re: Media Bias...You be the judge.

You know what...if I were you, I'd play tonsile hockey with a 9mm.

I left out 2000 and 2001 because ESPN's stats only go back to 2002.

Your fricking stats about the Pac 10 are irrelevent because I was referring to USC's competition, which means that you must remove their stats from the equation. If you remove USC's stats, the remainder of the Pac-10, since 2002 is barely a .500 conference. Since USC has lost only once in that time frame, it severely skews the numbers.

I left out this year because there is not an outcome with which to compare a preseason ranking.

One can derive numbers and make them look any way they want by changing the time-table. But if your going to argue, at least make your arguments sensible and use the same time-frame.

By the way, if I were you, I would get a penis enlargement, or liposuction, or a face lift because you wasted a good portion of the day just trying to prove me wrong in an effort to make yourself feel better about whatever self-esteem issue you have. There was no basis for your rantings...No real reason, that you stated, for your fillibuster, except to be argumentative. I bet you do this sort of thing all the time. I hear talking to a therapist really helps with that sort of thing.

quote:

---

Maybe it's the LSU fans who are biased and any time LSU isn't voted preseason #1 they want to riot?

---

When you see one team and only one team with two championships in the BCS era, and that team has yet to be picked #1 in the BCS era, logic does not suggest that the bias is on the part of that team's supporters.

quote:

---

If you remove USC's stats, the remainder of the Pac-10, since 2002 is barely a .500 conference. Since USC has lost only once in that time frame, it severely skews the numbers.

---

Didn't SC lose two games, in the Pac 10, just last year? And the year before that?

Either write more clearly or check some records before you write. Statements like this do not enhance one's credibility.

quote:

---

Auburn got their asses handed to them by USC the year before in Jordan-Hare. What that means is there is really NO WAY you can say they were derserving in 2004. Maybe, maybe not.

My point is, this is the system, as screwed up as it is. By the way, it has worked pretty well for your favorite team.

---

What the frick does USC beating Auburn in 03 have to do with 04? Absolutely nothing.

quote:

---

quote:


Media Bias


idiocy usually follows those words.


Yeah, because some idiot always tries to make some absurd argument about how the media isn't biased, as if huge multi-million dollar corporations aren't going to conduct themselves based on profit margin, but rather act purely in the interest of fair and balanced reporting of the most deserving teams in college football.

Complete idiocy.

---

Boom! To you idiots.

Well said, King.

Damn KingJoey, you are making too much sense for the rant and the idiots on it. Nice, keep it up.

quote:

---

Interesting facts...

1. Since 2002 there have been only 3 different teams ranked number 1 in the preseason. Those teams are USC, OK, and Ohio State. These three teams have combined for 10 wins and 8 losses in bowl games in the last 6 years.

---

Interesting what you leave out...that USC has been to 6 BCS Bowl games and has a recorded of 5-1 (only loss by 3 points in that Rose Bowl epic to one of the greatest players of all time.) Not too shabby. Convenient of you to lump USC in with all those losses that OK and Tosu had...maybe we should say stupid stuff like Kentucky, Vanderbilt and LSU have combined for X amount of losses the last 10 years. Truly wonderful logic.

quote:

---

2. USC has been a preseason number 1 in either the coaches Poll or AP Poll 4 of the last 6 years. Despite those rankings USC can lay claim to 1 BCS Title.

---

Gee, 1 BCS title, 1 AP title , 37-2 in 3 years, 34 game winning streak, 6 straight 10 win seasons, 6 straight BCS bowls...yeah, the preseason pollsters are really stupid.

quote:

---

3. There has been only 1 instance where the preseason #1 ranked team ended the year #1, and that year was 2004 when USC defeated OK. We don't really know how good USC was because they didn't play the best team...Auburn.

---

Deep captivity during the 2004 season? Watch any games? Best team Auburn? Of course, they play in the SEC. What a completely ridiculous statement.

quote:

---

4. Oklahoma has not won a BCS bowl since they defeated FSU in the 2001 National Championship game.

---

So the regular season doesn't count anymore...it's all about won-loss in BCS bowl games? Again, obviously don't actually watch college football outside of the South.

quote:

---

5. Since 2002 only 1 team has 2 BCS National Championships...LSU, and their highest ranking to begin a season in the last...Oh I don't know...forever was number 2 last year.

---

Now we get to the reason behind this post...personal rant.

quote:

---

6. Since 2002, only 1 Pac 10 team, other than USC has been to a BCS bowl. That was Washington State, and they got trounced by OK.

---

Half your rant starts at 2000, the other half starts at 2002, how convenient to say whatever you are trying say. Was another Pac 10 team ranked preseason #1 during this time span? If not, then this makes no sense. Sorry, regardless of what you think of the Pac 10 (and you're wrong) history is full of truly great teams emerging from so-so conferences...Bama in the 1970s, Miami in the Big East in the 80s, FSU in the ACC in the 90s. So the Chicago Bears weren't a great team in 1985 because they played in a weak division in the NFL? Such utterly lame logic...conferences don't make great teams, talent makes great teams as evidenced by USC TROUNCING every OOC foe in the SEC.

quote:

---

7. The Pac 10, aside from USC, is a combined
14 and 13 in bowl games since 2002. With losses to such juggernauts as Wyoming, Fresno State, Hawaii, BYU, and TCU.

---

Again what does this have to do with preseason rankings? Gee, Florida lost to Michigan, West Virginia beat UGA, USC trounced Auburn twice. Okay, those facts mean LSU has sucked that last 10 years...great logic.

quote:

---

8. Ohio State is 0-9 against the SEC.

---

The SEC is 5-11 against the PAC 10 the last six years. What's your point? I'll use your logic...that means the SEC sucks!

quote:

---

9. Only one team has won more games than LSU in this decade, and that is USC. Boise State is tied with LSU, but is dismissed from the team of the decade discussion because of the conference they play in. Well I say it is comparable to the conference OSU and USC play in.

---

This statement just says it all about your ranter post.

quote:

---

More to Come...

---

Please no...

quote:

---

Yeah, because some idiot always tries to make some absurd argument about how the media isn't biased, as if huge multi-million dollar corporations aren't going to conduct themselves based on profit margin, but rather act purely in the interest of fair and balanced reporting of the most deserving teams in college football.

---

There are 65 voters in the AP poll from 65 different organizations. If you want to show that the huge multi-million dollar (strange way to describe huge today) corporations are controlling the vote, first you need to show that they control a substantial portion of the vote (e.g. they actually own a substantial number of the voting orgs). Then you need to show that the substantial portion that they control act in unison in a way that is inconsistent with the part they don't control.

Or you could just rant.

quote:

---

When you see one team and only one team with two championships in the BCS era, and that team has yet to be picked #1 in the BCS era, logic does not suggest that the bias is on the part of that team's supporters.

---

Yeah, like our fans on this website aren't biased Hell, that's why there's the outrage every year.

We were ranked #2 last year after losing 4 first round players. That's not bad. Regardless of how we finished or how many titles we have, I'm not sure there has been a season in the BCS era where LSU being #1 would have made sense.

Indiana Tiger said:

quote:

---

There are 65 voters in the AP poll from 65 different organizations. If you want to show that the huge multi-million dollar (strange way to describe huge today) corporations are controlling the vote, first you need to show that they control a substantial portion of the vote (e.g. they actually own a substantial number of the voting orgs)

---

All 65 AP writers work for the AP (Duh!) -- ONE organization, 100% of the vote.

The consolidation of media ownership in general by a very few has been ongoing for well over a decade. Disney owns ABC and ESPN and their $220 million contract with the VERY PACIFIC 10 explains their bias easily as well as why ESPN has buried the Bush story. When Bush admitted to taking improper benefits in 2004 and 2005 in his last legal maneuver, there was NO MENTION of this. Without bell cow USC in the TV mix, that $220 million deal is worth about $100 million -- in LOSSES. Does ESPN/ABC want anything but positive hype for the sanction-headed no-championship Trojans?

quote:

---

Then you need to show that the substantial portion that they control act in unison in a way that is inconsistent with the part they don't control.

---

Yahoo! has no TV contracts with anyone and they are the ones who broke the Bush story. CBS has a huge contract with the SEC and they are the ones who broke the Guillory-Mayo story and reopened the Bush wound.

That only leaves NBC and their deal with Notre Dame...make what you will of that. That there is bias in media is a fact. Economic motivations rival agenda-driven motives. In either case the actions are invariably self-serving.

Ignoring 2004 -- the NC title for that year is about to be vacated -- the few weeks LSU was voted #1 last season were the FIRST regular season weeks in 6 years that the AP correctly picked the eventual BCS champion in a regular season weekly poll. That is an astonishing record of being wrong. Can they be THAT awful, or are their selections guided by other concerns?