I am sorry Jackdog..

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 2:38 pm

If Michigan can´t beat Oregon. I shudder to think what a pissed of USC team is going to do to them in the Rose Bowl.
 
 I will shed a tear for you at the end of the game. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 2:47 pm

<IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">
 
 Ah the smack starts! When Michigan lost to the Ducks the special teams ...........Ah ,I have no respone to that <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 
 Rose Bowl USC vs Michigan for a share of the Title. Big Ten Champs take on the Pac Ten Cumps...................Sounds like the good old days <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">
 
 Michigan 24 Toejams 21.
 
 
 GO BLUE!!!!!!!

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:02 pm

Michigan holding USC to 21 points. Put the crack pipe down. A team that gives up 35 to Minnesota and 27 to Iowa is in for a long day.
 
 USC 52, Michigan 27
 
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:03 pm

BTW, I think we may need a wager for this game, since it´s obvious I am going to lose the Packers vs. Chargers one.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:57 pm

Deal!
 
 But don´t count out the Chargers yet,the Packers have not beat the teams that looked like sure wins all year.
 
 Speaking of bets.....Cincy did you lose my address? <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 4:01 pm

By the way....talking smack is cool.
 
 But leave my crack pipe outta this s*** <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:37 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-07 12:01, JackDog wrote:
 By the way....talking smack is cool.
 
 But leave my crack pipe outta this s*** <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 LOLOLOLOL

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:48 pm

Its on baby! Whats the wager??
 
 Rose Bowl has another Big10 vs Pac 10 National Championship game. Last one was in 97 and the Maze and Blue won.
 
 This matchup is the only thing that makes the F*cking USC got a little easier to deal with. I still hate the BCS and the they seem to hate the west coast teams.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:49 pm

Sorry, Jack, but I´m siding with BK on this one.
 
 USC will kick the s*** out of Michigan to send a message to the nation that it was screwed so far up the ass by the BCS that a BCS computer hard drive is stuck in its throat.
 
 SC by two touchdowns, maybe more.
 
 Take care,
 PK

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:12 pm

Don´t be sorry brother. Just be ready to eat those words after the game <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:20 pm

If Michigan can´t beat Oregon. I shudder to think what a pissed of USC team is going to do to them in the Rose Bowl.
 
 Go out with their asses tighter than a bass drum and pull a Cal. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:38 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-07 17:20, JackDog wrote:
 If Michigan can´t beat Oregon. I shudder to think what a pissed of USC team is going to do to them in the Rose Bowl.
 
 Go out with their asses tighter than a bass drum and pull a Cal. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 LOL, if they´re gonna pull a Cal then they need to pray for a USC fumble on the Michigan 1 yd line in OT, and a missed 30 yd FG.
 
 The USC vs. Michigan matchup is the only thing that dulls the pain. It would be nice to see the west coast teams not get screwed just once. But apparently that won´t happen.
 
 Like I said before this is the 2nd time in the last 3 years the Pac 10 champ has been screwed out of the title by a Big 12 team that didn´t even win it´s conference, and got blown out in their last game of the season.

HipE · Post by **HipE** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 10:06 pm

USC only played one team this year currently ranked in the top 25, #15 Washington St. They also lost to an unranked team. I´m not saying they aren´t worthy of playing in the BCS title game, but if they would have played a tougher schedule, their BCS ranking would be higher. It´s hard to say they are any more deserving than either OU or LSU.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:10 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-07 18:06, HipE wrote:
 USC only played one team this year currently ranked in the top 25, #15 Washington St. They also lost to an unranked team. I´m not saying they aren´t worthy of playing in the BCS title game, but if they would have played a tougher schedule, their BCS ranking would be higher. It´s hard to say they are any more deserving than either OU or LSU.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 They are more deserving because they are ranked #1. As far as strength of schedule goes this is BS also. USC scheduled Auburn on the road, no one knew when they scheduled it that Auburn would be down. Also the PAc 10 teams seem to suffer in the polls due to people outside the Pac 10 not seeing them play and not giving them credit they deserve.
 
 The Pac 10 was down this year no doubt, but USC is as good as any team in the country, and ranked #1 in both polls. The BCS was created to pit the two top teams against each other in the last game of the season. This year the BCS again was not able to do so.
 
 A team that is not even it´s conference champion, should not be in the final game over a team that also had 1 loss and won it´s conference. And it´s not like Oklahoma or LSU played extremely tough schedules.

HipE · Post by **HipE** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:44 pm

Is it fair though that some teams play conference championship games, and others don´t? If winning the conference championship game is a prerequisite to playing in the BCS title game, then only teams that play them should be eligible. Maybe it is the polls that are what is messed up, when a loss earlier in the season is less important than one at the end. That is why they include more than just the polls in the BCS calculations, so that strength of schedule,rankings that don´t factor in the date of losses, and quality wins against top ranked opponents are also factored in.
 
 USC
 Wins vs ranked teams: #15 Washington St
 Losses: Cal
 
 LSU
 Wins vs ranked teams: #11 Georgia (twice), #16 Miss
 Losses: #17 Florida
 
 Oklahoma
 Wins vs ranked teams: #5 Texas, #21 Oklahoma St
 Losses: #8 Kansas St
 
 I myself would like to see LSU vs USC in the title game, but I don´t think USC was necessarily screwed.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:07 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-07 19:44, HipE wrote:
 Is it fair though that some teams play conference championship games, and others don´t? If winning the conference championship game is a prerequisite to playing in the BCS title game, then only teams that play them should be eligible. Maybe it is the polls that are what is messed up, when a loss earlier in the season is less important than one at the end. That is why they include more than just the polls in the BCS calculations, so that strength of schedule,rankings that don´t factor in the date of losses, and quality wins against top ranked opponents are also factored in.
 
 USC
 Wins vs ranked teams: #15 Washington St
 Losses: Cal
 
 LSU
 Wins vs ranked teams: #11 Georgia (twice), #16 Miss
 Losses: #17 Florida
 
 Oklahoma
 Wins vs ranked teams: #5 Texas, #21 Oklahoma St
 Losses: #8 Kansas St
 
 I myself would like to see LSU vs USC in the title game, but I don´t think USC was necessarily screwed.
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Let´s remember something. Those conference have championship games for one reason: more money. Lets also remember that it doesnt matter since Nebraska got in over Oregon 2 years ago despite not even making their conference title game. There is a trend here, West Coast teams not getting a shot.
 
 Lets also look, USC actually played a tough Out of conference schedule than both LSU and Oklahoma. USC is being punished because their conference is deemed weaker than the other two. They can´t help their conference schedule. Also
 
 I want to see the 2 best teams in the final game if there´s no playoff. And the #1 ranked team in the nation is not in that game. Other than their game with Cal USC basically blew out every team they played.
 
 A team that is ranked #1 in the country and not in the big game, is getting screwed, and is exactly what the BCS was supposed to avoid.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:30 am

I don´t follow college football that closely but was the BCS really about determining the best team or just preserving the bowls?
 
 Seems like if you put in a playoff system, the bowls as they exist now or existed before won´t work. No doubt college playoff games will also pack stadiums and generate cash but a place like Michigan will have no problems filling its stadium just with its own fans.
 
 Where bowls generate so much money is drawing in tens of thousands of fans from out of town, to patronize hotels, restaurants, etc. for a week or so.
 
 College football is a business after all and they´ll probably adapt changes only when they can maximize revenues. Maybe if situations like this leads bowl attendance and TV ratings to drop, the people who run the game will look at changing things.

HipE · Post by **HipE** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:11 am

Yeah, you´re right BK. I was just trying to play devil´s advocate. It is pretty crappy that a team would get bombed in their final game, and still get in over the #1 ranked team in the country. USC definitely played what looked like it should have been a very tough nonconference schedule. I think Auburn was ranked #5 at the time that USC went to Auburn and blew them out. It´s funny how USC was left out of the BCS title game by having too tough of a schedule last year, then too weak of a schedule this year. Both years, USC was probably playing the best football in the country at the end of the season. They can still win the AP national title at least. They better watch out for Michigan though, who would be undefeated this year if they had even a decent punting game. That one has the potential to be a very entertaining, high scoring game.
 
 Hey, on the plus side, we get to see what amounts to two national championship games this year <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:20 am

Yeah no doubt HipE. I don´t think anyone is overlooking a very good Michigan team.
 
 Hopefully USC comes out and plays like they are a team with something to prove. If USC wins and they split the national championship it will further expose the BCS, as this was the exact thing the BCS was supposed to avoid.
 
 
 I was just thinking about the schedule thing. Last year they finished 10-2 despite playing the nations tougest schedule, and that kept them from the title game. This year they are being punished for too soft a schedule. Although their out of conference schedule looked much tougher when they scheduled it. Auburn was a contender for the SEC title, Hawaii is a bowl team, and ND was supposed to be a lot better than they were this year. They can´t help their Conference schedule.
 
 LSU played UL Monroe, Arizona and Western Illinois out of conference. Oklahoma played North Texas, Alabama, UCLA and Fresno St.
 
 Hopefully this will help to further expose the BCS for the sham it is. It´s a shame that computers and mathmeticians are deciding the title instead of the players on the field.
 
 
 [ This message was edited by: bkrich83 on 07-12-2003 22:21 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:37 am

>>>Maybe it is the polls that are what is messed up,<<<
 
 What´s messed up is the lack of a playoff. Division I-A football is the only NCAA sport that doesn´t have a postseason tournament or championship event.
 
 The "national championship game" determined by the BCS is not a legitimate championship event created by a series of postseason qualifying events or a tournament.
 
 It´s a f*cking sham, that´s what it is.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 07-12-2003 22:38 ]

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:41 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-07 22:37, pk500 wrote:
 >>>Maybe it is the polls that are what is messed up,<<<
 
 What´s messed up is the lack of a playoff. Division I-A football is the only NCAA sport that doesn´t have a postseason tournament or championship event.
 
 The "national championship game" determined by the BCS is not a legitimate championship event created by a series of postseason qualifying events or a tournament.
 
 It´s a f*cking sham, that´s what it is.
 
 Take care,
 PK
 
 [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 07-12-2003 22:38 ]
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Well said!!!