2003/2004 College Football Bowl Season [R]

[Alberto]

Originally posted by Mike Segroves
And if the Sun hadn't risen that morning, the Rose Bowl would have been called off.

Exactly. Bottom line USC beat Michigan easily. End of story!

[Garcia]

Hey coach Tresell?

http://www.bdarn.com/buckeye/%236.JPG

Who let the dogs out?!?!?!

http://www.lewzworld.com/simpsons/pin005.jpg

[Riverdale Goalie]

If anyone thinks Michigan played a good game and was just outplayed by the "national champions" I really hope this wasn't how Michigan played all year, or Ludahai is right and the Big Ten was horrible this year. No way should a team ever allow that many sacks, they were looking like the Washington Redskins out there, and maybe if they would've gotten some decent pass protection Navarre might have been able to do something with the ball, but they didn't and they got whupped. Again don't know why USC fans have to get all defensive to count out LSU as if they did nothing to deserve to be where they are, they deserve it just as much or more than you do, so if they beat Oklahoma and you're still crying about how you're the "real" national champions, then take off your blinders and recognize what LSU accomplished this year.

And Motterman, Maryland will be ranked in the top twenty and if they didn't these rankings are a joke. As it is, one of the rankings had West Virginia ranked higher than Maryland before this game, ignoring Maryland killing them earlier this year as well as Maryland having one less loss. As it is, I would, however, not be surprised to see Clemson leap frog them for a victory over Tennessee that I have every confidence Maryland would have gotten if they would have played them, even if Clemson doesn't necessarily deserve it, although a top 25 finish wouldn't be out of line for them. As it is, Maryland was so close to being in contention for the BCS this year; they went to Northern Illinois, something most big schools won't do, and got upset by what turned out to be a pretty decent team, although I think the MAC as a whole is getting a tad bit overrated by analysts this bowl season, and Maryland could even have won the game on the last play of the game but the pass was incomplete. They lost to FSU pretty fair and square, but lost 7-3 at Georgia Tech after having their starting quarterback knocked out of the game for the entire second half, forcing them to send in an untested freshmen, who wasn't up to the challenge. Also interesting that all their losses were on the road as well. But anyways I expect Maryland to not get the respect they deserve this year, but I still expect them to crack the top twenty, which is only a few places higher than where they already are, and a lot of teams have lost games recently, obviously.

And btw, with that Clemson win, the ACC wins the bowl championship if Georgia Tech beats Tulane tomorrow, and they're the only major conference still left in the hunt. And if FSU's kicker could make a field goal against Miami they'd be undefeated heading into the game. As it is, outside of FSU, all the other ACC games were easy victories up to this point, with NC State crushing Kansas, Virginia handling Pitt, Maryland annihilating West Virginia, and Clemson taking it to Tennessee. If Georgia Tech loses, the bowl championship will go to the WAC which had less teams in it and played against much weaker opponents than the ACC. A little food for thought...

[Ian McCracken]

Let's be serious, the ACC played nobody in the bowl games. Victories over Kansas, Pitt, W Virginia, are you serious? Those are B-rated teams. Tennessee was overrated. FSU lost against the only decent team the ACC played.

[fidlerre]

whew...k state sure was on a roll...

one of the best teams in the country? please.

too bad they ran in to a "better" team.

[CHICO13]

Originally posted by Riverdale Goalie
If anyone thinks Michigan played a good game and was just outplayed by the "national champions" I really hope this wasn't how Michigan played all year, or Ludahai is right and the Big Ten was horrible this year. No way should a team ever allow that many sacks, they were looking like the Washington Redskins out there, and maybe if they would've gotten some decent pass protection Navarre might have been able to do something with the ball, but they didn't and they got whupped. Again don't know why USC fans have to get all defensive to count out LSU as if they did nothing to deserve to be where they are, they deserve it just as much or more than you do, so if they beat Oklahoma and you're still crying about how you're the "real" national champions, then take off your blinders and recognize what LSU accomplished this
Uhh, did you even watch any college football this year? Michigan lost TWO games both on the road by six points combined. They whupped the best defense at that time in Ohio State to finish the season 3 and 0 against 3 Top Ten Teams.

USC kicked ass all year with one loss to Cal..
Oklahoma was the monster of the midway and laid the wood to everybody they played cept KSU.

Not to take anything away from LSU, but you might want to wake up and smell the coffee....

[Riverdale Goalie]

Originally posted by CHICO13
Uhh, did you even watch any college football this year? Michigan lost TWO games both on the road by six points combined. They whupped the best defense at that time in Ohio State to finish the season 3 and 0 against 3 Top Ten Teams.

USC kicked ass all year with one loss to Cal..
Oklahoma was the monster of the midway and laid the wood to everybody they played cept KSU.

Not to take anything away from LSU, but you might want to wake up and smell the coffee....

You inadvertantly proved my point. I said if that performance was a typical Michigan performance, and you claimed earlier they played well, and that they were just outclassed, then the Big ten sucked. Obviously it wasn't a typical performance, hence why I said they played like crap against USC. I saw Michigan a few times this year and had them pegged as a National contender, then they lose two, so sue me. I also saw USC play a couple times this year and thought they had a real good team, but in the end, Michigan wasn't quite as good as LSU or Oklahoma this year, and without them playing in the national championship name, they can't claim they have won the "real" championship.

And a lot of people are underestimating LSU for some reason, I mean they beat a top ten team in Georgia twice, and quite handily as well, that's not easy to beat any team twice, let alone a team that was good enough to get back into the top ten by the time you played them again. And I'm not hating on Oklahoma in any way, I said before they had just as good a reason as anyone to be champs, except that they lost late, which is the cardinal sin of college football, and also losing your last game going into the Sugar Bowl, isn't going to exactly exude confidence in the players.

And you can claim the ACC played weak teams, but of the five bowl games played so far, four were against ranked opponents, with only two of the ACC teams being ranked in those games, so it sort of shows a little underestimation of the conference nationally, which is obvious to anyone that follows the ACC adamantly. The ACC is the up and coming conference in college football, and that was happening even without the expansion.

[DevilDave]

Dunno that this matters much, but here are the bowl records by conference I totaled off the bowl scoreboards, going into tomorrow night's Sugar Bowl.

ACC 5-2
Big East 2-2
Big Ten 3-5
Big XII 2-5
C-USA 1-4
MAC 2-0
Mtn. West 2-1
Pac-10 4-2
SEC 3-2
Sun Belt 0-1
WAC 2-1
Independents 0-1

Am I missing anyone?

[Thomas A Fina]

A few minor points first :

SEC playing mostly late games just means that their tie-ins are played later than others.

Purdue-Georgia is why I never gamble. Give up a game as lost, come all the way back to push, then score a miracle FG (That Ga back should never have fumbled.) which sets up the OT loss because Georgia goes first

Now the main event :

There were three teams better than everyone else - USC, Oklahoma, LSU. USC should consider themselves fortunate they played Michigan - a very good team, but more like say Newcastle to Man U Arsenal Chelsea above them. Oklahoma and LSU do the same exact things to Michigan.

I think Oklahoma beats USC. USC-LSU would be a hell of a humdinger. I have no clue about Oklahoma-LSU.

USC had a decided skill position advantage (all 4 of those guys (Williams, Colbert, Leinart, Bush) are top 10 picks when they come out.) vs. Michigan, and it showed. Carroll outcoached Carr with his blitzing schemes.
Plus - if you are relying on Navarre to win you ball games...

My main pet peeve is exactly what Auriaprottu thinks is "case closed" - the whole idea of "losing late must equal disaster". This is the single biggest thing wrong with the AP and Coaches poll and perhaps the only reason why the BCS can be considered a good thing (mind you there are about a dozen or so reasons why the BCS sucks, but that's an eniterly different thread).

Everyone is complaining that the AP Polls and the BCS are at such variance. Has it ever occurred to anyone, that hey, you know, the BCS may just damned well be right? and the writers are *gasp* *shock* *horrors* wrong.
God forbid the writers would ever not trumpet their views 24-7, or not believe that, despite the fact they may be asleep by the second quarter of a Washington Husky game, or too busy elbowing each other to munch on cheese doodles and pigs-in-blankets (which many of them resemble) at the press box buffet, there is the slightest possible chance they're wrong? Just askin.

Rant aside. If there was no BCS, you'd still have LSU bitching. Whenever you have three teams above everyone else, there will be problems.
What's better - having a human factor (Hey, let's give Tom Osborne a national title, he deserves it...Hey, let's give Bobby Bowden a national title, he deserves it), or not?
There is of course, one solution if you don't want it referred to as a mythical national title :

Playoffs.

They've got to make it happen. Somehow. I just wish I knew how.

My apologies to all concerned if this sounds at all like a Tom Flannigan post.

[WarrenWallace]

Very, very good post. I have quoted below what I feel is very important.


Originally posted by Thomas A Fina

My main pet peeve is exactly what Auriaprottu thinks is "case closed" - the whole idea of "losing late must equal disaster". This is the single biggest thing wrong with the AP and Coaches poll and perhaps the only reason why the BCS can be considered a good thing (mind you there are about a dozen or so reasons why the BCS sucks, but that's an eniterly different thread).

Everyone is complaining that the AP Polls and the BCS are at such variance. Has it ever occurred to anyone, that hey, you know, the BCS may just damned well be right? and the writers are *gasp* *shock* *horrors* wrong.

[Riverdale Goalie]

Originally posted by DevilDave
Dunno that this matters much, but here are the bowl records by conference I totaled off the bowl scoreboards, going into tomorrow night's Sugar Bowl.

ACC 5-2
Big East 2-2
Big Ten 3-5
Big XII 2-5
C-USA 1-4
MAC 2-0
Mtn. West 2-1
Pac-10 4-2
SEC 3-2
Sun Belt 0-1
WAC 2-1
Independents 0-1

Am I missing anyone?

Seems you're missing a few games at least as I know the WAC won more than that and the ACC lost only one game. Florida State lost to Miami, while Maryland, Virginia, NC State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson all won quite comfortably over their competition. Wake Forest, Duke, and North Carolina didn't make any bowl games.

[CrewToon]

Another quality performance by Tennessee.

Let's see now, that's four bowl losses in the last five years...

...with no SEC titles to show for it.


...and as a reward, Fat Fulmer gets a $140K raise!


What a joke!

[DevilDave]

Originally posted by Riverdale Goalie
Seems you're missing a few games at least as I know the WAC won more than that and the ACC lost only one game.

Oops. Here's the revised and double-checked list - again this is prior to the Sugar Bowl.

ACC 5-1
Big East 2-3
Big Ten 3-5
Big XII 2-5
C-USA 2-3
MAC 2-0
Mtn. West 1-2
Pac-10 4-2
SEC 4-2
Sun Belt 0-1
WAC 3-1
Independents 0-1

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by Thomas A Fina
My main pet peeve is exactly what Auriaprottu thinks is "case closed" - the whole idea of "losing late must equal disaster". This is the single biggest thing wrong with the AP and Coaches poll and perhaps the only reason why the BCS can be considered a good thing (mind you there are about a dozen or so reasons why the BCS sucks, but that's an eniterly different thread).


Losing late is different than losing early. If you're a top-tier program, you've got at least one Sisters of the Poor and one "tough workout" team on your schedule in the first third of the season. The final third is when you get your rivalry games and your conference/division-clinching games. USC and LSU won the games that led them both to conference championships. All games are equal, but these are bigger. OU lost their biggest game of the season -their conference championship. And that loss made OU mortal.

A few weeks ago, I was posting here that USC would lose respectably in the B(C)S title game. Now that KSU has handed OU a defeat in the one game they'd rather have won up to that point than any other, I have no reason to think USC or LSU can't do the same thing. No, USC and LSU might not be able to drop 70 points on Texas A&M, but they didn't slip when their conference championship was on the line, either.

(Obviously, OU could afford to lose that game, after all. But my point still stands.)

Rant aside. If there was no BCS, you'd still have LSU bitching.

I thought LSU was second behind USC in the polls. OU would be the S.O.L. team.

Whenever you have three teams above everyone else, there will be problems.

Agreed.


What's better - having a human factor (Hey, let's give Tom Osborne a national title, he deserves it...Hey, let's give Bobby Bowden a national title, he deserves it), or not?

Pete Carroll "deserves" a title? No. USC earned a title by being #1 in both polls, winning their conference championship and their final game. If the B(C)S didn't require coaches to vote for the winner of their game, do you really think anyone would drop USC because they "only" won the Rose Bowl?

There is of course, one solution if you don't want it referred to as a mythical national title :

Playoffs.

They've got to make it happen. Somehow. I just wish I knew how.

I agree totally. A season like this can only help speed the process along.

My apologies to all concerned if this sounds at all like a Tom Flannigan post.

Well, it's been rumored in Sports Illustrated that Mike Price's wild night in a hotel room with Billie Jean King and Julie Foudy cost him the Alabama job. Meanwhile, billions of American boys will miss out on being stars in Europe because they lacked the all-important college training... If the Tide continues to lose, we can look to radical feminism as the root cause. One day Auburn fans will unfurl a banner that says "Thank you Title Pawn"... wait, that's not it..

[WarrenWallace]

If we are going to put more weight on losing later in the season, then give the NCAA total control of the scheduling. No more Texas/Oklahoma, Florida/Tennessee, Florida St/Miami games early in the season. Force them to play the games later in the season. The reason that they play the games earlier is so that the losing team can still get back into the title chase.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by CityIceMan
No more Texas/Oklahoma, Florida/Tennessee, Florida St/Miami games early in the season.

Where do you put them? FSU has to play Florida, who has to play Auburn, who has to play Alabama. Oklahoma has OSU and Nebraska.

The reason that they play the games earlier is so that the losing team can still get back into the title chase.

OU couldn't have lost any later, regardless of how the games were scheduled. #2 USC and #3 LSU both won. OU had to drop somewhere. They should have. Problem is, they didn't -not really. The Sooners' penalty for losing their last game, the #1 ranking in both polls, and the Big XII championship all at once is a trip to the B(C)S championship game. I'd say they got back into the "title" chase just fine.

[fidlerre]

does anyone care about seeing the game this evening?

despite those oklahoma and lsu fans of course...

i should be excited about the game but for some reason i'm not.

[Thomas A Fina]

Originally posted by fidlerre
does anyone care about seeing the game this evening?

despite those oklahoma and lsu fans of course...

i should be excited about the game but for some reason i'm not.

Yep. The sportswriters did their jobs. Say a game is irrelavant often enough and people will actually start believing it. Take a look at how many articles there were on the game compared to Michigan-USC. As far as they're concerned there's no reasno for this game, so why bother? Just make sure I get down to Bourbon Street and get drunk and hit on college co-eds

Media makes everything. They don't report news, they make news. And yes I'm very bitter about it because too a) many people can't at least see it and make their own minds up and b) I know I can do a better job than half these mooks who have replaced thoughtful intelligent articles with bombast and schtick (Yes, I mean you Mr. Rome.)

It's Title IX's fault dammit.

and auria - you make my point about losing late for me. Is it more important if they lose late to a rival or early to a creampuff?
Is Oklahoma losing any different than a team who has "clinched" a spot in a title game not showing up?

CIM - you left out Miami/Fla (when you're done with the brats)
.
This just in - Broncos suck today. Colts are motivated.

back to the germane topic. CIM I disagree with your other statement. These rivalry games between non-cons are done either earlier or at the very end (ND-USC in LA, or Army-Navy or Clemson-S. Carolina) becasue the conference schedules get in the way.

Certain rivalry games just work out late - but that is the conferences call :

Texas - Okla - timed to coincide with Texas State Fair in Dallas

Mich-Ohio State - Big 10 decision.

All 5 Pac-10 rivalries - again. conference decision to place all 5 games at the very end.

Losing early has little decision on when to schedule. ADs have enough problems as it is.

[Thomas A Fina]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu
[B

(Obviously, OU could afford to lose that game, after all. But my point still stands.)



I thought LSU was second behind USC in the polls. OU would be the S.O.L. team.



Pete Carroll "deserves" a title? No. USC earned a title by being #1 in both polls, winning their conference championship and their final game. If the B(C)S didn't require coaches to vote for the winner of their game, do you really think anyone would drop USC because they "only" won the Rose Bowl?



I agree totally. A season like this can only help speed the process along.



Well, it's been rumored in Sports Illustrated that Mike Price's wild night in a hotel room with Billie Jean King and Julie Foudy cost him the Alabama job. Meanwhile, billions of American boys will miss out on being stars in Europe because they lacked the all-important college training... If the Tide continues to lose, we can look to radical feminism as the root cause. One day Auburn fans will unfurl a banner that says "Thank you Title Pawn"... wait, that's not it.. [/B]

- But Oklahoma knew they were in the Sugar Bowl regardless. So they didn't show. Happens with 20 year olds. It does make a difference.

- So they were. My bad

- You missed my point. I was referring to rather dubious decisions by the AP in the past. (BYU? '84 Nat Champs? Inconceivable!) I'm trying not to debunk USC (and failing I fear) inasmuch as I have serious serious problems with the AP Poll.

- Well played :D. How'd Depaul do this year?

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by Thomas A Fina
[Band auria - you make my point about losing late for me. Is it more important if they lose late to a rival or early to a creampuff?[/b]

No, I'm not making your point. I mistakenly left out the end of my paragraph about late games being bigger, and having more urgency. What I had meant to add but didn't is that I think there should be more weight placed on the bigger games, the later games, the conference title games, and assessing a team's current form. The team that loses last has traditionally lost out, and I think it ought to stay that way. This year both polls rightly penalized the Sooners for losing, but the B(C)S gave them a mulligan.