NNN wrote:
Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
Sorry, but I will use 2004 Auburn because if that's 2009, there's no way an undefeated SEC team is not playing for a NC. How about Nebraska getting in the NC game when they lost 63-36 to colorado in the Big12 championship game? There were a number of people who didn't feel OSU belonged in the NC game in 2002 or 2007. The only year you can really argue they had the best case to be there was '06 when they went wire to wire #1. How bout LSU getting in in the same year, 2007 when one week before they were like #7 in the polls with 2 losses? Do you think OSU and LSU were the two best teams that year? I don't. Texas getting left out comes to mind from last year. And argue it all you want, Utah would have beat any team in the BCS the night they played Alabama, but they weren't popular enough and them and their 12-0 record got stuck in the sugar bowl with ZERO chance to win a NC, instead of being tossed in a playoff where they had a chance to EARN a NC. And under the current BCS system, that's all you need. It's about 1 game, but you have to win the popularity contest to get there. It's not just about who the best team may be. It's about who's ONE of the best teams that will bring in the most money and ratings, with the money and ratings taking precedence over the on the field football aspect of it, instead of playing to determine who can consistently beat the other "best" teams in the country which is that way basketball does it. You're right, Duke and Butler may have not been the best teams at the start of the tournament, but they were at the end, because both played better together as a team than any other teams in the tournament. Which is exactly why Kansas and Kentucky got beat.
2009 and 2004 are not the same, just like an unbeaten Big Ten team in 2004 wouldn't be looked at the same as one in 1998.
I asked for the times that the best team was kept out, not the time that there was an argument over #2. Nebraska was there in 2001, but Miami was clearly the best team (and they got in). OSU was probably the best team in 2006 and 2007 and they got in.
You keep railing on this "popularity contest' strawman like it's something meaningful. If it is in fact a popularity contest, then explain two things:
1) Why computer polls are used (since a computer cannot comprehend popularity), and
2) How the NCAA basketball selection process, which relies on a committee of divergent opinions, isn't a popularity contest
You can't look 3 teams with the same record who have played completely different competition in completely different conferences, with all the variables like injuries, suspensions, weather etc and say "you two are the best, you get in...but you, you're not good enough so you don't get in". Thats complete subjective CRAP. And that's what we have. A subjective system that rewards the most popular teams (i.e. the cash cows) and leaves teams out of ANY BCS game who have an 11-1 record while 2-3 loss teams get in over them because that's who "the bowl wants" because they bring in more money. It's about the integrity of the sport, and sadly all the people running the postseason of that sport have NONE of it. The BCS is barely more than a charade that likes to claim they crown a NC when they only thing they're really out to crown is their own bank accounts.
See the two questions above.
Oh, and BTW, how many years is Boise State going to have to go undefeated and win a BCS bowl game before they get a chance? Everyone says if they do it this year, playing VT and Oregon State, "this is there year", but I think we'll see the BCS coming up with more crap excuses this year as to why the don't get in even if they do go undefeated. Might as well take out that "C" and just call it the BS.
When Boise State plays something resembling a real schedule, they can get in. They play Virginia Tech and Oregon State this year? How does that compare to any of the BCS conference schools who play teams on the same level plus six more during a season? If you want to tell me that Boise State running the gauntlet that is the WAC comes close to the Big East, then there's simply no point in continuing this conversation.
