preseason rankings for next season

[Yeofoot]

USC averaged a lot more yards than Texas all season long, it's not surprising that they had more yards than us in the Rose Bowl. We averaged more points all season. Yards don't mean anything if you don't score. You are making USC fans everywhere look like sore losers. Lloyd Carr had wwwaaaay worse officiating than you, and he would've greatly benefited from calling timeouts in the same fashion. You lost. And c'mon, don't lower yourself to the level of name-calling. If you start that argument, and want to go into a battle of wits with me, you're going to a gun fight with a knife. And yeah, I feel very confident when I speak for the others by saying they know when I'm just trying to get you riled up. I've said incorrect things on here before and it took about 5 seconds before either one of them called me on it...eg when I said the OSU fans were rooting for Michigan, how long did it take you to correct me Spence? I've got a good feeling that either we're annoying the crap out of them and they're just not reading what we have to say, or they're just laughing at us. If either of us was making a lick of sense outside of a winning fan and losing fan talking trash, they'd be chiming in. Yeah, OU shut us out last year, it sucked...really badly. Every sports commentator alive was calling for Vince to be moved to receiver after that game. Mack Brown believed in him though, and we beat those Trojans. We won.

[..fanatic]

Yeofoot, CLF is right. It was Cal that got screwed last year. Not Oregon. By the way, CLF, Tedord is still the head coach at Cal. Oregon only went 5-6 in 2004.

[Yeofoot]

Yeah, cal got stomped, I mean Stomped by TT in '05, OU beat Oregon in '06. If I said otherwise, it was a typo. Trust me, of all people, I know about these two games. Last year, everyone said Texas didn't deserve to be in the Rose Bowl, and that argument was thrashed twice, By UT and TTU, this year, everyone said Oregon got screwed, but that argument was thrashed by Ohio State and Oklahoma. I don't know I could make that any clearer.

[Guest]

Yeofoot, CLF is right. It was Cal that got screwed last year. Not Oregon. By the way, CLF, Tedord is still the head coach at Cal. Oregon only went 5-6 in 2004.

The way the BCS is organized, as we already know 6 conferences are assured 'bids' due entirely to pre-existing agreements with BCS Bowls.
That meant that Oklahoma, USC, Auburn, Va. Tech, Pittsburgh, and Michigan were 'locked' in. Utah was awarded one 'at large' bid due to the provision of being in top 6 (#5) non-BCS. One 'at large' bids remained, and since Cal and Texas were 'tied' in effect, Texas was awarded it due to their final ranking and politicking by Mack Brown (crying?).
Anyway, it worked, so rather than being in the Rose Bowl, Cal played in the Holiday Bowl, against Texas Tech, a team that I believe was 7-5.
I believe the order of selection by Lubbock is correct, but the Houston Bowl also has an agreement with the Big XII. So it's convoluted.
Jeff Tedford wasn't Oregon's coach?

[colorado_loves_football]

There's another way to select a national champion, other than through a pairing in a bowl game. The BCS has the right idea, but they need to follow it through, simply stated, they need to give conference champions the 'edge' in a hypothetical 'playoff' of teams.
Consider that at present, the BCS is for all intents and purposes, an eight-team 'field' of teams. Next year it will be ten (5 BCS games).
That's nearly exactly how many conferences there are, 11 but should every conference re-structure themselves, that would be ten.
And that would fit perfectly in next year's BCS structure, ten teams, all equally represented. And it would still allow the BCS a 'championship' game, just like this year's Texas vs. USC pairing.

[Yeofoot]

It's like when one brother went to fight for the Union and one went to fight for the Confederacy when one kid goes to A&M and the other goes to UT.

[Spence]

When an Ohio kid goes to Michigan, he is ostracized for life. If Ohio State beats Michigan in "the game" that same kid will go through hell when he comes home for Christmas. If Michigan beats Ohio State? Well there are more of us then there is of him.

[Howdy]

See if this works



Thanks to matt for his help
This is part of my preseason poll

[openSkies]

Glad it worked for ya =]

[..fanaticjr]

Howdy,
Where on your list are the Huskers?

[Howdy]

Howdy,
Where on your list are the Huskers?

No. 29
But this will change during the season.
This is how it finished out this past season after the bowl games

[..fanatic]

The AP was NEVER a REAL national championship as there wasn't a method to put together the top two ranked teams in the country before the BCS. Prior to the BCS, all you can do is argue between the AP and Coaches. But now that you have the BCS, it HAS to be recognized as THE real national championship. It ALONE is the system in place now. Otherwise, how long before you have a BCS champ, a HARRIS champ and an AP champ? To say USC won back-to-back national titles is to dismiss LSU from theirs completely. You can't even say USC won 1-1/2 or you're leaving LSU with a half. I applaud USC for a helluva run over the past three seasons, but they won 1 national championship. Over the last three years, LSU won 1, USC won 1 and Texas won 1.

[colorado_loves_football]

Fanatic, you are correct in your assessment of how USC won their championship in 2003. It was a 'split' national title, LSU and USC 'tied'. Even last year, USC was seen as the national champion, but Auburn and Utah were both undefeated, so there was still some question in some people's minds who was #1.
This year, there wasn't much debate, if any about who ultimately 'earned' national championship 'status'. But I contend, that unless the BCS modifies it's format to allow for a separate national championship, there will always be some question in people's minds who deserves the honor. Even this year, W. Virginia, and Penn State, were close to being undefeated. It's even possible that had Texas had to play either one, they lose.
So, as much as I appreciate how the BCS 'crown's a national champion, it's still not what I would call a 'perfect' system. But it worked this year.

[Derek]

So, as much as I appreciate how the BCS 'crown's a national champion, it's still not what I would call a 'perfect' system. But it worked this year.

It didn't "work" this year... it simply got lucky.

I disagree. The BCS computers have no teeth to do anything. After goofing with the formula's every year for the last 2 years. They have done nothing but make it stamp for the opinion polls. There are hardly no differences between them.

[Yeofoot]

The BCS isn't perfect at picking national championships, but it gets teams together that wouldn't otherwise have played. It was been a lot of fun watching all of the BCS bowls, ever since it first started. Some teams may have gotten "robbed" at times, because there was an argument for them, but that's all it was, theoretical reasoning for why people think their team should be in a particular game instead. The BCS is the perfect system for the people that complain non-stop about it...it gives them something to complain about. You know there's a suggestion box in heaven for those kind of people. Then again, the BCS got lucky and my 'Horns won the National Championship, so who am I to compain about the complainers.