How does Congrove do this?

[billybud]

yawn.

[Cane from the Bend]

I think you are just arguing because you are afraid to admitt when you are wrong... such as now.

If a heisman andidate is voted in, because of his total career success,then Adrian Peterson had no bisness being in the final 5, because he still had at least 2 more years of playing time to finish out his career.

Your argumnt has no validity, at all


>

You are bakpeddling fster than a tour defrance winner dodging allegations of steroid use.

You need to rethink your entire argument.

You are the one who brought Marshall into this topic. (stating SMU was within a fieldgoal in overtime of beating the herd to be bowl eligible).

I only pointed out the flaw in your assessment.

Not my falt that you can not be consistant.

>

Show me how one team fairly gets into theBC over another team in your proposal

No where do you give evidence of that.

A non-BCS school could lose 4 games in he regular season, and still be in theplayoffs, because they win their conference.

Where as, two teams from the same BCS confernce could both finish with 1 loss each, and only the conference winner would go on.

Which does not allow for things to be settled on the field.

Your proposal is unjustifiable.

And yes, playing 3 or 4 more games is that much to ask for.

You are again, using the student athlete as a commodity.

Also, check that again.

I haven't been griping in favor of any team.

I have been pointing out the inconsistancies of the AP.

One is not the same.

My personal feelings are easier than that.

Auburn did not win the BCS national championship in 2004. Hence, they were not the champions that year.

usc, also did not win the BCS championship in 2003. Hence, the were not the champions that year.

The AP saw it differently. But only for one of those teams.

Either you are ignoring what I'm really posting, or you are just an incomptent reader.

It's not about Auburn crying. It's about the AP crying.

>

How does the CFP parallel with the BCS.

The CFP does not have a nationally acredited standing (other than those of us who visit this site).

Nor is the CFP a member of the BCS.

Show me what 80% of teams finished the years in CFP's preseason poll, that finished in the same rankings of the final BCS poll.

It's more like, 80% of those ranked in the top 25, finish in the final top 25.

Also, that doesnothing to suport your usage of the CFP as a reference, now does it?

The debate is for or against preseason polls.

If a team is njustifialy held to a lower raning throughout the year, due to a non-preseason raning, then the CFP is just as guilty as the BCS.

Your argument doesn't favor the CFP. It shows a flaw.

(splash water on face now)

>

The argument is as fresh as yours.

Give evidence on why usc deserved a naional championship for winning the Rose Bowl.

See the neglect yet?

No, we then, reread my posts.

I am not arguing that I think Auburn should have the co-championship.

I am merely showing proof of how inconsistant the AP was, to give one to usc, and not to Auburn.

Your head is obviouly to thick to absorb that.

>

But, based on Tennessee's performance in their 2004 season, you would have ranked them in your preseason poll for last year.

You may not have said that Tennessee was a ood team last year. But you did say the following:

They likely weren't that bad.
They have a good program.

But neithe of these things mattered in their ending results, did they?

No, I already showed how Pitt wasn't any good in 1984. I don't think I need to talk about them anymore. Why? Do you?

>

In the end, all of your arguments do nothing more than support my side of the debate.

[RazorHawk]

Razor Hawk,

Until you can separate posts, and reply with your own arguments (as enfeebled as they may be), I will not respond to you.

It's difficult enough, just having one person misinterpret what I post.

But to have a second person doing it, and leaving in the mixed debate with the other person:

1.) it is almost impossible to tell who I'm addressing.

2.) it is not worth the effort.

So, essentially, you are not worth my time.

No offense, but it's like arguing with a schizophrenic.

Blending two posts into one, and agreeing with some of it, while challenging the rest.

It's confusing the hell outta me.

Now that post I understood, but it did not ramble on for 138 paragraphs. Also, are you related to CLF, as your posting styles do appear very similar?

[colorado_loves_football]

I think you are just arguing because you are afraid to admitt when you are wrong... such as now.

If a heisman andidate is voted in, because of his total career success,then Adrian Peterson had no bisness being in the final 5, because he still had at least 2 more years of playing time to finish out his career.

Your argumnt has no validity, at all

I don't base my 'opinions' on any one particular player. But, no, I didn't think Adrian Peterson, 2004, was necessarily a 'deserving' Heisman Trophy candidate. You are entitled to your opinion, however. I beleve it should be awarded for a 'career'.

You are bakpeddling fster than a tour defrance winner dodging allegations of steroid use.

You need to rethink your entire argument.

You are the one who brought Marshall into this topic. (stating SMU was within a fieldgoal in overtime of beating the herd to be bowl eligible).

I only pointed out the flaw in your assessment.

Not my falt that you can not be consistant.

I think the evidence is fairly substantial,that Marshall has an 'outstanding' football program. If you disagree, I guess that's your opinion, but I don't share it with you.

Show me how one team fairly gets into theBC over another team in your proposal

No where do you give evidence of that.

A non-BCS school could lose 4 games in he regular season, and still be in theplayoffs, because they win their conference.

Where as, two teams from the same BCS confernce could both finish with 1 loss each, and only the conference winner would go on.

Which does not allow for things to be settled on the field.

Your proposal is unjustifiable.

And yes, playing 3 or 4 more games is that much to ask for.

You are again, using the student athlete as a commodity.

Also, check that again.

I haven't been griping in favor of any team.

I have been pointing out the inconsistancies of the AP.

One is not the same.

My personal feelings are easier than that.

Auburn did not win the BCS national championship in 2004. Hence, they were not the champions that year.

usc, also did not win the BCS championship in 2003. Hence, the were not the champions that year.

The AP saw it differently. But only for one of those teams.

Either you are ignoring what I'm really posting, or you are just an incomptent reader.

It's not about Auburn crying. It's about the AP crying.

I understand what you are saying but I think the circumstances were differnet, myself. Oklahoma, 2004 was a 'strong' #2. Auburn, to their credit, rose up the 'ladder' to finish high, but not #1 or #2. Utah, to qualify for the Fiesta Bowl, had to finish ranked #6. I believe they were #5 at the time, unless I'm mistaken. Anyway, both teams won. If you are going to make a 'claim' for Auburn, I think you have to include Utah, to be fair. Otherwise, your argument doesn't have much validity to it.

Now, as far as how I would organize a BCS 'playoff'. No, I wouldn't likely allow teams that were #2 or lower, within their conference an 'at large' bid for the simple fact they were #2 or lower. Tell me how you can justify allowing a #2 from say the ACC, and not from the Big Ten?
I avoid that problem by not admitting any. I don't think it's unfair, if anything, it's still 'weighted' unfairly toward those conferences (ACC, Big East, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac-Ten, SEC).

All my proposal does, is 'assure' the BCS of a legitimate title pairing.

How does the CFP parallel with the BCS.

The CFP does not have a nationally acredited standing (other than those of us who visit this site).

Nor is the CFP a member of the BCS.

Show me what 80% of teams finished the years in CFP's preseason poll, that finished in the same rankings of the final BCS poll.

It's more like, 80% of those ranked in the top 25, finish in the final top 25.

Also, that doesnothing to suport your usage of the CFP as a reference, now does it?

The debate is for or against preseason polls.

If a team is njustifialy held to a lower raning throughout the year, due to a non-preseason raning, then the CFP is just as guilty as the BCS.

Your argument doesn't favor the CFP. It shows a flaw.

(splash water on face now)

I introduced the CFP for the simple fact that they do in fact publish a pre-season poll that ranks teams, end-of-season. There's no way around it. With 80% reliability.

The argument is as fresh as yours.

Give evidence on why usc deserved a naional championship for winning the Rose Bowl.

See the neglect yet?

No, we then, reread my posts.

I am not arguing that I think Auburn should have the co-championship.

I am merely showing proof of how inconsistant the AP was, to give one to usc, and not to Auburn.

Your head is obviouly to thick to absorb that.

I don't think it's 'inconsistent' to recognize one team (victorious in a BCS pairing), on equal terms with another (same result, different game) when circumstances warrant it. If your argument had any merit, then you wouldn't have to use 2003 as a reference point. Both teams (LSU, USC) had one loss. LSU wasn't a 'unanimous' national champion, regardless.

But, based on Tennessee's performance in their 2004 season, you would have ranked them in your preseason poll for last year.

You may not have said that Tennessee was a ood team last year. But you did say the following:

They likely weren't that bad.
They have a good program.

But neithe of these things mattered in their ending results, did they?

No, I already showed how Pitt wasn't any good in 1984. I don't think I need to talk about them anymore. Why? Do you?

As far as Tennessee goes, they were disappointing last year. As far as Pittsburgh goes, they are disappointing frequently. But, the fact remains, BYU beat a #3 on the way to winning their National Championship. Simply because Pittsburgh didn't finish ranked high doesn't mean BYU wasn't #1.

In the end, all of your arguments do nothing more than support my side of the debate.

I think that's debatable, myself. which argument are you referring to?

[billybud]

Marshall has an outstanding football program, if you think differently, you're clearly delusional. If you want to 'think' they were bad, that's your right, but doesnt' mean you are right in your assessment.

I don't know about "program"...but Marshall's football team is awful..They only won three games last year (and barely won those) and they were against the weakest of teams.

Marshall is not a good football team...Marshall would have to show some improvement this year to move up from awful to merely bad.

[colorado_loves_football]

Marshall has an outstanding football program, if you think differently, you're clearly delusional. If you want to 'think' they were bad, that's your right, but doesnt' mean you are right in your assessment.

I don't know about "program"...but Marshall's football team is awful..They only won three games last year (and barely won those) and they were against the weakest of teams.

Marshall is not a good football team...Marshall would have to show some improvement this year to move up from awful to merely bad.

I don't think they were 'awful' myself but you are entitled to your opinion.
4-7 overall, isn't that good, but they weren't as bad as you are suggeting they were.

L 19 Kansas St. 21 (this was a game that could have gone either way, as it was, it went K-State's way, who were 3-0 after the win (in WV).


L 13 Central Florida 23 (a ten-point loss, on the road, to the eventual C-USA 'runner-up' (and nearly beat Nevada in Hawaii, but for a missed XPA)

W 16 Southern Methodist (TX) 13 (an OT win against a team improving).

L 14 Virginia Tech 41 (A loss, on the road to a team that nearly won the ACC, outright and was near 'perfect' at home).

W 20 Alabama-Birmingham 19 (beat a team otherwise in a bowl).

L 3 Texas-El Paso 31 (a loss to a team that probably should have been in C-USA title game (but lost to Alabama-Birmingham & SMU).

W 27 Tulane (LA) 26
Mobile, AL (a near-loss for Marshall against a not-so-good team).

L 24 Southern Mississippi 27 (a come-from-behind, OT win for S. Mississippi, that put them in the New Orleans Bowl).

L 29 East Carolina (NC) 34 (E. Carolina, while not 'outstanding' not 'terrible' either).

L 3 Memphis (TN) 26 (a 23-point loss, away, was a sad way for Marshall to have to end their season).

Now, if you want to argue whether (or not) 4-7 constitutes 'failure' I'll leave that up to you. As for me, I think they were 'respectable'.

[colorado_loves_football]

consider that LSU lost to Georgia, barely beat Alambama, and lost to S. Carolina, early-on. I think they 'earned' the right to play in the Peach Bowl, myself.

First off they didn't play South Carolina last year.

Yes, but S. Carolina played Tennessee, and won. I simply confused the two. An honest mistake, not like you've ever made one.

Second I want to point out to you what everyone else already realizes about you. You boldly point out details when you feel they strengthen your arguement and gloss over them when they work against or simply add nothing to your twisted view of things. Let me point out not one but two examples in the quote above. LSU lost to Georgia in the SEC Conference Championship Game, which also happened to be their tenth game in a row without an open week in their schedule.

I dont necesssarily think a loss to Tennessee constitutes 'failure' regardless of the kind of year Tennessee had. Actually I was mostly impressed with how LSU played, but I think, in fairness, they showed they weren't BCS material when they lost to Ga.

They barely beat Alabama; a team who was undefeated at the time, ranked in the top ten at the time, had one of the strongest defenses in the country, that had Prothro not been sidelined may have been favored to win the game and finished in the top ten.

I don't necessarily think Alabama was 'better' than LSU. Obviously if they had been, they win. But it wasn't like LSU dominated them. Either way, LSU played hard enough to be in the SEC championship. They just weren't quite good enough to win the SEC, outright. It's not a 'slight' just a fact.

Oh yeah, you think they earned earned.... you know they earned a right to play in the Peach Bowl. You just want to try to demonstrate to us that you are being subjective about your arguements.

All I was getting at, is that LSU, by not winning the SEC 'earned' the right to play in the Peach Bowl. They obviously were an outstanding football team, just not BCS material. I'm not picking on LSU, but they, along with Va. Tech weren't quite where they needed to be. All that means, is they need to make adjustments to win a BCS bid.

[Cane from the Bend]

Nice try...

If the heisman trophy should be awarded based on a player's "career", then the College Football Hall of Fame should only recognize those players who won awards, over the course of their college football careers. And teams who won championships.

Instead, the College Football Hall of Fame honors many players, who had stellar careers. That is exactly what the College Football Hall of Fame is there for... to recognze a players acomplishments, over his College career.

Trophies awarded annually, are designed to honor the best players, for that season.

Your argument is flawed.

15 years ago, the Hiesman trophy wasn't even being discussed, until the 4th or 5th week of a given season.

Since then, espn has grown, and along with them, the power of the media.

And now, we have preseason heisman hype, starting almost as early as the end of a season (espn has, a look towards next year, following the championship game).

All players in the NCAA should have the right to be recognized, if the effort they displayed was outstanding enough.

And all players should have an equal chance at winning awards going into each season.

Saying otherwise, is to disregard the spirit of competition, and the very foundation on why awards are given to desering athletes, on a year to year basis.

>

Marshall 'had' a credit worthy (not a particulary outstanding) program.

Then Marshall got sanctioned and fined by the NCAA.

Now, Marshall is not very good.

They went 4-7 on the season.

Allowed 24 points scored against them by a Div 1-AA team.

3-7 in Div 1-A competition.

Did not beat a Div 1-A team who finished with a winning record.

Marshall was not a good team last season. Regardless of how good (you think) their program is.

Each team goes into a season with expectations. Most of the time, those expectations are centered around getting to a bowl game.

If Marshall's expectations were to win 5 games, then yes, they played competitively.

But I don't believe for a minute, that any team, save maybe Buffalo, would go into a year aiming for just falling short of less than .500...

3-7 in Div 1-A play, 'is' terrible.

>

Again, your argument is flawed.

It was the associatd press who made the 'claim' that Aubur ws wronged.

It was Auburn hat the associated press used as their final excuse for removing themselves from the BCS system.

If the associated press truly felt that Auburn had been delivered some injustice, then, they had the chance to be consistant, and award Auburn with an ap national title.

I am not the one forgetting Utah's record. Nor am I refuting that, either, Auburn or Utah should have a claim at the championship.

Look at my posts again. And this time, 'really' read what is there.

The associated press made no argument in favor of Utah. If they had, then I would say the ap should have split the co-championship 3-ways.

But the ap is who cried foul. But they did not back up 'their' claim.

Using the associated press' own rationale, Auburn ws entitled to a championship in 2004, as much as usc was in 2003.

It's not my argument. It as the ap's.

They were infact inconsistant. Because they only gave the co-championship to one team.

usc won the Rose Bowl in 2003. It was not the natioal title game. Had Michigan won, the ap wouldn't have given them a co-championship.

Auburn won the Sugar Bowl in 2004. It also as not the national title game.

However, usc finished '04 with a 13-0 racord. The same record Auburn finished with.

If your argument had any merit, by making a case for usc finishing with 1 loss, the same as LSU in 2003. Then you have to make the same case for Auburn finishing with 0 losses, the same as usc in 2004.

usc's 2004 championship was just as non-unanimous as LSU's was, using your logic.

Your argument is as inconsistant, and contradictory of itself as the ap's.

Now, to keep you from twisting my words on 'this' issue... it is my standpoint, that neither usc in 2003, nor Auburn 2004 are rightful national champions.

The LSU tigers won the outright championship in 2003.

The usc trojans won the outright championship in 2004.

>

As of the 2006 college football year, there will be 12 games played each season.

Your playoff proposal is absurd for the following reasons:

1.) the NCAA wants these kids treated like students first. You on-the-other-hand, are trating the kids like they are the endsto a means, by commercializing the sport, instead of preserving its tradition.

2.) with a 12 team schedule, and 8 conference games, a team could lose all 4 non-conference games, and stil be eligible for the playoffs.

3.) with only needing to win your conferene, great matchups, such as Ohio State vs Texas would be obsolete. And thus, teams would stop scheduling major opponents during the regular season, because there would be no benefit to winning those games. (hence, the reason why the ranking system and polls are important

4.) if a team from the MWC or WAC were to lose 2 conference games, and 3 out of conference games, yet, be admited to the playoffs, because they won their confernce... yet, 2 teams from the SEC finish with 1 loss each, and only one of those teams get into the playoffs... I doubt I am the only person that has a problem with that.
What that proposal does, is allow a team, that did not get the job done during the regular season (conference title games are post season play), an opportunity of winning the national championship, over a team who performed better throughout the season.

That is not settling it on the field.

What we have now is more ficient than your write up, in that perspective.

>

If the CFP has a preseason poll of who will end the year, ranked in the BCS poll, you are only suporting my argument against the preseason rating system (especially with an 80% efficiency rate).

My whole argument is how teams are unjustifiably ranked in the preseason, and wind up finishing higher than deserving teams who didn't get recognized early.

One really good example, is how Oregon finished ranked lower in the regular season than Ohio State.

The ducks had only lost 1 game, to the #1 trojans.

Ohio State lost 2 games during the year. One to he #2 TexasLonghorns, and the other, to Penn State.

Had there been no prseason polls, Ohio State would not have been ranked #4 going into the year, and Oregon might have played in the Fiesta Bowl.

(though, I did enjoy watching notre dame lose to the Buckeyes)

Now, you can use the weak argument that Oregon lost to Oklahoma in their Bowl game... however, had Oregon played in the Fiesta Bowl, then the loss to the Sooners would not have happened anyway.

>

Was BYU #1 in 1984...

Maybe, but, had there been no preseason polls, Pitt would not have been ranked #3 when BYU played them. Meaning, BYU would not have been given credit for defeating the #3 team.

That, afterall, is what helped to propel the Cougars into the #1 spot. Teams, back then, jumped fast in the polls for beating highly ranked opponents.

Unfortunately, the strength of schedule balancer was not in effect back then either.

If it had been, BYU would schedule strength would've been reduced for every loss Pitt acquired.

And, just because BYU finished #1, doesn't make bating Pitt more impressive.

Especially if he Panthers finishd with alosing record 4-7-1.

>

Regardless,

Yesterday, theassociated press proved my point about preseason polls.

espn released the ap poll yesterday, and, they analyzed how they would position those teams, as the season went on (based on predicted wins, or losss).

That's right, the associated press is already determining how they plan to rank teams, throughout the entire season, based on who they have currently ranked.

They said it themselves.

Now, I would love to give specifics (what teams are ranked where and where they will be moved to after blank competition), however, the associated press is extremely picky about people posting their information.

But I will say this.

They are projecting 3 rank changes for nd, & 3 for michigan.

And in their final projection, Michigan is stil ranked lower than nd.

They have Miami moving up as many as 5 positions, to finish 3 position lower than their expected peak. And Louisville never jumps ahead of Miami in the ap's projections.

I'd love to be more precise with regards to my details, however, according to the associated press, I would be tampering with a possible copywrite infringement (seeing as how those projections are based on expectations, and not yet current listings).

Anyhow, my point is made...

The ap proves their preseason poll is not just an assessment. But rather, their buildingblock of a team ranking system, for the entire year.

>

Essentially, I must be refering to all of your arguments here (at least in this thread)(that pertain to me, I should probably add).

Because I have dismantled them all.

>

Never-the-less,

Without ranking TCU, 'd like to see how you size them up for this season.

What would your assessment of TCU be... for this year.

like I said, not ranking them, but their performance potential)

[colorado_loves_football]

Nice try...

If the heisman trophy should be awarded based on a player's "career", then the College Football Hall of Fame should only recognize those players who won awards, over the course of their college football careers. And teams who won championships.

You are talking about two different entities.
Jim McMahon was a Davey O'Brien award winner (given to best overall QB) He also is an inductee to the College Football Hall of Fame.

Instead, the College Football Hall of Fame honors many players, who had stellar careers. That is exactly what the College Football Hall of Fame is there for... to recognze a players acomplishments, over his College career.

yes, but doesn't mean both can be incorporated together. I don't see where you make 'distiction' between the two, both likely apply, when appropriate.

Trophies awarded annually, are designed to honor the best players, for that season.

Your argument is flawed.

Actually I'm in agreement with you on that particular matter. But, doesn't change the fact that the Heisman trohpy is typically given as recognitiion for a player's 'career' effort.

15 years ago, the Hiesman trophy wasn't even being discussed, until the 4th or 5th week of a given season.

Since then, espn has grown, and along with them, the power of the media.

And now, we have preseason heisman hype, starting almost as early as the end of a season (espn has, a look towards next year, following the championship game).

All players in the NCAA should have the right to be recognized, if the effort they displayed was outstanding enough.

And all players should have an equal chance at winning awards going into each season.

Saying otherwise, is to disregard the spirit of competition, and the very foundation on why awards are given to desering athletes, on a year to year basis.

No, not all playrs have 'equal' chance, unfortunately, if you are going to win the Heisman, you need to have already established yourself in the NCAA, like it or not. Give me one example where that wasn't the case, and maybe I'll listen to you.

Marshall 'had' a credit worthy (not a particulary outstanding) program.

Then Marshall got sanctioned and fined by the NCAA.

Now, Marshall is not very good.

They went 4-7 on the season.

Allowed 24 points scored against them by a Div 1-AA team.

3-7 in Div 1-A competition.

Did not beat a Div 1-A team who finished with a winning record.

Marshall was not a good team last season. Regardless of how good (you think) their program is.

Each team goes into a season with expectations. Most of the time, those expectations are centered around getting to a bowl game.

If Marshall's expectations were to win 5 games, then yes, they played competitively.

But I don't believe for a minute, that any team, save maybe Buffalo, would go into a year aiming for just falling short of less than .500...

3-7 in Div 1-A play, 'is' terrible.

They were 3-7 in I-A play, I think they were 3-5 in C-USA play, unless I'm mistaken. They lost a game, to Memphis, badly, to finish the year, but in general, they weren't as 'terrible' as you are suggesting. They obviously have room for improvement, but in general, I thought they did 'respectable' in general.

Again, your argument is flawed.

It was the associatd press who made the 'claim' that Aubur ws wronged.

It was Auburn hat the associated press used as their final excuse for removing themselves from the BCS system.

If the associated press truly felt that Auburn had been delivered some injustice, then, they had the chance to be consistant, and award Auburn with an ap national title.

I am not the one forgetting Utah's record. Nor am I refuting that, either, Auburn or Utah should have a claim at the championship.

Look at my posts again. And this time, 'really' read what is there.

The associated press made no argument in favor of Utah. If they had, then I would say the ap should have split the co-championship 3-ways.

But the ap is who cried foul. But they did not back up 'their' claim.

Using the associated press' own rationale, Auburn ws entitled to a championship in 2004, as much as usc was in 2003.

It's not my argument. It as the ap's.

They were infact inconsistant. Because they only gave the co-championship to one team.

usc won the Rose Bowl in 2003. It was not the natioal title game. Had Michigan won, the ap wouldn't have given them a co-championship.

Auburn won the Sugar Bowl in 2004. It also as not the national title game.

However, usc finished '04 with a 13-0 racord. The same record Auburn finished with.

If your argument had any merit, by making a case for usc finishing with 1 loss, the same as LSU in 2003. Then you have to make the same case for Auburn finishing with 0 losses, the same as usc in 2004.

usc's 2004 championship was just as non-unanimous as LSU's was, using your logic.

Your argument is as inconsistant, and contradictory of itself as the ap's.

Now, to keep you from twisting my words on 'this' issue... it is my standpoint, that neither usc in 2003, nor Auburn 2004 are rightful national champions.

The LSU tigers won the outright championship in 2003.

The usc trojans won the outright championship in 2004.

USC was a NC in 2003 and 2004. LSU was a NC in 2003. There were co-champions, 2003. USC wasn't a co-champion, 2004. I don't think I ever suggested otherwise. 2004, however there were 3 undefeated teams, end of season. I think that's a problem the BCS needs to address somehow. Neither Utah, nor Auburn was a 'legitimate' NC, according to the 'major' pollsters. And for good reason.

As of the 2006 college football year, there will be 12 games played each season.

Your playoff proposal is absurd for the following reasons:

1.) the NCAA wants these kids treated like students first. You on-the-other-hand, are trating the kids like they are the endsto a means, by commercializing the sport, instead of preserving its tradition.

2.) with a 12 team schedule, and 8 conference games, a team could lose all 4 non-conference games, and stil be eligible for the playoffs.

3.) with only needing to win your conferene, great matchups, such as Ohio State vs Texas would be obsolete. And thus, teams would stop scheduling major opponents during the regular season, because there would be no benefit to winning those games. (hence, the reason why the ranking system and polls are important

4.) if a team from the MWC or WAC were to lose 2 conference games, and 3 out of conference games, yet, be admited to the playoffs, because they won their confernce... yet, 2 teams from the SEC finish with 1 loss each, and only one of those teams get into the playoffs... I doubt I am the only person that has a problem with that.
What that proposal does, is allow a team, that did not get the job done during the regular season (conference title games are post season play), an opportunity of winning the national championship, over a team who performed better throughout the season.

That is not settling it on the field.

What we have now is more ficient than your write up, in that perspective.

My proposal simply allows every confernece a representative to the BCS.
I don't think your 'objections' hold up to scrutiny, personally.

Pick a year, make an argument, I believe I can provide sufficient reason for why it would work. 2004 is a good example of what I'm talking about.
That year, Boise St (WAC champion) and Louisville (C-USA champion) were ranked top-ten, before their Liberty Bowl pairing. Neither team was selected by the BCS, and both were 'qualified', assuming top-ten is the standard being applied (top-12 is the standard, now).
Anyway, bottom line is, that nearly every year, there is minimally one team, non-BCS 'qualified' for the BCS. Some years (2004) there are several. Most years, none are represented. I have a problem with that.

If the CFP has a preseason poll of who will end the year, ranked in the BCS poll, you are only suporting my argument against the preseason rating system (especially with an 80% efficiency rate).

My whole argument is how teams are unjustifiably ranked in the preseason, and wind up finishing higher than deserving teams who didn't get recognized early.

One really good example, is how Oregon finished ranked lower in the regular season than Ohio State.

The ducks had only lost 1 game, to the #1 trojans.

Ohio State lost 2 games during the year. One to he #2 TexasLonghorns, and the other, to Penn State.

Had there been no prseason polls, Ohio State would not have been ranked #4 going into the year, and Oregon might have played in the Fiesta Bowl.

(though, I did enjoy watching notre dame lose to the Buckeyes)

Now, you can use the weak argument that Oregon lost to Oklahoma in their Bowl game... however, had Oregon played in the Fiesta Bowl, then the loss to the Sooners would not have happened anyway.

Go ahead and make an argument for the Oregon Ducks.
I believe they 'earned' the right to play in the Holiday Bowl, myself, as did Oklahoma. And the results would suggest that neither team (Oregon ,Oklahoma) were BCS material.
Now, consider, the Fiesta Bowl. There was a game that featured two 9-2 teams, both 'equally' qualified, based on ranking. And the result suggested both teams likely 'earned' the right to be there. I dont' really have a problem with that, either.
The Houston Bowl, pairing TCU and Iowa St, suggested that TCU 'earned' the right to be represented in the BCS, but weren't selected. Had Iowa St won, then my argument wouldn't hold up.
Bottom line: TCU would have made an 'outstanding' representative to the BCS, had the 5th bowl been in place. As it was, they were an 'outsider' as they have been througout their history, but I think that will likely change, this year.

Was BYU #1 in 1984...

Maybe, but, had there been no preseason polls, Pitt would not have been ranked #3 when BYU played them. Meaning, BYU would not have been given credit for defeating the #3 team.

That, afterall, is what helped to propel the Cougars into the #1 spot. Teams, back then, jumped fast in the polls for beating highly ranked opponents.

Unfortunately, the strength of schedule balancer was not in effect back then either.

If it had been, BYU would schedule strength would've been reduced for every loss Pitt acquired.

And, just because BYU finished #1, doesn't make bating Pitt more impressive.

Especially if he Panthers finishd with alosing record 4-7-1.

Ok, take the pre-season poll out of it, if you want.

Fact remains, they beat a highly regarded team, in their home stadium to begin the year. If your proposal were followed it's very likely BYU is ranked 'fairly' high in the polls, regardless (and Pitt not ranked at all).

So, explain how that helps your argument, if at all. Fact is, BYU was #1 'prior' to their game against Michigan. All Michigan did, was beat the Miami Hurricanes, who were #1 and unbeaten, at the time (and no, it wasn't the first game of the year for Miami).

So, those things need to be considered before you 'write off' BYU's NC.

Regardless,

Yesterday, theassociated press proved my point about preseason polls.

espn released the ap poll yesterday, and, they analyzed how they would position those teams, as the season went on (based on predicted wins, or losss).

That's right, the associated press is already determining how they plan to rank teams, throughout the entire season, based on who they have currently ranked.

They said it themselves.

Now, I would love to give specifics (what teams are ranked where and where they will be moved to after blank competition), however, the associated press is extremely picky about people posting their information.

But I will say this.

They are projecting 3 rank changes for nd, & 3 for michigan.

And in their final projection, Michigan is stil ranked lower than nd.

They have Miami moving up as many as 5 positions, to finish 3 position lower than their expected peak. And Louisville never jumps ahead of Miami in the ap's projections.

I'd love to be more precise with regards to my details, however, according to the associated press, I would be tampering with a possible copywrite infringement (seeing as how those projections are based on expectations, and not yet current listings).

Anyhow, my point is made...

The ap proves their preseason poll is not just an assessment. But rather, their buildingblock of a team ranking system, for the entire year.

The pre-season polls, clearly aren't 'perfect' nor should they be expected to be. I, for one appreciate them, they give a reference point whereby a team can gauge itself. If you can beat a #3 team, in their backyard, you likely have a pretty good team, at any rate. Without that, there's no reference point.
I don't think it's supposed to be a 'given' which team is ranked #1. That's part of the fun of it. If you can beat the #1 team, you've accomplished something. Take that component out of the equation, and you've lost something valuable, for the student-athlete, and for the fan, sitting at home watching the game on television.
Don't throw away tradition simply for convenience sake. Rankings aren't suppposed to be an 'exact' science, there's supposed to be margin for error, and upsets will happen, regardless what approach is taken.

Essentially, I must be refering to all of your arguments here (at least in this thread)(that pertain to me, I should probably add).

Because I have dismantled them all.

Never-the-less,

Without ranking TCU, 'd like to see how you size them up for this season.

What would your assessment of TCU be... for this year.

like I said, not ranking them, but their performance potential)

I think they have the 'potential' to win a NC, believe it or not.
Now, that's not saying they will. It's just admitting they have all the 'cannons' they need to get it done, if everything falls in place for them. A good pre-season ranking is a start. Now they have to win. If they win every game, finish the year ranked #2, they will be in the NC.
If they win they will be national champions, but that's getting pretty far ahead of themselves. They need to beat Baylor, if they are going to be BCS material. If they don't, Houston Bowl, here we come!

[billybud]

Well, Pittsburgh wasn't 4-7-1 when BYU played them. They were 0-0. I don't think you can 'ride' that argument to town.

The most idiotic statement I've read on a board in a while..LOL. How a team plays throughout the year is indicative of their relative strength. An absolutely, extraordinarily dreadful team starts the season as 0-0 as does the 13-0 national champion. Pittsburgh was not a good team that year
by any stretch, spin, or fabrication.

[Cane from the Bend]

Well, Billybud essentialy got that point out of my way.

Temple started last year 0-0.
Texas started last year 0-0.

Temple finished last year 0-11.
Texas finished last year 13-0.

All teams start with a 0-0 record. Their final record is how a team's season is measured.

I will add one thing, though.

Pitt started as #3, because of their preseason ranking. They could not live up to that measure.

That is also, more evidence of how preseason polls fail.

Pitt was a #3 projection, but did not even finish in the to 25.

That only shows how BYU defeated a team that wasn't contender worthy, and the Cougars were awarded a higher ranking for it.

Get it yet? (probably not)

A team can jump quickly in the polls, because they beat a team who is prematurely ranked high.

And because the official BCS poll is not released until week 8, the human element has a huge factor in shaping the format.

By releasing a preseson poll, the human ranking system is predetermining where their major voting focus will lay.

Human polls have one thing true about them all.

They will not make major changes based upon single loss, such as Pitt from 1984, who probably didn't fall out of the top 25, until after they lost 3 or 4 games.

If a poll is not going to let a team fall out of the top 10 after losing their first game, then, that's a predeterined synopsis.

There are 119 Div 1-A teams... and only 25 preseason rankings.

Furthermore, only 5 to 8 preseason unranked teams have a chance of being ranked after the first two or three weeks.

Even then, a top 20-25 preseason team can win their way back into the rankings (should they lose their first game), by winning in the second week.

That is an advantage teams ranked 34-119 do not have.

>

The Heisman,

That is what I have been saying. Heisman candidates are already being picked out, before a season begins.

But, again, that is giving them an unfair advantage.

You have now stooped to replying to my posts, by saying what I already have said... all the while implying it as though they are your words.

Why do you even get into a debate with someone, if you are not going to read "All" of what they have typed?

You are editing my posts, and responding to only what will support your argument.

Do you not realize, that everyone is on to you?

I know that you are going to ask for another example... eventhough the one above is obvious.

So, don't fret, cause there are other misquotes you deliberately mistranslated, and, I will point them out, as I address your many mistakes.

>

Your knowledge is faulty.

15 years ago, we did not have preseason heisman trophy contenders.

It's the strength of the media that curved that developement.

>

Here, with Marshall, is another example of your flawed reading capabilities.

Show me where I typed that you felt Marshall had an outstanding season, or team last year.

I don't see it.

I simply pointed out that you remarked on their 'outstanding' program.

You did say that.

And you also said they played respectably last season.

But, here again is where your argument is flawed.

No, Marshall did not play respectably well last year.

4-7 is a bad year.

I'll give you the Div 1-AA win.

But you have to take the 24 points Marshall gave up to William & Mary to go along with it.

And that's pathetic.

By the way, you need to "Reread" what I typed... yes another misquote from you.

I never said Marshall did not finish with 4 wins.

Look at my previous post again...

see it yet?

I wrote that Marshall finished 4-7.

I'm not taking anything away from them.

I'm just not going to let you get away with sayin they are respectable, because of a 4-7 season, when one of those 4 in is against a Div 1-AA team.

The win may matter to you. But the win is not in the least bit impressive.

Especially if they gave up 24 points to that Div 1-AA team.

36-24 was the final score. Not very good, for any Div 1-A team.

Which still does not change the fact, that Marshall did not beat a single Div 1-A team who finished with a winning record.

I don't see why you feel it is necessary to fluff Marshall with that much cherity.

They do not deserve it.

>

How do you function?

Your syntax is so _ss backwards, you can't even read a plain and clear message.

No, you are incorrect.

I am not putting usc, and Auburn on the same level.

The associated press did that back in 2004, after the Orange Bowl.

The associated press made it their argument, that Auburn got shafted.

Why are you not understanding this?

The associated press, announced their removal from the BCS, because their claim was, the system is flawed.

The associated press, made a big fuss following the 2004 season, because, from what they said, Auburn did not get a fair shake.

If Auburn was so unjustly treated, because they did not get to play for a National title, as claimed by the associated press, then, the associated press should have given Auburn a co-championship, just as they did for usc.

I stated in my previous post, it was ot my argument to give Auburn a national title.

You continue to fail in seeing that.

Again, reread my post.

Because you are re-interpreting (misinterpreting) what I have typed.

It is not a simple assessment of what is written on your part. It is you telling me how wrong I am, by refering to things I did not put in my reply.

You need to read the "whole" post you are responding to, to have an intelligent conversaion.

...

However, if you want someone to absorb your half informative post, you need to do some real fact finding, before you try to argue a point.

I am now going to show you your flaw in the assessment of this co-championship ideology.

1.) you state usc beat an Oklahoma team who finished as a strong #2.

2.) you state that Auburn beat Virginia Tech, but struggled in doing so.

It's funny you should mention that, because, usc struggled in their victory over Virginia Tech in their season opener against the Hokies.

Matter of fact, had usc not received a gift from the referee who called an offnsive pass interference penalty on a Virginia Tech wide receiver, which the replay positively showed it was the usc defender that made the contact (essentially, usc should have bee penalized, not Virginia Tech), the Hokies would have had the ball on the 15 yard line and extended their lead.

But the botched call by the ref, changed the momentum of the game. Forcing Virginia Tech to punt, and allowing usc to squeak by with a win.

hmm...

3.) usc beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl of the 2003 season. Michigan was ranked #4.

4.) Auburn beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl of 2004 season. Virginia Tech was ranked #4.

5.) you mention that Aubrn beat a team (Virginia Tech) who had 2 losses to win he 2004 Sugar Bowl.

6.) coincidentally, you left out that usc beat a Michigan team with 2 losses, when usc won the Rose Bowl 2003.

7.) you also say that Oklahoma and Michigan were not championship material (of 2004).

8.) coincidentally you fail to mention that had Oklahoma beat LSU, Oklahoma would have been the National champions. But had Michigan beat usc, there would have been no award other than the Rose Bowl trophy given them.

Sizing up your information, and lack there of, it would seem as though Auburn was on a more equal level to usc than you are shedding light to.

Regarless,

I stated in my previous post, which you again ignored, that from my vantage point, I see usc as the sole 2004 national champions. And LSU as the sole 2003 National Champions.

'That' is what posted.

And 'that' is what you are twisting the words of.

(in that portion of your diluted pander)

>

'Your' proposal allows teams to lose 4 games a year with no conseqences. And depending on how poor a confence performs, a team who loses 5, 6, even 7 games, could make the playoffs.

Imagine that, a team who loses 4 out of conference games. Loses 3 inconference games. But wins their division of their conference with 5 total conferene wins, then wins their confeence championship game, is automatically invited to the playoffs.

Meanwhile, a team that finishes the regular year 12-0, loses in their conference championship game, is left out of the playoffs.

That is what your proposal is allowing.

And that is why your proposal does not allow for every team to settle it on the field.

I would have a real problem seeing a team with a 6-7 record, in the playoffs, because they won their conference championship game.

Even if they lost in the first round. You let a team who did not deserve being there in, over another team who performed alot better.

Right now, a team has to finish nearly with a spotless record, in order to make the championhip game. That is one of the reasons college football is so exciting to watch.

Every game matters.

But your system would change that. Which is why your system is unsaticfactoy.

By limiting a team's schedule to 11 conference games, you again lose great out of conference matchups.

I don't know where you read in my post that I stated anything about repetition of games played. I was in no way refering to the possibility of teams playing more than once in a season.

That is simply not in my post.

I am talking about good match ups during the season, against out of conference opponents.

Your proposal eliminates games, such as:

Ohio State vs Texas
florida State vs florida
Miami vs Loisville
usc vs notre dame
TCU vs Texas Tech
West Virginia vs Virginia Tech

ect...

These games would only be possible in a playoff scenario.

The regular season would become less interesting.

And, there would be no way to measure how good your team is against nation wide competition except for 1 game a year.

Not to mention the repetitive nature of seeing your favorite team, playing the exact same competition, every single year.

Also, if teams played 11 conference games, and take away the conference title game, 3 teams could potentially finish with the same in-conference record, and have all lost to each other, for example:

In-confeence Records

Michigan 10-1
Iowa 10-1
Ohio State 10-1

Michigan, 1 loss to Ohio State
Iowa, 1 loss to Michigan
Ohio State, 1 loss to Iowa

3 Big Ten conference winners.

Who gets the playoff bid? (remember, there is only one spot available)

>

You are reading too much into something that just isn't there.

I did not say Oregon was a better team.

But, they were more qualifid, by record standing than either notre dame or Ohio State.

However, because the preseaon polls had Ohio State ranked #4, they never slipped far enough down to allow Oregon into a top 6 ranking.

notre dame just flat out didn't deserve to be there. And if you are saying that they did, then I have some news for 'you', they didn't.

notre dame never fell in the rankings after their loss to usc. Nobody else would have been given that benefit.

If you lose, then your rank should reflect that. But, notre dame stayed #9 because of the human polls.

As for your saying the BCS did a good job overall, then, you seem to be forgetting how you reacted to TCU's omission from a BCS Bowl game.

And, 'FYI', the BCS does not sanction any other games than the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and the Rose Bowl.

The BCS had nothing to do with the team selecions for the Holiday Bowl, or the Cotton Bowl.

So, regardless of your contentment with the bowl match ups that took place, it doesn't change what did, or didn't happen.

Teams ranked higher in the preseason polls were given bids to play in the BCS games, where as, teams who were ranked sufficiently lower in the preseason, did not (unless you are refering to notre dame, who gets special treatment from all polls).

What didn't happen:

Oregon did not play TCU. Therefore, no matter how you want to twist things to make yourself feel better, TCU was not proven to be a better team than Oregon.

Without head to head competition, you do not have a reliable source for comparison.

You want to point out the ifs and buts, yet ignore them when they pertain to your argument.

That's contradictory to yourself.

You can have it one way, but not both.

And speaking of ifs and buts...I only brought up that Oklahoma would not have played Oregon, had the Ducks played in the Fiesta Bowl (which would have still showcased Ohio State, and not TCU by the way).

And I did so, because I know you would have attepted to use it in an absurd contorted possibility otherwise (Oklahoma beat Oregon, so Oregon didn't deserve to play in the Fista Bowl)(come on, admit it, that's what you would have said).

I just basically eliniated your argument, before you got to use it.

>

Yeah Colorao played respectably against Clemson...

But wouldn't it have been more satisfying to see Colorado win that game.

>

FYI, espn went over the projections of the ap. Not their own schematics.

The associated press gives espn the right to announce their polls. They also give espn insight on how their polls will likely be affected, depending on, who wins, and who loses (in an effort to be able to say,they had the information first)(the ap, that is).

espn only gives their predictions of who, in their opinion, will win or lose what games.

Therefore, espn, is giving the associated press' in season rank changing projections, based on espn's game winner predictions.

I'm not confusing the two. I simply short-handed my post. and the ap does have up coming rank projections, based on who wins which games.

And those rank changes, are base off of the teams currently ranked in the ap's preseason poll.

That's subjective. No matter the spin you want to try and mix up.

As for the ap's reason for leaving the BCS.

You have your story scrambled.

Sure, the reason you gave is what the ap told the pubic.

And for those who bought it, hink it's respectable.

But, we (the majority of us anyway) aren't stupid enough to fall for that propaganda.

The associated press removed themselves from the BCS for two reasons:

1.) they didn't have a big enough say when it came to selecting variable teams, for variable rankings and bowl games.

2.) they wanted to try and force a playoff system for Div 1-A football.

That also is subjective.

You seem to be forgetting what we are refering to here.

The associated press. They are a media collective.

It's cut and dry.

The ap does not deserve the right to tell anybody who the national champion is, unless they are reporting it as a story.

They are the media. They should only report the news, not create it.

Once they cross the line from news coverage, to news co-ordination, they become information manipulators.

That is when the ap shows who they really are... tabloid artists, and not journalists.

The associated press has become informaion manufactorers, which makes their whole uniformation, non-credible, non-trustworthy, and invalid.

>

Well, I didn't admit to 2003 being a fiasco. I stated that the ap was wrong to do it.

But, since they went ahead and did it. They should have been consistant enough to do it again.

But they did not, eventhough they complained about it.

I blame the associate press, not the BCS.

Also, you are again mistaken.

You are willing to stake your words on a fault.

2005 - Texas consensus Champion
2002 - Ohio St consensus champion
2001 - Miami consensus champion
2000 - Okahoma consensus champion
1999 - flrida st consensus champion
1998 - Tennessee consensus champion

2001 is speculative, though, Oklahoma was the only undefeated team left ater the season finished, so, they were the consensus champion.

Sure, the system has failed. But, it has also worked on more occasions than not.

And regardless of who is debating what.

Two teams do square off for the National title every year.

And only one team does emerge as the champion.

>

I don't care that you think TCU is Fiesta Bowl material.

I asked you to assess the team.

How does their offense stack up?
Are they doing anything new with their defense?
Other than Texas Tech, who is a potential loss?
What positions do you think still need a little more work?
Who is the marquee player?
Is/are there any player(s) who could carry the team should they get into trouble?
What adjutsments have been made to strengthen potential holes?

You are telling me how good TCU could be, because of how good they were.

I'm asking you how good they are.

There is a difference.

[colorado_loves_football]

Well, Billybud essentialy got that point out of my way.

Temple started last year 0-0.
Texas started last year 0-0.

Temple finished last year 0-11.
Texas finished last year 13-0.

All teams start with a 0-0 record. Their final record is how a team's season is measured.

Actually you are making an interesting point. It's not how you begin the year, that matters, it's how you finish, and I'm in agreement with you on that particular matter.
Pittsburgh, clearly wasn't a 'viable' #3. But, they clearly weren't 'so bad' as evidenced by their win over Penn St, who clearly wasn't top-25 material, but weren't 'bottom feeder' either.
Temple, doesn't really enter into this argument, but in 1984, they were 6-5 overall. Not bad, all things being equal.

I will add one thing, though.

Pitt started as #3, because of their preseason ranking. They could not live up to that measure.

That is also, more evidence of how preseason polls fail.

Pitt was a #3 projection, but did not even finish in the to 25.

That only shows how BYU defeated a team that wasn't contender worthy, and the Cougars were awarded a higher ranking for it.

Get it yet? (probably not)

Exactly, but that doesn't change the fact, that when they played, both teams were undefeated. BYU beat an undefeated Pittsburgh, in PA.

A team can jump quickly in the polls, because they beat a team who is prematurely ranked high.

And because the official BCS poll is not released until week 8, the human element has a huge factor in shaping the format.

By releasing a preseson poll, the human ranking system is predetermining where their major voting focus will lay.

Human polls have one thing true about them all.

They will not make major changes based upon single loss, such as Pitt from 1984, who probably didn't fall out of the top 25, until after they lost 3 or 4 game.

If a poll is not going to let a team fall out of the top 10 after losing their first game, then, that's a predeterined synopsis.

There are 119 Div 1-A teams... and only 25 preseason rankings.

Ok, let me see if I follow you here.
You are 'suggesting' that since Pitt 'finished' the year ranked 'low' they clearly weren't a good team to begin the year. I think that's an assumption, on your part. Pittsburgh was likely 'very good' beginning of the year. A season-opening loss, to an unranked opponent, can deflate you pretty fast. That doesn't change the fact, by season's end, BYU was ranked #1 overall. And that's all that matters, to me.

Furthermore, only 5 to 8 preseason unranked teams have a chance of being ranked after the first two or three weeks.

Even then, a top 20-25 preseason team can win their way back into the rankings (should they lose their first game), by winning in the second week.

That is an advantage teams ranked 34-119 do not have.

Rankings are inherently subjective. You are correct, there are likely more 'option's for teams ranked 'high' to begin the year, than there are those for teams that aren't. That being said, it isn't altogether impossible for a team to finish the year #1 if all the cards fall in place for them, as was the case for Brigham Young, 1984. Lest you think that was an aberration, refer to 1983, and 1980. Three times, in 5 years.

The Heisman,

That is what I have been saying. Heisman candidates are already being picked out, before a season begins.

But, again, that is giving them an unfair advantage.

You have now stooped to replying to my posts, by saying what I already have said... all the while implying it as though they are your words.

Why do you even get into a debate with someone, if you are not going to read "All" of what they have typed?

You are editing my posts, and responding to only what will support your argument.

Do you not realize, that everyone is on to you?

I know that you are going to ask for another example... eventhough the one above is obvious.

So, don't fret, cause there are other misquotes you deliberately mistranslated, and, I will point them out, as I address your many mistakes.

Your knowledge is faulty.

15 years ago, we did not have preseason heisman trophy contenders.

It's the strength of the media that curved that developement.

There have always been Heisman trophy 'contenders' if you are suggesting otherwise, your argument is flawed, not mine.

Here, with Marshall, is another example of your flawed reading capabilities.

Show me where I typed that you felt Marshall had an outstanding season, or team last year.

I don't see it.

I simply pointed out that you remarked on their 'outstanding' program.

You did say that.

And you also said they played respectably last season.

But, here again is where your argument is flawed.

No, Marshall did not play respectably well last year.

4-7 is a bad year.

I'll give you the Div 1-AA win.

But you have to take the 24 points Marshall gave up to William & Mary to go along with it.

And that's pathetic.

Not necessarily. 4-7 overall, in a year they were not expected to do that well, isn't 'pathetic'. I'd say it's 'progress' from the standpoint they were in an unusual situation, palying in a conference, they were unaccustomed to being in. All-in-all I thought they did 'fair'. yes, I did suggest they have an 'outstanding' program.
I don't think I need to qualify that. They weren't 'outstanding' last year, but they weren't as bad as you are suggesting, either.

By the way, you need to "Reread" what I typed... yes another misquote from you.

I never said Marshall did not finish with 4 wins.

Look at my previous post again...

see it yet?

I wrote that Marshall finished 4-7.

I'm not taking anything away from them.

I'm just not going to let you get away with sayin they are respectable, because of a 4-7 season, when one of those 4 in is against a Div 1-AA team.

The win may matter to you. But the win is not in the least bit impressive.

Especially if they gave up 24 points to that Div 1-AA team.

36-24 was the final score. Not very good, for any Div 1-A team.

Which still does not change the fact, that Marshall did not beat a single Div 1-A team who finished with a winning record.

I don't see why you feel it is necessary to fluff Marshall with that much cherity.

They do not deserve it.

You are basing your entire position on the outcome of one game, a game Marshall won. I think you need to try a fresh approach myself. They also played K-State and nearly won. K-State was undefeated, at the time, 3-0 following the win, I call it 'progress', myself. But you can have whatever opinion you want.

How do you function?

Your syntax is so _ss backwards, you can't even read a plain and clear message.

No, you are incorrect.

I am not putting usc, and Auburn on the same level.

The associated press did that back in 2004, after the Orange Bowl.

The associated press made it their argument, that Auburn got shafted.

Why are you not understanding this?

The associated press, announced their removal from the BCS, because their claim was, the system is flawed.

The associated press, made a big fuss following the 2004 season, because, from what they said, Auburn did not get a fair shake.

If Auburn was so unjustly treated, because they did not get to play for a National title, as claimed by the associated press, then, the associated press should have given Auburn a co-championship, just as they did for usc.

I stated in my previous post, it was ot my argument to give Auburn a national title.

You continue to fail in seeing that.

Again, reread my post.

Because you are re-interpreting (misinterpreting) what I have typed.

It is not a simple assessment of what is written on your part. It is you telling me how wrong I am, by refering to things I did not put in my reply.

You need to read the "whole" post you are responding to, to have an intelligent conversaion.

I can only 'interpret' what you type, I can't make your 'syntax' any better, either. As far as Auburn is concerned, I wish you would 'drop' it. If they were NC material, they would have 'proved' that against Va. Tech. But, to their credit, they won, maybe they 'earned' the right to play for a NC, post-BCS. That's been my position all along, incidentally.

However, if you want someone to absorb your half informative post, you need to do some real fact finding, before you try to argue a point.

I am now going to show you your flaw in the assessment of this co-championship ideology.

1.) you state usc beat an Oklahoma team who finished as a strong #2.

2.) you state that Auburn beat Virginia Tech, but struggled in doing so.

It's funny you should mention that, because, usc struggled in their victory over Virginia Tech in their season opener against the Hokies.

Matter of fact, had usc not received a gift from the referee who called an offnsive pass interference penalty on a Virginia Tech wide receiver, which the replay positively showed it was the usc defender that made the contact (essentially, usc should have bee penalized, not Virginia Tech), the Hokies would have had the ball on the 15 yard line and extended their lead.

But the botched call by the ref, changed the momentum of the game. Forcing Virginia Tech to punt, and allowing usc to squeak by with a win.

I didn't see that game. But, the fact remains, USC won, seems to me that's evidence in my favor, but what do I know?

hmm...

3.) usc beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl of the 2003 season. Michigan was ranked #4.

4.) Auburn beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl of 2004 season. Virginia Tech was ranked #4.

5.) you mention that Aubrn beat a team (Virginia Tech) who had 2 losses to win he 2004 Sugar Bowl.

6.) coincidentally, you left out that usc beat a Michigan team with 2 losses, when usc won the Rose Bowl 2003.

7.) you also say that Oklahoma and Michigan were not championship material (of 2004).

8.) coincidentally you fail to mention that had Oklahoma beat LSU, Oklahoma would have been the National champions. But had Michigan beat usc, there would have been no award other than the Rose Bowl trophy given them.

Sizing up your information, and lack there of, it would seem as though Auburn was on a more equal level to usc than you are shedding light to.

Anything's possible, I suppose. I know Va. Tech did have a pretty good team, 2004. I thought they were a 'legitimate' BCS team, and played well, in their loss to Auburn, who did show they were a 'legitimate' team, as well. But, if you are talking NC, you can't leave out Utah, or Texas for that matter (or even Louisville). Those teams all were as good, if not better than Va. Tech, IMO, based on results. Michigan lost. Plain and simple. Had they won, I guess I'd be putting them in the same category. Close, but no cigar.

Regarless,

I stated in my previous post, which you again ignored, that from my vantage point, I see usc as the sole 2004 national champions. And LSU as the sole 2003 National Champions.

'That' is what posted.

And 'that' is what you are twisting the words of.

(in that portion of your diluted pander)

You can have whatever opinion you want on the matter. Doesn't change a thing, in my opinion. But if you are suggesting LSU was a 'concensus' NC, I think you need to consider a few things, first.
LSU beat Oklahoma, who weren't Big XII champions, but 'runners-up'.
K-State (Big XII champions), lost to Ohio St, who weren't Big Ten champions, but runners-up (to Michigan).
USC (Pac Ten Champions) beat Michigan (Big Ten Champions) head-to-head. Your argument is clearly 'flawed'.

'Your' proposal allows teams to lose 4 games a year with no conseqences. And depending on how poor a confence performs, a team who loses 5, 6, even 7 games, could make the playoffs.

Imagine that, a team who loses 4 out of conference games. Loses 3 inconference games. But wins their division of their conference with 5 total conferene wins, then wins their confeence championship game, is automatically invited to the playoffs.

Meanwhile, a team that finishes the regular year 12-0, loses in their conference championship game, is left out of the playoffs.

That is what your proposal is allowing.

And that is why your proposal does not allow for every team to settle it on the field.

I would have a real problem seeing a team with a 6-7 record, in the playoffs, because they won their conference championship game.

Even if they lost in the first round. You let a team who did not deserve being there in, over another team who performed alot better.

Right now, a team has to finish nearly with a spotless record, in order to make the championhip game. That is one of the reasons college football is so exciting to watch.

Every game matters.

But your system would change that. Which is why your system is unsaticfactoy.

By limiting a team's schedule to 11 conference games, you again lose great out of conference matchups.

I don't know where you read in my post that I stated anything about repetition of games played. I was in no way refering to the possibility of teams playing more than once in a season.

That is simply not in my post.

I am talking about good match ups during the season, against out of conference opponents.

Your proposal eliminates games, such as:

Ohio State vs Texas
florida State vs florida
Miami vs Loisville
usc vs notre dame
TCU vs Texas Tech
West Virginia vs Virginia Tech

ect...

These games would only be possible in a playoff scenario.

The regular season would become less interesting.

And, there would be no way to measure how good your team is against nation wide competition except for 1 game a year.

Not to mention the repetitive nature of seeing your favorite team, playing the exact same competition, every single year.

Also, if teams played 11 conference games, and take away the conference title game, 3 teams could potentially finish with the same in-conference record, and have all lost to each other, for example:

In-confeence Records

Michigan 10-1
Iowa 10-1
Ohio State 10-1

Michigan, 1 loss to Ohio State
Iowa, 1 loss to Michigan
Ohio State, 1 loss to Iowa

3 Big Ten conference winners.

Who gets the playoff bid? (remember, there is only one spot available)

I'm having a hard time digesting all the information you are presenting.
Suffice to say, you are clearly 'wrong' in your analysis, otherwise I'd take the time (and energy) to respond to all your presentations.
First of all, it's highly unlikely a team would finish 12-0 and lose their conference championship. If they did, however, they clearly dont' belong in the BCS, based on results.
When Oklahoma lost to K-State it was because the Wildcats were better.
When K-State lost to Texas A&M, unfortunately, it was because A&M played better football. I think my proposal addresses those 'issues' a lot better than you are giving it credit for.
As far as 'co-champions', I think there are ways to select a 'deserving' team, just as there are ways to select division titles, every year.
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
If you do'nt like my proposal, that's one thing, don't nitpick just to make a point.
As far as rivalries go, that's not something I have any control over.
They could still exist in the 'championship' arrangement. But, no, I don't think they are critical to a team's overall success, at least not to the degree as conference games are. If you are defending the BCS, fine, but base it on 'solid' information, not 'baseless', mostly 'indirect' data that have little bearing on how a NC is determined.
K-State, 2003, lost several games, won Big XII outright. Now, tell me how they weren't a 'legitimate' BCS team, if you can. You can't.

You are reading too much into something that just isn't there.

I did not say Oregon was a better team.

But, they were more qualifid, by record standing than either notre dame or Ohio State.

However, because the preseaon polls had Ohio State ranked #4, they never slipped far enough down to allow Oregon into a top 6 ranking.

notre dame just flat out didn't deserve to be there. And if you are saying that they did, then I have some news for 'you', they didn't.

notre dame never fell in the rankings after their loss to usc. Nobody else would have been given that benefit.

If you lose, then your rank should reflect that. But, notre dame stayed #9 because of the human polls.

As for your saying the BCS did a good job overall, then, you seem to be forgetting how you reacted to TCU's omission from a BCS Bowl game.

And, 'FYI', the BCS does not sanction any other games than the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and the Rose Bowl.

The BCS had nothing to do with the team selecions for the Holiday Bowl, or the Cotton Bowl.

So, regardless of your contentment with the bowl match ups that took place, it doesn't change what did, or didn't happen.

Teams ranked higher in the preseason polls were given bids to play in the BCS games, where as, teams who were ranked sufficiently lower in the preseason, did not (unless you are refering to notre dame, who gets special treatment from all polls).

What didn't happen:

Oregon did not play TCU. Therefore, no matter how you want to twist things to make yourself feel better, TCU was not proven to be a better team than Oregon.

Without head to head competition, you do not have a reliable source for comparison.

You want to point out the ifs and buts, yet ignore them when they pertain to your argument.

That's contradictory to yourself.

You can have it one way, but not both.

And speaking of ifs and buts...I only brought up that Oklahoma would not have played Oregon, had the Ducks played in the Fiesta Bowl (which would have still showcased Ohio State, and not TCU by the way).

And I did so, because I know you would have attepted to use it in an absurd contorted possibility otherwise (Oklahoma beat Oregon, so Oregon didn't deserve to play in the Fista Bowl)(come on, admit it, that's what you would have said).

I just basically eliniated your argument, before you got to use it.

We've been all around this argument before, and i for one am tired of discussing it.
TCU 'qualified' based on results, had the '5th' BCS game been in place (which is clearly should have been).
As it was, they weren't selected, and neither was Oregon.
But, based on results, TCU was likely a better team, overall than Oregon was. I don't think you can argue differently.
I don't really care about Notre Dame. They are given a 'provision' to be selected, nearly every year, if they win 9 games. It's kept 'confidential', but trust me, Notre Dame is a 'shoe in' (or at least was) in that circumstance. Yes, they were 'automatic' ranked top-6 overall, imagine that. I for one, am tired of them getting preferential treatment.
Ohio St, at least won a share of their conference title, to qualify.
TCU, IMO, was a 'deserving' BCS team, based on their record, and SOS.
Minimally, they were as qualified as W. Virgnia was, but their overall ranking didn't reflect that. They needed a '5th' bowl, but didn't get one, otherwise they are an 'automatic' qualifier, themselves, thanks to FSU.

FYI, espn went over the projections of the ap. Not their own schematics.

The associated press gives espn the right to announce their polls. They also give espn insight on how their polls will likely be affected, depending on, who wins, and who loses (in an effort to be able to say,they had the information first)(the ap, that is).

espn only gives their predictions of who, in their opinion, will win or lose what games.

Therefore, espn, is giving the associated press' in season rank changing projections, based on espn's game winner predictions.

I'm not confusing the two. I simply short-handed my post. and the ap does have up coming rank projections, based on who wins which games.

And those rank changes, are base off of the teams currently ranked in the ap's preseason poll.

That's subjective. No matter the spin you want to try and mix up.

As for the ap's reason for leaving the BCS.

You have your story scrambled.

Sure, the reason you gave is what the ap told the pubic.

And for those who bought it, hink it's respectable.

But, we (the majority of us anyway) aren't stupid enough to fall for that propaganda.

The associated press removed themselves from the BCS for two reasons:

1.) they didn't have a big enough say when it came to selecting variable teams, for variable rankings and bowl games.

2.) they wanted to try and force a playoff system for Div 1-A football.

That also is subjective.

You seem to be forgetting what we are refering to here.

The associated press. They are a media collective.

It's cut and dry.

The ap does not deserve the right to tell anybody who the national champion is, unless they are reporting it as a story.

They are the media. They should only report the news, not create it.

Once they cross the line from news coverage, to news co-ordination, they become information manipulators.

That is when the ap shows who they really are... tabloid artists, and not journalists.

The associated press has become informaion manufactorers, which makes their whole uniformation, non-credible, non-trustworthy, and invalid.

I doubt the AP has an 'agenda'. I think they are simply trying to be 'respresentative' to the facts, such as they are. They dont' try to create 'controversy', you simply are ignoring history. Traditionally, there has been disagreement as to which team ultimately 'claim' NC honors. More times than not, there has been agreement, but occasionally (as in 2003) there wasn't. Dont' try to put something there, that isn't, just to make a point.

I don't care that you think TCU is Fiesta Bowl material.

I asked you to assess the team.

How does their offense stack up?
Are they doing anything new with their defense?
Other than Texas Tech, who is a potential loss?
What positions do you think still need a little more work?
Who is the marquee player?
Is/are there any player(s) who could carry the team should they get into trouble?
What adjutsments have been made to strengthen potential holes?

You are telling me how good TCU could be, because of how good they were.

I'm asking you how good they are.

There is a difference.

How good are they? I guess we'll both find out, when they begin their season, against Baylor.
Why should I 'assess' how they are, when you dont even care?
I think they have a very good team, offensively, and defensively.
I think they have a chance to win every game, but it's still 'up in the air', as to whether that will happen. I never said they would lose to Texas Tech, I've stated all along I think TCU likely will win that game.
Who might beat them? Well, on a given day, anything can happen, so any team on their schedule could win, if things fall in place for them.
I believe TCU has a legitimate shot at going 12-0. But, I'm not 'predicting' anything, other than a MWC title, and 'at large' bid to the BCS, for them.

[Yeofoot]

wow

[mountainman]

God gave us but 24 hours in a day .... I'll have to ask for a extension to read that one.

[billybud]

I just lubed my scroll wheel...