Not only is there no Pac 10 championship game between the two best teams, but each Pac 10 team also gets two bye weeks during the season. That means Oregon has to play 12 games only and never more than 5 in a row without a break. LSU has to play 13 games, including a string of 8 (5 vs. ranked teams) without a break. Poll voters must take this fact into consideration along with their correct perception that the SEC is the toughest, most physical conference in America. :redface:
No they should but they are not required to that's how we end up with teams like Ohio State getting blown out in the championship game. To the voters strength of schedule seems to mean very little.
To Oregon's credit, they've actually had to prove themselves to be title contenders so far, unlike OSU or Kansas (who will be tested soon). But if the choice comes down to LSU vs Oregon for the last spot in the NC, LSU definitely has a better SoS resume, especially if a Top 10 Georgia makes it to the SECCG.
This is a year where their lack of a conference championship game could hurt. The winner of the Kansas/OU game (if that is the case) could likely jump Oregon at the end of the season. Shades of 2003...
I know there's the injury factor but I'd prefer playing the extra game and not sitting around too long and getting rusty so, barring injury and a loss, I think the bye week is a disadvantage for them- not to mention a win sealing our appearance.
I'm beginning to think that SoS is foolish. Very often, a team is better or worse than they appear against supposedly good or bad teams. No team is going to be consistently good week in and week out. Kentucky might've beaten us not because we're a bad team, but because we weren't as good as we could've been at that time. The only reason we say that Tulane was overrated in 1998 was not that they had a bad team, but that they had what was percieved to be a weak schedule. In essence, all the SoS is is another flawed ranking system. It's trying to place a static value on a factor that is fluid. I know this all sounds convoluted, but the whole system really is silly. The notion that we can make an objective determination of the quality of any team versus another without seeing them play each other is absolutely pathetic. There's only one way to determine what team is better, and we all know what that is. Everytime I think about this, it makes me angry. We need a playoff. Why the hell is everyone talking themselves into ignoring it? Even if we attend and win the BCS championship game, I'm ashamed that we subscribe to such a stupid system. I'd forfeit the NC game in a hearbeat if it meant we could be a part of a system that makes some semblance of sense. Maybe that's the answer, if LSU had the cajones to do it. Of course, I can't reasonably expect LSU administration to be as radical in their methods as I am in my ideas. There's another thread that poses the possibility of a Georgia/LSU NC Game. What would happen if both teams boycotted the NC in protest of the idiotic BCS system that elected them? Can you imagine the upheaval? Sure, no one would care, but man, I'd be dancing in the street.
CLM said on his radio show a few weeks ago that he believes all CFB teams should get a bye after every 4th game. Simply because of the brutality of the sport, and that we're dealing with youngsters whose bodies are still developing. I'd like to see that, too. It would extend the regular season by a week or two, but I think it'd be worth it. You sure could see the wear on Auburn on Saturday. Their game vs. Georgia was their 11th in a row without a break. Georgia, on the other hand, had an open date 3 weeks ago. Logistically, implementing the every-4th-game bye week would be tough to do. You'd have to stagger teams' opening-game dates, for starters. I'd be interested to hear different thinkers' proposals on this issue.
