There isn't any system that would please everyone. If we just said to hell with the regular season and played off 110 teams there would be enormous controversy over where the games were played and what kind of biased "seeding" system was used to determine who had the home games. I can just imagine the whining that would generate. At least in this system we do reward champions of major conferences who play more than one or at most two tough games in a season....cough...cough....Utah....and we no longer allow teams that were blown out at the end of the regular season to make it in the NC game ( OU, Neb) and we have combined computer rankings with human rankings to try and come up with as legit a champion as we can. It's not perfect.....but believe me if Notre Dame were the 2008 BCS champion I don't think we would be hearing all of this. With regard to the SEC....it's champion has been invited to the NC game the last three years and has won handily all three times against major conference champions. I don't think the game results indicate that the issue should be with the SEC as a national championship game participant.....do you?
Terry, I'd be happy with the playoff. This current system is nothing more than the power conferences hording more of what they feel is theirs... They've also got an exclusive deal on the NC now too.. Not too shabby. While I may bitch about Pac10 teams getting stuck on the road in an SEC hornet's nest in the playoff, at least the game would be played.. and that would make me very, very happy. Dave, I'd hate this system if ND were the champion. It is the system I hate, not you. You guys get all fired up when you, or an SEC team, wins the title... But I bitch about this system when the Pac10 wins. I bitch about this system when ND wins. I bitch about this system when the SEC wins. It is the system that is awful, not you.... It is clear that some folks like it when they are benefiting from a system, they tend to protect it....even if it is a corrupt system. Bill, The super conference was Roy Kramer's baby. The BCS was Roy's baby as well. Roy Kramer was SEC Commissioner... The fact that he created a system that GREATLY benefits and even favors teams from a super conference is not an accident. You can fail to see that connection if you choose to, but I think that has a lot more to do with your conference and team benefiting from this system than it does an honest evaluation of the system itself. Like I said... Mr Dodd needs to spend some more time out in the field.
I guess according to your thoughts Corey, whoever is leader enough to bring about change can then be blamed for being selfish once that change comes about. Give me a break. There are plenty of other folks who had their input and own the system as much as Kramer. That includes the Notre Dame rep whoever that might have been. Again, unless the Notre Dame rep, and the reps of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Pac 10, Big 12 are all stupid people who went along with a cash cow for the SEC then the system belongs to them as much as Kramer. And it is only the last three years that the SEC has been on their roll which of course will end at some point. It is really naive and a leap in logic not supported by the facts to maintain that with all those folks at the table a system was devised for the benefit of the SEC. It defies logic.
No Bill, The power conferences backed the idea that was Roy Kramer's. They voted for it because it was a power grab. Since then, we've seen ND pushed into a diminished role from the one that they signed up for originally. If you remember...not everyone agreed with the way this thing was going or set up..and for that, they were punished via exclusion of the National Title game. That is what led to this system we had now. The Pac10 and Big 10 didn't want in, but were essentially forced to join. If they didn't join, they may as well just form their own Division 1 football sub division. The BCS was 'formed' with the incorporation of the Big10/Pac10.... But that still didn't include over one half of Division I... It just included the last 2 hold outs of 'the big boys.' This thing originally cut out everyone but the power conferences. They were essentially forced to provide an option in 2004. If you remember the non-BCS conferences threatened an anti-trust suit and that led to the creation of the extra BCS game. The BCS has only responded to threats of lawsuit because they know they don't have much of a leg to stand on. Now we have guys like Dodd telling them that they should be grateful to even be invited to play? That's crap.
Corey, this is not one I am going to argue with you about but will strongly say that the evidence does not back up your allegation that this was done by Kramer for the SEC. Incredible leap on your part and I'm torn between your interpretation being because of your obvious bias against the SEC or you revising history. Either way I'm done with it other than to say Dood's article is a legitimate point of view regardless of how much you want to tar and feather him and the SEC. Like Terry said there is not much that would satisfy you and personally I think that many years from now when I'm gone and you are as old as I am you will still be railing against the injustice of the NCAA all caused by Kramer and the SEC.
I will simplify this issue for you. 1. Do the other one-half of Division 1 football teams deserve an equal chance at winning the NC at the start of the season? 2. Who created the BCS? hint, it isn't hard. This article right here even refers to him as: To say that Roy Kramer was not the founder of the BCS and to say that the BCS was NOT designed to specifically help the power conferences divide up a larger slice of the pie is beyind revisionist. It just isn't true. And from that same article... you get that good ole 'field boy vs house boy' case again. You gotta love that... Y'all should be lucky I let you inside... that is exactly what that message is. BTW, if this isn't 'his' system... then why does he refer to it as 'his system' in his own words?
Corey you say in your last post. However in your first post you said. Of course your last statement is true that the power conferences, and Notre Dame, are looking out for themselves. What is news about that? All the conferences are looking out for themselves. However what I took issue with was the last quote from your first post on this topic which is not true and not supported by the fact. Since you are now revising your history revision to say power conferences instead of the SEC then you have finally created a logical link from the article to your opinion. Congratulations.
You just won't admit it. The system is Roy Kramer's, as was the super conference. He was the SEC Commissioner. So the guy leading conference X, pushes forward a system that is based on cash grabs and segregation under the guise of finding a real NC that GREATLY benefits conference X...and the rest of the idiots sign on... That is not the leader of Conference X acting in the best interest of Conference X? How do you not possibly see that? There's nothing wrong with a Conference acting in their own best interest and that was my original point. I have always backed ND acting in their own best interest, especially when the 'join a conference' crowd fires off their volleys every few years. The Mountain West is now acting in their best interest. Nothing wrong with that. The system can suck and the SEC can act in their own best interest. There's nothing revisionist about that. You can't/won't/don't see that because it is YOUR conference and your absolutely refuse to take an empirical review of anything SEC related especially when it comes to something that the Gators are doing well at. Just because the system is sh*t doesn't mean that you guys are somehow cheapened or crooked. You can separate the 2. You can continue to paint me as this person obsessed with the Gators and the SEC although my original post wasn't ripping either. In fact, it made the point quite clear in my follow up post a few minutes later when I said: The creation of the super conference led to the creation of a 'bowl system' that greatly benefited those conferences. The man behind both those ideas was SEC commissioner Roy Kramer. That's a fact. The fact that other signed on thinking they were helping themselves doesn't mean they all started it together.. They bought into it. And the overall point that Dodd suggested that these other teams should be grateful for all the big boys have done for them is a flat out joke.
I still contend after all is said and done that a plus one format would be best for the game. However....2 out of three teams last year amongst Utah, Texas and USC would have had a bitch except that maybe Texas would have faced USC in a pre-NC game bowl and possibly Utah would have faced Florida or a combination of the above. .
Corey let me make it simple for you. No matter who had the idea first, I'll concede Kramer for now, the final product was not one persons. It was all the conferences and Notre Dame and was no doubt somewhat different that Kramer's original idea. Everyone involved has a part of the final product. You may not like that, you may be willing to take any convoluted route to blame what you consider a bad plan on your main focus with all things bad about College football, the SEC. But it doesn't fly, it's a distortion, it's an insult to the other people at the table who I guess in your mind are just mindless puppets for the SEC, it's illogical and your conclusion is just plain nonsense There is a difference in fighting to the last gasp and distorting reality to make it fit a pattern you would happen to like it to fit. You are doing the latter and I don't think a single person here buys hour assertion that the BCS was formed by the SEC for the SEC with just willing accomplices from the other parties involved. It short it's a ******** conclusion.
I don't think I've expressed my opinion on this, but then nobody asked... Personally I think the BCS is the best that we have had in chosing a Nat'l Champion. Sure there vagaries in the system, but bottom line for me is that we usually have 2 of the best teams playing for the NC. Sure every year the 3rd team and it's advoactes get mad and crazy but even a + 1 game won't cure that just shift the crazy/mad fans to another team. And any playoff short of a 16 team playoff will also just have it's mad and crazy fans in fact there will be more of them not less. And sure the whole thing was a grab for more money, but it's not like the old bowl system wasn't a grab for money as well. The conferences all had their guaranteed bowl ties. SWC to the Cotton Bowl, B10/PAC10 to the Rose Bowl, Big 8 to the Orange Bowl, SEC to the Sugar Bowl. No where did the bowl system allow for the Utah's, the BYU's, the Boise States. The Rose Bowl had the biggest money deal, ya think that had anything to do with them not wanting to give up the old bowl system? Ya think that if they were the lowest paying bowl that the PAC10/B10 and their fans wouldn't have jumped immediately on the gimme more money Bowl Coalition? It's always been about the Benjamins, nothing else, ever since the big bowls got big money TV contracts. So until we get a 16 team playoff gimme the BCS, I'll live with all it's foibles.
Terry....I agree the BCS in it's present form is the best system we have had to determine the National Champion. In it's early years however there were some gaping holes in the equations that allowed FSU to jump in the NC game over Miami in 2000 and then there were the Big 12 debacles of Nebraska and OU getting in after getting clocked very late in the season by Big 12 opponents. After those "foibles" they pretty much made the right adjustments and it even worked to keep a Michigan-OSU rematch from happening when not many short of UM fans really wanted to see that.
Of course we wanted your opinion Terry. As usual you are the voice of reason and cut right to the heart of the matter. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Next question: Is 'It is the best we have' really the best we can do? Do you feel it is fair to eliminate, or at least severely handicap, one-half of division 1 from the NC? only Division one college football has these 'hurdles' to overcome and they are self-imposed. The notion that we can't have a playoff in Division 1 football is not based in fact.
its not ******** bill, It started somewhere. It started with one man's vision for his conference.. and for all. Now that being said... Do you think it is fair that we keep one-half of Division 1 out of the process?
Corey, I think that half of Div One you refer to is limited by their own conference schedules and non-cons otherwise. Granted....if Michigan wasn't the 3-9 patsy this year but instead the 9-3 team we have come to expect then a Utah win would have really put the heat on OU and Florida on Dec. 7th . Keep in mind though that the Utes barely managed to beat the Wolverines in spite of their huge shortcomings this year and their great signature win over Bama was too late to add any pressure on the BCS selections.
Life ain't always fair Corey, you keep tilting at windmills if you want. The conversation here about the BCS, the SEC and Kramer is where you are putting out ********. You kept it up so much I just had to dig this out of my files.
LOL. I see the rules against ad hominem teasing and being subject to public admonishment only apply when you're teasing a moderator. That's fine with me. I have no problem with it, nor will you see me lace skirting it calling for a retraction. I just like to point to your hypocrisy. Just so I have you 2 down on record. You guys believe this is the best system (not just best available) and you believe that segregating one-half of the college football field before anyone has played a game is just fine? Terry, no, this is football... DI-AA, DII, DIII, and NAIA .. Only the 'bowl subdivision' of Division 1 football discriminates like this and gets away with it. So we've heard from Texas/ND and 2 Florida fans.. I am betting a poll of BYU, Utah, and Boise State fans would yield quite opposite results. Of course, they don't matter. Dave, Decent point but that also points to the hypocrisy of these system. Utah goes to play Michigan at the 'big house' but they don't receive any (or little) credit for doing so because Michigan is 3-9.... So are the big boys really so much better? While they struggled with Michigan on the road, they dismantled Alabama in a venue that is historically friendly to the Tide...