Anyone familiar with the origins of polls since their inception knows they were specifically FOR creating controversy. It was to generate interest through creating discussion/debate. That's why National Championships were "mythical". Have you ever heard so much discussion/debate everywhere you go as you are hearing today and year's past? Think about it. The BCS has raised college football to another level in many aspects. Agree...or disagree?
It's much better than what we had before. People seem to forget that #1 vs. #2 was rare before the BCS. Now it happens every year. Of course we argue about who is #1 and #2 but it's much better than arguing about who's #1 when the two top contenders had no chance of playing.
No lie. Here's an interesting tidibt: Until 1974 the final Coaches Poll was taken before the bowl games. This was changed after the 1973 season, when Alabama was crowned as the Coaches Poll national champion in December, yet lost the Sugar Bowl to Notre Dame on New Year's Eve. The same situation occurred in 1970, when #5 Notre Dame beat #1 Texas 24-11 in the 1971 Cotton Bowl and Nebraska won the AP national title.
The BCS is MUCH better than the old system, which favored the "traditional" powers and left many teams out in the cold. Teams like TCU and Boise can complain all they want about being left out of the big game these days, but in the old system, they wouldn't even have warranted a mention, let alone been given a premier bowl game. The BCS has been, and continues to be, VERY kind to LSU.
LSU would have zero :crystal: in the last decade under the old polling system. I'm positive their would be a split title with Alabama this year under the old system. So the BCS was an improvement but a playoff is still necessary. I think we are headed to four super conferences with the four winners of each conference getting in a playoff for the national championship.
How do you figure? Under the old system, this year we'd be a lock. Win the SEC CG and then beat an inferior opponent in the Sugar Bowl. In 2003 we would probably have a split title with USC and most likely not even in the running in 2007.
In '03, we were not even on the preseason radar. We'd have never made it to the top in the old system. The BCS is LSU's friend.
I promise you, if there had been a split title in 2003 it would have been USC/Oklahoma not LSU. Remember, as usual, no one gave LSU a prayer in that championship game. Florida would not have won their first under Meyer, it would have gone to tOSU as it would have in 2007. BCS is an improvement because at least two teams are deciding it on the field- that is why the SEC is dominating. Give it to the voters and the Big Ten and Pac-crap win a bunch.
The old system is no comparison. The true argument is the present system and a true play-off. I'm torn between seeing it all take care of on the field (play-off) to the excitement of every game relevant in the regular season (current system). With a play off teams could lay down for a game of two if they knew they were already in. Not so in the BCS. But an eight team play-off could be just as exciting. All of the current BCS bowls could have a game that mattered and also throw in a few more.
