The BCS

Freak

Beautifully put.

I constantly find myself looking at the rankings and thinking "what the hell?", simply because I spent seven months in the offseason getting used to who I thought were the better football teams. I love that Oklahoma and Nebraska and Tennessee are no longer ranked, but if I was putting together a top 25 right now, I'd still be really tempted to include them.

Blitzkrieg

Administrator

Just so my point doesn't get lost here..

UCLA hasn't beaten anyone. Who would you have had ranked in the top 10 after the first few weeks of the season, Ohio State who lost a nail biter to Texas or Texas Tech who played cupcakes and even put up an 80 spot on some poor souls?

That's the whole thing.. I can't sit here and claim that UCLA is a better team than LSU based off their respective records.

Auburn went through the ma fucking SEC unbeaten and didn't get a shot at the title.. We can't have that in college football, it ruins the game.

DMW

First of all, LSU is probably a better team than UCLA and would probably beat them if they played.

Now, no one has proven that this UCLA team can be beaten. LSU can be beaten. It's already happened. If and when UCLA losses and they also have one loss, then by all means put them ahead in the polls because LSU looks like the better of the one loss teams, but until LSU no longer has an inferior record to UCLA, you simply can't put them ahead of an undefeated team.

Freak

Well DMW, I think that's true, but only to a certain degree. A couple years ago I think it was TCU who was wreaking havoc on the polls, going unbeaten all the way until something like their last game of the season (against Southern Miss, I believe). Obviously UCLA is a bigger program, and has had traditionally respectable football teams, so you're right, they do deserve their ranking.

Obviously once they've played USC, everyone who's complained about the Bruins' ranking can just stop... that is, unless they win the game and get held out of the NC. In that case, I suppose Bruins supporters have something to yell about.

Blitz, you're right it was a travesty to see Auburn get screwed like that, but it was two unbeatens that played in the NC, right? I'm pretty sure that's a rare occurrence, and while a playoff could help the situation, maybe the NCAA should just implement a rule where a playoff is used only when an unbeaten is set to be left out of the championship.

DMW

Oh, and for the record, everyone always likes to say the PAC-10 is a joke but it's never true. The teams in the PAC-10 are always way better than they are given credit for nationally. It's hard to prove since they rarely play the traditionally respected teams, so all they can do is win the games they have. UCLA blew up an Oklahoma team that is back in the top 25. Then of course there is USC which, as long as you don't live in Texas, is clearly the best team in football. And remember this, one of the toughest games USC had last year was against UCLA, which is infinately better this year than it was last year.

DMW

Teams like TCU and Fresno State are the root of some of the biggest BCS problems, but I'm talking about the PAC-10, not the Mountian West Conference, although I'm sure Blitz would like you to believe they are comparable.

Freak

I live on the West Coast, so most of the football I see (at least on ABC) is Pac-10. You're right too, Pac-10 football has improved drastically in just the last five years, and USC isn't alone in leading that change.

I've seen UCLA a couple times this year, and Olson/Drew is one of the better QB/RB tandems in the country, while Cal came out of no where with an awesome program a couple years ago. I think they're one of these teams who will have a pile of returning starters next year. Oregon is another good team right now, and Washington and WSU are both big enough programs they're bound to get back on track before too long.

Blitzkrieg

Administrator

Now you're just getting rediculous. I would never say that the Pac 10 is on the level of the mountain west.

USC is the only thing holding the 10 together right now. I can't believe you are going to argue with me over what the better conference is between the 10 and the SEC. To me, it's not even close.

That's why LSU deserves to be ahead of UCLA. They play worthy opponents every week while UCLA struggles against WA. St.

DMW

Drew Olson has some consistancy issues which prevent me from considering him among the countries best QBs, but when he's on, he's as good as it gets. As for Maurice Drew, if there was an award for most exciting player in the country, I think he walks away with it hands down. He doesn't quite have the numbers to beat out Reggie Bush or Vince Young for the Heisman, but he's just as dangerous as those guys. Watching him run is amazing. He's just a little guy, but he never goes down with the first hit. He's like a human pinball out there.

Up at Cal, I think Jeff Tedford has a really solid program. This is a down year for them, and they're still in the top 25. No one can turn an average guy into a Heisman candidate QB like Tedford.

Like you said, Oregon is a very good team (one that I'm glad UCLA doesn't have to play this year) whose only loss came courtesy of the best team in the country. Also, I would love to see some of those SEC teams travel to WSU to play and see how much of a joke that is. They may not be that great of a team, but no matter what, WSU is always one of the toughest places to play in the country.

DMW

I was being sarcastic about the PAC-10 v. Mountain West thing.

The SEC may be a better conference than the PAC-10, but it's definately close. I would stack USC, UCLA, Oregon and Cal up against Georgia, Alabama, Florida and LSU any day of the week. And see what I wrote above about WSU. It's a freaky place where a lot of great teams have struggled.