|
Post by GEO on Dec 6, 2007 15:46:03 GMT -5
You've seen the Bowl matchups and you've heard ESPN talk about them. What do you think about the BCS this year? Is the system working? Are the right teams playing the right games? Who deserved one game over another?
Make Sure To:
1. State your opinion clearly 2. Follow up on your opinion 3. Challenge others to defend their opinion
|
|
|
Post by TrojansFan5 on Dec 6, 2007 19:14:16 GMT -5
I don't think that LSU should have went to the National Championship. I am mad!!! Who forgot the 12-0 Hawaii, and the 12-0 Missouri. But no, they had to choose the tigers vs. some other crap.
The Trojans had a good matchup in my opinion. I mean, they've blown out every team in the BCS besides the Longhorns in 2005. Last year everyone thought that Michigan was gonna be a NC team. But, guess what, its Rose time baby!! 31-14... killer.
|
|
|
Post by MxHT413 on Dec 6, 2007 21:02:24 GMT -5
I don't think that LSU should have went to the National Championship. I am mad!!! Who forgot the 12-0 Hawaii, and the 12-0 Missouri. But no, they had to choose the tigers vs. some other crap. I'd get your facts straightened out if I were you: Mizzou was not 12-0, they had not one, but TWO loses. Both to Oklahoma. Hawaii was the only undefeated team. I like the title game. I really didn't see it any other way once I thought about it. There wasn't any real dominant team this year, and as a viewer I want to see the two best teams in the country. I think the right choice was made putting LSU vs. Ohio State. One might say that LSU doesn't diserve to be there because of their two losses, but then again, it took 3 overtimes to finally defeat them each time. A lot of people are questioning Kansas over Mizzou. I say Mizzou has no place being there, and Kansas diserves every right to be in a BCS game. Why? Mizzou has two losses, and if you're not ranked before the season starts, I feel you shouldn't be there with 2 losses. But Mizzou only lost to one team. Yeah, and if you lose the first time, if you're worthy of a BCS game, you don't go and lose 38-17 the second time. But Mizzou beat Kansas! Yeah, barely, and West Virginia lost to Pittsburgh, and LSU lost to Arkansas. It happened all over the league this year, and there were losses worse than Kansas's. But Kansas has one of the easiest schedules in the league, and Mizzou has one of the hardest. Boise State anyone? I don't want to see 1-loss teams out of BCS games. I'm a firm believer in records, and if you're record is better than everyone else's you diserve to be on top of everyone else. I love the Hawaii matchup vs. Georgia. But, if they remain undefeated, I would like to see them face the National Championship winner in an exhibition game, just to see who would come on top. When I was talking about Mizzou's two losses and not being ranked before the season, I'm sure 9-3 Illinois popped into you're head at the same time you were calling me a hypocrypt. I didn't foget them. I don't like that Illinois is in there any more than you may like Mizzou not being in there. I would much rather see a team like Florida and watching another Heisman candidate play in a BCS game.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Dec 9, 2007 13:06:03 GMT -5
BINGO! They're the better team. According to the BCS, if you beat them, you become better than them.
Boise St. was a top team who had beaten some good teams. Who has Kansas really beaten? I'm not concerned with Missouri's schedule as much as I am with Kansas's. Kansas getting into the BCS could have a trickle down effect of teams scheduling easier opponents in the hopes of sneaking in.
According to you, records trump everything else. So I'd expect you to be fuming that Hawaii didn't get in.
Really? Because if that's the case, I'd rather see Chase Daniel.
TrojansFan:
LSU has clearly been a top team all season. Why shouldn't they get in?
|
|
|
Post by MxHT413 on Dec 9, 2007 15:10:34 GMT -5
I'm perfectly fine with Hawaii not getting into the National Championship game. I believe that should be the one game that's reserved for the two best teams, not neccessarily the best records. However, if Hawaii didn't get a BCS game, I would be furious. Do you really think Appalacian St. is better than Michigan? That's why they call it an upset. It's not like there's a lot of really pathetic teams in Division 1-A, and you can't schedule Temple for 14 games. You have to give credit for winning all of your games, or all your games except for one, when that one was #4 at the time. Winning 12-13 straight games diserves some recognition. If Kansas lost to some 3-10 team, they wouldn't be there right now, but the only game they lost was a heartbreaker to a team in the same position as them.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Dec 15, 2007 11:57:37 GMT -5
Keep replying everyone!
|
|
|
Post by benmott92 on Dec 26, 2007 9:33:43 GMT -5
I don't like LSU, but I do think they deserve to be in the National Championship over Virginia Tech and Oklahoma. LSU's losses were to Arkansas and Kentucky; Oklahoma's were to Colorado and Texas Tech. Colorado is the loss that sticks out the most. The only reason LSU is over Virginia Tech is because:
A. They play in a tougher conference. B. They won the head-to-head match-up.
Throw out the LSU-Va. Tech game, and the Hokies are in the National Championship game. Their loss is a better loss than either one of LSU's loses by themselves. Even though Virginia Tech's 2 losses were to teams that were ranked #2 at the time of the games, LSU deserves to be over them because of the said head-to-head match-up, and because of Boston College's stock falling, hurting them because of the loss and the win in the ACC Championship.
Honestly, I am a bandwagon fan of Illinois, but they do not deserve to be in the Rose Bowl. It should be Missouri, Arizona State, even Florida, but I guess the BCS just thinks that there absolutely has to be a Big Ten team in the Rose Bowl. I definently think Missouri should've been in, but, this is why the BCS is so flawed. Forget about the d**n "Plus 1" game. MAKE A d**n TOURNAMENT! It works for the FCS, Division II, Division III, and the NAIA. So, why wouldn't it work for the FBS.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Dec 26, 2007 11:44:49 GMT -5
I like most of your arguments.
Personally, I don't think this can be decided without a Playoff. We're proving it right now. It's all subjective. Sports are SUPPOSED to be OBJECTIVE. There is supposed to be a clear decision - a clear winner. No matter who wins this year, there will be people saying, well, it should have been "these guys."
|
|
|
Post by benmott92 on Dec 26, 2007 19:37:05 GMT -5
I totally agree with you. People will say that, which in term means there should be a 16 or 32 team tournament in the FBS.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Dec 27, 2007 15:23:46 GMT -5
Lets get final arguments in.
remember, the person who wins this debate is responsible for posting then ext one.
|
|
|
Post by jdbsa05 on Jan 10, 2008 14:48:18 GMT -5
GEO wrote this in another post on the NCAA football board: What's there to debate? There should be a Playoff system. You have to remember here, what is the main reason why college students are in college? If the students are playing in a playoff system, and we are in the time period where they should be happening, we would be in the time period where for most colleges, the first semester is ending. This means that students will need to take the dreaded College football, like any high school or College sport, is only a supplement to the educational program, and students should return their focus to the educational program. With Basketball, the NCAA has more freedom to schedule a tournament, because it doesn't fall around finals. Also, most bowls have traditions, none of which should be broken.
|
|
|
Post by MxHT413 on Jan 18, 2008 21:09:45 GMT -5
So...is there going to be a winner announced anytime soon? I wrote my responce like a month ago.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jan 18, 2008 21:52:11 GMT -5
I'm very sorry, I PMed the winner, benmott92, a week ago, however, BlackOps will be posting the next debate.
I hate to break it to you, but that's not why Matt Leinart was going to school.
|
|
|
Post by jdbsa05 on Jan 28, 2008 13:48:33 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you, but that's not why Matt Leinart was going to school. I don't care. For the record, how many people actually go on to star in a Major League sport? Not many, considering the number of Student-Atheltes to Pro Atheletes. Those people that went to play and became superstars, they had to pass school first. If their intent is to go on and play professionally, they have a lot of work ahead of them, both in the academic field and in the Pro field. Also, they should also have a backup plan, because they may not play for a little while, or not at all. Also, many leagues have policies on education or age, such as the NBA's <19 rule. An NCAA-related website, www.ncaastudent.org posted a guide for HS-College Atheletes. In it was a letter from President Myles Brand, who said: www.ncaastudent.org/NCAA_Guide.pdfLet's see: 380,000 to however many (probably drastically less)? Exactly.
|
|