College Bowl Games

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-31 12:16am

Houston Bowl

Not surprisingly Navy got spanked by Texas Tech. While Navy plays good team ball they just don't have the athletes to go up against a lot of teams.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-31 12:28am

The "Spurrier Resigns" thread threw me. This topic should probably be in "Off Topic" instead of "News & Politics.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-12-31 01:46am

Two possibilities of which bowls (or bowl) matter(s):

Rose Bowl
If USC wins, no other bowl matters. USC is Number 1, despite the BCS ruling
If Michigan wins, they play the spoiler, and the following decides it all:

Sugar Bowl
LSU vs. Oklahoma

If the first scenario takes place, then hopefully that is the death knell of the BCS...

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-31 02:43am

jegs2 wrote:Two possibilities of which bowls (or bowl) matter(s):

Rose Bowl
If USC wins, no other bowl matters. USC is Number 1, despite the BCS ruling
If Michigan wins, they play the spoiler, and the following decides it all:

Sugar Bowl
LSU vs. Oklahoma

If the first scenario takes place, then hopefully that is the death knell of the BCS...

As Ralph Wiley was pointing out on ESPN.com would you be willing to accept Oklahoma as National Champs if they and Michigan won? Remember, Oklahoma got it's ass kicked in the Big 12 Championship game.

Personally, in that scenerio I'd be willing to throw my arms up and say we didn't have a champion this year. This year could turn out to be the year when they really needed to have a tournament. I would have liked to see what Michigan and Kansas State could do at the end of the year. Bowl Game time doesn't really count because everyone's been screwing around with at least the holidays and in some cases they have all kinds of activities associated with the bowl they are in.

I suppose if Oklahoma is impressive and Michigan squeeks it out I could see going with OU.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-12-31 04:35am

WSU won

:D

But to me, if USC wins then they are the undisputed national champion. LSU and OK don't matter either way. Especially OK, they got their asses beat bad.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-31 05:14pm

Howedar wrote:WSU won :D

But to me, if USC wins then they are the undisputed national champion. LSU and OK don't matter either way. Especially OK, they got their asses beat bad.

That's pretty muc how I see it.

If USC loses and LSU wins I don't have a problem with LSU being No. 1 but then the scores of the respective games will likely influence me as well.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-01 09:36pm

With a victory by USC over Michigan, the Trojans can now claim a split national championship, regardless of what happens in the Sugar Bowl -- the very thing that the BCS was set up in order to eliminate.

Death to the BCS!

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-02 02:26am

It'd be kind of nice if they went back to the classic bowl match ups with the original bowl names instead of all these coporate sponsors using their name for the bowl itself.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-02 04:06am

After USC so thoroughly handed UM their ass, LSU or OK is going to need to get a big win to have any claim on the title.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-02 05:23am

Howedar wrote:After USC so thoroughly handed UM their ass, LSU or OK is going to need to get a big win to have any claim on the title.

I also wonder if the Kansas State v Ohio State (Fiesta Bowl) will have any bearing. If Kansas State gets clobbered by OSU (who lost to Michigan) it's going to make OU's loss look worse.

If they were keeping the BCS computers up to date as these cames finish USC's strength of schedule would be looking much better considering how WSU defeated Texas.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-02 05:34am

Yeah, USC (and indeed the entire Pac-10) is going to come out of the bowl season smelling like roses. No pun intended.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-02 05:48am

Howedar wrote:Yeah, USC (and indeed the entire Pac-10) is going to come out of the bowl season smelling like roses. No pun intended.

So far the only Pac-10 team that I know lost is Oregon and that was only by one point to Minnesota.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-02 05:55am

UCLA also lost to Fresno State.

Damned if I know why Bellotti decided to take two time outs to help out Minnesota the way he did. God, I wanted to drive down and punch him in the face for making the Pac-10 look so stupid.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-02 06:37am

At least the Hawkeyes spanked the Gators yesterday. Although I don't consider the Outback (Humanitarian Bowl) a real January first Bowl.

The only ones I really count as January 1st bowls are the classics, Rose, Orange, Sugar & Cotton. I'll grudginly include the Fiesta because it's bascially taken over the Cotton's importance but to me only the real classic ones feel like the really big bowls.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-02 11:22pm

Howedar wrote:After USC so thoroughly handed UM their ass, LSU or OK is going to need to get a big win to have any claim on the title.

I don't get it. LSU wins three games against ranked opponents still ranked at the end of the season, USC wins one (aside from Michigan, of course), and somehow LSU has to prove that they're more entitled to the national title (assuming they beat OU, of course) than USC is by whomping a strong Oklahoma team? This is so fucking unfair to LSU; I wish Marshall hadn't backed out their game with LSU which forced the Tigers to have to play a poor Division IIA team, because if that was the case there would be none of this bullshit.

Sorry, but if LSU wins, there is just no way that USC can claim to be the single, solitary national champion, even though USC is a great team. I agree that USC and LSU should have played each other, that way there could have been a single champion, but that's not going to happen.

Of course, if the Sooners beat LSU somehow, than I am in full agreement with you.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-03 04:20am

You disagree that LSU needs a strong showing? A three point victory over an overrated OK is not going to convince me that LSU is worthy of the title of national champion. Now, when we start talking about a 14 point margin of victory, then I think there is something there.

But really, with the meltdown OK seems to have had, LSU can't beat them by a hair and then expect the flowers and kisses to come pouring in.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-03 10:40am

Here's something both USC & LSU have in common this year. The both played Arizona in Tucson. At least it weakens both teams strength of schedule equally.

Although, I think USC was really pushing for a shut out for the sake of BCS consideration since their game was late in the year.

September 6 No. 2 LSU L 59-13

November 15 No. 1 USC L 45-0

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-05 01:39am

Well, I was pretty unimpressed by the performance of both LSU and OK. Both teams had about three dozen turnovers it seemed, and neither offense was really producing. The sad thing to me was that LSU only barely beat a team with like 130 yards total offense.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-05 02:02am

No, LSU's defense was absolutely outstanding against one of the best scoring offenses in the country. There would have been only 1 touchdown if not for turnovers.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-05 02:12am

The LSU defense did not show the speed I've come to expect from the likes of USC, Ohio State, and Washington State. There were some very nice defensive plays, but the defense did not shock and amaze me.

The turnovers in and of themselves would probably fuck LSU against USC.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-05 02:43am

Howedar wrote:The LSU defense did not show the speed I've come to expect from the likes of USC, Ohio State, and Washington State. There were some very nice defensive plays, but the defense did not shock and amaze me.

The turnovers in and of themselves would probably fuck LSU against USC.

Of course not - USC and Wazzu play much easier schedules, of course their defenses are going to rip through the weaker offensive lines of their opponents.

How many times would they have had to sack the shit out of the fucking Heisman trophy winner to be impressive? Did you not see that last sack? How many passing yards would they have have to held that same QB to to be impressive? I don't want to be a dick here, but the reluctance of people to give LSU credit is absolutely astounding. They played a tough SEC schedule and won the conference, and just beat an OU team that has been called "the best ever" since the beginning of the season (and that would have been a less close game had the refs not let OU's holds slide and thrown that BS flag on the fair catch, but they had to make the game more interesting for ratings). Meanwhile, USC loses to a freaking unranked team and the fucks in the sports media continue to endlessly fawn over them, forgetting the loss within a week. USC may have put up a lot of points on the board, and they may indeed deserve half of the national championship, but never to the exclusion of LSU, not this year.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-05 03:46am

Joe wrote:Of course not - USC and Wazzu play much easier schedules, of course their defenses are going to rip through the weaker offensive lines of their opponents.

Oh, like numbers four and five Michigan and Texas

How many times would they have had to sack the shit out of the fucking Heisman trophy winner to be impressive?

What did they get, two or three? USC had nine sacks against UM. Against a team that had had 15 sacks against them in the entire regular season.

Did you not see that last sack?

If I did, I don't remember it in particular. Jason White isn't exactly an impressive quarterback anyway, in my book. Certainly not in the last two games.

How many passing yards would they have have to held that same QB to to be impressive?

No offense, but a lot of OU's problem was just shittily thrown balls and receivers dropping balls that went right through their hands. LSU was pretty good against the pass, but against the rush they seemed forgettable.

I don't want to be a dick here, but the reluctance of people to give LSU credit is absolutely astounding.

They beat a not-so-great OU by seven. Had they had another touchdown or two, I'd give them more credit.

They played a tough SEC schedule and won the conference, and just beat an OU team that has been called "the best ever" since the beginning of the season (and that would have been a less close game had the refs not let OU's holds slide and thrown that BS flag on the fair catch, but they had to make the game more interesting for ratings).

You and I both know that OU's "best team ever" bit is a fucking joke.

Meanwhile, USC loses to a freaking unranked team and the fucks in the sports media continue to endlessly fawn over them, forgetting the loss within a week.

It was a loss by three in overtime, not a loss by twenty eight (as in OU's case) or by twelve (in the case of LSU). It was also pretty early in the season. We're ranking the teams at the end of the season, not at the beginning.

USC may have put up a lot of points on the board, and they may indeed deserve half of the national championship, but never to the exclusion of LSU, not this year.

Well, we'd need a game between them to be sure, there's no doubt about that. However, from what I saw, LSU did not beat Oklahoma as badly as they should have.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-05 04:43am

Oh, like numbers four and five Michigan and Texas

In bowl games; strength of schedule before bowl games are played (which is all that matters in the BCS) obviously does not take bowl games into account. Their regular season schedules are both weaker than LSU's, and of course they're going to look better against inferior teams. And Texas is an overrated product of the sports media's obsession with tradition, anyway.

What did they get, two or three? USC had nine sacks against UM. Against a team that had had 15 sacks against them in the entire regular season.

It was five or six, against one of the most successful offenses in the country - no small accomplishment.

If I did, I don't remember it in particular. Jason White isn't exactly an impressive quarterback anyway, in my book. Certainly not in the last two games.

This one probably wasn't White's fault; it was so fast he barely even saw it coming.

No offense, but a lot of OU's problem was just shittily thrown balls and receivers dropping balls that went right through their hands. LSU was pretty good against the pass, but against the rush they seemed forgettable.

Oklahoma had only 52 yards on the ground. They average about three times that. That's pretty damn impressive.

They beat a not-so-great OU by seven. Had they had another touchdown or two, I'd give them more credit.

Complete and total domination for three quarters isn't enough? And that last touchdown was only due to an exceedingly rare blocked punk.

You and I both know that OU's "best team ever" bit is a fucking joke.

Of course, but OU is a great football team regardless.

t was a loss by three in overtime, not a loss by twenty eight (as in OU's case) or by twelve (in the case of LSU). It was also pretty early in the season. We're ranking the teams at the end of the season, not at the beginning.

It was a loss to an unranked team that remains unranked, far worse than LSU or Oklahoma's loss. For that matter LSU's one loss was about mid-season, not at the end.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-05 04:52am

Joe wrote:In bowl games; strength of schedule before bowl games are played (which is all that matters in the BCS) obviously does not take bowl games into account. Their regular season schedules are both weaker than LSU's, and of course they're going to look better against inferior teams. And Texas is an overrated product of the sports media's obsession with tradition, anyway.

Well of course, I am not saying that these wins should have any effect on USC's not being in the Sugar Bowl.

It was five or six, against one of the most successful offenses in the country - no small accomplishment.

That's pretty good. I'm not convinced that's better than USC's nine sacks against UM though, particularly since UM gave up 15 all season long.

This one probably wasn't White's fault; it was so fast he barely even saw it coming.

Oh, that one. Yes, it was a nice play, but one nice play does not a defense make.

Oklahoma had only 52 yards on the ground. They average about three times that. That's pretty damn impressive.

Of course, USC held UM to something like half their normal running yardage.

Complete and total domination for three quarters isn't enough? And that last touchdown was only due to an exceedingly rare blocked punk.

The defense was dominating, but the LSU offense was not producing.

Of course, but OU is a great football team regardless.

They were a great team. God, I don't know anymore.

It was a loss to an unranked team that remains unranked, far worse than LSU or Oklahoma's loss. For that matter LSU's one loss was about mid-season, not at the end.

Funny stuff can happen in overtime when you're just teaching your new quarterback the ropes (note: Leinart had not a single snap before this season).

I think I figured out what is bothering me about LSU's victory. If KSU-OU hadn't happened, I'd definately think LSU had a claim on #1. The problem is, OU simply sucked balls against KSU, and did poorly against LSU. I really don't know how much of that LSU deserves credit for and how much is OU continuing to suck. Compared to a known quantity like UM (who had no such late-season meltdown) I really have to go with USC. I know what USC did to win their game, but I don't know what LSU did to win theirs.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-05 02:09pm

Well of course, I am not saying that these wins should have any effect on USC's not being in the Sugar Bowl.

Nor do they alter the fact that USC's strength of schedule has been relatively weak.

That's pretty good. I'm not convinced that's better than USC's nine sacks against UM though, particularly since UM gave up 15 all season long.

Sacks are not the only measure of defensive production, and often they are the fault of the offensive line.

Oh, that one. Yes, it was a nice play, but one nice play does not a defense make.

You're right, many plays do.

Of course, USC held UM to something like half their normal running yardage.

Less than that, actually. But if you want to talk stats, there's no denying LSU did a much better job; Michigan had 49 yards on the ground (avg. 187) and 271 yards passing (they average that number). OU, by contrast, had only 52 yards on the ground and 102 yards passing, for only 154 yards overall. USC held Michigan to about 140 yards short of their normal production, while LSU held OU to a third of their normal offensive production.

The defense was dominating, but the LSU offense was not producing.

Hey, defense is what wins championships, that's what's most important in these kinds of games, and the LSU offense did exactly what it needed to do to win the game.

Might I remind you that USC only had one (not a blowout, just one) more touchdown than LSU did against a weaker opponent, and their defense allowed two touchdowns (and those were long drives down the field, not special-team induced touchdowns like OU's two TDs). And OU's defense is no slouch, they led the nation in total defense and allowed an average of 15.89 ppg.

On offense you may have a case, but on defense LSU bows to no one. The fact that the offense didn't produce as much as it could have doesn't change the fact that OU was dominated for the first three quarters.

Funny stuff can happen in overtime when you're just teaching your new quarterback the ropes (note: Leinart had not a single snap before this season).

Excuses, excuses. The "#1" team in the country has no business losing to an unranked team that hasn't been ranked for nearly all the season.

I think I figured out what is bothering me about LSU's victory. If KSU-OU hadn't happened, I'd definately think LSU had a claim on #1. The problem is, OU simply sucked balls against KSU, and did poorly against LSU.

One game does not a season define.

I really don't know how much of that LSU deserves credit for and how much is OU continuing to suck. Compared to a known quantity like UM (who had no such late-season meltdown)

They did, however, have two regular season losses (compared to OU's 12-0 regular season record, and there would have been no loss had OU not had to play a championship game like Michigan) and less impressive stats than OU.

I really have to go with USC. I know what USC did to win their game, but I don't know what LSU did to win theirs.

Then I'm sorry, but you just weren't paying attention, or you started watching during the 4th quarter.