Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Woulda Coulda Shoulda

After watching SC smack Michigan you wonder what SC coulda done this year with a little more fire and maturity.

I’ve changed my mind about their loss to UCLA. After watching the Bruins get blown out by a lousy Florida St. team in the Emerald Bowl last week and SC clean Michigan’s clock the only fair conclusion is that the Trojans’ loss to UCLA was a fluke. SC just wasn’t ready to play that game emotionally. Sort of like half of SC’s games this year.

Does anybody who watched yesterday's Rose Bowl and the Michigan vs. Ohio St. game have any doubt SC could beat Ohio St.? Or at least, does anybody doubt the ‘good’ and truly motivated "Dr. Jekyll" SC team that showed up from time to time this year—including today--could beat the Buckeyes?

Oh well. Woulda coulda shoulda :^) Look out for SC next year, though.

Thought yesterday's Fiesta Bowl between Boise State and Oklahoma was as good as it gets. God bless underdogs and trickeration. The whole idea of the superiority of BCS conferences over non-BCS conferences gets harder to maintain every year.

Time to go to some kind of playoff.


Blogger Samer Farhat said...

The fact that U$C is such an up and down team shows that they are not as good as Ohio State. Don't forget they also lost to a not-so-impressive Oregon St. Ohio State on the other hand has played at a high level all year. No one can predict who will beat who; See Boise State.

That Fiesta Bowl was a heck of a game.

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Jonathan said...

Oregon State is a top-20 team at least, so they're not that bad.

I had Boise State since the bowl pairings were first announced. Didn't expect it to go down like that though. Take away the not-quite high enough rankings, and that was probably one of the top ten bowl games ever.

We definitely need a playoff system. I don't mind the BCS rankings - just take the top eight teams and play 7 games, assigning them to bowl games as their respective prestige dictates. If you limit the regular season to 11 games and eliminate conference championships, then even the teams in the final game only play 14 games.

(p.s. - I would also love a rule that every team must schedule at least one non-conference opponent that has finished in the top-25 twice in the last 5 years in order to be playoff eligible)

1:55 PM  
Blogger 3wishes said...

Another take: By having the "Bowls", I think it lets a larger number of guys have the time of their lives. I enjoy seeing all those kids smile prouldly, winners all.
We have a superbowl. Do we need 2 of them?
Anyway Boomer Sooner Win or lose, WHAT a game :)

4:36 PM  
Blogger Wordcat said...

Good point 3. Hard to know whether the Boise St. guys would be any happier if they went on to play more games. Tough to top what they did yesterday. But with a 13-0 record you wish they had a chance to match up with an Ohio St.

4:43 PM  
Blogger Jonathan said...

I like your take 3wishes - it certainly lets more teams finish out on a winning note. Part of me still likes the fairness of the playoff idea though. As long as so much of who gets into what bowl is determined by money, there'll be part of me that wants the playoff. At least it's getting better - under last year's system, Boise State wouldn't even have been in a BCS bowl.

6:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home