AP voting and national Championship

by voljunkie on Jan 10, 2009 12:36 PM EST

First off The Florida Gators are the national champions in the BCS and the AP. And that is how it should be based on the system in place. Now do I agree with the current system NO! I like 99.9% percent of college football fans want a play off. Why do we want it? So it can be settled on the FIELD. So why do I bring up the AP voting? Because all we are hearing everywhere is who should everyone vote for in the AP. Such as Texas, USC or Utah. So what is my point? If you want it to be settled on the field then how could you ever advocate voting for anybody else other then Florida in the AP Poll. Because if you do you are basing that vote on who you “THINK” is the best team or who “THINK” will win. So unless you can say that you “thought” that Utah would beat Alabama, and you “though” that Oregon State would beat USC, and you “though” that Ole Miss would beat Florida and you “thought” that Texas Tech would beat Texas, you have no idea what will actually happen until the game is played on the field. So you have to crown Florida the champions even if you don’t like them and your favorite team didn’t get to play in the BCS title game. I wonder where all of this outrage was back when Auburn went 13-0 through the SEC and won the Bowl game? Oh wait USC was in the BCS title game that year, so all was well.

The only thing good about everything that is being said by the media and fans is that we might actually render the BCS title game useless and then the whole system might go away.

Just think if the Pac 10 picked up Utah and Boise State and the Big Ten picked up another team..Then we would have had Alabama/Florida Ohio State/Penn State USC/Utah and Oklahoma/Missuori(sorry texas but you can only blame your conference)
Think what the BCS could have done after those games played out. and then have a plus one.

Voljunkie

FanPosts are most often submitted by users. The views and opinions expressed in FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by the editorial staff of Rocky Top Talk or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Boise State will never be invited to the PAC-10.

The PAC-10 has fairly stringent requirements on conference memberships, and BSU would have a difficult time maintaining competitiveness in the number of sports required. BYU has lobbied several times in the past and has never been accepted, but they and Utah would be the most likely two – if the PAC-10 ever felt inclined to expand. Honestly, I don’t think they want to. If the PAC-10 ever does expand, look for coastal schools like Fresno State to get the nod.

A more likely scenario would be to have BSU join the MWC and develop a conference with enough clout to work their way in to an autobid. It’d be tough for the MWC to expand to 12 (for a conference championship game) without picking up a bottom feeder, but it might be workable in a few years. Tulsa could be #11.

by David Hooper on Jan 10, 2009 9:58 PM EST reply actions

Good Point

I really didnt put to much though into the second team into the Pac 10. I was thinking more of the possibitlity of the conference championships being more like a round of playoff, if all the BCS conferences had them, However the biggest draw back to that is when you have one division with two or more teams better then the best team in the other division.

You also have a good point about the pac 10 not wanting to expand. Why make it harder to get to the big game right. Just think if USC had beaten Oregon State this year, Stanford last year and UCLA the year before it is very likely they would have played for the Title

Tackled by "Puki" and a host of Volunteers

by voljunkie on Jan 11, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions

There is no good answer to be found.

A playoff would likely mean the end of the 4 major bowls. They wouldn’t serve well as playoff rounds; not many fanbases (especially northern ones) would travel to Pasadena one weekend, just to travel to Miami the next in the numbers needed to justify the system. If you used an 8-team format, the problems compound.

So you’d basically be stuck with using home games for the playoff rounds and a neutral site for the final game (much like the NFL). That would nullify the guaranteed conference money from those bowl tie-ins. The replacement system may or may not pay out better, but nobody knows and the conferences aren’t ready to take that kind of a gamble.

I have no problem with the bowl system, and I’d have no problem with a playoff system either. My biggest concern is attempting to declare a “national champion” every year; it’s just not a realistic goal for the sport. This year, there are 4 teams with legitimate consideration for the title. A playoff doesn’t necessarily determine the “best” team; it simply produces a team with a sufficient win streak at the right time.

I think if everybody dropped the hunt for a “consensus national champion” and settled on a system that produced the most entertaining postseason we’d be happiest.

by David Hooper on Jan 11, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

Possibility

I just like the possiblity of having BOTH the “Big Televen” & “PAC Televen”! It just makes me giggle!

by Aerobab on Jan 11, 2009 10:04 AM EST reply actions

I just wish they would do something, it truly is not fair for both of those conferences to have the advantage of not playing a conference championship.

Tackled by "Puki" and a host of Volunteers

by voljunkie on Jan 11, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think you can lump the Pac 10 with the Big 10.

The Pac 10 plays every team in the conference every year, 9 conference games. Every game is a potential conference championship. The Big 10 isn’t like that. They play 8 conference games every year.

by wvvol on Jan 11, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions