AP/USA Today polls

[Muggsy]

I agree IF the Gators get an undefeated Alabama team. IF Bama slips up, then we'll see. But it does bring up the question again...

 

For all of this crybaby talk about how the Big Ten doesn't have a championship game... having a championship game has very rarely been a burden for those that took the big pay day. You can look back and say that only 2 of the 10 years did it actually hurt a highly ranked team. Kansas State in 1998, and Tennessee/Texas in 2001. No sympathy at all for Texas in 01' as they had already beat Colorado, and then proceeded to lose their bowl game, and Colorado got destroyed in theres. Nebraska benefitted from not even playing in the Big 12 Championship. So a Big 12 team benefitted from another Big 12's team loss. So really, only Tennessee was "burdened" with the big pay day. Since then.... in 2003 Oklahoma LOSES, and still is ranked #1 in the BCS. That same year, it's very safe to say that LSU doesn't jump USC without the blowout win over Georgia in the SEC CG. Fast forward to 2006, and Florida gets the extra win in the SEC CG, and nips Michigan at the buzzer. And even last year, LSU had an extra game to redeem themselves. So lets end the crybaby nonsense. My opinion on this has always been, if your school/conference signed on the dotted line, and is willing to accept the big pay day that comes with having a championship game, then certainly you should be equally willing to accept any results. The ACC didn't raid the Big East to make their league "more competitive". Conference USA didn't go out of there way to add teams so that their conference would be viewed more respectably. They did it because they've seen that the SEC and Big 12 have been making a killing on these title games, because they essentially turn into bowl games, where the whole national focus is centered squarely on them. So stop the sniffling.

 

 

Well said. Solid points throughout.

 

 

I agree that you make some very solid points, the most notable of them being that the Big XII, SEC, & ACC agreed to these circumstances. However after many years of this system, that unfortunately doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon, I think it is time for at least one change. The BCS needs to step up and demand that, if you want to be a BCS conference and get the automatic payday, you need to get yourselves up to 12 teams and hold a conference championship game. Is it really too much to ask the Pac10 to go get Boise St., Utah, BYU, or even Air Force? Is really that big a deal to want the Big X to add Central Michigan? The Big East would need to add 4(!?!?) teams, but what about East Carolina, Marshall, Memphis, and UCF or Navy? Now I know all these teams would have to agree to join these conference but it just seems to me that it would even the playing field a bit.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I agree that you make some very solid points, the most notable of them being that the Big XII, SEC, & ACC agreed to these circumstances. However after many years of this system, that unfortunately doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon, I think it is time for at least one change. The BCS needs to step up and demand that, if you want to be a BCS conference and get the automatic payday, you need to get yourselves up to 12 teams and hold a conference championship game. Is it really too much to ask the Pac10 to go get Boise St., Utah, BYU, or even Air Force? Is really that big a deal to want the Big X to add Central Michigan? The Big East would need to add 4(!?!?) teams, but what about East Carolina, Marshall, Memphis, and UCF or Navy? Now I know all these teams would have to agree to join these conference but it just seems to me that it would even the playing field a bit.

 

Can't speak for the Pac 10, but I know to be in the Big Ten you need to meet certain academic requirements, I believe in the engineering program. I don't admit to knowing about that, but something tells me there is more to it than going the way the ACC did and just offering up a ton of money to any school. I guess I still don't understand what the problem is. More often than not, having a conference championship game is an ADVANTAGE, not a disadvantage. Yet the people that have the advantage are the ones whining and crying and sniffling like little girls. The SEC has 3 national championships on the books that they probably wouldn't have had if they didn't have that extra game to impress voters. The only time it hurt the Big 12 was in favor of... ANOTHER Big 12 team. Again, what is the problem? So in 10 years you can point to Kansas State in 1998 losing to Texas A & M (who was outclassed by Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl that year), in which they proved their worth by losing to a very average Big Ten squad Purdue in their bowl game that year. I just don't understand what the big deal is. I mean to me, the Pac 10 does it right. Everyone in that conference plays each other. Every single year. That is a much better barometer of a conference champion than championship games. I could understand if the Big Ten got 2 automatic bids if they had co-champions in a given year, but the fact is, they don't. They have tiebreakers in place to determine who gets the automatic bid. It's just such an idiotic argument to make, and the worst are the columnists on these websites that don't ever bother to look at the facts before writing. In all reality, Ohio State was simply the last team standing after everyone in front of them lost. And in 2006, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that felt Ohio State shouldn't have been playing for the national championship, much less anyone who actually thought Florida would win that game, inculding the vast majority of SEC fans. I just want the crying to stop.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I was also going to add, you could argue that the extra game hurt Missouri in 2007, but I would argue that the extra game put Oklahoma in the discussion. That was a game between two teams that still had a legit shot at playing for the National title.

[Muggsy]

Again, I think you make some very valid arguments, and maybe you misunderstood my intentions here. I would just like to see the playing field even, regardless of which half of the BCS conferences do it right. I want all 6 BCS conferences to have the same system, either all 6 have a Champ. game OR all 6 just name an outright winner based on conference record. Since it seems unlikely to me that the 3 with Champ. games would give up that revenue, then force the other 3 to take the extra revenue and hold Champ. games themselves.

[wildcat2334]

Again, I think you make some very valid arguments, and maybe you misunderstood my intentions here. I would just like to see the playing field even, regardless of which half of the BCS conferences do it right. I want all 6 BCS conferences to have the same system, either all 6 have a Champ. game OR all 6 just name an outright winner based on conference record. Since it seems unlikely to me that the 3 with Champ. games would give up that revenue, then force the other 3 to take the extra revenue and hold Champ. games themselves.

 

 

skimmed thru some of the above comments- but I highly doubt you will see an "even" playing field. I think the way to go would be to eliminate conference championship games- have SEC, ACC and Big 12 teams play another conference game - and use the time to get a playoff in place.

 

The Pac 10 for instance plays a balanced sched - until they expand which seems highly unlikely you won't see a championship game IMO -

 

the only "even" playing field will be when we can get this to an 8 team playoff and decide it on the field

 

this year is setting up as an all-time classic clusterf*ck with so many teams having arguments on being the best

 

we are gonna end up with one undefeated in Penn State

 

and the following with 1L

 

FLA, BAMA, USC, OKL, UT, TT - good times

[Double Agent]

Now, if OU beats TT, then all bets are off in terms of how you want those teams ranked because you will have a bit of a circle jerk.

 

That is the point I was trying to make...I guess poorly. H2H doesn't seem to matter in the polls...at least not as much as how a team is playing right now. I don't believe OU should be ahead of Texas right now. Now if OU beats Tech, then there's a good chance they jump Texas even though they lost the H2H battle. I can't explain why this would happen. It's just the way it is. Another reason we need a playoff.

 

I've never had this much fun watching Big 12 football. It's going to be a very interesting year.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Again, I think you make some very valid arguments, and maybe you misunderstood my intentions here. I would just like to see the playing field even, regardless of which half of the BCS conferences do it right. I want all 6 BCS conferences to have the same system, either all 6 have a Champ. game OR all 6 just name an outright winner based on conference record. Since it seems unlikely to me that the 3 with Champ. games would give up that revenue, then force the other 3 to take the extra revenue and hold Champ. games themselves.

 

I see your point by levelling the playing field. But my point is, the ones that cry about it seem to imply that somehow the Big Ten and Pac 10 have an advantage because they don't play a championship game, when championship games have proven to be an advantage for those that have them. So in other words if anyone should be crying it should be Pac 10 and Big Ten teams, but the truth is, we don't care. Its just weird to me that one ones crying are the ones that it benefits.