Cal getting exposed

[BB73]

When it's proven that the pac 10 is a joke the only thing people have left to cling on is usc...If they got beat by 70 it would be because somebody was hurt...Petey got a blowjob from a cheerleader and couldnt think right and someone on oklahoma gave reggie bush a laxative before the game,and leinart's mirror broke before the game so he couldn't comb his hair right.

So Petey can lose the game and still get a 'happy ending'?

[methomps]

Originally Posted by powerlifter

It's like this...Another useless thread. Pac 10 defenders are ALWAYS going to be just that. If all the bowl games the pac 10 teams were in were lost by 70 they would have an excuse. It's been that way all year long. Everyone thinks what they want,and that's never going to change. I don't see the big 10 schools in the bowls through scarlet and gray...Some people can't grasp the concept even if it's right there for the taking.


With cal losing it brings up one point. What if Usc loses? Everyone's arguement for the pac 10 just went to [censored]. It's already in the toilet with [censored] paper on top of it..One big flush and I'm betting the excuses will start flying.

There is no reason for me to defend a team I could give a [censored] less if they existed. It's the same song and dance in every thread. Either you think the pac 10 is [censored] or you think that usc is the next jesus christ..All year long i've bitched about how weak the pac 10 is...and it's oh no look at this schedule its blah blah ranked that is sooooo much better then any team other then a team in the pac.

When it's proven that the pac 10 is a joke the only thing people have left to cling on is usc...If they got beat by 70 it would be because somebody was hurt...Petey got a blowjob from a cheerleader and couldnt think right and someone on oklahoma gave reggie bush a laxative before the game,and leinart's mirror broke before the game so he couldn't comb his hair right.

I personally could give a [censored] less who wins that game. I have seen all I want to see or care about after the alamo bowl.

So you could give a '[censored] less', yet you seem to keep getting involved in all these Pac10 threads. Interesting

If all the bowl games the pac 10 teams were in were lost by 70 they would have an excuse.

And if every Pac10 team won by 70, you'd still think we sucked.

All year long i've bitched about how weak the pac 10 is...and it's oh no look at this schedule its blah blah ranked that is sooooo much better then any team other then a team in the pac.

Let me see if I understand you correctly...you just want to be left alone to bash the Pac10, and you're sick with anyone who wants to discuss the different points? Fair enough. I do believe BP has private messaging capabilities.

[bullsfan75]

Sounds like Powerlifter is getting high on something other than steroids.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by AnnArborBuck

Margin of Victory was not a good stat for the BCS IMHO. The final score of the game is usually not indicative of how a team performs. OSU for instance often shuts it down when we get up big (see SCUM game or Alamo bowl). Where as teams like Florida used to continue to play their starters when they were up by 40 pts so they could win by 70. You don't need to win by 35 points to show dominance of a team. The problem comes in that voters look at scores, and they don't watch the games, so their opinions are often scewed to what SportsCenter shows.

I don't disagree with your assessment, I was simply making the point that if the BCS was using SOS it must also use MOV. Without MOV if you beat, say, Baylor by 70 - like you're supposed to - you get hurt by playing them at all because they hurt your SOS.

I never had a problem with coaches running up scores. I know a lot of people do. My thinking is, if you don't want to get blown out improve your D. Football isn't nice. This sense of "sporting" aside, there in NO reason to stop scoring when you can't be stopped. If I coached, I would feel no obligation to make sure the other team didn't lose face. Like I said, you don't want me to score 50 on you? Improve. I can't tell my team to not play hard, to not score.

On the other hand, woking in young talent in mop up time is a good idea too.

[methomps]

Well, I think the obvious solution is to not play Baylor. Every conference has patsies, so you don't help your cause by playing patsies from other conferences. Look at Auburn. In 2002 and 2003 they played tough OOC games (well, tough by SEC standards) and they stumbled out of the gate. This year, they go back to the traditional SEC schedule (Citadel, LA-Tech, LA-Monroe) and they go undefeated. But SOS (to a degree) recognizes that their schedule isn't as tough, so they're in the Sugar. Ugly system, but MOV has no place in it.

[SanClementeBuck]

I agree, Methomps. I'm sorry that SOS has been too diminished in the last v. of bcs. After 4 to 6 games into the season, SOS becomes even more stable in predicting wins or losses. After 8 to 10 games, SOS is significant. MOV can be misleading and misused imho.

[powerlifter]

MOV...Let's see. Is there a big difference in a bad team that loses by 20 instead of 40? No.Quality wins are just that. How you recognize who is quality compared to who is average is all personal opinion.

I'll agree MOV should have no say whatsoever in figuring a teams standings but it does. If a high powered teams had one tough game per year and played the other schools as a joke and murdered them they will get the recognition for it. If auburn's offense was as dominate as Usc's or Oklahoma's I think more people would be turning to them with a ? of why they aren't playing for a national title. In all reality it would be harder to beat the teams they have by a constant,impressive MOV compared to Usc or Oklahoma.

People are fast to rag out their weak OCC schedule which is fine,but at the same time the QUALITY of their wins is far more impressive then either of oklahoma or usc. You can make a case either way. I seroiusly doubt if Auburn would have been a one seed this year,that either Usc or Oklahoma could have leap frogged them with their quality wins.

Either way it's still a sloppy way of figuring a national champion.