You could say that, but you'd still be selling it short. Just to be clear, I was and am trying to let this all go into the past. At the same time, there's a reason why the BCS went away. It wasn't working for anyone but a very narrow group of people who parlayed that into tremendous growth.
sorry, I was replying to your original question before it was changed. The thing that the playoffs, especially once it gets to 8 teams, should do away with is the nonsense of having deserving teams...especially deserving champions, left out. Serious question, is the Big12 going to put in the language using head to head as a tie breaker?
Yeah I deleted that as being too snarky and dismissive. But bottom line is I didn't agree with much of what you asserted. But that's just my opinion.
The BCS was an upgrade over the old poll system because at least there was a concerted effort to match the top two teams even if there were some possibly qualified to play for it teams that were unavoidably excluded. Beating also rans in bowl games when you are an up and comer and the opponent is a deflated unmotivated left out loser does nothing for me in terms of creating newfound respect. For example if TCU were to pound Alabama in a bowl game next Saturday it wouldn't mean squat to me in terms of how deserving TCU is over Oregon or Ohio State or even FSU.
ugh here we go with the tired old 'they weren't motivated' why is it that SEC teams aren't motivated, but other teams are judged? That same reasoning you use to dismiss Utah beating Alabama could be used to say Boise had an excuse to lose to TCU, but you never do that ergo the lack of credibility. Why is one team happy to be there while the other not upset that they were left out of the dance? The BCS was not an upgrade in the long run. It was supposed to replace the old system of media favorites being selected to play in the prime bowls and subjectively selected number one according to some criteria that never really added up to anyone but the winners. The BCS started off on the right track, but it eventually became exactly what it replaced. The only difference is that we didn't have split NCs anymore (although we did one year and it led to the AP pulling out of the process because the BCS is/was a sham). They just picked 2 teams using criteria that added up to almost no one and then said 'Nanny nanny boo boo, I can't hear you' to the rest of the country. Then, they'd hold their game and say 'see, the system worked.' It never worked. I'll go a step further. An SEC team, Auburn, was left out of a BCS title game and that was a crime. They went unbeaten, but so did Oklahoma and so did USC. USC had slaughtered them the previous year at Auburn and beaten them at home the year before that, but those things aren't supposed to matter. That year's Auburn team deserved better. The system was a cash grab. I don't say that to belittle your team(s) and I think that's what gets lost in translation. The system sucked, you didn't. Hats off to your title and we can all look back on the past fondly, but we've finally started to toss aside the goofy, subjective, media/corporate driven selection method and replaced it with on field results. I still want 8 teams and then I'd be happy. We're not quite yet there, but we're a hell of a lot closer than we've ever been. The 4 team format still allows for a bit of that old school idiocy that we've tried to shed.
Terry, I love you man, you don't have to worry about that. It's all just one big stupid food fight among friends and family anyway.