Re: The College Football Thread
 

LSU had the 29th toughest schedule and OU had the 11th toughest schedule. USC had the 37th toughest.

Also, look at the losses for each team. LSU lost to Florida (ranked 15th) and OU lost to Kansas State (ranked 10th). USC lost to Cal (unranked and finished with a 7-6 record).

I have complete confidence that the two best teams will be playing.

Re: The College Football Thread
 

I think the BCS system is doing exactly what it was made to do. It picked the two best teams in college football. First of all the human polls have to be taken with a grain of salt, all of the people voting have at least some bias. Personally, I wanted to see USC beat up on OU, but I'll have to settle for an LSU-OU matchup. And who isn't gonna love Michingan and USC in the rosebowl, two of my favorite teams in college football (Canes still rule all ;) ).

A playoff system is not the answer. These guys are in college and adding games to their season is just making it more brutal and risking a lot more injury (not that they go to classes anyways--joking). I don't know if any of you have played college or high school football, but near the end of the season, well you just want it to kind of end allready.

Whether you like it or not the BCS is here to stay.


But i do think they should have used their "administrative powers" and sent Florida State to the Fiesta Bowl, and brought OSU to Miami for a rematch of last year's nat'l championship, ohh what a sweet revenge that would have been.

Re: The College Football Thread
 

I really hope you dont truly feel that way. Apparently you must be around colleges that are jokes. I can name many many colleges that do not give special breaks to their student athletes. Stanford, Cal, and UCLA are just a few of the many that come to mind. Im sure its not just some west coast thing either.

Perhaps you should tell all the student athletes at Stanford that they need to stop going to class. Did I mention that Stanford has the best Division I-A athletics program? (No, that is not my opinion, it is a fact) *ALL* Stanford athlete applicants must meet the same minimum requirements as any other regular applicants. They cant just cut all their classes and expect to continue playing sports. Yes, Stanford's football program is not one of the top in the country (right now:D) but Im sure that everyone would agree that they are becoming much better people than if they just let in anyone who could catch a ball, even if they couldnt spell their own name...

Please dont make generalizations like that...

Cory

Re: The College Football Thread
 

While I agree that it isn't right to make generalizations, I will admit that the majority of colleges do treat their student athletes differently. Going to a Division I-A school which most people don't consider a "joke" I can attest to this.

Admissions wise, it's a whole different ball game. They're just approximations but the average unweighted GPA of undergrads here is around a 3.8, for athletes it's a 2.7. Many times the only requirement that the athletes have trouble with is meeting the 860 minimum SAT requirement. I personally know 2 football players here that had to take the SAT's 3 times a piece to get that.

During their stay here, athlete's have to maintain a 2.0 to stay on the team. I will concede that they work very very hard for their programs with hours on end traveling and practicing. However, they get a lot of privlidges such as their own private tutoring and access to all class notes and practice exams. Many athletes also are given advice on which classes to take and with the curriculum at UCLA, there are few easy classes but when there are, they are inudated with athletes. This isn't a generalization; it's a fact when you see +90% of a class come out with the blue athletic backpacks. With all this help and easy schedules, a great deal of athletes don't go to class.

So I know this is a tangent from the "College Football Thread" but I just had to make that correction. I'm friends with many athletes and most of them are really nice and there are even some here that are really smart. I'm just saying that most of them are at UCLA for a different reason and it's obvious.

Re: The College Football Thread
 

I hate the BCS and I am glad to see how screwed up it is by not letting the #1 team in the Nation play in the national championship game. This year's scenario makes the BCS the laughing stock of the NCAA's.

On one hand, I think that there should be a single level playoff. On the other hand, there should also be much less importance in sports... so what does it really matter? College and pro sports have both gotten so out of hand these days, that I am ashamed to be a fan. In a way, I don't really care who ends up the national champ, due to the level of ridiculousness in sports.

With that said, I love football, the sport. It is really a difficult game to play well. The strategy and specifics to play the game well requires some brains. I played it for many (too many) years, from pee-wee to college (Division II and III) and even semi-pro. I think that I put in 14 years of playing a sport that I can't ever play again. Now that I look back on it, that was pretty silly. But, it was fun.

As for college football players, even at the level of division II and III, players get special treatment. They do get special tutors and better treatment in many instances. While Stanford Univ. is a great example of how a school should treat their athletes, I am guessing that they are not in the majority in what they require from their students. In a perfect world, all students would be treated the same. However, since atletics is important to alumni support, marketing (recruiting), and revenue generation, then it will remain important. While we may not like it, this will continue to happen.

OK.. too much rambling.

Andy B.

Re: The College Football Thread
 

Of course, SOS is an arbitrary formula. Of the computer rankings that publish SOS, LSU is ahead in 2, USC ahead in 2. LSU's opponents were 3 games ahead of USC's opponents (1.10 percent in the winning percentage), and their opponent's opponents were 10 games ahead (0.15 percent ahead). Not a significant difference, and so that point is certainly debateable

OK, I will look at the losses. Oklahoma lost by 28, LSU lost by 12, USC lost by 3 in triple OT. USC is one play away from being undefeated. Can't say that about the other two.

I don't. I think each team has a very good argument at being #2, and no team has a good argument for being #1.


BTW, every time I bring up the shutout statistic, everyone ignores it.

Re: The College Football Thread
 

Take a look at the SOS column. That is the SOS formula that counts the most. A stronger schedule could have made up the 16 hundredths of a point between USC and LSU.

Margin of victory was removed from the BCS formulas. To my knowlege, there has never been a "margin of loss" in there either. Therefore, a loss is a loss (+1 point in the BCS) no matter by how much.I try to adoid mentioning specifics too much in BCS discussions. In my opinion, a good system must remain objective and use general statistics, two things that the BCS does well.

Getting too specific leads to circular logic. For example, team A beats team B, team B beats team C, and team C beats A. Who's best?

I suppose this is the point in the discussion where one of us says, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."

Re: The College Football Thread
 

A Prime example of this. Stanford lost to Washington. UCLA stomped Washington. Stanford beat UCLA. As Kristina will gladly tell you, the laws of syllogism just dont work with football :)

Cory

Re: The College Football Thread
 

Wow I can't believe I agree with that loud "It's awsome babay" moron, Dick Vitale. He actually said something smart for once. Maybe the winner of the Rose Bowl should play the winner of the Sugar Bowl for the true national championship. That would be a nice combo of the BCS and somewhat of a playoff series.

Re: The College Football Thread
 

With about 10 minutes until the Rose Bowl, here are my predictions for the 4 BCS games


Florida St over Miami. Florida St is playing better then Miami, plus its hard to beat a good team twice in a season.

USC over Michigan. This game could be an offensive shootout, but more likely each team will score 20-30 points. The teams have lost a total of 3 games by a total of 10 points. It will be close, and in close games (on grass) I like USC's punting and field goal kicking.

Ohio State over Kansas St. Ohio State's rushing defense isn't as good as people thought, but still very good. Kansas State is good, but not great. Another close game.

Oklahoma over LSU. Oklahoma was embarassed in their last game. Not so this time. Its debatable whether LSU or USC is better then each other, but Oklahoma is still a step ahead.