 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » USC Vs. UCLA
bobcat73
USC Vs. UCLA
December 03, 2006 at 12:50AM View BBCode
HHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::P:P:P:P:P:P:lol::lol:
Faceman
Kinslow, don't do anything stupid. .
December 03, 2006 at 02:03AM View BBCode
Yeah that sucks. . . :lol:Kinslow, don't do anything stupid. .
scaffdog
December 03, 2006 at 03:40AM View BBCode
Kinslow, Bones, sorry guys, you had a nice run but UCLA played thier butts off.
FuriousGiorge
December 03, 2006 at 03:46AM View BBCode
Here's to a Gators/Buckeyes championship game. I hope.
scaffdog
December 03, 2006 at 03:57AM View BBCode
Im with you there, then we get to see USC vs Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
Bones2484
USC losing spelled disaster for the BCS.
December 03, 2006 at 05:54AM View BBCode
I'd like to see Florida, but I have a horrible feeling it's gonna be Michigan, and along these lines... I would much rather play Michigan than LSU in the Rose in order to get the Big10/Pac10 matchup.USC losing spelled disaster for the BCS.
ruggs26
I knew this would happen nobody even thought it wasn't going to be USC vs OSU! USC was pre-ordained but I guess this is what happens when you count your chickens....... you know the rest.
THE BCS IS A BIG F-FING JOKE! And USC got exposed for being the inferior team that they are.
Now of course since screwing Michigan by leap frogging the chosen ones over them a week earlier didn't work, now Michigan is going to get screwed and leapfrogged again? First Michigan gets punished because USC was supposedly better?!?!?!?! Now Michigan gets punished because Florida got to play an extra game! Maybe Tebow can thrown another jump shot TD pass, or better yet maybe OSU's kicker can miss everything so Florida only losses 49-10 instead of 62-10.
Common opponents Michigan wins there.
Better non-conference schedule... Notre Dame and Central Michigan.. Central Florida and W. Carolina (DIV 2).... Michigan wins there.
Better Loss... Michigan again.
And what the hell is this crap where everywhere I turn someone shows the Big 10 standings and has Wisconsin second over Michigan. Why is everyone forgetting to mention that it was Michigan that gave Wisconsin its only loss? Under Michigans schedule on espn.com it doesn't even show Wisconsin as being ranked just that Michigan beat them. It just seems that it has been pre-determined by everyone that no matter what happened today, Michigan is not going to play for the national title under any circumstances.
Straight computer polls is the answer, no style points, no writers opinions, no coaches opinions, no bias. Until we get this there will be major controversy every year because there is too much parity in Div 1 now. And BTW Boise St. deserves a BCS game. That is one tough team. I don't think they would beat Ohio St., but I would love to see them against a Lousiville or Wake Forest, because I think they would win.
ruggs
December 03, 2006 at 06:57AM View BBCode
Oh yes this disaster is much better than having 4 one loss teams.I knew this would happen nobody even thought it wasn't going to be USC vs OSU! USC was pre-ordained but I guess this is what happens when you count your chickens....... you know the rest.
THE BCS IS A BIG F-FING JOKE! And USC got exposed for being the inferior team that they are.
Now of course since screwing Michigan by leap frogging the chosen ones over them a week earlier didn't work, now Michigan is going to get screwed and leapfrogged again? First Michigan gets punished because USC was supposedly better?!?!?!?! Now Michigan gets punished because Florida got to play an extra game! Maybe Tebow can thrown another jump shot TD pass, or better yet maybe OSU's kicker can miss everything so Florida only losses 49-10 instead of 62-10.
Common opponents Michigan wins there.
Better non-conference schedule... Notre Dame and Central Michigan.. Central Florida and W. Carolina (DIV 2).... Michigan wins there.
Better Loss... Michigan again.
And what the hell is this crap where everywhere I turn someone shows the Big 10 standings and has Wisconsin second over Michigan. Why is everyone forgetting to mention that it was Michigan that gave Wisconsin its only loss? Under Michigans schedule on espn.com it doesn't even show Wisconsin as being ranked just that Michigan beat them. It just seems that it has been pre-determined by everyone that no matter what happened today, Michigan is not going to play for the national title under any circumstances.
Straight computer polls is the answer, no style points, no writers opinions, no coaches opinions, no bias. Until we get this there will be major controversy every year because there is too much parity in Div 1 now. And BTW Boise St. deserves a BCS game. That is one tough team. I don't think they would beat Ohio St., but I would love to see them against a Lousiville or Wake Forest, because I think they would win.
ruggs
FuriousGiorge
December 03, 2006 at 07:14AM View BBCode
Michigan lost the only game on their schedule that actually matters. Now you want to give them a mulligan? Fuck that.
Bones2484
December 03, 2006 at 07:39AM View BBCode
Go away Ruggs. Nothing you say is ever anything of importance or shows any hint of thought put behind it.
ruggs26
You couldn't sell me that USC was better than Michigan before and definatley not now. You certainly cannot sell me that Florida is better than Michigan. And if anyone else thought Florida was better why were they #4 unanimously last week? Because no one envisioned UCLA beating USC and thats why! If it was known UCLA would win this week everyone would have popped Florida up to #3 just so this argument would not ensue.
BTW Bones why don't you and Mark May go take a bath and drown your little USC tears together.
You are both just snippy because you know Florida is inferior to Michigan. I don't give a piss, let Florida get killed by Ohio St. It will prove even more that the BCS is a JOKE!
UCLA 13 USC 9 'NUF Said! Bones you may exit the argument since you have nothing left to say.
And Giorge.... Seriously! Wisconsin 11-1, Notre Dame 10-2, CMU 9-4, Penn St. 8-4. Those games don't matter? C'mon! That's like saying Florida's win over LSU doesn't matter. Get real! All CMU's losses are to bowl teams. All Penn St.'s losses are to top 10 teams. That 62-0 win over W. Carolina was super impressive. You can make an arguement for 8-5 So. Miss but they didn't even win their conference. Why don't those great teams from the South ever come North and play some games in real football weather?
ruggs
December 03, 2006 at 08:36AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Florida lost its only game to a team that matters as well, but not to the #1 team in the country (by only 3). I just want the 2 best teams in football to play for the title! I am tired of hearing "we can't have a re-match". OSU and Michigan are head and shoulders the best two teams in the country (3 points seperates them). I would rather see a deserving team get a second chance than a non-deserving team get a chance just for the sake of "no rematches". Thats the only argument you guys have left and its crap!
You couldn't sell me that USC was better than Michigan before and definatley not now. You certainly cannot sell me that Florida is better than Michigan. And if anyone else thought Florida was better why were they #4 unanimously last week? Because no one envisioned UCLA beating USC and thats why! If it was known UCLA would win this week everyone would have popped Florida up to #3 just so this argument would not ensue.
BTW Bones why don't you and Mark May go take a bath and drown your little USC tears together.
You are both just snippy because you know Florida is inferior to Michigan. I don't give a piss, let Florida get killed by Ohio St. It will prove even more that the BCS is a JOKE!
UCLA 13 USC 9 'NUF Said! Bones you may exit the argument since you have nothing left to say.
And Giorge.... Seriously! Wisconsin 11-1, Notre Dame 10-2, CMU 9-4, Penn St. 8-4. Those games don't matter? C'mon! That's like saying Florida's win over LSU doesn't matter. Get real! All CMU's losses are to bowl teams. All Penn St.'s losses are to top 10 teams. That 62-0 win over W. Carolina was super impressive. You can make an arguement for 8-5 So. Miss but they didn't even win their conference. Why don't those great teams from the South ever come North and play some games in real football weather?
ruggs
barterer2002
Lets be honest here, we all know the BCS is a sham and a fraud and that its only slightly better than the old polls system.
December 03, 2006 at 01:59PM View BBCode
Ruggs you may be right that Michigan may be the second best team in the country but I don't think that means they should play OSU again. I know its not the way the BCS works but I have a hard time with the national championship game featuring two teams from the same conference who already played. Is it possible that Michigan could have won that game on either a neutral field or at Michigan, clearly yes. The truth of the matter though is that they are the second best team in their conference (even if Wisc finishs ahead of them in the Big-10 standings which I haven't checked on) and as such I don't think they should be in the national title game.Lets be honest here, we all know the BCS is a sham and a fraud and that its only slightly better than the old polls system.
max_fischer
I am being honest here. I disagree. I love the BCS. I think it is the best possible compromise between the cretins who demand one king-of-the-hill champion in every sport and fans like me who think that the regular season provides the most fun in the sport.
Imagine the USC-UCLA game (or the OSU-UM game) if the best teams had been resting their best starters for the playoffs. No thanks.
December 03, 2006 at 03:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Lets be honest here, we all know the BCS is a sham and a fraud and that its only slightly better than the old polls system.
I am being honest here. I disagree. I love the BCS. I think it is the best possible compromise between the cretins who demand one king-of-the-hill champion in every sport and fans like me who think that the regular season provides the most fun in the sport.
Imagine the USC-UCLA game (or the OSU-UM game) if the best teams had been resting their best starters for the playoffs. No thanks.
scaffdog
As for Florida, they played one of the toughest schedules in the nation in one of the toughest conferences in the nation. They played 9 bowl teams and lets not forget that thier only loss, vs Auburn, could have easily been a win if not for a blown fumble call in the 2nd half that killed what would have been Florida's likely game winning drive. The Gators were in chipshot FG range and down by 1 when it happened. Now Im not saying Florida didnt have other possessions but that call really took the wind out of them...
Michigan lost by 3 but the game was not that close if you actually watched it. Michigan never let OSU run away with it but once OSU had the lead they never gave it up.
I dont see how you can be for a rematch when there is another team, maybe not more deserving but just as deserving. Michigan had thier shot at OSU but they lost, why should they get a 2nd chance just because they looked better playing an easier schedule than Florida?
December 03, 2006 at 03:31PM View BBCode
If you dont win your conference you shouldnt play in the national championship game. I believe that Michigan and Wisconsin tied for #2, the Big 10 doesnt have a tie breaker except for who gets the BCS bid and since Ohio St is #1 they get the automatic bid from the Big 10. Wisconsin is the product of an easy schedule, they only played 1 ranked team all season and they lost. They held San Diego St to 115 yards and only beat them by 14 points for crying out loud!!!As for Florida, they played one of the toughest schedules in the nation in one of the toughest conferences in the nation. They played 9 bowl teams and lets not forget that thier only loss, vs Auburn, could have easily been a win if not for a blown fumble call in the 2nd half that killed what would have been Florida's likely game winning drive. The Gators were in chipshot FG range and down by 1 when it happened. Now Im not saying Florida didnt have other possessions but that call really took the wind out of them...
Michigan lost by 3 but the game was not that close if you actually watched it. Michigan never let OSU run away with it but once OSU had the lead they never gave it up.
I dont see how you can be for a rematch when there is another team, maybe not more deserving but just as deserving. Michigan had thier shot at OSU but they lost, why should they get a 2nd chance just because they looked better playing an easier schedule than Florida?
lvnwrth
Bart, I'll respond to your post because:
A) It's rational, and
B) Responding to the USC morons is a waste of time.
Michigan and Wisconsin are TIED for 2nd in the Big 10. I don't know what tie-breakers the Big 10 uses, but common sense would indicate that the first tie-breaker should be head to head, and if it is, then Michigan finishes 2nd. Perhaps some media outlets list Michigan behind Wisconsin in an attempt to influence BCS voting...I don't know.
I agree with you that a re-match of conference opponents is not ideal for the BCS. To that I say, TOUGH! The way the BCS rules are set up, that is what they should get. If they don't want an OSU-Michigan rematch (or similar situation in the future) then all they need to do is change a couple of rules.
1. Add one rule that says two teams that have played during the regular season cannot meet in the BCS championship game.
2. Add another rule that says that you can't play in the BCS championship game unless you win your conference.
I don't think anyone would have any problems with those rules if they were proposed. And not being a fan of Michigan, USC, Florida, or Ohio State, I have no dog in this fight. I just think that what's PROBABLY going to happen to Michigan this afternoon is a royal ramming up the rear end, because the voters WISH those two rules were in place and are going to VOTE that way anyway.
Change the rules. I'm fine with that. Don't IGNORE the rules...or change how you'd vote otherwise...because the rules are broke. FIX the problem, or it will re-occur. It's not at all inconceivable that this same thing could happen ANY YEAR with OSU-Michigan; OU and Texas; Florida, LSU, Auburn being the most likely candidates to bring it about.
The way the rules are right now, Michigan should be in the title game. If there were no BCS title game on the line...if the polls were the way they used to be, USC would drop to 4th, and Michigan, Florida would both move up a spot. You just don't get leapfrogged twice in two weeks when you're not even on the football field, just because the poll voters don't want to see you in the BCS title game, but that's very likely what's going to happen to Michigan.
Fix the rules! Don't punish Michigan because the rules are broken.
December 03, 2006 at 05:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Ruggs you may be right that Michigan may be the second best team in the country but I don't think that means they should play OSU again. I know its not the way the BCS works but I have a hard time with the national championship game featuring two teams from the same conference who already played. Is it possible that Michigan could have won that game on either a neutral field or at Michigan, clearly yes. The truth of the matter though is that they are the second best team in their conference (even if Wisc finishs ahead of them in the Big-10 standings which I haven't checked on) and as such I don't think they should be in the national title game.
Lets be honest here, we all know the BCS is a sham and a fraud and that its only slightly better than the old polls system.
Bart, I'll respond to your post because:
A) It's rational, and
B) Responding to the USC morons is a waste of time.
Michigan and Wisconsin are TIED for 2nd in the Big 10. I don't know what tie-breakers the Big 10 uses, but common sense would indicate that the first tie-breaker should be head to head, and if it is, then Michigan finishes 2nd. Perhaps some media outlets list Michigan behind Wisconsin in an attempt to influence BCS voting...I don't know.
I agree with you that a re-match of conference opponents is not ideal for the BCS. To that I say, TOUGH! The way the BCS rules are set up, that is what they should get. If they don't want an OSU-Michigan rematch (or similar situation in the future) then all they need to do is change a couple of rules.
1. Add one rule that says two teams that have played during the regular season cannot meet in the BCS championship game.
2. Add another rule that says that you can't play in the BCS championship game unless you win your conference.
I don't think anyone would have any problems with those rules if they were proposed. And not being a fan of Michigan, USC, Florida, or Ohio State, I have no dog in this fight. I just think that what's PROBABLY going to happen to Michigan this afternoon is a royal ramming up the rear end, because the voters WISH those two rules were in place and are going to VOTE that way anyway.
Change the rules. I'm fine with that. Don't IGNORE the rules...or change how you'd vote otherwise...because the rules are broke. FIX the problem, or it will re-occur. It's not at all inconceivable that this same thing could happen ANY YEAR with OSU-Michigan; OU and Texas; Florida, LSU, Auburn being the most likely candidates to bring it about.
The way the rules are right now, Michigan should be in the title game. If there were no BCS title game on the line...if the polls were the way they used to be, USC would drop to 4th, and Michigan, Florida would both move up a spot. You just don't get leapfrogged twice in two weeks when you're not even on the football field, just because the poll voters don't want to see you in the BCS title game, but that's very likely what's going to happen to Michigan.
Fix the rules! Don't punish Michigan because the rules are broken.
lvnwrth
What can you add to that???
December 03, 2006 at 05:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by bobcat73
HHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::P:P:P:P:P:P:lol::lol:
What can you add to that???
rkinslow19
Except for, you know, their conference title game.
Dumbass
December 03, 2006 at 05:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ruggs26
Florida lost its only game to a team that matters as well,
Except for, you know, their conference title game.
Dumbass
lvnwrth
Based on where UT was ranked before their season imploded, if they had won out and beaten Nebraska last night, they would now be #2 in the country. Would we still be having the "no rematch" argument?
December 03, 2006 at 05:28PM View BBCode
Hypothetical question (based on premise that Texas didn't puke all over themselves at K-State and get embarrassed by A&M):Based on where UT was ranked before their season imploded, if they had won out and beaten Nebraska last night, they would now be #2 in the country. Would we still be having the "no rematch" argument?
lvnwrth
December 03, 2006 at 05:30PM View BBCode
Some solace for you Pac-10 fans. At least your conference still played a major role in the final BCS rankings. Just think...if your officials were worth a crap, Oklahoma might now be in line for the BCS title game.
rkinslow19
No. When you think about it, some of their losses are very equivalent to USC's season.
KState=Oregon St A conference team that they should have beat
A&M=UCLA A rivalry game and all bets were off
So from that point of view, it's possible.
The difference is of course that Ohio State beat Texas...at Texas. And that's the dealbreaker
December 03, 2006 at 05:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Hypothetical question (based on premise that Texas didn't puke all over themselves at K-State and get embarrassed by A&M):
Based on where UT was ranked before their season imploded, if they had won out and beaten Nebraska last night, they would now be #2 in the country. Would we still be having the "no rematch" argument?
No. When you think about it, some of their losses are very equivalent to USC's season.
KState=Oregon St A conference team that they should have beat
A&M=UCLA A rivalry game and all bets were off
So from that point of view, it's possible.
The difference is of course that Ohio State beat Texas...at Texas. And that's the dealbreaker
Bones2484
No they wouldnt. Every article on ESPN the past week has said that even if Oklahoma had won that game they would be behind Michigan and Florida because of SoS.
December 03, 2006 at 06:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Some solace for you Pac-10 fans. At least your conference still played a major role in the final BCS rankings. Just think...if your officials were worth a crap, Oklahoma might now be in line for the BCS title game.
No they wouldnt. Every article on ESPN the past week has said that even if Oklahoma had won that game they would be behind Michigan and Florida because of SoS.
Bones2484
Please point out where I was crying about our loss? Thanks.
You use NO arguments in any of your comments Ruggs. It is just blabbering on an on about things that have NO relevance to anything that is going on.
I'm glad you arent responding to me... especially considering I gave you nothing to respond to. Take the stick out of your ass for a second and tell us WHY you want to see Michigan play OSU again for a National Championship.
I, for one, will NOT have any interest in watching the game if it's a rematch. They already played once and it is not fair to OSU in any way for Michigan to get a second shot in a game that is supposed to answer any questions. I'd rather watch Florida get demolished by OSU than watch OSU beat Michigan by a touchdown. If Michigan wins by 1 then what the fuck have they proven? Nothing. If OSU wins by any margin then what the fuck have we learned? Nothing.
The only reason I want to see Florida is because they have the same amount of losses, and havent already lost to the #1 team. Fuck, I'd rather see 1-loss Lousiville, or undefeated Boise State than watch Michigan get an undeserving 2nd chance. I think Michigan is better than Florida, but I do not think that they deserve to go to Glendale because they already lost to the team that will be playing against them. It is as simple as that.
And just because those two rules arent in the BCS, does not mean that they can be overlooked. If you want to use that argument, then why can't I turn it around (no matter how stupid it might sound)? Where is the rule that says that voters can't take into consideration about not setting up a rematch or not winning your conference?
Oh, and USC moved ahead of Michigan in both polls (but not the AP.. but that doesnt matter in the BCS forumla) after they lost to OSU. Michigan wouldnt be being leapfrogged for the "second time" while Michigan was not playing if Florida moves ahead. Regardless, I don't think that Florida will pass Michigan. The computers hate Florida.
[Edited on 12-3-2006 by Bones2484]
December 03, 2006 at 06:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ruggs26
BTW Bones why don't you and Mark May go take a bath and drown your little USC tears together.
Please point out where I was crying about our loss? Thanks.
You use NO arguments in any of your comments Ruggs. It is just blabbering on an on about things that have NO relevance to anything that is going on.
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Bart, I'll respond to your post because:
A) It's rational, and
B) Responding to the USC morons is a waste of time.
I'm glad you arent responding to me... especially considering I gave you nothing to respond to. Take the stick out of your ass for a second and tell us WHY you want to see Michigan play OSU again for a National Championship.
I, for one, will NOT have any interest in watching the game if it's a rematch. They already played once and it is not fair to OSU in any way for Michigan to get a second shot in a game that is supposed to answer any questions. I'd rather watch Florida get demolished by OSU than watch OSU beat Michigan by a touchdown. If Michigan wins by 1 then what the fuck have they proven? Nothing. If OSU wins by any margin then what the fuck have we learned? Nothing.
The only reason I want to see Florida is because they have the same amount of losses, and havent already lost to the #1 team. Fuck, I'd rather see 1-loss Lousiville, or undefeated Boise State than watch Michigan get an undeserving 2nd chance. I think Michigan is better than Florida, but I do not think that they deserve to go to Glendale because they already lost to the team that will be playing against them. It is as simple as that.
And just because those two rules arent in the BCS, does not mean that they can be overlooked. If you want to use that argument, then why can't I turn it around (no matter how stupid it might sound)? Where is the rule that says that voters can't take into consideration about not setting up a rematch or not winning your conference?
Oh, and USC moved ahead of Michigan in both polls (but not the AP.. but that doesnt matter in the BCS forumla) after they lost to OSU. Michigan wouldnt be being leapfrogged for the "second time" while Michigan was not playing if Florida moves ahead. Regardless, I don't think that Florida will pass Michigan. The computers hate Florida.
[Edited on 12-3-2006 by Bones2484]
lvnwrth
You say "No, we wouldn't be having the discussion." But then you say that the loss v OSU is a "dealbreaker". That means WE WOULD still be having this discussion if UT had taken care of business v KState, AM and were now #2 behind OSU, with their only loss being OSU.
Just think...if UT had done their job, the #2, #3 teams (in some order) would be two teams whose only loss was to OSU.
December 03, 2006 at 06:41PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Hypothetical question (based on premise that Texas didn't puke all over themselves at K-State and get embarrassed by A&M):
Based on where UT was ranked before their season imploded, if they had won out and beaten Nebraska last night, they would now be #2 in the country. Would we still be having the "no rematch" argument?
No. When you think about it, some of their losses are very equivalent to USC's season.
KState=Oregon St A conference team that they should have beat
A&M=UCLA A rivalry game and all bets were off
So from that point of view, it's possible.
The difference is of course that Ohio State beat Texas...at Texas. And that's the dealbreaker
You say "No, we wouldn't be having the discussion." But then you say that the loss v OSU is a "dealbreaker". That means WE WOULD still be having this discussion if UT had taken care of business v KState, AM and were now #2 behind OSU, with their only loss being OSU.
Just think...if UT had done their job, the #2, #3 teams (in some order) would be two teams whose only loss was to OSU.
rkinslow19
December 03, 2006 at 06:47PM View BBCode
I didn't read your whole question and just posted quickly. But if given the choice between a 1-loss texas team, and a 1-loss michigan team to face OSU in the title game, it would clearly be texas, as they won their conference, and had the guts to schedule a tough OOC opponent.Pages: 1 2