1. While LSU has proven they are the best right now, the #2 spot is still somewhat iffy. Most, including myself, believe Bama is the second best team in the conference, but what do we really have to back that up? Somewhere out there there's a fan that still thinks Oklahoma State or whoever is the second best team. The only thing we know is that Bama couldn't beat LSU in Tuscaloosa. The only tangible piece of evidence supports the idea that Bama can't beat LSU. Can OSU, VT, or anyone else? I highly doubt it, but at least it hasn't already been tested. 2. The whole argument about the BCS is that it keeps the regular season ultra-important and is essentially a playoff from week 1. This completely undermines that principle. 3. Bama [uck fay]ing sucks and will probably try to claim an SEC and NC just for making it to the Sugar Bowl. Keeping the BCS arrangement is just fine, so long as Bama isn't #2.
If Ok St. wins out including wins over the Sooners and the Big 12 champ game, they should get a shot. As a one loss conference champ they deserve a shot over the a one loss team that hasn't won their division, much less conference. Bama maybe the best team, but they had their shot and didn't win. JMO.
Don't get it at all. So the last few years, for instance. your preference would have been the following, letting the pollsters decide the outcome, as opposed to what we got? 2010 Sugar: Auburn v. at-large Rose: Oregon v. Wisconsin 2009 Sugar: Bama v. at-large Cotton: Texas v. at-large 2008 Sugar: Florida v. at-large Fiesta: Oklahoma v. at-large
Interestingly enough, if LSU and Bama were to play then the SEC will no longer be undefeated in the BCS title game.
Florida beast FSU in the Sugar for the NC in a rematch following the '96 season. Has there been another?
It could muddy the water a little, but if Bama and LSU end up with just 1 loss. They are gonna meet in NO.
It eliminates all of the nonsensicleness with the 8 other BCS teams, and it does a better job of keeping traditional conference and regional bowl tie-ins. It is a simple answer that the BCS has constructed a complex solution to achieve.
But this is essentially what we have now. I don't get how it would be simpler or more sensible? What significant, traditional conference tie-ins are not being kept now?
If you can explain how TCU playing Boise is a significant conference tie-in, how #1 Southern Cal traveling to the Orange Bowl is traditional, or how Houston battling Boise in a computer simulation for an automatic berth is the same as what I described, please go ahead.
So apparently LSU's BCS number is so good, they could lose to Georgia and still be in the top two of the BCS? Who at this point isn't pulling for a Georgia win and a national title game between not one, but TWO teams that didn't even win their conference? What a cluster. I generally like what the BCS at least tries to accomplish each year... but that scenario may do me in. It's bad enough when one team that doesn't win their league makes the BCS title game, but two would be just hilariously awesome.
1) I'm not sure your issue with undefeated TCU and Boise going at it. The only conference tie-in the Fiesta Bowl ever had pre-bowl coalition was with the WAC conference when it first began. Inviting Boise St. was really a return to the bowl's historic roots. Moreover, this game could just as easily have happened in your return to the old bowl system. 2) The Orange Bowl historically invited the Big 8 champ against an at-large opponent. There is certainly precedence for western teams playing in the game. Makes as much sense as Oklahoma and Nebraska playing in the game 35 times. The only difference in the modern bowl system is changing the conference tie-in to either the ACC or Big East champion. If it's conference tie-ins you're concerned with ACC/Big East to the Orange and Big 12 to the Fiesta is better or just as good as the old system. The Rose and Sugar remain unchanged with Big 10/Pac 12 and SEC/at-large unless, of course, the national title gets in the way. 3) The computer component is silly and always has been. Humans are perfectly capable of selecting who they deem worthy. The computer rankings are typically just for show, but in this case make a difference since the teams are so close. The computers should be scrapped. I see this as a tertiary issue, though, that must be addressed in any system where team rankings determine post-season play (including your system that has a 1 v. 2 match-up. Brings me back to my original question. How is your scenario much different than what we have? It's not. Sure there would be very minor differences here and there. But you said you want to go back to traditional conference tie-ins. The Big 8 conference champ to the Orange Bowl is the only significant conference tie-in that's been broken, but this, of course, was changed with the Big 8 being dissolved.
