Cincy Will Be Punished

[1981Eagle]

Cincy will drop at least 2 to 3 spots for its close win over Yukon. Just like a non-BCS school like Boise. You see, if UF or one of the other Big-Gums that are part of the cabal have a close game against an unworthy opponent then they had "an off day". If a non-cabal member like Cincy loses in the same fashion, they get punished like BC did after losing to FSU three years ago because "they didn't have an off day". Rather, "it's because the close win now proves they aren't for real."

[IWentToBC09]

Cincy will drop at least 2 to 3 spots for its close win over Yukon. Just like a non-BCS school like Boise. You see, if UF or one of the other Big-Gums that are part of the cabal have a close game against an unworthy opponent then they had "an off day". If a non-cabal member like Cincy loses in the same fashion, they get punished like BC did after losing to FSU three years ago because "they didn't have an off day". Rather, "it's because the close win now proves they aren't for real."

You realize your last sentence doesn't make sense right? When you lose, you drop ranks. Sure we dropped alot but it still is different than Cinci not losing.

[pick6pedro]

Cincy will drop at least 2 to 3 spots for its close win over Yukon. Just like a non-BCS school like Boise. You see, if UF or one of the other Big-Gums that are part of the cabal have a close game against an unworthy opponent then they had "an off day". If a non-cabal member like Cincy loses in the same fashion, they get punished like BC did after losing to FSU three years ago because "they didn't have an off day". Rather, "it's because the close win now proves they aren't for real."

BC fell from 2 to 8 for losing to FSU. We've been over this. Average drop for a loss is around 7 spots. How is BC losing and going from 2 to 8 "punishment"? It's stardard. And I've already pointed out the 9 and 8 spots USC has dropped already this year with losses. Are they not a BIG-GUM? Cincy will stay exactly where they are in the AP and move up one spot in the Coaches due to Iowa's loss. And they'll move up to 4th in the BCS.

How about LSU falling from 4th to 10th? Not a BIG GUM? Penn State from 5th to 15th? Oklahoma from 3 to 13? And this is just this season and just a few I found real quick.

[innocentbystander]

Cincinnati is not dropping. Iowa is dropping. Cincinnati might not go up (or if they do, they go up one spot) but they will not be dropping.

You don't WIN and drop the same week... ever.

[weinerdog]

Cincy will drop at least 2 to 3 spots for its close win over Yukon. Just like a non-BCS school like Boise. You see, if UF or one of the other Big-Gums that are part of the cabal have a close game against an unworthy opponent then they had "an off day". If a non-cabal member like Cincy loses in the same fashion, they get punished like BC did after losing to FSU three years ago because "they didn't have an off day". Rather, "it's because the close win now proves they aren't for real."

81, you're off base on this. I think you've really just got a bug up your butt about rankings, and don't get them. Hey, I don't like that BC is perpetually underappreciated either, but they're not as constantly being shafted as you think, and it's a moot point this year.

The AP poll is in, and you're wrong. Cincy did slip a spot to TCU, but they actually gained a lot of votes and pulled ahead of Boise State. The one thing keeping them out of the title game hunt is that the Big Three up Top are all still undefeated.

There are other abnormalities that have perpetuated with the rankings, though, which is why there probably shouldn't be rankings until November. Houston is now 13th, on the strength of an OSU win that doesn't look quite so hot anymore. BYU's still ranked at 7-2 on the strength of a win over Oklahoma that looks like completely nothing now. 7-2 Wisconsin, too, and their best win may be Northern Illinois. Iowa's 15th, behind a 2-loss Big Ten team. Notre Dame is still getting a handful of votes.

[pick6pedro]

Polls in. Cincy moves up 2 spots in the Coaches and drops 1 in the AP. The interesting thing about dropping in the AP is that they actually received more votes this week than last week. They are 8 votes behind TCU. Probably has more to do with TCU destroying their opponent than anything Cincy did.

Again - why is it "punishment"? If Cincy wins their last 3 (not a small task in WVU, Illinois and Pitt), then they will be undefeated and not behind any undefeated team they started the year behind. Out of the 6 undefeateds, Cincy was lowest ranked to start the year. So what that means is that they've jumped two already (BSU and TCU) and then TCU proceeded to jump them this week. Your theory proves nothing at this point. Like I've said all along - with regards to going undefeated, where you start the season means more than the results of one game.

[pick6pedro]

SOS of the undefeateds:

25, 40, 48, 52, 65, 79

Bama, UF, TCU, UT, Cincy, BSU

[RegalBCeagle]

Cincinnati is not dropping. Iowa is dropping. Cincinnati might not go up (or if they do, they go up one spot) but they will not be dropping.

You don't WIN and drop the same week... ever.

Boise State and the short bus say "hello."

[1981Eagle]

Of course you drop more if you lose than if you win a close one. We will see when push comes to shove in Late Nov/early Dec when voters are really focusing whether a non-cabal team (Cincy in the BCS, TCU/BSU as non-BCS) is really invited to the dance. Three years ago, LSU jumped like 8 spots in 2 weeks because that's the cabal team the voters wanted in the NC game despite their two losses. Until a non-cabal team is invited to the NC game over a Big-gum with a similar record then I will stand by my theory. To define it, the Big-Gums cabal are the ones that will be in the NC game if they go undefeated or have only 1 or 2 losses versus a slightly better record of a non Big-Gum. They are:

ACC: FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT,GT
SEC: Florida, Tenn., Georgia, LSU, Bama
BE: None
B10-tOSU, PSU, Michigan
B12-Neb, Texas, Oklahoma
P10-USC, Oregon
Ind.-ND

There you have it. The 19 team cabal. These teams can have a slightly worse or equal record to any non-cabal team and still make it to the NC game over a non-cabal team with an equal or better record. Name one exception to this theory in the BCS era. Just one.

[1981Eagle]

Polls in. Cincy moves up 2 spots in the Coaches and drops 1 in the AP. The interesting thing about dropping in the AP is that they actually received more votes this week than last week. They are 8 votes behind TCU. Probably has more to do with TCU destroying their opponent than anything Cincy did.

Again - why is it "punishment"? If Cincy wins their last 3 (not a small task in WVU, Illinois and Pitt), then they will be undefeated and not behind any undefeated team they started the year behind. Out of the 6 undefeateds, Cincy was lowest ranked to start the year. So what that means is that they've jumped two already (BSU and TCU) and then TCU proceeded to jump them this week. Your theory proves nothing at this point. Like I've said all along - with regards to going undefeated, where you start the season means more than the results of one game.

The only reason their fall was cushioned was because so many cabal one loss teams got beat again. Namely, PSU, LSU and USC. Had those three teams not lost then the close game with Yukon would have cost them 2 -3 spots. THAT, is the only reason. Not because Cincy is getting any more respect. Like I said. wait until late nov/early Dec, they will get shafted even if they are undefeated. They aren't part of the cabal and any one loss team from the cabal will be chosen over an undefeated Cincy.

[pick6pedro]

Of course you drop more if you lose than if you win a close one. We will see when push comes to shove in Late Nov/early Dec when voters are really focusing whether a non-cabal team (Cincy in the BCS, TCU/BSU as non-BCS) is really invited to the dance. Three years ago, LSU jumped like 8 spots in 2 weeks because that's the cabal team the voters wanted in the NC game despite their two losses.

I've explained this already. Quite simple really, yet you've ignored many factors.
It was from 7 to 2 in the BCS standings in one week (they were 7 and 5 in the polls at the start and were 2 in both polls the next week)
#1 Mizzou gets drilled in the BigXIICG by OU and finishes with 2 losses.
#2 WVU loses to a bad Pitt team to end the year with 2 losses.
#3 OSU moves up to #1 with an idle week but only 1 loss.
#4 UGA has 2 losses, but does not qualify for the SECCG.
#5 KU has 1 loss, but a 106 SOS, did not play 3 of the 4 best teams in their conference, and does not qualify for the BigXIICG.
#6 VT finishes with 2 losses and wins the ACCCG to finish out the year, but was drilled by LSU by 41 points earlier in the year.
LSU had started the season as preseason #2.
My theory involves not a secret society, but the preseason polls and to a lesser extent the impact of SOS and being a BCS conference champ. see below - based on the actual facts.

Until a non-cabal team is invited to the NC game over a Big-gum with a similar record then I will stand by my theory.

But this isn't your theory. Part of your theory is that a 1 loss cabal team will make the championship game over an undefeated non-cabal team. While your theory is right in that undefeated non-BCS programs have been jumped by 1 loss "cabal" teams (many times), it has never occurred that a 1 loss "cabal" team has jumped an undefeated BCS non-cabal team. I disagree that a one loss team would ever jump an undefeated BCS team. The only example of a BCS "non-cabal" team being jumped by a worse record "cabal" team was a one loss KU team in 2007 and I explained that above.

Also, your cabal is dumb because it includes all 11 programs that have been in the 10 NC games so far. Most were ranked extremely high to start the season (and therefore only needed to stay equal in the loss column to make the NC game) or rose because they had a better record than all other BCS programs that year. Another funny thing to note is that some of your cabal teams have been jumped by other cabal teams. Are there cabals within the cabal?

Now let's look at what HAS happened.
Here are the participants and their credentials:

1998 Tenn (only undefeated BCS team) v. FSU (highest preseason ranked 1 loss BCS team at #2)
1999 FSU (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. VT (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2000 OU (only undefeated BCS team) v. FSU (highest preseason ranked 1 loss teamat #2)
2001 Miami (only undefeated BCS team) v. Nebraska (highest preseason ranked 1 loss team #4)
2002 OSU (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. Miami (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2003 LSU (3rd highest ranked preseason at #14, but SEC champ) v. OU (highest ranked preseason one loss team at #1)
*USC was passed despite being 2nd highest ranked preseason one loss team, but has one less win than LSU and OU.
2004 USC (1/3 undefeated BCS teams, highest preseason rank at #1) v. OU (1/3 undefeated teams, 2nd highest preseason rank at #2)
2005 USC (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. UT (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2006 UF (highest preseason ranked 1 loss BCS team at #7) v. OSU (only undefeated BCS team)
2007 LSU (highest preseason ranked 2 loss BCS team at #2) v. OSU (only BCS 1 loss team with decent SOS/conference champ)
**KU excluded at 1 loss, but SOS in the 100's and no conference champ
2008 UF (3rd highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #5) v. OU (2nd highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #4)
*USC excluded despite being highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #3, but has one less win than UF and OU

Based on the above, the "normal" logic (and therefore the rule to date under my theory) is this:
Best BCS team record. tiebreaker = highest preseason rank among common record BCS teams.
*exception for SEC/BigX12 champ (have CG and therefore one more win) over other BCS teams of similar loss total.
**exception for exclusion of a BCS team with 1 loss less that has extremely low SOS and no conference champ.

The first exception has only been leveled over USC (one of your cabal teams) and in both cases they had one less win than those who jumped them. The second exception has only gone towards an extreme situation of KU with a SOS of 106 or so, no conference championship, and they avoided playing 3/4 best teams in their own conference.
Otherwise "Best BCS team record. tiebreaker = highest preseason rank among common record BCS teams" is the real rule. "Cabal" is not the distinguishing feature, it's preseason poll position.

Forgive me. I was bored and curious and am sick of hearing about this “cabal”.

[eagle9903]

Of course you drop more if you lose than if you win a close one. We will see when push comes to shove in Late Nov/early Dec when voters are really focusing whether a non-cabal team (Cincy in the BCS, TCU/BSU as non-BCS) is really invited to the dance. Three years ago, LSU jumped like 8 spots in 2 weeks because that's the cabal team the voters wanted in the NC game despite their two losses.

I've explained this already. Quite simple really, yet you've ignored many factors.
It was from 7 to 2 in the BCS standings in one week (they were 7 and 5 in the polls at the start and were 2 in both polls the next week)
#1 Mizzou gets drilled in the BigXIICG by OU and finishes with 2 losses.
#2 WVU loses to a bad Pitt team to end the year with 2 losses.
#3 OSU moves up to #1 with an idle week but only 1 loss.
#4 UGA has 2 losses, but does not qualify for the SECCG.
#5 KU has 1 loss, but a 106 SOS, did not play 3 of the 4 best teams in their conference, and does not qualify for the BigXIICG.
#6 VT finishes with 2 losses and wins the ACCCG to finish out the year, but was drilled by LSU by 41 points earlier in the year.
LSU had started the season as preseason #2.
My theory involves not a secret society, but the preseason polls and to a lesser extent the impact of SOS and being a BCS conference champ. see below - based on the actual facts.

Until a non-cabal team is invited to the NC game over a Big-gum with a similar record then I will stand by my theory.

But this isn't your theory. Part of your theory is that a 1 loss cabal team will make the championship game over an undefeated non-cabal team. While your theory is right in that undefeated non-BCS programs have been jumped by 1 loss "cabal" teams (many times), it has never occurred that a 1 loss "cabal" team has jumped an undefeated BCS non-cabal team. I disagree that a one loss team would ever jump an undefeated BCS team. The only example of a BCS "non-cabal" team being jumped by a worse record "cabal" team was a one loss KU team in 2007 and I explained that above.

Also, your cabal is dumb because it includes all 11 programs that have been in the 10 NC games so far. Most were ranked extremely high to start the season (and therefore only needed to stay equal in the loss column to make the NC game) or rose because they had a better record than all other BCS programs that year. Another funny thing to note is that some of your cabal teams have been jumped by other cabal teams. Are there cabals within the cabal?

Here are the participants and their credentials:

1998 Tenn (only undefeated BCS team) v. FSU (highest preseason ranked 1 loss BCS team at #2)
1999 FSU (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. VT (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2000 OU (only undefeated BCS team) v. FSU (highest preseason ranked 1 loss teamat #2)
2001 Miami (only undefeated BCS team) v. Nebraska (highest preseason ranked 1 loss team #4)
2002 OSU (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. Miami (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2003 LSU (3rd highest ranked preseason at #14, but SEC champ) v. OU (highest ranked preseason one loss team at #1)
*USC was passed despite being 2nd highest ranked preseason one loss team, but has one less win than LSU and OU.
2004 USC (1/3 undefeated BCS teams, highest preseason rank at #1) v. OU (1/3 undefeated teams, 2nd highest preseason rank at #2)
2005 USC (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. UT (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2006 UF (highest preseason ranked 1 loss BCS team at #7) v. OSU (only undefeated BCS team)
2007 LSU (highest preseason ranked 2 loss BCS team at #2) v. OSU (only BCS 1 loss team with decent SOS/conference champ)
*KU excluded at 1 loss, but SOS in the 100's and no conference champ
2008 UF (3rd highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #5) v. OU (2nd highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #4)
*USC excluded despite being highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #3, but has one less win than UF and OU

Based on the above, the "normal" logic (and therefore the rule to date under my theory) is this:
Best BCS team record. tiebreaker = highest preseason rank among common record BCS teams.
*exception for SEC/BigX12 champ (have CG and therefore one more win) over other BCS teams of similar loss total.
**exception for exclusion of a BCS team with 1 loss less that has extremely low SOS and no conference champ.

The first exception has only been leveled over USC (one of your cabal teams) and in both cases they had one less win than those who jumped them. The second exception has only gone towards an extreme situation of KU with a SOS of 106 or so, no conference championship, and they avoided playing 3/4 best teams in their own conference.
Otherwise "Best BCS team record. tiebreaker = highest preseason rank among common record BCS teams" is the real rule. "Cabal" is not the distinguishing feature, it's preseason poll position.

Forgive me. I was bored and curious and am sick of hearing about this “cabal”.

Dude, come one, did you really just spend that much of your life responding to 81. Prioritize your time management.

[pick6pedro]

Dude, come one, did you really just spend that much of your life responding to 81. Prioritize your time management.

I did, but it probably didn't take as long as you think. Major case of procrastination right now. You have no idea...

[1981Eagle]

Of course you drop more if you lose than if you win a close one. We will see when push comes to shove in Late Nov/early Dec when voters are really focusing whether a non-cabal team (Cincy in the BCS, TCU/BSU as non-BCS) is really invited to the dance. Three years ago, LSU jumped like 8 spots in 2 weeks because that's the cabal team the voters wanted in the NC game despite their two losses.

I've explained this already. Quite simple really, yet you've ignored many factors.
It was from 7 to 2 in the BCS standings in one week (they were 7 and 5 in the polls at the start and were 2 in both polls the next week)
#1 Mizzou gets drilled in the BigXIICG by OU and finishes with 2 losses.
#2 WVU loses to a bad Pitt team to end the year with 2 losses.
#3 OSU moves up to #1 with an idle week but only 1 loss.
#4 UGA has 2 losses, but does not qualify for the SECCG.
#5 KU has 1 loss, but a 106 SOS, did not play 3 of the 4 best teams in their conference, and does not qualify for the BigXIICG.
#6 VT finishes with 2 losses and wins the ACCCG to finish out the year, but was drilled by LSU by 41 points earlier in the year.
LSU had started the season as preseason #2.
My theory involves not a secret society, but the preseason polls and to a lesser extent the impact of SOS and being a BCS conference champ. see below - based on the actual facts.

Until a non-cabal team is invited to the NC game over a Big-gum with a similar record then I will stand by my theory.

But this isn't your theory. Part of your theory is that a 1 loss cabal team will make the championship game over an undefeated non-cabal team. While your theory is right in that undefeated non-BCS programs have been jumped by 1 loss "cabal" teams (many times), it has never occurred that a 1 loss "cabal" team has jumped an undefeated BCS non-cabal team. I disagree that a one loss team would ever jump an undefeated BCS team. The only example of a BCS "non-cabal" team being jumped by a worse record "cabal" team was a one loss KU team in 2007 and I explained that above.

Also, your cabal is dumb because it includes all 11 programs that have been in the 10 NC games so far. Most were ranked extremely high to start the season (and therefore only needed to stay equal in the loss column to make the NC game) or rose because they had a better record than all other BCS programs that year. Another funny thing to note is that some of your cabal teams have been jumped by other cabal teams. Are there cabals within the cabal?

Now let's look at what HAS happened.
Here are the participants and their credentials:

1998 Tenn (only undefeated BCS team) v. FSU (highest preseason ranked 1 loss BCS team at #2)
1999 FSU (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. VT (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2000 OU (only undefeated BCS team) v. FSU (highest preseason ranked 1 loss teamat #2)
2001 Miami (only undefeated BCS team) v. Nebraska (highest preseason ranked 1 loss team #4)
2002 OSU (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. Miami (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2003 LSU (3rd highest ranked preseason at #14, but SEC champ) v. OU (highest ranked preseason one loss team at #1)
*USC was passed despite being 2nd highest ranked preseason one loss team, but has one less win than LSU and OU.
2004 USC (1/3 undefeated BCS teams, highest preseason rank at #1) v. OU (1/3 undefeated teams, 2nd highest preseason rank at #2)
2005 USC (1/2 undefeated BCS teams) v. UT (1/2 undefeated BCS teams)
2006 UF (highest preseason ranked 1 loss BCS team at #7) v. OSU (only undefeated BCS team)
2007 LSU (highest preseason ranked 2 loss BCS team at #2) v. OSU (only BCS 1 loss team with decent SOS/conference champ)
**KU excluded at 1 loss, but SOS in the 100's and no conference champ
2008 UF (3rd highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #5) v. OU (2nd highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #4)
*USC excluded despite being highest preseason ranked 1 loss team at #3, but has one less win than UF and OU

Based on the above, the "normal" logic (and therefore the rule to date under my theory) is this:
Best BCS team record. tiebreaker = highest preseason rank among common record BCS teams.
*exception for SEC/BigX12 champ (have CG and therefore one more win) over other BCS teams of similar loss total.
**exception for exclusion of a BCS team with 1 loss less that has extremely low SOS and no conference champ.

The first exception has only been leveled over USC (one of your cabal teams) and in both cases they had one less win than those who jumped them. The second exception has only gone towards an extreme situation of KU with a SOS of 106 or so, no conference championship, and they avoided playing 3/4 best teams in their own conference.
Otherwise "Best BCS team record. tiebreaker = highest preseason rank among common record BCS teams" is the real rule. "Cabal" is not the distinguishing feature, it's preseason poll position.

Forgive me. I was bored and curious and am sick of hearing about this “cabal”.

But P6P, one of the basic elements of your theory is the pre-season ranking. The cabal teams always get the better pre-season rankings over the non-cabals due to history, perception etc. Therefore, that's were the cabal has the built in advantage.
How many times has Clemson been ranked in the pre-season Top 25 only to fade quickly. Yet, our team three years ago wasn't even ranked pre-season and had a huge hill to climb. Teams like BC and the other non-cabal teams are at a disadvantage and if the pre-season ranking is a big piece of your theory then that only supports my point. If it isn't a cabal, then how is it that out of 120 BCS teams that only a dozen or so have participated in the NC game? Auburn, a BCS team, was undefeated and didn't go. Why? They were passed over for two cabal teams. Undefeated Hawaii and other non-BCS undefeateds have been passed over by cabal teams and probably roghtfully so. But, Auburn is a BCS team, went undefeated in 2004 and didn't go. Why" They had the same record but are not in the cabal like the two that went. There is no example of a non cabal with a even record or even slightly better record than a cabal team making the NC. Until that happens, my theory holds. You are talking about a bunch of cabal teams beating out a bunch of cabal teams. That's not the same, Auburn is the best proof to date that my theory holds water. Auburn was the odd man out in 2004 because they aren't in the cabal.

[pick6pedro]

But P6P, one of the basic elements of your theory is the pre-season ranking. The cabal teams always get the better pre-season rankings over the non-cabals due to history, perception etc. Therefore, that's were the cabal has the built in advantage.
How many times has Clemson been ranked in the pre-season Top 25 only to fade quickly. Yet, our team three years ago wasn't even ranked pre-season and had a huge hill to climb. Teams like BC and the other non-cabal teams are at a disadvantage and if the pre-season ranking is a big piece of your theory then that only supports my point. If it isn't a cabal, then how is it that out of 120 BCS teams that only a dozen or so have participated in the NC game? Auburn, a BCS team, was undefeated and didn't go. Why? They were passed over for two cabal teams. Undefeated Hawaii and other non-BCS undefeateds have been passed over by cabal teams and probably roghtfully so. But, Auburn is a BCS team, went undefeated in 2004 and didn't go. Why" They had the same record but are not in the cabal like the two that went. There is no example of a non cabal with a even record or even slightly better record than a cabal team making the NC. Until that happens, my theory holds. You are talking about a bunch of cabal teams beating out a bunch of cabal teams. That's not the same, Auburn is the best proof to date that my theory holds water. Auburn was the odd man out in 2004 because they aren't in the cabal.

Auburn is the best proof to date? First you tout LSU '07 as the best example now Auburn '04? Which is it? They were never "passed over"; that's what you have trouble understanding. Auburn finished 8-5 in the previous season and wasn't ranked. What proof is that? No, they are not in your cabal. But because they started so low (maybe if they had done more than win 61% of their games the previous year they may have had a decent preseason ranking), it limited their ability to pass two teams far ahead of them who also did not lose. But that does not prove anything of the cabal. All it proves is that there was zero basis to rank them high preseason, and the system doesn't let them pass higher preseason ranked teams who did not lose (who had more reason to be ranked in the preseason than they ever did) - supporting my theory. No one jumped other BCS teams of lesser winning percentage (as is the part of your theory that is bogus).

By the way, I count 24 non-cabal teams ranked in the top 10 preseason since 1998.

I also notice you didn't refute my theory, just tried to make a lot of noise about yours. Seems to be your way.

Either way, I'm done with this. You can thank me for letting it go this long so you could jerk off to your remnants of a conspiracy theory.

Again, there is zero evidence that a one loss cabal team would leapfrog an undefeated BCS non-cabal team, yet you use all these other dissimilar situations as your "proof". Take a last look at my rule. If you can't see the logic, then God bless you and your mental capacity.

[innocentbystander]

This whole conversation is silly. Cincinnati wins a very close game vs a mediocre UConn and they drop from #5 to #5.



I think Cincinnati has 3 more games. If they win all three by just one point each (and Texas drops a game, somewhere) I don't care how good TCU or Boise look, Cincinnati will be playing the winner of the SEC Championship for the NC. You can bet your life that will happen.

Cincinnati does NOT control their own destiny. Alabama, Florida, and Texas do, but not Cincinnati. That said, there is nothing that Cincinnati can do improve their position by whaling on their next three opponents. The best they could hope for is to go from #5 to #4 in the BCS poll (which means absolutely nothing.)

[1981Eagle]

But P6P, one of the basic elements of your theory is the pre-season ranking. The cabal teams always get the better pre-season rankings over the non-cabals due to history, perception etc. Therefore, that's were the cabal has the built in advantage.
How many times has Clemson been ranked in the pre-season Top 25 only to fade quickly. Yet, our team three years ago wasn't even ranked pre-season and had a huge hill to climb. Teams like BC and the other non-cabal teams are at a disadvantage and if the pre-season ranking is a big piece of your theory then that only supports my point. If it isn't a cabal, then how is it that out of 120 BCS teams that only a dozen or so have participated in the NC game? Auburn, a BCS team, was undefeated and didn't go. Why? They were passed over for two cabal teams. Undefeated Hawaii and other non-BCS undefeateds have been passed over by cabal teams and probably roghtfully so. But, Auburn is a BCS team, went undefeated in 2004 and didn't go. Why" They had the same record but are not in the cabal like the two that went. There is no example of a non cabal with a even record or even slightly better record than a cabal team making the NC. Until that happens, my theory holds. You are talking about a bunch of cabal teams beating out a bunch of cabal teams. That's not the same, Auburn is the best proof to date that my theory holds water. Auburn was the odd man out in 2004 because they aren't in the cabal.

Auburn is the best proof to date? They were never "passed over"; that's what you have trouble understanding. Auburn finished 8-5 in the previous season and wasn't ranked. What proof is that? No, they are not in your cabal. But because they started so low (maybe if they had done more than win 61% of their games the previous year they may have had a decent preseason ranking), it limited their ability to pass two teams far ahead of them who also did not lose. But that does not prove anything of the cabal. All it proves is that there was zero basis to rank them high preseason, and the system doesn't let them pass higher preseason ranked teams who did not lose (who had more reason to be ranked in the preseason than they ever did) - supporting my theory. No one jumped other BCS teams of lesser winning percentage (as is the part of your theory that is bogus).

By the way, I count 24 non-cabal teams ranked in the top 10 preseason since 1998.

I also notice you didn't refute my theory, just tried to make a lot of noise about yours. Seems to be your way.

Either way, I'm done with this. You can thank me for letting it go this long so you could jerk off to your remnants of a conspiracy theory.

Again, there is zero evidence that a one loss cabal team would leapfrog an undefeated BCS non-cabal team, yet you use all these other dissimilar situations as your "proof". Take a last look at my rule. If you can't see the logic, then God bless you and your mental capacity.

P6P, I am not arguing with your logic and not being argumentative. You bring up many good points. I just don't think the pre-season rankings should affect the teams ultimate final ranking, Their performance on the field should be what matters and their SOS. The pre and early season rankings favor the cabal traditional powers. Are you refuting that fact? How many times have Miami, FSU and Clemson been ranked in the pre and early season rankings by AP and USA today over say a BC of three years ago. Why? Because they are Miami, FSU and Clemson--part of the cabal. Yet, the best BC team in recent memory gets no pre season ranking when BC finished far ahead of all three despite starting so much lower. The cabal teams are usually ranked higher pre-season and sometimes it has to do with previous years performance but much of the time it's just based upon their general reputation of being historically ranked teams. You are saying there is no cabal. Yet, the pre-season rankings show that there is to a large extent about 20-30 teams that you can virtually gurantee will be ranked in the Top 25 pre-season polls year in and year out--and teams like BC are rarely one of them. Yet, you say pre-season position is a major factor after the teams record. Well, if pre=season ranking is a major factor and the cabal teams get the better pre-season rankings then how can you say the cabal teams aren't given an inside track to the BCS bowls. They only have to equal the non-cabals and maybe can do a little worse than the cabals and still get the nod over the non-cabals because they started higher in the pre-season rankins. I will not similarly question your mental capacity as I think we are having a fair debate, but how can you not see that logic? By the way, by calling it a cabal I'm really not claiming an intentional conspiracy. I am just acknoledging that the national view is that certain teams are "expected" to be ranked going into the season based upon their historical performance/reputation. Auburn wasn't one of them and they got left out of the NC game with the two remaining cabal teams playing for the NC. The fact they started lower should have NOTHING to do with whether they should have played for the NC. So, what your saying is Auburn may have lost it's chance at the NC because it didn't do as well as the other two teams the year before? I don't care what they did the year before. I only care what team is the best that year. Auburn may have been the best team in 2004. We will never know.

EDIT: We clearly need a playoff as we all know. If we had a playoff then a non-cabal team would have an equal chance to win along with any other BCS or non-BCS team just like George Mason going to the Final Four in Bball a few years back. That can't realistically happen in football because a similar team would have too low of a pre-season ranking and could never climb high enough to be part of the discussion even if they ran the table. Maybe Boise or TCU or Cincy are a George Mason but the odds of them getting a chance to play for the NC are pretty low given the current set-up of a popularity contest among traditional football powers.

[1981Eagle]

SOS of the undefeateds:

25, 40, 48, 52, 65, 79

Bama, UF, TCU, UT, Cincy, BSU

They need to bring SOS back into the BCS equation. With 120 teams, then a team shouldn't be allowed to play for the NC if your SOS is below the 50 percentile of BCS schools. So, below 60 and no NC game consideration. That will put some brake on this cupcake scheduling. Cincy and BSU would be out in that scenario er above.

[pick6pedro]

P6P, I am not arguing with your logic and not being argumentative. You bring up many good points. I just don't think the pre-season rankings should affect the teams ultimate final ranking, Their performance on the field should be what matters and their SOS. The pre and early season rankings favor the cabal traditional powers. Are you refuting that fact? How many times have Miami, FSU and Clemson been ranked in the pre and early season rankings by AP and USA today over say a BC of three years ago. Why? Because they are Miami, FSU and Clemson--part of the cabal. Yet, the best BC team in recent memory gets no pre season ranking when BC finished far ahead of all three despite starting so much lower. The cabal teams are usually ranked higher pre-season and sometimes it has to do with previous years performance but much of the time it's just based upon their general reputation of being historically ranked teams. You are saying there is no cabal. Yet, the pre-season rankings show that there is to a large extent about 20-30 teams that you can virtually gurantee will be ranked in the Top 25 pre-season polls year in and year out--and teams like BC are rarely one of them. Yet, you say pre-season position is a major factor after the teams record. Well, if pre=season ranking is a major factor and the cabal teams get the better pre-season rankings then how can you say the cabal teams aren't given an inside track to the BCS bowls. They only have to equal the non-cabals and maybe can do a little worse than the cabals and still get the nod over the non-cabals because they started higher in the pre-season rankins. I will not similarly question your mental capacity as I think we are having a fair debate, but how can you not see that logic? By the way, by calling it a cabal I'm really not claiming an intentional conspiracy. I am just acknoledging that the national view is that certain teams are "expected" to be ranked going into the season based upon their historical performance/reputation. Auburn wasn't one of them and they got left out of the NC game with the two remaining cabal teams playing for the NC. The fact they started lower should have NOTHING to do with whether they should have played for the NC. So, what your saying is Auburn may have lost it's chance at the NC because it didn't do as well as the other two teams the year before? I don't care what they did the year before. I only care what team is the best that year. Auburn may have been the best team in 2004. We will never know.

EDIT: We clearly need a playoff as we all know. If we had a playoff then a non-cabal team would have an equal chance to win along with any other BCS or non-BCS team just like George Mason going to the Final Four in Bball a few years back. That can't realistically happen in football because a similar team would have too low of a pre-season ranking and could never climb high enough to be part of the discussion even if they ran the table. Maybe Boise or TCU or Cincy are a George Mason but the odds of them getting a chance to play for the NC are pretty low given the current set-up of a popularity contest among traditional football powers.

81 - for the most part we are agreeing. I agree there are teams that are given more credit in polls due to nothing more than a perception of prestige. I agree the NC should not be based on preseason expectations nor past accomplishments. I agree a playoff is in order. I've even said that for the most part the cabal theory makes logical sense because so far it's what has occurred.

My points were twofold:

#1 - To come up with a rule that covers all situations. your cabal theory leaves a lot to be desired in that it doesn't cover all scenarios. There are plenty of non-cabals who have been preseason ranked above cabals and therefore if they win out and a lower ranked cabal team wins out, the non-cabal will be in the NC game over that cabal team based on preseason ranking (thus the rule I created). Example would be WVU 2007 ranked ahead of 17 cabal teams. Auburn in 2006. Cal in 2006. I could go on. My rule covers that; yours does not. I'm saying that preseason rank does affect the final rankings, not that they should.

#2 - To refute your 50-50 theory about a 1 loss cabal team making the NC game over an undefeated non cabal team. Under my theory non-BCS non-cabals don't count. Any undefeated BCS non-cabal would play in the NC game over a 1 loss cabal team UNLESS there were extreme circumstances such as KU's SOS in 2007. Perhaps you've backed off this point because you haven't acknowledge in this thread that you've made that claim earlier nor tried to argue with my criticism of that point.

[angrychicken]

But P6P, one of the basic elements of your theory is the pre-season ranking. The cabal teams always get the better pre-season rankings over the non-cabals due to history, perception etc. Therefore, that's were the cabal has the built in advantage.
How many times has Clemson been ranked in the pre-season Top 25 only to fade quickly. Yet, our team three years ago wasn't even ranked pre-season and had a huge hill to climb. Teams like BC and the other non-cabal teams are at a disadvantage and if the pre-season ranking is a big piece of your theory then that only supports my point. If it isn't a cabal, then how is it that out of 120 BCS teams that only a dozen or so have participated in the NC game? Auburn, a BCS team, was undefeated and didn't go. Why? They were passed over for two cabal teams. Undefeated Hawaii and other non-BCS undefeateds have been passed over by cabal teams and probably roghtfully so. But, Auburn is a BCS team, went undefeated in 2004 and didn't go. Why" They had the same record but are not in the cabal like the two that went. There is no example of a non cabal with a even record or even slightly better record than a cabal team making the NC. Until that happens, my theory holds. You are talking about a bunch of cabal teams beating out a bunch of cabal teams. That's not the same, Auburn is the best proof to date that my theory holds water. Auburn was the odd man out in 2004 because they aren't in the cabal.

Auburn is the best proof to date? They were never "passed over"; that's what you have trouble understanding. Auburn finished 8-5 in the previous season and wasn't ranked. What proof is that? No, they are not in your cabal. But because they started so low (maybe if they had done more than win 61% of their games the previous year they may have had a decent preseason ranking), it limited their ability to pass two teams far ahead of them who also did not lose. But that does not prove anything of the cabal. All it proves is that there was zero basis to rank them high preseason, and the system doesn't let them pass higher preseason ranked teams who did not lose (who had more reason to be ranked in the preseason than they ever did) - supporting my theory. No one jumped other BCS teams of lesser winning percentage (as is the part of your theory that is bogus).

By the way, I count 24 non-cabal teams ranked in the top 10 preseason since 1998.

I also notice you didn't refute my theory, just tried to make a lot of noise about yours. Seems to be your way.

Either way, I'm done with this. You can thank me for letting it go this long so you could jerk off to your remnants of a conspiracy theory.

Again, there is zero evidence that a one loss cabal team would leapfrog an undefeated BCS non-cabal team, yet you use all these other dissimilar situations as your "proof". Take a last look at my rule. If you can't see the logic, then God bless you and your mental capacity.

P6P, I am not arguing with your logic and not being argumentative. You bring up many good points. I just don't think the pre-season rankings should affect the teams ultimate final ranking, Their performance on the field should be what matters and their SOS. The pre and early season rankings favor the cabal traditional powers. Are you refuting that fact? How many times have Miami, FSU and Clemson been ranked in the pre and early season rankings by AP and USA today over say a BC of three years ago. Why? Because they are Miami, FSU and Clemson--part of the cabal. Yet, the best BC team in recent memory gets no pre season ranking when BC finished far ahead of all three despite starting so much lower. The cabal teams are usually ranked higher pre-season and sometimes it has to do with previous years performance but much of the time it's just based upon their general reputation of being historically ranked teams. You are saying there is no cabal. Yet, the pre-season rankings show that there is to a large extent about 20-30 teams that you can virtually gurantee will be ranked in the Top 25 pre-season polls year in and year out--and teams like BC are rarely one of them. Yet, you say pre-season position is a major factor after the teams record. Well, if pre=season ranking is a major factor and the cabal teams get the better pre-season rankings then how can you say the cabal teams aren't given an inside track to the BCS bowls. They only have to equal the non-cabals and maybe can do a little worse than the cabals and still get the nod over the non-cabals because they started higher in the pre-season rankins. I will not similarly question your mental capacity as I think we are having a fair debate, but how can you not see that logic? By the way, by calling it a cabal I'm really not claiming an intentional conspiracy. I am just acknoledging that the national view is that certain teams are "expected" to be ranked going into the season based upon their historical performance/reputation. Auburn wasn't one of them and they got left out of the NC game with the two remaining cabal teams playing for the NC. The fact they started lower should have NOTHING to do with whether they should have played for the NC. So, what your saying is Auburn may have lost it's chance at the NC because it didn't do as well as the other two teams the year before? I don't care what they did the year before. I only care what team is the best that year. Auburn may have been the best team in 2004. We will never know.

EDIT: We clearly need a playoff as we all know. If we had a playoff then a non-cabal team would have an equal chance to win along with any other BCS or non-BCS team just like George Mason going to the Final Four in Bball a few years back. That can't realistically happen in football because a similar team would have too low of a pre-season ranking and could never climb high enough to be part of the discussion even if they ran the table. Maybe Boise or TCU or Cincy are a George Mason but the odds of them getting a chance to play for the NC are pretty low given the current set-up of a popularity contest among traditional football powers.

Can someone summarize this argument for me? Thanks in advance.

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

Sure.

1981: Noise, jibberish, more noise, etc.

Pedro: Here is how preseason rankings, strength of schedule, performance on the field and a team's status as a BCS or non-BCS conference member impacts their likelihood of appearing in the NC game.

[angrychicken]

Sure.

1981: Noise, jibberish, more noise, etc.

Pedro: Here is how preseason rankings, strength of schedule, performance on the field and a team's status as a BCS or non-BCS conference member impacts their likelihood of appearing in the NC game.

Thanks

[angrychicken]

Sure.

1981: Noise, jibberish, more noise, etc.

Pedro: Here is how preseason rankings, strength of schedule, performance on the field and a team's status as a BCS or non-BCS conference member impacts their likelihood of appearing in the NC game.

Thanks

You forgot 81's other point, which is something about there being a mysterious, nefarious Jewish cabal running college football.

That's nothing compared to the Mooslum cabal taking over college soccer. They're even setting it up for future generations.

[1981Eagle]

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

[1981Eagle]

Sure.

1981: Noise, jibberish, more noise, etc.

Pedro: Here is how preseason rankings, strength of schedule, performance on the field and a team's status as a BCS or non-BCS conference member impacts their likelihood of appearing in the NC game.

Thanks

You guys have no valid explanation for the Auburn snub. Auburn was snubbed because they were very good the year before? I call BS. It only matters how good they are in 2004. Period, And, they weren't given a chance because they aren't part of the CABAL. It will happen to Cincy too if they run the table. Watch and learn from 81.

[eagle9903]

Sure.

1981: Noise, jibberish, more noise, etc.

Pedro: Here is how preseason rankings, strength of schedule, performance on the field and a team's status as a BCS or non-BCS conference member impacts their likelihood of appearing in the NC game.

Thanks

You guys have no valid explanation for the Auburn snub. Auburn was snubbed because they were very good the year before? I call BS. It only matters how good they are in 2004. Period, And, they weren't given a chance because they aren't part of the CABAL. It will happen to Cincy too if they run the table. Watch and learn from 81.

SEC: Florida, Tenn., Georgia, LSU, Bama

Here is your explanation. Auburn doesn't fit your wacky cabal theory so you arbitrarily left them out. They are a large SEC member land grant with 6 claimed national championships and are BAMAs rival, they are part of the cabal. Maybe though, the cabal didn't want to be exposed, and maybe they saw your internet sleuthing and brilliant expose coming, so maybe they kept Auburn out of the NC to keep the illusion of fairness in college football intact.

[angrychicken]

Sure.

1981: Noise, jibberish, more noise, etc.

Pedro: Here is how preseason rankings, strength of schedule, performance on the field and a team's status as a BCS or non-BCS conference member impacts their likelihood of appearing in the NC game.

Thanks

You guys have no valid explanation for the Auburn snub. Auburn was snubbed because they were very good the year before? I call BS. It only matters how good they are in 2004. Period, And, they weren't given a chance because they aren't part of the CABAL. It will happen to Cincy too if they run the table. Watch and learn from 81.

Auburn did not play in the national championship game because only two teams are allowed to play in that game.

[Onyx Blackman]

I glossed over most of what eightyone wrote, but has he explained why USC was not part of the cabal when they got passed over by Oklahoma and LSU in 2003, but then part of the cabal when they made it ahead of Auburn in 04?

[apbc12]

It's a known fact that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as the Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado known as--The Meadows.

So who's in this Pentavirate?

The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, AND Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhooohhhhh!"

81, how can you hate...the Colonel?

Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly, smartass!

[1981Eagle]

Sure.

1981: Noise, jibberish, more noise, etc.

Pedro: Here is how preseason rankings, strength of schedule, performance on the field and a team's status as a BCS or non-BCS conference member impacts their likelihood of appearing in the NC game.

Thanks

You guys have no valid explanation for the Auburn snub. Auburn was snubbed because they were very good the year before? I call BS. It only matters how good they are in 2004. Period, And, they weren't given a chance because they aren't part of the CABAL. It will happen to Cincy too if they run the table. Watch and learn from 81.

Auburn did not play in the national championship game because only two teams are allowed to play in that game.

So true. By why was Auburn left out? According to you, it's because they were 8-5 the year before compared to better records the year before by the two actual invitees to the NC game. I say "Who gives a flying F what their record was the year before". What the hell does that have to do with who the best team is that year. Some teams are more cabal than others. It can be argued that Auburn may be part of the cabal but they are no where close to Fl, Bama and the others in terms of their cabalness. Just admit it. When Cincy gets snubbed after running the table, you will be forced to admit the cabal theory.