Personally I am much more in favor of Boise, OkSt or Stanford playing the Tide-LSU winner than a rematch between the two provided one of those three is unbeaten. Even a once beaten Oklahoma is better because I think they would be a formidable, quality opponent if they navigate the rest of their season with no losses. So...adios to the loser of the big SEC brouhaha this Saturday.
If this shoe were on your orange foot, I somehow think you would be touting a different party line. Since it doesn't fit you this season, you can take the alleged neutral approach. I do have to admit though... we had come to know and love the BCS title blowouts that the SEC was having but you finally got a Pac10 team and it was won on a last second FG.. maybe you're embracing it.. maybe.
That belittles what I think were very good if not great Oklahoma and Ohio State teams that were defeated by UF. I do think Oregon was in that class and Auburn wasn't that much better than Oregon. I do not prefer the rematches but yes.....if my team can somehow get one after losing I'll most certainly take one....who wouldn't? You have to remember that in 1996 UF needed lots of help even though they had a rematch because the bowl tie ins were still strong and the BCS did not exist. Fortunately for the Gators the team they got to play was the unbeaten #1 Seminoles and UF destroyed them.....sealing the deal in the process after the Snake got punked by OSU. .
Since they amended the BCS rules to state that you can't play in the championship game if you didn't win your conference the clamor is for nought.
Just for the record, I'm going to say it again...you should not be able to play for the NC if you don't win your conference championship! I hope that's plain enough. No riddles! :!: :!: :!: :!:
So if Stanford runs the table, gets the NCG nod, doesn't a PAC 12 rep get to go to the Rose Bowl this year? And who would that be? Playoffs Playoffs Playoffs...
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597 I don't think it is an official rule that you have to win your conference championship in order to be eligible for the title game. It is more up to the whims and opinions of the poll voters who by and large would be prejudiced against an LSU-Bama rematch and would probably prevent it by voting Boise #2 in both the Harris and coaches poll.
What in the world would make you think they would be against it? Craig James spent most of the Georgia Tech-Clemson game talking up this possible scenario. My favorite line was 'Strip away the conference affiliations and just look at what you see on the field, what two teams would you like to see play for it?' Hey Craig, those who have been saying the Utah/Boise State/TCU teams should be getting a shot have been saying that for years.. if you're going to steal our lines, at least cite your source. Then again, it's not like theft and rule breaking are anything new for an SMU guy from their glory days. :-/
1. Yep, Stanford is good. 2a. I'm starting to believe that Wisconsin really wasn't that good. Their early season, which they racked up all that offense on, looking back wasn't a bunch of all-stars. What surprises me is MSU, which really looked like it had a pretty good defense. 2b. WOW. ISU?!?!? TT is never the type of team I expect to lose by scoring only 7 points. And against ISU?? Wow. 3. He came out and apologized. All better, right? *ROLLS EYES* 4. Their defense looks pretty respectable. What more can you say about a legend? 5. I can't get a handle on this OSU team. Although, it looks like they're glad to have Boom back. 7. The youngsters go down. It's hard to keep a veteran squad focused. I am still surprised to see it against GT. 8. I assume both came out okay against their non-con opponents this weekend? Kind of unfair for BYE to have to play BOTH Bama and LSU in the same weekend. I didn't even bother to watch. 9. They just need to fold up shop and give us another at-large bid. This conference has been a joke since day one, and it gets to be an older joke every day. 10. Dude, TACKLE somebody! 11. Beware TT. I think they were saving some of their points for this weekend. It's the only thing that makes sense. 13. Landry Jones is a pretty good QB.
So hear is my problem with JoePa's 409th win. Eddie Robinson was down on the sidelines coaching his ass off for all of his 408 wins. This year whenever I see Joe he's in the Press box, no headset on and chatting up people, sometimes doesn't even look like he's following the game. Even when he was down on the sidelines he looked detached from the game. It doesn't seem to me like Joe's the guy who should get credit for the wins. Don't get me wrong Joe's had a great career, is a legit HOF coach, and all that but the last few years it looks to me like he's just getting out of the house and the assistants are runing the program. He hasn't earned the last 30 or 40 wins IMHO.
During the broadcast, the broadcasters talked at length about practices, team meetings they visited, etc and the extent of Joe's involvement with the team, planning, etc. While the docs think it unwise for Joe to be on the sideline until his injuries heal, they made it pretty clear, at least from their perspective, Joe is still the man leading the program. Why the anti-JoePa bias?
I don't believe a word they say, if there lips are moving they are lying. As far as Joe goes, Joe was one of the all-time greats of that there is no doubt, but I just don't believe he has earned the victories like Eddie Robinson earned his and each victory he gets credit for is not earned like they should be earned.
So....I lifted this paragraph above from an article that is pro-playoff / anti-BCS and it strikes me that playoff games certainly can get down to one fluky play....one gaffe......one missed kick.......one fumble........one injury. WTF?
Has he considered the converse? For instance when Ok. plays FSU early in the year that is a big game as far as the BCS is concerned. With a playoff using the conference championships as the first round, it's a totally irrlevant game as is every other non com game played.
It wouldn't mean much except for home field seedings.......which I have said all along would be the next fodder for controversy if we had a playoff.
:lol: Unless of course they agree with our point of view....in which case they are knowledgeable, enlightened and informed! :wink: [/quote]