 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » USC Vs. UCLA
Bones2484
But I have no doubt that it will be Michigan. And sadly, I will most likely not be watching this game.
I hate Florida, I hate the SEC, I like Michigan, I like the Big10. But the fact remains that I just cannot support a rematch in a NC that includes a non-conference champion without a playoff system in place.
December 03, 2006 at 06:50PM View BBCode
Basically, from a fan's perspective of College Football. I would rather see Florida face OSU in the NC.But I have no doubt that it will be Michigan. And sadly, I will most likely not be watching this game.
I hate Florida, I hate the SEC, I like Michigan, I like the Big10. But the fact remains that I just cannot support a rematch in a NC that includes a non-conference champion without a playoff system in place.
lvnwrth
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.[/quote]
Take the blinders off and read my posts before you come drooling and ranting. Apparently you either missed the part...or failed to comprehend the part...where I wrote that I don't particularly want to see a rematch, and I believe that its not good for the BCS. That's why I said responding to the USC faithful was a waste of time. You just validated my statement.
December 03, 2006 at 06:50PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Bones2484[/i]
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.[/quote]
Take the blinders off and read my posts before you come drooling and ranting. Apparently you either missed the part...or failed to comprehend the part...where I wrote that I don't particularly want to see a rematch, and I believe that its not good for the BCS. That's why I said responding to the USC faithful was a waste of time. You just validated my statement.
Bones2484
You're right, I misread it. I must have just happened to pass over the one line that you said that in all of your moaning about why Michigan should be #2.
Then what, as a fan, do you want to see?
[Edited on 12-3-2006 by Bones2484]
December 03, 2006 at 06:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Originally posted by Bones2484
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.
Take the blinders off and read my posts before you come drooling and ranting. Apparently you either missed the part...or failed to comprehend the part...where I wrote that I don't particularly want to see a rematch, and I believe that its not good for the BCS. That's why I said responding to the USC faithful was a waste of time. You just validated my statement.
You're right, I misread it. I must have just happened to pass over the one line that you said that in all of your moaning about why Michigan should be #2.
Then what, as a fan, do you want to see?
[Edited on 12-3-2006 by Bones2484]
barterer2002
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument is that Michigan should get the rematch because there are no rules preventing a rematch.
I guess my first question is what are the rules since I thought the voters could vote for whomever they wish. If, as a voter, my opinion is that a conference champ is better than the runner up why is that wrong simply because the runner up almost won?
December 03, 2006 at 09:54PM View BBCode
lvnwrthPlease correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument is that Michigan should get the rematch because there are no rules preventing a rematch.
I guess my first question is what are the rules since I thought the voters could vote for whomever they wish. If, as a voter, my opinion is that a conference champ is better than the runner up why is that wrong simply because the runner up almost won?
rkinslow19
In lvnwrth's book, when two good teams play, losses don't count.
December 04, 2006 at 05:54AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
lvnwrth
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument is that Michigan should get the rematch because there are no rules preventing a rematch.
I guess my first question is what are the rules since I thought the voters could vote for whomever they wish. If, as a voter, my opinion is that a conference champ is better than the runner up why is that wrong simply because the runner up almost won?
In lvnwrth's book, when two good teams play, losses don't count.
rkinslow19
December 04, 2006 at 05:55AM View BBCode
Also, in regards to USC, sagarin still has them rated #2 in the country.
scaffdog
December 04, 2006 at 03:38PM View BBCode
thier SCHEDULE is rated #2 in the country. His computer ranking used in the BCS has USC 4th behind OSU, Michigan, and Florida, in that order.
max_fischer
December 04, 2006 at 04:00PM View BBCode
Did anybody see that one computer of the BCS Six has Florida ranked NUMBER ONE?? As in, ahead of Ohio State? That would be the Colley Matrix. Seems like they should 86 the Colley Matrix and just borrow somebody's iMac for next year's BCS. I mean, seriously.
lvnwrth
Another example of why its pointless to try to respond to USC fans. What a stupid, stupid statement. But then, consider the source.
December 04, 2006 at 05:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by barterer2002
lvnwrth
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument is that Michigan should get the rematch because there are no rules preventing a rematch.
I guess my first question is what are the rules since I thought the voters could vote for whomever they wish. If, as a voter, my opinion is that a conference champ is better than the runner up why is that wrong simply because the runner up almost won?
In lvnwrth's book, when two good teams play, losses don't count.
Another example of why its pointless to try to respond to USC fans. What a stupid, stupid statement. But then, consider the source.
lvnwrth
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings
According to the BCS standings on the ESPN site, JS (Jeff Sagarin) has USC 4th, after Ohio State, Michigan, and Florida.
December 04, 2006 at 05:45PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Also, in regards to USC, sagarin still has them rated #2 in the country.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings
According to the BCS standings on the ESPN site, JS (Jeff Sagarin) has USC 4th, after Ohio State, Michigan, and Florida.
lvnwrth
Stop it! You'll only confuse him with the truth.
December 04, 2006 at 05:46PM View BBCode
Originally posted by scaffdog
thier SCHEDULE is rated #2 in the country. His computer ranking used in the BCS has USC 4th behind OSU, Michigan, and Florida, in that order.
Stop it! You'll only confuse him with the truth.
max_fischer
December 04, 2006 at 06:02PM View BBCode
I don't think UM got robbed really. It was close, and Florida won a big game. To me it would have been a little worse if Florida's win over Arkansas had not changed their standing at all.
Bones2484
Oh well, not like his opinions were ever worth reading anyways... we won't miss him in this thread, or any others.
December 04, 2006 at 07:19PM View BBCode
I love how lvnwrth tries to weasel out of arguments by just saying there's no point to responding to USC fans. Especially considering the arguments were Florida vs Michigan and had nothing to do with USC.Oh well, not like his opinions were ever worth reading anyways... we won't miss him in this thread, or any others.
scaffdog
I head someone making the statement this mornign that if OSU had beaten michigan Saturady at the same time Florida was playing that there would have been a rematch. I actually think Florida's Victory would have been more resoudnig for the #2 spot had that happened.
December 04, 2006 at 07:39PM View BBCode
Originally posted by max_fischer
I don't think UM got robbed really. It was close, and Florida won a big game. To me it would have been a little worse if Florida's win over Arkansas had not changed their standing at all.
I head someone making the statement this mornign that if OSU had beaten michigan Saturady at the same time Florida was playing that there would have been a rematch. I actually think Florida's Victory would have been more resoudnig for the #2 spot had that happened.
Bones2484
I am scared that I agree with you for once.
And to add to this, there would be less controversy considering the fact that most people are upset that Florida skipped over Michigan when Michigan hadn't even played.
December 04, 2006 at 10:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by scaffdog
I head someone making the statement this mornign that if OSU had beaten michigan Saturady at the same time Florida was playing that there would have been a rematch. I actually think Florida's Victory would have been more resoudnig for the #2 spot had that happened.
I am scared that I agree with you for once.
And to add to this, there would be less controversy considering the fact that most people are upset that Florida skipped over Michigan when Michigan hadn't even played.
lvnwrth
More meaningless blather from a Trojan fan.
December 04, 2006 at 10:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bones2484
I love how lvnwrth tries to weasel out of arguments by just saying there's no point to responding to USC fans. Especially considering the arguments were Florida vs Michigan and had nothing to do with USC.
Oh well, not like his opinions were ever worth reading anyways... we won't miss him in this thread, or any others.
More meaningless blather from a Trojan fan.
drunkengoat
December 04, 2006 at 10:20PM View BBCode
Next ratings rumble, both of you have berths slotted, and I can only hope you can take the heat when one of you crumbles in your head-to-head matchup!
Bones2484
December 04, 2006 at 10:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
More meaningless blather from a Trojan fan.
lvnwrth
Bones following UCLA game:
[Edited on 12-5-2006 by lvnwrth]
December 05, 2006 at 12:52AM View BBCode
Bones before UCLA game:
Bones following UCLA game:
[Edited on 12-5-2006 by lvnwrth]
tm4559
December 05, 2006 at 12:56AM View BBCode
i love the bruins, i truly do. next season, maybe USC will get beaten by real football teams. the great thing about the BCS is, it has now given us what we always used to before: a meaningless rose bowl (isn't it USC and Michigan). meanwhile, OSU plays Florida. that sounds like an authentic, bang up football game. where are they playing?
rkinslow19
That's not the way I read it:
OSU 100.65
USC 94.12
Michigan 93.23
LSU 91.98
Louisville 91.80
FLorida 91.60
The scores are an average of his "ELO_CHESS" and "Predictor" ratings.
December 05, 2006 at 02:10AM View BBCode
Originally posted by scaffdog
thier SCHEDULE is rated #2 in the country. His computer ranking used in the BCS has USC 4th behind OSU, Michigan, and Florida, in that order.
That's not the way I read it:
OSU 100.65
USC 94.12
Michigan 93.23
LSU 91.98
Louisville 91.80
FLorida 91.60
The scores are an average of his "ELO_CHESS" and "Predictor" ratings.
rkinslow19
lvnwrth, I don't know enough about you to judge your character, but when it comes to intelligence, you're a moron
[Edited on 12-5-2006 by rkinslow19]
December 05, 2006 at 02:11AM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by barterer2002
lvnwrth
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument is that Michigan should get the rematch because there are no rules preventing a rematch.
I guess my first question is what are the rules since I thought the voters could vote for whomever they wish. If, as a voter, my opinion is that a conference champ is better than the runner up why is that wrong simply because the runner up almost won?
In lvnwrth's book, when two good teams play, losses don't count.
Another example of why its pointless to try to respond to USC fans. What a stupid, stupid statement. But then, consider the source.
lvnwrth, I don't know enough about you to judge your character, but when it comes to intelligence, you're a moron
[Edited on 12-5-2006 by rkinslow19]
scaffdog
December 05, 2006 at 05:43AM View BBCode
yes Kinsolow, but the Elo-chess rating is the one used by the BCS, read my post before you respond.Pages: 1 2