'Style' points...I wonder if they apply to USC?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:46 pm

So USC almost loses to Washington State, whom Auburn beat 40-14. Anybody talking the BS about 'style points matter' in reference to USC like they did Auburn-South Carolina? Nope.

Musberger said as much during the Ohio State game, saying that OSU has a pass to the National Championship game if they simply win out. Implication? Style points don't apply to OSU either. Michigan won't have to contend with them, I'll wager. Why can't Auburn have a tough game against Steve Spurrier's Gamecocks without questions? Why can't they have a tough game against the number 6 team in the nation in LSU?

I'm sick and tired of the bullshit double standard. Sick and tired of it. Tell me there's not one. Just try it. Hell's bells-look at the balance of OSU's schedule-only Michigan will give them the possibility of a loss, just as designed. They play nobody! Bowling Green? Northwestern? Not a top 25 in the bunch other than Michigan. It's a joke!

Auburn, on the other hand:

LSU #6 then, #9 now
Florida #5
Georgia #10

They beat the piss out of a team that almost beat USC. Does that mean anything? Probably not. Haven't heard a word about 'style' points regarding that game. If I have my guesses, there won't BE a word about it, not a word of doubt about whether they 'deserve' their ranking.

I expect them, in fact, to leapfrog Auburn this coming week, if Michigan doesn't jump 4 spots to do it instead.

The BCS is a joke, period.

EDIT: I'm NOT saying that Ohio State somehow doesn't deserve #1. They beat Texas pretty soundly, I'll give them that, and there plenty talented. But to call them a 'lock', when all they have to do is win out is a double standard, when 'winning out' will not get Auburn the same consideration.

Until it is settled by talent shown on the field vs. opinion of talent shown on the field, this will never become close to a good system.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:52 pm

Man, talk about bitter.

If Auburn wins out, they will likely get the national title berth...no matter what the mainstream media says. They just have a higher strength of schedule and that will give them the push they need to move up in the polls. The only problem is that Auburn will lose one of the aforementioned top 25 games.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:22 am

All I know is that Notre Dame beat Purdue...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:49 am

dbdynsty25 wrote:Man, talk about bitter.

If Auburn wins out, they will likely get the national title berth...no matter what the mainstream media says. They just have a higher strength of schedule and that will give them the push they need to move up in the polls. The only problem is that Auburn will lose one of the aforementioned top 25 games.

Sit in my seat and try not to be bitter. We got bit in the ass a couple of years ago by this junk, and they're doing it again.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm questioning any team's ability or placement in the polls. I'm questioning those who do the questioning, because it is NOT evenhanded. It just isn't.

Auburn won out 2 years ago and got diddly for it. #1 stayed #1, #2 stayed #2, and Auburn stayed #3, and there wasn't jack that they could do about it. There was no way to legitimately say that they had no right to the title game, just like all the second guessing now is completely unfounded in the light of the fact that ONE-they are still unbeaten, and TWO-I NEVER hear about 'style points' or 'did they do enough to impress the voters' applying to anyone but Auburn. No, what I hear from the talking heads at ESPN is that Michigan, who is number 6, deserves #2 more than Auburn, and the silence from the same guys over USC's monumental struggle against a Wash St. team that Auburn CRUSHED in the first game of the season tells me that USC doesn't get judged by the same criteria.

But to say that Auburn gets a title shot if they win out isn't supported by history, and to say with any kind of definity that they WON'T win out is outright irresponsible at this point. They have EXACTLY the same chance of winning out as Ohio State at this point-50/50 each game.

I'm bitter because I'm paying attention to it...and if Auburn gets penalized come Monday because their win wasn't 'stylish' enough, then foul needs to be cried...

pigpen81 · Post by **pigpen81** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:26 am

Teal....please spare us...we all know the BCS is a joke. At least Auburn is in the BCS.

Quit whining about Auburn's injustice....you play in the MOST overated conference.

A win is a win...even 6-3 wins over and equally overated LSU team.

Heck, Tennessee barely beat Air Force AT HOME!

Teal...please realize I am yanking your chain as personally your a great guy...but as an SDSU grad(I know...they suck)...I am tired of hearing BCS folk cry about the BCS.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:29 am

As long as they're voting, it's a competition, not a sport (see e.g. figure skating, gymastics, rhythmic dance.)

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:00 am

LMAO. Auburn fans are great.

Unless UGA finds an offense they are awfully overrated at 10. Barely beat Colorado, and tonight very easily could have lost to Ole Miss.

As far as comparing scores please tell me your kidding, comparing scores makes as much sense as farting in to a vacuum, not to mention you were a dropped touchdown pass away from going to OT with a South Carolina team that had a WR playing QB.

Ohio St. has shown itself to far and away be the best team in the nation to this point. As far as Auburn vs. USC, it's still early, USC probably won't win out, but Auburn is no more deserving of being ranked ahead of USC, than USC is deserving to being ranked ahead of Auburn.

Just be happy you didn't play USC in 2004 you had a hard enough time with Virginia Tech.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:09 am

tealboy03 wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:Man, talk about bitter.

If Auburn wins out, they will likely get the national title berth...no matter what the mainstream media says. They just have a higher strength of schedule and that will give them the push they need to move up in the polls. The only problem is that Auburn will lose one of the aforementioned top 25 games.

Sit in my seat and try not to be bitter. We got bit in the ass a couple of years ago by this junk, and they're doing it again.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm questioning any team's ability or placement in the polls. I'm questioning those who do the questioning, because it is NOT evenhanded. It just isn't.

Auburn won out 2 years ago and got diddly for it. #1 stayed #1, #2 stayed #2, and Auburn stayed #3, and there wasn't jack that they could do about it. There was no way to legitimately say that they had no right to the title game, just like all the second guessing now is completely unfounded in the light of the fact that ONE-they are still unbeaten, and TWO-I NEVER hear about 'style points' or 'did they do enough to impress the voters' applying to anyone but Auburn. No, what I hear from the talking heads at ESPN is that Michigan, who is number 6, deserves #2 more than Auburn, and the silence from the same guys over USC's monumental struggle against a Wash St. team that Auburn CRUSHED in the first game of the season tells me that USC doesn't get judged by the same criteria.

But to say that Auburn gets a title shot if they win out isn't supported by history, and to say with any kind of definity that they WON'T win out is outright irresponsible at this point. They have EXACTLY the same chance of winning out as Ohio State at this point-50/50 each game.

I'm bitter because I'm paying attention to it...and if Auburn gets penalized come Monday because their win wasn't 'stylish' enough, then foul needs to be cried...

Why would Auburn have jumped OU or USC in 2004. They didn't do anything any more impressive down the stretch than those teams did. And don't complain, try being ranked #1 in both polls and getting left out.

Again, you realize comparing scores means nothing, or if it does, then you better beat Arkansas by more than the 50-14 margin USC did.

As far as Strength of schedule, I'll give you LSU, and even UF. UGA, is not a top 10 team at this point. Factor in games against Buffalo, and the fact that Auburn plays 8 home games and just 4 road games, and all the Strength of Schedule talk goes out the window.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:35 am

Again, the point is NOT the teams, but the baloney that is the BCS. I'm not knocking any of them, but take '04-one of those years that proves the BCS worthless. 4 unbeaten teams, no chance to see for real who's who. The NC game was determined before the year began. Barring OSU being beaten, they are the golden boys, where the words 'style points' don't come into play at all. Which is fine...I think the 'style points' argument is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

But why apply that to some teams and not to others? I'm not comparing scores so much as I'm showing the ridiculousness of the way the BCS does it! A win is a win-right on! UNLESS your a voter in the BCS, then the queer eye for the straight guy mode has to kick in, and how much of a 'statement' you made makes more difference than a W or an L. It's nuts.

It's not that a team is more deserving than another-it's that the system that they must play under is hopelessly and irreparably broken. It's the only sport in college that doesn't have a playoff system, there's no reason for it other than politics and money, and when we continue to have to bicker over who COULD beat who in a matchup rather than seeing the matchup unfold, we get he said, she said.

A group of elitists in a room deciding who's win was more 'impressive', who made more of an impact on the voters, all that baloney, is absolutely, positively loco. That we're even having this discussion is loco. What I hate about college football is the exact opposite of what I LOVE about March Madness...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:38 am

pigpen81 wrote: Quit whining about Auburn's injustice....you play in the MOST overated conference.

Teal...please realize I am yanking your chain as personally your a great guy...but as an SDSU grad(I know...they suck)...I am tired of hearing BCS folk cry about the BCS.

I know you're kidding about most of that, but most overrated conference?!? You can't be serious...

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:41 am

tealboy03 wrote:
pigpen81 wrote: Quit whining about Auburn's injustice....you play in the MOST overated conference.

Teal...please realize I am yanking your chain as personally your a great guy...but as an SDSU grad(I know...they suck)...I am tired of hearing BCS folk cry about the BCS.
I know you're kidding about most of that, but most overrated conference?!? You can't be serious...

You think UGA would be ranked #10 if they weren't in the SEC?

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:42 am

tealboy03 wrote:Again, the point is NOT the teams, but the baloney that is the BCS. I'm not knocking any of them, but take '04-one of those years that proves the BCS worthless. 4 unbeaten teams, no chance to see for real who's who. The NC game was determined before the year began. Barring OSU being beaten, they are the golden boys, where the words 'style points' don't come into play at all. Which is fine...I think the 'style points' argument is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

But why apply that to some teams and not to others? I'm not comparing scores so much as I'm showing the ridiculousness of the way the BCS does it! A win is a win-right on! UNLESS your a voter in the BCS, then the queer eye for the straight guy mode has to kick in, and how much of a 'statement' you made makes more difference than a W or an L. It's nuts.

It's not that a team is more deserving than another-it's that the system that they must play under is hopelessly and irreparably broken. It's the only sport in college that doesn't have a playoff system, there's no reason for it other than politics and money, and when we continue to have to bicker over who COULD beat who in a matchup rather than seeing the matchup unfold, we get he said, she said.

A group of elitists in a room deciding who's win was more 'impressive', who made more of an impact on the voters, all that baloney, is absolutely, positively loco. That we're even having this discussion is loco. What I hate about college football is the exact opposite of what I LOVE about March Madness...

Pac 10 fans have known about since 2001. See Oregon or USC in 2001 or 2003 for proof.

Programmed2Kill · Post by **Programmed2Kill** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:08 am

tealboy03 wrote:

Sit in my seat and try not to be bitter. We got bit in the ass a couple of years ago by this junk, and they're doing it again.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm questioning any team's ability or placement in the polls. I'm questioning those who do the questioning, because it is NOT evenhanded. It just isn't.

Auburn won out 2 years ago and got diddly for it. #1 stayed #1, #2 stayed #2, and Auburn stayed #3, and there wasn't jack that they could do about it.

The Citadel, dude.

The Citadel.

How can anybody complain NOW about not possibly getting to the BCS Championship game? Win your games first!!!

Auburn fans never fail to entertain.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:05 am

RobVarak wrote:As long as they're voting, it's a competition, not a sport (see e.g. figure skating, gymastics, rhythmic dance.)

Seriously. I stopped taking college football seriously in 1994 (I'm not old enough to remember PSU getting screwed by the European judges in the late 60s and early 70s). At that point I realized that even Penn State's two national championships were mythical.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:05 am

The two BCS sleepers this year: Michigan and West Virginia. I think both teams, at their best, can play with anyone in the country.

Michigan's offensive balance, when Hart is running wild and Henne is throwing darts to Manningham, Breaston and Arrington, is really fun to watch and a tough task to defend. And Michigan's run defense could be used as a wall between the Mexico-U.S. border.

Michigan-Ohio St. could be beyond b*tchin' this year. A hell of a lot more than just bragging rights on the line.

And I sure as hell hope West Va. RB Steve Slaton starts getting more Heisman consideration. He won't win it, as "B-r-a-d-y Q-u-i" already is engraved on the face plate, even more so now that Quinn will fatten his stats and stiffen the cocks of the national media against the remaining soft ND schedule leading up to the USC game.

But Slaton is a hell of a running back.

Take care,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:12 am

bkrich83 wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:Again, the point is NOT the teams, but the baloney that is the BCS. I'm not knocking any of them, but take '04-one of those years that proves the BCS worthless. 4 unbeaten teams, no chance to see for real who's who. The NC game was determined before the year began. Barring OSU being beaten, they are the golden boys, where the words 'style points' don't come into play at all. Which is fine...I think the 'style points' argument is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

But why apply that to some teams and not to others? I'm not comparing scores so much as I'm showing the ridiculousness of the way the BCS does it! A win is a win-right on! UNLESS your a voter in the BCS, then the queer eye for the straight guy mode has to kick in, and how much of a 'statement' you made makes more difference than a W or an L. It's nuts.

It's not that a team is more deserving than another-it's that the system that they must play under is hopelessly and irreparably broken. It's the only sport in college that doesn't have a playoff system, there's no reason for it other than politics and money, and when we continue to have to bicker over who COULD beat who in a matchup rather than seeing the matchup unfold, we get he said, she said.

A group of elitists in a room deciding who's win was more 'impressive', who made more of an impact on the voters, all that baloney, is absolutely, positively loco. That we're even having this discussion is loco. What I hate about college football is the exact opposite of what I LOVE about March Madness...
Pac 10 fans have known about since 2001. See Oregon or USC in 2001 or 2003 for proof.

I KNOW! That's what I'm talking about! Moreover, I'm talking about Corso, Herbstreit, and those knuckleheads at ESPN, their jibberish Thursday night after Auburn's win as to whether they 'did enough to impress the voters'. I didn't hear that line last night when USC eeked it out against Washington State. Musberger (idiot) indicated that OSU doesn't have to contend with that, so long as they just win. It doesn't have to be pretty for them, but it apparently does for Auburn to keep #2. The media has another separate 'hoop' for them to jump through that so far doesn't apply to the other teams in the top ten, except for Georgia, from the sound of it.

You guys can talk that 'Auburn fans are great' stuff all you want, but being an Auburn fan, I care enough to pay attention to it and see the descrepancy. I'm not a blind fanboy, like some of you seem to believe...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:14 am

Programmed2Kill wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:

Sit in my seat and try not to be bitter. We got bit in the ass a couple of years ago by this junk, and they're doing it again.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm questioning any team's ability or placement in the polls. I'm questioning those who do the questioning, because it is NOT evenhanded. It just isn't.

Auburn won out 2 years ago and got diddly for it. #1 stayed #1, #2 stayed #2, and Auburn stayed #3, and there wasn't jack that they could do about it.

The Citadel, dude.

The Citadel.

Bowling Green, dude.

Bowling Green

And your point is what, exactly?

Zlax45 · Post by **Zlax45** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:04 am

Programmed2Kill wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:

Sit in my seat and try not to be bitter. We got bit in the ass a couple of years ago by this junk, and they're doing it again.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm questioning any team's ability or placement in the polls. I'm questioning those who do the questioning, because it is NOT evenhanded. It just isn't.

Auburn won out 2 years ago and got diddly for it. #1 stayed #1, #2 stayed #2, and Auburn stayed #3, and there wasn't jack that they could do about it.

The Citadel, dude.

The Citadel.

How can anybody complain NOW about not possibly getting to the BCS Championship game? Win your games first!!!

Auburn fans never fail to entertain.

You forgot Buffalo...Who has been in the bottom 3 in the NCAA the last 3 or 4 seasons. Yes, My Eagles play Buffalo in a few weeks and we are ranked behind a Clemson squad we BEAT on the field. Is that right? Hell no!!

BTW..Your comparing Auburn playing at Home against Washington State to USC going into Pullman...Big difference.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:11 am

Leebo33 wrote:
RobVarak wrote:As long as they're voting, it's a competition, not a sport (see e.g. figure skating, gymastics, rhythmic dance.)

Seriously. I stopped taking college football seriously in 1994 (I'm not old enough to remember PSU getting screwed by the European judges in the late 60s and early 70s). At that point I realized that even Penn State's two national championships were mythical.

Exactly. The college football system is a complete and utter joke, and a real shame because the actual game is so entertaining. All the arguments against the playoffs are utter crap, because every other level of college football has a playoff with no adverse affects on the players. It's all about money, and as long as corporate sponsors, tv netwoks, and fans traveling to the meaningless Oops I Crapped My Pants Bowl continue to support this broken, backward system, it will stay broken and backward.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:39 pm

tealboy03 wrote: I'm not a blind fanboy, like some of you seem to believe...

I am sure you probably believe that.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:40 pm

Zlax45 wrote:
BTW..Your comparing Auburn playing at Home against Washington State to USC going into Pullman...Big difference.

Not to mention 1st game of the season vs. 4th game of the season, conference game, etc. etc.

But if he wants to compare scores, then I guess Auburn needs to beat Arkansas by more than 50-14 this year.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:43 pm

pk500 wrote:The two BCS sleepers this year: Michigan and West Virginia. I think both teams, at their best, can play with anyone in the country.

Michigan's offensive balance, when Hart is running wild and Henne is throwing darts to Manningham, Breaston and Arrington, is really fun to watch and a tough task to defend. And Michigan's run defense could be used as a wall between the Mexico-U.S. border.

Michigan-Ohio St. could be beyond b*tchin' this year. A hell of a lot more than just bragging rights on the line.

And I sure as hell hope West Va. RB Steve Slaton starts getting more Heisman consideration. He won't win it, as "B-r-a-d-y Q-u-i" already is engraved on the face plate, even more so now that Quinn will fatten his stats and stiffen the cocks of the national media against the remaining soft ND schedule leading up to the USC game.

But Slaton is a hell of a running back.

Take care,
PK

Disagree on WVU and Slaton. I want to see them beat somebody, before I jump on that bandwagon. His last game was less than impressive vs. ECU.

Agreed on Michigan. After last night's game, and having seen them play this year, I personally have them as the #2 team in the nation. Ohio St. is far and away the #1 team in the land at this point, but Michigan is sure coming on strong. That game should be insane at then end of the year.

At this point for Top 5 I'd have it something like this:

1. Ohio St.
2. Michigan
3. Auburn
3a. USC
5. West Virginia.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:46 pm

Zlax45 wrote:You forgot Buffalo...Who has been in the bottom 3 in the NCAA the last 3 or 4 seasons. Yes, My Eagles play Buffalo in a few weeks and we are ranked behind a Clemson squad we BEAT on the field. Is that right? Hell no!!

We're talking BCS teams here, man. That immediately disqualifies BC.

Take care,
PK

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:49 pm

tealboy03 wrote:
bkrich83 wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:Again, the point is NOT the teams, but the baloney that is the BCS. I'm not knocking any of them, but take '04-one of those years that proves the BCS worthless. 4 unbeaten teams, no chance to see for real who's who. The NC game was determined before the year began. Barring OSU being beaten, they are the golden boys, where the words 'style points' don't come into play at all. Which is fine...I think the 'style points' argument is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

But why apply that to some teams and not to others? I'm not comparing scores so much as I'm showing the ridiculousness of the way the BCS does it! A win is a win-right on! UNLESS your a voter in the BCS, then the queer eye for the straight guy mode has to kick in, and how much of a 'statement' you made makes more difference than a W or an L. It's nuts.

It's not that a team is more deserving than another-it's that the system that they must play under is hopelessly and irreparably broken. It's the only sport in college that doesn't have a playoff system, there's no reason for it other than politics and money, and when we continue to have to bicker over who COULD beat who in a matchup rather than seeing the matchup unfold, we get he said, she said.

A group of elitists in a room deciding who's win was more 'impressive', who made more of an impact on the voters, all that baloney, is absolutely, positively loco. That we're even having this discussion is loco. What I hate about college football is the exact opposite of what I LOVE about March Madness...
Pac 10 fans have known about since 2001. See Oregon or USC in 2001 or 2003 for proof.

I KNOW! That's what I'm talking about! Moreover, I'm talking about Corso, Herbstreit, and those knuckleheads at ESPN, their jibberish Thursday night after Auburn's win as to whether they 'did enough to impress the voters'. I didn't hear that line last night when USC eeked it out against Washington State. Musberger (idiot) indicated that OSU doesn't have to contend with that, so long as they just win. It doesn't have to be pretty for them, but it apparently does for Auburn to keep #2. The media has another separate 'hoop' for them to jump through that so far doesn't apply to the other teams in the top ten, except for Georgia, from the sound of it.

You guys can talk that 'Auburn fans are great' stuff all you want, but being an Auburn fan, I care enough to pay attention to it and see the descrepancy. I'm not a blind fanboy, like some of you seem to believe...

Musberger is right about Ohio St.

They blew out Texas at Texas, they blewout Iowa at Iowa, and if they run the table that means they beat Michigan at home. Ohio St. wins out, they are in, no matter what.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:15 pm

I think that the ACC wins the award for the most overrated conference. The only undefeated team left is Wake Forest. Duke is one of the worst teams in D1 - maybe only a field goal better than Temple. UNC is right behind them. FSU and Miami have underperformed as well.

Is the SEC any more overrated than the Big 12 has been for years? The last time the Sooners went undefeated to the championship game they had one impressive game: 12-0 over Texas - a team they owned for years.