December 8, 200619 yr My point exactly. They are saying, first, that you have to win your conference to be in the title game, and second, that the Big 10 runner up can NEVER be better than the SEC champion(and vice versa). I have a problem with that. Neither are in the rules for the BCS, nor should they be IMO, but surely don't make it up as you go. So do you think there is a problem for saying that you have to win your conference to be in the BCS Title game? How can you be 2nd in your conference but 1st in the country?!?!?! Makes no since. IMO.
December 8, 200619 yr So do you think there is a problem for saying that you have to win your conference to be in the BCS Title game? How can you be 2nd in your conference but 1st in the country?!?!?! Makes no since. IMO. It makes plenty of sense. Is the vote for #1 vs #2 or #1 vs #2 that won their conference? It's a rare situation, but those seem to keep arising with the BCS. I don't know how many more times it needs to be said. IF that's a stipulation they want, add it in to the rules. No more, no less...
December 8, 200619 yr Are you serious? Boise State didn't win the SEC or any conference near the level of the SEC, did they? If your voting logic is based on rewarding those teams that won their conference (as many have said) and,thus, punishing those that came in 2nd or 3rd in their conference, then to be consistent you would have to have an undefeated and conference champ Boise #3, right? The absurdity of that points out the flaw in the logic used by some voters.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.