I don't know where this notion of "fair" has come from, but it really bothers me. First off, "fair" is doing what the system is designed to do, put the 2 best teams in the championship game. End of story. Second, do you think Florida complained about how unfair it was that they had to beat somebody(I can't remember the team and I'm too lazy to look it up) 3 TIMES in a season to win the national title? What's fair is that the best two teams play for the title. What is unfair is to say that the best two teams in the country can NEVER be from the same conference.

 

Well first of all you say the 2 best teams, well look at the previous post I just made, because if USC wins out they are just as deserving to be considered the 2nd best team in the country...

 

That Florida thing you brought up are you talking about basketball? Because you are that is completely different, in football we have humans and computers deciding on who the "best" teams are and those are the only two teams that get to play for the title. While in basketball there is a tournament and you actually have to play other teams to win the championship. If they had a playoff system in college football and UM and OSU both made it through it and back to the Championship then great, I wouldn't mind the rematch at all then.

 

But in football since there is no actual playoff system format then I think it is very hard to put 2 teams from the same conference in the title game. I mean what would they have accomplished to be called NATIONAL CHAMPIONS! They both would have beat one good team outside of conference and then all they had to do was win games against their fellow teams in their Big 10 conference. Then they had the two best teams play each other to decide who was the Big 10 Champion, and now they get to play again to decide who the National Champion is.

 

I know if they have this rematch they should change the trophy from being named National Champion, because that wouldn't fit right in this case. Because all they would have had to do was just beat teams in their own conference, so how could just beating teams in your own conference earn you the right to be called NATIONAL CHAMPION. When you didn't have to play really any top teams from another conference. IMO they now know who the best team in the Big 10 conference is, so now lets them play another team for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, and not just to see who the best team in the Big 10 is...

Well first of all you say the 2 best teams, well look at the previous post I just made, because if USC wins out they are just as deserving to be considered the 2nd best team in the country...

 

That Florida thing you brought up are you talking about basketball? Because you are that is completely different, in football we have humans and computers deciding on who the "best" teams are and those are the only two teams that get to play for the title. While in basketball there is a tournament and you actually have to play other teams to win the championship. If they had a playoff system in college football and UM and OSU both made it through it and back to the Championship then great, I wouldn't mind the rematch at all then.

 

But in football since there is no actual playoff system format then I think it is very hard to put 2 teams from the same conference in the title game. I mean what would they have accomplished to be called NATIONAL CHAMPIONS! They both would have beat one good team outside of conference and then all they had to do was win games against their fellow teams in their Big 10 conference. Then they had the two best teams play each other to decide who was the Big 10 Champion, and now they get to play again to decide who the National Champion is.

 

I know if they have this rematch they should change the trophy from being named National Champion, because that wouldn't fit right in this case. Because all they would have had to do was just beat teams in their own conference, so how could just beating teams in your own conference earn you the right to be called NATIONAL CHAMPION. When you didn't have to play really any top teams from another conference. IMO they now know who the best team in the Big 10 conference is, so now lets them play another team for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, and not just to see who the best team in the Big 10 is...

No the Florida thing was football. SEC regular season, title game, and bowl game. I just can't remember who it was. C'mon, someone knows this, GT?

Well first of all you say the 2 best teams, well look at the previous post I just made, because if USC wins out they are just as deserving to be considered the 2nd best team in the country...

 

That Florida thing you brought up are you talking about basketball? Because you are that is completely different, in football we have humans and computers deciding on who the "best" teams are and those are the only two teams that get to play for the title. While in basketball there is a tournament and you actually have to play other teams to win the championship. If they had a playoff system in college football and UM and OSU both made it through it and back to the Championship then great, I wouldn't mind the rematch at all then.

 

But in football since there is no actual playoff system format then I think it is very hard to put 2 teams from the same conference in the title game. I mean what would they have accomplished to be called NATIONAL CHAMPIONS! They both would have beat one good team outside of conference and then all they had to do was win games against their fellow teams in their Big 10 conference. Then they had the two best teams play each other to decide who was the Big 10 Champion, and now they get to play again to decide who the National Champion is.

 

I know if they have this rematch they should change the trophy from being named National Champion, because that wouldn't fit right in this case. Because all they would have had to do was just beat teams in their own conference, so how could just beating teams in your own conference earn you the right to be called NATIONAL CHAMPION. When you didn't have to play really any top teams from another conference. IMO they now know who the best team in the Big 10 conference is, so now lets them play another team for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, and not just to see who the best team in the Big 10 is...

That's the OLD system. That's not the function of the BCS. You know it, so you know your argument is poor...

I will say that USC certainly has the best argument. They have played what some would consider a tougher schedule. I'm not a believer in the Pac 10 hype, and I don't buy Cal or Oregon. Nebraska is a middle of the road team flying high off a good season last year. If they were in the Big 10 I'd compare them with Iowa. But rankings are rankings, and I will concede the schedule point. But you cannot base it solely on "look who we beat", without looking at who the two teams lost to. IMO those two things kind of cancel each other out, if you will. So then it comes down to common opponents. If USC wins convincingly against ND, they should be in, with no argument from me. If it's a close game, UM is in.

 

Its funny how some of you usually like to dismiss the idea of common opponents, and then sometimes you all use common opponents to decide who is better. I know last year some of the very same people who are saying you have to use common opponents for this game, was saying just the opposite last year in saying using common opponents is overrated and shouldn't be a judge in it...You talk about how you have to look at the teams you lost to, then in that case ND should be the #3 team in the country since the only team they lost to is UM...

 

IMO I just dont see any reason why UM should be in the title game over USC if USC wins out, even if they barely win over ND..I know I dont want to see a rematch at all even if USC loses, but I also know that USC is the only team that does have a shot to get in and should be in over UM if they win out...

Its funny how some of you usually like to dismiss the idea of common opponents, and then sometimes you all use common opponents to decide who is better. I know last year some of the very same people who are saying you have to use common opponents for this game, was saying just the opposite last year in saying using common opponents is overrated and shouldn't be a judge in it...You talk about how you have to look at the teams you lost to, then in that case ND should be the #3 team in the country since the only team they lost to is UM...

 

IMO I just dont see any reason why UM should be in the title game over USC if USC wins out, even if they barely win over ND..I know I dont want to see a rematch at all even if USC loses, but I also know that USC is the only team that does have a shot to get in and should be in over UM if they win out...

Go Irish...

No the Florida thing was football. SEC regular season, title game, and bowl game. I just can't remember who it was. C'mon, someone knows this, GT?

 

I dont think it was in the SEC. You might be thinking about when FSU beat Florida at the end of the regular season, and then UF came back and played them in the title game and won...

That's the OLD system. That's not the function of the BCS. You know it, so you know your argument is poor...

 

I dont think my argument is poor at all. Why should a team only really have to beat the teams in their conference to be called NATIONAL CHAMPIONS. I know they both have one good win outside of conference that was EARLY in the year, but why then should all they have to do is win against Big 10 teams to be called NATIONAL champions. I know if there was just even a 4 game playoff, and both UM and OSU won their games and then played for the title, I would be all for it, because they would have shown they were just not the best teams in their conference but also the best teams in the nation, and then would deserve to be called NATIONAL champions...

Go Irish...

 

:thumb: Thats why Im a little torn here, because of coarse I want my Irish to win, but I know if they win then we will be seeing a rematch and I dont want to see that. I know still I will just have to deal with that because I would rather my Irish win, and if there is a rematch I would be rooting for UM though because I hate OSU more than I do UM...

Well first of all you say the 2 best teams, well look at the previous post I just made, because if USC wins out they are just as deserving to be considered the 2nd best team in the country...

 

That Florida thing you brought up are you talking about basketball? Because you are that is completely different, in football we have humans and computers deciding on who the "best" teams are and those are the only two teams that get to play for the title. While in basketball there is a tournament and you actually have to play other teams to win the championship. If they had a playoff system in college football and UM and OSU both made it through it and back to the Championship then great, I wouldn't mind the rematch at all then.

 

But in football since there is no actual playoff system format then I think it is very hard to put 2 teams from the same conference in the title game. I mean what would they have accomplished to be called NATIONAL CHAMPIONS! They both would have beat one good team outside of conference and then all they had to do was win games against their fellow teams in their Big 10 conference. Then they had the two best teams play each other to decide who was the Big 10 Champion, and now they get to play again to decide who the National Champion is.

 

I know if they have this rematch they should change the trophy from being named National Champion, because that wouldn't fit right in this case. Because all they would have had to do was just beat teams in their own conference, so how could just beating teams in your own conference earn you the right to be called NATIONAL CHAMPION. When you didn't have to play really any top teams from another conference. IMO they now know who the best team in the Big 10 conference is, so now lets them play another team for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, and not just to see who the best team in the Big 10 is...

Using that logic then, follow me here......

 

Team A in Conference A wins all their games. Team B in Conference B loses one game while playing 3 of the top 25 BCS teams. Who is more deserving?

 

Because team A is Boise St. And team B is UM. Using your logic, all you have to do is beat the teams on your schedule and you deserve a shot at the title. That's a slippery slope, why even have conferences at all then? What's the point(I'm sure you and ND see none )? And how does playing one team from anywhere USA make it a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP? If OSU played ND, wouln't it be more of a regional championship? Again, I'm just using your logic. How does playing one team make it a national title game?

That's the OLD system. That's not the function of the BCS. You know it, so you know your argument is poor...

:thumb:

I dont think my argument is poor at all. Why should a team only really have to beat the teams in their conference to be called NATIONAL CHAMPIONS. I know they both have one good win outside of conference that was EARLY in the year, but why then should all they have to do is win against Big 10 teams to be called NATIONAL champions. I know if there was just even a 4 game playoff, and both UM and OSU won their games and then played for the title, I would be all for it, because they would have shown they were just not the best teams in their conference but also the best teams in the nation, and then would deserve to be called NATIONAL champions...

UM has beaten two Top 10 BCS teams. No. 17 Cal is USC's best win outside of Arkansas without McFadden. I will give USC credit for making sure all three OOC games were against BCS teams. That still doesn't make the Pac 10 any better than the Big 11...

Using that logic then, follow me here......

 

Team A in Conference A wins all their games. Team B in Conference B loses one game while playing 3 of the top 25 BCS teams. Who is more deserving?

 

Because team A is Boise St. And team B is UM. Using your logic, all you have to do is beat the teams on your schedule and you deserve a shot at the title. That's a slippery slope, why even have conferences at all then? What's the point(I'm sure you and ND see none )? And how does playing one team from anywhere USA make it a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP? If OSU played ND, wouln't it be more of a regional championship? Again, I'm just using your logic. How does playing one team make it a national title game?

 

First of all I dont see why you keep bringing up ND because I have not been fighting to get them in at all. I know their is pretty much no chance at all they will get in now, but if USC wins out they definitely should be...Using my logic you would have got a failing grade because that is not how my logic went. My logic never says just put the team in their because they are undefeated. My logic says that your team B (UM) has one good outside of conference win EARLY in the year, then the rest of the time all they had to do was beat teams in their conference, and they couldn't even beat the BEST team in their conference, so why should they get the chance. If there was a playoff system and they played and got to the title game then great for them because they would have earned their way back to that title game to get a rematch with OSU, instead of just getting it handed to them even though they just lost to them....

 

Secondly now you know just perfectly what I was talking about when I was talking about being NATIONAL champion, but I guess you really didn't have a good point to go against that...Because when does just having to win games in your conference and really against no one else earn you the right to be NATIONAL CHAMPION, while their are other teams that have also won games against their own confernce and has good wins to show for it. You brought up Notre Dame and how if they played OSU it wouldn't be a NATIONAL championship, but that is wrong because atleast OSU had to go outside of their own conference now instead of only having to beat their own conference teams to be crowned NATIONAL CHAMPION. Im not saying ND will be in the title game because I know they wont, but I just making that point because it would still earn the title NATIONAL champion more than just beating your own conference... I know also you say how UM played 3 teams in the BCS top 25 and only have one loss. While USC if they win out would have played 3 teams in the top 15 in the BCS maybe depending if Cal is still in the top 15, and they would have won all 3 of them. So USC would have not only just one games against their conference but also against other good teams outside of their conference. So why should a Big 10 team only really have to beat teams in their own conference to be named NATIONAL champion. When there are other teams out there that are just as if not more deserving....

Just about all the schools from the BCS conferences that are on the top of the food chain and ND have discovered that you don't get credit for a tough OOC game and they have quit scheduling them.

Just about all the schools from the BCS conferences that are on the top of the food chain and ND have discovered that you don't get credit for a tough OOC game and they have quit scheduling them.

That's mostly in the SEC. Texas, OSU, UM and USC all played big OOC games...

UM has beaten two Top 10 BCS teams. No. 17 Cal is USC's best win outside of Arkansas without McFadden. I will give USC credit for making sure all three OOC games were against BCS teams. That still doesn't make the Pac 10 any better than the Big 11...

 

You bring up Arkansas without McFadden, but I mean UM's other win against a top 10 BCS team in Wisconsin is a team that hasn't play anybody and didn't even play OSU. So if they had played OSU and most likely lost then they wouldn't be in the top 10 in the BCS and probably be around Cal in the rankings. Also if McFadden plays then yeah if definitely is alot closer game because he is that offense, but with the way USC won it would be hard to say USC still wouldn't have won that game if Arkansas had McFadden or not.

 

And I dont think the Big 11 is any better than the Pac 10. So lets say we will just call the conferences even then. But USC would have if they win out, a win over the same ND team that UM beat, but also wins against Arkansas and Nebraska. I know USC lost to a not so good Oregon State team, so lets say that cancels out the win against a good Arkansas team. But the win over Nebraska is still one more better win that UM has had this year. Then take into account the wins USC will end their year on if they win out, then I think IMO you HAVE to give them their shot at OSU in the title game....