I know how to solve all the BCS mid-major inclusion problems

[colorado_loves_football]

So, in 70 years of AP polling, 6 teams have reached #1 from unranked?...looks pretty tough to me...any in the last 25 years?

It's not tough because they are misranked, it's tough because they weren't ranked in the pre-season because they weren't any good to start with. Rarely do we have 3 major teams that are undefeated. In the last 25 years, three teams have started unranked and finished #1 in the AP, Clemson 81, Miami 83, and BYU 84.

Unfortunately, I think this is yet another example of your putting your own 'spin' on the facts.
BYU had an outstanding football team, 1983. In fact, they were outstanding much of the 1980's, but did have trouble beating teams (like Ohio St) in the Holiday Bowl. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that Brigham Young likely was a very good football team, early on.
They were the only team to go undefeated that year, and beat Michigan to win their first (and only) national championship.
They've been mostly a pretty good team, since then, but haven't (as yet) returned to their position as national champions.
But, it's not that they haven't been competitive. I'ts more likely they haven't been given sufficient opportunity to show they are capable of winning one, it's the same argument applied to TCU, but to a different team. By the way, BYU finished with an 'identical' overall record to Miami, FL, in fact both teams lost games, early on, and had to win, late in the season, to stay at the top. BYU was likely very good, beginning 1984.

[Spence]

Unfortunately, I think this is yet another example of your putting your own 'spin' on the facts.
BYU had an outstanding football team, 1983. In fact, they were outstanding much of the 1980's, but did have trouble beating teams (like Ohio St) in the Holiday Bowl. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that Brigham Young likely was a very good football team, early on.
They were the only team to go undefeated that year, and beat Michigan to win their first (and only) national championship.
They've been mostly a pretty good team, since then, but haven't (as yet) returned to their position as national champions.

The fact that Ohio State was playing in the Holiday Bowl should be a clue how good the Buckees were that year. The Holiday Bowl wasn't a great prize for Ohio State. They went their because the weren't good enough to hang with the big boys that year.

[ktffan]

[ quote="ktffan"]

So, in 70 years of AP polling, 6 teams have reached #1 from unranked?...looks pretty tough to me...any in the last 25 years?

It's not tough because they are misranked, it's tough because they weren't ranked in the pre-season because they weren't any good to start with. Rarely do we have 3 major teams that are undefeated. In the last 25 years, three teams have started unranked and finished #1 in the AP, Clemson 81, Miami 83, and BYU 84.

Unfortunately, I think this is yet another example of your putting your own 'spin' on the facts.
[/quote]

I stated a fact. How can you spin a fact? You are truely dumb and I'd appreciate it if you don't respond to my posts and include me in your idiotic world.

[colorado_loves_football]

I stated a fact. How can you spin a fact? You are truely dumb and I'd appreciate it if you don't respond to my posts and include me in your idiotic world.

You said they weren't 'any good' to begin with.
That's an erroneous assumption made on your part.
I'm trying harder to be less critical of others in my postings, I would suggest you follow my lead, or face the consequences.
I,for one am not impressed with the so-called 'facts' you present.
It would appear in this instance, there is someone who might agree, but I can't speak for Billybud.
You put whatever 'spin' you want on things. That's ok to a point, until you make it a personal attack.
I don't like you, and probably never will, either.

[Eric]

In the last 25 years, three teams have started unranked and finished #1 in the AP, Clemson 81, Miami 83, and BYU 84.

That's a fact, not a "so-called" fact at all. I am trying to understand you, but it just isn't clicking with me.

[ktffan]

You said they weren't 'any good' to begin with.

I said no such thing.

Seriously dude, quit resonding to my stuff. Idiocy wears me out.

[colorado_loves_football]

In the last 25 years, three teams have started unranked and finished #1 in the AP, Clemson 81, Miami 83, and BYU 84.

That's a fact, not a "so-called" fact at all. I am trying to understand you, but it just isn't clicking with me.

You're taking part of what he wrote and calling it the Bible. I dont' necessarily have a problem with the information he posts, provided it's verifyable (sometimes I question his methods).
You are missing the point, I think, Eric. He insults me, in nearly every post, read with your own two eyes, and draw your own conclusions.
I have to give you credit for being 'above' that sort of thing (as I believe most who are on this website do, respect each other's point-of-view).

He has a problem with my 'opinion's. Even that, in itself is'nt necessarily a 'bad' thing, in general, but I think you might agree that he does, in fact, put his own 'spin' on it. Again, that's not necessarily 'wrong' in itself, but I think the insults are too much. You probably haven't been directly insulted by him, as-of-yet.

I never claimed to have a vast knowledge of the sport. I likely never will, either. My opinions, are just that, opinions. I don't qualify them.
I don't necessarily expect people to 'like' them,but I don't think I should be attacked for having them, unless they are presented in a way that is combative.

I don't necessarily object to the information he posts, provided it's done in a concilatory manner. What he does, is throw his opinions 'out there', along with the information, and I think that's being 'prejudicial'.
BYU wasn't a good team in 1983? When they were 12-1? No, he didn't refer to them specifically, but you and I know what he was doing.

He doesn't believe BYU won a legitimate national championship, and that's his way of 'validating' his opinion. I'm guessing he likely feels the same way about Miami's NC, and Clemson's. Again, I don't necesssarily object to his views, it's how he presents them I don't like.
Let us decide whether BYU's NC or Clemson's was legitimate, not him.

[ktffan]

BYU wasn't a good team in 1983? When they were 12-1? No, he didn't refer to them specifically, but you and I know what he was doing.

And that's the problem. NOBODY "knows" I was doing that but you. Only you got that out of my comment. Everyone else has a brain.

[Eric]

I'm not calling it the Bible, but they do seem to have some validity. I don't know if he'd be posting all of these stats if someone were to pick it apart with faulty material.

I seriously don't know what the problem is. I don't think anybody here is biased against non-BCS teams, ktffan in particular, except for those who don't follow them and think that their team can "squash these puny losers." I try to be as rational and realistic as possible when talking about non-BCS teams. The plain and simple fact is that they just, in general, aren't as good. The bigger schools have the advantage on them. So when they win, I get about as excited as anyone because it is indeed a great accomplishment.

[colorado_loves_football]

I'm not calling it the Bible, but they do seem to have some validity. I don't know if he'd be posting all of these stats if someone were to pick it apart with faulty material.

I seriously don't know what the problem is. I don't think anybody here is biased against non-BCS teams, ktffan in particular, except for those who don't follow them and think that their team can "squash these puny losers." I try to be as rational and realistic as possible when talking about non-BCS teams. The plain and simple fact is that they just, in general, aren't as good. The bigger schools have the advantage on them. So when they win, I get about as excited as anyone because it is indeed a great accomplishment.

Ok, Eric, I'll try to be 'objective' in my assessment of your own position, as well as Kttfan's, but it doesn't mean I agree at all with what he's saying.
In effect he is in fact, putting his own 'spin' on what he thinks consistutes a 'legitimate' national champion. That's all well and good, provided he has sufficient basis for it, but I am inclined to believe he in all probability is simply putting his own 'spin' on things, for political purposes.
I don't have a problem with hearing an alternate 'point-of-view'. That's not the issue I'm having. What he is doing, in effect is putting into question whether or not a team like BYU 'qualifies' as national champions, based I'm assuming on what he thinks 'qualifies' a team, but he doesn't specify what those qualities are.
So, we are left to 'guess' what he's getting at.
Some may argue, that Clemson's national title wasn't a 'legitimate' national title, but I believe it likely was. I remember the 1984 Orange Bowl, Nebraska nearly pulled it out at the end, but the simple fact of the matter is they fell two yards short. Nobody should try to 'taint' Miami's first official national title simply because they 'likely weren't very good' at the beginning of the year. So what?
It's a moot point. He tries to apply the same argument to BYU but can't.
BYU likely was a very good football team, throughout the year. But, he's able to 'justify' his point of view, in part, because BYU didn't have to play Washington. They did, however beat Michigan, in the Holiday Bowl.
Now, if he wants to argue that there 'likely' was a better team, than that's the position he should take.
What he does, in some regard, is take both sides of the debate thereby keeping him 'safe' from any repercussion, while still putting himself on a pedestal of sorts.
I don't necessarily have a problem with presenting information, but if you are going to do it, do it for a reason. What point are you trying to make, exactly? It would appear to me that Billybud raised a viable arugment, that, generally-speaking, an unranked team doesn't 'rise' to the top, not that it can't happen, just that it's very unlikely.
That there are 3 examples to the contrary is interesting. But that's not what he was saying, he was saying that those teams 'likely weren't very good'. That's a lie, no matter how you look at it.

[billybud]

a waste of bandwidth.

[colorado_loves_football]

It's not tough because they are misranked, it's tough because they weren't ranked in the pre-season because they weren't any good to start with. Rarely do we have 3 major teams that are undefeated. In the last 25 years, three teams have started unranked and finished #1 in the AP, Clemson 81, Miami 83, and BYU 84.

This is a full 'quote' of what you wrote.
If I quoted you 'unfairly' it's only in how I stated it, I didn't change what you wrote, in context of how it was presented.
You stated, 'they weren't ranked in the pre-season because they weren't any good to start with'.
After that you introduce the 2nd part of your arugment, being those teams that were ranked #1, end-of-season.
You tell me what I'm supposed to infer from what you stated.
That those teams are somehow 'exceptions'?
You would appear to be forming an argument supporting your view that any team ranked #1, end-of-year, likely was ranked beginning of the year, otherwise they 'likely weren't any good'.
That's how I interpreted it. Sue me.

[Derek]

TCU would not stand up to Texas or USC or WV or GA or FSU or PSU....

WHAT part of that do you not understand?????

[colorado_loves_football]

TCU would not stand up to Texas or USC or WV or GA or FSU or PSU....

WHAT part of that do you not understand?????

Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion on the matter, but I disagree with you on principle.

Texas obviously is a Big XII team. TCU beat both Big XII teams they scheduled, 2005. They will be playing two more, this year. You don't have a legitimate 'argument' or else you would have presented it by now.
TCU and Texas are scheduled to play in 2007. Guess we'll have to wait until then to see if you are correct. That's only two years from now.

USC, TCU has already beaten, actually. Not that long ago, either.
No, Pete Carroll wasn't their coach, but they were a 'respectable' 7-4, and TCU ate their lunch, in the John Hancock Bowl. So, I guess that pretty much 'proves' you are wrong, unless you are arguing about USC now.
Either way, you don't have definitive evidence to support your position.
USC is likely a much better team than TCU. So what? Upsets happen.

WV? Well, if you are basing your assessment on how W. Virginia was last year, I can maybe sympathize with your position, seeing as how Georgia lost. Nevertheless, there is likley sufficient reason to 'doubt' your position, given that W. Virginia in a Big East team, and they had C-USA 'invitees' this year, one ofwhich nearly beat W. Virginia (Louisville).
So you are likely being short-sighted, if not entirely 'prejudicial'. W. Virginia likely was a better team, relative to TCU, but that doesn't mean they necessarily win a BCS pairing, in say the Fiesta Bowl. Tie.

Georgia? I think I've already address that pretty well. Georgia likely wasn't much better than Georgia Tech, as evidenced by their 14-7 win.
Nevertheless, I maybe will give the benefit of the doubt to the Bulldogs.
To my knowledge, no MWC scheduled any SEC team. Boise St had their lunch handed to them, too bad Boise St isn't a MWC team. Inconclusive.

FSU? I do'nt want to go there. I need only refer you to the fact FSU lost several ACC games. Only thing working in their favor, is they weren't to any of the 'good' ones. There's maybe insufficient evidence to support your view, but only because there aren't many direct comparisons. Utah likely was as good, or better than most of the ACC teams, including FSU.
Advantage: TCU.

Penn St? They were an outstanding football team. Nevertheless, they had trouble beating Michigan St. I'm not going to 'hand it over' to them quite yet. But, insufficient evidence, in your favor, at any rate.

So the tally is (in my view, anyway) TCU: 2, BCS: 2, Tie: 2

[Derek]

Georgia? I think I've already address that pretty well. Georgia likely wasn't much better than Georgia Tech, as evidenced by their 14-7 win.
Nevertheless, I maybe will give the benefit of the doubt to the Bulldogs.
To my knowledge, no MWC scheduled any SEC team. Boise St had their lunch handed to them, too bad Boise St isn't a MWC team. Inconclusive.

The GA and Tech game is always a rivalry. Each year the lesser team always steps up and plays better than they normally do.