November 10, 2005
CW: 'Who-CLA' EDITION
Week 11Date: 11/10/2005
| ||
| "WhoCLA" EDITION | ||
| UCLA |  |
Bruins fans spend weeks railing about how underrated UCLA was... but someone forgot to tell the team. |
| College GameDay |  |
Top talent in the SEC faces one of the top defenses in the nation... it should be an interesting game, even if you live on the west coast and have no appreciation for defense. |
| AP Poll | |
Regardless of how irrelevant the AP poll now is, that doesn't seem to stop every major newspaper in the country from reporting those rankings as the gospel |
| Alabama |  |
Fate, seemingly uncontent with the fragility of 'Bama's offense less one starter, takes down JB Closner. The Tide knows how to get by, but things look grim for them against LSU this week. |
| ConventionalWisdom | |
CW doesn't like to toot its own horn, but the comments from last week about Coach Beamer buying himself a loss seem particularly salient. |
| Black Coaches Assoc. | |
Fire a sub-standard black coach, watch you hiring grade go down if he's replaced with a white coach... now there's a fight for equality for you. |
| Miami | |
The loss to FSU earlier in the season was probably a fluke, but without it, Miami is much closer to a shot at the national title, instead of sitting back hoping two other teams will lose. |
Fanblogs' Conventional Wisdom column is the opinion of the author and not necessarily those of Newsweek or MSNBC. The content of this page has not been reviewed or approved by Newsweek or MSNBC and the author is solely responsible for its content.
Comments:
posted on November 10, 2005 8:59 PM — 156.56.72.48 — link — abuse?Pete Holiday said:
That's pretty much what I'd call a fluke, Aaron. FSU was lucky to get them so early in the season.
But you can call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that FSU
hurricane g said:
posted on November 11, 2005 12:15 AM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
I can't wait for the Acc championship game between UM and FSU. The canes will show that the first game was indeed a fluke. The hurricanes will roll. I predict a shut out, smething like UM 31 and FSU nadda. I can only hope that USC, Texas, or Alabama lose one of their upcoming games to give UM a shot at the title. UM will not lose again this year.
Aaron said:
posted on November 11, 2005 12:31 PM — 67.183.232.99 — link — abuse?
How is it a fluke, Pete? The same could be said about every team that loses an early game. Miami wasn't ready to win at the start of the season and so they now are a step behind. Oh well, they should have prepared better. No fluke. They weren't that good earlier in the year. They got better, as most teams do.
posted on November 11, 2005 2:30 PM — 156.56.73.128 — link — abuse?
Fluke n.
1. A stroke of good luck.
2. A chance occurrence; an accident.Is it anything but a stroke of good luck that FSU got Miami so early in the schedule?
Even two weeks later Miami would've beat FSU soundly. You mention that teams get better and that's normal and not flukey...
...so why hasn't FSU gotten better by the same amount? Maybe because Miami was disproportionately underperforming early in the season?
...sounds a lot like a fluke to me.
Regan said:
posted on November 11, 2005 3:02 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Anyone with the guts to pull out a dictionary to incontrovertibly make one's point deserves to win a forum argument.
It was indeed a fluke. The truth of the statement will be evident in Jacksonville. Vindication for both the Hurricanes and for Websters!
NOTaNOLE said:
posted on November 11, 2005 3:36 PM — 24.110.37.157 — link — abuse?
I hate both teams!! But believe me when I say that no matter who is the better team, the one that comes to play in this in state rival is always the winner. Wide left, wide right, or straight in.... it's alway's a great game!!! Go Gators
posted on November 11, 2005 4:00 PM — 156.56.70.60 — link — abuse?
Simply crowning one's own champion doesn't make one relevant... that's why all this talk of a "three-peat" is ridiculouts. USC has one one championship, LSU won the one two years ago.
The AP is no different (any more) than the Fanblogs XIV, the MCS, or the Blog Poll... they're all unofficial polls run by a group of people who think they know better. The only difference between the AP and those other three polls is that the AP used to be relevant, and the AP can toot their own horn via countless media outlets.
For an example of that, look at all of the articles about Miami jumping Alabama -- none of the important polls saw that jump, only the AP, but it still gets reported like the gospel.
(PS: I'm not saying Miami shouldn't have jumped Alabama... they probably should have in all of the polls.)
gaffbag said:
posted on November 11, 2005 5:51 PM — 141.156.141.110 — link — abuse?
That has got to be one of the broadest definitions of fluke I have ever seen someone have the fortitude to pull out.
"a stroke of good luck"?
By that definition a good kicker hitting a 50-yard field goal is a fluke. He may have hit a similar kick many times before, but it is certainly 'stroke of good luck' if it happens at a crucial moment in a game. If it's a game-winner, is that a 'fluke' win?
Beyond that, is it even luck that caused the game to be scheduled so early - didn't both AD's agree to this when Miami joined the ACC? That seems more like a 'decision' than a 'fluke'.
Regan said:
posted on November 11, 2005 5:58 PM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?
I'm a 'Cane fan and most of us don't seem to understand us leapfrogging Alabama in the AP either. We appreciate the complement, but we all are smart enough to know that if Alabama wins out and we are still ahead of them, the AP Poll should be exposed as the prom-queen popularity contest that it is...
As soon as the BCS came about (for better or worse), that was the standard for winning a National Championship for one key reason: if 3 teams had a claim as "the best team" and one beat another while the third played an inferior bowl opponent, the remaining "best team" passed the toughest test. Until last year, that was fine because all the other "deserving teams" dropped the ball at some point in the season.
Ironically, you've gotta feel sorry for Southern California...they can't seem to pull off even one "Undisputed National Championship", much less a 'three-peat".
In a related issue, the Weel 11 Poll of the voters in my apartment is now as relevant as the AP Poll...
war eagle 2004 said:
posted on November 11, 2005 9:25 PM — 67.166.240.114 — link — abuse?
I agree 100% Or we or are we not using the bcs to determine the nc.Two years ago lsu wins the bcs nc game but somehow usc gets credit as a nc.But when a much better auburn team goes undefeated they are not recognized as a nc outside of the state of alabama.I am still pissed about that but as long as college football is about money and not whats fair we will always have idoits determing nc.So i agree usc is still looking for their first nc realy would they have beat the sec champion either year.
JT said:
posted on November 12, 2005 3:29 PM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
While I understand your arguments, Pete & Regan, they do not change the fact that people continue to care what the AP poll says. The AP poll and crowning of the national champion has been around since 1936 and will not just suddenly disappear without a playoff system or a much-less-likely agreement between the AP & the BCS.
Prior to 1936, national champions were even more disputed, and titles prior to '36 have often been awarded retroactively. If you look at 1935, five teams have at least some minimal claim at the national title: Minnesota (who most would argue was the champion), LSU, SMU, TCU, & Princeton. Thus, simply having two (now completely separate) methods for awarding a national champion does not seem to be a problem to me, especially for those of us who really want to see a playoff system.
posted on November 12, 2005 3:56 PM — 156.56.74.129 — link — abuse?
12. JT
That point might be relevant if the BCS were just another poll like the AP is, but it's not. It's a contractual system agreed to by the presidents/ADs... it is THE system and everything else is just fluff.It's called the "Bowl Championship Series" not the "Bowl partial Championship Series" or the "Bowl Championship Series if the AP Agrees" -- this is something the universities and the NCAA have gotten on baord with and the AP Poll still having some inertial pull doesn't make it relevant... and the only thing that gives it its inertia is the AP itself reporting it as the gospel.
So, like it or not, there's one national champion now -- not two, not a "split" title, or anything like that. If you want to say your team was #1 in the AP at the end of the year, go nuts... an absent a different, agreed upon, system that'd probably be enough... but we have a system now, and acting like it's just a suggestion is one of the things that's going to keep a broken BCS around, since people feel like they can "split" a championship and it's "fair."
Regan said:
posted on November 12, 2005 6:20 PM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?
Point taken, JP, that many still care what the AP says, but as of now it is irrelevant in all practical sense with regards to crowning national champions.
The team that is #1 in the AP poll after the NC game, regardless if they even played in it or not can only accurately refer to themselves as "The Associated Press National Champions". Will the AP Poll go away? Probably, after a few years/decades, just like all the other polls that are simply opinions that don't carry actual weight.
My theory on the Harris Poll is that we haven't heard anything about it in a while because it is working, and there is nothing for the 'playoff people' to complain about since its first week.
Personally, I am in favor of a 'plus-one' system under contract to only be used during certain years when there are 3 "deserving" teams based on their actual records. My opinion is that the second a 2-loss team has a chance to win the National Championship, 90% of the fun of this sport is gone.
JT said:
posted on November 13, 2005 4:06 PM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
I'm more likely to go with the NCAA's official website: "The NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division I-A football and is not involved in the selection process. Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) operated jointly by the ACC, Southeastern, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten and Pacific-10 Conferences has used a ranking system to determine the number one and number two teams at the end of the season. These two teams play each other in a post-season bowl game for the BCS national championship. Below is a year-by-year history of Division I-A football national champions as determined by various organizations..."
Here is the link:
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html
Interestingly, TCU was at one point claiming the 1935 title on the team scoreboard, which I think is more than a stretch (a tie with LSU in 1 of 11 methods), but it's still listed on the NCAA website. Additionally, I think you'd find a few 2-loss champions w/ a little research (including 1960 Minnesota, who actually won the AP & UPI).
This is just some fuel for the fire. I really only care because I want a playoff system:
(An 11-game season limit with no conference championship games): 16 teams make the play-offs, automatic bids to undefeated teams who play 10 1-A opponents, and the top ranked teams after that; Being undefeated would not guarantee a high seed, simply a bid; Seeds would be determined based on the BCS for all I care -- This is how you make the AP obsolete, and it could include solid 1-loss non-BCS teams.
****Anyone else who wins 6 games or more against 1-A teams or a conference championship (like 5-6 North Texas in 2001) is eligible for an NIT spot, or bowl bid, but does not play towards the title
posted on November 13, 2005 4:25 PM — 156.56.73.149 — link — abuse?
Sure, and if you go by that page, this is a 4-peat for USC... who buys that?
The AP is old and busted, period.
As for the playoff system, you can't get rid of the conference championship stuff... bigger conferences need those games to determine conference champions. But I'm a huge playoff proponent, too.
war eagle 2004 said:
posted on November 13, 2005 9:46 PM — 67.166.240.114 — link — abuse?
Pete, so alabama is just going to settle for a 10-1 season wow, let me go ahead and let you know that they will be playing a better team than lsu sat and if you havent won the last three years what makes this one any different.we have lot better athletes, a better coach and we are playing at home.By the way if mike shula wasnt such a dumbass you might be contending for a nc this year,what the hell was he thinking it was 31-3 with less that 8 minutes to go and not only has his first string in but throws a 30+ yard pass on 4th down what a idoit you think he would have learned from last year.oh well thinks mike.war eagle
posted on November 13, 2005 10:08 PM — 156.56.73.149 — link — abuse?
Would this be the better team that lost to LSU or the better team that lost to Georgia Tech?
Auburn has played three teams of any consequence, and has beaten one of them. It was a good win, but it was hardly a convincing one.
Auburn will be playing the best defense they'll see all year and is coming down off of a big win, whereas Alabama is fired up after a close loss... this game is going to be very, very close.
As for how "stupid" Shula is... we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I'd have had my starters in, too, and if you look at similar situations pretty much every major college coach is on that side of the fence (same story with Prothro this year and Croyle last year). You don't play scared of injuries, you play to win. Sometimes people get hurt, that's a part of the game.
And despite two huge injuries, 'Bama lost a close OT game against a top 5 opponent.
I know you want to make it sound like it's all wrapped up for Auburn here, but the facts just aren't in your favor on that one. It's going to be a toss-up.
JT said:
posted on November 14, 2005 12:31 AM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
Would outright conference championships in large conferences be that relevant in a playoff system, or would they be archaic remnants of the old bowl system? The good teams would still make the playoffs, and what does it hurt to have a tie for a conference title? If you're thinking of a conference title meaning an automatic playoff bid, I personally wouldn't want to see an 8-4 Texas team (1996) make the playoffs.
war eagle 2004 said:
posted on November 15, 2005 2:10 AM — 67.166.240.114 — link — abuse?
Auburn played horrible against lsu they dropped pass after pass they had broken coverage and i dont even want to talk about the 5 missed fg.On top of that they played away from home.As for ga tech they caught us at the right time, period.I hate to use the old coulda shoulda excuse but i hope you would agree that if they played again right now auburn would beat them like a drum.At least i hope you think the 2nd or 3rd best team in our conference could beat the 4th best acc team.
Jake Fegan said:
posted on November 15, 2005 11:33 AM — 208.48.238.22 — link — abuse?
Some interesting quesitons (at least to me):
(1) Who will play Texas in the National Championship Game if USC takes a hit in one of their final two games? Miami, USC, or the SEC champ (if they have one loss), or even Penn State. I think it would end up being Miami by a close margin over USC.
(2) Same as question #1, but what if USC is the only unbeaten and Texas takes a loss? Do the Horns still retain the #2 spot over Miami?
(3) Are USC and Texas fans both hoping that they will BOTH win out? Because a loss for either one of them may mean a national championship berth for the 'Canes. I hate Miami, but I think they would beat the Trojans and the Horns -- they are the best team in the country right now.
(4) If South Florida wins out, which poor saps have to play them in what would be the lowest profile BCS bowl ever?
JT said:
posted on November 16, 2005 2:57 PM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
If TCU moves into the Top 12, they should be taken to face the Big East champion to prove a point. If the Big East wins big, maybe their automatic bid is substantiated. If not, maybe we really need to make the MWC an automatic or strip the Big East of their automatic.
It's a good time to try this little Big East/MWC experiment again, especially since TCU is not a powerhouse like the Utah of last year. Even though the Frogs are a new team in the MWC, I'd say they as strong as people can expect to see the MWC champion in an average year.
Jake Fegan said:
posted on November 21, 2005 3:31 PM — 208.48.238.22 — link — abuse?
Although I have been rooting and rooting for the (overrated) Trojans to lose, it is unlikely that we will be seeing anything other than a Rose Bowl matchup of Texas/USC. Here is the likley remainder of the BCS equation:
ROSE: USC / Texas
ORANGE: Virginia Tech / Ohio State
FIESTA: Penn State / West Virginia
SUGAR: LSU / Notre DameI think those are you 8 BCS teams. I do not know how they are picked or in which order the bowls get to pick. For at large teams, Ohio State and Notre Dame are highly coveted and they travel well. There are a lot of ex-Ohioans living in Arizona (Fiesta) or Florida (Orange).
duckman said:
posted on November 29, 2005 2:10 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Figures, LSU would play the weakest team in the BCS bowls. It might just be the one team that they could beat!! We could call it the Overrated Bowl. Hahahahah. !!!
BCS games should be earned. The revenue that a school can generate should not be a factor in deciding who will go to the BCS games. If money is the deciding factor on who plays in the big games then why even have a ranking system. Just invite the most popular team before the season even starts. Gloat all you want. You did not earn that bowl spot and you know it. Before you post back just remember ND will lose their bowl game (AGAIN). I am not 100% that LSU is overrated and look forward to see who and how they play against a non-SEC team. My money is against them if they play anyone besides ND or West Verging. WV might be able to pull it off. I am 100% sure that ND is overrated. I don’t blame ND for taking the offer, I blame the BCS for offering it. Any team would jump at the chance to play in a BCS bowl game weather they deserve it or not. The BCS has sold out the foundation for which the BCS bowl system was started just to make a few bucks.
Aaron said:
posted on November 10, 2005 7:34 PM — 192.207.114.20 — link — abuse?There was no fluke about it. Miami was, at the time, not the same team they are today. They lost the game themselves. There is no one to blame and no "fluke."