Ga GOT SHAFTED....

[BeeSwatter]

Agreed a playoff system would solve it all. They are too greedy to fix it though. I also think that some of the confereces (Big 10, ACC) know that they won't survive in a playoff. They can play the BCS lottery and might get lucky and strike gold in a one game situation.

[bfwolf]

Diesel, I guess it depends on whether you buy into whether the timing of games matter. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, and if you agree with that line of thinking, then LSU must be ranked ahead of Georgia. If you count late season games more than early season games, then you could have Georgia ranked ahead of LSU.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

The problem I have is the BCS rankings come out every week since week 8 of the season I believe. Every week we have these polls. UGA is #4 in that poll and #1 and #2 lose. Logic says that UGA would move into the top two spots. The voters seeing that UGA would move into that spot decide to correct it with several coaches dropping UGA to #10 in the polls?? That is crazy. What kind of integrity is that?

---

I agree. With the way the POLLS work, UGA should have moved into the top 2. I don't think you can find an example of a top 10 team that got jumped like UGA in the polls unless they lost. A team like UGA could be jumped in the BCS due to the computers but the polls went outside of the way they operated the whole season in an effort to rig a final game matchup that the voters preferred. Dropping UGA to #10 in a poll is a blatant lack of integrity.

[BeeSwatter]

BDawg I agree with you that a loss is a loss and it shouldn't matter if you lose late or early but that is not what this system has been about. Look back through the last few seasons. Florida State always used to play Miami right off the bat where the loser would have time to recover in the polls. If that game was the last weekend then the loser wouldn't have been in a BCS bowl. The BCS has been lucky in recent years, this year they were a victim of so many upsets and just no clear cut #1. The voters took it upon themselves the final weekend to alter the polls to get the outcome they wanted. Again I have no problem with an SEC team being in the championship because they were deserving. I just didn't like how it got there

[chillzatl]

They got shafted in the sense that they dropped a spot for no reason. They went from 4th to 5th and weren't even playing. That is absurd. Beyond that, they shouldn't have have lost the games to SC and Tn. If they win either of those games, they play for the SEC title and are likely playing for the national championship.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

They got shafted in the sense that they dropped a spot for no reason. They went from 4th to 5th and weren't even playing. That is absurd. Beyond that, they shouldn't have have lost the games to SC and Tn. If they win either of those games, they play for the SEC title and are likely playing for the national championship.

---

Hm.. should the teams that played and won not get to move up?

[chillzatl]

in some cases yes, in some cases no. In this case, no.

[BeeSwatter]

lol let me guess you are a tech fan drzachary??

[Diesel]

You have to decide on what you're using as your measure.

IS it situational or does it follow some logical progression..

Here's what I mean.

Sometime in the season.

A (5-1) #15 ranked team beats a #2 ranked undefeated team 50-7 WHILE the undefeated #1 ranked team had a bye week. All the sudden does that #15 team move to #1??

In the season of course not. Because in the season, they seem to follow some logical progression whereby the #3 ranked, the #4 ranked, the #5 ranked and so on have to be evaluated based on what they did that week. And the #1 ranked team seeing it had a bye did nothing to lose it's ranking.

Well, the reason I say UGA was screwed is because the voters didn't follow the logical progression. The logical progression is why UGA was #4 in the first place. Instead, the voters decided who should be in the National Championship game based on "public appeal" and the whole body of work. For years, when you lose always meant more than who you lost to. So why is UGA not in the title game.

Also, I think the "must be a champion" excuse is BS. If that was the case, UGA should have never been ranked #4 in the BCS.

So going by the recent actions... There's great inconsistency.

OSU is transported to the National Championship and they had a piss poor schedule and they were move up because the teams ahead of them Lost... BUT the same thing doesn't apply to UGA. It's a great injustice.

Diesel says:

Either UGA LSU in the National Championship game;

UGA OSU in the National Championship game;

or

LSU VT in the National Championship game.

Either way, you have to be consistent!

[Diesel]

IF when a team loses didn't matter, Mizzouri has a great case to be in the championship game.

They had the 4th hardest schedule in the nation and their only loss was to Oklahoma.

It's unfortunate that they lost in the title game, but if it doesn't matter when they lose... why not them?

or why not Va Tech.

[bfwolf]

I disagree that Mizzou had the 4th hardest schedule in the nation.

[Dukegotgame]

why should a team that did not win its own conference's division and got blasted by the sec runner up (was it 30 points) even be in this discussion?

[AHF]

Quote:

---

why should a team that did not win its own conference's division and got blasted by the sec runner up (was it 30 points) even be in this discussion?

---

Maybe because the BCS isn't supposed to care about winning the conference based on the multiple non-conference champs it has put into the big game combined with the fact that UGA was #4 in the country and two teams above them lost?

I don't think UGA should be in the championship game but they should certainly be in the discussion.

You don't have to hate just because Duke will not win its conference again in your lifetime!

[Dukegotgame]

^

I go to LSU lol

And i think you missed my point of the way they lost was what made it such a bad loss.... either that or you just failed to address it.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

^

I go to LSU lol

And i think you missed my point of the way they lost was what made it such a bad loss.... either that or you just failed to address it.

---

If the way you lose counts, so must the way you win.

LSU won toss-up games against Auburn, Alabama and Florida - three teams that Georgia handled much more convincingly.

LSU was lucky to only have 2 losses given the fact that they were one play away from losing each of those games.

For Georgia, clearly they were a different team when they played UT than they were in the second half of the season.

Historically, it also matters very significantly when you lose. A loss at the beginning of the season is penalized less than a loss at the end. A team that is hot down the stretch gets more breaks than a team that is struggling to win their games.

Georgia's last five games against winning teams they were:

5-0 and won by a composite score of 186-114. Those dominating wins included victories over UF, Auburn and Kentucky.

LSU's last five games against winning teams they were:

3-2 and won by a composite 177-165. Championship caliber? Hardly.

Again, I don't think that UGA should have been in the championship game. However, when you are talking about who should have been in the discussion they were clearly there.

[Diesel]

I don't have a great problem with LSU being there EXCEPT, they lost to Arkansas the week before their last game. They also lost to Kentucky... Who UGA beat. If you want to try to rationalize by schedule.

The point is that OSU has no right to be in the championship game if you go by strength of schedule.

LSU has no right to be in the game if you go by when they loss (like they always do).

UGA just got screwed.

[Dukegotgame]

Quote:

---

UGA just got screwed.

---

No actually UGA just did not handle their business. I'm sorry but even though OSU played a lightweight schedule in comparison the big 10 is still considered a major BCS conference so when they had a 1 loss and everyone else had 2 losses they were the obvious choice.

The only choices were LSU and Oklahoma. USC gets taken out of the arguement for losing to Standford. The SOS and wins got LSU in over Oklahoma.

There is no stated rule that you cannot go to the NATL championship game if you do not win your conference because you never know how scenarios play out. However it is common sense that when you have a conference champion compared to a team from the same conference who did not even win their division who is going to get the nod. The whole reason their is not a rule like that is last year. Michigan very nearly got in the NATL game over UF.

UGA is just not a very good team this year. Sorry. They beat a beat up Florida team with a hurt Tebow and Auburn when they were playing like [censored]. You fail to acknowledge that when LSU played both of those teams they were on fire. Same with kentucky and arkansas. Not to mention both of those losses were in triple overtime(not by 30 points) and both had a few extremely questionable calls against LSU that made a huge difference. LSU also beat VT by 40 something. That is a better win than any UGA has.

LSU has also been playing without several starters since the VT game and with many players less than 100 percent. Not making excuses but just making a point it is no coincidence that after two such dominating wins against one elite team and one above average (MSU WAS good this year) our team starting dropping like flies and we started having close games.

[Dukegotgame]

Oh and to clarify when I said UGA was not a very good team, I did not mean it as they were just they were not an elite team.

[AHF]

I wouldn't get too high on your horse, LSU has not been an elite team by any means this year either. Every team deals with injuries. UGA lost their top two running backs for all or most of the season but had enough depth to overcome that. I don't recall anyone crying for UGA in past seasons when they have had more significant injuries. Those are just part of the game.

LSU has been mediocre this season against winning teams. Their best win was the Virginia Tech win but they have been a play or so away from winning or losing most of their games against real competition. They won some and they lost some.

I don't view barely beating Florida, Auburn and Alabama and barely losing to Kentucky and Arkansas as being a sign of elite. That is a sign your games are all coming down to a coin flip and you win some and you lose some. That is not an elite team. An elite team may have one or two close games but doesn't go through the season relying on last second comebacks.

The fact that you are trying to diminish UGA's accomplishments and come up with 15 excuses for LSU further diminishes your credibility on this. (For example, Auburn barely lost to LSU and then won their next game 35-3 and then played us. Sounds like they weren't that cold until UGA stomped on them.)

The fact is that there was not a single elite team in college football this year. I am not so insecure that I am going to try to prop UGA up as an elite team. If they were an elite team this year they would not have lost to South Carolina or Tennessee. It was the BCS's job to sort through a bunch of good teams. LSU was one, UGA was another. UGA was ranked 3 spots higher than LSU coming into the last weekend. I don't think UGA should have been picked over LSU but to pretend like they shouldn't have been in the discussion makes me scratch my head a little bit.

[Dukegotgame]

Quote:

---

I wouldn't get too high on your horse, LSU has not been an elite team by any means this year either. Every team deals with injuries. UGA lost their top two running backs for all or most of the season but had enough depth to overcome that. I don't recall anyone crying for UGA in past seasons when they have had more significant injuries. Those are just part of the game.

LSU has been mediocre this season against winning teams. Their best win was the Virginia Tech win but they have been a play or so away from winning or losing most of their games against real competition. They won some and they lost some.

I don't view barely beating Florida, Auburn and Alabama and barely losing to Kentucky and Arkansas as being a sign of elite. That is a sign your games are all coming down to a coin flip and you win some and you lose some. That is not an elite team. An elite team may have one or two close games but doesn't go through the season relying on last second comebacks.

The fact that you are trying to diminish UGA's accomplishments and come up with 15 excuses for LSU further diminishes your credibility on this. (For example, Auburn barely lost to LSU and then won their next game 35-3 and then played us. Sounds like they weren't that cold until UGA stomped on them.)

The fact is that there was not a single elite team in college football this year. I am not so insecure that I am going to try to prop UGA up as an elite team. If they were an elite team this year they would not have lost to South Carolina or Tennessee. It was the BCS's job to sort through a bunch of good teams. LSU was one, UGA was another. UGA was ranked 3 spots higher than LSU coming into the last weekend. I don't think UGA should have been picked over LSU but to pretend like they shouldn't have been in the discussion makes me scratch my head a little bit.

---

Either you cant read or you are intentionally not responding to what I am saying. I specifically said I am not using injuries as an excuse but used it to show how the games we were healthy we dominated and we should be healthy for the game vs OSU. and fyi lol at saying UGA had injuries... yea great brown and lumpkin who both suck anyway got hurt so your real beast could play..

the fact is we are in the natl championship and your not... and UGA is not viewed in the same class as lsu.. at least in the people's opinions that matter. we could go on and on but i will leave it at that.