So, who's the best team not playing in the NC game.

[oxpatchreb]

Saw this on ESPN but thought it would be fun to stir the pot here on
RF boards.

[done]

I automatically remove non conference champs from the discussion, because if you can't win your conference that means that when you look at the entirety of the year (as you should) you are not worthy of consideration.

So that leaves us with USC, WVA, and VA Tech. Of those, I think that USC is clearly the best. But I do believe that WVA's speed might place them closer to USC than I might have thought.

[oxpatchreb]

I automatically remove non conference champs from the discussion, because if you can't win your conference that means that when you look at the entirety of the year (as you should) you are not worthy of consideration.

So that leaves us with USC, WVA, and VA Tech. Of those, I think that USC is clearly the best. But I do believe that WVA's speed might place them closer to USC than I might have thought.

True, conference champs should be the only team's considered for a NC game. But without UGA and MIZZOU, the competition for "best team NOT in the NC game" loses something, that's why I put them in there. Plus, ESPN had them in there too, I think.

[done]

I automatically remove non conference champs from the discussion, because if you can't win your conference that means that when you look at the entirety of the year (as you should) you are not worthy of consideration.

So that leaves us with USC, WVA, and VA Tech. Of those, I think that USC is clearly the best. But I do believe that WVA's speed might place them closer to USC than I might have thought.

True, conference champs should be the only team's considered for a NC game. But without UGA and MIZZOU, the competition for "best team NOT in the NC game" loses something, that's why I put them in there. Plus, ESPN had them in there too, I think.

Missouri's win against Arky was against and interim coach (interim coaches are 1-6 in this bowl season) so that blow out may be overstated and Georgia's win was against a team that had trouble beating Louisiana Tech in overtime (nuff said). Both Mizzou and Georgia can be explosive teams, but Oklahoma crushed Mizzou and Tennessee crushed Georgia, so I don't think they belong in any discussion of best team when they were so thoroughly dismantled by conference opponents.

USC lost a Stanford game that they had no business losing, and WVA did the same to Pitt, but those were close games against weak opponents that just got away from them. Nobody destroyed them in a game

[cajunrebel]

Gawga by far and they return everybody next year. The game vs Florida is gonna be very interesting.

[Tcounty]

I automatically remove non conference champs from the discussion.

USC didn't play a conference championship game. You could have a scenario where UT looses to UGA early in the season. So now UT is in the drivers seat. Ut then looses 3 out of conference games and 1 conference game. UGA doesn't loose another game the rest of the year. UT 11-1, UGA 8-4

On the west side a 3 loss team gets in the championship game. So now you have a 4 loss and 3 loss team playing of the championship game, with UT sitting on the side.When every conference starts playing a championship game ,then I say it counts toward who plays the National Championship game.

Just about what happened this year. UT had 3 losses (FLA<CAL<BAMMA), UGA had 2 losses (UT<SC) I understand how it works in the SEC rankings, but that should have no influence in the BcS. All year long in the BcS rankings,if #1 looses #2 moves up, if #1&#2 loose 3&4 move up, not #3 move to #1 and #7 move to #2.


Playoff is the only answer

[done]

I automatically remove non conference champs from the discussion.

USC didn't play a conference championship game. You could have a scenario where UT looses to UGA early in the season. So now UT is in the drivers seat. Ut then looses 3 out of conference games and 1 conference game. UGA doesn't loose another game the rest of the year. UT 11-1, UGA 8-4

On the west side a 3 loss team gets in the championship game. So now you have a 4 loss and 3 loss team playing of the championship game, with UT sitting on the side.When every conference starts playing a championship game ,then I say it counts toward who plays the National Championship game.

Just about what happened this year. UT had 3 losses (FLA<CAL<BAMMA), UGA had 2 losses (UT<SC) I understand how it works in the SEC rankings, but that should have no influence in the BcS. All year long in the BcS rankings,if #1 looses #2 moves up, if #1&#2 loose 3&4 move up, not #3 move to #1 and #7 move to #2.


Playoff is the only answer

If you can't even win your division, and you get whalloped by the team that does win your division (like GA was by Tennessee) you should be removed from the discussion period.

Georgia did not win when it counted, and not only did they lose to their division champ, they were crushed by them. They have nothing to *beep* about. They were given a BCS gift by allowing them in and another gift by allowing them to play a team that should have been playing their bowl game on a blue field in Idaho.

And the great shame of a playoff would have been that a team like GA, who couldn't even win their division would have been given an opportunity to win a NC. If that happens, the NC loses whatever credibility it has left.

[oxpatchreb]

I automatically remove non conference champs from the discussion.

USC didn't play a conference championship game. You could have a scenario where UT looses to UGA early in the season. So now UT is in the drivers seat. Ut then looses 3 out of conference games and 1 conference game. UGA doesn't loose another game the rest of the year. UT 11-1, UGA 8-4

On the west side a 3 loss team gets in the championship game. So now you have a 4 loss and 3 loss team playing of the championship game, with UT sitting on the side.When every conference starts playing a championship game ,then I say it counts toward who plays the National Championship game.

Just about what happened this year. UT had 3 losses (FLA<CAL<BAMMA), UGA had 2 losses (UT<SC) I understand how it works in the SEC rankings, but that should have no influence in the BcS. All year long in the BcS rankings,if #1 looses #2 moves up, if #1&#2 loose 3&4 move up, not #3 move to #1 and #7 move to #2.


Playoff is the only answer

If you can't even win your division, and you get whalloped by the team that does win your division (like GA was by Tennessee) you should be removed from the discussion period.

Georgia did not win when it counted, and not only did they lose to their division champ, they were crushed by them. They have nothing to *beep* about. They were given a BCS gift by allowing them in and another gift by allowing them to play a team that should have been playing their bowl game on a blue field in Idaho.

And the great shame of a playoff would have been that a team like GA, who couldn't even win their division would have been given an opportunity to win a NC. If that happens, the NC loses whatever credibility it has left.

By this method of thinking, your earlier post is nullified. You posted that removing non-conference winners leaves USC, WVU and VA TECH, you think USC is the clear choice. But USC lost two games, one that they had NO business losing, and another they would have EASILY won had it been the same team that beat up on Illinois. So the question remains.... USC (in a playoff situation) would be a team who played poorly thoughout the year, but b/c they are now healthy as well as playing very well, would be in a position to win the NC.

I think that is precisely why the NCAA BB NC is such a coveted and honored thing!!! The fact that it's SOOOOO hard to get through that tourney b/c you have got to play your best game for 6 straight games!!!! If you don't, Valpo hands you your a** in the first round b/c they came to play and you didn't!!! know it hurts all of us, but dat's da facts)

Right now, it's more about media preferences, style points and whoever the current BCS darling is to get a National Champion. Not very credible.

Tournament loses credibility? Not at all, makes the reward that much sweeter IMHO.
(getting the hang of this txt speak)

[done]

USC didn't play a conference championship game. You could have a scenario where UT looses to UGA early in the season. So now UT is in the drivers seat. Ut then looses 3 out of conference games and 1 conference game. UGA doesn't loose another game the rest of the year. UT 11-1, UGA 8-4

On the west side a 3 loss team gets in the championship game. So now you have a 4 loss and 3 loss team playing of the championship game, with UT sitting on the side.When every conference starts playing a championship game ,then I say it counts toward who plays the National Championship game.

Just about what happened this year. UT had 3 losses (FLA<CAL<BAMMA), UGA had 2 losses (UT<SC) I understand how it works in the SEC rankings, but that should have no influence in the BcS. All year long in the BcS rankings,if #1 looses #2 moves up, if #1&#2 loose 3&4 move up, not #3 move to #1 and #7 move to #2.


Playoff is the only answer

If you can't even win your division, and you get whalloped by the team that does win your division (like GA was by Tennessee) you should be removed from the discussion period.

Georgia did not win when it counted, and not only did they lose to their division champ, they were crushed by them. They have nothing to *beep* about. They were given a BCS gift by allowing them in and another gift by allowing them to play a team that should have been playing their bowl game on a blue field in Idaho.

And the great shame of a playoff would have been that a team like GA, who couldn't even win their division would have been given an opportunity to win a NC. If that happens, the NC loses whatever credibility it has left.

By this method of thinking, your earlier post is nullified. You posted that removing non-conference winners leaves USC, WVU and VA TECH, you think USC is the clear choice. But USC lost two games, one that they had NO business losing, and another they would have EASILY won had it been the same team that beat up on Illinois. So the question remains.... USC (in a playoff situation) would be a team who played poorly thoughout the year, but b/c they are now healthy as well as playing very well, would be in a position to win the NC.

I think that is precisely why the NCAA BB NC is such a coveted and honored thing!!! The fact that it's SOOOOO hard to get through that tourney b/c you have got to play your best game for 6 straight games!!!! If you don't, Valpo hands you your a** in the first round b/c they came to play and you didn't!!! know it hurts all of us, but dat's da facts)

Right now, it's more about media preferences, style points and whoever the current BCS darling is to get a National Champion. Not very credible.

Tournament loses credibility? Not at all, makes the reward that much sweeter IMHO.
(getting the hang of this txt speak)

The difference is that USC did what it had to do to prevail as Champion of their conference (they aren't allowed to have a championship game because they don't have 12 teams). USC succeeded in that quest, Georgia failed. Georgia knocked themselves out of contention in head to head play on the field, not the writers or broadcasters. They were at best the third place team in the SEC as determined by the rules by which each team in the conference played. The third place team from any conference should never be allowed to compete for a national championship. It waters down the championship.

And I didn't say the tournament loses credibility or that the reward would not be sweet, I said the championship loses credibility. Hell yea it would be sweet for Georgia if they were to win the NC this year. But it would make a farce of the National Championship because whatever the process is that determines a National Champion (BCS, Tournament, or Playoffs) only Champions should be allowed to compete for that crown. It would be like when the Marlins won the World Series. That was a joke and watered down the value of that title, and I haven't felt the same about MLB since then. And I don't think that the NCAA Basketball champ is near as valid as the BCS Champ. Does anybody even remotely believe that Villanova was the best team in the country the year they won the title?

If the National Champion does not even play well enough in the regular season to win its conference championship, then you in effect have a WildCard team win the championship. Wildcard teams are for professional sports and NCAA basketball, not for the greatest sport of them all...college football. If we keep trying to make this sport look like the NFL, those of us who love the fact that every regular season game still matters will lose the only sport left where that holds true.

I will give you a case in point. My favorite professional player is Eli, but if the Giants were to miraculously win the Super Bowl this year, that would be a joke. I would be excited and I would be so happy for Eli, but that Super Bowl trophy would lose a lot of its shine.

Again that is just my opinion. I totally understand yours, but I hope we never have a scenario where a third place team from a conference wins a NC.

[oxpatchreb]

Again that is just my opinion. I totally understand yours, but I hope we never have a scenario where a third place team from a conference wins a NC.

And THAT, my friends, is how you debate!!!!!!!

Arky, LSU and Bama fans should pay attention. There's a civil way to discuss everything, then there's the OTHER way.

Yeah, I do get your point. You might have turned me on this one. I think you're right. That maybe the intangibles are what makes College Football so great, and the NFL, MLB, NBA suck. I tend to agree that it's the pagentry of bowl games, the wimsy (for lack of a better word) of the selection process that makes each and every game count. Not only do you have to win, but you have to IMPRESS bowl selection committees and that's what makes every game count so much.

I also think that if we go with your explanation that it should be 100%. Meaning that if you don't play IN (not neccesarily win, in case of two unbeatens in SEC playing eachother with similar OOC schedules) a conf champ game, you don't get into BCS period. How cool would it be to have a rotating system where the best Independent teams fill in spots for conferences without the required # of teams for conf champ games?

Maybe I thought I was in favor of playoff because we're always on the fence in football, and haven't been dominant in so many years that I wish there were a way to "back into" a NC.

[Tcounty]

I really didn't care either way until a 13-0 Auburn team was left completely out. One of these days it maybe Ole Miss 13-0 and left out. When that happened I quit caring about the NC, it just doesn't mean anything. USC claims to have won 3 straight NCs, but in actuality LSU raised the crystal ball in one, and Auburn was 13-0 in another. So does raising the trophy make you the champ or does having the better record? ESPN considers USC as champs the year LSU raised the trophy, but doesn't even mention Auburn .

We are lucky to be in a BCS conference, but there may come a time when we are snubbed just like Auburn. It's happened before, Bamma gets bowl and we sit and watch.


The only title that means anything to me is played in Atlanta.

[Townes]

We are the best nine loss team not playing in the NC.

EDIT: That is to say that other than the nine loss team playing in the NC, we're the best.

[oxfordrebel]

I really didn't care either way until a 13-0 Auburn team was left completely out. One of these days it maybe Ole Miss 13-0 and left out. When that happened I quit caring about the NC, it just doesn't mean anything. USC claims to have won 3 straight NCs, but in actuality LSU raised the crystal ball in one, and Auburn was 13-0 in another. So does raising the trophy make you the champ or does having the better record? ESPN considers USC as champs the year LSU raised the trophy, but doesn't even mention Auburn .

We are lucky to be in a BCS conference, but there may come a time when we are snubbed just like Auburn. It's happened before, Bamma gets bowl and we sit and watch.


The only title that means anything to me is played in Atlanta.

The year that got me was the year before that when USC got the #1 in the AP final while LSU got #1 in the BCS and Coaches (having won the MNC title game). At that point I said that I personally would only recognize the AP #1 as the true national champ (even though most years there's no such thing as a true NC). Obviously the AP voters don't bow to the pressure of the BCS, though that might have changed by now...

Let's face it. ESPN is the real mastermind of BCS football. Whatever match-up THEY want in the MNC title game is the one they're going to get. They have the loudest voice with the voters. Pretty much, they've become a lobbying agency when it comes to the BCS, IMO.

[done]

I really didn't care either way until a 13-0 Auburn team was left completely out. One of these days it maybe Ole Miss 13-0 and left out. When that happened I quit caring about the NC, it just doesn't mean anything. USC claims to have won 3 straight NCs, but in actuality LSU raised the crystal ball in one, and Auburn was 13-0 in another. So does raising the trophy make you the champ or does having the better record? ESPN considers USC as champs the year LSU raised the trophy, but doesn't even mention Auburn .

We are lucky to be in a BCS conference, but there may come a time when we are snubbed just like Auburn. It's happened before, Bamma gets bowl and we sit and watch.


The only title that means anything to me is played in Atlanta.

The year that got me was the year before that when USC got the #1 in the AP final while LSU got #1 in the BCS and Coaches (having won the MNC title game). At that point I said that I personally would only recognize the AP #1 as the true national champ (even though most years there's no such thing as a true NC). Obviously the AP voters don't bow to the pressure of the BCS, though that might have changed by now...

Let's face it. ESPN is the real mastermind of BCS football. Whatever match-up THEY want in the MNC title game is the one they're going to get. They have the loudest voice with the voters. Pretty much, they've become a lobbying agency when it comes to the BCS, IMO.

I agree that ESPN tries to effect opinions, but I don't think that ESPN necessarily wanted an SEC team in the BCS Championship as they are the official network of the BIG 10 and the PAC10 through their fellow Disney company ABC.

Also, let's not forget that FOX is the network of the BCS so at least in that sense, ESPN is not as controlling as they as they could be if the game were on ABC or ESPN.

[oxfordrebel]

I really didn't care either way until a 13-0 Auburn team was left completely out. One of these days it maybe Ole Miss 13-0 and left out. When that happened I quit caring about the NC, it just doesn't mean anything. USC claims to have won 3 straight NCs, but in actuality LSU raised the crystal ball in one, and Auburn was 13-0 in another. So does raising the trophy make you the champ or does having the better record? ESPN considers USC as champs the year LSU raised the trophy, but doesn't even mention Auburn .

We are lucky to be in a BCS conference, but there may come a time when we are snubbed just like Auburn. It's happened before, Bamma gets bowl and we sit and watch.


The only title that means anything to me is played in Atlanta.

The year that got me was the year before that when USC got the #1 in the AP final while LSU got #1 in the BCS and Coaches (having won the MNC title game). At that point I said that I personally would only recognize the AP #1 as the true national champ (even though most years there's no such thing as a true NC). Obviously the AP voters don't bow to the pressure of the BCS, though that might have changed by now...

Let's face it. ESPN is the real mastermind of BCS football. Whatever match-up THEY want in the MNC title game is the one they're going to get. They have the loudest voice with the voters. Pretty much, they've become a lobbying agency when it comes to the BCS, IMO.

I agree that ESPN tries to effect opinions, but I don't think that ESPN necessarily wanted an SEC team in the BCS Championship as they are the official network of the BIG 10 and the PAC10 through their fellow Disney company ABC.

Also, let's not forget that FOX is the network of the BCS so at least in that sense, ESPN is not as controlling as they as they could be if the game were on ABC or ESPN.

I may be wrong, but I think it was the "Kissing Les Miles' behind" connection that caused ESPN to push LSU.