What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

If there were a combination of three undefeated teams from the Pac 10, Big 10, SEC, and the Big 12 then there would be a problem.

Until then, status quo.
Except that there wasn't. 2004: Auburn, USC, OU. Sure, the SEC was POed that they were the ones left out in the cold that year, but they know there's more $$$ to be made by staying in the system than opting out. The same would apply if there were 4 or more undefeated BCS teams. The money is just too good when they get to control who is invited to the big bowls. If you allow a playoff, then BSU, TCU, etc will be taking up spots in big games that could have gone to another member of your conference.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Except that there wasn't. 2004: Auburn, USC, OU. Sure, the SEC was POed that they were the ones left out in the cold that year, but they know there's more $$$ to be made by staying in the system than opting out. The same would apply if there were 4 or more undefeated BCS teams. The money is just too good when they get to control who is invited to the big bowls. If you allow a playoff, then BSU, TCU, etc will be taking up spots in big games that could have gone to another member of your conference.

LOL, you're right. I totally forgot that it had happened before. :D
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Except that there wasn't. 2004: Auburn, USC, OU. Sure, the SEC was POed that they were the ones left out in the cold that year, but they know there's more $$$ to be made by staying in the system than opting out. The same would apply if there were 4 or more undefeated BCS teams. The money is just too good when they get to control who is invited to the big bowls. If you allow a playoff, then BSU, TCU, etc will be taking up spots in big games that could have gone to another member of your conference.

It was also quite obvious that Auburn was the odd man out of those three schools.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

It was also quite obvious that Auburn was the odd man out of those three schools.

Absolutely. But what I said was true, at least with regards to SEC fanboys. If even THEY can't get the BCS to change course, there's no hope for any other BCS conference to do so.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

It was also quite obvious that Auburn was the odd man out of those three schools.
Wasn't that the year the USC destroyed OU in the Nat'l championship? If I'm thinking correctly, it wasn't so obvious after that game...
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

The Big Ten has a long history of holding grudges. The Big Ten wanted Notre Dame a long time ago which was greeted with a big screw you. So there is no way that Notre Dame joins the Big Ten outside of begging.

The Big Ten could combine the malignant self-importance of BC, Minnesota, Yankee Fan and Patriots Fan, and it still wouldn't matter. Cherche la cash.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Wasn't that the year the USC destroyed OU in the Nat'l championship? If I'm thinking correctly, it wasn't so obvious after that game...

Auburn was obviously the one team out because of how far down they started in the preseason polls. They had too much ground to make up.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Wasn't that the year the USC destroyed OU in the Nat'l championship? If I'm thinking correctly, it wasn't so obvious after that game...

I thought that was the year Oregon got screwed, but that might have been the year Nebraska limped in.
 
Last edited:
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Wasn't that the year the USC destroyed OU in the Nat'l championship? If I'm thinking correctly, it wasn't so obvious after that game...

The highlight was Ashlee Simpson getting booed by 80,000 people.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Which is complete BS, IMO.

Everyone thinks its stupid. Teams shouldn't be ranked until Week 4-5 at least.

Oregon got screwed a few years earlier, Kepler.

And in news that should make bronconick and CHA happy, FSU defensive coordinator Mickey Andrews is going to retire.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

If you're going to sit a guy, sit him. This 'first half' suspension deserves whatever ridicule it gets.

That said...things got nasty at the bottom of a scrum? The humanity!:eek:

I'm sure this sort of behavior never goes on in less prominent games, where there aren't 9 different camera angles to catch every play.

There's a difference between things getting nasty in a scrum and a guy attempting to gouge the eyes out of an opponent.

One wonders what he would have to do to earn an entire game.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

There's a difference between things getting nasty in a scrum and a guy attempting to gouge the eyes out of an opponent.

One wonders what he would have to do to earn an entire game.

Eat the guy's eyeball.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Everyone thinks its stupid. Teams shouldn't be ranked until Week 4-5 at least.

Oregon got screwed a few years earlier, Kepler.

And in news that should make bronconick and CHA happy, FSU defensive coordinator Mickey Andrews is going to retire.

So far Oregon, Cal and USC have gotten screwed from the Pac-10, Michigan from the Big-10, Auburn from the SEC and ??? Who was the third team when Miami and FSU played a regular season rematch for the BC$ title? From smaller conferences, Boise State and Utah have completed undefeated seasons and not gotten the national title. TCU may join them.

There will be an outcry for a playoff like there always is, but money says we won't get one anytime soon. The six conferences and the bowl people don't want a playoff. They'd rather have the "controversy", tweak the formula as needed and count their money.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

One of the big problems in years past is the former Pac-10 commissioner was very anti-playoffs because of the Rose Bowl.

That needs to change. Too bad the Pac-10's new commissioner is the former head of the WTA.

He probably has no idea what to do either. But until the conferences that keep getting screwed stand up and make a stink its not going to bother the conferences who enjoy the BCS (Big 12 and SEC.)
 
Last edited:
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Auburn didn't get screwed by the polls, they were 3rd in all the computer rankings, too. They played a really weak schedule.

Final BCS standings on page 8 of this PDF:

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2004.pdf

They didn't get 'screwed' by the polls, they got screwed for finishing in (essentially) a three-way tie for two spots.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

So far Oregon, Cal and USC have gotten screwed from the Pac-10, Michigan from the Big-10, Auburn from the SEC and ??? Who was the third team when Miami and FSU played a regular season rematch for the BC$ title? From smaller conferences, Boise State and Utah have completed undefeated seasons and not gotten the national title. TCU may join them.

There will be an outcry for a playoff like there always is, but money says we won't get one anytime soon. The six conferences and the bowl people don't want a playoff. They'd rather have the "controversy", tweak the formula as needed and count their money.

You might be thinking of 2000-01 when undefeated Oklahoma could play one of three 10-1 teams: Florida State who lost to Miami who lost to Washington. Naturally the BCS in its wisdom selected FSU, back when margin of victory was still a computer component.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Auburn didn't get screwed by the polls, they were 3rd in all the computer rankings, too. They played a really weak schedule.

Final BCS standings on page 8 of this PDF:

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2004.pdf

They didn't get 'screwed' by the polls, they got screwed for finishing in (essentially) a three-way tie for two spots.

I thought I read an article pointing out if the polls had placed Auburn second to start the season or third, they would have finished second overall in the BCS.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

The Big Ten has a long history of holding grudges. The Big Ten wanted Notre Dame a long time ago which was greeted with a big screw you. So there is no way that Notre Dame joins the Big Ten outside of begging.

Besides an extra team means an extra team to share money with not to mention it will throw off the scheduling for Michigan, Michigan State and Notre Dame, so not gonna happen.
Yeah, but the Big Ten would more than make that lost money up with a Big Ten Championship game. Between Ford Field, Lucas Oil, and however long they keep the Metrodome up in the Twin Cities, there's 3 good indoor venues to rotate the game around at. Heck, if they bring in Missouri, they could even throw in St. Louis's dome as well. Extra week of practicing for a game to keep your two top teams sharp, would help the B10 out come bowl season.

Me neither. It's the BCS conferences' party, and they don't have to let anyone else play if they don't want to.
Everybody keeps forgetting that Cincinnatti is in the Big East and thus, a BCS member.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top