Posted on 01/03/2005 8:44:12 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
Auburn beats VA Tech in the Sugar Bowl, 16-13, to finish the season undefeated. 2 days ago Utah whipped Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl to also complete an undefeated season.
USC and Oklahoma play tomorrow night in the bogus national championship game, but in truth, once again no one will know who was the best team this season.
If Texas beating Michigan is impressive (with that partially blocked field goal scraping paint on the cross-bar!) is Notre Dame beating Michigan this year impressive to you? And for that matter, is Notre Dame beating Tennessee at Tennessee impressive too?
And New England would blow away the Dolphins. As Chris Berman would say, "That's why they play the game." Oh but wait, this is the BCS, they don't play the game.
LOLOLOL!!! I wouldn't be surprised if a corrupt Frenchie in some college's athletic department sold out a poll vote for cash.
The figure skating blast is epic!!
I think weve had two one win seasons the two years before johnson In fact I didnt see a home Win in Annapolis until my senior year. Its was an awsome sight to see Navy Turn the corner. Heck, I was in SC for Lou Holtz's first winless season. So i know what defeat is like.
Without a playoff, though, it's all meaningless. Nothing is really settled.
What is reasonably certain is that the gap between the BCS conferences and the rest is much less than 20 years ago. Big schools lose to MWC and MAC teams now more than they used to. The Sun Belt still stinks, though.
I'm upset that my school was the only bowl-eligible school that wanted a bowl bid and didn't get one. Any idea what school that is? (hint -- the school has something awful in common with the Domers).
In football there is no other type of tournament that is practical. Even if you play best of seven, it doesn't guarantee that the better team will win, but asking for even a best-of-three series rather than single elimination will triple the number of games. Not possible in football, where you never play a game less than four days (usually seven) after the last one.
A playoff system would be ideal. Utah has more of a right to complain than Auburn.
V Tech's offense had more total yards than Auburn. Tech self-destructed and muffed 10 pts that was not a result of Auburn's vaunted defense. Auburn was fortunate to win the game.
BTW many of the Auburn players acted like punks, I hope SC & OU show more class.
Utes can bitch but Auburn fans are frankly delusional.
GO UTES!!! 2004 FIESTA BOWL CHAMPS!!
Keep on living in the past....
LOL! You went to byU?? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
(Only kidding--kind of. I'm a die hard Ute fan.)
You'll please note I never said my old team should be in the top these days. They also don't belong. But the Utes have ZERO credibility in the national scene, this year nothwithstanding--Hawaii had a great season in 1999, BYU had a great one in 1989...means nothing.
Get a few wins against great competition year-in and year-out, learn how to actually break up a pass, tackle an opponent, or stop anyone at any time over a period of a few seasons, then come back. Until then, STFU!!!
"And the growing sentiment for a playoff has reached a point that really the only real obstacle are the (mostly liberal) college presidents."
Bingo, we have a winner. Quite frankly, Division 1A is too large and is composed of two different types of schools. There are the USC, OU, AU, etc., types of teams that are committed to playing college football on the highest level. You also have about half the division where their presidents resent the emphasis on football in the other schools. If you want a playoff, you'll have to deal with that and that will require a major shakeup in the composition of the conferences in Division 1A.
You'll have to forget the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, etc., and realign the major football schools into maybe four conferences with conference playoffs, and then a two game playoff.
Short of that, you'll have to revamp the distribution of money between the schools in the playoffs. Currently, only the conferences with teams playing post season get a cut. Harvard, Yale, etc., don't get a cut of the cash and they have no reason to vote for a championship. Combine that with the resentment of those 'liberal' presidents and you have the real reason there is no play off.
Myself, I'm rather ambivalent on the idea of playoffs. I don't really know what it would resolve. The idea that one can decide on which team is the best based upon one game is rather far fetched. Does any one really believe that USC, OU, or even AU are that much different? Any of those teams (and you could throw in a few more, maybe Texas for example) could beat any of the other teams. A couple of breaks one way or the other (like a dropped touchdown, a funky bounce of the ball, or a bad referee's call) and any of those teams could win the championship game. What, exactly, would that prove?
I'm an OU grad and I'll be rooting for them tonight. But even if they beat USC tonight, it will only mean they beat USC one time on one night. If they played a dozen times, they'd probably split the series fairly evenly. Would a victory by either team mean they were "the best team in college football"? Not really and it wouldn't matter if that game were a real championship game. They'd still be one of a few teams with little to distinguish one team from another.
I remember when that joke of a Nebraska football team was awarded the Nat'l Championship in 1994-95, so I feel for Auburn and Utah fans this time around...
Yup, the BCS bites. Big time.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
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.