Sounds as though me may have had AP voters protesting mor than really voting what is right. LSU should have scored when inside the OU 5 both times. Had the score ended 28-7 LSU would not have over taken USC because of the bias. JMO
No, it did not matter how much LSU dominated OU. The stats showed we dominated both sides of the ball. One bad decision by Matt Mauck made this a 7 point win instead of a 21 or maybe even 28 point win. It would not have mattered, I am convinced now more than ever.
Most of the AP voters mayed up their minds after the Rose Bowl and stated so. LSU could have won 72 - 0 it would have mayed little difference.
EXACTLY. My friends, this simple fact - and I'm not even saying EVERY AP voter did this - demonstrates the INHERENT fallacy of the human polls! The AP poll is NOT a tool to be used as the primary catalyst to stage a coup of the BCS. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the AP poll a tool used to (even if in a subjective way) rank football teams?? This PROVES that certain voters in that poll are NOT voting for the best team, they are voting for whatever outcome promotes their agenda. ARRRRRGHHH....everytime I think about it, it makes me furious! I could go on and on, but the Tigers just kicked the crap out of Arkansas and I want to stay in this good mood. FORGET THE AP!!!! GEAUX TIGERS!
This is the very reason why the BCS WORKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It compensated for AP voters and Coaches who are biased and allowed LSU to be in the National Championship game, instead of USC who did NOT deserve to be in it due to such factors as poor SOS. OU deserved to be in it if you look at the season as a whole. The question of whether you should win your own conference is debatable. The other solution that if you are #1 in both AP and Coaches that you should be in the NC is ludicrous. That just goes against the entire crux of why you have the computer polls in the first place, to combat the bias in the human polls. I hope to hell they don't go that route. Just have the requirement that you win your conference, and I would be content with that. You can't tell me 6 of the 7 computer polls are flawed in picking LSU convincingly (in almost cases) over USC. The New York Times is about the only you look at and say WTF (Maryland #3). This just happens to be the only poll that did not figure LSU as #1 over USC (it was essentially a tie as close as it was).
yea, don't forget all of the media is against us too. I hope that will become the X factor for next year. I think we will be underdogs once again.
We won't get the respect we deserve until probably winning another NC. Sad but true. So I guess we have to wait until January 4th, 2005. I guess I can wait that long.
There needs to be some way to factor in wins vs teams ranked 11-25. As of right now there is a bonus for beating teams ranked 1-10. If there was a similar way to factor in victories over teams 11-25 the margin between LSU and USC would be even greater.
The 2 things you will see changed are the QW fiasco where LSU was penalized for beating Georgia twice. And the fact you have to win your conference to be considered for the BCS NC game. Another thing they are considering is if you finish #1 in both human polls you are automatically in the title game. I hope that doesn't happen since that flies in the face of what the BCS was designed for in the first place....to offset the human polls. I hope they do start to consider more than just the top 10 for QW.
For the BCS, they already go to hundredths of a point, so for QW, why don't they further split the points awarded. They could do something like: 1.25 for beating first 1.20 for beating second 1.15 for beating third 1.10 for 4th 1.05 for 5th 1.00 for 6th 0.95 for 7th 0.90 for 8th 0.85 for 9th 0.80 for 10th 0.75 for 11th 0.70 for 12th 0.65 for 13th 0.60 for 14th 0.55 for 15th 0.50 for 16th 0.45 for 17th 0.40 for 18th 0.35 for 19th 0.30 for 20th 0.25 for 21st 0.20 for 22nd 0.15 for 23rd 0.10 for 24th 0.05 for 25th
