You're right. Breaking a tie to determine the champ according to who has gone the lonest without winning one is a brilliant idea. So much better than playing a game on the field to determine it. I agree perfect is a strong word, but you got the point I was trying to make. Myself personally, I don't want to see either and ahve said so more than once. And I'm sorry to inform you, but App St. is better than Idaho, I don't care what division they call themselves. While most agree the SEC is the best in the country right now, not many think it is a massive drop. Same reason they did when USC lost to Stanford. Or WVU lost to Pitt, or OU lost to Boise. Anytime a team loses a game they're heavily favored in, it's a big deal. I only used y'all schedule, because it is one most here are farmiliar with. You can substitute any other bottom feeder of D1 on anyone else's schedule and get the same effect.
Auburn missing out on the 04' NC is probably the biggest disrespectful move the BCS has made in a very long time. #2 would be USC being allowed to keep their 04' title after it was made very clear Reggie Bushs' parents and himself profited off of his abilities at USC. IMO, until they add a team to their conference and make a CCG, the Pac 10 and Big Ten should be left out of the BCS... and let the real conferences play for the title.
I think the Oregon snub was just as bad as the USC and Auburn snubs. Nebraska got their brains beat out just like OU did in 2003 and Oregon was a damn good team that year. USC should have been in the title game in 2003 no doubt, OU did not deserve to be there. Auburn's schedule and accomplishments in 2004 should have gotten them in the title game in 2004 as well. The Big 12 proved in all 3 of those years that they were not as good as advertised.
Bear with me for a moment, am I correct in the following? In 2003: LSU won the BCS Championship. USC did not make the BCS Championship game but claims a national title for that year. The title USC claims is alluded to as if it is real by most of the national media. In 2004: USC won the BCS Championship Auburn did not make the BCS Championship game, but did have a parade celebrating a “People’s National Championship”. Auburn, however, does not claim a NC for that year. A great deal of effort is extended to discredit Auburn because they played The Citadel ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1. How can USC claim a 2003 title while not promoting Auburn as a Co-Champion for 2004? (Neither claim would be valid) 2.How did the idea of a Championship that is determined by your weakest opponent instead of your strongest gain a foothold? Oh wait, never mind: (I know I left out Atlanta, Nashville, B’ham, Mempis, Jacksonville, and Little Rock, but I didn’t include all of the PAC 10 media markets either, this point is about concentration of the market): City TV Homes % of US LA 5,611,110 5.039 --------------------------------------- TV Homes 5,743,610 % of the US 5.16 New Orleans Mobile-Pensacola (Ft Walt) Knoxville Shreveport Huntsville-Decatur (Flor) Chattanooga Jackson, MS Baton Rouge Savannah Charleston, SC Ft. Smith-Fay-Sprngdl-Rgrs Augusta Macon Columbus, GA Biloxi-Gulfport Gainesville Hattiesburg-Laurel Jackson, TN Lake Charles Alexandria, LA Jonesboro Meridian
It's no coincidence that a team in the nation's second largest tv market has historically gottten more recognition than others. USC should consider itself fortunate that it is able to reap the benefits of such a situation. Helps with polls, Heisman voting, etc etc. Of course the BCS has benefited the SEC. Finally some of these things get to be decided on the field. Balances the playing field for the smaller markets.
Ever consider the downside to that media attention? You really think being in a smaller market doesn't have it's advantages? In the 90's we didn't play good football and we were still in a large TV market. That market does little to help with Heisman voting. Most of the media voters and particularly those East of the Mississippi have admitted they rarely watch West Coast games. They see highlights and final scores. The former Heisman winners don't give a rat's butt about TV markets. But the Heisman is useless here I thought. The inordinate amount of BCS money flowing to the SEC is hardly leveling the playing field. Good for the SEC, not so much the other conferences.
As soon as USC got through those difficult times, the Heisman's started rolling in. Much easier to recover in a large market. Sure the whole nation saw the bad times, but the nation s also guaranteed to see the good times too. They may not watch the games, but over the years the highlights of teams in major markets have certainly been more readily available than those of small market teams. It's common for most people to get to bed before midnight, ya know? It's nothing to get defensive about. Like I said, enjoy reaping the benefits. What are you even talking about? By the way, what exactly is inordinate about the amount of BCS money flowing into the SEC compared to other conferences?
You're kidding, right? When USC has one of the top journalism schools in the country, one shouldn't be surpised to learn that they reap the subtle benefits within the media. Failure to admit that bias is, IMHO, disengenuous .......
