DenRam Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 What happens if undeafeted Oklahoma plays a team with 2 losses for the national championship? (Very unlikely, but can still happen). Does the BCS state that the winner of the national championship game is the automatic champion? If so, than a team with 2 losses will be the champ over Oklahoma (1 loss). How does this make sense? I hope it happens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinL Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 I don't know all the technical details. But if it is called a "championship game" then the winner is the "champion". It happens in every sport. Having a great regular season record just gets you into the (playoffs), it doesn't guarantee anything. College football just happens to have a 1-game playoff, in effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grim Reeper Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 I believe (someone will correct me I'm sure) that only one of the two polls (ESPN & AP) has an agreement that whoeve wins the "Championship" game will be voted #1. So, in your scenario, we could end up with a split National Championship, the one poll automatically votes the winner of the game #1, and the other poll votes the 1-loss team #1. Then what does it all mean ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 It means there can never be an "undisputed" champion without a real head-to-head playoff system! The BCS might get us a little closer to a (slightly) more objective winner, but we can't stop the arguments without a playoff. This idea is finally gaining more and more steam now in the media - anyone want to place bets on what year we can actually get it done? How about a window, say 2007-2010 vs. 2011-2114? I'm gonna do a poll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 I meant '2011-2014' on that last one, not 2114! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Coffeeman: I meant '2011-2014' on that last one, not 2114! You were probably closer with the 2114. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.