bennyhaha wrote:

i figured it was something like that. :)

OK, the real truth... I actually halved my dosages.

I do agree with you that a playoff is needed, but who is to say that USC would get through? All the Rose Bowl proved is that the Big 10 is not good. Illinois looked like the JV out there against the Trojans. Even UCLA, who was plagued with injuries this season, looked better against USC than the Illini.

That is as far as I can go in agreement. Out of all the top teams, USC had the worst loss. That loss to Stanford was un-excusable. When they lost that game, their championship hopes were lost, and justifiably so. Even with the injuries, they should have crushed Stanford. Sure, they are playing as well as anyone right now, but you can't just write off the Stanford loss. While they would at least have a shot at the championship if there was a playoff, there is no guarantee. How many times have the no. 1 seeds been upset in the NCAA Basketball tourney? How many times has a team come from a lower seed to win the superbowl? Sure, they deserve a chance to play for the title, but championships are won on the field, and USC lost their shot against Stanford.

97Alum wrote:

You're 100% right about this. I can only imagine a playoff game between USC and Georgia (the OTHER team I think would be capable of making a run). That would be an absolutely fantastic game.

We'll never see a true playoff in college football as long as money dictates everything. If something ever happened to where the bowls started losing money, then maybe they'd think about it, but until then... the BCS will continue to be BS!

Ys_One wrote:

I do agree with you that a playoff is needed, but who is to say that USC would get through? All the Rose Bowl proved is that the Big 10 is not good. Illinois looked like the JV out there against the Trojans. Even UCLA, who was plagued with injuries this season, looked better against USC than the Illini.

That is as far as I can go in agreement. Out of all the top teams, USC had the worst loss. That loss to Stanford was un-excusable. When they lost that game, their championship hopes were lost, and justifiably so. Even with the injuries, they should have crushed Stanford. Sure, they are playing as well as anyone right now, but you can't just write off the Stanford loss. While they would at least have a shot at the championship if there was a playoff, there is no guarantee. How many times have the no. 1 seeds been upset in the NCAA Basketball tourney? How many times has a team come from a lower seed to win the superbowl? Sure, they deserve a chance to play for the title, but championships are won on the field, and USC lost their shot against Stanford.

I'm with you on the Stanford loss. Anyone who lost to Stanford, Notre Dame, or Minnesota this year doesn't deserve the national championship. USC lost to the Cardinal, so they're out.

As far as the Rose Bowl goes, they really should have taken Michigan over Illinois. The two schools finished tied for second in the Big Ten with Michigan beating the Illini in their head-to-head matchup. If the Wolverines played USC like they played Florida, it would have been a great game. Other more suitable teams than Illinois would have been Missouri or Georgia.

Of note... Illinois lost by a larger Margin than Hawaii... Perhaps the USC win was more telling of a weak opponent, not of USC's dominance...
That is the argument whenever BYU wins... Especially in a blow out...

Ys_One wrote:

I do agree with you that a playoff is needed, but who is to say that USC would get through? All the Rose Bowl proved is that the Big 10 is not good.

The Rose Bowl for USC is essentially a home game. Other than when playing powerhouses like Stanford (and App State), the home field advantage is huge. Not sure why the Big 10 is so keen on playing in the Rose Bowl every year...