The Truth (as seen) by JGW

[johngateswhiteley]

...reading some of the posts on this forum has lead me to a conclusion, a conclusion i played with some time ago, but until now, was not convinced of. a lot of you are idiots and don't know a damn thing about CFB.

1. Florida is the best team in the country, you could make an argument for USC and LSU and Boise State...but you have to give it to Florida

2. ohio state and michigan, while both top 10 teams and very good just cannot keep up with the speed of some of the other top 10 teams. USC smashed michigan and Florida smashed ohio state...

3. ohio state cannot beat florida, period. ohio state got beat about as bad as someone can get beat in a title game...btw, ohio state had a whopping 82 yards of offense...the lowest total in BCS title history. doesn't matter if Ginn played or not, he is not a 27 point difference and florida still works ohio state

4. troy smith was the heisman winner and deserved it; one game does not decide the heisman and one game does not take it away

5. saying boise state can beat florida is asinine, do they deserve a shot...maybe, yeah. but saying they are the best or they deserve a spit title is....stupid. USC, LSU, and Florida would WORK oklahomo and WORK Boise State. though, i am not saying they don't deserve a shot...thats much different than actually saying they would win it all or should get a split...

6. the layoff is not why ohio state lost...they are not good enough and Meyer completely out coached Tressel, the supposed best big game coach

7. when something happens that people cannot explain or an event occurs that goes against what some think/want to happen it is...unfortunately...often written off as luck or a fluke (and yes t.u. won the national title last year and were the better team that day, never said they were not, but that game could have gone either way...this was annihilation)

8. imo, the final top 5:

1. Florida
2. USC
3. LSU
4. Boise State
5. Ohio State

9. the 2 supposed 'best' teams that half the media wanted to see play in the title game....well, no news to me, but the media is usually stupid

10. quit acting like retards, just b/c ohio state lost does not mean the CFB world does not make sense and everything decided to this point was wrong...some of it: sure, but not nearly as much as 'you' guys say

[Fillmoe]

1. Miami


You are a smart man.

[johngateswhiteley]

here is the final coaches and AP poll:

Week 17 AP Top 25
1. Florida (64) 13-1 1,624
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,492
3. LSU 11-2 1,452
4. USC 11-2 1,389
5. Boise State (1) 13-0 1,383
6. Louisville 12-1 1,338
7. Wisconsin 12-1 1,288
8. Michigan 11-2 1,145
9. Auburn 11-2 1,112
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,035
11. Oklahoma 11-3 933
12. Rutgers 11-2 884
13. Texas 10-3 772
14. California 10-3 697
15. Arkansas 10-4 677
16. Brigham Young 11-2 673
17. Notre Dame 10-3 553
18. Wake Forest 11-3 551
19. Virginia Tech 10-3 407
20. Boston College 10-3 353
21. Oregon State 10-4 291
22. TCU 11-2 279
23. Georgia 9-4 204
24. Penn State 9-4 183
25. Tennessee 9-4 181
OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES
Hawaii 110, Nebraska 58, Maryland 24, South Florida 17, Texas A&M 10, Georgia Tech 8, Kentucky 1, San Jose State 1.
DROPPED FROM RANKINGS
Texas A&M 21, Nebraska 22.


Week 17 USA Today Poll
1. Florida (63) 13-1 1,575
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,435
3. LSU 11-2 1,418
4. USC 11-2 1,345
5. Wisconsin 12-1 1,328
6. Boise State 13-0 1,275
7. Louisville 12-1 1,270
8. Auburn 11-2 1,119
9. Michigan 11-2 1,092
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,012
11. Oklahoma 11-3 849
12. Rutgers 11-2 841
13. Texas 10-3 791
14. California 10-3 716
15. Brigham Young 11-2 615
16. Arkansas 10-4 592
17. Wake Forest 11-3 535
18. Virginia Tech 10-3 494
19. Notre Dame 10-3 485
20. Boston College 10-3 388
21. TCU 11-2 339
22. Oregon State 10-4 206
23. Tennessee 9-4 202
24. Hawaii 11-3 152
25. Penn State 9-4 142
OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES
Georgia 133, Nebraska 43, Texas A&M 29, Georgia Tech 19, South Carolina 17, Houston 8, Maryland 7, Texas Tech 2, Kentucky 1.
DROPPED FROM RANKINGS
Texas A&M 21, Nebraska 22, Georgia Tech 25.


...looks like we have the same top 5 teams, but in different order. frankly, i don't care that ohio state was in the title game...you can't put them ahead of USC, LSU, and Boise State. even though i think USC would beat LSU i have no problem with a ranking of:

1. Florida
2. LSU
3. USC
4. Boise State
5. Ohio State

...cause Ohio State cannot be ahead of those top 3, maybe Boise State...but not that top 3.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I didn't see the game at all. Seeing the final score and stat sheet was rather shocking. I thought Florida could win, but the blowout was unexpected to almost all except die hard Florida homers. I can't really comment on the game though...

I hate the layoff the B10 teams have to endure for the bowl games. Almost 2 months? It's ridiculous JGW and you know it.

As for the rankings, they still suck and will always suck.

Can we have a playoff already?

[johngateswhiteley]

I didn't see the game at all. Seeing the final score and stat sheet was rather shocking. I thought Florida could win, but the blowout was unexpected to almost all except die hard Florida homers. I can't really comment on the game though...

I hate the layoff the B10 teams have to endure for the bowl games. Almost 2 months? It's ridiculous JGW and you know it.

As for the rankings, they still suck and will always suck.

Can we have a playoff already?

...you might have to check, but i believe Florida had 35 days off to Ohio States 51. that 16 day difference = a 41-14 ass whipping....i don't think so. this is what happened:

1. florida's defense did not give troy smith anytime to throw the ball
2. ohio state's defense could not keep up with the speed of florida's playmakers

...that has nothing to do with a layoff and everything to do with being an inferior team...just like michigan is inferior to USC for similar reasons. i'll listen to someone argue that the layoff made a 7-10 point difference, but i won't listen to anybody say it would have changed the winner of the game (not saying that you said it would have, but i want to be clear).

while i predicted a florida win...i did predict it to be very close, so of course i was surprised when florida absolutely destroyed the buckeyes. however, watching the game gave me ZERO belief ohio state would win more than 1 or 2 out of 10 from these guys. thats not a knock to buckeye fans...you had a great year, shit, congrats! there is no shame in not being the best team in country, there is usually only one of them.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I'm not saying it's why they lost at all. I just hate the long layoffs. It makes about as much sense as playing four games and taking the month of October off. Actually, that makes more sense because then the teams would play straight through. We'd get a better barometer of which teams are contenders and which are pretenders.

And where did this Florida team come from? I watched them play 4-5 times and they looked nothing like the team that could dismantle OSU. I mean they barely squeaked by the worst Tennessee team in five years and barely escaped the vaunted Gamecocks. I wonder if they'll send a Thank You card to S. Carolina's kicker...

[johngateswhiteley]

I'm not saying it's why they lost at all. I just hate the long layoffs. It makes about as much sense as playing four games and taking the month of October off. Actually, that makes more sense because then the teams would play straight through. We'd get a better barometer of which teams are contenders and which are pretenders.

And where did this Florida team come from? I watched them play 4-5 times and they looked nothing like the team that could dismantle OSU. I mean they barely squeaked by the worst Tennessee team in five years and barely escaped the vaunted Gamecocks. I wonder if they'll send a Thank You card to S. Carolina's kicker...


...i agree long layoffs are garbage. hopefully, that will be remedied later with some type of playoff.

where did florida come from? well, they are a scrappy bunch who happened to play their best game when it mattered most. but, as you know, its all about match ups. so the close game with South Carolina, yeah it was closer than it should have been, but its Spurrier. as for Tennessee, actually last year was their worst team in 5 years, but thats an SEC battle. lots of pride and emotion in inter-conference games...

EDIT: florida's power should have been noted when they dismantled arkansas. that game was not as close as the score....instead of 38-28, it felt more like 38-21 or 38-14.

[johngateswhiteley]

fwiw, i just heard a stat on espn. the 82 yards allowed by florida was the lowest ever in a BCS game, as i noted above, with 154 being the next lowest in the 2004 sugar bowl (LSU's win over ou). wow!....very impressive....almost half.

[MajorMike]

...reading some of the posts on this forum has lead me to a conclusion, a conclusion i played with some time ago, but until now, was not convinced of. a lot of you are idiots and don't know a damn thing about CFB.

1. Florida is the best team in the country, you could make an argument for USC and LSU and Boise State...but you have to give it to Florida

2. ohio state and michigan, while both top 10 teams and very good just cannot keep up with the speed of some of the other top 10 teams. USC smashed michigan and Florida smashed ohio state...

3. ohio state cannot beat florida, period. ohio state got beat about as bad as someone can get beat in a title game...btw, ohio state had a whopping 82 yards of offense...the lowest total in BCS title history. doesn't matter if Ginn played or not, he is not a 27 point difference and florida still works ohio state

4. troy smith was the heisman winner and deserved it; one game does not decide the heisman and one game does not take it away

5. saying boise state can beat florida is asinine, do they deserve a shot...maybe, yeah. but saying they are the best or they deserve a spit title is....stupid. USC, LSU, and Florida would WORK oklahomo and WORK Boise State. though, i am not saying they don't deserve a shot...thats much different than actually saying they would win it all or should get a split...

6. the layoff is not why ohio state lost...they are not good enough and Meyer completely out coached Tressel, the supposed best big game coach

7. when something happens that people cannot explain or an event occurs that goes against what some think/want to happen it is...unfortunately...often written off as luck or a fluke (and yes t.u. won the national title last year and were the better team that day, never said they were not, but that game could have gone either way...this was annihilation)

8. imo, the final top 5:

1. Florida
2. USC
3. LSU
4. Boise State
5. Ohio State

9. the 2 supposed 'best' teams that half the media wanted to see play in the title game....well, no news to me, but the media is usually stupid

10. quit acting like retards, just b/c ohio state lost does not mean the CFB world does not make sense and everything decided to this point was wrong...some of it: sure, but not nearly as much as 'you' guys say

1. Not with 2 losses you couldn't. Wisc gets more of an arguement than them. SC lost to a 4-loss team and a 6-loss team. No way they get any arguement for a MNC.

2. And Boise beat uo... does that make the WAC better than the B12?

3. No arguement

4. Heisman is supposed to be for the 'Best Player in College,' not the 'Best Player on the Best Team.' More often than not, the Heisman winner uses the Bowl game to show why he SHOULDN'T have won it. Going back from Leinhart, the last winners to win a MNC and Heisman were Wuerffel and Ware.

5. Saying Boise will beat uo was an asinine statement a week ago.

6. No one in the world can say if it was a factor or not. It is easy to outcoach when your players are blowing the other team off the line on both sides.

7. What??

8. Fla, Boise, Wisc and L'ville should be the top 4 no doubt. The rest are just the rest.

9. If half the media wants these teams to play, doesn't it make sense that half of the media DIDN'T want them to play?

10. Kettle

[johngateswhiteley]

1. Not with 2 losses you couldn't. Wisc gets more of an arguement than them. SC lost to a 4-loss team and a 6-loss team. No way they get any arguement for a MNC.

2. And Boise beat uo... does that make the WAC better than the B12?

3. No arguement

4. Heisman is supposed to be for the 'Best Player in College,' not the 'Best Player on the Best Team.' More often than not, the Heisman winner uses the Bowl game to show why he SHOULDN'T have won it. Going back from Leinhart, the last winners to win a MNC and Heisman were Wuerffel and Ware.

5. Saying Boise will beat uo was an asinine statement a week ago.

6. No one in the world can say if it was a factor or not. It is easy to outcoach when your players are blowing the other team off the line on both sides.

7. What??

8. Fla, Boise, Wisc and L'ville should be the top 4 no doubt. The rest are just the rest.

9. If half the media wants these teams to play, doesn't it make sense that half of the media DIDN'T want them to play?

10. Kettle


...i don't think we ever agree, in fact, i would venture to guess you don't like my posts much? therefore, your opinion means close to nothing to me...however, i will do you the courtesy of:

1. wisconsin got smoked by michigan who got smoked by USC...wisconsin beat ARK barely while USC annihilated them. you = turd

2. how would one WAC team beating ou make the WAC better? thats idiotic logic...i'm pretty sure there other teams in those conferences. you = bigger turd

4. i think Troy was the most outstanding college football player...i really do. and one game doesn't change that just as one game shouldn't win it for you. again thats poor logic and if you think he shouldn't have won it? you = really big turd

5. saying Boise State would beat ou a week ago was not asinine if you knew anything about CFB. granted they were an underdog, but ou would get worked by USC, Florida, and LSU...absolutely worked...

6. geez...Meyers game plan was outstanding and his plays flawless, it was Carrollesque, LOL. by the way yes, i can say 51 days to 35 days was not a 27 point difference, sorry. you = humongous turd

7. you just graduated to a ginormous turd

8. do you even watch the games. you = immeasurable turd

9. yeah, it makes sense...but the fact that half (and thats a loose estimate, of course) wanted to see it again was craziness. not sure if you're a bigger turd on that one...

10. :rolleyes ....turd explosion


Capt Mike, do you like me?

[MajorMike]

Capt Mike, do you like me?

Of course. I like all adults with the grade school mentality that they are always right and have no other recourse when shown wrong than to result to petty name calling.

[johngateswhiteley]

I like all adults with the grade school mentality that they are always right and have no other recourse when shown wrong than to result to petty name calling.

...while i am having a little fun with you, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. i have no problem admitting when i am wrong...but you look like an absolute moron with your points 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10. its like you don't even watch the games. in any case, i am done talking to you on this matter...but i wish you a great day!

[MajorMike]

Well, at least it wasn't your tired "turd" or "child" reference. I actually agree with Dio on something - you aren't extremely bright.

[NoMoneyDown]

1. wisconsin got smoked by michigan who got smoked by USC...wisconsin beat ARK barely while USC annihilated them. you = turd


WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Weren't you the guy weeks ago that said teams playing the same opposition doesn't matter? And here you are making the argument? "you=turd" does fit in this case. If you are now taking this stance, I think I can pull up several instances that completely defeats your theory - or, better yet, show you why USC sucks.

[johngateswhiteley]

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Weren't you the guy weeks ago that said teams playing the same opposition doesn't matter? And here you are making the argument? "you=turd" does fit in this case. If you are now taking this stance, I think I can pull up several instances that completely defeats your theory - or, better yet, show you why USC sucks.

nope, i said games are all about matchups...but when forced to pick between teams many times you are left with how the teams did against similar opponents. its quite obvious USC is better than Wisconsin and if not b/c if similar opponents, just watch them play.

i am not one of those media people that said boise state, florida, etc had no chance. i don't have a history of saying teams have no chance and then that team proving me wrong...just so you know.

as for what i said, what exactly are you referring to? post it, then.

[johnsmith]

College football is fucking gay and this year proved it once again.

Hey, last month I went to watch my 8 year old nephew compete in the championship football game. Wanna know how they determined who would play in a championship football game............BY A FUCKING PLAYOFF SYSTEM!!!!!!


College football is gay.

Saying that one team would definately beat another is gay.

Saying that one team is better then another because they beat a certain team that that lost to another team that tied another team that never played another team etc.... is gay.

[johngateswhiteley]

College football is fucking gay and this year proved it once again.

Hey, last month I went to watch my 8 year old nephew compete in the championship football game. Wanna know how they determined who would play in a championship football game............BY A FUCKING PLAYOFF SYSTEM!!!!!!


College football is gay.

Saying that one team would definately beat another is gay.

Saying that one team is better then another because they beat a certain team that that lost to another team that tied another team that never played another team etc.... is gay.

1. yes CFB is disappointing in that there is no playoffs

2. its not gay saying USC is better than Wisconsin, they simply are

[johnsmith]

1. yes CFB is disappointing in that there is no playoffs

2. its not gay saying USC is better than Wisconsin, they simply are


Did they play Wisconsin? Did they beat Wisconsin?

Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question, I'm really asking.

[johngateswhiteley]

Did they play Wisconsin? Did they beat Wisconsin?

Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question, I'm really asking.

no they didn't play each other. however, i would bet everything i own that USC would beat Wisconsin...and i am not lying. anybody that watches a plethora of CFB and has a brain knows this...

[MajorMike]

no they didn't play each other. however, i would bet everything i own that USC would beat Wisconsin...and i am not lying. anybody that watches a plethora of CFB and has a brain knows this...

How easy is it to make that statement? You know it will never happen.

If the Wisc that beat arKy plays the SC that was dominated by UCLA, then Wisc would win without a doubt.

[tlongII]

Go Beavs!

[johnsmith]

no they didn't play each other. however, i would bet everything i own that USC would beat Wisconsin...and i am not lying. anybody that watches a plethora of CFB and has a brain knows this...

Now I will first acknowledge that it's obvious that every college team cannot play every other college team during a season, this is of course why they have different conferences. But to say for certain that one team would beat another is impossible. Weird shit happens on game days, players don't come out feeling "right", fumbles occur, balls bounce the way you didn't expect, hook and ladders and statue of liberty plays work to perfection.

I'm not saying that Wisconsin would beat USC, but I am saying that who the fuck knows? That is why college football has never really been that interesting to me.

I have no business saying who is better because I don't follow college ball all that much, but I can say 100% that you never fucking know what could happen.

That is why a playoff is needed, and that is why I won't get into it until it has one.

Plus I went to Colorado State so that doesn't help my level of interest, we were more focused on women's golf then we were on football. Trust me, I played football there, we weren't any good.

[johngateswhiteley]

How easy is it to make that statement? You know it will never happen.

If the Wisc that beat arKy plays the SC that was dominated by UCLA, then Wisc would win without a doubt.

ha ha. is Wisconsin ranked? what is SC's record against ranked opponents? what is Pete Carroll's record against top 10? ...the game would have been a blowout, there is NO chance of SC not playing a good game against a ranked opponent with Carroll as coach...cause it has never happened. and, yes, i swear on my life i would bet everything i own on SC...i might be sweating before the game, but i would double everything i own.

[johngateswhiteley]

Now I will first acknowledge that it's obvious that every college team cannot play every other college team during a season, this is of course why they have different conferences. But to say for certain that one team would beat another is impossible. Weird shit happens on game days, players don't come out feeling "right", fumbles occur, balls bounce the way you didn't expect, hook and ladders and statue of liberty plays work to perfection.

I'm not saying that Wisconsin would beat USC, but I am saying that who the fuck knows? That is why college football has never really been that interesting to me.

I have no business saying who is better because I don't follow college ball all that much, but I can say 100% that you never fucking know what could happen.

That is why a playoff is needed, and that is why I won't get into it until it has one.

Plus I went to Colorado State so that doesn't help my level of interest, we were more focused on women's golf then we were on football. Trust me, I played football there, we weren't any good.

you're right in that there is always that 1% of a chance...thats true. but i would risk that 1% b/c i just don't see USC having 5+ turnovers. CFB locks are not really that hard to predict...and USC over Wisconsin, whose only top 25 team they beat all year was ARK in their bowl and got worked by michigan...is a lock.

[johnsmith]

you're right in that there is always that 1% of a chance...thats true. but i would risk that 1% b/c i just don't see USC having 5+ turnovers. CFB locks are not really that hard to predict...and USC over Wisconsin, whose only top 25 team they beat all year was ARK in their bowl and got worked by michigan...is a lock.


I agree, regular season locks aren't difficult to predict, even if you don't pay that close attention to CFB.

Having said that, this bowl season has for some reason left me extremely jaded towards CFB in general. Mostly because I'm a big BSU fan having lived in Boise for a while and I just think the entire process hosed them by not giving them more of an opportunity. I will not watch CFB until a some sort of playoff is implemented.

Do I think BSU would beat OSU, USC, LSU, Florida, no, but I didn't think they'd beat OU either.

College football is dead to me.

[johngateswhiteley]

I agree, regular season locks aren't difficult to predict, even if you don't pay that close attention to CFB.

Having said that, this bowl season has for some reason left me extremely jaded towards CFB in general. Mostly because I'm a big BSU fan having lived in Boise for a while and I just think the entire process hosed them by not giving them more of an opportunity. I will not watch CFB until a some sort of playoff is implemented.

Do I think BSU would beat OSU, USC, LSU, Florida, no, but I didn't think they'd beat OU either.

College football is dead to me.

i hear that, and i think Boise State got screwed as well. they deserved a shot, no doubt. but if i was to predict what they would do against those teams?...no shot against Florida, LSU, and USC...maybe tosu. but thats no slight, Boise State had an amazing year and should be very proud they beat oklahomo.

but i definitely understand...its a shame, no doubt.

[Vizzini]

Playoff or no playoff, the link below tell of the man who has the the BCS by the balls. It is a little long, but a good read as to how the politics and power structure of college football have created a monster. No one in their right mind would want to disenfranchise the midwest including the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Indianapolis and not have a "complete" field when it comes to the National Championship.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=jo-delany010507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

[johngateswhiteley]

Playoff or no playoff, the link below tell of the man who has the the BCS by the balls. It is a little long, but a good read as to how the politics and power structure of college football have created a monster. No one in their right mind would want to disenfranchise the midwest including the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Indianapolis and not have a "complete" field when it comes to the National Championship.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=jo-delany010507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

i've read it....and yes, its a shame.

[MajorMike]

ha ha. is Wisconsin ranked? what is SC's record against ranked opponents? what is Pete Carroll's record against top 10? ...the game would have been a blowout, there is NO chance of SC not playing a good game against a ranked opponent with Carroll as coach...cause it has never happened. and, yes, i swear on my life i would bet everything i own on SC...i might be sweating before the game, but i would double everything i own.

So if USC > Wisc and UCLA > USC then UCLA > Wisc? UCLA > arKy? UCLA > Mich?

By the way, SC was 4-1 against ranked if my #s are right, but lost to an unranked team. Wisc was 2-1. Boise was 2-0.

In fact, SC was the only Top 10 team to lose to an unranked opponent.

[johnsmith]

Playoff or no playoff, the link below tell of the man who has the the BCS by the balls. It is a little long, but a good read as to how the politics and power structure of college football have created a monster. No one in their right mind would want to disenfranchise the midwest including the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Indianapolis and not have a "complete" field when it comes to the National Championship.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=jo-delany010507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


I honestly had to stop reading the article after I got to this point:

"If the public walks away from our games during the regular season and walks away from television during the regular season and walks away from the bowls, they're saying, We won't support this anymore. We want something else.' But I don't see them walking away from anything."


Fuck this guy. Americans will never "walk away" from our sports. We love our sports, they give us identity, and for that matter, a hobby for about 60% of Americans. Fuck this guy, and fuck college football.


Worst part, I'll still watch the fucking bowl games next year too.

I hope this guy dies.

[Vizzini]

i've read it....and yes, its a shame.

Definetly. It is so stupid on the whole to not have a playoff, but the money involved and the old money people looking out to keep their chunk of the pie has diluted college football. I do tend to agree that a playoff would weaken the regular season, but I think it would only be a slight effect, and if you are able to keep the # of teams to 8 or less, it would make the regular season almost as important as it is now.

[johnsmith]

Definetly. It is so stupid on the whole to not have a playoff, but the money involved and the old money people looking out to keep their chunk of the pie has diluted college football. I do tend to agree that a playoff would weaken the regular season, but I think it would only be a slight effect, and if you are able to keep the # of teams to 8 or less, it would make the regular season almost as important as it is now.


Does a playoff weaken the NFL's regular season?

[RonMexico]

Troy Smith is a cocky piece of shit and deserved to lose - kudos Chris Leak

[Vizzini]

I don't know, but it would take away from the excitement of how this year's regular season eneded. Michigan vs. OSU, USC vs. UCLA, FLorida and Arkansas in the SEC title game all had an impact as to how the title game came out. Michigan would've been in the playoff this year, as would have USC, even though they lost their last regular season games. In the NFL, Dallas lost to the fn' Lions on the last week of the season, but were still alive for a playoff berth, San Diego, Baltimore and the Colts last games only went to determine who got home field, not if they were in or not. The Bears got blasted in their last game and their starting quarterback basically said he didn't give a shit about the game b/c they had everyhting locked up all ready, so it did effect the NFL a little

[johngateswhiteley]

So if USC > Wisc and UCLA > USC then UCLA > Wisc? UCLA > arKy? UCLA > Mich?

By the way, SC was 4-1 against ranked if my #s are right, but lost to an unranked team. Wisc was 2-1. Boise was 2-0.

In fact, SC was the only Top 10 team to lose to an unranked opponent.

this is what i am talking about. i have no idea what you actually think, b/c what you post is so idiotic it cannot be your take. just b/c a team beats another team does not mean they are better. its how you win and the body of the season that counts.

just this year:

1. A&M beat t.u....is A&M a better team? no
2. Oregon State beat USC...is Oregon State better? no
3. UCLA beat USC...is UCLA better? no
4. Auburn beat Florida...is Auburn better? no
5. LSU lost to Auburn...is Auburn better? no
6. West Virginia lost to South Florida....is South Florida better? no

1. USC beat Michigan...is USC better? yes
2. Florida beat Ohio State...is Florida better? yes
3. LSU beat notre dame...is LSU better? yes

1. A&M beat oklahoma state...is A&M better? probably
2. t.u. beat oklahomo...is t.u. better? maybe

...there are games that a team loses and its obvious the team that lost is better. USC would kill ucla and oregon state right now. there are games that teams win and they are in fact better. and there are teams where a team won and then maybe they are better and maybe they are not.

btw, you are wrong about the ranked teams. it only counts as beating a ranked team if they are ranked when you play them...you should know that. so:

USC 5-0
Wisconsin 1-1

go look at every record for coaches and teams, it only counts going into the game. btw, i thought you were going to look at Carroll's record all time against top 10...but let me save you the trouble, i believe he has one loss all time and it was to t.u. last year.

finally, my main point overall is this: i am objective, regardless of what the yahoos on this site think. i can admit A&M is not as good as t.u. this year...cause they aren't. i am really really happy we won, but we weren't the better team. the only reason it appears i am a USC homer is b/c USC IS THAT GOOD. the past 5 years USC could beat any team in the nation...and i am going to enjoy this glorious time in Trojan football...cause one day it will be gone.

[MajorMike]

"USC would kill ucla right now."

This is why your logic flakes, man. This was ONE GAME AGO!

The reason I post silly things like the > is to show you, you use zero logic in your posts. You are simply a homer who thinks SC could beat everybody right now and will bet the farm on it without any shroud of identifiable proof, because there can be none. Carroll's record against top 10 all time has squat to do with this year, or this week, or this game or these rankings. Hypothisising on 'what ifs' that could never possibly come to fruition is your game because you can always be right in your eyes.

I'm done with you for now, begone from my sight. As I know you have to have the last word, have at it. My 5-year old is the same way; best to just walk away instead of watch the tantrum.

[johngateswhiteley]

"USC would kill ucla right now."

This is why your logic flakes, man. This was ONE GAME AGO!

The reason I post silly things like the > is to show you, you use zero logic in your posts. You are simply a homer who thinks SC could beat everybody right now and will bet the farm on it without any shroud of identifiable proof, because there can be none. Carroll's record against top 10 all time has squat to do with this year, or this week, or this game or these rankings. Hypothisising on 'what ifs' that could never possibly come to fruition is your game because you can always be right in your eyes.

I'm done with you for now, begone from my sight. As I know you have to have the last word, have at it. My 5-year old is the same way; best to just walk away instead of watch the tantrum.

maybe your worst post ever, bro. and, btw, nice closing paragraph...thats what people say when the argument is not going their way.

1. its not illogical that USC is better than UCLA, and its not illogical that USC would beat UCLA today

2. me thinking SC can beat anybody is not illogical...look at their body of work the past 5 years and most importantly this year...they are a great team. am i saying they would beat Florida...no, but i think they easily could. if you go back to the beginning of this thread you'll find who i think should be #1. and furthermore, whats illogical in me thinking an SC team that just ripped apart michigan, a team that was suppose to beat us and played ohio state closely, could beat anyone? pray tell?

3. btw, i wasn't just saying t.u. is better for this argument, you can go back and look at the game thread when i told Sami, the better team doesn't always win and even though i think t.u. is better i think A&M wins this one

4. i wouldn't bet the farm on USC beating Florida, Ohio State, LSU, Boise State, or even Michigan again....i just said Wisconsin....nice exaggeration though...good work there...

5. Carroll's history has everything to do with it. how did he established this great run? how has he done it? who has he beaten? why does he keep doing it? it all matters...fucking hell your dumb...

6. ....you hardly ever say what your thinking, you make posts with little or no point, when your asked why you posted it you avoid it...it appears to me, you are afraid of being incorrect. and right now....you are avoiding a simple conversation...

[Jamtas#2]

"1. wisconsin got smoked by michigan who got smoked by USC...wisconsin beat ARK barely while USC annihilated them. "

So this makes USC better than Wisconsin in your poll? If that is the logic, why don't you have Boise State ahead of USC?
Boise State spanked Oregon State who beat USC.
USC 2 losses, Boise State 0 losses.
Boise State > USC

[johngateswhiteley]

"1. wisconsin got smoked by michigan who got smoked by USC...wisconsin beat ARK barely while USC annihilated them. "

So this makes USC better than Wisconsin in your poll? If that is the logic, why don't you have Boise State ahead of USC?
Boise State spanked Oregon State who beat USC.
USC 2 losses, Boise State 0 losses.
Boise State > USC

...another idiotic post.

1. i can't say without a doubt that USC is better than Boise State....do i think they are? yes...but i can't say for sure

2. wisconsin's playing of similar opponents is only part of the reason i think USC is better (you should read closer)...in fact you can switch think with 'know'. i know USC is better...

3. if USC played Boise State right now...who do you think would win?

4. are you one of those fans that doesn't watch that many games and buys into what the media tells you? never forming your own opinion?

5. while i can understand people who think Boise deserves a chance, i can. its pretty nuts to think they are better than USC, i don't care if they beat Oregon State or not....look at their body of work...

[Jamtas#2]

Ok Whiteley, let's get something straight here
You said in your post that USC should be ranked as the #2 team in the nation in the polls over Wisconsin since they beat a team that beat Wisconsin. I pointed out that Boise State beat a team that beat USC, and ran the table to a perfect record, yet you had them ranked below USC. You used the common denominator as a way of distinguishing how to tell teams that do not play each other apart. Don't be such a homer that you want to rank your team on how good you think they should be, rank them on their performances they had (including losses, not excusing them).
As far as body of work, the PAC-10 isn't excatly the most competetive conference. You put USC ahead of LSU, who played a monster of a tougher schedule and lost to ranked teams. I understand you like USC (and have the typical fascination with calling UT t.u.), but don't wear such rose colored glasses and pretend to be objective.
BTW, the polls are done with what teams actually did. I'm sure Texas could beat some of the teams that got ranked higher than them, but that doesn't mean they get ranked higher because I think so, they get ranked according to how they performed. Losses to K-State and A&M still count regardless of whether or not a 100% healthy McCoy would make a difference.

But go ahead and call me an idiot again. You'll really do a good job of making others change their minds.
If it doesn't, try calling me gay or something. That will show me. I'll know not to debate you again.

[johngateswhiteley]

Ok Whiteley, let's get something straight here
You said in your post that USC should be ranked as the #2 team in the nation in the polls over Wisconsin since they beat a team that beat Wisconsin. I pointed out that Boise State beat a team that beat USC, and ran the table to a perfect record, yet you had them ranked below USC. You used the common denominator as a way of distinguishing how to tell teams that do not play each other apart. Don't be such a homer that you want to rank your team on how good you think they should be, rank them on their performances they had (including losses, not excusing them).
As far as body of work, the PAC-10 isn't excatly the most competetive conference. You put USC ahead of LSU, who played a monster of a tougher schedule and lost to ranked teams. I understand you like USC (and have the typical fascination with calling UT t.u.), but don't wear such rose colored glasses and pretend to be objective.
BTW, the polls are done with what teams actually did. I'm sure Texas could beat some of the teams that got ranked higher that them, but that doesn't mean they get ranked higher because I think so, they get ranked according to how they performed. Losses to K-State and A&M still count regardless of whether or not a 100% healthy McCoy would make a difference.

But go ahead and call me an idiot again. You'll really do a good job of making others change their minds.
If it doesn't, try calling me gay or something. That will show me. I'll know not to debate you again.

first of all, thats a good post. second, i called the post idiotic b/c you didn't read, thoroughly, what i posted...you assumed and didn't follow what i was posting.

1. i didn't say they should only be ranked ahead of wisconsin b/c of similar opponents, that is only half the equation when discussing two teams that have never played each other...which, btw, is one of the only ways to compare the teams at the end of the year

2. i think USC should be ranked ahead of Wisconsin, b/c not only similar opponents but b/c of what the teams accomplished throughout the season...USC was 5-0 against ranked teams while wisconsin was 1-1. USC played in a conference that was, imo, as tough as the Big 11 and finally just watching games of the two teams it is clear that USC is better

3. i will listen to arguments that have Boise State and LSU ahead of USC, i will. i think they would be wrong, but they are not completely unfounded. i think LSU is damn good, in fact i think they and USC would play a close game...and while i think that game would be close i don't think the game with Boise State would be...you must understand, when looking at what USC and Boise State did this year...to say that just b/c Boise State beat Oregon State @ home early in the year that Boise State should be ranked higher is...foolish. is it foolish to rank a USC team higher that beat every top 25 team they played handily and lost on the road to a Oregon State team that was playing much better (than when they lost to Boise) and benefited from a sloppy USC team...i don't think so

[Jamtas#2]

"and benefited from a sloppy USC team"

This is the problem. Name me one school that won't give an excuse for a loss. You aren't counting your losses because you think that your wins overshadow them. Do you discount USC's victory over Arkansas because it was early in the season like you do with Wisconsin's? Do you say that Michigan was playing better when they beat Wisconsin to dismiss the loss like you do with USC's loss to Orgeon State. Do you dismiss USC's ranked victory against Notre Dame because they were an overrated team? I'm sure Wisconsin fans will tell you that their game against Michigan was a sloppy Wisconsin team that showed up. Other than that game they had a perfect season.
You have to take the good and bad with your school when you make these rankings.
That is the issue I take with your poll.

[johngateswhiteley]

"and benefited from a sloppy USC team"

This is the problem. Name me one school that won't give an excuse for a loss. You aren't counting your losses because you think that your wins overshadow them. Do you discount USC's victory over Arkansas because it was early in the season like you do with Wisconsin's? Do you say that Michigan was playing better when they beat Wisconsin to dismiss the loss like you do with USC's loss to Orgeon State. Do you dismiss USC's ranked victory against Notre Dame because they were an overrated team? I'm sure Wisconsin fans will tell you that their game against Michigan was a sloppy Wisconsin team that showed up. Other than that game they had a perfect season.
You have to take the good and bad with your school when you make these rankings.
That is the issue I take with your poll.

thats fair...

1. i actually don't put much weight into USC beating ARK, that was early and ARK wasn't ranked

2. since every ranked team USC played got killed, yes, i put more weight into their wins than their losses. USC beat Nebraska, Oregon, Cal, Notre Dame, and Michigan...ARK didn't become ranked until later

3. wisconsin, on the other hand, beat no ranked teams until they beat ARK. in that capital one bowl ARK soundly outgained wisconsin and lost the turnover battle by one (2-3). could it be argued that ARK is better? sure. could it be argued that if they played again ARK would win? i think so. i saw most of that game and wisconsin, who didn't score in the second half, didn't look all that good to me. sure you can explain one more turnover, but what about the yard differential. this game is important b/c wisconsin has NO other signature wins. in their game against michigan they won the turnover battle (1-3) and got out gained by almost 80 yards losing 27-13. i think those two games speak volumes. there is not ONE other important win than the ARK win...you could argue the penn state game..but that team was wildly inconsistent and beat a pretty good tennessee team that had 3 turnovers to their 0, with one being at least a 10 point swing

4. now if you look at the speed on the teams, its not even close. we have seen what speed has done to other big 10 powers this bowl year...and when you factor in similar opponents, how their games were won and lost, coaches, and then speed and personnel, hell even the matchups...this game isn't even close. who would you feel more comfortable betting on?

5. just to be clear, i never said boise state couldn't beat ou, i never said florida couldn't beat ohio state (shit i picked florida to win), i don't really have a history of saying certain teams can't do something and then being proven horrible wrong. i see things for what they are....and there is no added motivation of a rivalry between wisconsin and USC....wisconsin can't beat USC, its easy to see