(11-18-2013 10:39 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  USC has a path to the Sugar Bowl. But its an inside straight.

1) Either TAMU or Ole Miss must beat Mizzou
2) USC must beat Clemson
3) USC must then beat either Alabama or Auburn in the SEC Championship game.

Do that, and its a trip to New Orleans. Otherwise, its a non-BCS bowl.

Actually all USC needs is 1 and 3. They do that and they are SEC champs. 2 is meaningless in those terms.

(11-18-2013 12:21 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 09:33 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:03 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 04:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  4) South Carolina will only go to a BCS bowl if they win the SEC. Otherwise, they'll have 3 losses AND they have already played UCF, who may be the team the Sugar Bowl has to take.

South Carolina will beat Clemson, it is known.

And the irony is that it will mean nothing.

Clemson is going to the Orange Bowl no matter if they lay an egg with SC and SC can not get to a BCS bowl because at worst Auburn will be 10-2 and if Auburn beats Bama, Bama gets the second BCS spot.

Remember two years ago when the BCS went out of its way to finally put two ACC teams in BCS games? Both fell flat on their faces, including a Clemson humiliation.

FSU is a shoe-in, of course. But I'm not sure anyone will want Clemson, if they lose to South Carolina.

Not exactly falling on your face when you lose in OT and officiating is questionable like it was in the 2012 Sugar Bowl. .

It was a major face-fall, since the team you lost to, Michigan, finished 3rd in the B1G and barely eeked into BCS bowl eligibility the last week of the season. That win was practically placed on a silver platter for you and you couldn't get it done.

Combine that with Clemson's humiliation at the hands of #24 West Virginia and the BCS bowl results were a colossal debacle for the ACC.

(11-18-2013 12:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:21 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 09:33 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 09:03 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  South Carolina will beat Clemson, it is known.

And the irony is that it will mean nothing.

Clemson is going to the Orange Bowl no matter if they lay an egg with SC and SC can not get to a BCS bowl because at worst Auburn will be 10-2 and if Auburn beats Bama, Bama gets the second BCS spot.

Remember two years ago when the BCS went out of its way to finally put two ACC teams in BCS games? Both fell flat on their faces, including a Clemson humiliation.

FSU is a shoe-in, of course. But I'm not sure anyone will want Clemson, if they lose to South Carolina.

Not exactly falling on your face when you lose in OT and officiating is questionable like it was in the 2012 Sugar Bowl. .

It was a major face-fall, since the team you lost to, Michigan, finished 3rd in the B1G and barely eeked into BCS bowl eligibility the last week of the season. That win was practically placed on a silver platter for you and you couldn't get it done.

Michigan was favored and the higher ranked team in one poll. How is it falling on your face when you lose to the favored team in a close game?

(11-18-2013 12:34 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:21 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 09:33 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  And the irony is that it will mean nothing.

Clemson is going to the Orange Bowl no matter if they lay an egg with SC and SC can not get to a BCS bowl because at worst Auburn will be 10-2 and if Auburn beats Bama, Bama gets the second BCS spot.

Remember two years ago when the BCS went out of its way to finally put two ACC teams in BCS games? Both fell flat on their faces, including a Clemson humiliation.

FSU is a shoe-in, of course. But I'm not sure anyone will want Clemson, if they lose to South Carolina.

Not exactly falling on your face when you lose in OT and officiating is questionable like it was in the 2012 Sugar Bowl. .

It was a major face-fall, since the team you lost to, Michigan, finished 3rd in the B1G and barely eeked into BCS bowl eligibility the last week of the season. That win was practically placed on a silver platter for you and you couldn't get it done.

Michigan was favored and the higher ranked team in one poll. How is it falling on your face when you lose to the favored team in a close game?

VT was #11 in the BCS, Michigan was #13. Michigan was favored only because VT was seen as a weak, undeserving BCS participant by most observers. Your last game before the Sugar was getting crushed by Clemson in the ACC title game.

That invitation was obviously a sop to the ACC because you guys never get 2 teams in the BCS, a mistake the BCS bowls are unlikely to make again if SC beats Clemson.

(11-18-2013 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think a "dynasty" just means the years a team wins a title. E.g., when people talk about the Steeler's NFL dynasty of the 1970s, they mean the 4 years in 6 they won the title, 1974-1979, even though two years right in the middle they didn't.

The term "dynasty" is ridiculously overused in sports.

The Russell-era Boston Celtics won 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons. You can call that a dynasty. Winning over a much shorter period? Or winning only 4 titles in 10 years? Not a dynasty.

If Alabama wins this year they're absolutely a dynasty. 4 titles in 5 years with 3 in a row? Yeah, that definitely qualifies. Steelers back late 70's 4 titles 6 years- yep. Them too. Bulls 6 titles 8 years- that's a dynasty.

I think I agree with you that it's overused- but when you get up to 4 titles in a 5-7 year period- that qualifies easily. I think that 4th one really changes the equation considerably.

(11-18-2013 06:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If Alabama wins this year they're absolutely a dynasty. 4 titles in 5 years with 3 in a row? Yeah, that definitely qualifies. Steelers back late 70's 4 titles 6 years- yep. Them too. Bulls 6 titles 8 years- that's a dynasty.

I think I agree with you that it's overused- but when you get up to 4 titles in a 5-7 year period- that qualifies easily. I think that 4th one really changes the equation considerably.

I tend to agree: You need at least 4 titles to be a dynasty, and it has to come in a compressed period of time, like no more than 6 or so years.

The only NFL dynasties of the past 50 years were the Steelers of the 70s and the Packers of the 60s.