|
|
#1
01-03-2007, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you BCS!
"not only did the BCS give us a Tostitos Fiesta Bowl that trumped every other January 1 bowl game of the new millennium, it legitimized the championship game that's been dissed by many since its matchup was announced nearly a month ago."
ESPN Page 2 
|
|
#3
01-03-2007, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank you BCS!
[ QUOTE ]
How did it legitimize the game? Has the game happened yet? [/ QUOTE ] Their logic is that Michigan losing proved Florida was the right choice. Kind of like in hoops when a team loses in the NIT it 'proves' they didn't belong in the NCAA tourney.
|
|
#5
01-03-2007, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank you BCS!
The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game.
Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls. The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were two teams: Michigan and Florida. Maybe Boise State (zero losses), Wisconsin, and Louisville (one loss teams). I'd like to see the bowls bring back the old conference tie-ins and then add a four game playoff at the end of the season. Edit: Got rid of USC.
|
|
#6
01-03-2007, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank you BCS!
[ QUOTE ]
The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game. Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls. The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were three teams: USC, Mich, and Florida. [/ QUOTE ] Just because USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean they were a legitimite #2. They had two losses.
|
|
#8
01-03-2007, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank you BCS!
[ QUOTE ]
Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but the BCS has also created matchups of undefeated teams which were impossible before the BCS: Texas/USC in 2005-06 OSU/Miami in 2002-03 FSU/Virginia Tech in 1999-2000
|
|
#9
01-03-2007, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank you BCS!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but the BCS has also created matchups of undefeated teams which were impossible before the BCS: Texas/USC in 2005-06 OSU/Miami in 2002-03 FSU/Virginia Tech in 1999-2000 [/ QUOTE ] True. My biggest gripe is how the BCS has rendered every other bowl game meaningless in the national championship picture. If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.
|
|
#10
01-03-2007, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank you BCS!
[ QUOTE ]
My biggest gripe is how the BCS has rendered every other bowl game meaningless in the national championship picture. [/ QUOTE ] Not quite true. Remember after the 2003 season, where there were two different national champs.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
