Sugar Bowl [Archive] - TPWW Forums

View Full Version : Sugar Bowl

Jason_Hawk

12-09-2003, 02:28 AM

Am i the only one that thinks its a crock of sh*t that USC is not in it and they are #1 and Oklahoma lost to K-State by a very big margin and they are still in it. I feel it should be the BCS #1 and #2 not 2 and 3.

Bottom line is the game should be USC vs. LSU

12-09-2003, 03:08 AM

Yeah like I said before how can you play for the national championship when you cant win your own conference.

Bad Guy

12-09-2003, 04:33 AM

I remember an interview earlier with Bob Stoops. The question was "If there is one thing you could change about the BCS System, what would it be?" And guess what his answer was? You guessed it, "Computers, I don't like computers." Well guess what, Bobby, the computers just saved your fu</>cking ass.

lariat

12-09-2003, 07:43 AM

I'm happy that we have a classic Big Ten-Pac Ten Rose Bowl, but I am VERY disappointed that USC isn't playing for a national title. I feel USC and LSU deserve to play each other for the National Championship.

I totally dislike the current format, because it leaves out teams who have great seasons but play in "weak" conferences. An example of this is Northern Illionis, they went 10-2 losing to eventual MAC runner-up Bowling Green and Toledo. However, they aren't going to a Bowl and I find that a shame. People say that they won't get TV-ratings, ticket buys and what not with these unknown teams in bowls. I've always felt America is a society that loves underdogs.

road doggy dogg

12-09-2003, 09:39 AM

12-09-2003, 10:12 AM

After Michigan beats them, nobody will be crying about it because if they can't beat Michigan than they wouldn't be in the national championship anyways :cool:


But a funny thing about this, to add to the turmol is that if Michigan beats USC they can say "hey we beat the no 1 team " so they can have a vaild point to say hey we deserve to be the national champions.

road doggy dogg

12-09-2003, 10:33 AM

Yeah that's true too. I dunno it is pretty messed up. :meh:

Just as long as Mich wins I'm happy :blush:

BCWWF

12-09-2003, 12:30 PM

The Outlaw

12-09-2003, 01:57 PM

lol Young Jason. You are confused.

OU is #1 in the BCS
Lsu is #2 in the BCS

Although I do agree with you, I also agree that ALL three teams deserve to be in it. One loss a piece.

Also you have to take into consideration that K. State are ****ing awesome, they would be undefeated if Roberson wouldn't have been injured.

But, blah, the BCS is total shit anyways. PLAYOFFS!

LOL@espn last night. They did a recap of the whole controversy. It was kind of like a highlight real of sort. It had some old guy blabbing about the BCS being right, kind of like BCWWF. "There will BE NO PLAYOFFS IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE!!!" Said it over and over.

BTW BCWWF, comment on Bo's comment, and if your statement has any validness, I will applaud you.

Although, I KNEW it was going to be OU and LSU, I still don't think it's right.

BCWWF

12-09-2003, 02:10 PM

I dont have any problem if the NCAA decided to apply some sort of a playoff system, although it would be very hard to figure out and what not, if they could do it in a way that would work I would not complain. There is way too much time in between the seasons end and the Bowl games anyway.

What I am saying in me first post though, is that it is rediculous for people to be complaining that OU is in the title game. They held the #1 spot all year and lost in their final game to a really good team. The whole "They didn't even win their conference" argument has nothing to do with it, they lost in the conference title game, USC and LSU both lost in the regular season, what now? Oklahoma played a harder schedule and won more dominantly this season, which is what the BCS computers pulled out. I dont understand why the coaches poll's have that much relevance anyway.

BCWWF

12-09-2003, 02:28 PM

But a funny thing about this, to add to the turmol is that if Michigan beats USC they can say "hey we beat the no 1 team " so they can have a vaild point to say hey we deserve to be the national champions.

Lol, I thought Bo was the guy who you quoted about the playoffs thing. I just saw this, let me see..

Well, the way the system works, USC is not the number one team. They are the AP/USA Today/Coaches Poll etc etc number one team. What determines the top two teams in the nation is a computer program that goes over the statistics of every team in the league, their opponents, and their outcomes. In the end LSU played better against a tougher schedule, so they came out number two on the BCS computers.

No, I dont think the BCS is the best way to decide who plays in the national title game. I do however think that is it for the most part accurate.

The BCS is like the Yahoo! Fantasy sports thing. It ranks players based on their overall stats in every category. In basketball right now, Baron Davis is #1 and Kevin Garnett is #2. That is totally based on stats, but who can you say is a more valuble player to have? It might not be 100% accurate, but it is close enough.

I dont know, I dont know very much about USC and LSU football. I just think that it is a joke saying that Oklahoma doesnt deserve to be in the title game because they lost to the #13 team in the nation and were rated #1 on every poll all year.

Supermark101

12-09-2003, 02:28 PM

I am sick and tired of all this bullshit. Oklahoma was clearly dominant throughout the whole season, just one loss to a really good team in their final game shouldn't overshadow their ass kicking of every other team they played.

And I am sick and tired of people bitching about the BCS system. It is a computer that decides, based on the teams stats and the teams they have played stats. So if Oklahoma does amazing in a really good conference but loses their last game, the coaches may have a bias or an opinion, but who in the hell are the coaches to say? I stand by the BCS system because it is all based on statistic, not opinion.

Does anyone still remember how Oklahoma domanated Texas, #6 in the BCS btw. USC has averaged 40 something points a game, but other than Washington St. who have they beat. USC is not a clear #1 in the polls. The BCS, as much as I hate it, is an improvement over the old system. With the old system in place, USC would be in the Rose Bowl, LSU would be playing Florida St. in the Suger Bowl, and Oklahoma would be playing in the Cotton Bowl. Without the BCS there could be three team deserving a national title, after the bowls games.

Jesus Shuttlesworth

12-09-2003, 05:20 PM

USC lost to Cal in Pac 10 play, and Oklahoma lost to KState in Big 12 play.

Oklahoma still had a better season record then KState, but since they played them in the Championship game they lost their conference.

Pac 10 doesnt have a championship game, something you can take into consideration.

Now like ive been saying all along, all 3 teams deserve it. I just dont understand why everybody is so HARD pressed to believe it should be USC vs LSU.

The Outlaw

12-09-2003, 06:53 PM

Well I see all of your points as well, I've agreed on the fact that all three teams deserve to be in it, but thats not possible.

BCWWF: The playoff system would be simple. Like so:

http://www.sportsfansofamerica.com/FansInAction/Football/playoffs1.htm

Some are more simple than others but it's a good read.

Jason_Hawk

12-09-2003, 07:23 PM

Well what about the talk about a split champion again could that be a possibility

BCWWF

12-09-2003, 10:54 PM

Yeah I looked at those playoff things. That would work, there is really no reason why they wouldn't, but just a few things I thought of...

1. Most of them said that the title game would be a week before the Superbowl, that would be in like February right? Because extending the college football season into February would be way too long and a lot of places (I am thinking Big 10 primarily) would have a foot of snow of the field from December on.

2. I couldn't tell, but did the plans make it so that less teams would be involved? Not that I personally really care, but I always kind of liked the idea of smaller teams in smaller conferences being able to play in a bowl. I know the shitty bowl games are shitty, but I think those teams should play some sort of other playoffs.

Other than those (And I may be wrong on both of them because I am not too knowledgable in this topic) I personally don't see a problem with changing to a playoff format.

Jesus Shuttlesworth

12-09-2003, 11:05 PM

Well what about the talk about a split champion again could that be a possibility
I think USC might be over looking a VERY GOOD Michigan team so they need to worry about the Big Blue before they need to start worrying about a split championship

The Outlaw

12-09-2003, 11:37 PM

Corkscrewed

12-10-2003, 04:58 AM

I'm happy that we have a classic Big Ten-Pac Ten Rose Bowl, but I am VERY disappointed that USC isn't playing for a national title. I feel USC and LSU deserve to play each other for the National Championship.
But we are playing for a National Championship. Of course, Michigan will be very tough. They match up very well with us and the game should be a great one, but I have faith that we can pull it out.

I doubt the Trojans would be so stupid as to overlook the Wolverines, who were picked by many to be in the Sugar Bowl at the start of the season. They're a great team, truly.

Of course, the best scenario for us is that we beat Michigan; Ohio St. beats K State; and Oklahoma beats LSU. Cuz then we'd beat the team that beat the team that beat the team that beat the team that cost us the Sugar Bowl, meaning we're the best. :D (I know not really, but shut up)

Jesus Shuttlesworth

12-10-2003, 06:03 PM

Yeah there was a different system on ESPN last night which was a lot better.

I'm not 100% sure, but it took the top 8 teams and played them in the four main bowls like they are originally. That's the q-finals, the next semi's, and then the National Championship game. It was a lot better than those ideas listed in that link.

If someone can hook me up with some info/brackets it'll make more sense. :rant:
I saw that too

I just remember Ohio State played USC in the 1st round i think

The Outlaw

12-10-2003, 11:12 PM

I saw that too

I just remember Ohio State played USC in the 1st round i think

I think it was something like this:

Current 2003 B.C.S. Poll.

1) Oklahoma

2) LSU

3) USC

4) Michigan

5) Ohio State

6) Texas

7) Florida State

8) Tennessee

1 vs 8

2 vs 7

3 vs 6

4 vs 5

Don't quote me on that, because I was half asleep when they showed it. It's something like that I think?

lariat

12-10-2003, 11:23 PM

K State beat Cal at the beginning of the year, Cal beat USC, K State beat Oklahoma. What a funky round robin worth of match-ups.

The Outlaw

12-11-2003, 12:06 AM

None of this would have mattered if Roberson could have stayed healthy. :(

That guy is just sick on the field. :y:

Supermark101

12-11-2003, 08:59 AM

Yeah there was a different system on ESPN last night which was a lot better.

I'm not 100% sure, but it took the top 8 teams and played them in the four main bowls like they are originally. That's the q-finals, the next semi's, and then the National Championship game. It was a lot better than those ideas listed in that link.

If someone can hook me up with some info/brackets it'll make more sense. :rant:

This would not work. K State and Miami, two conferance champions, would be left out. I say include 16 teams, use the 4 BCS bowls as quarter finals games. Then you open up some bowl spots or teams that deserve to go but do not.

Corkscrewed

12-11-2003, 06:12 PM

16 teams is too much. Injuries then start to pile up.

8 teams works for me, have them be the 8 BCS teams and play the 4 winners off. That's the idea I've always supported.

The Dub

12-15-2003, 03:57 PM

It doesn't matter who's in the Sugar Bowl. We all know LSU will win it all. Go Michigan!