Quote:
Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
After Saturday night I couldn't agree with you more on all three being basically equal at this point. What I totally disagrree with are the polls that dropped Oklahoma to 3rd based on the same one loss that the others have. The score is irrelevant - the only factor that really counts is the difference between W and L. The BCS is BS - I don't think anyone would disagree - but, is there a more equitable way to decide? The playoffs used by other sports give more meaning to the idea of national champion but, it isn't feasible for football.
Perhaps if the regualr season was shortened some type of playoff system would be equitable but, who would decide who was in the playoffs? I think you'd end right up back with something like what we have now that everyone is unhappy with.
|
Well two things.
First, as much as you or I don't like it, when it comes to the human polls, a loss later in the season is MUCH more detrimental than a loss near the begining. I know this is not exactly fair, since you have three 1 loss teams. But, as is the case in previous years, the teams that lose later on in the season fall further in the polls, which in this case means that OU falls behind USC and LSU.
Second, one major case someone can make for OU not being in the national title game, is that they DID NOT even win their conference. Many people think it is wrong for a team to be in the national title game without having won your own conference first. I mean look at Nebraska two years ago. I am surprised after that, the BCS did not add some rule like that. If they had, we right now would not be having all this drama going on. It would have been simple, 3 one-loss teams, one of them didn't win thier conference, therefore the other 2 one-loss teams that did, will play in the sugar bowl for a chance at the national title. Since the BCS doesn't expire till 2005, I REALLY HOPE THIS YEAR THEY WILL ADD THAT RULE.
G_Lock