I don't understand the question. I was simply saying if they wanted the best teams today I think USC would be one of them. I'd like to see 8 seed USC get a rematch with 1 seed Bama to see how much things can change from week 1 to now. As we know the rematches don't always turn out like the original.
What I'm finding interesting in addition to the discussion of a CCG win and whether it matters, is the non-conference scheduling. During the BCS era, it only mattered if you weren't in the SEC and now Washington is getting called out for theirs being weak. Has the new process made the non-conference issue an issue for EVERYONE?
It's just discussion...even I know we don't belong but nothing wrong with imagining a re-match or considering what really matters. After chucking the computers, conference expansion, focused scheduling, etc, it's still eyeballs on games that matters to people and ultimately, there will rarely if ever, be total agreement on who the "best" really is.
I think so. The problem is that non conf schedules are made so far in advance that you may schedule a team that is shit hot today for a game 7 years from now & in 7 years they are playing like shit.
To be clear I wasn't saying USC should be in. It was to make the point it's not about who is the best bc USC is better than Washington. They smoked them 2 weeks ago in Seattle. It's the teams who have earned their way over the course of a season and that's how it should be. They don't always mean the same thing. But the line gets blurred when an urban Meyer is in the fray. If James Franklin was named urban Meyer or Nick saban, Penn state is in.
I started to mention that too. Didn't want to throw out too many PAC things cause these corndoggers get their panties all knotted up at the sound of PAC shit.
