Announcement

**MRT144** · January 4, 2003, 04:16

OSU deserved to win it after all the times in the 90s they got screwed over on the last or second to last games of the season...

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 4, 2003, 04:18

You obviously weren't smart enough to see that I was mocking you and your bald faced assertions about the quality of USC

Seeing as there wasn't a smily at the end of your post, I doubt you were and when caught on it, simply made up some excuse.

Such bald faced assertions seeing that USC totally dismantled a good Iowa team that was ranked very highly in the polls.

**Ming** · January 4, 2003, 04:22

Even unranked Wisconsin beat one of the ranked Big 12 teams... kind of sums up how bad the big 12 was this year

We are the CHAMPIONS...

**Drake Tungsten** · January 4, 2003, 04:25

Seeing as there wasn't a smily at the end of your post, I doubt you were and when caught on it, simply made up some excuse.

Do I really have to put a smilie after every post? Are you really that slow? How in the world do you comprehend Laz's posts?

<----- Added for Imran's benefit

Such bald faced assertions seeing that USC totally dismantled a good Iowa team that was ranked very highly in the polls.

Who did Iowa beat this year? Who did USC beat this year? It's all a bald-faced assertion on your part, with no real evidence. It's really sad that you won't admit that the BCS worked out fine this year...

**Ming** · January 4, 2003, 04:28

I said it DID... and the Big 10 proved they were the best conference in the country. Suck on that

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 4, 2003, 04:37

Iowa beat:

Penn State (ranked 10th at the time)
Michigan (11th at the time)

USC beat:

Auburn (ranked 22nd at the time)
Colorado (ranked 14th at the time)
Notre Dame (ranked 12th at the time)
Iowa (ranked 3rd at the time)

And I don't have to tell you that USC's strength of schedule was #1.

And no, the BCS didn't work. Oklahoma, Georgia, and USC should have deserved a chance to play EITHER Ohio State or Miami (the teams that were allowed to play for the title).

**Drake Tungsten** · January 4, 2003, 04:40

And I don't have to tell you that USC's strength of schedule was #1.

It doesn't matter how good your strength of schedule is when you lose two games. Washington State and Kansas State both showed that they were better than USC on the field. To claim that USC is better than these teams now is a BAM. You need a new argument...

**Ming** · January 4, 2003, 04:43

OSU and the Big 10 ARE NUMBER ONE... that's a fact under the current system

**Drake Tungsten** · January 4, 2003, 04:44

You're right Ming. The Big Ten and OSU are number one.

I'm going to go shoot myself now. I'll never be clean after saying that...

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 4, 2003, 04:46

It doesn't matter how good your strength of schedule is when you lose two games. Washington State and Kansas State both showed that they were better than USC on the field. To claim that USC is better than these teams now is a BAM. You need a new argument...

USC is 11-2, Kansas State is 11-2, and Washington State is 10-3. Seeing that USC is #1 in SOS, they are a better team than KState or WashState.

I guess you think the entire BCS is a BAM then, huh? I think I saw USC higher than WashState and KState in the BCS rankings.

And since the BCS is a BAM, don't you think we ought to get rid of it

.

**Ming** · January 4, 2003, 04:47

I still think the BCS Sucks... but if that's what we have to live with right now... The Big 10 is number one.

**Drake Tungsten** · January 4, 2003, 04:49

It's funny how the anti-BCS zealot has been reduced to using BCS rankings for his arguments.

I don't think the BCS is a BAM. It works and Ohio State is the national champ. Deal with it.

**Ming** · January 4, 2003, 04:51

I just said that if we are going to use this piece of crap we call the BCS, I will crow that the Big 10 is number one.

The system still sucks... but if that's what it is, the Big 10 is number one

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 4, 2003, 04:53

I don't think the BCS is a BAM.

It ranked USC over WState and KState, which you think is a BAM... ergo... do the logic with me now.

It's funny how the anti-BCS zealot has been reduced to using BCS rankings for his arguments.

The best way to discredit an opponent's argument is to use the thing he is arguing for against him.

Deal with it.

I never said I wasn't dealing with OSU being the national champ. However as for the BCS working, that's a BAM. The BCS was to have a national championship game between 1 and 2 while preserving the rest of the bowls. It gave us 1 v. 2, but destroyed the Rose Bowl for no reason. Therefore it technically did not work (even if you wish to cling to your argument that the BCS isn't for deciding the 'true' national champion - as you before admitted).

**Drake Tungsten** · January 4, 2003, 04:56

the Big 10 is number one

OSU is number one, but I don't know about the Big Ten. I think the Big 12 is going to end up with more teams in the top ten. Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas State should make it, while the Big Ten will only have OSU and maybe Iowa or Michigan.

Go Big 12!

Announcement

The College Bowl Thread

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment