Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drothgery" data-source="post: 2780156" data-attributes="member: 360">No it's not. They didn't finish #3 in the polls for nothing, the Iowa team they blew out in the Orange Bowl rolled through the Big Ten just as easily as the Buckeyes did (one of ESPN's talking heads insisted until after the BCS title game that the Hawkeyes were better than the Buckeyes, and that Ohio State was lucky not to play them), and they clearly turned it up a notch late in the season; at midseason no one was giving Palmer serious Heisman consideration. The WSU point is spurious; WSU lost to the Buckeyes at the Horseshoe, and beat USC (by a field goal) in Pullman; I don't put too much stock in the results of regular-season games where you had to fly cross-country, as the home-field advantage is seriously magnified.And at the time I said that was nonsense that Miami was heavily favored. Miami and Ohio State were very similar great-defense/run-oriented offense teams that year, the main difference being that the Buckeyes never really put anyone away, but played a tougher schedule (and Miami never played anyone with a great defense). Both could stop almost anyone most of the time. But they weren't great passing teams, USC was (and is), and no one in the Big Ten or Big East that year was.I'm calling BS on that one. USC beat Auburn 23-0 the year before (with largely the same players on both sides) at their place. And USC was #1 in both polls going into the BCS title game in the split title year; the coach's poll voters did not have free choice on their post-season ballots (they were and required to choose the BCS title game winner as #1); Oklahoma was #3. And while football isn't transitive, LSU had a lot more trouble with Oklahoma in 2003 (in a virtual home game) than USC did in 2004. Auburn might not have been destroyed like Oklahoma was, but actually winning? Well, it's possible, I suppose, but it's not likely.While a team that went 7-4 in the regular season won the ACC, and I'm sure South Florida could have contended in the Big 12 North (and quite possibly won it), they weren't really in contention for the Big East title (West Virginia had only slightly more difficulty winning the Big East than USC had winning the Pac 10 or Texas had winning the Big 12). South Florida's "run" at the Big East title was caused by the confluence of a freak uspet of Louisville and many of their games being moved to late in the season due to hurricanes.No, I'm advocating that a two-loss USC team should have been in the playoffs with two undefeated teams (and another thirteen teams), and contending that they probably would have won said playoff (which is not the result I would have favored; I'd've been cheering for the Buckeyes, as my Orange would not be involved). That's not the same thing.</blockquote>

Verification