LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

**marstc09** · 11-24-2007, 07:52 PM

I have a feeling the BCS Championship is going to be Ohio State vs. West Virginia.

**marstc09** · 11-25-2007, 11:39 AM

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

[quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg677718#msg677718 date=1195689009]
[quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg677171#msg677171 date=1195607097]
[quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg677158#msg677158 date=1195605674]
Kansas deserves #2. They are an undefeated team in a marquee conference. Enough said.

They have not even played Texas or Oklahoma!

Marquee Conference?

So your telling me Baylor, Colorado, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State are marquee teams? PLEASE!!!!!!
:

Enough said.

The Big 12 is a marquee conference. If not, then what is?

Are Iowa, Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern, Iowa, and Minnesota marquee teams?
You could make a better argument for Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Missippi State, and Arkansas, but all of those teams have at least 4 losses.

You, like most college football fans out there, are basing this all on what has happened over the past years. Fact is, THIS YEAR, Kansas is better than Ohio State, USC, Florida, Oklahoma etc... they fully deserve the ranking they have.

Sure, they might lose to Missouri, but the fact you are using Missouri as a measuring stick is ridiculous by itself.

SEC: 5 ranked teams. Need I say more.

Don't get me wrong the Big 12 is a good conference but not much better than the Big 10. They have five teams at 8-4 or better and so does the Big 10. The whole Big 10 is at .500 or above except Minnesota. The Big 12 only has 7 out of 12. They have four ranked teams and the Big 10 has 3. Not really seeing your point of view but that is ok. It is your opinion.

My point of view is simple. If an undefeated Ohio State was ranked #1, then an undefeated Kansas should be ranked #2. That simple. How you don't agree with that puzzles me.

The BCS rankings have a lot more involve than just wins and losses!
:

Why is Hawaii not in the top 5?
:

Your point of view makes no sense and IMO is wrong.
[/quote]

The BCS rankings involve more than wins and losses, like the fact the Kansas has crushed almost every team they've played. We're talking complete blowouts, and total domination.

Hawaii does not play in a major conference, which has been my whole point all along.

An undefeated team in a major conference, no matter which team it is, is always going to be ranked high. You honestly don't agree with that? I'll aceept that I'm wrong if you can name an 11-0 team from the Big 12, SEC, Big Ten, or PaC-10, that wasn't in the top 5, going back to the inception of the BCS of
course.

On October 20th, Ohio State was 8-0. Their only win against a ranked opponent was Purdue. What were they ranked? #1!
How is Kansas any different?
[/quote]

Did I say Ohio State was different? People please stop with the assumptions.

If they are a true #2 team then they should be blowing them out. They played Central Michigan, Southeastern Louisiana, Toledo, Florida International, Kansas State, Baylor, Colorado, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State. WOW!

That is impressive. Overall opponents records 47-75. Yes that is definitly a #2 team in the country.
:

Lets just look at LSU who is #1. They have played 6 ranked teams compared to the big fat 0. They have a compined opponent record of 66-56. That is a large difference between #1 and #2. Man that is a BCS Championship I want to see.
:

You will see my point after saturday night.
[/quote]

I hope we agree now.
;D

**V-Unit** · 11-25-2007, 03:09 PM

Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

**marstc09** · 11-25-2007, 03:26 PM

"V" wrote:

Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

Whatever. No we will not get into it because Missouri actually beat a ranked team. Huge difference.
:

**marstc09** · 11-25-2007, 03:27 PM

"V" wrote:

Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!

**V-Unit** · 11-25-2007, 03:48 PM

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!

Do you even remember what your initial point was?

**marstc09** · 11-26-2007, 09:05 AM

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!

Do you even remember what your initial point was?

Here it is.....
"I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
:

**V-Unit** · 11-26-2007, 11:53 AM

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!

Do you even remember what your initial point was?

Here it is.....
"I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
:

What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.

**marstc09** · 11-26-2007, 03:36 PM

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!

Do you even remember what your initial point was?

Here it is.....
"I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
:

What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.

Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a shit about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
:

**tastywaves** · 11-26-2007, 03:49 PM

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

[quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.

I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!

Do you even remember what your initial point was?

Here it is.....
"I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
:

What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.

Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a pooh about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
:

[/quote]

Not to get in the middle of this discussion but...If Missouri beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship do you believe they deserve to be in the title game?