November 3, 200619 yr This is interesting to discuss and all but lets face it - Rutgers has WVU. Lou., and Cincy left. They will NOT run the table and they just may end up 9-3.
November 3, 200619 yr Author This is interesting to discuss and all but lets face it - Rutgers has WVU. Lou., and Cincy left. They will NOT run the table and they just may end up 9-3. The point of the discussion was to point out the absurdity of the arguments made for the BEAST. The logic cannot only apply to SOME of the potentially undefeated BEAST teams.
November 3, 200619 yr This is interesting to discuss and all but lets face it - Rutgers has WVU. Lou., and Cincy left. They will NOT run the table and they just may end up 9-3. I don't believe that for a second.....The UofL game has upset written all over it, Rutgers is going to be crazy next Thursday, but I think the 'Ville comes out on top...UC will not beat Rutgers, neither IMO will WVU.
November 3, 200619 yr I think they would have as good of a case as UL or WVU had they done the same. But as you have pointed out, 2/3 of the equation is human polls, and when they play WVU it will not be a Top 5 WVU. They already look good in the computers, I just don't see voters putting them there... I agree. I think the only shot they would have had would have been to be the team to hand both WVU and U of L their first losses. That way, they could have had two top 5 wins to boost their status in the human polls. And, to be honest, I doubt even that would have got them in.
November 3, 200619 yr Rutgers definitely should play for the title if they win out. The BCS has never taken a once beaten BCS league champ over a undefeated BCS league champ and they never should. All a team can do is win all their games.
November 3, 200619 yr Rutgers would deserve it over once-beatens, but they wouldn't make it. They started out too low.
November 3, 200619 yr It's not a knock on the Big East, but if Florida is there with one loss and an SEC championship, they will play Michigan/Ohio State for the title. Same with Louisville. Not a knock on the team or conference, but a knock on the system. If there are two one-loss teams ahead of them, you will not see Louisvlle or Rutgers playing for a national title.
November 3, 200619 yr It's not a knock on the Big East, but if Florida is there with one loss and an SEC championship, they will play Michigan/Ohio State for the title. Same with Louisville. Not a knock on the team or conference, but a knock on the system. If there are two one-loss teams ahead of them, you will not see Louisvlle or Rutgers playing for a national title. It's going to come down to the human polls, and that's just something you can't predict right now...
November 3, 200619 yr Rutgers definitely should play for the title if they win out. The BCS has never taken a once beaten BCS league champ over a undefeated BCS league champ and they never should. All a team can do is win all their games. and if BSU goes undefeated?? I know they're not in a BCS conferences, but still. I will say this, an undefeated Rutgers deserves going to the NC game every bit as much as an undefeated UofL or WVU. Their schedule has been every bit as difficult as the other two. That said, the questions come up because those 3 teams haven't played a ranked team outside of themselves (unless you count Miami).
November 3, 200619 yr It's going to come down to the human polls, and that's just something you can't predict right now...I agree and football coaches don't embrace the underdog the same way they do in basketball. If they did, Auburn would have played USC for the title a few years ago.
November 3, 200619 yr I agree and football coaches don't embrace the underdog the same way they do in basketball. If they did, Auburn would have played USC for the title a few years ago. That was apples and anchovies and you know it. #1 and #2 all season finished undefeated, and in front of Auburn. Maybe if they would have played ONE BCS cupcake, they jump Oklahoma. But this is FAR from that argument...
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.