Gary Patterson has got a big fuggin problem with Art Briles and how he runs Baylor

[Sox33OSU]

Try again

Ohio St
Michigan #15, Penn St # 22, Missouri #23
Lost to 6-6 Michigan St at home

Florida St
Florida #7, Texas A&M #8, Georgia Tech #12, Virginia #13, Miami #24
Lost to 7-4 NC State on the road

Kansas St
Nebraska #14, Texas #20, Missouri #23
Lost to #8 Texas A&M neutral site

Bowl results are not allowed in the discussion because they hadn't happened yet. Now make your case for Ohio St over either team. Florida St had a far superior resume with 4 wins better at the time than any win Ohio St had. Kansas St had similar wins with a better loss. The BCS rankings were correct that year in placing the more deserving teams in the final regardless of Florida St losing to undefeated Tennessee. That's how you back something up with facts without spin.

Dude, are you serious? I never once said "Ohio State unquestionably deserved the nod over anyone else without a shadow of a doubt". I merely pointed out that you said OSU always get the benefit of the doubt while they did not get it here, even though both the AP and Coaches thought they were #2. FSU had more ranked wins but a way worse loss (they got beat by 17 compared to OSU losing by 4). OSU and K-State had similar ranked wins though OSU demolished Mizzou while K-State eeked by, and K-State also lost later (which is what doomed OSU in the first place).

Once more, and I'm going to try and be clear...again: I never once said Ohio State was clearly robbed and FSU had no argument to be in the NCG under any circumstances. You said OSU always gets the benefit of the doubt, and I proved you wrong with this very simple example. Are you caught up now?

 

[Sox33OSU]

Your opinion only applies to O ' U fans.

Does that also include Okie State and Oregon State?

 

[TexasMan]

 

[Sox33OSU]

 

[charlie42s]

Does that also include Okie State and Oregon State?

... now that's trolling...

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Dude, are you serious? I never once said "Ohio State unquestionably deserved the nod over anyone else without a shadow of a doubt". I merely pointed out that you said OSU always get the benefit of the doubt while they did not get it here, even though both the AP and Coaches thought they were #2. FSU had more ranked wins but a way worse loss (they got beat by 17 compared to OSU losing by 4). OSU and K-State had similar ranked wins though OSU demolished Mizzou while K-State eeked by, and K-State also lost later (which is what doomed OSU in the first place).

Once more, and I'm going to try and be clear...again: I never once said Ohio State was clearly robbed and FSU had no argument to be in the NCG under any circumstances. You said OSU always gets the benefit of the doubt, and I proved you wrong with this very simple example. Are you caught up now?

Losing to a 7-4 team on the road is not worse than losing to a 6-6 team at home. I don't care about the point spread. It was impossible to argue Ohio St over Florida St in 1998. Florida St was the better program at the time and had a better resume. When all things are equal Ohio St would play for the title every single time unless maybe Alabama or Oklahoma is the other team they are fighting it out with. The media loves your school. I don't care what ESPN talking heads say. They are in bed with the ACC and SEC all the way and the coverage will reflect that. Thing is, they don't have much pull with coaches and harris poll voters. Or Auburn would be ranked in front of you right now. You always have and always will get the benefit of the doubt over no name teams like Baylor or Oklahoma St.

 

[Sox33OSU]

... now that's funny...

FIFY

 

[Sox33OSU]

Losing to a 7-4 team on the road is not worse than losing to a 6-6 team at home. I don't care about the point spread. It was impossible to argue Ohio St over Florida St in 1998. Florida St was the better program at the time and had a better resume. When all things are equal Ohio St would play for the title every single time unless maybe Alabama or Oklahoma is the other team they are fighting it out with. The media loves your school. I don't care what ESPN talking heads say. They are in bed with the ACC and SEC all the way and the coverage will reflect that. Thing is, they don't have much pull with coaches and harris poll voters. Or Auburn would be ranked in front of you right now. You always have and always will get the benefit of the doubt over no name teams like Baylor or Oklahoma St.

Dude, you still don't get it. There was very clearly an argument that could be made for OSU that year. I am not trying to debate whether or not FSU was deserving, that is not the point of this discussion. FSU had 2 more ranked wins than OSU but also got absolutely dominated by a mediocre team, something elite teams don't do. OSU got tripped up while looking ahead and lost by 4. Big difference. Like I said, there was a valid argument for either team and FSU got the nod in the end. However, this was a time where OSU did NOT get the benefit of the doubt. Do you get it yet?

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Make the argument then if one could clearly be made. You haven't done so other than state that you could do it…I've made my argument and showed the facts to do so. Torry Holt and 4 future NFL DB's got the better of Chris Weinke who threw 6 picks. Bad upset but Torry Holt and Adrian Wilson did alright in the NFL. Michigan St was also very talented that year. I call that a complete wash because NC State was better than Michigan St IMO and NC State was home while Michigan St was in Columbus. The point spread is really irrelevant. Both were bad losses for title contending teams. Florida St wins were so much better than Ohio St the comparison is laughable. No argument could be made and it wasn't. It was pretty consensus if you lived through it.

Mostly the ammo I've been holding in my back pocket while allowing you to dig a deeper hole...
THEY ENACTED THE KANSAS STATE RULE BECAUSE OF 1998!!! BECAUSE OHIO STATE RECEIVED AN AT LARGE BCS BOWL OVER THE HIGHER RANKED KANSAS STATE!!!

You obviously didn't follow college football in the 90's or live through that season. Nobody complained about Florida St over Ohio St but many were outraged Kansas St finished 3rd in the BCS but did not go to a BCS bowl. Wisconsin filled the Rose Bowl and Ohio St was directly picked over Kansas St. Florida filled the SEC tie in Sugar Bowl. Ohio St was given favoritism over Kansas St in the year you are claiming they were slighted. You need to stick with whatever era of college football you grew up watching because it's obvious you are young...

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Which BCS controversies left Ohio St out?

BCS controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's wiki but it's a pretty good rundown of the times.

 

[Droopdog51]

JIHAD!!!

How can you spot an athiest in Texas?



They watch Baylor play TCU and doesn't care who wins.

 

[Wild Turkey]

How can you spot an athiest in Texas?



They watch Baylor play TCU and doesn't care who wins.

Actually they aren't paying attention because they are listening to the Duke Basketball game on the radio.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Make the argument then if one could clearly be made. You haven't done so other than state that you could do it…I've made my argument and showed the facts to do so. Torry Holt and 4 future NFL DB's got the better of Chris Weinke who threw 6 picks. Bad upset but Torry Holt and Adrian Wilson did alright in the NFL. Michigan St was also very talented that year. I call that a complete wash because NC State was better than Michigan St IMO and NC State was home while Michigan St was in Columbus. The point spread is really irrelevant. Both were bad losses for title contending teams. Florida St wins were so much better than Ohio St the comparison is laughable. No argument could be made and it wasn't. It was pretty consensus if you lived through it.

Mostly the ammo I've been holding in my back pocket while allowing you to dig a deeper hole...
THEY ENACTED THE KANSAS STATE RULE BECAUSE OF 1998!!! BECAUSE OHIO STATE RECEIVED AN AT LARGE BCS BOWL OVER THE HIGHER RANKED KANSAS STATE!!!

You obviously didn't follow college football in the 90's or live through that season. Nobody complained about Florida St over Ohio St but many were outraged Kansas St finished 3rd in the BCS but did not go to a BCS bowl. Wisconsin filled the Rose Bowl and Ohio St was directly picked over Kansas St. Florida filled the SEC tie in Sugar Bowl. Ohio St was given favoritism over Kansas St in the year you are claiming they were slighted. You need to stick with whatever era of college football you grew up watching because it's obvious you are young...

LMAO, oh I'm gonna hate to do this. You were so proud of yourself, too...

THEY ENACTED THAT RULE FAR MORESO BECAUSE A 2-LOSS FLORIDA (RANKED 8TH) MADE A BCS GAME, NOT A 1-LOSS OHIO STATE (RANKED 4TH)!

I followed football more than my fair share. 1998 OSU was one of the most elite teams in the nation. You wondered why they were preseason #1 and spent a good part of the season there? Because they were a pretty damned good team that steamrolled nearly their entire schedule. The point spread has nothing to do with anything, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Florida State was dismantled by a mediocre team while OSU was upset by a close score in the final minutes. You appear to be mistaking "point spread" for "margin of victory".

I really can't get you to understand logic, so this is the last time I'm going to explain this, so please, please pay attention:

I'VE NEVER SAID OHIO STATE WAS THE BETTER OPTION. FLORIDA STATE DESERVED THE NATIONAL TITLE BIRTH. HOWEVER OHIO STATE HAD THE SAME RECORD AND A CASE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THEM TO PLAY IN THE NATIONAL TITLE GAME, HOWEVER IN THE END THEY DID NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

I hope you have taken the time to look up the definition of "benefit of the doubt", because you've demonstrated a thorough misunderstanding of the definition up to this point.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Not true, Florida was the sugar bowl bid which is the SEC tie in game. Ohio St was a non Rose at large team and where the controversy and rule stemmed from. The bowls have chosen less deserving teams from their tie in conference over and over again without controversy. It's the only way the BCS was agreed to in the first place. That they could give preference to their historical conferences. You are wrong...

 

[TigerBait1971]

 

[Sox33OSU]

Not true, Florida was the sugar bowl bid which is the SEC tie in game. Ohio St was a non Rose at large team and where the controversy and rule stemmed from. The bowls have chosen less deserving teams from their tie in conference over and over again without controversy. It's the only way the BCS was agreed to in the first place. That they could give preference to their historical conferences. You are wrong...

Are you serious?? Are you going to tell me now that BCS bowls are obligated to take teams in their historical tie-in? You are ignorant beyond words.

1. The Fiesta had absolutely no obligation whatsoever.
2. OSU was getting an at-large way faster than UF was.
3. A&M already beat K-State. Why would they have deserved a rematch?

Time to just stop, dude. Your ignorance is just getting sad now.

 

[Droopdog51]

This argument is so old that Texas A&M was relevant at the time.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

This is why Ohio St getting the bid cost Kansas St. It's more the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl being greedy than Ohio St's fault.

Fiesta Bowl was set as Tennessee v. Florida St

Sugar Bowl had first pick and should have selected Kansas St but they chose Ohio St instead. The Orange Bowl selected the ACC as it's hosting conference so that they could select Florida since FLorida St was in the championship game. The Sugar should have selected Kansas St and then the Orange could have picked the Big East as it's hosting conference and still gotten Texas A&M with the last pick. The Sugar forced the Orange Bowls hand as they did not want a Texas A&M. v. Syracuse bowl matchup. That would have cost them money with a collectively boring game with no real history with either school and a long travel distance too. The match up should have been a Kansas St v. Ohio St Sugar Bowl and Texas A&M v. Syracuse Orange Bowl. Both Florida and Ohio St received favoritism over Kansas St and the rule was made. The real trickle down effect was the Sugar choosing Ohio St and going outside the BCS ranking to select the first at large selection. This is why it was the controversial selection at the time. They should have been the last at large selection made and not the first.

 

[Shanemansj13]

This fat fuck needs to worry about his team and stop trying to see how many bear claws he can shove into his mouth.

 

[Inquisitor95]

Actually they aren't paying attention because they are listening to the Duke Basketball game on the radio.

We need to see a Duke-Arizona St. bowl game to determine who is Hell's favorite.