Dude, just because a conference doesn't have a championship game, doesn't mean that there is no conference champion. USC won the PAC 10, therefore they have a conference championship. Same thing applies for Michigan, Florida State, and Miami.
Uh, so you think talking about college football should go to a forum for college basketball?? Mmmkay....
I'm just confused. The national championship game is likely going to be: #2 Louisiana State vs #3 Oklahoma All three teams deserve a shot at the NC realistically. However, I just can't get over the fact that OU isn't a conference champ. If it wasn't so close (i.e. Louisiana State lost), I'd have no problem with OU in the championship game. I just think in this situation, the first thing you should ask is, "did they win their conference?"
im suprised that no one has commented on jungle rules comment. he has a very good point that if UT would not have lost against arkansas then they would probably be #2 in the bcs. then you would have kansas st. going for an automatic bid and maybe UT and OU in the NC. (UT would also get a bonus for SOC, and quality win against KState.) but overall what im saying is the BCS really is crap. you should not pay so much attention to computers and polls. i dont not think its fair that because OU lost in the season against a really good team that they shouldnt be able to go when two other teams also lost one game. and i also think that they should both go also. and i also dont think its fair that UT now will not be able to play in a BCS bowl. I dont think there is anyone in the country that would honestly say there not one of the top 8 teams... i think a playoff would be great. i can picture the awesome games now. teams could avenge losses against teams they lost to earlier in the season and get sweet revenge. i for one think it will happen. after another screw for the BCS this year.
furthermore what i said in the first paragraph couldnt happen because as we know three teams from the same confrence cant be in a bcs game. so i guess whoever was #2 UT or OU would not be able to go to the national championship game or a BCS bowl at all. its crazy its just a stupid system.
Well teh rules have always been if you lose, lose early. OU was the best team this year but USC and LSU took care of business. So much for the talk of OU being one of the best of all-time. I'm sure when teh BCS comes out tomorrow that OU will be paired with USC. No way does teh Sugar Bowl want a home town team of LSU playing when they may not fill up hotel rooms. But OU got owned tonite, no way should they be playing for a Ntl Championship when the got Owned in teh conference championship.
Wow. Of all the luck.... Maybe OU hates Texas so bad they lost the game on purpose knowing they'd still play the Sugar Bowl and we'd get blocked out of a BCS game... j/k... Well atleast now when I say OU Sucks I have a legitmate reason to hate them with incredible burning passion...
In my opinion, you almost HAVE to have a Conference Championship game in conferences where you don't play everyone. K-State deserved a shot at OU and they took advantage. For example, I think it's a joke that Ohio St. and Iowa didn't play each other last year. That Iowa team could have very possibly beat the Buckeyes last year... Agreed. Everybody b****es about title games, but they get people INTO the BCS too. LSU is damn glad they had a title game. Without it, there's no way they even have a chance at the national title game. Same with Texas in 2001 - we needed to win that to have a shot at Miami. Without those games, we have no shot. It works both ways - you just have to win the game.
a. the Sugar Bowl doesn't have a choice of the teams they want. they get #1 and #2 in the bcs period. if lsu is one of them, they go to the sugar bowl. b. if somehow ou and UT had ended up 1 and 2 with ksu winning the conference, ksu would be the odd team out as #1 and #2 playing in the title game is the rule that trumps all others. now if one of UT or ou were 3 or 4, then ksu would go b/c apparently the conf. champion rule supercedes the automatic top 4 bid. c. I dont think there is anyone in the country that would honestly say there not one of the top 8 teams... exactly. i can't stand all the UT fans now acting like of a sudden we got what we deserved simply b/c of this game. basically they just want to pile on the coaches more for the ARK game. i hate the coaches quite a bit, but the whole "take care of business and we don't have to worry about other teams winning" facade is tired. they know we played like a top 8 team this season and deserve to be in one of the bcs bowls, no two ways about it. unless someone can explain why 2 loss osu, 2 loss miami, 2 loss fsu, or any other possible two loss at large deserves it and we don't.
they know we played like a top 8 team this season and deserve to be in one of the bcs bowls, no two ways about it. We don't "deserve" anything. The 6 conference champions earn the right to play in the BCS bowls by winning their conferences. Two other teams get lucky and get picked because of their attractiveness, big fan bases and good seasons. The BCS is not designed to attract the top 8 teams in the country, so being in the top 8 doesn't earn anything in the BCS. In 1999, a 1-loss K-State team that was in line for a national title birth ended up in the Alamo Bowl because they weren't deemed appealing enough for TV. Same with a 1-loss VaTech team a couple of years back. That's the world of the BCS - don't win your conference, you can't complain you weren't in it.
i know you like to play devil's advocate to anything that might overpraise UT (i.e. people being the stereotypical arrogant UT fan) and that's all well and good but i'm responding to the people who simply want another chance to pile on the coaches and thus try to pretend we now suddenly didn't have a bcs worthy season when you know they're thinking we did. like i said, i'm no huge fan of the coaches, but we clearly overall played like a top team this year and are bcs worthy. you could say other teams have a similarly good case as we do, and that is true, but suddenly crapping on our season based on a game we had nothing to do with isn't right. we played like a top 6 team and even though fan base/traveling/tv viewers play a big role in bcs at large selections, i don't think anyone could say that's the main reason why we were getting in. we played very well this year overall, and i just don't like the "i'm gonna sound like a tough football fan, no excuses" facade to try to make it sound like we didn't. a technicality in the rules is why we're not BCSing right now, not "not taking care of business." that was the gist of what i was saying. and of course you can complain. it wasn't right what happened to kstate or probably vtech. they have legitimate beefs. you may not be able to do anything about it if you aren't a big time, storied program, but you're certainly allowed to register a legitimate complaint about how the system works. base on our on the field performance, we deserve a prestigious bowl like a bcs bowl, not the freakin' alamo which is now a possibility.
base on our on the field performance, we deserve a prestigious bowl like a bcs bowl, not the freakin' alamo which is now a possibility. I disagree. There are only two wildcard teams in the BCS - we knew the rules from day 1. Oklahoma has a better case than we do, and Ohio State has just as good a case as us. 3 teams, 2 spots. It would have been nice, and our post-OU performance gave us the opportunity to sneak in the back door, but that's all it was - an opportunity. By losing to Arkansas and OU, we accepted that our destiny was no longer in our own control, and that where we end up depends on what other teams do. We were only in the spot we were in because various other teams lost. We got the opportunity for the BCS because other 1-loss teams lost, we lost the opportunity because another team won (K-State). A BCS berth is earned based on on-field performance based on one thing only: winning a conference title. Outside of that, it's based on the bowls picking whomever they want, with a few restricting principles. We didn't get knocked out because of a technicality. We got knocked out because we're now considered the 3rd best team in the Big 12.
Francis4Prez is exactly spot on. You're confusing the issue. The issue isn't whether we deserve it more than Ohio State. The issue is whether the 6th ranked team in the nation deserves to play in a BCS bowl. We are as good as any team that is playing in a BCS outside of USC, OU, LSU, and perhaps Michigan. The BCS is inheritantly flawed in its design. Under an equitable system, the 6th ranked team should not be playing an unranked team in a 3rd tier bowl. We put ourselves in that position by losing but everyone has lost at least 1 game and most have lost 2. It's a copout to say we don't deserve a BCS bowl because we've lost. If 12 students in a class take a test and 9 of them score 95%, it's ridiculous to say that 6 of those 9 derserve an A- while the remaining 3 deserve a C+. Yes those may have been the rules and everyone understands the rules. However, the assumption is the rules are inheritantly fair at the beginning. That premise is faulty.
The issue is whether the 6th ranked team in the nation deserves to play in a BCS bowl. That has nothing to do with whether we deserve to play in a BCS Bowl this year. You can argue all you want about changing the system for the future, but this year we didn't <I>deserve</I> a BCS bowl... we were just hoping for one. We are as good as any team that is playing in a BCS outside of USC, OU, LSU, and perhaps Michigan. The BCS isn't about picking the best teams. It's about picking conference winners and two other lucky teams. The BCS is inheritantly flawed in its design. Maybe so, but it's interesting that none of you really complained about that (except for the normal playoff argument) before we got knocked out. The BCS system was working just fine when we were in line for the Fiesta or Rose Bowls. People weren't b****ing that K-State or VaTech were left out. People didn't gripe about the unfairness of a 7-4 unranked Texas team going to the Fiesta Bowl in 1996. Complaining now just sounds like sour grapes because our team got left out. We put ourselves in that position by losing but everyone has lost at least 1 game and most have lost 2. It's a copout to say we don't deserve a BCS bowl because we've lost. None of those teams (the non-conference winners) deserve a BCS bowl either. Some will be lucky enough to get one, though. The only ones that deserve them are the conference winners.
For all those who support a playoff system (like myself), this is exactly why the BCS should be dismantled.
For all those who support a playoff system (like myself), this is exactly why the BCS should be dismantled. I think 99% of college football fans agree with that, but the reality is that we don't have a playoff system. In my opinion, that doesn't really have anything to do with whether we deserved a BCS Bowl, though. It will be great this year if the #1 team in the country (USC) doesn't even get to play for a national title, and the end result is a split national championship.
I agree. Even though it is going to be a huge joke to see OU in the NC game after getting waxed by KSU, seeing a split NC is exactly the last thing that the BCS wants (or at least that is what you would think).
Everyone criticizes UT for always trying to backdoor their way into the BCS following the OU game, but didn't KSU just backdoor the hell out of us? They're a 3-loss team that lost to Marshall...That's right Marshall(Not on the menu?...They're not even on the radar!). Ridiculous...Reason #54321453 why the BCS should be dismantled and thrown to the dogs.
