re: FACT: The whole Country non deep South will boycott BCS Title Game

quote:

---

My order is this: 1)BOTH TEAMS ARE FROM THE SEC

---

If one of the teams wasn't in the SEC but everything else was exactly the same, they could play each other? So, you're holding it against them that they both belong to the best conference. Gotcha.

quote:

---

2)Bama didn't win a conference

---

So Notre Dame can never go the BCS National Championship? What if either Bama or LSU was independent then would it be ok? Again, you're only punishing them for being in the best conference, and nothing else.

quote:

---

3)Bama already lost to LSU

---

And OSU already lost to ISU, and Stanford already lost to Oregon, and Boise already lost to TCU, and VT already lost to Clemson. The difference is they have no chance of playing these teams again in the BCSNCG. But you don't pick the two best teams for the BCSNCG based on WHO THEY MIGHT PLAY, you base it on the team's individual resumes. You don't want Bama to play LSU again, but what if LSU was on a bowl ban? Then could Bama play in the BCSNCG? Why should who they might play against be a deciding factor in the NCG? You're holding it against a team not because of their merit, but because of who they might have to play?! That's ridiculous.

quote:

---

Posted by DucksflyinPAC

---

There are so many things in your various posts I find objectionable, slanderous or just plain wrong it is difficult to know where to begin.

So let's start with the thread title. No little butthurt Duckie the nation is not and will not boycott a BCS National Championship Game between LSU and Bama regardless of your little inconsequential basement blogger buddies opinion. Not gonna happen.

Second as others have pointed out you are totally taking Miles comments from 2007 out of context.

Third while you may personally object to non conference winners as well as two teams from the same conference playing for the championship, the Conference Commissioners who agree to the rules do not share your objection.

In fact they have discussed debated and considered a conference champion rule as well as a conference championship game participant rule and flatly rejected them.

Not only that but they even carved out a 3rd team from a conference exception to the rule for a circumstance that could possibly occur this year. Namely that a third team that wins its conference gets an automatic BCS berth should the overall BCS standings result in 1 and 2 from the same conference.

As an aside SEC Commish Slive has on more than one occasion proposed a plus 1 addition to the BCS which the PAC has consistently and vigorously opposed.

I mention that because much of your objection would be muted were there either a 4 team playoff or even play the bowls like the old pre BCS then playoff top 2 in a BCSCG.

Your objection truly lies with the PAC Commish.

Further the current BCS system namely the computer polls in fact do consider conference champions, specifically teams that win conference championship games and give them a BCS boost should they beat a team with a pulse in that game. Teams that do not play in those games are hurt by that.

We will see this play out next week should OSU beat OU as OSU will jump Bama in the computer polls with a win.

So in the BCS formula as it exists winning a conference is a factor.

It seems your objection is with the human voters. As I am sure you are aware there is no criteria set for how voters in the Coaches and Harris Polls should decide their ballots. It is left up to them.

The truth is were there no BCS the MNC would be decided by the very same group of voters less 1/3 balance of the computers. So if the BCS were abolished the same voters with same bias would select the Champion.

Do you seriously suggest that voters be prohibited whether part of BCS or not from voting the teams they see worthy and in the order they believe to be their honest and truthful ranking?

It seems what you are suggesting is either that the human voters not be allowed to vote 2 teams from the same conference as 1&2 in the polls or that should the votes result in teams from the same conference being 1&2 that one of the teams that the voters had chosen as 1&2 be disqualified from BCSNG game consideration. That quite simply is insane.

The computer numbers should run, the voters vote and the top 2 should play.

Finally what makes the Big East Champ that may not even be ranked in the BCS top 25 more worthy than a non Conf champ?

Or for that matter should Clemson beat VT again?

Or UCLA getting a win at Ore

Or OU beating Ok State?

Boise nope not a Conf Champ.

Houston not yet and could lose to USM.

Wisconsin? Mich St? Neither are ranked in the top 5 nor 10.

That is not a true Championship game 1 v 14 for the title. That is crazy.

Your whole arguement makes no sense.

Let the process play out and the system choose the top 2 teams. Period.

quote:

---

DucksflyinPAC

---

I am very much a liberal and a Southern Progressive, so I am not your typical red-state right-winger.

But still: there's something you need to understand about southern culture and the southern mindset:

If you start an argument that something should be a certain way because "the rest of the country feels this way" ...

...well hell, that just makes us determined to do it the other way because of that.

I was convinced that the Gumps had their chance.

But no more.

Let's have an All-SEC championship game because the SEC is head-and-shoulders above the rest of these minor league conferences.

Bring on Bama!

Shut up, loser.

dont care what donald duck says, but im still an advocate that we went to BAMA we beat them in their house, now we are going to the SEC championship game and most likely will win that as well, BAMA has not won their division nor the confrence, so they should not get a chance to go when the person they will be playing is the team that BEAT them WON the division and WON the confrence.....

Dude, many of us agree. Miles prolly still thinks a team should win their conference to play, but what do you expect? If he says that now he will be criticized saying he is scared to play Bama, etc. he doesn't have any pull or choice about the matter any more than the team does, so he has to keep his team pumped and ready to play.

The powers that be, those who actually get a vote and set up this system are the ones responsible for changing it.

Good God, relax people. Les has to play nice with a fellow conference member, and the fact is, it was more of a" we will take on all comers" than a rubber stamp approval of Bama in the title game.

To break it down in the simplest way:

Two best teams>>>>>>>>>>Jealous, Whiny "it's somebody else's turn" talk.


Nobody has Bama's resume period. It's loser Pac 12 talk to even suggest a championship game that doesn't pit the two best teams against each other, no matter what technicalities you can come up with.

Yes, they are all dim, inconsequential pieces of sand compared to getting the two best teams together.

Your anger vs the SEC is clouding your small window of opportunity to say something intelligent and unbiased.

quote:

---

ducks....your precious pac 12 and big 1g commissioners are the biggest obstacles to a plus 1 playoff to protect their precious rose bowl....

---

You are very true in what you say! But if you must know, it is way more the Rose Bowl people and PAC-12 admins then the Big-12 people. As you may know, the PAC-12 land hosts 2 out of 4 of the BCS bowls. And the Rose Bowl was the mother ship that started all other bowls in the country, and even the "Super Bowl" word was borrowed from the Rose "Bowl". "Bowls", the word, came from PAC-12 country. I do indeed understand why my PAC-12 people want to protect the PAC-Big Ten game with the RB, but it is blatantly wrong. And I am not in that camp.

If you must know also, the PAC-12 was way before it was called the PAC, it was the PCC, or Pacific Coast Conference. That Conference was formed in Portland Oregon, my home city and the schools of Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Cal were its charter members. Thus, My home city, and my school sprang to life would would become the PAC, and would bring in the Rose Bowl, formally the East West Game of the Rose Parade matching two top teams from around the country...

There was one team that was a little baby rugby type team who got invited to one of these early Rose Bowls. After they did, they got tons of money and their program literally took off. That team was Alabama, perhaps you have heard of them?

Thus, I can easily understand why my admins of my Conference keep and guard the PAC-Big Ten matching of the Rose Bowl... however, for the good of the sport, which is why I am on your site posting my post, it is VERY bad for CFB.

A plus 1 or plus anything is essential for CFB imho. The BCS is corrupt, and the system does not work. Very true, my own people and land are blocking advances into CFB. I will agree. And I fight with them way more then I fight with you.

I do however have a super easy BCS fix. It could not be more simple... It goes like this...

Keep all bowls as they are. But seed 8 teams into the 4 major bowls. Play them all out. Get a winner from them. That is your champ. The rules are each Conference send us your best single team, however you decide your champ, champ game, round robin, however... Take the 6 AQ's and give them each a seat at the table. Then provide 2 extra seats at the table for any non AQ or Indy such as ND or BYU or Army ect... This is needed because many great teams like Utah, BSU, TCU never had a chance and they showed themselves possible to be good enough to win it all. Leave 2 seats open for any of those. No Conference can send more then 1 team. Winner take all. It would be a battle of not only teams, but of Conferences.

If we did it this year, it would look like this maybe...


1)LSU
8)UCon

5)Wisky
4)BSU



6)Vir Tech
3)Oregon

7)Houstin
2)Okie Lite

And then play them out in the normal 4 big BCS bowls. Then rotate every year who has the others. And only 1 out of the 4 each year would have no send bowl. That bowl would get the BCS title game.

Move up one week the title game from where it is. And well, no longer CFB season needed. +1 from what we already have, though I like to call it +2 weekend of games past the 4 major bowls. Then keep for all the rest of CFB all the other bowls as they are. Yes the PAC and Rose bowl people would have to give up or alter PAC-Big TEN Rose Bowl.

This is the easiest fix to the BCS and college football. And it would ensure that no great undefeated team from a non AQ was ever left out, ala Utah, BSU, TCU ever again. Also, it would ensure that if a very tough Conference had much parity that a 1 loss team from them(Big Ten Perhaps) would still get a shot at it. And the regular season would literally be its playoff. And if a weak Big East team only fielded a 4 loss Champ, oh well, the #1 ranked team would get that 8 seed of a brake of a game. In this case LSU, and all would want to be seeded the highest, to maybe face a easy team in the first round. And all Conferences could not bitch, that they did not have a chance, or their Conference was too tough that year and that is only why no team went undefeated.

It really would be a battle of the Conferences as much as a battle with the teams. And nothing weird would have to be changed, like longer season, or removing of bowls. More money for TV, schools, everyone would be happy. And their would be no doubt who the winner was, which was earned, not voted.

Very simple solution...