Step 2: Discover that the two teams everyone wanted to meet in the title game didn’t because of a stupid loophole.
Step 3: Add another variable which, had it been in place, would have ensured that the two teams everyone wanted to meet in the title game would have.
Step 4: Play another season.
Step 5: Discover that variable added in Step 3 didn’t ensure that the two teams everyone wanted to meet in the title game because of yet another unforeseen loophole.
Step 6: Add another variable, promise that THIS time, it’ll work.
Ah, AirBlair.
Worst 4 of the Pac…Cal, Arizona State, Arizona, and Oregon State. Worst 4 of SEC play…Vandy, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and a toss up between Bama, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. Personally I think it’d be fairly close. But we just saw a Miss State team nearly upset the invincible BYU (The Joseph Smith elite had to come back to win it by 3). Any of the SEC West teams would tear into the bottom of the Pac10. Most of your boys could take Vandy and Kentucky though.
But that isn’t the subject of conversation. This is the BCS. Quite honestly, I think Oregon should play over Nebraska too. Does this debunk my faith in the BCS? Nah…I still contend that you’re going to get arguably the two best teams in the nation. Playoffs are more likely to bring teams from the bottom of the crop. Hopefully Tennessee will win out over LSU. If not, I think that Oregon should go to the big show over Nebraska…but I also think Tennessee should still go over either of them. If you’re looking for fairness…why not get the Pac10 to play a championship game? The SEC and Big 12 both have an extra game that has potential to throw out a national champion. Be very sure that LSU can beat Tennessee. More games are going to result in more losses. Otherwise you’d see a different UT if Tennessee lost, not Nebraska. I guarantee you if Oregon won another game (and what if they played Stanford for it…a little redemption?)they’d be higher than Nebraska.
If they truly are the best team, they should be able to find a way to win the game. If a #1 seed like Miami couldn’t beat a #16 seed like whoever, then they clearly don’t deserve to win a championship.
You may be right FFM. But right now, based on the three national champs that have won with the BCS system, my faith in the Bowl Championship stands. (All 3 teams finished undefeated)
To continue with your digression, ** Airblairxxx **: Next season opens up with Auburn at Southern Cal. Let’s make a little wager here: How’bout a shoebox full of Alabama red clay against a baloon full of Los Angeles smog? Loser can e-mail the winner his spoils.
In all fairness to AirBlair, that wouldn’t be a fair bet. Despite Auburn’s late fall in the season, I wouldn’t go as far to consider them as the worst of the SEC. AirBlair, will you at least give us that the SEC is more balanced? I mean, three teams tied for second in the west with 4-4 records…now THATS competition.
[One last whisper]As far as the UCLA vs. Ala. game…I would have had to root for Alabama in that one, and* That wasn’t happening either!* [/one last whisper]
Speaking of Alabama: I’ll give all you playoff supporters some lee-way. There is an aspect of it that strikes me as somewhat unfair. Some teams…such as the Crimson Tide…are so “rich” in “tradition” that the polls will rank them over teams that are clearly better. A playoff system would surely expose teams like Alabama for what they really are. Quite honestly, I think it really doesn’t matter in the long run. Teams that aren’t the best in the nation can still be upstarts and win the championship. But does anyone really think BYU could compete with any of the BCS shoe-ins? And who would fair better against Miami: Nebraska, Colorado, Orgegon, Maryland, Illinois? I would say Nebraska. Maybe I should be in charge of the BCS…
I’d keep those worthless Pac10 teams out of it, I know that. And I’m sure Auburn would win it at least 1/3 of the time. Yeah…that sounds good…
