Quote:
Originally Posted by Mule
Call the NFL! They pay millions to guys with your kind of an eye for talent. Not many people can evaluate talent like you apparently can. That said, to be the best you have to beat the best. USC runs from quality opposition. Due to that, all we can use to judge this is your infallible word. Pope Slacker I has spoken.
|
So, if LSU wins, Kentucky is the "Best" because they beat the "Best" (and beat Arkansas, who also beat the "Best"). Hmmmmm.
If THE Ohio State University wins, Illinois is the "Best" because then they beat the "Best". -- and OSU is an "eeeeek!!! opposition!!! upon on the chair" prima donna if ever there was... wait, Notre Dame is up on the chair with them. Hardly a foe to vanquish if you're going to seriously claim to be the "Best" as a result...
Neither team can make a stronger claim to be the "best" than a half-dozen other teams... which is what I was saying earlier --> the winner of this game is not the "Best". They're the better team in that game, but there's certainly enough other legitimate contenders for "Best", that, but for this BCS fiction, there would be none of this synthetic "infallibility" or "certainty".
If your view amounts to the winner of this game is "infallibly" and/or "certainly" the best, find another Pope to follow, I can't be your shepherd.
They do pay guys millions of dollars to comment on college football, and many of them (including those East-Coast biased ESPN bastards) lament the fact that USC didn't get a title shot, WVA had a good claim, Georgia got dissed, VaTech and Missou got owned, and the LSU-OSU "contest" will not, in any possible outcome, establish the "best" by any other than a flawed synthetic benchmark.
I like LSU and dislike OSU, but I probably still won't watch most of the game, because the outcome is meaningless to me. MAO: The winner of this game will have a legitimate claim as one of the top 5 teams in the country; no more.
JP