And, to repeat my argument against a playoff system:
Would you rather have the conferences distributing the money, or the NCAA?
Only major conferences should be part of BCS
- Thread starter gatorsteve
- Start date
Would you rather have the conferences distributing the money, or the NCAA?
Why do you think that NCAA would be allowed to get involved? Never happen. Whatever playoff would be put together would be run without the NCAA. Too much money involved...
No need to apologize. You've been very reasonable and welcoming here, and I've enjoyed the discussion. If Utah beats Bama, there will be plenty of people who will say that it was because Bama had no motivation or Utah got lucky. If Utah loses, people will say that it shows that no non-BCS school should ever get in, regardless of how good they appear to be. I think the only way Utah ever "arrives" is if Utah is invited to the Pac 10.
We are stuck with the BCS for a while, however, it definitely needs tweaking.
Rule #1 - no school should participate without a conference championship game. That would force ND to join say the Big 11 and the PAC-1 needs to add a couple of teams so they can divide into North-South divisions and have a championship game. Same goes for any other conference without a championship team currently.
Rule #2 - no conference tie ins for bowls. By rights it should be Bama v. Texas in Rose Bowl.
Rule #3 - a Plus One so winner of FL v. OK would play the winner of TX v. AL for all the marbles.
Rule #1 - no school should participate without a conference championship game. That would force ND to join say the Big 11 and the PAC-1 needs to add a couple of teams so they can divide into North-South divisions and have a championship game. Same goes for any other conference without a championship team currently.
Rule #2 - no conference tie ins for bowls. By rights it should be Bama v. Texas in Rose Bowl.
Rule #3 - a Plus One so winner of FL v. OK would play the winner of TX v. AL for all the marbles.
That would be dependent on "how" each team lost. If Utah thumped Bama and Bama had few if any turnovers and just couldn't get in rhythm they would get roundly and deserved praise. If Bama is totally flat, and turns the ball over, and tackles poorly then you might hear that Bama just overlooked Utah. Only, one problem with that...Bama hasn't done that in any of the 12 games in all phases. The closest would be Tulane and Kentucky. Tulane-the D never budged. The offense just wasn't clicking. Kentucky played a great defensive game. Bama had essentially a two-play lapse on screens that cost 14 points, and the offense fumbled twice in the red zones when sure scores were feet away. 17-14 could have just as quickly been 31-0.
If Utah gets throttled like Hawaii did (which I don't think will happen) then you will hear the non-BCS schools don't belong bit. If its a closely contested game I think they will get just about as much repsect as they would from a win because they will have lost to a very very good team.
That makes me beg to question, how were the two state of Arizona teams viewed when the PAC Conf was the PAC 8? Not sure the PAC wants to bring in the likes of Utah and maybe BSU.
But as far as the topic, far be it from me to be critical of an upcoming opponent and IMO that's what this thread leads itself toward.
I think adding Utah to the PAC-10 would be a great idea, along with BYU. BYU winning the 1984 national championship makes them as deserving as UCLA which last won in 1954 or Washington State, Arizona, and Arizona State, none of which have ever won a national championship in football. Of course there are other sports to consider, but football, to me, dominates everyone's opinion as to conference members. That is unless you happen to be a part of the Atlantic10 or ACC.
If the PAC-10 were to expand, it would be Utah and Boise State getting the invites.
The thing is this, however - The PAC-10 has no desire to expand. Their current scheduling structure has every team in the conference playing each other, thus producing a true conference champion and negating the 12 team/Conference Championship Game argument.
What was the MWC and WAC conference record against the PAC 10? 5-1 I think. They are just as good a conferences as the Big East and PAC 10.
R
rolltidescott
Guest
How many MNCs have been won by what are now BCS teams versus those won by non-BCS teams? Over the last 100 years? 50 years? 20 years?
What's your point? Non-BCS schools haven't won a MNC since BYU "won" in 1984 because they have no chance. Utah in 2004 beat four BCS schools by a combined 145-50 yet had no chance to win the MNC. What else could they have done?
R
rolltidescott
Guest
And BYU won the MNC with a win over a 6-loss Michigan team in their bowl game. Obviously it can be done - BYU did it. It's just a very rare happening. ONE reason for that is that the level of play is too soft - THAT'S what impacts respect.
Utah is IN a BCS game. What are you complainig about? Do you want this board to be covered up with fans afraid of Bama playing Utah? I don't think we've been covered up by fans afraid for Bama to play anyone this year. I think we better be ready to play, or we'll get beat. That's the most you'll get from me.
Too many Bama fans forget that we were once treated the same way. Nothing that we did was good enough until we went out west and beat a Washington team that no one thought we even belonged on the field with. Until that day, southern football was considered to be a joke. That Rose Bowl was meant to shut us up for good, but we squeaked out a 20-19 victory. They invited us back the next year, hoping to prove that the previous year was a fluke, and we tied Stanford 7-7. We were lucky that they gave us the shot, because they were ridiculed for the decision.
Have we become the football elitists?
Have we become the football elitists?
There is no one who thinks less of BYU's most-mythical of championships than I do, but it wasn't under the current system. And I'm not complaining about Utah playing in the Sugar Bowl, nor am I expecting Bama or its fans to fear Utah. But the premise of the thread is wrong, i.e. that Utah shouldn't play in a BCS game because it hasn't won a championship. It is impossible for Utah to do so under the current system.And BYU won the MNC with a win over a 6-loss Michigan team in their bowl game. Obviously it can be done - BYU did it. It's just a very rare happening. ONE reason for that is that the level of play is too soft - THAT'S what impacts respect.
Utah is IN a BCS game. What are you complainig about? Do you want this board to be covered up with fans afraid of Bama playing Utah? I don't think we've been covered up by fans afraid for Bama to play anyone this year. I think we better be ready to play, or we'll get beat. That's the most you'll get from me.
Don't forget that the NCAA sanctions all the bowl games, including the BCS Championship game. If they ever pass a playoff, regardless of how many (or few) teams are involved, they'll get their grubby paws on the lion's share of the cash.
See: NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.
Would Utah make the BCS if they played in the SEC this year? Its easy to say team X has had a good year and deserves to be in a BCS bowl, but playing an SEC schedule is different than playing a MWC, PAC 10 or Big least sched. just ask Urban, when asked after the Bama game what his plans were, he said he was giving his players a few days off, it was a physical game, and they are pretty beat up. You can't just give your team a few days off in the regular season after playing LSU, or ole miss or Alabama, you have to suck it up and move on.
Playing against one BCS school is no big deal. playing against 4 or 5 in a row is totally different.
Playing against one BCS school is no big deal. playing against 4 or 5 in a row is totally different.
Ok, I have kept silent on this but I cant anymore. The only reason Utah, Boise St., Ball St.,etc. are even in this situation is because of what I call Atheletic Socialism. Had they not whined and complained and got the 85/25 rule put in we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead of the smaller programs doing what it took to bring their programs up to the standards of the big boys, they brought everyone else down to theirs in my opinion.
Now from what I understand, the main reasoning for the 85/25 was money, and "parity". Well I say if you cant run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. To me had they wanted to be a big time program, then get your fanbase, alumni, boosters, etc. to get out their check books. This has been a sore subject to me since the rule was put in. I say no to salary caps, scholership limits, and let the ones who want it the most, who are willing to sacrafice financially, be on top.
Whats the worst about the rule to me is there are many kids each year who cant go to the school of their dreams because of limited space. I know you could walk on, but not many families can afford to turn down a full ride to say Troy, UAB, etc. to walk on at Bama, Auburn, etc. Without the limits many of these kids could live out their dreams of playing for the school they grew up loving.
I may get blasted for this, but its how I feel about the whole thing. I may be wrong in my facts, and if so feel free to correct me. But in my heart this is how I truly feel about the whole thing.
Now from what I understand, the main reasoning for the 85/25 was money, and "parity". Well I say if you cant run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. To me had they wanted to be a big time program, then get your fanbase, alumni, boosters, etc. to get out their check books. This has been a sore subject to me since the rule was put in. I say no to salary caps, scholership limits, and let the ones who want it the most, who are willing to sacrafice financially, be on top.
Whats the worst about the rule to me is there are many kids each year who cant go to the school of their dreams because of limited space. I know you could walk on, but not many families can afford to turn down a full ride to say Troy, UAB, etc. to walk on at Bama, Auburn, etc. Without the limits many of these kids could live out their dreams of playing for the school they grew up loving.
I may get blasted for this, but its how I feel about the whole thing. I may be wrong in my facts, and if so feel free to correct me. But in my heart this is how I truly feel about the whole thing.
It is time to expand those BCS conferences who want to play for a BCS bowl invite to 12 teams and have a playoff. IMO Utah and BYU would be good fits for the PAC 10 and ND to the Big 11. Six 12 team conferences is essentially a year long playoff of 72 teams to arrive at the 6 conference champions and the next 2 highest ranked teams after the conference champions have been decided would be at large teams joining those 6 for a playoff. This scenario would allow teams such as Texas and Alabama to be invited as at large teams this year and they would still have a chance to make it to the BCSC game. It is an interesting concept but unlikely to happen in my life time.
Latest threads
-
RollTide.com Nate Oats, Alabama hires Portland Trailblazers assistant Chris Fleming...
- Started by oskie
- Replies: 0
-
Any ideas on American based AT&T support- Started by AlistarWills
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-