Why USC's season isn't over

Toggle sidebar
tinydoughboy said:
Of course they will get in the Champion game. Look how many times they were Ranked #3 in the nation and got to the title game when #2 didn't....It's all politics....the NCAA wants them in the Championship ever year so as long as they win out. "Somehow" they will be there...it always happens!!!!
Click to expand...

Didn't happen in 2003 - OU got in it even after getting shallacked by Kansas St. in the Big12 CG. Because of that, USC got handed LSU's AP title, but that was by the sports media who loves USC. Aholes. :mad: ;)
 
mccoyrj said:
Didn't happen in 2003 - OU got in it even after getting shallacked by Kansas St. in the Big12 CG. Because of that, USC got handed LSU's AP title, but that was by the sports media who loves USC. Aholes. :mad: ;)
Click to expand...
I remember that. The BCS standings at the time didn't account for Conference Championship Games, and only used standings from the "regular season". That was changed for the next year's BCS polls.

They also changed the weightings so that the computers were 1/3 instead of 1/2 of the final standings.

Personally I had no problem splitting the title between LSU & USC, because those 2 teams should have played instead of Oklahoma anyway, which is why the Conference Championship Games are included in the final BCS polls now.
 
mccoyrj said:
Didn't happen in 2003 - OU got in it even after getting shallacked by Kansas St. in the Big12 CG. Because of that, USC got handed LSU's AP title, but that was by the sports media who loves USC. Aholes. :mad: ;)
Click to expand...

If LSU had taken care of business against one of the worst Florida teams since 1990, they would have had no issues.
 
Derwin0 said:
...
Personally I had no problem splitting the title between LSU & USC, because those 2 teams should have played instead of Oklahoma anyway, which is why the Conference Championship Games are included in the final BCS polls now.
Click to expand...
Which gives an edge to teams from the Pac-10 and Big-10, since they don't have a conference championship game.
 
mdonnelly said:
Which gives an edge to teams from the Pac-10 and Big-10, since they don't have a conference championship game.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, by NCAA rules they can't have one without 12 teams.

And if you do have a game, then win it.

Personally I think a CCG should be allowed for any conference with 10 or more teams. As only conferences of 9 teams or less allow for a round robin schedule, and the CCG allows for a true champion since not everyone can play everyone.
 
Derwin0 said:
I remember that. The BCS standings at the time didn't account for Conference Championship Games, and only used standings from the "regular season". That was changed for the next year's BCS polls.

They also changed the weightings so that the computers were 1/3 instead of 1/2 of the final standings.

Personally I had no problem splitting the title between LSU & USC, because those 2 teams should have played instead of Oklahoma anyway, which is why the Conference Championship Games are included in the final BCS polls now.
Click to expand...
Actually the old BCS did include the championship games. Each team had one loss that year. USC lost to Cal, LSU lost to Florida, and Oklahoma lost to Kansas State. What kept Oklahoma at #1 was their strength of schedule in the computer rankings (ahead of both USC and LSU). The old system used a 50/50 split of computers and polls while the new system is 2/3 polls and 1/3 computers (basically changed so a team ranked #1 in both human polls wouldn't be left out of the NC game again).

http://rankings.amath.unc.edu/old/oldformula.htm
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top