Posted on 01/03/2006 8:36:04 PM PST by BurbankKarl
Edited on 01/04/2006 2:22:49 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
I'm sorry I'm so confusing to you. I guess you're incapable of understanding. The teams outside of the BIG SIX get no real legitimate chance of a national championship. The only way they will get a chance is a 16 team playoff. End of story.
Ditto from my previous post. Utah didn't didn't get a chance to play for the championship, despite the fact they were 12-0 at the end of the season. That would have still been true even if they had beaten every team by 50 points. Sure theoretically it's POSSIBLE, but a non-BCS team would need a miracle to play for the title game, because they're not going to have the same number of overall good opponents as those from the BIG SIX. That doesn't mean that such a non-BCS team isn't just as good. It just means they won't be given the same opportunity UNTIL there is a real playoff.
Or teams like Utah could up their strength of schedule by scheduling some top tier teams from the big six conferences. That's all they have to do. Playing let's say Georgia and a Wisconsin would certainly get them into the top two if they won the rest of their games.
FSU did this exact thing when they were building a program. They couldn't even get teams to play a home and home with them, so they agreed to go up to places like Michigan and play with the big boys.
Teams like Troy State and Southern Miss do it all the time as well. Fresno State scheduled USC rather than a weak non-conference team - this shows that Fresno State realizes that even going unbeaten won't be enough unless you've played a good schedule.
It's still not clear what this has to do with USC's claim to a 2003 championship. Are you trying to discredit the BCS in an attempt to legitimize USC's AP championship in 2003?
It doesn't matter if the BCS is totally bogus or not - it is the system that USC and Auburn signed onto through their conferences.
What do you have against a real playoff? It's what every other sport does. It's what every division in NCAA football has but Division I. Why is that, really? Do you think the SIX really have the athletes, interest at heart, or is it just a way for them to keep all the money for themselves. Be honest about it. I know people who are graduates with BCS schools, including USC, and they totally agree with me on this point. Even Pete Carroll thinks there should be a playoff system.
USC has been the best team for the past three years...
I don't dispute that point, Karl.
However, some of these southern boys would probably disagree with you! Hee, hee. :)
That is pretty much true of non-BCS teams too. Auburn (a southern team) went unbeaten last year and they still didn't get in. Penn State only lost once this year and they didn't get in.
Who said I was against a playoff? I never said that and no one else in this thread has either. My point has been that the BCS is the current system - like it or not. As long as it is the system agreed upon by the member schools, the winner of the BCS championship game is the national champion.
BTW, MikeInIraq is not a "southern boy" - he is an Ohio State fan.
Yet they have only one championship.
LSU under Nick Saban in 2003 was a very strong team. Texas beat USC for the championship this year and has been very strong the last three years.
Now that USC has finally lost a game, rival UCLA fans are letting the Trojans have it. The good folks at Bruin Zone have posted a photo of a USC Song Girl celebrating a Texas touchdown in last week's Rose Bowl while getting an annoying stare from two of her colleagues. A few USC fans have snuck into the forum and the sides are now engaged in battle. The Wiz, watching from his seat on the 50, is very entertained.
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.