Nobody said Kansas didnt deserve to be in a BCS Bowl. 11-1 record in the big 12 seems to reinforce them being there. The problem is, they were put in ahead of the team from the same conference that beat them head to head. If Hawaii wasnt in, and Mizzou was, nobody would be upset at Kansas being in there. Its not that Kansas was in, its that they kept Mizzou out who beat them head to head. And that VT team looked pretty crappy to me. The ACC must've been really down this year. QBs couldnt do a thing with the ball. Made twice as many mistakes as good plays.
Oh, no doubt there is more prestige being in the Orange over the Cotton, but I guess my point is that it wasn't the end of the world for Mizzou. I can't name many benefits of being in the Orange bowl, this year, over the Cotton Bowl. Oh, plenty of people said Kansas didn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl. The reason they said that is Kansas' presence in the BCS prevented Mizzou from being in the BCS, seeing that a conference may have no more than two representatives in BCS bowls. If anything, I think this rule should be revisited in limited situations. IIRC, this rule was instituted when there were only four BCS bowls instead of 8. Perhaps an exception should be made if there are 3 teams in the top 8 of the final BCS standings and there is an available spot for the 3rd team.
Bingo. Remember, if Texas hadn't lost to A&M, both Kansas and Missouri would've been left out of BCS games despite 11-1 regular seasons. That's ridiculous. It's certainly very possible for three of the best teams in the nation to be in one conference in a given year, and the BCS should be about rewarding the country's best teams. I understand there are some folks (Major and I have had this argument before) who think it's about evenly distributing the wealth and spots among various conferences. Maybe that's the case, but if it is, the media needs to stop hailing the BCS as the elite of the game when how good a team is isn't the top priority.
Well, I disagree with you that the BCS is strictly about the 'elite of the game'. I don't see where you are getting this notion that the media is anointing the teams that are in the BCS as being automatically the best teams in the nation. Pretty much everyone in this media that you are saying is making the BCS the elite said that MU should've been there over KU. The fact of the matter is that the BCS commissioner has said multiple times that the job of the BCS is to establish the #1 and #2 teams for the BCS national title game and THEN provide a pool of teams for the four remaining bowls to select from as the bowls themselves wish. The BCS makes no claims that the best teams get into the BCS games.
I know the BCS isn't about the elite of the game, nor did I imply that the BCS makes a claim that the best teams get into those games. What I'm discussing are the subtle implications through media coverage. Every BCS game is heard live across the nation on ESPN Radio... the Cotton Bowl is not. Every BCS game has an extended spot on Sportscenter with tons of analysis... the Cotton Bowl does not. I understand that most people in the media said that MU should've been there over KU, but when it came time to put up or shut up, they didn't do anything about it. They gave KU and the Orange Bowl the Super Bowl treatment, while burying the Cotton Bowl for about one minute of coverage at the 25-minute mark. (Yes, I know there were other games on the 1st, but the point still stands for the Rose and Sugar.) Look, when I grew up, the Cotton Bowl was one of the most prized bowls in the country and outstanding for the schools around here. Why has that perception changed among fans? Because the media has subtly beaten into us time and time again the supposed importance of these BCS games through how they discuss and cover them. I make no claims that the BCS is about the elite of the game in reality -- but fair or unfair, for the average fan, that's the perception. It's the media that feeds it and they're at least partially responsible.
