The Trap!

[Auburnforever 0]

As much as we complain about the system, much like USC complained about the system last year. It is working the way "they" want it to work. We have all fallen into the trap know as the BCS system. What drives the BCS… money. How do they get the money… from TV revenue. Any other year why would we care or hell why would we even watch a USC/Notre Dame game. We'll all tune in and further increase the ratings, therefore increasing the TV contracts for the BCS. Furthermore increasing the length the BCS system is in place.

The BCS is no better then the old poll system. All it does now is keep people watching other games they wouldn't watch from around October til the end of the season, therefore it is working the way it was intended. We still have split champions (2003).

Guys just putting it out there. I'm very proud of my team. I support my team. They (the team) and us know how good they are on and off the field. And to steal a line I heard from someone else…

I don't need anyone to tell me how good my team is. I already know!!!!!!!!!

[WarTim 3,457]

"The HEROES in the world know who they are. They do not need to be told."

Robert "EVEL" Knevel

WAR EAGLE...O N E at a time.

[War Eagle 96 10]

A little conspiratorial, but I like it anyway.

[rickyd 0]

A little conspiratorial, but I like it anyway.

126185[/snapback]

This is not the BCS that was originaly intended, USC cried so much last year, they put it back in the hands of the biased voters. This is exactly why the BCS was created in the first place, to remove the bias. All that needed changing was that you had to win your conference.

How are you guys going to feel playing the SECCG, putting it all on the line while USC sits on their azzez with a free ride from start to finish.

[tombigbeetiger 223]

i'm telling you people, damnit, it ain't over....the football ain't round and there is still a bunch of football that has to be played.....have you ever considered that it might not have to placed in the hands of the voters or computers?......have some faith....if it is meant to be, it WILL happen

[WarTim 3,457]

I agree 100 %. LOTS of football left to play. This thing ain't over yet.

NOW, we need to concentrate on the inbred rednecks to the north. The viles are layin' in wait to attempt to put an end to our perfect season.

Let's support the team as they play 'em...........................................................

ONE at a time.

[AU4Ever 0]

I agree. The Tennessee hillbillies have been embarrassed 3 times this year. We did it big time when we played them. ND put the second one on them. And then Vandy gave them a scare scoring 33 points on them. A win in the SECCG would be as big to them as it would have been for the bammers if they had pulled off a miracle against us this year. USC still has two games to play, and they are partying out in LaLaLand like the season is over. Anyone see the video of Snoop Dog rapping in the dressing room and out catching passes with them. I think USC loses to either ND or UCLA. And I'm thinking ND may be the one.

[auskull 239]

The BCS has succeeded in one area, matching two very good teams that normally would not have played. Last year LSU would have played in the Sugar, USC in the Rose, and Kansas State in the Fiesta. Oklahoma possibly would have played in the Sugar. This year could be the same as before except for Oklahoma going to the Fiesta Bowl without the BCS. However, the BCS is only marginally better than before. We really need a playoff, otherwise it is simply an opinion championship just like all the other championships over the last 100 years.

[rickyd 0]

The BCS has succeeded in one area, matching two very good teams that normally would not have played. Last year LSU would have played in the Sugar, USC in the Rose, and Kansas State in the Fiesta. Oklahoma possibly would have played in the Sugar. This year could be the same as before except for Oklahoma going to the Fiesta Bowl without the BCS. However, the BCS is only marginally better than before. We really need a playoff, otherwise it is simply an opinion championship just like all the other championships over the last 100 years.

126352[/snapback]

This may be, but it would have been a lot easier to take had we not made it to the MNCG because unbiased computers calculated ours and our opponents strengths, and we just didn't measure up. Well that distinction fell to USC. If it had been us left out, the only bitch we could have had, is to beef up our schedule.

If the roles were reversed, I would be so pissed right now that one week they pull you tied for 2nd with OK, you win your next game and they drop you back to 3rd. Whats with that shlt. Your only close game was against us, USC and OK have struggled several times this season and both were damn lucky not too have lost a couple of games.

I'm afraid if the BCS remains as is, several SEC teams will be screwed in the future.

I guess at this point the revamped, totally fair and beyond reproach B(ullsh!t)CS requires that you do nothing more than cross your fingers really tight. :huh:

[SLAG-91 1,483]

The BCS has always been reactive instead of proactive...they added the quality win component in 2001 after Miami finished third behind FSU in 2000, despite the fact that the 'Canes had beaten the Seminoles earlier in the season. Last year, they put more emphasis back on the human polls after USC was #1 in both the AP and coaches', yet was not in the BCS title game.

There's something wrong with a system that has meaningless games like TCU @ Southern Miss in 2001 and Notre Dame @ Syracuse last year being the difference between a team playing for the national title and merely playing in a BCS bowl.

TCU's win over Southern Miss in '01 gave Nebraska enough of a strength of schedule boost to put them past Colorado (the Huskers finished .05 ahead of CU), never mind that the Buffaloes had hammered NU to the tune of 62-37 a week earlier. Notre Dame's loss to Syracuse weakened USC's strength of schedule enough to allow LSU to claim the #2 spot in the BCS (.16 difference, I believe).

I'd be all for scrapping the whole kit and caboodle and going back to the old traditional tie-ins with a few adjustments...SEC to Sugar, Big 10-Pac 10 to Rose, Big XII (formerly Big 8) to Orange, ACC to Orange, Big East to Fiesta and fill in where needed.

[rickyd 0]

The BCS has always been reactive instead of proactive...they added the quality win component in 2001 after Miami finished third behind FSU in 2000, despite the fact that the 'Canes had beaten the Seminoles earlier in the season.  Last year, they put more emphasis back on the human polls after USC was #1 in both the AP and coaches', yet was not in the BCS title game.

There's something wrong with a system that has meaningless games like TCU @ Southern Miss in 2001 and Notre Dame @ Syracuse last year being the difference between a team playing for the national title and merely playing in a BCS bowl.

TCU's win over Southern Miss in '01 gave Nebraska enough of a strength of schedule boost to put them past Colorado (the Huskers finished .05 ahead of CU), never mind that the Buffaloes had hammered NU to the tune of 62-37 a week earlier.  Notre Dame's loss to Syracuse weakened USC's strength of schedule enough to allow LSU to claim the #2 spot in the BCS (.16 difference, I believe).

I'd be all for scrapping the whole kit and caboodle and going back to the old traditional tie-ins with a few adjustments...SEC to Sugar, Big 10-Pac 10 to Rose, Big XII (formerly Big 8) to Orange, ACC to Orange, Big East to Fiesta and fill in where needed.

126468[/snapback]

Then we're right back where we started, biased voters, and all you will hear about is USC, OK, Ohio State, Mich. Miami, Fla St. and the SEC will be left too beat up on ourselves with better teams top to bottom.