If others don't even get a chance to try and win a BCSCG, then it is an issue. I hope this will not derail the thread, but let's look at 3 years ago, when Florida won the BCSCG. Florida had one loss, to Mississippi State, i think. USC had one loss, to Oregon State. Very comparable, but would USC have beaten Florida in a bowl? I don't know, and nobody else does. Both teams were very very good that year. And Utah was undefeated, crushed an Alabama team that went undefeated in the regular season in the SEC, an Alabama team that Florida only squeaked by. So, yeah, in that year, I am SURE that being BCS champion is of far less meaning than winning a BCS bowl game. For that year, I rate Florida, Utah, and USC to be equals, because there was no on field way to tell who was best, they all had great seasons, they all won a BCS bowl game.
He is a smart guy, he spotted the same logic an fact errors that I did, but was quicker to post. I salute!
EXACTLY so your issue should be with the team that lost. THEY were the "wrong" team, if we're to beleive there was one. Alabama was "crushed" before they got there...crushed that they weren't playing for a National Championship. Sure you know THE biggest determining factor to lay money on in a bowl game is figuring how "Who's glad to be there". Why not use the year Auburn went undefeated but didn't get a chance to prove they could beat one of the teams in the NC Title game?
Ya, I am a rabid Duck fan, but I was disgusted by the BCSCG last year. Bad football for much of the game by BOTH teams. It was a disgrace. Contrast to last year's Rose bowl, which I watched relatively impartially, as I don't care much about TCU or Wisconsin. Both teams played near flawlessly (zero turnover game.) Incredible execution and game plan by TCU to beat a Wisconsin team that was bigger and faster than them. Had TCU and Auburn played for the championship, and Auburn played as poorly as they did vs the Ducks, and TCU played as well as they did vs Wisconsin, TCU would have stomped Auburn.
Yes, excellent example, Auburn WON its BCS bowl game that year. Or I could point to the year Oregon was ranked #2 in every single human poll, but was passed over for #4 Nebraska for the BCSCG. Oregon won it's BCS bowl game that year. That's why I like to look at BCS bowl games as a better indicator than BCS championship games, it's just not fair who gets to go to the championship game, but almost never does an elite team fail to go to a BCS bowl game.
In your opening post you said all I need to hear. The SEC IS the best. It doesn't matter if it's only marginally or by a landslide- at least to me it doesn't. Not sure why it matters to you either. Whether a basketball team wins a championship with a shot at the buzzer, or blows the team out by half, they're still the Champs. I'm going to shut up in this thread now and let you keep chumming the waters. I only wanted you to know we're not ignorant to "the facts" when we say the SEC Rocks. In a few weeks we're going to turn the PAC 10 or 11, whatever it is, on it's head.
Yes the BCS is flawed but as a conference the SEC had beaten the PAC10, Big 10, and the Big 12(10). Each conference was represented by their best team and (also) the SEC was represented by 4 different teams. The results of this system have been consistent in favor of the SEC. Top to bottom across the SEC things average out. SEC bottom half is no better than any other conferences. The top two or three teams in the SEC could win the NC each year. I don't feel it is that strong in any of the other conferences. The SEC is home to the biggest recruiting base in the nation. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, and the Carolinas are very strong recruiting areas and are overall larger than California and Texas. The SEC also recruits well outside of the South. Finally, the coaches. Very strong proven coaches in the SEC. This is cyclical and could change. You just have to wait and hope it occurs sooner than later!
