The Truth (as seen) by JGW

[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 okla .

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?s...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?s...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?s...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."

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


Worst part, I'll still watch the ing 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 y piece of 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 le game all had an impact as to how the le 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 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 okla ...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... ing 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, 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 ( 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