We have had three BCS games so far, and every single one of these snoozers has allowed me to sleep soundly.
We were spoon-fed the "Hawai'i is this year's media darling" stories for weeks, and all it got us was the sheer and utter humiliation that that was the Sugar Bowl.
We were fed that "Illinois has speed and power, and might pull off an upset."
Pass the applesauce, please.
We were told WVU had no chance—without noting that they had a pretty good defense and Rich Rodriguez didn't coach that side of the ball. Without noting that there was this guy named Pat White on offense—who can also be known as the Flash from now on.
This BCS season went downhill early. Imagine going into championship Saturday a month ago with Notre Dame at #4 instead of UGA. The #1 and #2 teams in the country lose. Who do you think Kirk Herbstreit is promoting to be in the National Championshp game then?
My point is not necessarily that UGA deserved to be in the title game. (But who the hell knows if they did? We will never get the chance to find out.)
Today's Must Reads
My point is that announcers have too much control over the BCS process. College Gameday blatantly pandered for an LSU-Ohio State game over a month ago, while dismissing teams like UGA and Kansas.
Do I have a problem with the LSU-Ohio State game? No. In fact, I actually think it might be a pretty good game—and Lord knows, of all the teams clamoring for a spot in the Championshp, those two probably had the strongest arguments.
My problem is that the pandering would not have occurred if Georgia was held in the same regard as Notre Dame, USC, or Nebraska.
Announcers talking too much took a new turn in the Sugar Bowl. All throughout the pregame show, viewes had to deal with this "Hawai'i is the team of destiny, and everyone is supposed to like them" shtick.
Colt Brennan had a personal interest story about how he redeemed himself from his "mistake." I am proud that he has been able to redeem himself as are many other people throughout the nation. I am not proud of the Fox network or Brennan failing to say what that mistake was.
Brennan broke into a woman's room and exposed his genitals to her. Don't make a personal interest story about your status as a victim if you can't state that. That story made it seem like he did nothing wrong, and was run out of the University of Colorado by mean and evil people.
Later in the game, Thom Brennaman—who should never call a college game again after referring to UGA players as "Gators"—started praising Hawai'i for not giving up, while at the same time calling UGA classless for still playing hard.
Thom, the team had its backups in. These are kids that never see playing time. You want them to start taking knees with ten minutes to go against the highest-scoring offense in college football?
You want them to come into the Sugar Bowl, a game they may never get the chance to play in again, and not try?
Go back to the NFL, Thom.
I am hoping for a better matchup in the Orange Bowl tonight. But, to be honest, I kind of smell a Kansas victory in impressive fashion—that team still wants to prove themselves.
comments (38) write a comment »
write a new comment
7 months ago
You are exactly right. I hate the fact that ESPN perpetuates this idiology that only certain teams should ever be good enough to play in the NC. The same idiology that allows a team like Notre Dame to go 3-12 and still have the # 1 recruiting class coming into next year. Another example is how they always used to refer to Urban Meyer as just a descent coach when he was at Utah but then he goes to Florida and the ESPN analysts start declaring him to be a genius. It's not really a surprise, ESPN is littered with college football analysts (ex-players) from these eletist programs. Another result of this idiology is the belief that a coach should leave to coach a team like Michigan, "tradition rich" and not stay at a school like WVU and build his own tradition. I guess ESPN is only keeping the status quo in college football. They are, after all, the ministers of propaganda for these "blue blood" schools.
7 months ago
Dude, UGA didn't even play in their own conference championship game, and that has way more to do with why they were left out than the identity of the program. Need I remind you of 2001? No one wants to get burned again
Notre Dame by definition could not be in the same position, seeing as they aren't in a conference. So yes, they would have risen to #2, because they wouldn't have the same caveat
7 months ago
Please do remind me of 2001. Because if you are talking about a Nebraska team that didn't make its conference championship game and then got hammered in the Bowl you are pretty bad at distinguishing things.
That Nebraska team got CLOBBERED in its last game of the REGULAR season 62-36. They then proceeded to lose the national championship game. That team lost its last two games.
UGA, did not lose since October 6th. They didn't lose their last game like LSU. LSU was just fortunate to play in the SEC West. Am I saying LSU is worse than UGA. No. Because they didn't play and there is really no way to tell.
There is a big difference between Nebraska 2001 and UGA 2007. If UGA had been 10-1 and had that Tennessee game as its last game it would be a different story. That UGA team would not be playing good football.
You also just proved my point. Notre Dame would have risen to #2 because that is what is the normal practice. You can't go and make new rules like Kirk Herbstreit, Jesse Palmer, et al did saying that you have to have won your conference to be afforded the luxury of moving up.
7 months ago
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The voters have been thoroughly embarrassed both times that they have put a team in the NC game that didn't win its conference (2003 i think was the other? Whatever year Oklahoma got clobbered by K-State). It seems to have become an unwritten rule of sorts, dating back to the 2003 season, not invented on the spot right now.
I fully acknowledge that the UGA team is a different story- that wasn't what I was getting at. I was trying to say that the voters collectively have become gun-shy about putting teams in the title game who don't win their conference. Fox and ESPN didn't really have much to do with it.
And just a personal thing, I have difficulty sympathizing with fans of a 2-loss team who feel gipped of their spot in the title game. Most years, 2 losses doesn't put you anywhere close. Although UGA certainly has a way better case than University of "we lost to Stanford!" Spoiled Children.
from 7 months ago
Wow. I don't think you read my article very close at all. I don't feel gipped at all, UGA lost two games. I think the right two teams are playing for the MNC...well as right as it can be this season. ESPN had a lot to do with it and if you don't think so you are slightly delusional. Most coaches and voters do not pay attention to other games. They watch Gameday, just like you and me. That is who they get their input from.
What else explains LSU getting in and not Oklahoma, which had, by far, a more impressive championship game showing. (This is pre-loss last night.) LSU got in because that is what ESPN promoted. If you want an unwritten rule saying it had to be a conference champion, then Oklahoma played a much better conference championship than LSU.
And by the way, it is a rule invented on the spot right now. Last season Mr. Herbstreit campaigned for Michigan to be in the MNC despite not winning their conference. This year it suddenly became a rule for him. Luckily, last year, the coaches had enough sense not to vote for a rematch. That did not have anything to do with Florida winning the SEC, it had more to do with not wanting a rematch (which is another issue altogether...and not necessarily a clean one.)
7 months ago
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The voters have been thoroughly embarrassed both times that they have put a team in the NC game that didn't win its conference (2003 i think was the other? Whatever year Oklahoma got clobbered by K-State). It seems to have become an unwritten rule of sorts, dating back to the 2003 season, not invented on the spot right now.
I fully acknowledge that the UGA team is a different story- that wasn't what I was getting at. I was trying to say that the voters collectively have become gun-shy about putting teams in the title game who don't win their conference. Fox and ESPN didn't really have much to do with it.
And just a personal thing, I have difficulty sympathizing with fans of a 2-loss team who feel gipped of their spot in the title game. Most years, 2 losses doesn't put you anywhere close. Although UGA certainly has a way better case than University of "we lost to Stanford!" Spoiled Children.
7 months ago
Well, you were commenting that it wouldn't have happened if UGA was another school... I took that to man you felt gipped (despite what you said earlier. yes, i did read the article). My apologies if I interpreted it wrong. It was also more of a general comment, and as I said before, I'd apply it much more to USC fans than to Georgia fans.
Good point on the Michigan thing last year. I forgot about that one pretty quickly because I had thought all along that "we only lost by 3!" was one of the worst claims I had ever heard, so I never did take it all that seriously. And both Big 10 teams got quickly exposed in the bowls anyway.
I think Oklahoma has the most legitimate claim of any team who got left out, although they are a "traditional power" school more than LSU is.
I simply think most voters voted based on their own notions of who was better, rather than getting the information from ESPN. Different methods, same result. So hard telling. Interesting to note that the computers picked OSU and LSU ahead of nearly everyone else too (VT notwithstanding... don't think any human voters took them too seriously)
from 7 months ago
To be honest. The biggest problem I had with the media was how they trashed UGA and Kansas when it became clear that WVU and Mizzou were not going to win. The second Pitt beat WVU, Herbstreit was on his high horse talking about how there was no way UGA deserved to get to the MNC.
No, Herbstreit, UGA did deserve to go, but so did LSU, OU, USC, VT and a host of other teams, because this season showed that there is not a single great team. Yes, there are teams that play greatly, but not a great team.
That was the problem I had. I expect more out of the announcers and analysts. That they could not and would not distinguish that was sad.
The problem with the theory that the voters based it on who they thought was better is that it was a very lemming like approach if you ask me. Ohio State got this automatic pass just because they didn't play as many tough teams as OU, VT, or LSU - that they only had one loss (because of that easier schedule) - and because of the name. If you look, there is not much difference between Kansas' schedule and Ohio State.
But I mean lets get down to it. I didn't actually write this article to go over this stuff because that is pointless. I think the MNC is going to be a good one as opposed to all these other games have been. I wrote this article because Fox has been sucking ass so far in their coverage....especially in that Sugar Bowl. I mean seriously, how do you cover the Sugar Bowl and mispronounce the star player's names and get the wrong mascot name?!?!
7 months ago
Fair enough. I haven't seen a ton of live ESPN coverage this year. I've been getting a lot of my info from other sources, so I probably missed that
Sugar Bowl coverage was abysmal, I will agree with you there. We actually lost audio on parts of the West Coast for most of the 2nd half. All we had was static for nearly the entire 4th quarter. And it wasn't my TV - all the other channels were working fine. Terrible
7 months ago
Hey Rusi? Is that what your boyfriend whose picture at the top told you? Find a brain so that you can think for yourself, dude!
from 7 months ago
Yup. Exactly what my boyfriend told me...so I guess that means you told me that. Your place or mine?
7 months ago
I would be very careful about what you write about Colt Brennan's situation in Colorado. Just remember people read this public forum, especially lawyers.
7 months ago
If it's what happened, it doesn't matter who reads it. The only thing lawyers can do anything is if they can prove that's NOT what happened.
Anyways, I agree 100% on your take on Mr. Brenneman. He was terrible. His bashing UGA for challenging officials calls, or playing hard late in the game was pathetic, considering, as you said, he was raving about how "hard Hawaii is playing", and considering Hawaii challeged a call down 30 plus. But if you thought Brennemen was bad, Mark May after the game on ESPN was just an embarassment to "experts" everywhere.
from 7 months ago
May I suggest all of the people who want to go "back to Colorado" start a petition for a Grand Jury Investigation that will include the offended victum of Colt Brennans crime. There is the possibility that you could have the Jury overturn the Judges decision in the case. You could then go to Saddleback Jr College and have their Champiionship that was a result of Colt at the helm overturned and the trophy given to an upstanding team. Then you could go on to Hawaii and strip away the WAC Championsip and more importantly reinstate all the old NCAA records that Colt set while deceiveing the nation. Then more importantly you could do a remake on the Sugar Bowl....... Hire a detective, take out add's in the Times.. March on the Super Dome with some big signs with pictures..
That in my opinion is a solution for all of the Cry Babies who just can't "MOVE ON". There has been several years of legitimate scrutiny of the Past. Enough already!!! You are just digging a deeper hole for your negative hate of successful rebirth over self distruction and the "Live and Let Live" glass half full mentality.
Get used to Colt Brennan rising to the top and being a respected leader. He has gone from being alone to having a whole State and many people in the Nation as fans and supporters. You will increasingly find yourselves as Alone as this success phenomina continues.
from 7 months ago
Mark May is usually an embarassment. Let's not kid ourselves.
To Warrior: It's not a problem of moving on. It's that seeing a story about Brennan about how he had to endure this horrible time, right before the Sugar Bowl, doesn't really get any sympathy points from me. He created his own problems.
Brennan really does look like he has turned his life around (Unlike Keenan Jones) and I hope for his sake the Sugar Bowl did not hurt his draft stock too much. But, Fox, ESPN etc. need to stop putting stories on about how he escaped this situation in Colorado, they need to just stick to his football playing abilities, which are pretty darn good in their own right. It's not his fault his O-Line was as good at protecting him in the Sugar Bowl as Britney Spears is at protecting children.
from 7 months ago
Rusi - I agree with your point about bringing up the "Turn Around". It is always used first, the "Lead In, the Set UP, for the Knock Down and then The Turn Around".
I watched the Heisman award program. The first thing out of the knuckle heads mouth after Colts name was "the Incident at Colorado". Do you think there was a single person watching that show on TV or in the audience that did not know the story further reported with the same old detail from start to finish? Colts family was there and the camera went back and forth from Colt to mom. I think that is just so Tabloid.. Cheap... Self Ingrandising.. The Media Hit Squad for additional negative reporting money.
Do we need to review this for the next Ten Years? Is there a soul who follows football who has not been warned? Should we make a Law that if a Kind Word is said about Colt Brennan it Must Be Rebutted? If he sets another football record must it be annotated and Rebutted?
If this is the case may I suggest again a Grand Jury investigation come to an "Authorized Version" and copyright it for Official Release. Then it could be foot noted and refferenced and at the same time spare us who are sick of it the grief of enduring some knucklehead's personal rendition.
Would you consider this option as a viable and Necessary Solution to this National Problem?
7 months ago
Scared of lawyers? That's why it's an opinion piece.
7 months ago
Scared of lawyers? That's why it's an opinion piece.
7 months ago
"What else explains LSU getting in and not Oklahoma, which had, by far, a more impressive championship game showing. "
There is an explaination of why LSU was selected for #2 and not Oklahoma.
LSU defeated 4 Top25 teams.
Oklahoma defeated 3, when you count Missouri twice.
On the loss side, both of LSU's losses were to teams with a winning record.
Oklahoma lost to 6-6 Colorado.
It's splitting hairs, but the hair must be split to decide who makes the title game.
And when you compare them, LSU did more this season than Oklahoma.
7 months ago
"No, Herbstreit, UGA did deserve to go, but so did LSU, OU, USC, VT and a host of other teams, because this season showed that there is not a single great team."
Dude, Herbstreit is correct.
Your statement makes no sense.
Five teams can't all deserve to be ranked #2 at the same time!
You have to choose one.
With all of the teams that you mentioned at 2 losses, the choice may not be clear, but you have to go to the next level of analysis.
For Georgia, they defeated 2 Top25 teams, Florida and Auburn.
LSU defeated these same two teams, plus a Tennessee team that beat Georgia, plus Virginia Tech way up there at #3!
With the conference championship win, LSU had a superior record at 11-2 compared to Georgia at 10-2.
On the loss side, LSU losses were both to teams with winning records.
Georgia lost to a 6-6 South Carolina team that was not selected for any bowl game.
Herbstreit was correct.
Georgia was out of the race for the #2 spot.
LSU beats them hands-down.
7 months ago
Sigh.
My point, was that there is no way to tell who should be #2. Five teams can deserve to be #2 at the same time because none of the teams truly distinguished themselves.
For every LSU beat Tennessee you throw out I can throw out a UGA beat Kentucky.
It's pointless though.
My point wasn't arguing that UGA deserved to go, it was that Herbstreit should have spent less time talking about how BAD Kansas and UGA were. I think, if anything, this week proved that neither team is as bad as he was claiming.
By the way. South Carolina started 6-1 and if it were not for a trick FG who knows what would have happened against LSU. Teams play differently at different points of the season. Saying the LSU team that clobbered VT is the same as the one that lost to Arkansas would be stupid. The team was not playing the same.
7 months ago
After he was kicked off the team at Colorado he faced a 4-year probation. A lesser man would have thrown in the towel and given up. When he moved back home he wasn't welcomed by his new school at Saddleback either.
Even with the accomplishments at the Mission Viejo school there was no team that would take a chance on him. Only Hawaii and San Jose State shown interest. June Jones was the catalyst in his decision to come to Hawaii.
The records and the accolades always came with a negative spin on it by the mainland media. The power play that some ESPN analyst resorted to digging up his past. I know it's their job but tell both sides of the story.
Hawaii residents are considerate towards celebrities and Colt is a huge star here in the islands. I have yet to meet another movie star or athlete who'll sign autographs for hours on end. I wish people would get to know Colt the person and not the star quarterback.
People are quick to pass judgement on hearsay or rumors. I've experienced being a pariah for something that was written about me. I can only imagine what Colt went through all these years.
I have the utmost respect for Colt Brennan and continue to support him.
7 months ago
"My point wasn't arguing that UGA deserved to go, it was that Herbstreit should have spent less time talking about how BAD Kansas and UGA were. I think, if anything, this week proved that neither team is as bad as he was claiming. "
Sigh on this end.
The focus of discussion amongst sports enthuasists at that time would of course be which team should go to the title game.
Herbstreit was not saying how bad Kansas and UGA were - he was giving reasons (as I did) why LSU was a better choice over them.
"Teams play differently at different points of the season. Saying the LSU team that clobbered VT is the same as the one that lost to Arkansas would be stupid. The team was not playing the same."
BAMMMMMMP (that was the sound of a buzzer).
Incorrect answer.
Any team would like to dismiss some point of a season and have focus directed to some winning streak.
Point is, the whole season counts.
In your analysis, exactly when do the games start to count?
Do you dismiss the first two, or is it three, or four?
News flash for you - college football does not have a pre-season.
South Carolina did not play LSU very close. LSU was ahead at half time and never lost that lead.
Even without the trick field goal, they would have been ahead at half time.
What's wrong with a trick field goal, anyway. If this had lead to an LSU loss, would you say that loss counted less because of a missed trick field goal?
Point with Georgia:
They did not beat as many Top 25 opponents as LSU, and had a worse loss to a 6-6 team (and yes, although early in the season, this loss counts against them!).
Also, LSU had a better record at 11-2 vs. 10-2.
They did not deserve to go over LSU, as your buddy Mr. Herbstreit correctly stated.
from 7 months ago
See that is the thing. Herbstreit was saying how bad Kansas and UGA were. Saying "they are not even good enough to win their conference" does that very thing.
And before you jump all over that, let's look at that win the conference thing. First, it's not an official rule for the BCS. Second, I think we can all agree the SEC East was the toughest conference division in football this year. What was the SEC record of LSU, UGA, and UT at the end of the regular season?
6-2, 6-2, 6-2. One team got left out, that team being UGA because it lost to UT.
UGA lost to USC and UT. Records of 6-6 and 10-4.
LSU lost to Arkansas and Kentucky. Records of 8-5 and 8-5.
My math may be fuzzy but it looks like 16-10 on both ends. So LSU lost to two average teams and UGA lost to one below average team and one above average team.
I could go on all day. But ONCE AGAIN. THAT WAS NOT MY POINT.
My point was there are no great teams this year and for the talking heads to dismiss some teams just because they did not win their conference, in a season where no conference winner set themselves apart from non-conference winners was unecessary. But since you are an anonymous I really can't tale you too seriously.
7 months ago
Tennessee's record was 9-4 at the end of regular season.
Arkansas was 8-4.
Try that math again.
But that is not my point either.
My point is that I don't agree that the talking heads dismissed teams because they did not win their conference.
They dismissed them because they they had beaten less highly ranked opponents and had more egregious losses.
In the case of the Georgia comparison, your have a point that the losses are not that different (although losing to a 6-6 team hurts - look at Oklahoma's computer rankings through the season as Colorado continued to lose).
But in the wins column, LSU is the clear choice.
Please respond with that comparison.
Yes, LSU and UGA had the same conference record at 6-2.
So, we have to look deeper to determine who deserves the higher ranking.
This is what the talking heads did.
They looked at LSU having one more win than Georgia, and LSU having defeated the same two ranked teams as Georgia, but an additional two teams, one ranked as high as #3!
Why can't you take me seriously?
I have been objective, accurate, and polite (with a bit of sarcasm thrown in just for fun).
OK, if Herbstreit said that you need to win the conference, I agree that is not a requirement.
But he made the right call saying that Georgia has no case over LSU.
Look at the wins and you will agree.
7 months ago
THANK YOU! JEEZ, that was my whole point. I even said it in the article in not so many words.
Herbstreit flat out said that winning the conference was a requirement (even though that contradicted what he said last year) t that Georgia had NO CASE against LSU, because they did have a case in that they were higher ranked going into championship weekend. Moreso, it was that LSU had a stronger case than UGA.
7 months ago
THANK YOU! JEEZ, that was my whole point. I even said it in the article in not so many words.
Herbstreit flat out said that winning the conference was a requirement (even though that contradicted what he said last year) t that Georgia had NO CASE against LSU, because they did have a case in that they were higher ranked going into championship weekend. Moreso, it was that LSU had a stronger case than UGA.
7 months ago
THANK YOU! JEEZ, that was my whole point. I even said it in the article in not so many words.
Herbstreit flat out said that winning the conference was a requirement (even though that contradicted what he said last year)
That was my problem with the whole thing. Not whether LSU had a stronger schedule, because it is clear that they did. My problem with Herbstreit is that he easily could have stuck to that argument, but instead he decided to denigrate two pretty good teams by making up a new rule.
And it wasn't that Georgia had NO CASE against LSU, because they did have a case in that they were higher ranked going into championship weekend. Moreso, it was that LSU had a stronger case than UGA.
7 months ago
Your hate for Hawaii reeks on your comments on other columns. You must had a really bad vacation there. I love going to Hawaii. Just because you attend UGA doesn't mean you represent all of us.
Go Dawgs!!
7 months ago
dudes, if any of you have ever played the game at any level you would know the dawgs are the best in the nation this year, better than so cal, no prob, waiting to see how lsu/ohio st looks, right now dawgs are national champs, i will observe the coaches final poll and respect it, but not the bcs
7 months ago
Two down and one to go! Since Herbstreit, Corso, Holtz, May and the sports media said Georgia didn't deserve to go to the NC game because they were not good enough, and they got jumped by Oklahoma (who lost), Virginia Tech (who lost) and LSU (who may lose), this proves their bias. Herbstreit is mad because UGA beat his team in 92, May's team got jumped in 80, Holtz couldn't beat Georgia, and Corso has no idea what he is talking about. Georgia beat Hawaii bad, and all of the ESPN guys talked about how Georgia has never seen an offense like Hawaii. Heck, after the beat down, none of them even mentioned Georgia playing well. They gave more coverege to lesser bowls than the Sugar. My point, Georgia is playing better then any team in the country (along with USC) and should have moved up to #2 that last week of the season.
7 months ago
Ed;
Georgia does not have a very strong case to have been #2 the last week of the season.
Georgia never should have been ranked above LSU in the first place, even after LSU lost to Arkansas.
LSU still had beaten both Top 25 teams that Georgia did (Florida and Auburn), and had a big win against VTech to go on top of that.
LSU lost to two teams with winning records that are ranked in the BCS Top40, where Georgia has a loss to a 6-6 South Carolina team that was not even in the final BCS Top 40.
Both teams had 2 losses.
Georgia had 10 wins, LSU had 11.
Jumping means nothing.
The penultimate poll was the one that was "wrong".
If you can make the statement that the last poll was incorrect, one can just as easily say no, it was the one the week before that was incorrect.
Each week starts with a clean sheet of paper.
The voters don't really work that hard week in and week out to make sure their voting is justifiable - heck, some coaches even admitted that their assistants fill the ballots during the season.
But when the final week arrives, and bowl berths are at stake, they consider their ballots carefully.
And when you do that, you see that LSU was rightfully ranked above Georgia.
Print out the wins/losses for each team as of the last week of the season, and note where their respective opponents are in the final rankings.
You will see for yourself that LSU beat better teams than Georgia, and lost to better teams (slightly) than Georgia.
7 months ago
I guess we can all blame Eric Ainge for throwing those two costly interceptions in the SEC title game vs LSU for what has happened...I mentioned to a friend of mine what the "establishment" would do if Mizzou, West Virginia, and LSU all lost that weekend?...the first two happened....LSU was lucky to get by Tenn, but what would have happened had Tenn won?
Would it be UGA vs Ohio St? OU vs Ohio St? USC vs Ohio St? Hawaii vs Ohio St?
We need a freaking championship in Division 1A or the FBS division in the worst way.
Oh, I agree with most of you guys, the espn guys are always hyping up either their school or some big named program, every weekend.....
7 months ago
UGA lost to SCar at the beginning of the season. SCar started out VERY strong, but then tumbled (hard). They lost to Vandy, and (much like falling down a flight of stairs) couldn't regain their footing.
My point is this: stating that UGA lost to SCar is not as important as most of you think it is, except for the fact that it was an extra loss that kept them out of the SEC championship.
No matter the outcome of the NCG, most of the nation will agree that the two best teams are SoCal and UGA. I am not biased toward either of those schools -- in fact I hate Trojans and I hate Dawgs. The point remains the same: these two teams had the most momentum at the end of the season.
Neither is in the NCG, and therefore neither deserves to be called "champion." All this does is provide further evidence for a playoff.
7 months ago
UGA's loss to South Carolina not only kept them out of the SEC title game; it kept them out of the National Title game.
UGA's loss to South Carolina is as important as any other teams loss at any point in the season.
The season is not judged on just the momentum at the end of the season. The final poll is a reflection of the accomplishments of the entire season. I am amazed at how people continue to argue this bogus end-of-season angle and then seem surprised when the voters review the entire season in their pre-bowl ballots.
News flash: College football does not have a preseason.
Every game counts. To discount the games early in the season is a step away from a playoff, not an improvement.
By the way, look back at South Carolina's start.
At the time they defeated Georgia, they had only one win against Louisiana-Lafayette.
Then they beat South Carolina State. Except for Georgia, I don't see an impressive win there.
The 4th game was their first loss, to LSU.
How can you argue for Georgia over LSU because South Carolina was "strong", when LSU was the team gave this "strong" South Carolina their first loss? Surely any strength arguments for South Carolina should serve to propel LSU's status, not that of Georgia.
Awfully funny the way some people think.
I don't agree that "most of the nation will agree that the two best teams are SoCal and UGA"
Most of the nation agree that the two appropriate teams were chosen for the National Title game.
SoCal, pre-bowl game, had defeated only 2 teams with winning records! Print out their season schedule and compare with LSU, who defeated much higher ranked teams, and you can see for yourself that the Trojans were not title-game worthy.
7 months ago
I think you are all on the wrong track for why the bowl games are such uninteresting games. If 1 is playing 2 for the national championship shouldnt the other games be 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, 9 vs 10 for the top ten teams? Sure there are a handful of teams that could be ranked 1 or 2 and be playing for the national championship but really after that handful of teams the talent drops off considerably. So why is it that instead of having those talented teams play each other we get 1 vs 2 then 3 vs 8, 4 vs 9, 5 vs 10, 6 vs not even ranked, 7 vs 13 and wonder why teams are getting blown up?
The problem is that they changed the name to the BCS but they are still hung up on the traditional bowl alliances. Each bowl is still guaranteed the top team from a certain conference but with the extra NC bowl some of them are playing against that second tier of teams instead of one of the other top teams. IMHO in order for the BCS to have more competitive games they really need to abandon their bowl alliances and just rotate who gets 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, 9 vs 10 just like they do 1 vs 2.
7 months ago
who keeps typing the word "dude" rusi? is that big gaytor teboy? or is it herbie himself?
7 months ago
I think it's the Bud Light dude, dude.
write a new comment