now before all the usc fans start saying your only saying this because your a Michigan fan I'm not I'm a south Carolina fan.
so lets go back to 2003 shall we where usc shared the championship with lsu. both lost a game but look who they lost to usc lost to an unranked cal. while lsu lost to a very good gator team that also beat top powers houses like a no 4 Georgia and a no 9 Arkansas but yet usc gets to share the title
2004 usc beat a beat up Oklahoma team because of their soft schedule
2005 same soft schecdule but the only top ten school that they played nd almost beat them so i knew that texas would
2006 USC gets beat by Oregon State even with their soft schedule then last week beats a beat up nd team the same school that Michigan thumped while it was still healthy. then mich gets beat by the number one team by 3 points but yet usc still gets the title game agian
is this getting old that usc is the golden boys of the bcs or just me
2006-11-27 19:10:39 · 19 answers · asked by ryan s 5 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Soft schedule? Nebraska, Notre Dame and at Arkansas whom the beat 50-14 by the way.
2006-11-27 19:52:19 · answer #1 · answered by kcslammer13 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since that 2003 season I started liking college football more. I never really had a favorite team but now i have one to hate. I bought satellite radio just to listen to USC face their weekly high school opponents. If the NCAA would start a playoff system USC would go broke in their football program. they would for some odd media reason get to make the playoffs each year (for beating west pine minister 13-10).
That 2003 year I was wishing so bad that LSU would approach USC to play a title game on a neutral site with the corrupt NCAA's (<<
The only reason USC even won against Mich that year was the Mich head coach forgot that he had the NCAA's leading rusher pass blocking 80% of the time (early on remember the 1st quarter int). For a reason I have yet to figure out he completely took their teams strength (Perry) and went to the pass.
So then guess who stepped in afterward. Yes the media capitol of the world Calif. They wanted the BCS to change their formula (which they bowed down to the media and did). Oh well Ohio State is licking their chops at a chance to show to the NCAA that this soft scheduling has to end and if they do play USC it will be lopsided. The only good thing that'll come of USC going is the overhyped odds they give USC each year. Already planning this years vacation with the winnings.
They need to take the two teams in the championship game and automatically place at random 2 top 25 teams into their schedule the folowing year. That would stop these USC trips quick.
2006-11-27 21:35:51 · answer #2 · answered by Leroy H 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it is not just you. Go back to the 2003 split championship year & you will see why this happened. There was a huge debate in the media as to why the pools were so slanted against left coast teams. I feel that since then the pollsters have overcompensated & bend over backwards to get the PAC 10 into a BCS championship as much as possible. This is the biggest problem with the BCS. 1 clear leader & then the debate over 10 1 loss teams. Of coarse the choice is not mine but based on all factors USC does not belong in the #2 spot this year. Yes their strength of schedule was brutal but they won some close ones that should have been blow outs & the loss was to an unranked team. I fully agree with you that Michigan is the team that should be playing OU for the title. Barring a loss to UCLA though this will not come to pass. BRING ON A TRUE PLAYOFF SYSTEM FOR GODS SAKE!
2006-11-28 02:21:13 · answer #3 · answered by U can't b serious 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2004 - you're going to blame usc that a soft oklahoma team got into the national title game? gimme a break!
2005 - texas got lucky with all the calls the officials missed. usc gave that game away. it should have been put away early.
2006 - soft schedule? they probably have the toughest schedule in the country. the only "teams" that michigan has played are wisconsin and ND. usc has beaten arkansas, nebraska, oregon, cal, ND. what was that about a soft schedule?
honestly, osu dominated michigan. they wouldn't have been close if osu didn't give the ball up 5 times. yea...GIVE the ball up...they weren't big hits...osu players just dropped the ball!
bottom line...don't blame usc that they're in the title game. the whole bcs system is messed up. there should be a playoff of the top 8 or so teams so that losing at the end of the season doesn't completely screw you. they're talking about doing this, but who knows if it will ever happen.
2006-11-27 19:58:09 · answer #4 · answered by chobo219 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I don't really get what you mean by soft schedule either? I just think that some people view the Pac-10 as a weak conference and that USC had a weak schedule. To both those views, I say that's generally nonsense. I think people just look at how many ranked teams there are in the Pac-10 and make their judgments based on that. As for a couple of seasons ago, 55-19 was convincing enough for me. That title game last year could have gone either way. As for this year, I hate to say it but Michigan had their chance. If they couldn't beat Ohio State then it was another team's chance to do so. If it was a repeat matchup, I definitely would not watch the national championship game.
2006-11-27 20:36:02 · answer #5 · answered by adidasallstar 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ok, first of all I'm sick and tired of people complaining about USC having a "soft schedule". The out-of-conferance games are scheduled years in advance so USC has no idea how good or bad their opponents will be when they play them. Secondly, nobody asked USC what conference they wanted to be in. They take what they get and work with that. This year, people said that Oregon, Cal, and Notre Dame would trounce USC. USC beats all of them and then people say that they were all overrated anyway. Now, I'm not an apologist for the Trojans, but I find this attitude unjust. As for this year, I think Michigan is the #2 team, but they had their chance, so another team should get a shot at the NC. USC is one of two logical choices (the other being Florida). So, no I don't think that USC is getting much in the line of special favors.
2006-11-27 19:16:45 · answer #6 · answered by Steady As She Goes 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
USC has a soft schedule?
Tell that to Arkansas and Nebraska. These two schools have the potential to still be the SEC and Big 12 Champions respectively if they win in their respective conference championship games
Michigan isn't even the Big Ten champ. There has to be emphasis on winning a conference (there's no argument about having no PAC-10 championship game because they play everybody in the conference)
The BCS is a system. The system is not biased. The pollsters might be biased for USC but not the BCS itself.
USC has earned their dynasty and accomplishments while others dream up of ways to diminish them. If the other teams spent the half the same effort to actually play football and outplay the Trojans, I think they might actually win an important football game instead of making excuses for why they lose them. There is no conspiracy
Heck, I hope Ohio State kicks USC's behind just to satisfy the people who hate them so much. So much jealousy is not healthy.
Go Bears!
2006-11-27 19:34:56 · answer #7 · answered by vseng 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The top six or eight ranked teams are evenly matched and either, on any given day, could beat one of the other. USC has been at or near the top the last three or four years and are deserving of another shot. When OSU won the BCS they could barely beat a lesser team by a field goal, and eked out some wins on their last possession more than once. Miami was heavily favored, OSU didn't have a chance, oops! No one is completely happy at the end of the season are they?
2006-11-28 02:01:03 · answer #8 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
USC does not have a soft schedule - it's ranked 1st, 2nd, or 4th toughest depending on where you look.
The people that rank teams are the coaches (who should know a thing or two about the quality of a team), sports writers (whose job it is to know and cover different teams from different parts of the county), and computers (which give an "unbiased" ranking score).
For a while this system gave the Big 12 an odd advantage.
I am mostly tired of Notre Dame being ranked higher than it should be and the constant cry that the SEC is so great.
2006-11-28 01:58:58 · answer #9 · answered by LordSpud 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No doubt about it. I'm very tired of it. I rather have Florida play Ohio State because I am tired of the SEC not being represented! We are a tough conference and even though I am a gator hater! (Go Georgia Bulldogs!) I rather have a team from the SEC go and challenge for that Natl. Championship. I believe it was a mistake for Auburn not to go and try for it back in 2004. I believe that USC would have had a tougher time winning it then. I think the system is screwed up and the idea of a playoff is difficult but perhaps down the road it should be left up to the media to decide. They see the same games we do and have at least 70% of the time the same feelings we all do.
"The Cure"
KeMo
2006-11-27 19:21:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋