If....!!!!!

[Eric]

West Virginia was idle, but they lost to Pitt the week before.

[Cane from the Bend]

If LSU loses LSU would still be #1. Kind of like Alabama losing and remaining #2. The SEC is a lock at the top regardless of wins or losses per ESPN.

`Bama moved to #3 after the loss to LSU,and went back to #2 because Oklahoma State lost.

Had Oklahoma defeated Baylor; a win for the Sooners vs Okie St would have put OU @ #2.

I'm actually looking forward to the Bedlam game in Stillwater.
Oklahoma: 375 pass average --- 172 rush average per game
Okie State: 401 pass average --- 161 rush average per game

Winner takes the Big XII crown.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

Florida lost to a lower ranked team than Michigan in 2006, that really doesn't matter as Florida proved.

Michigan's only win vs a ranked team, was against Notre Dame.
Florida's wins vs ranked opponents included: Tennessee - LSU - Arkansas

Florida lost to #11 Auburn; Oklahoma State lost to unranked Iowa State team.

.

.

.

[Spence]

Florida lost to a lower ranked team than Michigan in 2006, that really doesn't matter as Florida proved.

Michigan's only win vs a ranked team, was against Notre Dame.
Florida's wins vs ranked opponents included: Tennessee - LSU - Arkansas

Florida lost to #11 Auburn; Oklahoma State lost to unranked Iowa State team.

.

.

.

That wasn't what you said, though, you said Okla St and Va Tech lost to lower ranked teams so I pointed out that Florida did too.


If two teams from the same conference play - two teams that have played each other- you take away the very reason for the bowl games - to see how this conference compares to that one. If we knew for a fact who the best teams were, we wouldn't even need to play the games. Virginia Tech's season has been a lot like Ohio State in 2002, except Tech lost one. They have won ugly, but that doesn't mean they aren't a good enough football team to go against LSU. Okla St. is a different animal, but they have lost a game they let get away because they lost focus. Both have a record that says they should get a shot. Oregon played LSU so they shouldn't have a rematch either.


Of course UCLA shouldn't even be playing, These conference championships are not what they are cracked up to be in most cases. If conferences need to find who their rep will be let them use the championships to do it. A team who has 6 losses shouldn't even be in a bowl game. & losses is even worse and they are playing for their conference championship. That is a joke.

[Cane from the Bend]

Actually, Spence, go back and reread my comments. It is exactly what I have been saying.

Iowa State being unranked is the common theme here.

I have posted many times that Va Tech should be considered (if/when they beat Clemson).

I simply point out, that the system we have, likely wont give the Hokies an open pass unless LSU loses to Georgia.

I disagree that the bowl games we have correlate to comparing National Champions.

Yes (other than cash cows), the bowls are used as an end of the year comparison of the conferences. However, that does not fit the standard of a Bowl Champion. Because, even if you showcase teams from two separate conferences, you are still only comparing two conferences and neglecting the rest, with regards to championship status.

The BCS National title game, is not about comparing which of the two best conferences get to choose their team to play for a title. It is about finding the best two teams. Regardless of what conference(s) they are from.

However, I think you somewhat made my point for me.

I've seen others against the rematch scenario, comment; if you want only one conference playing for the title, then you should change the rules and let them have their own championship.

I respond to that with; if you don't want a rematch for the national championship game, then let them change the rules so it does not happen.

Until it is part of the rules, it is not out of the question.

.

I completely agree with your opinion over conference championship games. I reflected that same sentiment you now have, when Oklahoma - Texas - Texas Tech, all had a single loss in their triangle.

If you are going to have a Conference Championship Game; it should showcase the two best teams from your conference. These divisions are what is getting in the way. And it doesn't help when conferences expand.

.

.

.

[Spence]

Clemson wasn't unranked.

[billybud]

West Virginia was idle, but they lost to Pitt the week before.

But at 10-2, they were still #2 after that loss.

[Vileborg]

I stand corrected. Alabama did drop to #3 in the BCS and #4 in both the AP and Coaches polls.

The computers seem to dig rematches and hate byes. I don't want to get my hopes up but the amount Tech moved in 2008 when they beat Boston College in the ACC championship would be enough to make it interesting.

[donovan]

I stand corrected. Alabama did drop to #3 in the BCS and #4 in both the AP and Coaches polls.

The computers seem to dig rematches and hate byes. I don't want to get my hopes up but the amount Tech moved in 2008 when they beat Boston College in the ACC championship would be enough to make it interesting.

Best not to get your hope up...I know that feeling...VT is not the hot ticket for the New York and LA market....above Boise State even when people thought this may not be rigged.

[Vileborg]

The emperor is Nekkid and I don't want to watch it again. Where as we the people used to throw lip stick and a robe on the it now we have turned into nudists.

In a 12 team conference your guaranteed 48 wins and 48 losses. For a team to go 8-0 another team has to go 0-8 or two teams 2-6, 4 teams 3-5. In exchange for shorting the league 4 wins you get to be ranked. The top five teams in the SEC have 34 wins and 6 losses leaving 14 wins and 42 losses to split among 7 teams. In exchange for their generosity they are rewarded by being ranked. In reality it shows that there are only 5 good teams in the SEC and 7 not so good teams.

The ACC however has the same 48 wins and 48 losses. The ACC has 8 teams between 3-5 and 5-3 meaning that it beat itself up rather badly. As a reward for being overall more competitive from top to bottom the ACC only has two ranked teams, 7-1 VT and 6-2 Clemson. Overall, even though their opponents are less ranked they are seeing more teams that are capable of competing than an SEC team.

My point is that a balanced conference is not an easy conference regardless of the bias of the media or the rankings of a conference or it's members. If the best 12 teams in the nation play each other your still going to get 48 wins and 48 losses. A top 25 BCS team could be 4-8 but you would never know it.

[Cane from the Bend]

Clemson wasn't unranked.

[Spence]

Clemson wasn't unranked.

Playing Virginia Tech.

[Cane from the Bend]

And that is why I posted Va Tech would be in the discussion . . . that is, if the Hokies beat Clemson in the ACC title game, and LSU were to lose.

Clemson was ranked; but they also beat Va Tech by 20 points.

I'm actually pulling for Georgia to win . . . though my confidence in that occurring is small (which is why I chose LSU in my weekly picks).

.

.

.

[Spence]

I don't thing it matters whether LSU loses or not Tech is in the discussion.

[Derek]

Agreed Spence. And if they win the ACC, they should have a shot at it.

If by some chance that Ga does win, I would want to see them face Okie State.

I don't care about the money involved....that's what ESPN is going to push for in who goes.

I've also read that some say LSU will go regardless if they win or lose. That is wrong IMO.