Posted on 01/04/2005 5:15:35 PM PST by newbie 10-21-00
Let's see here, in the BCS top 25 we have 5 from the Big 12, 5 from the SEC, but only 3 PAC 10 teams. Crow on that Sparky.
Hold up there Sparky, I didn't diss you, and your puttin words in my mouth. All I did was point out some BCS standings. I don't know how you conclude all that other wizbang mumbo jumbo. If calling you Sparky bugs you, just say so, don't accuse me of this and that. Don't be so dam touchy, it's just football.
Of course they are good schools, USC is #1 undisputed. I never said they weren't. I'm sure all the schools there are great. I'm wondering one thing, you keep stressing the point that they are publicly funded. As far as I know so are all the schools here in the big 12. Congradulations for a National Championship. By the way, next year I think we're all playing for #2, I'm pretty sure USC has it wrapped up already.
See Ya
Doncha wish that FR allowed us to delete our own stupid posts that we make?
Rice isn't a Big 12 school.
yes.......that is all I look for is some semblance or honestly about it......I meant that the public schools in the UC system don't spend as much.......USC and Stanford are private in the UC system and spend alot more than the public univ here......that is all......
I stand corrected......i was thinking of Baylor...thanks for telling me
But Baylor is incredibly easy to gain admission to. All you have to have is the bucks to pay for the private school tuition.
Having said that, Baylor does have an outstanding medical school. One of the tops.
no it is Rice that has the better rep but what I meant is that I was thinking of Baylor in the cellar and screwed up and wrote "Rice in the big 12........just my mistake...Rice is ranked like number 17 or something......the next big 12 school it UT tied for 46th which is really about 70th or so considering the many ties......thanks for correcting me....Rice good, Baylor....well not so good
"The only clear fluke was OU. LSU played good football last year. Just because one team wins the Championship doesn't mean they should have won it prior years." No.......but if that team were ranked #1 in the prior year and still denied the opportunity to play for the championship, we can certainly draw that conclusion. No one expected LSU to repeat, but they totally fell apart this year. If they were truly THAT good last year, they would have had a good season this year, if not a perfect one.
"If Hasslett leads the Saints to the superbowl next year it doesn't mean they deserved to go to the playoffs this year." Not the same scenario. You know very well that the NFL is different --- there is a playoff system, which leaves little doubt. Now I happen to prefer the college system, but you can't use the Superbowl -- where every half decent team gets a shot at the big game --- to the NCAA.
How good would USC be if all their top talent left and they didn't have good backups? 1st and second string wins football games. Not the third and forth. But when you lose your first you have to fall on them.
'Not the same scenario. You know very well that the NFL is different --- there is a playoff system'
Well if we're comparing the quality of two teams across seperate years then it's irrelevant to they system used. No matter how great USC does this year or how it does next year has any bearing on 2003. None. USC deserved a shot but didn't get it. Get over it.
Championship titles aren't awarded to the best programs. They're awarded to the team that plays the best that year. Last year per the BCS LSU was the best. Per the sportswriter poll USC was most well liked.
Arguing that USC is a better program and deserves the title is logically incorrect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.