T1B

Same team that choked against Tennessee, right?

The same Tennessee that played ND about as tough as Navy did, right?

Thought so.

Jsc810 wrote:Texas
USC

God, please don't let either one of them lose. And pretty please, with sugar on top, don't let both of them lose.

Sincerely,

BCS apologists.

RadioFan wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Texas
USC

God, please don't let either one of them lose. And pretty please, with sugar on top, don't let both of them lose.

Sincerely,

BCS apologists.

Both teams look damn good right now. Texas has the easier road to the unbeaten season but I wouldn't put it past either team to run the table. It's not looking good for us BCS-haters. :x

Jsc810 wrote:Rack LSU

LSU 16 Alabama 13




The rankings should be:
#1 USC
#2 Texas


#50-#100 WGARA

You know I'm right.

FTFY-NC

Funny how you didn't see any threads about this game on the Neb boards after Bo shut-down Bama bigtime in the second half. They were lined-up to pile-on after the Tenn game(which still paled compared to the Kansas debacle). Dumbasses, if he were still at Neb we wouldn't have to scabdick by bad teams in our own crib.

Jsc810 wrote:When the Pac-10 gets a conference championship game, then it can enter this discussion. Props to USC, a very good team. But Texas will make them look like boys, and UMiami could beat them too.

In a playoff, the results:
Texas
UMiami
USC
LSU

When you know something about College Football... get back to me.

How would you propose a Conference Championship Game in the Pac 10???

The Pac 10 thinks the team that wins the most games during the year should be the Champion...

We don't need a Conference Championship Game to second guess that...



m2

Jsc810 wrote:When you know something about attending, much less graduating from, college, then get back to me. Wind chimes and football don't mix, so keep watching HGTV.

What are you babbling about... drunk guy.

Let me know when you can comprise a sentence in reference to what my post was referring to.


m2

Jsc810 wrote:When you know something about attending, much less graduating from, college, then get back to me. Wind chimes and football don't mix, so keep watching HGTV.

who is this fuckin bitch, and why is he posting on my board?????JsC8IFUCKIN_don't know.............when you you have a fuckin clue.........come back..............

Jsc810 wrote:When the Pac-10 gets a conference championship game, then it can enter this discussion. Props to USC, a very good team. But Texas will make them look like boys, and UMiami could beat them too.

In a playoff, the results:
Texas
UMiami
USC
LSU

my bad, just another neck with a lotto ticket.............Texas will get their ass handed to them if they have to play USC..........................


regards, Troy Smith.................

A conference championship doesn't mean dick. For fifty years CF managed to settle their conference champions the normal way and the Pac 10 and the Big 10 still do and their method of determining their champion is valid.

If some team loses during the regular season in conference and then they meet again in the conference championship who's really the champion if the loser of the first game wins the second game and they each end up with the same record?

No major professional sport has a tourney to determine the champion of a given division, and that's what a CF conference is: An individual division. Take all those division winners (Pac 10, Big XII, SEC, etc) and pit 'em against each other come Bowl Season and there's your real tourney.

Artificially splitting up the SEC or the Big XII into two entities just so there can be a conference championship game is just unnecessary. We all know Texas is the Big XII champion if they win next week. They shouldn't even have to bother themselves over stomping some feeb from the North Division again, just to win some stupid "championship" they already won during the regular season.

Absolutely nobody cares.

Similarly, if USC beats UCLA to run the table then what possible purpose would be served by making USC have to turn around and beat UCLA or Oregon again in some Made For TV conference championship game?

Again, absolutely nobody would care.

There's isn't always something that's necessarily wrong with having a conference championship game but it's by no means the only valid method for determining a conference champion. To say USC "doesn't deserve to enter the discussion because the Pac 10 doesn't have a conference tourney" is just plain laughable.

Jsc810 wrote:I'll take Texas in any game this year, straight up, sig bet or cash.

My money is where my mouth is. Is yours?

I' PM you ..........bitch.....................

Jsc810 wrote:When the Pac-10 gets a conference championship game, then it can enter this discussion. Props to USC, a very good team. But Texas will make them look like boys, and UMiami could beat them too.

In a playoff, the results:
Texas
UMiami
USC
LSU

Too bad you started posting so late. However inspired your stupidity, the boardbitch race is just about over....I suggest you try shoving sludge from the beginning next year.....

Two teams that can't score does not make a great conference.

Sorry.

A conference championship doesn't mean dick.

Sincerely, unabashable Pac-10 fan

PSUFAN wrote:
unabashable

Best word of the day.

You win a $10 gift certificate at Payless Shoes.

Is that good for some Eastern Bloc nylon?

For fifty years CF managed to settle their conference champions the normal way and the Pac 10 and the Big 10 still do and their method of determining their champion is valid.

Uh, no! When OSU won the title in 2002 they weren't even outright conference champs. They split that with Iowa. They didn't play each other and were crowned co-champs. Those two should have played to determine the conference champ.

SEC best conference ... not this season that's for damn sure.

SunCoastSooner wrote:SEC best conference ... not this season that's for damn sure.

Bowl season is coming.

Left Seater wrote:

For fifty years CF managed to settle their conference champions the normal way and the Pac 10 and the Big 10 still do and their method of determining their champion is valid.

Uh, no! When OSU won the title in 2002 they weren't even outright conference champs. They split that with Iowa. They didn't play each other and were crowned co-champs. Those two should have played to determine the conference champ.

I don't think it really mattered if you looked at the bowl results.

That SEC sure is tough.

sin,
[web]http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=252600030[/web]

Yup. Arky is just the cream of the crop, to be sure.

Since most SEC teams won't venture outside their conference, I suppose all of us non-SEC guys will have to go by them as the standard.

I really don't feel like asking Directional Appalachian State.

Bowl season generally proves us out...and the amount of "national championships" among the SEC schools does the rest.

PSUFAN wrote:

A conference championship doesn't mean dick.

Sincerely, unabashable Pac-10 fan

Your conference doesn't use a conference championship game either.

Allow me to clarify. A conference championship means dick. Yes, indeedy. However, a conference championship attained via a win in an additional single conference championship game means no more dick, and it could mean a whole lot less dick.

If Texas wins next week and somehow manages to lose in the CC game, the Big XII conference champion will be a complete joke. If Texas wins the CC game then they're no more of a worthy champion then they already were. The game is worthless, regardless of the outcome. Texas has already proven they're the class of that conference. They don't need to further drive home the point by playing in some ceremonial TV Money Grab of a game which can only hurt them...

Van wrote:Allow me to clarify. A conference championship means dick. Yes, indeedy.

Exactly. So why is it that there's such a push to get ND into a conference, at least as far as this board's population is concerned?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:Allow me to clarify. A conference championship means dick. Yes, indeedy.

Exactly. So why is it that there's such a push to get ND into a conference, at least as far as this board's population is concerned?

I used to want to see them in a conference. However, they year in and year out play the strongest schedule, so leave it how it is...

Can you imagine having someone like Snyder or an SEC team with the luxury of playing anyone they wanted all season????

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:Allow me to clarify. A conference championship means dick. Yes, indeedy.

Exactly. So why is it that there's such a push to get ND into a conference, at least as far as this board's population is concerned?

Terry, I could be wrong here, but I think you misconstrued my clarification there.

By saying, "Yes indeedy, a conference championship means dick.", I'm agreeing that yes, it is a noteworthy accomplishmnet to win a conference. (As opposed to my previously misunderstood post that said winning a conference doesn't mean dick.)

So, to clarify again, once and for all...

Winning a conference: Good!

Having to play a conference championship title game in order to win a conference championship: Often pointless, never totally necessary and sometimes downright stupid!

Having a criteria that says you must win a mostly meaningless conference title game in order to be included in any discussion of who's best: Completely asinine!

(Case in point: OU, two seasons ago. Best team in the Big XII. Ran the regular season table. Got smoked in the conference championship game. Magically retained both the #1 BCS seed and the AP's higher ranking vs the team that just killed 'em. OU moves onto the BCS title game anyway despite not even being the "champion" of their own conference.

With this series of events both the NCAA and the AP writers declared how stupid and useless the conference championship game concept really is...)

As for ND, no, they don't need to have a conference affiliation nor do they need to win a conference championship title game in order to deserve national title consideration. Hell no, not with their traditional schedule, one that renders laughable those of most SEC and Big XII aspirants who mostly don't even bother playing anybody OOC...

I'm actually starting to change my mind on the importance of a CCG. I guess it's necessary in conferences with 12+ teams, since they don't all play each other, but more often than not, it ends up being a lose-lose type of situation, with one team being far superior to the other. So if the favored team wins, they prove nothing, and if the underdog wins, it just screws up the conference's chances at an MNC.

Starting next year, thanks to the addition of the 12th game, the Pac 10 will have the best system - every team plays every other team during the season.

The Big 1(1) is a mess, with no CCG and teams still not playing each other every year.

Ultimately, if every conference just narrowed down to 10 teams, CCGs would cease to be necessary. Not that that would ever happen. There's too much money to be made off of them. But to fault USC for not playing in a CCG is flat-out stupid.

Jsc810 wrote:When the Pac-10 gets a conference championship game, then it can enter this discussion. Props to USC, a very good team. But Texas will make them look like boys, and UMiami could beat them too.

Heard these same ignorant grumblings all of last season, the Orange bowl put an end to that. The Idea that a CCG is going to make your team any better is a joke, while the Whorens play Iowa State or Colorado, USC will play back to back games vs 1 loss teams that both do different things very well. If they win both of those they go to a bowl game that they have won 21 times, in Texass' history they have only won 21 bowl games total.

Funny how SEC fans try to say that a CCG makes teams good, try playing better games OOC or playing on the road once in a while, 12 game seasons mean that schools like Florida International and Louisiana Monroe get another big pay day going to some SEC school and selling them a win. The 8 home game schedules that SEC schools will play will be a joke and in November again youll see a couple of over rated bloated teams with 0 offense play in games that SEC homer will call a clash of Titans.
The SEC is 2-5 vs other BCS conferences this year head to head and only 3-7 vs the lowly Pac 10 since 2000.

SoCalTrjn wrote:Funny how SEC fans try to say that a CCG makes teams good, try playing better games OOC or playing on the road once in a while

It's amazing how you Pac slaps keep bringing up your 1 or 2 a season "tough road matchups". Dude, ASU...probably the best team the Pac has to offer outside of USC or maybe Oregon...had LSU at home, after a hurricane had basically skullfucked the entire team, and still couldn't get it done. The bulk of a team's games is in conference. That means that for most of the year, SEC squads are facing the top defenses and some of the top ranked teams in the nation while the PAC's top tier is getting fat on the Arizonas, Stanfords and Washingtons of the world. In one of the worst SEC years I can recall, the SEC has twice the teams ranked that the PAC has, they have three teams ranked in the top total defenses in the nation with the PAC nowhere in site and yes...they do play a conference championship, which means they have one more game between them and a MNC. Playing in a strong, physical conference means you have to get up for more than maybe two or three games a year. It means you are going to have injuries, you are going to have wear and tear. USC is a fantastic team, but I guarantee you if they had to play an SEC schedule, they wouldn't be undefeated this season or probably any other. That's what a strong conference schedule is all about. So keep bragging about your annual trips to South Bend and Hawaii all you want, but get back to me when the bulk of your schedule is dotted with top 25 schools every single season.

^^^

just my $.02 as I am glad Auburn won...but Auburn played Ball State and Western Kentucky (I believe?)...and the fact that Georgia Tech hasn't been as good as advertised kind of puts a damper on that OOC game...

carry on...just a drive by...

six pack Jsc in da hizzouse!

Spinach Genie wrote:USC is a fantastic team, but I guarantee you if they had to play an SEC schedule, they wouldn't be undefeated this season or probably any other. That's what a strong conference schedule is all about. So keep bragging about your annual trips to South Bend and Hawaii all you want, but get back to me when the bulk of your schedule is dotted with top 25 schools every single season.

Ah yes, the annual "If X team played in our conference, they wouldn't be undefeated!"

I think that is the first time I heard that this year. No matter. Had Alabama won out, I'm sure they would have claimed share of the MNC just as Auburn did last season. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they claim one anyway.

Spinach Genie wrote:
Dude, ASU...probably the best team the Pac has to offer outside of USC or maybe Oregon...had LSU at home

"Dude", ASU is not even bowl eligible with only 5 wins to date...But facts never seem to get in the way of a SEC ballsucking homer take....

Jsc810 wrote:Rack LSU

LSU 16 Alabama 13




The rankings should be:
#1 Texas
#2 USC
#3 LSU/Miami tie

You know I'm right.

After two tough home games vs North Texas and Appalachian St during the mid conference season, it was good to see LSU get up for this one.

The Seer wrote:

Spinach Genie wrote:
Dude, ASU...probably the best team the Pac has to offer outside of USC or maybe Oregon...had LSU at home

"Dude", ASU is not even bowl eligible with only 5 wins to date...But facts never seem to get in the way of a SEC ballsucking homer take....

Buc, Auburn went undefeated last year in the SEC so spare us your guarantees that USC couldn't also do it in the SEC this or any other year.

The best team in the SEC this year is likely LSU (either LSU or Auburn) and if it weren't for some late comedy in the kicking game LSU basically lost to a mid tier Pac 10 team who managed to ring up 570 yards against that "vaunted" SEC defense...

For three straight seasons now USC would've been favored in every game they played against any SEC opponent and there's no way you can guarantee that they wouldn't have won each of those games. USC is quite simply better than anybody in the SEC so there's every reason to believe they wouldn't have lost.

Plain and simple, nobody in the SEC has a good enough offense to beat USC. SEC teams can get by winning 16-13 O.T. games against each other but pit 'em against a USC team that's going to score at least in the mid thirties no matter who they play or where they play and those weak SEC offenses would prove to be too much of a liability.

Need I remind SEC Fan what happened when USC went into Jordan-Hare two seasons ago to play #6 Auburn, in Matt Leinart's first career start...

It only would've gotten worse once Leinart and USC grew up together.

Making "what if" arguments that are not even based on possible scenarios is like soooooooooo uncool.

The SEC's premiere out-of-conference victory for the entire conference is Arizona St. And just barely so.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh wait, I forgot Georgia's epic roasting of Boise St.