Barkley threw for 380 against a Jr. High secondary. Even the USC homer Colin Cowherd will tell you that.
Yep, it's certainly not like Tebow throwing for 255 yards against that vaunted 104th ranked Arkansas pass defense. (lol... sometimes I just kill meopcorn
Look, I think the Pac-10 is better than what they're given credit for. And the Pac-10 has done good against the SEC over the last 10 years. I'm sure it helped a little that Florida didn't appear in any of those games though. I guess it's all how you look at things though. Over the last five years, the SEC leads 7-5. But anyway, the "halo" you're talking about is there because in addition to winning the BCS National Championship the last few years, the SEC has also broken the record for most bowl wins over the last few seasons. If you look at the final poll after last year, the SEC had 4 teams in the top 15. I think there were 5 the year before that. So it's not like these teams are dropping like flies throughout the season. I don't think Utah was a fluke. They were a really good team. I don't think that Bama was really pumped to be playing them and I think that was an advantage for Utah. But Bama lost and it wasn't really close. Fair and square... But what about all of the other bowl wins? Okay, but what's the alternative? Just using the human polls where a team like Oklahoma is still ranked in the top 25 at 3-3? Their wins are against Idaho St., Baylor and Tulsa. Look, I actually think OU is a good team that's had some tough luck, but up until this point, they haven't beaten anybody. The whole point is to WIN. Now, I think they can finish strong (ranked) and have a good year, but as of now they don't deserve to be ranked. You think LSU would be ranked if they had three losses and three wins against pathetic teams? I think relying strictly on humans is even worse. It's too early for any coach to really complain about BCS rankings (especially if your loss is against a team with a losing record at the moment). If anything, USC gets positive bias from the human voters every year.
can't believe i'm about to defend OU, but here it goes. yeah, they gt 3 losses. but those thre losses are by a COMBINED 5 points. and all to teams ranked 16 or better. they're a solid team, even without Bradford. and those games show that they're at the same level, and should be right around 25-ish if not a lil higher.
If the object of football was to play close, then yes, I'd rank OU in the top 25. But they have three losses and only three wins. I mean, I know all the polls have BYU ranked 16th, but they lost 54-28 to FSU. I think it's safe to say BYU isn't a powerhouse team this year and OU never really looked that good in that game. They weren't moving the ball much when Bradford was in there. It's BYU's only decent win. Like I said, I think they're good, but you have to rank teams based on what they've done and not how you think they'll end up. As of now, they don't have one win against any of the three ranked opponents they've played.
ok then. if you're taking them out of the top 25, who are you putting in? Michigan? has a loss to an unranked team on their resume. Notre Dame? see Michigan Cal? played 2 decent teams and lost by a combined score of 72-6 Nebraska? just got beat by 3 TDs they couldn't put us in the Rose Bowl USC was locked in, and they had one at large bid. If a Bowl loses its conference tie-in to the National championship, then by rule, they get 1st dibs on any at large team from that conference. In other words, the Rose couldn't take LSU unless the Sugar Bowl said it was OK. Not a chance in hell would the Sugar pass up LSU vs Notre Dame.
Yeah, I definitely see what you're saying and that's a good point. But I'd still put Michigan (5-2) in there over OU (3-3). If losing to an unranked team is the biggest deal, USC would be a lot lower. Michigan at least beat ND when they were ranked #18 and that's a rivalry game (and ND is pretty good). Michigan's losses were on the road to Michigan State (in OT) and to #7 Iowa by 2 points. It's just that Tulsa is OU's best win and that's just not enough for me. They should be able to beat Kansas this week so that would make it a little better (though I don't think Kansas is really good either...but at least they're a name). You're right though, there's not a huge difference. I hadn't really looked at the teams that were close to being ranked. There are some crappy teams out there this year.
The fact that you believe that is frightening in itself. Downtown, very good thoughts, good comments. You asked, "What are the alternatives?" And answering that question is where rePete misses the target. His teams are usually in the "BCS spotlight", so he knows the questions will arise. Instead of constantly doing his "I don't like it" thing, he should, by now, be more proactive in offering solutions. Just bitching without providing other ideas does not wear well over time, whether it's sports or business. My solution for staging the BCS into a meaningful entity is to eliminate both the "voters" and the computers completely from the process. It's quite simple. Every league needs a conference championship and only the conference champions play in the playoff. You could have eight participants. ND would have to join the Big East or always play in a secondary bowl. I'm flat tired of the NCAA accommodating the Irish every year. The NCAA should make them choose between having their independent status/TV contract and having the opportunity to join the BCS format. This would eliminate all bias, make the conference championships much more meaningful, and open the doors down the road for secondary conference teams to be invited. So far, my dog has agreed to the plan, given I throw him a bone. Whether one agrees or not, at least it's right there to read. I would challenge Pete to do the same... right or wrong. His spotlight is slightly larger than mine.
