How does Congrove do this?

[mountainman]

Try reading it again and see if it goes down any easier, you may not agree with it, it may be lengthly, but 'crap' it's not. IMHO

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you were figuratively speaking about the volume .... not the content.

[Yeofoot]

If you want to double your money, bet it all that Texas wins the NC again! Someone will be dumb enough to take that bet.

[Spence]

That is the thing about Cane. He doesn't have to try and create filler or pad his posts. He will read 20 posts and his head fills up until it starts smoking and he hits reply and BOOM out it comes. I like Cane's posts most of the time, his rants seem to follow the same train of thought to the end. The last time I wrote that much at once I was staying after school and writing on the chalkboard. It wasn't that much fun either.

[billybud]

LOL...thanks Spence..had me chuckling. A laugh with your coffee to start the morning ain't a bad thing.

[Spence]

[colorado_loves_football]

No, a plyoff system would only take the teams 'ranked' in the top 16.

Not if my approach were to be applied, only ten teams would be required, and only 9 games would be necessary to select a 'concensus' national champion.

The polls would still have to exist.

No, I think if my proposal were to be adopted, verbatim, polls wouldn't be necessary, pre-season, or otherwise, all would become obsolete.

You disagree...

A common plurative in your responses.

Shows how you use your opinions, not the 'facts'.

You do 'infact' misinterpret what someone types, by interpreting their words to say what 'you' want them to say.

Take me at face value (and everyone else for that matter). Not for how you read into others' posts. But, rather, what is actually in them.

I read your posts, and other posts and make my own 'assessment' of them, that's not 'misinterpreting' them.

You said it best.

You write your feelings.

Good for you. But you are applying 'opinion' not truth.

Truth is what can be proven.
Opinion is speculative.

Everything you respond with, is 'highly' speculative.

Well, I dont' necessarily expect everyone to like my ideas, but that doesn't make them 'wrong' does it?

Pretty good doesn't cut the top 10, in most peoples' standards.

Had Oklahoma not been 'over-rated' going into last season, you wouldn't have anything to base 95% of your TCU posts on.

Yeah, TCU was better than Oklahoma on the day that they played.

But it also doesn't change the 'fact' that TCU did not play the Oklahoma 'team' that you want TCU to get credit for.

You want TCU to get credit for beating the Oklahoma program.

But programs are built on year by year, season to season success.

There is nothing that suggests TCU's program is better than Oklahoma's.

Just that TCU played a better game, on that day.

Since 2000, I think TCU has one of the 'best' teams based on winning %. Top-12.
So, I think you are likely mistaken (Miami, FL is #1 during that period).

If a poll is basing its pre-season rankings in portion to, biasness and slantedness, then that poll is giving an unfair advantage to an unproven team.

Everything is predetermined.

Take Billybud's comment for example:

His evidence shows, that every national championship team has had a top 10 ranking in the preseason polls.

No, not every team has been ranked to begin the year. Brigham Young wasn't ranked, to begin 1984. Miami, FL, I don't think was ranked, 1983. And Clemson, I dont think was ranked 1980. And thats' using the top-20 standard, not top-ten.

Yes; teams stay ranked if they win - but why do these 'teams' deserve the ranking they have, anymore than someone not ranked, in the preseason?

Yes; teams drop out if they lose - but not on an even scale or the favored teams - ND lost to Michigan St an only dropped from #10 to #14, where Michigan St stayed ranked #17

Polls 'are' just that, polls.

But it is the 'Polls' who determine which teams play will in the National Championship game, and the BCS bowls.

Presently, polls are still the standard being applied. If that were to ever change, we could maybe talk about having a 'concensus' national champion, that wouldn't have to rely on a poll.

Your ranting at the end of the year on how TCU deserved to play in a BCS bowl only proves that point.

TCU did not play in a BCS bowl, because they did not finish high enough in the polls.

And, for most teams, a ranking in a preseason poll is huge.

Because it gives them an inside advantage.

No; sizing up a team in the preseason does not guarantee their overall success. However, giving a team a preseason ranking does give them a pre-ordinated spotlight boost.

The Human polls are more likely to vote based on the teams who are already in the top 25.

The BCS standings are 3/4ths based on the human element..

Last year, TCU was 'qualified' for a BCS bowl but wasn't selected. 2/3 of the BCS is human, the remaining 1/3 is a computer ranking.

Anytime you reinterpret what I have written, to better suit you argument, you misquote me.

You have deliberately mistranslated my posts.

You have done it, you continue to do it, and I expect nothing more than the same from you.

You want specifics.

Re-read everything you have responded to my posts with.

There is an example (often more than one) in all of them.

I've done nothing but make my own 'assessment' of what you write, and post it. Show me an example of what you are talking about, if you can.

Determining a teams program based on their tradition, in the preseason, is a classic example of unfair bias.

You either didn't think that part through before you typed it, or, you simply don't have a clue.

Traditions have no buisness being a part of a preseason ranking system.

If they did, "Then" we should throw out the season and just play the bowl games.

You don't even realize how you are indirectly contradicting yourself.

I don't support an 'all-out' playoff, it's just one alternative to playing bowls. I prefer the bowl arrangement, and it's one reason why I want the bowls to remain in place (tradition, among other things, is a vital component of intercollegiate athletics).

CFP's poll does not show how wrong I am.

That is a twist of logic to make yourself look better.

Just because they have every team ranked before the preseason is not evidence of an 'accurate' system.

If even 40% of their rankings stay consistant, from the preseason to the end, then we would be talking about accuracy.

How many of the teams listed, in their top 25 alone, will switch places throughout the course of the season?

I interject your analysis. You only proved me right, not wrong.

Their 'reliability' I believe is much closer to 80% than 40%, in a 'typical' year. I think you are actually providing more 'weight' to my argument, than to yours, if you are trying to 'invalidate' a poll, try again.

Get over what?

It's your lack of understanding which has lead to this enlongated topic.

Not mine.

What has the CFP got to do with your fecklessness.

It was your response to my post, not theirs.

And you only responded because I used your name, and one of your tiresome played out crybaby rants, as an example, in my first draft to this thread.

Not because you have anything valid, or worthwhile to add.

Because you don't.

Teams control there own destiny in regards to their record, true. But teams do not have control of their own poll ranking.

If they did, we would have had 3 'recognized' National champions in 2004.

And seeing as we did not.

It proves you are wrong.

(remember what I said about fatcs)

Depending on what 'source' you use, there were in fact 3 'recognized' national champions, 2004. USC, Auburn, and Utah. If you dont' believe me, go to the NCAA website (http://www.ncaa.org) look under national champions.

Yeah, you don't give two hoots about the BCS.

But you gave about 75 hoots over them when TCU didn't get invited to play in one of their Bowl games.

(bottom of the post, the shoe laces thing)

In 2003, TCU came within a 'whisker' of being selected. They weren't for obvious reasons,but that doesn't mean they weren't a very good team. As it was, they lost to Boise St, in the Ft. Worth Bowl, by 3.

The only reseason you see everything on this forum as an opinion, is because the truth is too hard for 'you' to swallow.

I have given facts.

You have given opinion.

I present facts, just not the kind of 'facts' you appreciate, apparently.

You say it is possible to fairly assess a team before they have played a game...

How?

With what evidence do you use to support this claim?

Other than how that team did in the previous season. Which is no longer valid.

It is a ridiculous assumption to say the least.

Tennessee was in the top 3 going into last season.

They finished the year 5-6.

Forget about the fairness argument.
Forget about the, it all works itself out in the end, argument.

Was #3 an accurate assessment of Tennessee.

I don't know. Apparently not, but there again we are talking about a team viewed likely 'very good' by most people. Just because they didn't finish strong, doesn't mean they dont' have an outstanding program.

We are talking 'fatcs' here.
Not how good they could have been.

Sure, the Vols looked good, on paper (paper team again).

Or, let's take West irginia for example.

The Mountaineers were not ranked until after they beat Louisville, West Virginia's 7th game of the year.

The Mountaineers finished the regular season #12, with an 11-1 record.

I didn't respect W. Va, ,myself until after the Sugar Bowl.

After their season performances, it, would seem these teams were both inaccuraely analyzed in the preseason.

Without the preseason polls, Tennessee would have never reached the top 25, and West Virginia would have finished in the top 10 (or better).

Now, "that's", overwhelming evidence for you.

I disagree with you. W. Virginia was in control of their own destiny. They weren't viewed by many as 'outstanding' until after they beat Georgia, and maybe for good reason. That being said, they were a top-12 team (barely) by year's end. (#11 going into Sugar Bowl).

Hindsight is 20/20.
Oversight is more like 10/30.

I overlooked the Tulsa game. It wasn't deliberate, but I forgot about it.

Hey look at that, you actually used your first fact... Congradulations!

Yet, my point is still valid. UCLA beat Oklahoma in the Sooners third game of the year.

So,it is your hindsight in your bringing it up.

Because you conveniently left out that Oklahoma did 'infact' play UCLA within in the first 4 weeks.

An indirect, though, deliberately way to 'reinterpret' what I wrote, to make your point.

(remember the shoe laces thing)

You said 2nd game. You were wrong, but I forgive you.

Good programs are built by the consistancy of good team performances.

Without a team having performed, there is no way to determine how well a program is hoding up.

Tennessee has a good program.

But the team performed to a 5-6 record.

How did Tennessee's program help them with their preseason #3 ranking.

They fired most of their Offensive staff, aside from the head caoch.

Obviously, their program wasn't good enough for the administration department.

Eventhough they had a preseason #3 ranking.

I don't really care where Tennessee was ranked, they obviously weren't as good as their ranking suggested. But, they might be a good team, we'll see, won't we?

Again, playoffs would only give greater strength to the polls.

And, it would make being ranked in the preseason that much more important.

All talks of playoffs, coming strictly from thhe media (you), bring the top 16 ranked teams (not just conference winners), as the intent for a bracket.

Playoffs would cause more controversy, not clear any of it up.

I never said I supported the 16 team arrangement (I don't), I would prefer a ten-team field composed of conference champions (ideally) or a 64-team field, of bowl-eligible teams.

The media does have their own poll.

But it is only there to control the common viewer's opinion.

That is what the media does.

They are supposed to report the news, not create it.

But, instead, they have tried to establish control over the sport itself.

They over step their bounds.

So, yeah, they can name their own natioal champion.

But, if they were consistant, they would have done so for Auburn, in 2004.

(mountainman knows where this is going)

The media honored usc as the co-national champions in 2003.

By not honoring Auburn with that same respect in 2004, the media showed their true face.

Don't complain about it if you don't mean it.

By not giving Auburn a co-championship in 2004, the media lost 'ALL' of its credibiity.

All of it!

And, the associated press, was infact a calculated poll, in both 2003 & 2004.

The media has been a hypocritical force since they started to be taken seriously.

And they have bashed anything that has not supported their interests.

Yeah, the media is the major push for the plaoff system. Not the common viewer.

Without the media drilling the idea into everyone's heads, we wouldn't even be discussing it.

That is why the media needs the attention from the fans.

Because, if the BCS formula worked right every time, then the media's manipulation would end.

Their say would be pointless (in my opinion, it already is).

And they couldn't tollerate that.

I personally don't think Auburn 'earned' the right to be selected as a national champion, but you are entitled to your opinion.

The mark of a good program is in is ability to keep on winning, regardless of what they did in the previous year.

You build tradition off of a programs consistancy.

A good program knows how to win year to year.

So, good programs should not need the help of a preseason poll to boost their popularity.

Let the current record speak for itself. Leave the past behind.

You can only take with you what worked in the past season, to be successful.

You have to adjust to those things that did not work in previous years to avoid continued failure.

Without seeing how new players work together in actual competition, you can not accurately gauge a fair expectation of their on field performance.

It is imposible.

And, without actual competition, you can not accurately gauge how well a team adjusted to their weaknesses during the off season.

Again, it's impossible.

I think we agree on that point, believe it or not.

No, yor assessment of a program, based on how well that 'programs' team performed in the previous year;

Is 'infact' assessing a team with a preseason ranking, for who they use to be.

There is no difference what so ever. It is exactly the samme thing.

It's called self contradiction, supported by hypocracy.

(shoe laces man, shoe laces)

I think last years' games (season ending) is one way to assess where a program likely 'stands'. It doesn't mean that team is where it needs to be, but it gives one indication of how far they've come. I dont' think there's anything wrong with using bowl games as a reference point.

If the wo teams in the suggested scenario had common opponents, then you are basing your opinion off of team triangulation.

A theory inwhich, you youself said was ineffective.

(how do you get all of that saliva of of the leather)

The idea was, both teams played an equal hard schedule.

You neglected that part of the hypothetical.

But if you must delegate assessment on triangulation (eventhoughyou said ... never mind).

Then assume both teams beat 3 of the same opponents during that same season.

If you are saying it is 'fair' that the team who started #3 in the preseason, ended with a higher ranking than the team who started #22, then you are saying that preseason polls are 'fair' in and of themselves.

But, I thought you aid polls were not suposed to be 'fair'.

(I can pick you apart the same way buddy)

W/O a head-to-head game, it's next to impossible to 'fairly' gauge a team relative to another one, unless there are some 'common' teams. So, in that regard, I think 'triangulation' is one way to assess the strength of a program against another one, but no, it doesn't lack problems, but I think it's still likely a better way, than using such things as SOS.

The NCAA headquarters and College Football Hall of Fame both 'Officially' reconize Texas as the National Champions.

They also recoginize without debate, all BCS naional champions.

And they recognize usc in 2003 with an *.

You mentioned, tell that to the Boise St's.

Okay, had Boise St been ranked higher in the preseason polls, then they would have gone to 2 consecutive BCS games.

It was their ranking in the polls that kept them out of the picture.

2003, Boise St wasn't seriously considered by the BCS. TCU was. Boise St beat TCU, in a bowl, that's why I referenced them.

Saying a heisman trophy winner'
-
"accomplished it, but not all in the same year"
-
is disrespectful toward the nature of the award.

The heisman trophy is awarded every year.

And as such, it is 'that' season in which a player is accountable for.

With your thinking, we may as well give the darn thing to Brady Quinn right now.

He is the current spoaken about forerunner.

Just like Reggie Bush was last year in the preseason.

Brady Quinn has 'earned' his place at the top of the Heisman hopefuls by how he's done as a Notre Dame QB. I don't have a problem with that.

I was refering to your comment, on Pitt.

Go back and read your own post again.

You are the one who first posted that Pitt didn't live up to the hype.

If you are saying it wasn't hype, the reason for their preseason ranking...

Then don't say it was.

Stop contradicting yourself.

Either make a comment and stick with it. Or don't say it at all.
Even if Penn St was a go team.

Okay, Penn St as a good team in 1984.

But there are two things missing from your reference.

1.) You have in the past mentioned how rivalry games are played a little more aggressively by teams, to show how an unranked team can play competitively against the bigger guy.

Pittsburgh vs. Pennsylvania State

This game was considered a big rivalry back in the 80's.

2.) you have agred with the comment, that any given team can win on any given day.

If you mean it, the, that shold apply to the 1984 Penn St vs Pitt game, as well.

Just because Pitt beat a good Penn St rival, does not make Pitt very good themselves.

Futhermore, showing that Pitt took BYU to 20-14, and losing, does not prove they were a good team.

Especially when the original context of that comparrison, is to question BYU's legitimacy.

It only further proves, that:

(a.) BYU played a soft schdule
(b.) Pitt as not agd team
(c.) You are making excuses for both BYU and Pitt

I don't know how good Pitt was, but they did lose to BYU. BYU was assuredly a 'better' team than Pitt, that year. If Penn St was better, why don't they beat Pitt? Your argument doesnt' make sense. Beating Pitt, is one way to 'assess' BYU, from a competitive standpoint. If Pitt wasnt' any good, they likely lose to Penn St. a team most would agree wasn't bad.

The only comparison I have seen ayone sow, between the SMU 1984 & SMU 2005 teams, is you.

Yeah, SMU came within a field goal in over time to being bowl eligile.

Look at you, using your second fact... now doesn't that feel better.

Unfortunately, however, eligibilty is nothing.

The Northern Illinois Huskies were eligible for a bowl game last year with a 7-5 record.

But they didn't get a bowl bid.

They went 10-2 in 2003,

And they did not get a bowl bid.

They went 8-4 in 2002,

And they did not get a bowl bid.

They went 6-5 in 2001,

And they did not get a bowl bid.

SMU would have had to fall in line. And in their conference, the would have had to have gotten the bowl bid over Houston.

Given the fact SMU beat Houston, I believe it's highly probable they go to the Ft. Worth Bowl, had they beaten Marshall, but they didn't.

Memphis, UTEP, UFC, So Mississppi, Tulsa all had better records, and were bowl locks.

Houston has been a media favorite, so SMU would not have been invited, even if they had finished 6-5.

Anyway, that is irrelevant. Because we were 'assessing' how good of a team the Mustangs were.

Well, they weren't.

First, they were a 5-6 team.
That is not a good record.

Second, the over time loss they suffered, was to Marshall.

Marshall finished the season 4-7.

So that only tells me, SMU could not get the job done, in over time, against a not so good team.

And that is he 'Fact' that o so ardently want to push.

(it's looking bad for your case)

I believe Marshall was a very good team at home, but I think they lost to K-State. Just because Marshall didn't have a winning record doesn't mean they were 'terrible'.

If you don't have a problem with letting teams settle it on the field, then, get rid of the preseason poll.

I think the preseason poll is important to assess where teams stand, relative to each other.

Winning is all there is to a college football team.

That is why they suit up and play, even if they have losing records.

Tradition is bult on performance. Compeitive play is the essence of winning. And those teams who feel like they have something to prove, are the ones who are playing with pride.

And, 'pride', is the reasons fans support the teams they do.

Who wants it more. That's what will push a team forward to victory.

That is why Texas beat usc.

The Longhorns dug down and wanted it more.

WEll, I won't argue with that.

You are right, for my sake and everyone else's.

Because we're tired of your irrelevant drivle.

Besides, we have already had our post about the playoff thing, and, quite honestly, it isn't worth the effort.

I post what I find interesting, to myself, and hopefully to others, as well.

You continue to argue, constantly debate, and have stated where you thought I was wrong (which turns out that you were the one in the wrong).

That shows how you are trying to win.

You don't debate your point of view, without attempting to get others to see things from your perspecive.

That is just another clear contradiction of your purpose.

(so, which tastes better, the leather, or the rubber sole)

Rubber or leather? Why not both? It's a little like a reese's peanut butter cup.
(two great tastes that taste great together).

[billybud]

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to go with leather, after all that's what you wear to your job, correct?

More CLF stuff...I now whiff to the end instead of reading the diatribes.

But, hey, I have to respond to the end line, even if it was a high schoolish attempt at a slam. The sort where the responder answers..."and I suppose that you wear rubber because your dad..dah dah dah"..

I wear leather...when the chill gets in the air, my leather jacket and britches keeps me comfy at cruising speed and, God forbid, if I go down, leather's what I want to be wearing.

And it's not a bad look...black leather with engineer boots. Thick rubber soled engineer boots.

[Spence]

All you have to do is go down once to appreciate the value of leather. I have some sandpaper like scars on my thigh and back, but it would have required skin grafts had the leather not held it's ground for a good part of the 50 feet I was sliding across pavement.

[billybud]

Ouch...never been down (knock on wood)...but my wife, many years ago, went down on a curve and slid down the road...leather saved her hide as well...no scars...she slid and rolled like a pro racer.

[mountainman]

Ooooouuuuuuccccchhhh !!!!

That sounds like it would hurt about like when we would tell the freshmen that the best way to relieve the torment and to cure the jock itch was to spray Cramer's ToughSkin on it ...... that stuff was about 85% isopropyl alcohol ...... boy, you talk about a hoot and holler.

[colorado_loves_football]

That is the thing about Cane. He doesn't have to try and create filler or pad his posts. He will read 20 posts and his head fills up until it starts smoking and he hits reply and BOOM out it comes. I like Cane's posts most of the time, his rants seem to follow the same train of thought to the end. The last time I wrote that much at once I was staying after school and writing on the chalkboard. It wasn't that much fun either.

If you were in my class, I'd simply have you write TCU #1, 1000 times, a much simpler way to get the point across, at any rate.

[billybud]

If I were a voter, I'd never, ever, vote for TCU because of the "chinese water torture" of having to see you twist every post into a TCU post.

Wait...a thought...Spence...put me on a group....

[Spence]

Ouch...never been down (knock on wood)...but my wife, many years ago, went down on a curve and slid down the road...leather saved her hide as well...no scars...she slid and rolled like a pro racer.

When you go over the top after hitting a dog, not much chance to control the roll. It happened so fast I only remember seeing the dog and hitting the fence. The helmet saved me. It was almost dark, the only time I ever had my helmet on, if it would have been a couple hours earlier I would have been dead.

It wasn't as bad as it sounds though, I wasn't going very fast. It still hurt.

[Cane from the Bend]

You are going to have to stick to one of these.

Playoffs - with conference champions.

Playoffs - with 64 team bracket.

You have mentioned them both.

>

A playoff system with just the conference champs is a terrible way to choose eligible teams.

In that proposal, 2 teams from the SEC could finish with 1 loss in the regular season (and even the SEC title game), and only one of them be eligible for the playoffs.

At the same time, a team from conference usa could finish the season with 4 losses and have a sure spot.

Not very fair.

A 64 team playoff, runs into all sorts of problems.

Length of season, where games are played, who should be selected, why should this team play that, ect...

You would be giving teams who did not earn their post season appearance, a chance to play for the national title.

And you are neglecting the health of the athletes.

How many kids a year go out due to an injury as the season progresses as it is.

Extending the year is negligible, and risks raising that %.

Remember, it should be about the students first. Not the fans' want for a better system.

Also, allowing for a playoff only plays right into the media's hands.

They don't care about the athletes, or the majority of the programs. They only care about their own interests.

As a matter of fact, they replay, and drool over every injury that takes place on the field.

For them, it's a good story. And they exploit it, until its last value.

The media is only concerned with the mighty $.

The only reason ESPN is pushing so darn hard for a playoff, is because they know they will get at least half of the playoff game broadcasting rights.

The other half would go to their ABC affiliates.

In the end, it's still about the money.

>

The other thing wrong with your 10 team proposal:

Week One -

team 1 vs team 2
team 3 vs team 4
team 5 vs team 6
team 7 vs team 8
team 9 vs team 10

Week Two -

winner of 1 vs 2, against winner of 3 vs 4

winner of 5 vs 6, against winner of 7 vs 8

winner of 9 vs 10, against who?

>

You make your own 'assessment' of my posts, and others'.

That is to interpret someone's post in you own words.

That is not respondind to what they actually wrote.

Yeah, you said it yourself. I don't need to give you any proof.

You just admitted to it.

>

I thought we were talking present day football when refering to teams winning the national championship, not 20 years ago.

How many teams have won a National Championship, in the last 10 years, that have not been in the preseason top 10.

Consistancy runs in cycles. And right now, it would seem that any team ranked in the preseason has an advantage.

As the cycle continues.

>

TCU was only qualified to appear in a BCS bowl, out of opinion.

TCU did not get selected, because they did not finish in the top six.

That was the polls' fault. Though, it was just as much TCU's fault, for not beating SMU.

>

The CFP poll regularly changes throughtout the year.

Their 80% reliability is only a parallel to that final BCS rankings. That is where they get their 80% comparison.

Now, show me the % of each team ranked in the CFP poll's preseason selection, that actually finish with the same ranking at the end of the season.

You wanted an example of how you misinterpret what I write.

Look at how you interpreted that, in your last reply.

(so, if you mean weight to your argument, comparable to weight on the moon, maybe)

>

What does TCU coming within a whisker of being selected by the BCS in 2003, have to do with how you gave a hoot, last season?

I don't see the connection.

Unless you are saying that, not being selected last season, was disappointing, and brought back old feelings of missing the cut in 2003.

I could see where your aggrevation might have been coming from.

The proverbial, we have to wait until next season curse.

But that still doesn't change the fact that you more than gave two hoots about the BCS, when TCU wasn't selected for one of their bowls at the end of last year.

(but I can see why you'd be frustrated)

>

Had West Virginia gotten more respect in the preseason, it wouldn't have taken them as long to be ranked.

Had Tennessee not been ranked in the preseasn, they would have never cracked the top 25, in any poll.

I don't understand how your example is relevant.

It only shows how many didn't think West Virginia was that good.

And only proves that teams sometimes do not get enough focus in the preseason, if they are not ranked.

Will we see if Tennessee has a good team.

Maybe they do.

But I was talking about last season. They didn't do so good. They finished 5-6. That is a terrible record for them.

And the proof is in the firing of a large portion of their coaching staff.

Obviously the school alumni association did not think the program was doing well. Otherwise, they wouldn't have replaced so many people.

Will we see if Tennessee is good... sure, for this season.

But we already saw, they were not a good 'team' last season.

>

Auburn deserved the National Championship in 2004 just as much as usc deserved it 2003.

I did not say I agree with it. It is not my opinion.

It was the consistancy of the Media that was in question. Not my personal feelings.

It was not a simple theorem. Rather, I showed facts to support my claim.

The AP chose usc as their champion in 2003.

The AP did not do the same for Auburn in 2004.

The AP poll was a statistic used in the BCS formula both years.

Auburn ended the 2004 season by winning their bowl game, and finishing with 0 losses. The same as usc.

USC ended the 2003 season by winning their bowl game, and finishing with 1 loss. The same as LSU.

The AP 'chose' to only award usc. And that proves their inconsistancy, and non-credibility.

>

If you agree on that point, then it makes your whole argument in favor of peseason polls invalid.

>

Assesing a team's progress and competitivenes based on how they played in a bowl game...?

Every team is going to amp it up for the Natioal screen.

Playing in a Bowl game, is just one game.

Emotions are higher, the season is ending, and there is alot more at stake.

However, players will be leaving, coaches might be leaving, and recruiting signings have not yet taken place.

By assessing a team in the preason, based on how that program's previous team did in a bowl game, is to neglect those above stated things.

>

Brady Quinn earned only accalades for last year's performances.

He has done 'nothing' to deserved credit for this season.

He hasn't even played one game yet.

His 2005 total yards wil not be added to his 2006 campaign totals.

So why take what he has done throughout his career and apply it to a trophy awarded for one season's performance?

That isn't fair to somene wo sat out last season because of a redshirt, or an injury.

And I have a problem with that.

>

I only applied the same logic to Pitt beating Penn St., as you did for SMU beating TCU.

Rivalry games are played more competitively.

If my argument does not make sense to you, then you need to re-assess all of your previous posts in an effort to show the rest of us why losing to SMU was not that bad for TCU.

>

Just because you thought Marshall was good at home last year, doesn't mean SMU lost to a good team.

The herd finished 4-7.

That's a bad record.

>

Well...

I guess leather & rubber is better than vinyl & plastic.

[Spence]

If I were a voter, I'd never, ever, vote for TCU because of the "chinese water torture" of having to see you twist every post into a TCU post.

Wait...a thought...Spence...put me on a group....

All you have to do is say the word.