from Iowa to Indiana today, I listened to the ESPN talk radio and some guy called Jim Rome was on and griping as most are doing about the BCS. He stated about three times when OU beats LSU they will be crying to be #1. He said a lot of garbage, but assuming LSU will lose automatically is dumb. Does anyone know who this clown is? I had plenty of time to think and come to this conclusion, that not only does the BCS system need changes as several of you have stated, but I believe the media is at fault as well for the garbage we're all dealing with. All we heard is how this OU team will go down as one of the greatest ever. Winor lose they will be in the sugar bowl. Now that it's slapped them in the face, all are running for the high ground. They all look stupid. I hope that USC gets the crap beat out of them in the rose. I hope they don't get a first down until like the 3rd qt, and their second late in the fourth. I hope that LSU puts it on OK and good.
I was surprised at that as well. It might be better next year as people (aka the media) seem to get stuck on what you did the year before. Sometimes respect seems to come a year late.
NOW the new SUPERTEAM is USC. They are now invincible, you see. Now, I know, I know, the media told us that OU was invincible, but they LOST, so they are no longer unbeatable. Makes sense, right? I mean, as long as the media can rationalize that "not LSU" is the best team and cannot be challeneged, that is all that matters. Even though there is no undefeated team out there, the media needs a "not LSU" to be the undisputed (even if they are) SUPERTEAM. So, this week, it is USC. Of course, Michigan beats USC while LSU wins the Sugar Bowl, and what does that make LSU? Why, just plain lucky, of course.
Also, the human polls are infallible. Clearly, coaches who never get to watch games since they are too busy COACHING to WATCH TV make perfect voters on who is best across the country. Also, the totally unbiased media knows exactly who is best and would never let regional and ego-driven bias interfere with their voting. Thus, their votes are totally objective just like their reporting on politics (the idea that 90% of journalists are liberal would NEVER taint their job performance, I'm sure).
