Boise showed that they’d tell everyone about how they had offered but were rebuffed and it took a near act of Congress for Nebraska to come back to the table.

    Is it possible? Really, you’ve now gone full Forest Gump. The fact that they’re taking on Michigan State and Ole Miss and Virginia Tech and Oregon and Oregon State and Georgia and Arkansas and others has shown that they WILL play anyone, anywhere. Really, you think that they’re ducking others when they’ve risked losing to all these others? I mean, they’ve gone out of their way since 1996, when they made the jump to I-A that they’ll play any BCS team and those BCS teams were more than happy to play them until they started beating them.

    Look, when the committee stops using it as a criteria then I could give a rat’s ass if they played any but the fact is that they use it. That doesn’t mean that I think that it’s right. I’m NOT bringing this up as some form of hypocrisy about ranking but the fact that they gig these teams for not playing against Top 25 teams but won’t gig them for being allowed to play against them.

    How many does it take? When they stop gigging them for not playing against majors, zero would be just fine by me.

  92. edgy says: Nov 17, 2010 8:30 PM

    Deb says:
    @edge …

    ************

    Look, the West might as well be in another country for all the respect that they get. BTW, when I’m talking about you, I WILL address YOU by name. You seem to think that if I said something that I’m talking about you when in fact, I’m not. It’s like your belief that I’m talking about James Harrison when I’m not. Really, did I anything DIRECTLY about you dissing the Pac-10? Before you go and step in it, the answer is NO. What I was getting at is that fact that the Pac-10 had to beg teams to come West and they’ve never forgotten that. USC had it better than others because they were in LA but that doesn’t mean that they’ve never felt empathy for the rest of their conference OR the other teams in the area. THEY had to put up with the same bull crap that the East is doling out now about how THEY need to play a better schedule and THEY should be going East and not the other way around. It’s because of this that the Pac-10 has NO problem going to Boise or Provo or Salt Lake City or Fresno or any number of non-AQ cities out West. Call me when Florida makes a trip to a non-AQ, even in their OWN STATE and I’ll back off.

    FYI, if the Stone Ages means that ’70s, you’re right. USC has only played Alabama 7 times: twice in bowls (don’t count), 2 teams before 1946 and 4 times in the ’70s. BTW, it seems that you are under some impression that I’m saying something against Alabama, which I’m not. The only thing I have to laugh at is that you and everyone else want everyone to believe that the BCS conferences play most of their games in conference against the upper crust when it’s not true.

    I’m NOT talking about how HARD Boise’s got it and if you believe that I said that then by God, you need to buy yourself a new set of glasses OR learn how to read. I’m just tired of the BCS Bigots out East whining about teams like Boise and their schedule and how “tough we got it” when they won’t do something about it except bitch and moan and make up phony stories about how Boise is ducking them. The WAC and MWC are up to the standards of the ACC and Big East and when THEY lose their automatic BCS bid then come back and talk to me about how Boise doesn’t deserve to be in the conversation.

  93. Deb says: Nov 17, 2010 11:07 PM

    @edge …

    You’re hysterical.

    You did address me by name. Didn’t really think you were that old, but are you getting senile? And once you addressed me by name, I referred to all your posts carrying on about the Western schools as though Boise is the only school on the Western front. I then brought up USC as an example of a Western school. (L.A. may be LaLa Land, but it is still out west, geographically speaking).

    I was being facetious with the Stone Age comment, but 1946 was a while back. You’re blathering about poor Boise not being taken as seriously as the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12. I’m an Alabama fan, an SEC fan, and a Big 12 grad … and as is my prerogative, I disagree with your take on Boise. As an SEC fan, and in particular, a Bama fan, I tend to use them as examples when making my points. Why is that a problem … since they do make the point?

    When you carry on incessantly that poor Boise is being victimized by BIGOTS, you are strongly implying that poor Boise has it hard. That’s the problem with using over-the-top, melodramatic language, edge: people make inferences even if you don’t say Boise has it “hard.” If you don’t want people to make the inference, don’t make the implication by using over-the-top, melodramatic language.

    It’s idiotic to talk about a school facing bigots when some of the schools you are accusing of being bigoted have faced real bigots … the scary and dangerous kind. Boise simply has its nose out of joint because it threw down a puppydog playground challenge and all the Big Dogs didn’t come running over for a sniff.

  94. gamustangdude says: Nov 18, 2010 8:04 AM

    @edgy

    “Monkey boy” …said the three year old
    I guess that’s your white trash coming out. Soon you’ll be calling me “Boy,” and leaving the Monkey out of it.
    *************
    Edgy Said: That’s right; nothing matters except what happened 30 seconds ago, right? Hell, there was (were) multiple recognized champions in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s.
    **************************

    1. “30 seconds ago” Really? really?
    2. That’s exactly my point, RECOGNIZED champions, before 1936 there was no collective RECOGNIZED Champion, hell if that’s your mentality then I recognized Toledo to be this year’s champion, and Georgia State to be the 1997 National Champion. You’re really not that smart are ya?

    You’re right multiple sources site different National Champions throughout the years. But let’s be honest “mom n pop” magazine’s national champion is not the same as the ummm AP which started polling sports writers to determine a, wait for it…COLLECTIVE national Champion. It wasn’t until the UP in 1950 that actually challenged the AP, and they didn’t “split” until 1954. I could go on but I think I proved my point so up until 1936 there was no COLLECTIVE national champion. It wasn’t until 1936 did major sport writers / coaches started to reach out and COLLECTIVELY determine a national champion. Did they always agree NO, often the Coaches had their champion and the Writers had theirs. Now after you’re done eating out of the trough in front of you, I suggest you at least try to make a little common sence in your chatter, just give it an honest effort.

  95. edgy says: Nov 18, 2010 3:48 PM

    Deb:

    Here’s what I have to say to you and the rest about this:

    When the ACC and the Big East bring themselves up to the “standards” of the rest of the BCS, I’ll stop talking about Boise and TCU. I don’t give a rat’s ass about whether Alabama or Ohio State or Nebraska plays a big time schedule as long as those two pieces of crap conferences are allowed automatic berths into the BCS. The ACC was always NOTHING and then Florida State made them Florida State and the Seminole Victims. The Big East wasn’t much better when they formed and the best of their teams left for the ACC and they recruited a bunch of trash to replace them and yet, they both have a seat at the table.

    Last year, the Big Bigots trashed TCU and Boise State and all of them said that if Texas had lost to Nebraska that they hoped that the voters would put Cincinnati in the championship game over those two because they were so much better and then they were trashed by the Gators, in game that wasn’t even as close as the final score of 51-24. There will be a team from the Big East that will have at least 3 losses and unless Pittsburgh collapses, it will definitely be at least 4. The ACC champion will probably end up being Virginia Tech, a team with 2 losses that you guys keep trashing and if it isn’t then there will be a team with at least 3 losses.

    What amazes me is that you guys set the bar so high for the non-AQs but will allow “trailer trash” to play in your backyard. The Big East is 6-6 in the BCS but take away the ones who moved to the ACC it’s 3-4. The ACC is 2-10 and ironically, Florida State’s only win was against Virginia Tech, which was in the Big East at the time and Virginia Tech’s only win was, guffaw, against a Big East team. The MWC and the Wac are both 2-1 and they were forced to play each other last year. Hell, Notre Dame is invited to eat at the Big Boy table and they’ve been savaged each time and are 0-3.

  96. edgy says: Nov 18, 2010 3:49 PM

    Ok, this is my last post on this topic, here.

    You guys need to understand how stupid it is to use the rankings as some kind of “objective” standard. Seriously, there are 120 schools and the coaches poll, in most years, has 60 votes (USC has none this year). There are 66 BCS schools (conference plus Notre Dame) and that ratio would suppose a split of 33 BCS and 27 non-BCS. That alone gives the BCS schools a 6 vote margin. The thing is that a full complement of 60 voters gives the BCS 35 votes and the non-BCS 25 so they have a 10 vote margin. Well, if that isn’t enough, a majority of the guys that are coaching at the non-AQ schools are former BCS coaches or assistants and they haven’t forgotten how their bread used to be buttered and at a minimum, the split is closer to 42-18 or 41-18 with USC out of the picture.

    Look at the preseason Top 25. Of the 53 teams that received votes, 42 are BCS schools and 11 are not and when it comes to garnering votes, the BCS teams got 16580 or 87.5% of the votes. With all things being equal, the non-BCS teams could have expected to see 45.8% of the points if all things were proportional (33-27) or 42.4% under the split of 35-25 but that didn’t happen. The split that they got in teams was 20.8% but they did even worse with votes at 13.5%. The voters were voting for the BCS teams but also name. Some teams got a lot more votes simply because they were “names”, like Notre Dame, while teams like Nevada got 1 and they actually had a lot to look forward to this year when you compare them to Notre Dame or some of the other “names” that got more votes. Hell, even among non-BCS teams, it’s all about the “names” as Temple got votes while Ohio got none and most people felt that Ohio would repeat as divisional champs (and it appears that they will). Unfortunately, for Solich, Temple has a vote and he doesn’t.

    You can say all you want but the fact is that you guys prove every day that if you had a vote that you would vote the non-BCS teams lower than what a “pure” non-BCS voter would and forget the Harris. Yes, they wait for several weeks for things to play out but they might as well release a preseason poll because they’re following the coaches in lock step, week after week. You could double the coaches poll each week and accomplish the same thing as having the Harris because it differs so little. I would have to wonder how much different both polls would look if they were kept secret until just before the BCS is announced OR they released them at the same time because there’s no reason to have to polls right now (At least the computer polls differ greatly about who is better).
    I won’t go over the other arguments but the fact is that rankings are so subjective that you’re nuts to even bother with them. Too many teams move in and out for it to be meaningful because you can look at one team’s schedule and say “Well, they played 6 ranked teams” even if they weren’t ranked after they played and never got back into the rankings while another :”played none”, even if those teams were ranked the game before or after they played that team.

  97. Deb says: Nov 18, 2010 4:07 PM

    @edge …

    Didn’t read the whole dissertation, but oddly you’re ending on one point with which I can agree: The ACC and Big East don’t deserve to be taken anymore seriously than the Boise Bunch. And if FSU were All That, they’d play in a real conference.

  98. uh1973 says: Nov 27, 2010 9:51 PM

    Hey Les:

    KEEP YOUR PIE-HOLE SHUT NEXT TIME!!!

  99. Ryan Karhut says: Jan 11, 2011 11:53 PM

    Like communism it sounds good on paper but lacks real life potential.

  100. waynefontes says: Jan 18, 2011 8:31 AM

    Short answer: Yes.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!