Come on guys, we all know the real reason they feel this way. They are commentators....probably couldn't play the game if their name was football. But, they think they look pretty sitting in front of the cameras. :geauxtige
Gilmore was a DB for Stanford in the famous “and the band is on the field” game against California. I’ve listened to him call at least 15 games on ESPN2 over the last few years. I disagree with him a good bit on college football issues, but I think he is as good as they come as a game analyst. He knows the game, he does his homework and knows the players, and he talks about what has been happening with the teams all year. I enjoy listening to the guy. He’ll be part of the ESPN2 crew for Friday’s La. Tech at Fresno game. Their topic for discussion is supposed to be who the best 1 loss team is. I have a feeling a few more insults are going to be hurled his way later...
Outside of the SECCG they are a sham. Look at the Big12 and ACC games. How in the hell are we supposed to believe that Colorado and Florida State are one of the two top teams in their conference? It's always like that in the Big12. The SEC is the only conference to actually put two legitimate teams in the SEC year in and year out.
I dunno Clair. I doubt there is much of a difference between Colorado and Texas Tech. I kinda like your theory, but CFB is pretty fun for SEC fans because both sides are so competitive. It goes in cycles, of course, as the East can be just as tough as the West. And looking at the Big XII, they're just in a major down cycle for their North teams. Whodathunk that Nebraska would be bad for this long!
This is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't issues ... All you have to do is look at LSU's recent history In 2001, Gilmore's beliefs were dead on because when LSU upset Tennesee that kept the Vols from playing for the National Championship. Now, his point is even more solidified by the fact that LSU lost to Tennessee earlier in the year. But in 2003, the Tigers' needed the win over Georgia in the SEC CG to put them ahead of USC in the BCS rankings and solidify the Tigers as the #2 BCS team and secure their legitimate place in the National Championship game. So, it works both ways.. And this year Gilmore's point holds a little water because other than the SEC, the matchups of the other BCS conferences with championship games is downright awful. Texas is a four touchdown favorite and Va Tech is a two touchdwon favorite. Those two teams opponents have lost a combined five straight games. So, let's say Vince Young got hurt and Texas ends up losing to Colorado, that kills their NC hopes. Until all the "BCS" conferences compete under the same guidelines - 12 or more teams, 2 divisions, 5 or more games versus division opponents, 3 rotating opponents from the other division, conference championship game decides the overall champion - then this debate will go on and on just like the lack of a playoff debate goes on. But let's face reality though, Championship Games are about one thing - MONEY $$$$$. About making money for the conference.
Ark got their butts handed to them in 2002 after coming out of a three-way-tie. Auburn lost bad in 2000. It's been known to happen before.
I heard Jim Rome say the same thing earlier this week. And yes, it is completely absurd to say that. Hurt the higher ranked teams?!?! Well, they would only be 'hurt' if they lose, in which case they were obviously not as good as their ranking. So then, they should exist to actually determine who the best teams really are at the end of the year. Either way, conference championship games are the closest thing CFB has to a playoff. How anyone in their right mind can think they're a bad idea is beyond me.
