Rutgers

[mweb]

I agree that it would definitely help SEC teams to schedule a tough OOC game or two, but it's already ridiculous to run the table in the SEC anyway. Scheduling tough OOC competition would make it basically impossible to end w/ one loss or go undefeated and therefore compete for the national championship. USC gets to run through all the Pac-10 crap out there and then save up for 2-3 tough games per year.

Also, a much smaller point. Scheduling OOC games is pretty variable. You have to schedule in advance and you don't know what you are going to be getting when the game finally comes around. Take, for instance, next year when Alabama plays Florida State. Looked like a tough non-conference game for both when it was scheduled, but how does it look now?

As I said before, the PAC-10 is not as good as the SEC, but it's certainly not crap, and to say so is just being ignorant. As BigSteve showed, USC has played a tougher schedule than Arkansas has. And they had 3 tough games in out of conference alone, so I would say they would have played at least 6-7 tough games this year.

And as Gesh pointed out, most of these out of conference games scheduled by Arkansas and UF have nothing to do with OOC games being pretty variable. But I agree that comes into play with some teams, just not for Arkansas or UF except for FSU which will probably still be a tough game for them.

[beaner]

Yeah, I agree that their overrated. In fact their overrated almost every year.

They are, but this year seems to bother me more than others. There are other teams that deserve to be mentioned as "Elite" teams, Notre Dame is not one of them.

[CrimsonTribe]

There is no argument for Arkansas over USC, if you want to call it ignorant, that's fine, but there is still no argument for it. Big Steve backs that up with facts besides the obvious 50-14 win. And yeah, you'd feel like you shouldn't have lost to OSU, but I guarantee you'd have a lot of other feelings if a team that you beat 50-14 in their place was playing for the national championship instead of you.

I think the point I am trying to make here is that USC's victory over Arkansas in the first game of the season should not be dispositive in determining whether they go to the National Championship game over Arkansas (it should be given a little weight but not be a determining factor). On top of this, early season losses do not and should not carry as much weight as late season losses b/c the teams are so different by the end of the year.

The way I think of it is this: Arkansas lost to elite team A at the beginning of the season. Since then they have become an elite team and had several quality wins (assuming they beat LSU and Florida which is no easy feat). USC lost to mediocre team B somewhere after midseason, but have had several quality wins (assuming they beat Notre Dame and UCLA, although I don't consider UCLA a tough win though). It just so happens that USC is elite team A; give them some credit for that, but take everything else into account too (including strength of schedule which USC has the advantage in).

Further, no one has addressed who USC lost to. They lost to a very mediocre Oregon State team. Arkansas lost to USC; Florida lost to Auburn; Michigan lost to Ohio State. This is a BIG, if not the BIGGEST, point and as far as I'm concerned it should knock USC down quite a bit. Also, that by the end of the season, both Arkansas and Florida will have played 13 games, USC will have played 12, and Michigan 12.

Remember, I'm not arguing that Arkansas should be in the National Championship game over other one loss teams, but rather that there is an argument (and a good one) that they should make it.

[mweb]

Sorry, but there's not. SEC fans seem to be the most biased fans in the country. You can sucessfully argue Michigan over USC, UF over USC(although UF is lucky to only have one loss and I'm not that impressed by them), but not Arkansas. Losing at home 50-14 to a team that is at least as qualified as you are to play for the title absolutely eliminates you from the discussion. Losing that badly at home also hurts them against teams like UM and UF.

[CrimsonTribe]

Sorry, but there's not. SEC fans seem to be the most biased fans in the country. You can sucessfully argue Michigan over USC, UF over USC(although UF is lucky to only have one loss and I'm not that impressed by them), but not Arkansas. Losing at home 50-14 to a team that is at least as qualified as you are to play for the title absolutely eliminates you from the discussion. Losing that badly at home also hurts them against teams like UM and UF.

Fine, keep clinging to that point and ignore the rest.

[Mackus]

I don't think when you lose should matter.

The two best teams overall should play for the championship. I think its very obvious that Ohio St and Michigan are the two best teams in the country. OSU is obviously the best team in the country, nobody doubts that. Well Michigan played them to within 3 points on the road. That loss shouldn't hurt them at all, and judging by the polls, the coaches / voters agree with that.

If both OSU and Michigan win out the rest of the way, nobody else in the country has any claim to play in the championship game, IMO. If its not a rematch for the title, then it'll be a bogus game that doesn't mean anything.

College Football needs to get a damn playoff system. All this posturing and rankings and BCS nonsense is just stupid. I know the controversy gets people talking about football, but people talk about the NCAA tournament nonstop as well. If they just smarted up and went to a 8 team playoff, then the winner would actually deserve to call themselves national champions, which doesn't happen every year under the current system.

[mweb]

Fine, keep clinging to that point and ignore the rest.

How am I ignoring the rest? If anything, you're ignoring the rest. And it's not like I'm clinging to a small point, that point is enough for the game, set, and match alone.

But every point favors USC except the fact that they lost to a team that isn't that good. Heads up favors USC in a huge way, quality wins favors USC(will probably be about even if both win out), strength of schedule favors USC, what the teams have done in the recent past favors USC, team talent favors USC imo, how people rate them favors USC, and how the computer ranks them favors USC.

So who's clinging to one point and ignoring the rest again? And you can't even say who they lost to favors Arkansas when debating Arkansas vs USC. You could use that USC loss better(it would still be hard based on the score and place of the game) if you were debating against another team.

[mweb]

I don't think when you lose should matter.

The two best teams overall should play for the championship. I think its very obvious that Ohio St and Michigan are the two best teams in the country. OSU is obviously the best team in the country, nobody doubts that. Well Michigan played them to within 3 points on the road. That loss shouldn't hurt them at all, and judging by the polls, the coaches / voters agree with that.

If both OSU and Michigan win out the rest of the way, nobody else in the country has any claim to play in the championship game, IMO. If its not a rematch for the title, then it'll be a bogus game that doesn't mean anything.

College Football needs to get a damn playoff system. All this posturing and rankings and BCS nonsense is just stupid. I know the controversy gets people talking about football, but people talk about the NCAA tournament nonstop as well. If they just smarted up and went to a 8 team playoff, then the winner would actually deserve to call themselves national champions, which doesn't happen every year under the current system.

I agree that when the loss occurs shouldn't make much of a difference. However I disagree that Michigan is obviously one of the top 2 teams. They may be, but if USC hammers ND and UCLA, I think a good case could be made for USC being the better team.

BTW, Ohio State and UM are done with their regular seasons.

[Mackus]

BTW, Ohio State and UM are done with their regular seasons.

Well then they should have a good chance at winning out.

[CrimsonTribe]

How am I ignoring the rest? If anything, you're ignoring the rest. And it's not like I'm clinging to a small point, that point is enough for the game, set, and match alone.

But every point favors USC except the fact that they lost to a team that isn't that good. Heads up favors USC in a huge way, quality wins favors USC(will probably be about even if both win out), strength of schedule favors USC, what the teams have done in the recent past favors USC, team talent favors USC imo, how people rate them favors USC, and how the computer ranks them favors USC.

So who's clinging to one point and ignoring the rest again? And you can't even say who they lost to favors Arkansas when debating Arkansas vs USC. You could use that USC loss better(it would still be hard based on the score and place of the game) if you were debating against another team.

OK, I'm just going to agree with you that if USC and Arkansas both win out, USC will definitely be above Arkansas. I'm pretty sure there's no question about that and it is largely, if not completely, based on the fact that USC beat Arkansas 10 games ago when Arkansas was a completely different team. That doesn't mean I agree with it or that Arkansas does not have a very strong and compelling argument to be included in the NC game if they win out.

Also, when taking strength of schedule into account, I looked at the Sagarin ratings and they only take into account games played up to this point so I'm sure that Arkansas' schedule will shoot up after they play two top ten teams.

[mweb]

OK, I'm just going to agree with you that if USC and Arkansas both win out, USC will definitely be above Arkansas. I'm pretty sure there's no question about that and it is largely, if not completely, based on the fact that USC beat Arkansas 10 games ago when Arkansas was a completely different team. That doesn't mean I agree with it or that Arkansas does not have a very strong and compelling argument to be included in the NC game if they win out.

Also, when taking strength of schedule into account, I looked at the Sagarin ratings and they only take into account games played up to this point so I'm sure that Arkansas' schedule will shoot up after they play two top ten teams.

Most teams improve during the season including USC who had a QB and RB getting their first start that day replacing two Heisman winners. Just because a team has improved a lot doesn't take away significance from the beginning of the season.

And yeah, their strength of schedule will go up, but I doubt it will pass USC's.

Well I think you're in a huge minority in thinking they have a very strong and compelling argument, well maybe some Arkansas fans agree. But I haven't heard or read one person in the media agree with you, although I'm sure there are a few.

[mweb]

Well now there absolutely is not an argument for Arkansas.

[Sports Guy]

Well now there absolutely is not an argument for Arkansas.

Not that they will play in the championship game but LSU may be one of the 2 best teams in the country.

[CrimsonTribe]

Well now there absolutely is not an argument for Arkansas.

Got that right.