Everyone's Out As National Champion

by PB @ BON on Jan 6, 2009 1:30 PM CST Comment 9 comments

You don't have to look hard to find a swarm of over-reactions to Texas' "too-close" win over Ohio State as reason the Longhorns shouldn't be #1. File each non-analysis in the "they don't get it" bin. This one from an embittered Buckeye fan (and the ensuing comments) is my favorite.

Just as Texas' win over Oklahoma can't on its own justify ranking the 'Horns above the Sooners, nor can Texas' narrow victory over OSU disqualify them from #1 ranking consideration.

Well, I guess it can, but then we're left with nobody.

Is Utah out for their 2-point win over an awful Michigan team? Is Oklahoma out for a 10-point loss to Texas? How about Florida and their home loss to Ole Miss? USC for their home loss to Oregon State, or non-blowout wins over AZ and UCLA?

One game does not a team make. And in any case, Texas beat a healthy, peaking OSU team, even when the 'Horns didn't have their A-game.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We'll never have a true National Champion...

until we have a playoff system. Otherwise, we just have a BCS Champion and AP Champion………..plain and simple.

by silky51 on Jan 6, 2009 1:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Which is why it would be nice to settle this on the field

The BCS just doesn’t allow it.

by TheElusiveShadow on Jan 6, 2009 1:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not "Plus 1"

While the current system stinks, and a playoff is needed, the oft- discussed “compromise” of a “Plus 1” system would not help in the least. This year illustrates that so well. Who would play in a “Plus 1” game? Well the winner of UF/OU and UT? Utah? USC?

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Jan 6, 2009 1:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i think the "Plus 1"

that’s been getting the most chatter by talking heads is reranking all the teams after the bowls and then pitting the #1 and #2 teams in a championship game, having had the opportunity to see all the teams in marquee, late-season, non-conference match-ups. it would still be a flawed system, but you’d work out a little of the “who have so and so played” or “well, they just play in an over-rated/under-rated conference”. some seem to want the BCS to match up the top four teams, and make it essentially a four-team playoff, but some just want to stick with traditional bowl ties or the existing BCS system (except maybe forgoing the #1 vs. #2 matchup) and just letting the voters and computers take one more whack at it with more information. i tend to see the arguments and think that it would be a better system than what we have now, but it still wouldn’t be perfect and using this season as an example, you’d still have a few teams left out with a legitimate argument for being in the title game.

by littlevisigoth on Jan 6, 2009 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs