What are you talking about? One season in 11, a season on the heels of sanctions for AU? There were 5 undefeated teams in 2004, and the 2 best played for the agreed upon NC. Again, the AP was irrelevant at that point and no one talks about "split NCs" after 2003. You are grasping at straws trying to support a singular poll over a system that incorporated multiple factors to try to eliminate the subjectivity inherent in the poll system. It wasn't perfect or infallible, but outside a playoff, it was better than the poll system, and certainly the AP alone, by far. There were numerous controversies pre-BCS era, too; between the AP and UPI, and later USA and ESPN polls, too many to say or enumerate. Nebraska and Oklahoma were big beneficiaries of the poll system in the 70s, for example. LSU was the National Champion in the agreed upon system that was less subjective than the singular AP poll's announced NC in 2003, period.
Go read my ealier post in tbis thead or do a search.and you will see the list of controversies. I am on a phone and not copying.
Here. How's this for your flawless BCS? Again, the fact that YOU dont hear complaining doesn't mean there's none.
None of what you said indicates you know your subject matter. 3rd grade reading comprehension is quite common on this board, but go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back.
Personally I want to believe that is true however in a scenario whereby there are four undefeated teams and a one or two loss SEC champ I doubt the SEC would get a team into the playoff.
Flawless? I don't think anyone is disputing that the BCS wasn't flawless, just that it was better than individual polls, including the AP. As I have read the thread, the debate has been about you trying to argue a split NC in 2003. To summarize what I am reading how most feel on here, except you: AP > vacuum BCS > singular polls, including AP Playoffs > BCS or singular polls I read the history lesson about the AP, and appreciated that input from you. However, the point I made is that only in 2003 does anyone nationally talk about a "split NC." That doesn't mean after 2003, teams didn't feel left out, or argued their own case. What it does mean that in the agreed upon system, 2 teams played for a NC, and one team won. That is in all years of the BCS, including 2003 and 2004. Had BCS not existed, then it would have been "awarded" to one team by a poll. In 2003 and 2004, and other years, the other teams would all be in a similar position, but none of it would have truly been decided on the field. AU wouldn't have won in 2004 by a poll either.
The BCS wasn't perfect and neither will the new system. Heck the NFL, NBA & MLB aren't perfect even with all the teams they have in the playoffs. I do believe that the BCS was much better than the non-system we had before that.
Then you can't read one bit cause I purposely avoided THAT scenario and it was not about that at all. It was about how flawed the BCS was. Go back and read again, you'll see.
