Re: Heard John Saunders & Doug Flutie Talking About Bama & Oklahoma Playing In BCS Ti
I'll probably get flamed for it, but IMO, BAMA and TEXAS are both getting hosed in this. Particularly Texas, when you think about it.
Like some others, I do have a problem with Bama getting dropped so far below all the other one loss teams when you look at the overall picture. And you can bet we will drop to like 6-7-8 when the new BCS rankings come out, because you have Utah and Boise St undefeated.
I think everyone (all the voters) is giving UF an unfair, yes an unfair pass this year that they did not give the Barn in 2004- they played The Citadel for crying out loud. This year we all said PennSt, U$C, and others should be penalized for their weak SOS, but not UF? And no its not sour grapes because they beat BAMA, but how can you honestly say there is any consistency by which the teams who play for a championship are chosen? Going all the way back when the Sooners played for a NC and didn't even win their conference. Same applies here. When you have this many 1-loss teams, I'm not sure it should be decided by the human voters who are biased, and thats what will happen.
BAMA- Undefeated regular season w/their only loss being to a 1-loss UF team in the SECCG, a team that most project will play for a national title.
Held the #1 spot in all polls including the BCS in the regular season for over a month leading up to the SECCG. Again, undefeated reg. season.
OK- Lost to TX during the reg. season, yet still played for the conference championship and won it, but was only there because voters ranked them higher than TX. They didn't win in a head-to-head and jumped the team that beat them. (JUST WRONG).
UF - Lost to an unranked Ole Miss team but beat Bama in the SECCG; played The Citadel on their schedule. (This was enough to keep the undefeated Barn team from playing in 2004, shouldn't the same apply when all other things are equal?)
UT(Texas) - lost to a highly ranked TT team and beat both UO and UM who both went on to play for their conf championship, but UT got left out due to screwed up conference issue that allows a higher ranking to override a head -to-head matchup. Got jumped in the BCS by a team they just beat.
USC- one early loss to a now semi-decent, albeit unranked team when they played but has a weak, weak conference schedule, but otherwise very similar to the UF team, IMO.
Utah and Boise St- both undefeated but really weak conference play. Won't even be considered for the NC.
My point is this and like I said its strictly my opinion as I have no say in the grand scheme of things:
All of these 1-loss teams are basically even, some having stronger points than others as to who should play for a MNC. But to me its wrong to penalize a team for a late in the season loss or a loss in a conference championship matchup, when other teams in the hunt don't even play a conference CG, and to also not penalize another team for a loss period, any loss. Shouldn't the all important SOS factor be applied in a loss, if you're going to apply it within the context of the wins for each team? Oh wait, except in UF and U$C's case.
It is what it is, as CNS would say, and BAMA will have had a great year and probably play in the Sugar Bowl against an undefeated Utah team. But who is to say they don't deserve to play for a NC title still? I think they have just as legit an argument as the other 4 top teams, and that is my point.
Unless the BCS system forces the conferences to be more even, meaning either all playing a conf. CG across the board, or not at all, and all teams play under the same set of rules across the board, there will not be a definitive championship matchup between THE top two teams. None of it will mean much. The whole thing stinks but it isn't the first time. Just my thoughts.:BigA:
