Posted on 12/03/2007 11:06:43 AM PST by Bulldawg Fan
The Sugar Bowl is a nice consolation prize. And Georgia was hurt by not being in the Conference game. On the other hand, if they had played in the conference game and lost, they wouldn't have made it to a BCS bowl.
Neither the Rose or the Sugar got as good of a matchup as a Georgia - USC game would have been.
Thats the earliest we will see the two best teams in the SEC play each other.
Think about how the bowl games would have shaken out this year under the system that was in place before the BCS . . .
#1 Ohio State (Big 10 champions) would be forced to play in the Rose Bowl against #7 USC (Pac-10 champions).
#2 LSU (SEC champions) would go to the Sugar Bowl against an invited team (maybe #3 Virginia Tech).
#4 Oklahoma (Big 12 champions) would go to the Orange Bowl against an invited team (maybe #5 Georgia).
#6 Missouri would play in either the Cotton Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl -- probably against #9 West Virginia (for the Cotton Bowl) or #10 Arizona State (for the Fiesta Bowl).
#8 Kansas would get invited to either the Cotton or the Fiesta to play West Virginia or Arizona State (depending on Missouri's selection).
. . .
Now -- If #1 Ohio State loses to #7 USC, and #3 Virginia Tech beats #2 LSU, you'd get the same controversy about the national championship that you have now with the BCS.
And take it one step further, too. Even if Ohio State were to WIN against USC, you could still have a legitimate case where #2 LSU wins the national championship by dominating the #3 team. This is basically what happened back in 1994 when Nebraska won the national title over Penn State because Penn State beat 9-4 Oregon in the Rose Bowl while Nebraska beat a much stronger 10-2 Miami team in the Orange Bowl.
Nope. The dispute still exists. If they win thir bowl games - Oklahoma, Hawaii and Georgia fans will still claim that they got screwed. The only people that universally acknowledge the winner of the BCS Title game as national champion is the media. Since when is the media accurate and when did FReepers start giving a rip about what they thought?
“How is the current system any better than the old “mythical championship?” A college football national champion is still just a myth - no matter how many confernce championship games, computer weenies, or ESPN talking heads you throw at it.”
Absolutely correct.
I'm not sure about that one. It certainly wouldn't have existed as a first tier conference. (SMU post death penalty, Rice, Baylor, Houston) TCU had a few good years post breakup. Compare it to an SEC made up of Kentucky, Vandy, Tulane, University of the South (f/k/a Sewanee), Ga Tech, Alabama, Auburn and LSU.
Indeed, Arkansas probably wouldn't have left but for the SMU fiasco. So if you want to blame anyone, blame SMoo.
For one thing . . . the Cotton Bowl ceased to be a major bowl once the Southwest Conference (whose champion received an automatic bid to the game) disbanded in 1996 and its top teams joined with the old Big 8 to form the Big 12 Conference. Those old days of SMU, Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma never would have come back, regardless of what happened with Arkansas and the SEC.
The old "automatic bid" system penalized Big Ten and Pac-10 teams by forcing the conference champions to play against each other -- no matter how good or bad these teams were (I believe a 7-4 team that wasn't even ranked in the Top 25 could conceivably win an automatic Rose Bowl bid). Independent schools had a big advantage in seeking national titles because they could accept bids from any bowl game in which the #1 or #2 team was playing. This is why independents like Penn State, Miami and Notre Dame won a disproportionate number of the national titles in the 1980s and early 1990s under the "old" system.
My complaint about conference championships (or lack thereof) is not that they are necessary, but that comparing teams from conferences with these games to teams that don't have them is inherently unfair. In some of these cases (you brought up a good example with Nebraska) they serve only to force a good team with the opportunity to play (and possibly lose) one additional game -- and usually against a very strong opponent, too.
Conference championship games make more sense today than they did 15-20 years ago mainly because more and more conferences are now large enough that each team cannot play every other team in the conference during the course of a regular season. Heck -- the Big Ten has even refused to change its name even though it has had 11 teams for more than a decade!
Two problems with that. First, conferences with <12 teams are forbidden to play a conference championship. (And in smaller conferences, like the Big East everyone already played everyone once and it becomes redundant.)
Second, Conference title games are nice money for the conference but they represent only the opportunity for the #1 team to get tripped up.
Make the argument, in all seriousness, that the Big Ten, for example, earns something other than money in adding a 12th team and staging a title game.
Oklahoma fans would have a legitimate gripe under those circumstances. Hawaii fans would not — since that team never would have gotten a major bowl bid in any era (think of them as the modern-day version of BYU — which didn’t even play in a major bowl when they won the national championship in 1984 with a 13-0 record). And Georgia fans wouldn’t, either — since they lost two games themselves (including one by a landslide to Tennessee and one to a marginal South Carolina team).
Exactly right. Great post. The BCS is designed to eliminate the scenario where the #1 and #2 (in rankings) teams are locked in to different bowls because of automatic conference tie-ins. That's the promise the BCS gave us, and it has given us that game when conditions permitted.
When there is no clear #1 and #2, the system breaks down. It wasn't designed for that. Be happy with what you have and don't keep dreaming about a 16 or 8 team tournament that is never going to happen.
At the very best, we may one day soon see the New Year's Bowls, on a rotating basis, serve as national semifinals.
And that's as far as it needs to go.
The BCS is designed to eliminate the scenario where the #1 and #2 (in rankings) teams are locked in to different bowls because of automatic conference tie-ins. That's the promise the BCS gave us, and it has given us that game when conditions permitted.
Did you forget that LSU Stomped VA Tech?
Did you forget that LSU Stomped VA Tech?
Initially, the Big 10 & Pac 10 didn't care about the BCS and didn't participate. Eventually, the BCS money grew to such ridiculous levels that they caved and became part of the process. The Big 10/Pac 10 rivalry and the Rose Bowl mystique is still important to their member schools. Attendance at Rose Bowls where either confernce is not represented has always resulted in decreased attendance at the game.
I say they should restore the traditional 4 major bowl game affiliations for conference champs and go to a plus 2 playoff format.
And if that means a 4 loss team from the Big 10 or Pac 10 goes to the Rose Bowl, wins that bowl and beats two 1-loss teams in the plus 2 games - they are the national champs.
I would think that is a minority opinion.
Look, I know its a football game, but everyone out there is busting tail to be THE BEST.
Why bother if no one cares?
Like I pointed out before, how did that all work out for Lloyd Carr? You can make a pretty strong case that Lloyd Carr was one of the best coaches in Michigan history. He averaged close to ten wins a season, he won five Big Ten titles, he went to 11 bowl games in 12 years as coach, and he won the National Championship, Michigan's first in 50 years. But he couldn't beat Ohio State, so out he goes.
I didn't say that the fans don't care about winning; they certainly do. But I argue that there are things more important than winning so-called "national championships" at most of these big name schools. At Michigan, for instance, it's clear that the most important thing is beating Ohio State. At Texas, it's beating OU. Mack Brown, despite his pretty recent national championship, still gets some "Coach February" comments, with a lot having to do with an inability to beat OU on a consistent basis. On the other side of the border, who talks badly about Bob Stoops? At least the past several years--2007 included--his teams have largely underachieved, having a few very bad losses.
But Bob Stoops beats Texas, so life remains good.
LSU is the ONLY major conference team to not lose a game this year in regulation.
Pitt just beat WVA so I feel pretty good about that but it being equal to a National Title, get real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.