"ASCACHESS" wrote

So let's suppose Oklahoma wins.
Are they the national champion?

Yes, because that is the agreement. Morally just or not.

Would we ever have had a national champion who lost their conference
championship or any game by 28 points?

Irrelevant

If Oklahoma wins the BCS, they will take their place as one of the worst
national champions of all time.

Simply the opinion of
Richard Peterson

Richard, for someone who was aghast at such an early 'best of all time' remark (which was NOT made by me -- my comment was 'best
that I have seen,' which is undebatable. The best of all time snippets were from the pundits who didn't have a clue about the
strength of KSU, because they looked at records rather than personnel -- KSU may be the strongest team in the country right now, as
proven by their lopsided victory over the #1 undefeated team), your 'worst of all time' remark is no different. There have been
lots of one-loss national champs whose place was debatable. I have admitted that the BCS may be a joke, but it is the current
standard. If it needs to be changed, then so be it, but your sour grapes (no matter how well 'deserved') won't change a thing. If
Iowa had won their bowl game last year, and Ohio State lost, Iowa would have been undefeated -- and NOT the national champs. ****
happens.

And quite frankly, just because OU lost does not make them a bad team. They are still one of, if not the best team in the country.
I agree it is unfortunate that USC won't have a chance to prove otherwise. Maybe they shouldn't have lost to a 6-LOSS team?

Sure, it's nice to have an undisputed champion, but life isn't so perfect. Like Stoops said, that's why you line up and play the
game. "We just got whipped. They outplayed us in every part of the game."

REC

So let's suppose Oklahoma wins.
Are they the national champion?

Yes, because that is the agreement. Morally just or not.

Uh, what agreement is that?

They will be the BCS National Champion, which a couple of sports reporters are
already calling the BS national championship.

IF Oklahoma wins and USC wins then we will see who wins the polls, even the one
(ESPN/USAToday) the BCS champion is automatically supposed to win.

For that matter, ESPN is already listing Oklahoma as #3 and LSU as #2 playing
in the Sugar Bowl. #1 was reserved for USC.

Rp

From: (ASCACHESS)

So let's suppose Oklahoma wins.
Are they the national champion?

Would we ever have had a national champion who lost their conference
championship or any game by 28 points?

If Oklahoma wins and USC wins, we will have co-National Champions, exactly the
sort of thing that caused the BCS to come into existence in the first place,
that is to say, to avoid the necessary and sufficient solution to the problem,
a legitimate post season playoffs.

Now as for what happens if Michigan wins....

While, being a USC graduate school alumnus, I sympathize with the Trojans'
plight, they DID lose to Cal, who is a much much weaker team than Kansas State.
Oklahoma and LSU both have more wins than USC, which is not USC's fault,
except that the powers of the PAC-10, like, for example, USC, don't want to
have a Conference Championship which might risk a trip to the Rose Bowl in any
given year. Sure they can't help that their schedule was weaker, they can only
play who you put in front of them, but you could say the same thing about the
Horned Frogs of TCU, and they don't even get to go to a BCS bowl at all. The
system sucks, it's there because of the greed of the school owners, and that's
all there is to it, it's a microcosm of 21st century America. All that having
been said, the Rose Bowl is, for all intents and purposes, going to be the
National Championship game. It's going to be on January 1st, the way God
intended, its going to be the ROSE BOWL, with the #1 Pac-10 Champ vs the #4 Big
Ten champ, and it's going to be the game everyone is going to be interested in
and watch. I guarantee you the "real" national championship on Jan 4 doesnt
get anywhere NEAR the TV share that the Rose Bowl does. There you have it.

P.S. Give Mike Williams the Heisman to even things out though.

drahmiel wrote:

From: (ASCACHESS)

So let's suppose Oklahoma wins.
Are they the national champion?

Would we ever have had a national champion who lost their conference
championship or any game by 28 points?

If Oklahoma wins and USC wins, we will have co-National Champions, exactly the
sort of thing that caused the BCS to come into existence in the first place,
that is to say, to avoid the necessary and sufficient solution to the problem,
a legitimate post season playoffs.

Now as for what happens if Michigan wins....

I don't know what all the griping is about. Southern Cal will almost
certainly win a share of the championship (AP Writers Poll) should they
defeat Michigan in their own back yard. In my view, anyone who lost a
game has no right to bitch. If you go undefeated and you're frozen out
you've got a gripe.

The BCS isn't a playoff. It is matching up #1-#2 head to head, which
was an improvement over the old idiotic bowl tie ins that robbed Penn
State of a National Championship in 1994 and allowed Michigan and
Nebraska to share one in 1997.

Considering it's been around for some time, it's actually done a
reasonably decent job of crowning a clear national champion every year.
It might still accomplish it this year. All of the writers and pundits
who bitch about the BCS were responsible for manipulating the old system
unfairly by voting for their "darling of the year". I remember Florida
State getting invited with one loss to Notre Dame rather than West
Virginia getting invited. I remember the next year NU being the darling
and Penn State being frozen out. These "decisions" were manipulated
primarily by sportswriters who wanted to see particular matchups rather
than go by record or performance.

Southern Cal should be delighted to have a shot at a national
championship by defeating number 4 in the Rose Bowl, which is the first
time this has ever happened. What will be hilariously funny is if USC
forgets to play the game and gets hammered by Michigan.

Personally, I'd like to see LSU win it. They have not won one since I
was a toddler, although they've had some good teams over the years.

Southern Cal played a pathetically weak schedule compared to everyone
else. Those who are mad at OU getting in, are saying the time you lose
should matter more than your strength of schedule. While this is
certainly open to argument, I don't think that when you lose should be
any more important than strength of schedule or the manner in which you
lose, or whom you lose to.

USC lost to a very mediocre Cal team. If USC is so great, I don't want
to hear excuses about how their quarterback being hurt caused them to
get beat by a mediocre team.

OU lost, but to perhaps one of the best and hottest teams in the nation
at the very end of the season. I would take K-State right now against
any of the three contenders for the BCS.

USC fans can't have it both ways, claiming they're great on both sides
of the ball and then claiming they lost to Cal because their QB was
hurt.

Great teams win in spite of injuries, bad luck and misfortune. When a
great player goes down, everyone else on defense, offense and special
teams picks up the slack and goes the extra mile to continue winning.
They don't whine and bitch that they lost because of a bad ref's call or
because their quarterback got hurt. Injuries and bad calls are a part
of the game and great teams overcome them and win anyway.

K-State might be undefeated right now, had they not lost Roberson
during that period when they lost 3 in a row.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"ASCACHESS" wrote
So let's suppose Oklahoma wins.
Are they the national champion?

Yes, because that is the agreement. Morally just or not.

Uh, what agreement is that?

They will be the BCS National Champion, which a couple of sports reporters are
already calling the BS national championship.

IF Oklahoma wins and USC wins then we will see who wins the polls, even the one
(ESPN/USAToday) the BCS champion is automatically supposed to win.

Uh, that would be the coaches' poll, not ESPN.

Seems every year the BCS gets into trouble with its picks, but every year they come out smelling, well, better. Such would be the
case again if Michigan wins (they could easily have been undefeated as well this year, so watch out).

Anyone, it seems, can claim they deserve a berth in the Championship game. For example, McPherson College BEAT
Kansas Wesleyan WHO BEAT
Bethel College WHO BEAT
Whitworth College WHO BEAT
Menlo College WHO BEAT
Cal Lutheran WHO BEAT
Pomona College WHO BEAT
Trinity University (TX) WHO BEAT
Centre College WHO BEAT
Franklin & Marshall WHO BEAT
Gettysburg College WHO BEAT
Waynesburg College WHO BEAT
Frostburg State WHO BEAT
Salisbury State WHO BEAT
Catholic University WHO BEAT
LaSalle WHO BEAT
Marist College WHO BEAT
Central Connecticut State WHO BEAT
Monmouth (NJ) WHO BEAT
Georgetown WHO BEAT
Cornell WHO BEAT
Bucknell WHO BEAT
Towson State WHO BEAT
Lafayette College WHO BEAT
Princeton WHO BEAT
Brown WHO BEAT
Yale WHO BEAT
Columbia WHO BEAT
Harvard WHO BEAT
Northeastern WHO BEAT
Maine WHO BEAT
Villanova WHO BEAT
Temple WHO BEAT
Middle Tennessee State WHO BEAT
Troy State WHO BEAT
Marshall WHO BEAT
Kansas State WHO BEAT (Oklahoma and)
California WHO BEAT
USC (WHO BEAT ... Auburn WHO BEAT ... Tennessee WHO BEAT ... Florida WHO BEAT LSU)

Courtesy espnradio.espn.go.com/espnradio/story?storyId=1681332

REC

My connection with USC is weaker than yours as it's the wife who is a USC alumnus.

But I agree, the Rose Bowl has been the traditional championship bowl.

Lance

(drahmiel) wrote in message ...
While, being a USC graduate school alumnus, I sympathize with the Trojans'
plight, they DID lose to Cal, who is a much much weaker team than Kansas State.
Oklahoma and LSU both have more wins than USC, which is not USC's fault,
except that the powers of the PAC-10, like, for example, USC, don't want to
have a Conference Championship which might risk a trip to the Rose Bowl in any
given year. Sure they can't help that their schedule was weaker, they can only
play who you put in front of them, but you could say the same thing about the
Horned Frogs of TCU, and they don't even get to go to a BCS bowl at all. The
system sucks, it's there because of the greed of the school owners, and that's
all there is to it, it's a microcosm of 21st century America. All that having
been said, the Rose Bowl is, for all intents and purposes, going to be the
National Championship game. It's going to be on January 1st, the way God
intended, its going to be the ROSE BOWL, with the #1 Pac-10 Champ vs the #4 Big
Ten champ, and it's going to be the game everyone is going to be interested in
and watch. I guarantee you the "real" national championship on Jan 4 doesnt
get anywhere NEAR the TV share that the Rose Bowl does. There you have it.

P.S. Give Mike Williams the Heisman to even things out though.