I think they should always match the highest ranked teams, in parings, when possible. Just wondering how others felt about this. >Read more<
I admit I didn't read the whole article, but here's my take on the very idea of a "split" NC. This is only being tossed around because of what happened in '03...but the situation is vastly different now than it was then. USC was #1 in the AP coming out of championship weekend. They then went on to beat UM 28-14 in the Rose Bowl. There is no real reason to think the AP should drop them in that scenario, and they didn't. OU and LSU were 1/2 in the BCS, with LSU beating OU 21-14 in the NCG. So it was a given that the winner of that game would be #1 in the BCS...and we were. THIS season, OSU/LSU are 1/2 in the BCS AND the AP coming out of championship weekend. They are playing each other in the NCG, and the winner will be #1 all the way around. I'm sure Golf Digest or some other publication may vote UGA or OU or VT #1, assuming they win their respective bowls, but that, my friends, does NOT constitute a "split" NC.:thumb:
I,m gonna play "devils advocate" here and say OK has a legit gripe here, but by the same token, how the hell does he think Mizzou feels. None of this is gonna change until we get a playoff system...probably when I'm old and gray. This one little part speaks volumes... "After thinking about it, the commissioners exercised their discretion to leave the pairings the way they were. There was a clear consensus." :tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye:
My 2 cents: The conferences and schools got together and created the BCS. They developed the rules and formula and said "Yep, that's what we will all do." Given that, if you do not have crystal after 2000, you are not a national champion whether the title is awarded by the AP or The Weekly Reader. I just want one school, once, to be awarded a national title by the AP or some other organization and turn around, refuse the award, and say "Nope, we did not win crystal." Of course that is probably about as likely now as a coach forfeiting a game when they get a Fifth Down at the end of the game to score a touchdown and win. I know at least one coach did that a long time ago and when the same thing happened to Colorado, McCarthy said of course we are not going to forfeit, the other team played dirty, the wind blew funny, there was another bad call in the first quarter, my hairdresser cut my hair too short, etc. etc. Colorado then split the National Title with Ga Tech. You ask me Ga Tech won THE national title that year and Colorado lost to Missouri. It's not in the record books, but its what happened.
Apparently you are right. I was walking out for lunch and threw it up and walked out the door but it seems the point(s) intended were missed. (Dang FishHead is commenting without even reading :hihi: ) I meant to generate discussion more along the lines of: 1/ Shouldn’t the BCS try to match up the highest ranked teams; 2/ Is the BCS Coordinator being a Conference Commissioner the best thing or does it present a conflict of interest? I see two sides to it but was just wondering what others thought, and who could be objective about pros and cons. I agree with all that but I hope that '03 debate doesn't surface again, we played in the Championship game, we got the crystal, they got the AP ranking- I wouldn't trade, but I've never let that fact take away any happiness from LSU's accomplishment. :thumb: Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this but from my understanding, that's not actually true. The early doings were put together by then SEC commisisoner Roy Kramer and later on Charles Bloom, media director for the SEC and considered the mastermind for the BCS "formula". Then: In 1992, the Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Gator, and the Hancock Bowls (traditionally the Sun Bowl ) came together to form the Bowl Coalition in union with the ACC, Big East, Big 8, Southwest Conference, Southeastern Conference, and Notre Dame. At this point, however, the Big Ten, Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl were not participating so no true national champion could be determined without them. Consequently, Kramer's work went on. Three years later, in 1995, the Coalition evolved into the Bowl Alliance, a slimmed down version of Bowls including only the Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar -- but with one major twist, a rotation which guaranteed No. 1 vs No. 2 unless the Big Ten or Pac-10 held one, or both of those slots in the final AP poll. The final piece of the long awaited puzzle fell into place after the 1997 season when the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl realized the benefits of the Alliance and joined the fold. This came after No. 1 Michigan was denied a unanimous national championship in a split vote with Nebraska, who was awarded the No. 1 slot in the coaches poll after beating No. 3 Tennessee 42-17. I do wish the NCAA would name/recognize a National Champion, that would probably take all the BS out of the BCS.
1) Yes, I think it should. I almost mentioned that when I read over the article and responded but didn't want the subject to take away from what the content of the thread could be. I think it was a great move by Joe Castiglione to consider this and to propose it. If the BCS game is rotated from one place to another each year, the other games should be as well. And, I see no reason not to put 3 vs 4. In the end, it would mean more money for the BCS, wouldn't it? Now, what I don't understand is this. When you have conference commissioners agreeing with what the schools are presenting and that provision is well within the by-laws already set in place there is precedence. Then, when you add what Mandel is reporting as the Bowl Officials agreeing with it only to be quickly denied by the BCS commission red flags just pop up everywhere. I can see the possibility of the Slive having a conflict of interest considering his role with the SEC. I know damn well if they would have allowed this, and say there was a split championship, Slive would claim the NC in his stump speeches he gives every year. BUT, we are left with a problem in itself. Considering it is the BCS, wouldn't it seem the right thing to do to have BCS conference officials (and in this case a commissioner of one of those conferences) making the decisions on BCS games? Current committee: Conference Commissioners and Notre Dame Athletics Director Coordinator - Mike Slive (SEC) Britton Banowsky (C-USA) Dan Beebe (Big 12) Karl Benson (WAC) Rick Chryst (MAC) Jim Delany (Big Ten) Tom Hansen (Pac-10) John Swofford (ACC) Craig Thompson (MWC) Michael Tranghese (Big East) Wright Waters (Sun Belt) Kevin White (Notre Dame) That's the way I remember it. I can't say changing this system will improve it in the least bit. One only needs to look at the basketball committee and realize it would certainly turn into a case of "here we go again." Just as a thought...I've wondered if a rule should be put in place where a coach can't vote for his team or another team in his conference when voting in the polls. In the BCS situation (and I seem to recall something like this in place) that the commissioners should have a say in what happens to teams in their conferences. I do wish the NCAA would name/recognize a National Champion, that would probably take all the BS out of the BCS.[/QUOTE]
If we went with this....why not have #1 vs #4, and #2 vs #3 on New Years Day and then the following week have the National Championship game. But then you might as well argue why not have a 16 team playoff system. In hindsight, we all might as well just think about other things because this is an endless topic that has no resolution any time soon.
