Walt, wouldnt the Elite 8 Matchups be #6 Georgia v.s #1 OU, and #4 Virginia Tech v.s #2 Auburn, Instead of #4 Virginia Tech v.s #1 OU, and #6 Georgia v.s #2 Auburn?
I dont think you 3 dudes gave Boise State the respect they deserve. They went undefeated, no matter how weak your conference is, you can only beat who you play. I think that they would have beaten Cal.
My predictions will be in the another topic for your new matchups.
I know Boise State went undefeated but I must have watched them 5 or 6 times this season. They just aren't that good. BYU would have won at Boise if their kicker didn't miss a field goal late in the game, and Boise St. had to go into double overtime to beat a 2-9 San Jose St. team that lost to Stanford 43-3, and SMU 36-13.
They won. If Boise State played Cal they would find a way to win just like they did against those other two teams that you mentioned. But Utah, Auburn, OU, and USC would have beaten them.
You cant judge by strength of victory, Walt. Last year the Carolina Panthers only won one blowout, at home against the Vick-less Falcons. Other than that, they barely beat Arizona, they lost to Houston, they lost to Tennessee, they barely beat Jacksonville, and they barely beat Washington. Alot of people including me thought that they would lose to us, The lowely Dallas Cowboys. They blew us out, barely beat the Rams, killed the Eagles, and barely lost to the Patriots. You cant go by the victory margin.
If you argue that Utah can beat Cal, you have to admit that Utah can beat USC. Cal is a better team than USC. If you watched the Cal-USC game, which I did, you would have seen California dominate the Trojans at USC.
Cal is in no way better than USC. Cal doesnt have the chemistry USC has, Cal doesnt have Reggie Bush, or Matt Leinart. This argument holds absolutely no water. You can't dominate a game and lose Walt. Dominate is a 20 point victory. If you lose a game, you lost. You cant dominate and lose that makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
You can dominate a game and lose. It's happened before. For example, remember when the Seahawks were up by 17 against the Rams. They had total control of that game, but that defense went into prevent and lost. There are lots of cases of this occuring.
If you watched the game, you could see that California was the better team but they lost that game because of a few questionable penalties. If that game took place in Berkeley, the Bears would win.
By the way, did you see Texas Tech destroy Cal last night? They were clearly unfocused and didnt care about that Bowl Game because of the Rose Bowl fiasco. I hate the Bowls-and I didn't break my promise of not watching any-it was on at this bar and I was glancing at the score.
I saw higlights, but as I told you I am not watching any bowls except USC v.s OU and I thought Texas would be playing Utah, but turns out that Texas is playing the crappy Pitt Panthers, so now I will only watch the Orange Bowl, and I believe Utah plays Auburn, if that is true I will watch that game.
You're right, but that could be solved by having a playoff. I know I'm preaching to the choir. In fact, everyone in the U.S. is the choir except those BCS clowns.
Thats what I was about to say, I would never defend the BCS, if youre looking for an argument on that one go to Tim Cowlishaw.
I usually respect Cowlishaw's oppinion. He is my favorite beat writer for the Cowboys, but I couldnt believe it when he defends those BCS morons over and over again it makes me sick.
He must have some sources that are deep-BCS backers. That's the only reason I think he is defending the BCS. Cowlishaw is too smart and too good a journalist to admire a fradulent system like the BCS.
It's the same reason why a lot of columnists back the athletes. If you noticed, the guys on PTI and Around the Horn USUALLY support the players. That's because they dont want to offend that player and lose him (and others) as a source.
I cant stand Dan LeBastard (my nickname for him), he stood up for Ricky Williams during that fiasco. Anyone with any type of brain cells know who was wrong and who was right in that situation.
Dan "LeBastard" stood up for Ricky Williams because LeBetard was the only reporter Ricky was talking to. He was getting inside info from Williams, which is why he did not criticize him. If you remember, it was LeBetard who broke the story.
