FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 5, 2006 18:24:06 GMT -5
Only comment I disagree with was the Ohio State/Miami reference- the most blatant non-call was watching Michael Jenkins shove Glenn Sharpe to get open and convert a 4th and 15 to set up tying TD play which was also a bad call--and more frustrating in how late the flag came. I don't think Miami deserved to win the game because they played like crap against a lesser team, but those were factors along with losing the team's best offensive player in the 3rd quarter to a horrific injury--imagine losing Vince Young or Reggie Bush to an injury like that? Texas would'e been destroyed, USC still wins in all likelihood with Leinart and White and Jarrett. Also, the friggin Big XII screwed Miami with their God Awful officials in that game and will never like that conference for that alone. Just hope that Canes get a shot to avenge that at some point--which with Clappy is years into the future. Really? We're gonna go here again RDF? Oh the pain!! To get this part over quick: saw part of the ESPN Classic Replay for only the second time since 2003 yesterday. It's still an atrocious, late, scared call by the official, and the OSU receiver makes as much contact as Sharpe. But Ohio State was by far the better team that night and deserved to win the National Championship, and it happened to be in the kind of game they'd been winning all season. But yeah, RDF, I still hate the Big XII b/c of that too. There are a few (rather superficial, but still) parallels between USC last night and Miami's lost evening in Tempe three years ago (forget Glendale, move the bowl to Fargo and may Miami never play in it again). I do find it kind of funny that they both had their streaks snapped at 34 in a row in the BCS title game. I think both games were "decided" by the same issue--Miami and USC made too many uncharacteristic mistakes. They both showed flashes of their brilliance at times (USC more often than UM), but they gave B and C+/C performances against teams that, for once, they needed A performances to beat. Miami turned the ball over 5 times against Ohio State, and USC did 4 times I believe if you count missing on 4th down (and although I agree with the decisions, the execution left a lot to be desired). And you could see in both teams at times that lost-our-swagger look of confusion on the sidelines, never a good sign. One of the things that comes up a lot in silly lists like the ESPN one about greatest college teams vs. USC is the way the great teams blew everyone out--check out the 2001 Miami and 1995 Nebraska schedules. But those aren't really measures of greatness as I see it. The true measure is what you do in the close games when you take your opponents' best shot and you HAVE to give an A effort to win. USC did it against Notre Dame this year, Miami had done it the prior year against Virginia Tech but really not in 2002 (the FSU game I don't know if that counts, and they were saved by a missed kick anyhow). But over the vast majority of their streak, they could do whatever they wanted and had the game well in hand. Just not enough challenges to really prepare them for--oh crap, what if OSU/Texas doesn't fold when we show up/get up 12 with 7 minutes to go? That graphic about USC trailing so many times at half during their streak hit me the wrong way. That doesn't mean they're necessarily "tough" in the second half and have the intangible will to win. It just means to me that they start slow and sloppy, and can bail themselves out b/c of their offensive talent and a little something called PAC-10 "DEFENSES". 28-7 down to someone like Arizona State is one thing. Even 16-7 down to Texas and you're setting yourself up for something. You can get away with the B/C game in the Pac-10. But when you're playing for the National Title, trying blind laterals like Reggie Bush, or not paying attention and hot dogging an INT return and getting stripped (Sean Taylor)...those silly mistakes will bite you big time. (I remember in Miami's last game before the Fiesta Bowl they were in full control of a shoot-out with Va. Tech and they tried a halfback pass back to Dorsey on a goal-to-go situation, which was picked and returned 98 or so yards for a TD. Miami won 56-45 and the game was never in critical condition for them, but geez, that's the kind of ho-hum lazy stuff you do when it comes too easy.) And Texas looked like they were going to bend and break at times in the fourth quarter, but they hung tough and great teams can respond in situations like they did. A lot of the game you wondered if the extra point and then the FG miss would haunt Texas. Well, they didn't. Because Texas otherwise played a classy, efficient game unlike USC--who DID leave points on the field with the lateral and the Leinart INT. Great ending though--and was it ever going to be any other way, Vince Young scrambling around right end...and no containment to be found? So, for AustinHoya, after all that campaigning you did for them in The Hoya during the 2001 season pre-Big XII title game...finally, four seasons later, I can tell you (like you need to hear it from me) that the Texas Longhorns are, without a doubt, the best team in college football and a most deserving National Champion. Just, uh, not quite as good as the 2001 Miami team. ;D As for USC, I think next year the 2002 Miami parallel will continue next year, they'll get hit with a talent dropoff but still be a quality team, run off a few wins to start the season. And in October or so, one of the Pac-10 teams will finally get to them, like Va. Tech did to Miami in 2003, and it'll be ugly. Like Arizona-UCLA ugly, the halftime deficit that doesn't go away. Maybe they'll have they're "we finally play a true stinker and lose to a team not playing out of their minds" game too, like Miami-Tennessee. As for Texas, we'll see what Vince does, but they look every bit of being capable of continuing the "mini-dynasty" trend of the 2000s in CFB that's gone through Oklahoma, Miami, and USC.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 5, 2006 22:26:05 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm underrating the Ohio State team that beat Miami, but I think one difference between that game and yesterday's game is that I felt after that game that if OSU and Miami played 10 times, Miami would win at least 8. I think they were that superior, but just not on that night. On the other hand, I think if USC and Texas played 10 times, it would be either 6-4 either way or 5-5. I'm not sure the USC defense this season would ever find an answer for Young.
And Ed, if I recall correctly, one poll voted USC the championship after the bowl games. That would not happen following a head-to-head match-up (i.e., no poll would vote USC the championship now), so I don't think your analogy works. And fwiw, yes, to take last season as an example, if one of the major polls had voted Auburn national champion last season, I would have said it was a shared championship, BCS or no BCS. The BCS worked out great this year. It often doesn't. I don't feel compelled to march to the BCS tune.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 5, 2006 22:30:08 GMT -5
By the way, anyone who is interested might want to read Sports Guy's article dumping all over Pete Carroll. I can't really comment about the criticism of Carroll's work as coach of the Pats, but I think that for the most part, he is all wet in his criticism of Carroll's performance last night. The waste of the last time out was really bad, but criticizing Carroll for going for it on 4th down AND giving the ball to LenDale White is wrong on both counts.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 5, 2006 23:18:00 GMT -5
The game last night was fun to watch. A couple of observations: Reggie Bush is not going to be as good as everyone made him out to be. When he wasn't playing against a PAC-10 team (so you actually see a defense take the field) and a defense that was assignment concious and fast (like most NFL teams out there) - he was nowhere to be seen. I don't deny that he's got the potential to be a special NFL player but it is telling that White was the go-to-guy with the game on the line for USC - not Lienart and not Bush. The bottom line here is that with the pressure and all the media attention on them Bush buckled and had a game in which he was contained and made a very costly decision that was just bone-headed and immature - conversely Vince Young played himself from a 7 - 10 pick possibly to the number 1 pick in the draft.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 5, 2006 23:43:42 GMT -5
The game last night was fun to watch. A couple of observations: Reggie Bush is not going to be as good as everyone made him out to be. When he wasn't playing against a PAC-10 team (so you actually see a defense take the field) and a defense that was assignment concious and fast (like most NFL teams out there) - he was nowhere to be seen. I don't deny that he's got the potential to be a special NFL player but it is telling that White was the go-to-guy with the game on the line for USC - not Lienart and not Bush. The bottom line here is that with the pressure and all the media attention on them Bush buckled and had a game in which he was contained and made a very costly decision that was just bone-headed and immature - conversely Vince Young played himself from a 7 - 10 pick possibly to the number 1 pick in the draft. Didn't Bush have about 180 total yards and a TD? That doesn't sound too contained to me. And I don't think that Bush being on the sideline says anything about him. It says a lot about Pete Carroll being a bonehead. Giving the ball to LenDale White was the right call. He had been running through Texas' line all day. Having Bush on the sideline, however, was idiotic. Even if the play isn't for him, he has to be on the field so the defense has to worry about him. Replace a wideout with him, and I'd bet that White could have gotten that first down, just b/c they would have had to worry about Leinhart to Bush AND White.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Jan 6, 2006 3:34:58 GMT -5
Anybody know if the "BCS +1" thing is set in stone for next year?
Also, can someone definitively settle a disagreement for me? I am under the impression that the "+1" championship game takes place a week or so after the four BCS bowls, and features two teams that played in the BCS games. For example, this season would porbably have pitted USC vs. Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and Texas vs. Penn State in the Fiesta Bowl (the logical thing, as they were the top four teams). Then, the two winners would likely be the top two in a re-calculated standings, and would meet next week in Pasadena.
I could be wrong. Someone please tell me.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jan 6, 2006 11:55:44 GMT -5
Hoyarooter - how was the national championship shared two years ago when LSU won the BCS game? The polls declared USC champion but the game declared LSU champion. By your logic if the polls were to declare USC champion this year, then the national championship should be shared this year despite Texas winning the title on the field. You might not have liked the BCS formula two years ago but you can't change the rules after the fact. The college football champion is determined by the polls, and will be until/unless there is an NCAA sanctioned championship. Winning the BCS game guarantees a team will finish #1 in the coaches poll, and by theorectically matching the two best teams every year the BCS ensures that the winner will be the true #1 team. National Championships at the 1-A level have always been determined by polls and other rankings, not an NCAA tournament like every other sport, including lower levels of college football. The BCS is simply an arrangement between the big conferences, big bowl games and ABC. It definitely improves the bowl system by trying to match the best two teams in one game, but without a true NCAA championship the polls will always crown champions. This year, the system worked, as it matched up the consenus top two teams, but in the past there have been problems.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Jan 6, 2006 13:58:49 GMT -5
Anybody know if the "BCS +1" thing is set in stone for next year? Also, can someone definitively settle a disagreement for me? I am under the impression that the "+1" championship game takes place a week or so after the four BCS bowls, and features two teams that played in the BCS games. For example, this season would porbably have pitted USC vs. Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and Texas vs. Penn State in the Fiesta Bowl (the logical thing, as they were the top four teams). Then, the two winners would likely be the top two in a re-calculated standings, and would meet next week in Pasadena. I could be wrong. Someone please tell me. Okay I found an article on Yahoo! Sports about the new BCS commissioner, and it mentioned the five bowl format for next season. It seems I'm right in my theory of how "+1" works. However, they aren't doing a "+1" next season, and there will be ten BCS teams. Stupid, stupid, stupid. One of their main reasons for not having a playoff is to maintain the tradition of the bowl system. Now, no bowl game will have any importance whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Have a playoff. Or at least a "+1" system.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jan 6, 2006 15:33:29 GMT -5
Joe, the only answer is a Playoff. The +1 thing is more flawed then BCS and here's why--if you use that formula, why should Texas have to play anyone else after being the only undefeated team left after Bowls? Beating a PSU team who struggled with the worst FSU team in past 25 years doesn't impress me and it certainly doesn't warrant another game to decide a "true champ". If you go to +1 you need to do so in years like '03 where OU, LSU, and USC were all 1 loss teams--but then you have to include a 2 loss team who's #4 that year to round out formula.
They have Playoffs at EVERY level but D1--it's time for a Playoff. That's ONLY good thing in my opinion or keep things as they are now.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 6, 2006 15:39:54 GMT -5
Okay I found an article on Yahoo! Sports about the new BCS commissioner, and it mentioned the five bowl format for next season. It seems I'm right in my theory of how "+1" works. However, they aren't doing a "+1" next season, and there will be ten BCS teams. Stupid, stupid, stupid. One of their main reasons for not having a playoff is to maintain the tradition of the bowl system. Now, no bowl game will have any importance whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Have a playoff. Or at least a "+1" system. Joe, consider what the bowl matchups might have been this season if there were no BCS and no playoff. This scenario assumes Texas and USC would agree to play in the Fiesta Bowl, a la PSU and Miami in 1987. Rose: Oregon vs. Ohio State Fiesta: USC vs. Texas Sugar: Georgia vs. Penn State Orange: "Big 8 representative" Texas Tech vs. Notre Dame If USC played in the Rose Bowl, the bowls might look like this: Rose: USC vs. Ohio State Fiesta: Oregon vs. FSU/WVU/LSU/Miami/Bama/UCLA/Auburn Sugar: Georgia vs. Notre Dame Orange: Texas vs. Penn State I don't want a playoff system for college football, and honestly I'm more and more in favor of scrapping the BCS and returning to the way things were. I like shades of gray in my college football, rather than the black-and-white "I win, you lose" model we have been moving towards for quite some time, whose logical conclusion is a playoff system. When you have so many teams, there will always be controversy, even with a playoff system. There will always be bias, and there will always be mistakes, no matter the postseason system. See: Cal getting screwed by the AP voters, 2004. Colgate uninvited to a major bowl, 1932. Nebraska in the national championship, 2001. I really think the arguments and the controversy are part of what makes college football great, and the most unique of American sports. In what other sport could we even begin to have a conversation about whether a title was legitimate, as we have been doing with USC's 2003 title on this thread. And yes, I'm aware that not having the BCS or a playoff might have screwed Texas this season.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 6, 2006 15:44:02 GMT -5
Yeah, so I'm an idiot. Penn State was still an independent in '87. Ignore the first part of the above post.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 6, 2006 22:32:37 GMT -5
I have often laid awake nights bemoaning how Colgate was shafted in 1932.
Which was what, exactly? Now I have to know.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Jan 7, 2006 12:15:32 GMT -5
I would think USC would play Penn State in the Rose Bowl. They are the Big Ten Champs that beat the other Big Ten champs, so they should get the conference's Rose Bowl spot. Then you could have Texas take on Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl (since UT played OSU already). Then, logically, three teams would have a shot at a national title (the winner of the Rose Bowl would probably be #1 if Texas lost). If Texas and Ohio State hadn't played, then you would have two meaningful bowls that would pit great teams against each other. I guess I support a playoff because I want it settled on the field. I hate the shootout in hockey because it wouldn't make sense to settle a football game with a FG kicking contest (Gary Cismesia, Kevin Kelly, Jay Feely et. al please pick up the white courtesy phone), a basketball game with a FT shooting contest, or a baseball game with a home run derby. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to decide a "champion" in a poll of sportswriters or coaches. On second glance, I see that your scenario has USC playing OSU and UT playing PSU. I can only assume that is only because OSU and UT already played, and this allows for better matchups. I guess I could support that even though it allows the crooks in Columbus to go to the Rose Bowl.
|
|