So in summary ..... the Pac-10 is the only major conference getting it "right"? All others are just "wrong" in their approach to determining a conference champ?
I admit that I may remember this wrong, but how many teams have lost their conference championship and played for the NC? I remember Nebraska, any others? Did Oklahoma do it once also? If so when? As to the two loss team, that was a year, last year, that all the other teams in consideration also had two losses. My other reaction is so what!
That's good perception Terry and I agree. It also is huge that Florida finished the season by playing at FSU and then #1 ranked Alabama while USC was playing ND and UCLA. ....but Fla is not playing Alabama if not for the SECCG.
Gaterz, No, I believe the Pac10's way is better than the SEC's but if it works for the SEC than fine. That is just opinion. You were the one insisting that the Pac10 needs to add 2 teams and have a CG. I took up against your claim. As for the Big10, yes they are just screwed up. Bill, 2003. Oklahoma lost to 35-7 in the Big12CG but then went onto play(and lose to) LSU for the BCS title game in the Sugar. USC, who finished #1 in both human polls, was left out... thus the AP split of the title that year.
Ok, I remember that one with Oklahoma now. Thing is that if I remember right the Sooners were 3rd in both polls and USC was first in both polls and the computers jumped both LSU and Oklahoma by USC. I think that led to some changes in the BCS system but the computers can still change things like this year again favoring Oklahoma over Texas.
So the Pac-10's system is not better than that used by the Big-10? Is the Pac-10's system better than that used by the Big-12? How about the ACC? BTW .... my suggestion that the Pac-10 expand and implement a championship game included no suggestion that such would be a greater or lesser means of adjudicating a conference championship. I only opined that it may improve the Pac-10's chances of getting a spot in the BCS MNC game. But ... since you think most fans ................. well, let me just quote you: ....... I guess the Pac-10 playing for the BCS title just isn't important to you .... or any of the population included in "most fans". However, given the ratings of this last BCS-MNC game ... seems many of those fans who think the system (and title game) are a joke, must have tuned in to watch, anyway. Did you? 8)
Personally, I think the BCS works. e.g., in 2001 when Nebraska was caught with our pants down against Colorado, and we didn't even get to the B12 Champ game because of that loss. Conf championship? Who needs it? We were still given the nod to play for all the marbles. Even with a late season loss, we still got the benefit of the doubt. A system that has mulligans built into it is to human in nature to say it doesn't work.
Gaterz, Not at all. I think the BigTeleven is the worst of them. At least in the super conference mold, you have the top 2 teams from each division play each other... Well, it is suppose to work that way...but you're suppose to. In the Big Televen, you could wind up with multiple unbeatens who will never play each other...