I wrote this a few days ago on my blog.  I did not mention ESPN's ranking of the greatest BCS teams of all time, but I do address that issue later when I talk with people on ESPN (perhaps harshly at times).

...

edit:  I gave the wrong link for the greatest BCS games ever.  The last link is for the greatest BCS performances ever (obviously Vince is ranked #1).  The link for the greatest bowl games ever is this one http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3402071

At ESPN, there's been quite a flurry of BCS-related columns.  There's one defending the BCS here, another arguing for a playoff here, another listing the greatest BCS slights here, and yet another listing the greatest BCS games we've seen.

I'll talk briefly about each of these, perhaps concentrating on the greatest BCS bowls ever.

First off, Ivan Maisel makes some good points when he's defending the BCS.  He admits its gargantuan flaws, but he is correct on several good things about it.  To start, it is much better than letting some idiotic voters of the AP unilaterally choose a champion.  College football also has become even more popular during the BCS era, adding intrigue, excitement, and ultimately ratings across the board.  Despite its bias towards the major conferences, it still has allowed mid-major teams like Utah, Boise St., and Hawaii get national spotlights they otherwise would not have gotten.  The BCS has given us excitement, great games, and big money for college football.

However, this does not make the system good, and this is where I'll agree with Forde who rips the BCS.  Sure, the BCS is better than what we had, but that doesn't mean it's as good as it should be.  A playoff system will not be perfect and people will still feel snubbed, but it's a lot more preferable dealing with a controversy of a team being left out of the #7 or #8 spot than a team getting left out of the #1 or #2 spot.  There have been way too many screw ups in the BCS that have national title implications.  I've already written my dislike of the Plus One, so I don't accept that as much of a playoff either, but I do agree we should have SOME sort of playoff system.  The best idea I've heard is the "flex" system; many CFB fans have pointed out the fact that the Giants won the Super Bowl and how everyone still knows they weren't the best team.  People wanted to see NE vs. Dallas or Green Bay, and they don't want those kind of fluke upsets screwing up college football.  Fair enough.  A flex system will have a playoff ONLY if there is not a scenario when there are two, and only two, undefeated teams from the major conferences.  I believe Burnt Orange Nation had a great article on this a long time ago spelling out the details of such a system.

In any case, the BCS is better than what college football had before, but it still sucks.  We'll still love college football, but we want something more.

Now to the biggest slights of all:

I disagree with much of the article.  For one, ESPN's love affair with USC shows again, as he ranks USC's exclusion #1 while Auburn's exclusion is ranked #2.  That's unbelievably stupid.  USC lost against Cal that year; if they won, they're in no questions asked.  If they want to blame anyone, it should be OU; because Oklahoma got upset by K-State in the Big 12 title game, that screwed USC and Texas.  I agree USC got slighted, but not to the degree of Auburn.  Auburn WON EVERY SINGLE GAME in a major BCS conference (the SEC, no less), and they still didn't get a shot.  OU was undefeated and deserved to go too, but Auburn's exclusion, along with this past wacky college football year, remains the biggest argument against the BCS system.  Auburn's snub should be ranked #1.

Furthermore, I believe Texas and Florida answered their critics emphatically.  Texas and Michigan turned in one of the greatest Rose Bowls ever, and Texas won while Cal humiliated themselves against Texas Tech.  Florida not only won the game, they thrashed Ohio State.  Bigger slights are Missouri getting screwed this year, K-State being left out, Florida State going ahead of Miami to the title game in '01, and Notre Dame somehow getting BCS invitations.

Now finally, to the greatest BCS games of all time:

I agree with much of the list.  There is NO QUESTION that the USC-Texas game ranks #1.  Even if I were no Texas fan, I would say that much.  This was a game that had everything; unbelievable hype, two all-time great teams, two great coaches, star power, tradition, and an unforgettable back and forth game that ended with a touchdown run with 19 seconds left.  All for the NATIONAL TITLE GAME THAT WAS UNDISPUTED.  Boise State and Oklahoma doesn't hold a candle to this game.  Ohio State and Miami was good, but the quality of play and the quality of teams was not to this level.  Anyone arguing for Boise State is simply a retard.

Texas and Michigan also cracked the top five.  No argument from me here too.

Let me list some things I posted on ESPN, answering some idiot comments (USCin2000 is not an idiot so I answered him cordially).

First, let us set this up with one of USCin2000's comments:

"As an SC fan...the Texas game still pains me. But the Longhorns deserved to win. I never whined about Vince Young being down. He would have scored anyway.

I only wish people would look back at that SC team and realize it was not the juggernaut it was made out to be. In fact, the 2004 team that crushed Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl was much better. Why? The '04 Trojans were also loaded DEFENSIVELY. Shaun Cody and Mike Patterson in the middle, Grootegoed and Tatupu at linebacker, and Eric Wright in the secondary. They were in the top 10 in the nation in every defensive category. People forget how pourous the '05 Trojans were (and the fact they lost 3 starters in the secondary to injury during the year). They gave up 42 points to Fresno Frickin' State, and over 21 a game heading into the Texas matchup. Compare that with the 13 a game the '04 unit gave up (inc. the 19 put up by Oklahoma). But I still maintain the '05 SC was offense was more talented top to bottom than any other in history, including Young's Texas team (After all, SC was facing the #6 defense in the country in that game. I think the Trojans were somewhere in the 30s)"

Note the bold...

Now here's a couple guys I had to embarrass.  I was, however, nice to SuperMan Dat because he was trying to be objective.

offjon:  "Both #1 and#2 involved refs handing the game to an inferior team. Blown calls do not make for great games."

TheElusiveShadow:  "What a moron statement, offjon. Are you talking about Vince's knee? That happened in the SECOND quarter, first of all. Secondly, if it was called, Texas would have had a FIRST AND 10 at around the 11 yard line. I've talked to SC fans and they know Texas would have scored anyway. In fact, Texas fans (like me) wished the refs called it right; because we rushed the field to kick the PAT to avoid a replay, Pino missed the extra point. Not to mention the extra time that SC used to kick a field goal to close the half.

Think before you open your mouth, idiot."

SuperMan Dat:  Theelusiveshadow, but do you remember that there were only 19 SECONDS left at the end of the game? What if they had been stopped 3 times before scoring and 30 seconds ticked off. Does Texas win then? You also can't say "well of course they would have scored" because anything can happen like a fumble, interception, or penalties. Just look at Reggie Bush deciding to lateral on that play. In a million years would you have expected him to do that? No probably not.

eatthegator:  "wtf 2006 rose bowl, most overrated game not the best. Just because he scored on fourth down doesn't make it great. If USC had a defense the game wouldn't have been close. VY was the most overrated cfb player ever and just like i knew would happen he is a bust in the NFL."

TheElusiveShadow:  "SuperMan Dat, please think about what you're saying. The knee play happened in the FIRST HALF. Therefore, IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO AFFECT ON THE TIMING OF THE SECOND HALF. Your argument fails.

You're right; we will never know for sure what would have happened. However, as most objective USC fans will admit, the most reasonable expectation was that Texas would have scored. You can what-if that to the point of something like this: If that was called, Texas would have scored anyway and made the PAT. Furthermore, USC would have failed to score before the half closed (heck, maybe they even turn the ball over and Texas scores again, as they almost did anyway to Drew Kelson), giving Texas further momentum entering the second half.

I merely pointed out how stupid offjon's argument was and obliterated it. I'm sorry to say, you didn't do much to change that conclusion.

Eatthegator, I have to conclude you simply didn't watch the game. Anyone objective football mind ranks that among the greatest of all time. And no, Vince is no bust; an ROY award along with a playoff appearance does not equal "bust." Besides, even if we grant that he is (and he isn't), that says absolutely nothing about the quality of the game at the college level.

And if USC didn't have such a prolific offense, the game wouldn't have been close. What a bad argument that is. USC actually had a very underrated defense, but they had no idea how to handle Vince, as most defenses did not.

USCin2000:  "Underrated defense? Are you kidding? They had Ryan Ting starting in the secondary. That guy wouldn't make their practice squad most years.

Look...I'm taking nothing away from Texas. It was the best team in college football that year.

But USC's defense was awful. No championship team gives up 21 points per game (and that's before including the Texas game). All the pundits drooled over the USC offense, which was without a doubt the most talented in NCAA history. But Texas, led by Vince, was also in the top 5 that year. So it became a battle of what defense would hold. Texas was #6 in the nation in defense. USC was nowhere on the map.

The fact is USC was not "the greatest team of all time" as some portrayed it to be. Hell, the '04 Trojans were much better. It simply had the best offense of all time."

TheElusiveShadow:  "Wow, USCin2000. You're the first Trojan fan that I've met that completely belittles that defense. Every other Trojan fan I talked to, especially before the game, talked about how underrated their defense was.

Their defense WAS underrated. I'm not saying it was great, because it was not. But it did lead the NCAA in turnovers, and it did suffer some injuries during the season. Furthermore, part of the reason it's stats were somewhat skewed was that it played in a offensive oriented Pac-10 that year.

The fact is, they ranked #1 in turnovers and in the top 30's in total defense. Definitely not great, but I warned many Texas fans that thinking we were playing Rice's defense was simply not true. Remember, the NCAA has well over 100 Division 1A teams.

What USC WAS bad at was the kicking game, but unfortunately for Texas, Aaron Ross decided to fumble our very first touch and Pino missed two kicks. I promise I get annoyed every time I see those things when I re-watch the game, despite the fact we won. Texas had a much better special teams game and failed to show it that game.

And also, remember such things as garbage points and the like. And also remember that by the end of the year, they held an explosive UCLA offense to 3 points until a couple of garbage touchdowns when the game was already over.

Again, I am in no way arguing USC had a great defense (I feel ridiculous even defending that team right now). I am merely pointing out that they were "underrated."

USCin2000 later qualified his statement, saying the USC defense of '05 was "awful" only compared to other USC teams, and so I let the point slide.

Am I mean?  Perhaps.  But seriously, people need to make arguments that, you know, have support.  Believe me, it's not the first time I've heard the incredibly bad argument "If Vince's knee was called, Texas would not have had enough time to score."  Good grief, do these people watch football?
...
Anyway, as far as ranking the best BCS champions, I would obviously say Texas should at least be above '99 FSU.  Besides, while I agree with people like USCin2000 that USC's '04 defense was better, their offense in '05 was much better, and it's not like Vince Young hadn't embarrassed talented defenses before (like Michigan's).  Besides, USC did not have to play Auburn in 2004, which is not their fault, but it present a case where there was another great team that they did not play.  In Texas' case, there was no question who was on top of the college football world after the Rose Bowl, and Texas dominated their inferior opponents more than Miami of 2001 and actually had to play an all-time great team in the championship game rather than an undeserving Nebraska team, not to mention walk into the Horse Shoe that year.  OSU's team, in my opinion, was much better that year than the previous two that made the NC game.  They just had the misfortune of sharing the season with USC, Texas, and a rejuvenated Penn State team.  Their only two losses?  Texas and Penn State, the national champion and a team that was one second away from also being undefeated during the regular season, respectively.