Don't worry, it isn't happening. I'll repeat, Alabama has ZERO chance of winning the title this year, and not much more of a chance to make it there.
Also, please stop talking about playoffs guys. We all know it's not happening anytime soon, and I for one am happy about it. I think playoffs would only take away from the game because I personally love the bowls. Playoffs would ruin college football for me most likely, but as I said it's not happening anytime soon so no reason even discussing it.
USC rarely loses a big game but what they do is lose to average-to-bad teams. Besides Ohio State, they only played one other ranked team--Oregon who is not even ranked anymore. Not a single team on the rest of their schedule is ranked. USC will likely drop another game anyways (@Arizona? Cal?, Notre Dame?, @UCLA?) so the discussion is moot.
This year they already lost to Oregon State
2007 - lost to Stanford at home and an Oregon team that collapsed very soon after
2006 - lost at @Oregon State and @UCLA
seeing a pattern?
And posting an article about a "BCS disaster" this early in the season :missingte I know you follow college football as much as anyone on here and you should know how drastically things can change in a matter of weeks. As seen last year even the last week can change the landscape completely.
I don't see how the BCS is "fucked" or causing controversy this year when we are right near mid season
You don't get the point. Everyone knows it's early in the year and there's been only a couple of BCS rankings posted, but how is it even remotely possible that a system that's been fine tuned for a decade can still have these possible enormous discrepancies? They are ridiculous. What if this was close to the end of the year and the same scenario exists? There are a lot of loopholes. One of them is how all the SEC teams get ranked because of their weak OOC schedules then fall from the rankings when reality finally sets in. It's easy to say you are great when you are undefeated but why blame teams like USC for their schedules when the SEC does it that way on purpose every year?
And wasn't it just a year ago when the B-12 was weak, but had all of these budding stars and the teams came together this season? Then the same pundits call out the Pac-10 for being weak right after they gave up more to the NFL draft than any other conference despite the fact that they are a smaller conference. Just like the B-12, I see a tremendous amount of talent in the Pac-10 this season but they are young players across the board. What does that lead you to think about next year? Could they have a good game in them this season too? Is the SEC any different?
The point of this is that all of the above affects the rankings and only someone who was intimately familiar with each team in a conference could understand why USC loses to Oregon State, or why any team, SEC included would lose to an unranked conference opponent. It's the same every year but all the morons like to use these games to call out some team they'd like to see eliminaed from consideration because it's "special." To me it's all bullshit because conference play is nothing compared to OOC competition and that goes for ALL CONFERENCES, not just to USC for convenience sake.
Truedat GD, But without 12 teams, it is pointless to have a championship game. The Pac-10 round robin schedule gives every team an equal chance to win the conference, where every team plays every other team to determine a conference champ in a fair way.
On the other hand, if the SEC chose to play a true round robin tournament type of season, with every team playing every other team, a championship game wouldn't be needed. As it stands though, you need a championship game to give every team an equal chance to win.
