There's no "deserving" involved in the bowl bid system. The BCS is a process designed to match the #1 and #2 teams. Who cares who finishes #3, or #4? Every other bowl bid should be left up to the individual bowl game committees. The automatic bowl bid system is unevenly applied, because it awards an automatic bid regardless of whether a conference has one very good team (ACC) or several (Big 12). YARDICFNAPS (yet another reason division I college football needs a playoff system).
The BCS has always stood for the Bull Crap Series. This rule about 3 teams from one conference making it is crap. It should be about the top 8 teams in the country, not the top teams from conferences that may be highly mediocre such as: the ACC. Teams like Texas and Georgia would beat Florida State. This system is just as bad as the old one. Just because they got lucky on who won it all for the first few years of the system means nothing. There should be no conference tie in's to the 4 BCS bowls. They should go to the top 8 teams in the BCS rankings, if we are stuck using this pathetic system. If some of those 8 fulfill the tie in aspect, great, but if not, who cares. Conferences are not equal. I bet no one would put the Big East or ACC on par in most years with the SEC or Big 12, right? But yet both conferences are treated as equals in the system. That's fine in politics, but this about putting the best teams on the field for a national championship. If their play warrants them worthy, then they make it. If not, they don't. Very simple. The system that should be put in place is an 8 team or 16 team playoff. Where you end the season the last week of november, then the first round comes the 6th, 2nd the 13th, 3rd the 20th and if you go 16, the last round Jan 3rd, as to give the kids a week off with their families for christmas if you want. And lookie there, the national championship game ends up on or before the date it currently is played now. Although this year its the 4th, so it would be before no matter what. How would I determine the 8 or 16 teams worthy. That is where the BCS comes in. With a few modifications it could be used as the ranking system to get our playoff participants. In fact, I would make the BCS computer geeks be the coaches poll voters. And under my system, the smaller conferences still wouldnt complain because they have just as good of a shot to play for it all as the big name schools. The bigger conferences very well might because they lose their guaranteed payout, but you think the kids wouldn't love playing for a real national championship, something they earned and nobody can dispute. Also, the regular season would still have plenty of drama as every big game(UM-OSU, UT-OU, etc) would go towards determining who is playing in the playoff. It is fair but dramatic at the same time. Then the NCAA could have an awesome TV setup, as they get major exclusive rights to 4 or 8 prime time games during the playoff. It would only help spark more interest in college football, not that it needs it. Sure number 17 or number 9 will complain, but that is why you leave the rest of the 50 or so bowls untouched and give them and other teams those spots(those bowls keep conference tie in's within reason). In march madness number 65 always moans but then they have a chance to win a good tournament in the NIT. College Football is like Major League Baseball. Both are stuck in the times are stubborn to make any large changes that would dramatically help their sport. I'm not expecting a playoff to happen, but if the NCAA had any brains and guts, it should. Do they? That remains to be seen.
Let me clarify on the 8 teams currently in the BCS where I said playing for a national title. I meant to say the best 8 teams in the country deserve to play in the 4 prime time bowls, no matter their conference affliation.
No offense taken. I do agree it's BS if USC is ranked #1 and still doesn't get to play the MNC game. MOV would have helped OU even if they were #1 because their BCS score would have been even lower and therefore less affected by their loss. Yeah they lost by 28, but MOV isn't subjective. They beat A&M 77-0, UT 60 something to 13, etc. I don't know how many more times crap like this will happen before a playoff team will be established. It's a joke. Even DI-AA has a playoff. Every other sport can have one. Winning the other 3 BCS games doesn't mean more than winning a semi-final would.
I don't think UT deserves to be in a bowl game like it's their right or something. We shouldn't have to depend on other teams to get in. And UT fans as a whole have opposed the BCS just about as much as any other group. The only group opposing the BCS are those behind the $. AD's and Presidents. So who are the two at-larges? OU and OSU? That's BS if OSU get's it over UT. Another reason to hate them.
No reason to hate OSU in this case. It's not their fault there's a rule about not allowing three teams from the same conference into the BCS bowls. BTW, Kansas State didn't backdoor their way into anything. They won the Big XII Conference fair and square. Kudos to them and a big **** you to OU for completely choking the game. What could've been one of the best teams of all-time has now turned into a history long question mark if they win the Sugar Bowl and USC wins the Rose Bowl (I'm assuming that's where they'll be playing). I'll take an Alamo Bowl bid for that.
That's all that needs to be said. Here in Austin on the talk radio shows, all those damn OU fans were saying was that they hoped they would lose so that UT would get screwed. Those idiot Sooners probably did it on purpose. (I know they didn't, but it still sucks a** )
Another reason to hate the BCS. What if a conference without a CCG had an undefeated team and two one-loss teams? It's not like every team plays each other in the Big Ten.
I think they did. Their season, regardless of who they did beat, was inferior to UT's. Not only did they have an inferior record, but they lost head - to - head. If what UT does(Or attempts to do) every season can be considered backdooring(Playing well after early season losses), then what KSU is doing can be considered backdooring. And, sure, they did play a great game last night, but I think it was one if those tenth games(As in, OU would win 9 out of 10...). That team did not look like the team that pulverized us 65 - 13. The defense wasn't there...Stoops actually made a bad 4th down decision...White made a few mental mistakes...not typical OU. Still, though...Big congratulations to KState. They did everything they had to do to win handily.
Kansas State is playing as well as anyone in the country right now. It's a shame they lost to Marshall, or they'd be up there in the thick of things for a championship... Just thought I'd add that, with all my b****ing about OU playing like crap.
I think they did. Their season, regardless of who they did beat, was inferior to UT's. Not only did they have an inferior record, but they lost head - to - head. Their season may be inferior in terms of total losses, but they have two things we don't: (1) A win over OU (2) A Big 12 Conference Championship If you asked players whether they'd rather have a 10-3 record with a B12 title or a 10-2 record without one, I'm guessing they'd pick the first. If what UT does(Or attempts to do) every season can be considered backdooring(Playing well after early season losses), then what KSU is doing can be considered backdooring. I don't know if KSU backdoored their way into anything. Yes, they lost to 2 B12 South teams, but they went and stomped all the teams in the Big 12 North to win their division and earn a berth in the B12 Title Game. The Texas backdoor thing is when we lose to our competition and then have to count on them losing twice to get us in. That's a little different than what KSU did.
True...but had to happen, didn't it? 1 loss vs. 2 loss supercedes head to head in most cases. Your point is valid though. UT is the king of getting to the backdoor. If they could only find away to open the damn door, we would be in business. And we, a few things they don't: 1. 2 losses 2. Head to head win. The players would definitely respond 10-3 with the B12 title, but only because that is what gets them into the BCS. If it were the other way around(10-2 gets you in, 10-3 doesn't, regardless of quality of wins/titles), then they would definitely respond 10-2 without the B12 title. Like I said, big props to KSU. Sproles and Roberson are both currently playing incredibly, and they were able to accomplish in one try what we have been trying to do for four years now. I just don't think they deserve their position any more than Texas does. They are guilty of the same exact thing(Well...not same exact, but the early season loss thing), except to a greater degree. Who knows what would happen if OU were suddenly moved to the north, and Texas was allowed a rematch in the B12 championship? I still think we would be stomped, but the point is that we have no such chance, and KSU did. Once we lost to OU(Losing to Arkansas really didn't matter...we would still be the odd man out), our only hope of a BCS bowl was for our buddies in Norman to go and win a B12 title, solidify their claim as one of the best teams ever, and help us out a little in doing so. What's done is done, and KSU is playing awesome right now. I think that the potent combination of Roberson and Sproles will conquer OSU's defense and help bring home two BCS trophies to the Big 12.
