Gipper, I'm curious about something. The anti BCS, anti Gator and anti Sooners jump on Utah as being deserving because they beat Alabama and finished unbeaten. However going into the bowl games Utah and Boise State were both unbeaten. Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, USC, Penn State and Alabama all had one loss. Since there was one game to play, which two teams of the above would you have matched up? And why?
Don't see the connect between Utah signing an agreement that they later say is unfair and Tark's problems.
Bill I would have matched Utah and Texas. Utah was undefeated and Texas lost on the road on a last second play to a highly rated team. Second match would have been Utah and Alabama and in that matchup, I'm taking utah.
Terry Just remember under threat of a serious anti-trust suit, the BCS expanded their bowls from 4 to 5. First year it was in effect Boise St. made it to the BCS for the first time and promptly beat OK. Last year we saw the same thing happen with Utah-Ala. The non Big Conference Scam teams may have a valid point about being excluded. After all, if you go undefeated and have to step aside for 1 loss teams and then beat a highly rated one loss team you have to wonder if the game isn't rigged. And as to the Tark, what you said about suing the BCS, they said about his suit against the NCAA.
I don't know if anyone remembers my rants from way back in the day when I lived in CA, but I knew a few of Tark's sons. They are older than I am, but they were part of a larger group of coaches that I associated with. I think baseball guys like the hoops guys because they are an interesting study in psychology under the gun. Hoops guys like baseball guys because there are bikini clad women at their games.. That was my theory anyway. Anywho... regardless of what you may or may not think of Tark, the way the NCAA handled their investigation(s) of him was underhanded and unconstitutional. We saw shades of this in the NCAA investigation of Alabama as well. From time to time, the NCAA really hangs their ass out in the wind to go balls out after someone that they 'know' is cheating. They use their exclusive 'members only' status of the NCAA as a separate set of rules that allow them to operate the basic tenants of law that this country is established upon. People like to view this BCS as this 'wild kingdom' in which the big dogs eat and the little animals are preyed upon. That is not exactly true. It is more like an animal slaughter house in which the prey is just lined up in a processed manner to be sacrificed at will for those perceived to be 'higher up' on the food chain. Problem being, this establishes a caste system within the confines of NCAA Division I bowl subdivision in which upward (or downward) mobility are not possible. If they are all paying into the same membership equally, then there is no legal justification for this caste system. As Americans, the notion that a team like Boise State or Utah must go unbeaten over several years winning marquis bowl games against 'top flight' competition just to prove that they might possibly be 'equal' to a mid-level BCS conference team should just insult every last damned fiber of your being. Worse yet, when one of these teams finally lose a game, they (and all of their previous accomplishments) are just cast away and disregarded/marginalized as if they were never worthy of note to start with. I sincerely detest the BCS. It is without a doubt the most unfair, unconstitutional god-damned organization in all of American sport. Even major league baseball isn't this rigged! If these teams are so bad, then why be afraid to put them in the queue? I can't stand the fact that the BCS makes these 'non-BCS' conferences come crawling on their knees to just pick up a few table scraps of BCS eligibility and people still see that as some sort of justification for the overall system as well as the results the system produces. I sincerely hope that this time the non-BCS conferences don't blink. I hope they don't take whatever table scraps the BCS tosses them. I hope they push the issue and make this a matter of legality.. The BCS doesn't stand a chance. They helped themselves in the past compromise.. Sort of like giving blacks 'partial' representation in society.. It was a step in the right direction, but it certainly isn't the answer that we need.
I'm sorry I just don't agree with you guys, except Bill. Before the bowl game Utah would have been way down my list of teams that deserved to be in the BCS Champ game. And while I think that their defeat of Alabama was an exciting game, I don't think it proved a damn thing, except what I suspected, that is that Alabama was way overated. They got to their lofty perch based on thumping a vastly overated Clemson team to start the year and then going through what turned out to be a weakened SEC schedule, barely winning a number of games. Then they lose the SEC Champ game convincingly. By the time they got to the bowl they were in dissarray with their top player and key to their OL play gone. It was a good win for Utah but IMHO not any indication that they were deserving of playing in the BCS game.
Interesting Gipper. So you would have bypassed Boise State who was unbeaten, and as I remember two years ago after they upset Oklahoma and Florida beat Ohio State a few of you here said they should be champion. And your backup match would have been Alabama and Utah even though the Gators had beat them in the SEC Championship the last week of the season. Fair enough though but let me ask the second question, why pass Boise State and why Alabama ahead of Florida.
First of all Bill In this scenerio A and B end up with one loss. A had beaten B but lost to a weaker opponent during the season. B's only loss was to A. Of those 2 schools who deserves to play for the championship. As to Boise St. I didn't feel that their season was as impressive as Utah's. Besides, I don't recall even Boise St. claiming that they should have had the opportunity to play for the NC. Terry So Fla. goes through a "weakened SEC schedule" actually loses a game, beats an overrated Ala. team and they deserved to play for the NC?
It's the way the cookie crumbled gip. I'm with you that a playoff is needed, but short of that who gets in the BCS has to do with voters and computers there is no way to discern the "most deserving", it's all opinion. I was fine with OU/Fla in the game. Sure maybe USC deserved to be there, sure maybe Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, Boise State, Utah, Alabama, all deserved to be there ...after all they only lost 1 game (or none in the case of Utah and Boise State). Heck why aren't you lobbying for a Utah/Boise State game they were the only 2 undefeated teams at the end of the season weren't they?
Thanks Terry and I agree. Under the old bowl system I don't know who would have been voted number 1. Actually it would probably have been either Texas or Oklahoma with Florida also a possibility. What I am pretty sure of is that it would not have been Alabama or Utah. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But if you go by the records before the bowl game the two undefeated teams were Boise State and Utah. Matching them up for the championship would have been a very low rated game and in my opinion would have resulted in an undeserving champion. Actually if you want to know the team that I think has been treated the most unfairly in the last several years it's USC. Year in and year out they are up there and year in and year out the computers are very harsh with them. By the way, the BCS and the NCAA are not one and the same. I do not believe the lawsuit would not be against the NCAA. One last thing, I have always agreed with Corey about Tark. Love him or hate him the NCAA went about that in a underhanded manner.
Without rehashing too much.....Florida beat Bama with everything on the line minus Percy Harvin....one of UF's best weapons and Bama lost to Utah with nothing left in their heart and they played without one of their best players. That Utah-Bama game proves nothing except to those who want to be a Gator detractor.