I think we all know that the BCS has pretty much been a mythical national championship at least every other year that it has been played. It really doesn't matter who wins Thursday night, I think most all of us can agree that USC was the best team this year. In a way I'm glad we don't have a playoff. We would all get tired of seeing that team out west that is full of 5 star recruits ending up on top every year. Just let them lose their one game they aren't supposed to lose every season. And then let them beat up a Big 10 team in the Rose Bowl. And keep them out of the BCS title game, and I'll be a happy camper.
Very surprised by this comment from you GS. This game for Texas was the equivalent to what the Boise and WVU games were for OU. Much harder to get-up for a game when you have nothing to play for. And until the system is changed, we'll continue seeing the teams who were at one point in serious contention, but now relegated to meaningless BCS games, underperform due to a lack of motivation.
Motivation is a very hard thing to predict. We could have also said Ohio State didn't have anything to play for either. I know why OU lost the game last season to WV, and only a part of it had to do with motivation. OU should have been super motivated for that game since they had lost their last two BCS games before that and had a lot of pressure on them to win. And WV just came off a devastating loss to Pitt that knocked them out of the title game. So you can't always go by who you think is the most motivated. The Boise team OU lost to was a very good team that had at least 5 players off of that team go into the NFL. That's why the Sooners were only 7 point favorites in that game. Boise's win was legit. I'm conviced that they could have beat OU again if they played. Stoops also got outcoached in that game. It seems like to me that Texas would have wanted to show that they were the for real and belonged in the BCS title game. And would have also thought that after McCoy lost the Heisman, he would have wanted to come out and show they were wrong in snubbing him. But I was obviously wrong about both. That's why they call it gambling.
Last edited:
I think in hindsight that's what a lot of people are saying (that Texas should've had all the motivation), but the truth is, there was never going to be any shot at a split NC this year, even in the AP. If you look at how 97% of the 1st place votes were split between just UF and OU in all 3 human polls (Coaches, Harris, and AP), it's obvious that whoever wins between UF and OU will gobble up the other's 1st place votes, even in the AP. Mack Brown, being the BCS manipulator that he is, knew this quite well going into tonight and he's already positioning himself with the BCS for next year when Colt comes back.
Anyway, Happy New Year bud.
Very true about next year. Texas will for sure be ranked top 3 with Colt and Shipley coming back. They'll have multiple chances to make a name for themselves and get into the NC, because you know the voters will sympathize with UT.
Happy New Year to you as well. Hope you had a great Christmas. Here's to a great 09. :toast:
You certainly weren't wrong about this first point and Colt did just that tonight. Not only did he deserve the Heisman this year, but this game proved just that, as he single-handedly put UT on his back and won this game. Bottom line, there was no other player who meant more to his team this year than Colt. Without him, Texas would've been 9-3 at the very best with their rather mediocre skilled positions, undersized DL, and awfully young secondary. And don't forget, if it weren't for Blake Gideon...
just my opinion but i have to disagree with you, although we'll never know the answer since they won't play
but you can look at usc week to week and there were some really poor performances...
17-10 vs arizona
struggling with stanford
getting dominated by oregon st (2 TD deficit late in the 4th qtr)
17-3 vs cal and it was 10-3 with 3 minutes to play
we are all very reactionary but the game usc played vs penn st was w/out question their best game of the year...i've never seen sanchez so sharp, he's got a ton of talent (lane kiffin once told my friend that he's the best qb they've had there in the carroll era) but he's always good for an int...they played lights out so it's easy to say they are the best
let's not forget how dominant florida has been...don't even check the final scores; check the halftime scores!!! off the charts...
let's withhold judgement until after thursday, but don't crown usc just yet
btw-the most overused term this bowl season is without question "Motivation"
it's such a tired term...these are top level competitors!!! they are ALL motivated when they step on the field...i'm tired of hearing this team is or was or should be motivated...i can list countless examples both ways. if anyone thought texas should be "more" motivated than oh st then you're kidding yourselves...what were they gonna do, cut the national championship trophy in half and give a piece to texas?? was mizzou unmotivated, or did fitzgerald and his staff, with 4 weeks to prepare, devise a good game plan to limit their passing game..?? i know mizzou sure looked motivated to win at the end of the game...it's not about motivation, they're all motivated, unless you have a friend on the team that tells you otherwise...it's about execution, always has been, always will be
:toast:
btw-the most overused term this bowl season is without question "Motivation"
it's such a tired term...these are top level competitors!!! they are ALL motivated when they step on the field...i'm tired of hearing this team is or was or should be motivated...i can list countless examples both ways. if anyone thought texas should be "more" motivated than oh st then you're kidding yourselves...what were they gonna do, cut the national championship trophy in half and give a piece to texas?? was mizzou unmotivated, or did fitzgerald and his staff, with 4 weeks to prepare, devise a good game plan to limit their passing game..?? i know mizzou sure looked motivated to win at the end of the game...it's not about motivation, they're all motivated, unless you have a friend on the team that tells you otherwise...it's about execution, always has been, always will be
:toast:[/quote]
Motivation is usually shown in the early stages of the game.
Sure Missouri was trying just as hard to win at the end.
Don't tell me for a second that Missouri was just as pumped up at the start as Northwestern was.
Also Alabama was trying just as hard as Utah at the end of the game to win. You gonna sit there and tell me 21-0 10 minutes into the game was all about preparation and matchups and NOT motivation?
it's such a tired term...these are top level competitors!!! they are ALL motivated when they step on the field...i'm tired of hearing this team is or was or should be motivated...i can list countless examples both ways. if anyone thought texas should be "more" motivated than oh st then you're kidding yourselves...what were they gonna do, cut the national championship trophy in half and give a piece to texas?? was mizzou unmotivated, or did fitzgerald and his staff, with 4 weeks to prepare, devise a good game plan to limit their passing game..?? i know mizzou sure looked motivated to win at the end of the game...it's not about motivation, they're all motivated, unless you have a friend on the team that tells you otherwise...it's about execution, always has been, always will be
:toast:[/quote]
Motivation is usually shown in the early stages of the game.
Sure Missouri was trying just as hard to win at the end.
Don't tell me for a second that Missouri was just as pumped up at the start as Northwestern was.
Also Alabama was trying just as hard as Utah at the end of the game to win. You gonna sit there and tell me 21-0 10 minutes into the game was all about preparation and matchups and NOT motivation?
Trent...We'll just have to agree to disagee here. I think motivation has a lot to do with it. The trouble is, as the public we don't always know which team will be or should be the most motivated. The reason I think motivation has more to do with it than you think is the stats I've looked at from past bowl games, where in many cases the dominate team gets beat, or doesn't cover a spread they easily should have covered. It happens at a much higher rate in bowl games than it does the regular season... As for USC, you know as well as I that you can't judge this team by what they do in conference during the season. I've pretty much learned my lesson for the last time after this last Rose Bowl.. Do you really think the same USC team that beat Penn State is the same one that lost to Oregon State and just got past Arizona? In my opinion the 2004 Trojan team who beat an undefeated OU team by 36 points for the BCS title, was by far Pete Carroll's best team. But that team played 3 close games to a TD or less in conferecne that year. It's ALL about motivation with USC. Carroll probably has a hell of a time getting his California glamour boys with big egos to play well for him every week. But when it comes to big games like BCS games and Rose Bowls, it's my guess that he doesn't have to work as hard. With a month to prepare they can beat anybody. The only time they lost in 2005 was when they were rebuilding their defense and the best Big 12 team in many years Texas came in and beat them by a FG. That's the only time this team is vulnerable, when they are doing some serious rebuilding on one side or both sides of the ball.
