OU to Orange Bowl?

[NYC Poke]

Let the speculation begin.

The Orange Bowl that wasn't
Proposed Oklahoma-Va. Tech game busted by BCS
Posted: Monday December 17, 2007 7:02PM; Updated: Monday December 17, 2007 7:02PM


In the chaotic hours following the final, upset-laden night of the 2007 regular season, coaches and fans from as many as seven different teams made their case to earn one of the two spots in the BCS National Championship Game.

The BCS ultimately selected consensus No. 1 and 2 teams, Ohio State and LSU, but many followers -- myself included -- were left disappointed that none of the other highly ranked contenders (Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia Tech or USC) were pitted against each other in bowl games.

As it turns out, an 11th-hour agreement had been reached that would have allowed the No. 3 and 4 teams in the final BCS standings -- Virginia Tech and Oklahoma -- to meet in the Orange Bowl, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation. The conference commissioners who oversee the BCS, however, shot it down -- and several of the affected parties are still wondering why.

According to the official BCS selection process, the Hokies, as ACC champions, and the Sooners, as Big 12 champions, were "contractually committed" to their conference's host games -- Virginia Tech to the Orange Bowl and Oklahoma to the Fiesta Bowl.

However, there's also a written clause -- one that has yet to be invoked during the BCS' 10-year history -- that allows the commissioners to "adjust the pairings ... after the completion of the selection process." Among the circumstances that can be taken into consideration are "whether the same team will be playing in the same bowl game for two consecutive years" (Oklahoma played Boise State in last year's Fiesta Bowl) and "whether alternative pairings may have greater or lesser appeal to college football fans ..."

Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione confirmed Monday that on the morning of the Dec. 2 BCS selection show -- before the results of the final BCS standings were known -- he spoke with Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker about the possibility of invoking that clause to allow the Sooners to face "the highest-ranked team available."

"If we weren't going to be in the 1 vs. 2 game, we wanted to know if there was a possibility to play the highest-ranked team out there," said Castiglione. "At that point, we didn't know which team that would be."

According to sources involved in the discussions, Junker, along with Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, began contacting officials from the other bowls to see what could be worked out. It was well known by then that the Rose Bowl intended to take Big Ten at-large Illinois to meet Pac-10 champ USC and that automatic entrant Hawaii was heading to the Sugar Bowl, leaving the Fiesta and Orange bowls as the only games with any flexibility.

According to those same sources, the Fiesta and Orange bowls worked out an agreement to "swap" Oklahoma for the Orange Bowl's anticipated at-large choice, Kansas, creating an attractive No. 3 vs. 4 matchup in Miami while also allowing the Fiesta to host a Kansas team it had coveted throughout the Jayhawks' surprising 11-1 season.

Any such "adjustment" to the written placement rules, however, must be requested and then approved by the BCS commissioners following the conclusion of the formal selection process. Beebe said he made the request on behalf of his league's school but was met by resistance.

"There was a lengthy discussion, I made my case for it, and others made a case against it. It didn't prevail," said Beebe. "I don't necessarily agree, but I respect the views of those who were against it."

According to SEC commissioner and current BCS coordinator Mike Slive, "A request was made [to adjust the pairings]; it was considered and rejected.

"After thinking about it, the commissioners exercised their discretion to leave the pairings the way they were. There was a clear consensus."

Both Slive and Beebe declined to say which commissioners blocked the move -- though multiple sources said that ACC commissioner John Swofford and Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese did not oppose it.

Slive, who in his role as coordinator acts as a spokesman for the other commissioners, declined to elaborate on why the request was rejected. Pointing out that similar requests to adjust the pairings have been denied in the past (including in 2003, when the Fiesta Bowl's at-large selection of Ohio State stuck the Orange Bowl with a Miami-Florida State regular-season rematch), Slive said such an override would require "a very high threshold."

"My sense was that the reason wasn't compelling enough given the fact that on two prior occasions -- including the Miami-Florida State year -- the commissioners had set a very high threshold and felt that this did not meet the threshold," said Slive. "There weren't such compelling circumstances as to merit a change."

Two sources not directly involved in the decision speculated that the commissioners feared such a matchup might damage the legitimacy of the Ohio State-LSU title game.

The second-ranked Tigers have the same 11-2 record as both the Hokies and Sooners. Theoretically, a decisive victory by Oklahoma -- which is ranked No. 3 in the AP and Coaches polls -- combined with a less decisive LSU victory over the Buckeyes could have opened the door for a split national championship. (Unlike the coaches, AP voters are not obligated to select the BCS title-game winner No. 1).

"We certainly recognize the rules provide for the top two teams playing in the BCS national championship, and from that a winner will be named BCS national champion," said Oklahoma's Castiglione, whose team routed then-No. 1 Missouri 38-17 in the Big 12 title game. "There could be an argument for a split national champion, and that may be stated by any number of people. The AP is a very reputable poll. We just wanted to play the highest-ranked team. That was our goal all along."

Asked whether the split possibility played a factor, Slive insisted, "It never came up."

Asked why the opportunity to see the No. 3 and 4 teams play would not qualify as a game with "greater appeal to college football fans," as the BCS manual spells out, Slive replied, "Everybody looked at that, and knowing that, still came to the same conclusion. In any such consideration of something like this, you have to look at the question of what precedent does it set -- particularly when there have been more compelling requests that have not been granted -- and what are the unintended consequences?"

Castiglione stressed that Oklahoma is still pleased to be facing West Virginia in the Jan. 2 Fiesta Bowl ("This discussion had nothing to do with our eventual matchup," he said), and apparently Sooners fans are as well. As of last Friday, the school had sold all but about 2,000 of its 17,500 allotted tickets.

Meanwhile, Kansas on Monday sold out its allotment (also 17,500) for the Jan. 3 Orange Bowl against Virginia Tech.

The timing of the rejected Sooners-Hokies request is interesting, however. Over the next six months, BCS officials are expected to formally discuss the possibility of adding a "plus-one" game beginning with the 2010 season. Under the most commonly discussed model, in which the top-four teams would be "seeded" into semifinal bowl matchups, both Virginia Tech and Oklahoma would remain in contention for the national championship.

Slive has expressed his openness to the possibility on numerous occasions, as has Swofford, the ACC commissioner who will take over as coordinator following this year's title game. Such a plan would meet considerable resistance, however, from Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen, due to its potential effect on those leagues' relationship with the Rose Bowl.

Castiglione said the foiled OU-Virginia Tech matchup, "is a real interesting element worthy of further exploration."

"I just hope at some point in time we can hear an explanation of why this wasn't possible given the fact the rules provided that opportunity if it was in everybody's best interest. Clear-thinking, well-intentioned minds would like to know whether something like this is possible."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/12/17/bcs/index.html

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Great read NYC. The business of college football

[HopeSpringsEternal]

Once again, this is what happens when you get a group of weak minded old men together in one spot and try to get them to think straight. If thinking straight requires that they have to use imagination and or do a little work, forget about it. The status quo will be upheld.

[SoonerBOI]

Nice post NYC.http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2811/thumbsupcg4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[85sooners]

change is good!

[yermom]

i'm guessing the Fiesta felt slighted, i mean why should they get the crappy matchup with the Orange Bowl getting the good one?

they were stuck with the BCS buster last year, although that turned out to be a classic game

[texas bandman]

"Slive has expressed his openness to the possibility on numerous occasions, as has Swofford, the ACC commissioner who will take over as coordinator following this year's title game. Such a plan would meet considerable resistance, however, from Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen, due to its potential effect on those leagues' relationship with the Rose Bowl."

I say throw the Rose Bowl out of the BCS mix since they are the biggest fly in the ointment for the +1. Then they can always have their Big 10/Pac 10 matchup. Problem solved. I bet there would be a bevy of bowls lined up to take the Rose Bowl's place!

[soonerboomer93]

Actually, I thought they said the Fiesta had no problem, they were going to get 11-1 Kansas after all

[Stitch Face]

Two sources not directly involved in the decision speculated that the commissioners feared such a matchup might damage the legitimacy of the Ohio State-LSU title game.

Interesting that they would water-down the other bowls to 'legitimize' the champ game.

[Cam]

Two sources not directly involved in the decision speculated that the commissioners feared such a matchup might damage the legitimacy of the Ohio State-LSU title game.
Too little too late IMHO.

[illinisooner]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/12/17/bcs/index.html

[soonerhubs]

I say throw the Rose Bowl out of the BCS mix since they are the biggest fly in the ointment for the +1. Then they can always have their Big 10/Pac 10 matchup. Problem solved. I bet there would be a bevy of bowls lined up to take the Rose Bowl's place!
Agreed. I'm so sick and tired of the elitist attitude they have about the GREAT SACRED COW they call the Rose Bowl. I say the BCS add a Cotton Bowl and let the Rose Bowl be a lesser bowl. Of course that would require the BCS to show some of respect for the competitive nature of football and not intentionally schedule lower ranked teams against higher ranked ones. Slive and company=chicken ****.

[NYC Poke]

I say throw the Rose Bowl out of the BCS mix since they are the biggest fly in the ointment for the +1. Then they can always have their Big 10/Pac 10 matchup. Problem solved. I bet there would be a bevy of bowls lined up to take the Rose Bowl's place!

I'm getting pretty sick of the Rose Bowl as well. Nobody over the age of 6 cares about the parade, and few outside tOSU/Michigan/USC care about the "storied" PAC 10/Big 10 matchup. The other bowls and conferences seem willing to explore a different model. Let them move on without the PAC 10, Big 10, and the Rose Bowl and arrange something that everyone can get behind.

When they do, those entities will come around or face irrelevance. Or maybe they can just merge conferences or something. The Rose Bowl could host their first CCG.

[bstuff1979]

While this could, and likely does, have something to do with the Rose Bowl...I'm a little upset (understated) over something else. There is a clear, although a perceived clarity, conflict of interest going on here with the SEC and the BCS. As stated in the article, the SEC would probably have to share a national title if Oklahoma were to beat VT handily (and, if they were to play, that would be a solid possibility). Not one party directly involved with the bowl exchange would be financially, or otherwise, hurt by that exchange. Nor were any of the parties publicly, or through rumor/suggestion in the article, against such a swap. This really, really bothers me. Combine this with the insane stumping for LSU on ESPN (though I highly doubt that there is any sort of cohesion between groups for some insane conspiracy...but it does open up the doors for nuts to say there was) and you've got a system that looks both broken and bias. Not just in the way the system picks the top two, but in dashing any hopes of the watching anything other than mismatches and cinderallas for the other "bcs" games. If this continues (say, for five or more years), I'm ready for a fan based post-season boycott.

[snp]

I mentioned this before the bowls were selected, no big deal.

[sooneron]

This stinks although, it's nice to see official talk of a real +1 game. Something is rotten in Denmark or Baton Rouge. Of course, BR always smells as though something is rotten.

[Sooner_Havok]

The Pac-10/Big 10+1 is starting to **** me off with their ****. They talk about how they think they have given up enough to join the BCS, that they no longer are guaranteed their precious "traditional" Rose Bowl match up, and that they are really givers, not takers. Anyone here have a good memory? Remind me, where did OU "traditionally" go? Was it to Phoenix? Are we the 12 time Fiesta Bowl Champions? I think the Big 8 and then the Big XII gave up something too, something that never gets press, but I would sure rather be going to warm sunny Florida, don't know about you guys.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Rose Bowl will have to be blackballed or somehow dealt with harshly for a reasonable playoffs system to develop, IMO.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Wow..this story really gets me going. I can't say much that hasn't already been said here; I'd just do it more rudely, crudley, and profanity laced!

So I'll let it go for now!

[oupride]

Thanks for the post

[Desert Sapper]

Give us back our Orange Bowl, you BCS mother****ers!

[Doged]

I'm probably in the minority here, but while I think diluting the other bowls to prop up a weak championship match is stupid I also am glad that OU isn't really in position to get a "split" national championship. To me the AP championship is now as irrelevant as the multitude of other "championships" awarded outside the BCS every year.

[OklahomaTuba]

The bowl system makes College Football's post season the most irrelevant exercise in all of sports.

This article goes to show how corrupt this process is. Instead of letting the game be played on the field, its decided in smoke filled rooms by people who have no regard for the schools, players or fans.

How people can continue to defend this system is beyond belief.

This is killing college football folks.

[Soonermagik]

I was hoping to go to Orange Bowl, but the dream died. I went to the Fiesta last year, so a change of scenery would have been nice. I had free tickets to go to the fiesta, but I turned them down. I wanted to go, but the wife said no she went there last year. :(

[sooneron]

I'm probably in the minority here, but while I think diluting the other bowls to prop up a weak championship match is stupid I also am glad that OU isn't really in position to get a "split" national championship. To me the AP championship is now as irrelevant as the multitude of other "championships" awarded outside the BCS every year.
Hate to break it to you, but we move closer to AT LEAST a +1 real championship game if some more titles are split by the AP. I don't really care as far as titles are concerned because I want the crystal football in the Switzer Center, but it might as well be us with the AP championship instead of friggin Suc or someone else.

[Desert Sapper]

I think the AP "championship" depends on how the games look. If Illinois looks like crap and SUC smacks them, big deal. If LSU and tOSU both look stupid in their game, and LSU eeks out, combined with us playing well and Va Tech playing poorly, and if the moon is in the position of the north star on an odd Tuesday...****. You're right. Seeking out weird champeenships is like the fans of crappy NFL teams at playoff time. I am a Sooner fan and too proud to do so.

...but I'll still take it if they give it to us. :D

[TexasLidig8r]

This article goes to show how corrupt this process is. Instead of letting the game be played on the field, its decided in smoke filled rooms by people who have no regard for the schools, players or fans.



And don't think for a second that Jerruh Jones and the Cotton Bowl people aren't lobbying the BCS right now for inclusion in the rotation. When Jerruh's World opens in 2009 and the Cotton Bowl is played out there, the BCS people will be slobbering over themselves to have games played in that facility.

[SoonerStormchaser]

I'm surprised the Cotton Bowl wasn't included in the original 4 and that the Fiesta was. Shoulda been the other way around.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And don't think for a second that Jerruh Jones and the Cotton Bowl people aren't lobbying the BCS right now for inclusion in the rotation. When Jerruh's World opens in 2009 and the Cotton Bowl is played out there, the BCS people will be slobbering over themselves to have games played in that facility.That would be interesting. One of the 5 bowls for the NC, and the other 4 treated just as they are now?!?

[NYC Poke]

I'm probably in the minority here, but while I think diluting the other bowls to prop up a weak championship match is stupid I also am glad that OU isn't really in position to get a "split" national championship. To me the AP championship is now as irrelevant as the multitude of other "championships" awarded outside the BCS every year.

I really don't get why they did this (or I know why they did this and I'm just trying to ignore it). I realize that the BCS system was created in large part to make a reasonable attempt to pair Nos. 1 and 2. But why shouldn't they make reasonable accomodation to create as many marquee matchups as possible?

The way things are, I'd almost just rather go back to the way things used to be. It was kinda fun when the AP #1/UPI #3 played the AP #8/UPI #10 while the AP#2/UPI #1 played the AP #5/UPI #7. The network would always advertise the teams by their higher ranking, so you got to see both #1s play in bowl games. Then they would both inevitably lose and you scrambled to the paper the following morning with no idea who the new #1 would be only to see a split title. But you really didn't care because nobody went through the motions of "crowning" a champion.

It was quaint, sure, but it seemed to have some sort of detached dignity (of course this might not be the same in the message board era). The way things are now are just frustrating.

[soonerinabilene]

I was hoping to go to Orange Bowl, but the dream died. I went to the Fiesta last year, so a change of scenery would have been nice. I had free tickets to go to the fiesta, but I turned them down. I wanted to go, but the wife said no she went there last year. :(

Your man card can be returned to the front desk. Thank you for your stay. We hope you enjoyed your time in Manville, and hope one day you can return with a new set of cajones.;)

[soonerboy_odanorth]

I say throw the Rose Bowl out of the BCS mix since they are the biggest fly in the ointment for the +1. Then they can always have their Big 10/Pac 10 matchup. Problem solved. I bet there would be a bevy of bowls lined up to take the Rose Bowl's place!

And ye ol' Cotton Bowl, once it moves into Jerry World, would probably be at the front of that line.

[Desert Sapper]

I'm surprised the Cotton Bowl wasn't included in the original 4 and that the Fiesta was. Shoulda been the other way around.

I'm going to guess that the Cotton Bowl didn't go with Tortilla Chips quite as well as the Fiesta Bowl. The Tostitos Cotton Bowl just doesn't sound the same.

[NYC Poke]

I'm going to guess that the Cotton Bowl didn't go with Tortilla Chips quite as well as the Fiesta Bowl. The Tostitos Cotton Bowl just doesn't sound the same.


The Cottonelle Cotton Bowl?

[sooneron]

I'm going to guess that the Cotton Bowl didn't go with Tortilla Chips quite as well as the Fiesta Bowl. The Tostitos Cotton Bowl just doesn't sound the same.
That and the chance of sitting in sub freezing temps in Dallas for New Year's aren't too appealing for people's vacations.

[Miko]

It's settled then.

If the pac/big 10 wanna stay in teh rose bowl, fine. We play for championships without them. If not, they can play and the rose bowl can host cal. highschool playoffs. (Or has anyone figured out a way to have a playoff system in h.s. yet??)

Meanwhile, we move the Cotton into the rotation. That gives us the best shot at an lsuck style home game for the crystal ball.

Well, at least until we build a big retractable roof stadium in OKC for the B.C. Clark Dust Bowl.

All in favor?All opposed? The motion carries.

Next piece of business??

[oupride]

I know 2 season-ticket-holder-families that have been devout followers of the team for the last several years to EVERY bowl games. I was shocked to hear that NEITHER of them are interested in going to the Fiesta bowl.

[Desert Sapper]

That and the chance of sitting in sub freezing temps in Dallas for New Year's aren't too appealing for people's vacations.

Agree. Maybe the prospects will improve with the monstrosity of Arlington, or whatever they are billing Jerry's World as. I say we make it the Jones Oil and Land Lease Cotton Bowl. :texan:

[OUMedMan]

I think we're seeing the USC effect here -- from 2003.

In 2003 the BCS chose Oklahoma & LSU to play in the NC game. I don't recall exactly the scenario, except I do know that Oklahoma was ranked number 1 in the people polls until the Big 12 conference championship game, which the sooners lost 35-7. USC had been ranked #1 in the computer polls, but after Kansas State won the Big 12 USC dropped several positions.

In any event, the Sooners were selected to play in the NC game along with LSU, a matchup of the BCS #1 and #2 teams.

Meanwhile, USC was at #3 and Michigan at #4, and they met in the Rose Bowl.

As any Sooner fan remembers, the LSU/Oklahoma game was not all that well played, with LSU holding on to beat Oklahoma in the last minute or so.

Meanwhile, USC stomped Michigan in a very convincing 28-14 win that was nowhere as close as the score. The result was that in spite of LSU's win in the so-called NC game, the AP voters awarded their #1 position to USC. And even though the UPI voters were required by contract to vote for LSU, a number of their voters went for USC.

To avoid that, the BCS now tries to avoid any #3 & #4 matchups -- they don't want the outcome of those games to detract from the #1 - #2 matchups. And so this year, instead of Oklahoma vs Virginia Tech, we get Oklahoma vs. West Virginia. And instead of USC vs. Georgia, we are treated to Georgia vs. Hawaii and USC vs. Illinois.

As to the suggestion that the Cotton Bowl take the place of the Rose Bowl -- lots of luck on that one. If you toss the PAC-10 and the Big-10 out of the BCS equation, you will no longer have a credible BCS.

[yermom]

actually, OU was #1 going into the KState game since they were the last undefeated team

in the Final BCS OU was still #1 and USC was #3

the problem was that in the AP and probably Coaches, USC was #1

so they won their bowl game and stayed at #1 in the AP since they aren't contractually bound to pick the winner of the BCS championship game, they stayed with the #1 team that won their game

so even if OU would have been playing VT, it would have taken a lot to win the AP vote (being #3 now and #1 or #2 has to win) i guess it's still possible, but pretty unlikely. we'd have to win by 70 and Bob would have to do so some serious persuasion

[OUMedMan]

In that scenario I think there would be an excellent chance Oklahoma would be selected #1 in the AP --

If 1) LSU, a two loss team, struggled to beat Ohio State in a poorly played game in essentially their own stadium, and #2) Oklahoma, a two loss team romped over Virginia Tech in a neutral site (the Orange Bowl), I think most voters would go along with the Sooners as #1 -- unless there were contractual obligations.

[SoonerShark]

http://newsok.com/article/3182481/1198033992

BCS vote killed OU-Va. Tech in Orange Bowl

By Jake Trotter and John Helsley
Staff Writers

NORMAN — Oklahoma vs. Virginia Tech, on the surface, may appear no more sexy a matchup than OU-West Virginia.

Except a Hokies-Sooners matchup, which would have paired the BCS No. 3 and 4 teams, was set, in a matchup actually made in an agreement worked between the Orange and Fiesta bowls, putting OU in Miami and sending Kansas to Phoenix, only to be squashed by a vote of conference commissioners.


Why would the commissioners put the kibosh on the switch? Could a possible motive be to protect the BCS title game, pitting Ohio State and LSU, in a season ruled by chaos and possibly at risk of a split national champion should Nos. 3 and 4 meet?

Those were the questions posed by Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel, who first reported the vetoed agreement on the magazine's Web site late Monday.

A source close to the negotiations said that while the switch — allowed by a written clause in the BCS process — was disallowed, there was no evidence suggesting any thought toward a muddled national title picture.

"It never came up," the source said. "It was never discussed in the whole conversation."

Instead, the source said, the failure to sign off on the lineup change may simply be attributed to a matter of comfort by the commissioners.

The clause does exist, allowing commissioners to "adjust the pairings" after the completion of the selection process."

Reasons to consider such adjustments include a situation where a team would be playing in the same bowl for a second straight year — in this case OU — and where an alternate pairing may create more appeal to fans.

Contractually, the Big 12 champion is obligated to go to the Fiesta and the ACC champion is tied in with the Orange.

But the Orange and Fiesta bowls had agreed to swap Big 12 teams, with OU athletic director Joe Castiglione appealing to Fiesta officials for the opportunity to play the highest-ranked opponent possible.

The Fiesta didn't mind getting Kansas, making its first BCS appearance and its first trip to a major bowl since 1969. The Orange liked the idea of matching No. 3 Virginia Tech and No. 4 Oklahoma.

Fox television, which has the rights to broadcast both games, was also on board, according to another source close to the process.

"Everyone directly connected was agreeable with the switch," that source said. "Past requests for changing the pairings lacked unanimity from all parties directly involved. In this case, everyone was agreeable."

But in a vote of the 12 commissioners, 11 conference and Notre Dame, the majority voted against the switch.

"The BCS used to regularly undergo changes," the first source said. "There's been a concerted effort the past few years not to make any changes. Finally they have something people are beginning to understand, why fiddle with it?"

The commissioners have vetoed pairings adjustments in the past, including a 2003 proposal that would have prevented a Miami-Florida State rematch in the Orange Bowl.

"When they put that clause in, they had the bar set really high," in regard to adjusting pairings, the source said. "I can't think of a circumstance where they would make a change.

"Maybe some scenario where Oklahoma and Missouri would meet a third time. Maybe."

The source said that Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe "went to bat for OU — strong."

Efforts Tuesday to reach Beebe failed. Bob Burda, the Big 12's assistant commissioner for communications, said Beebe declined further comment.

Beebe told Mandel: "There was a lengthy discussion, I made my case for it, and others made a case against it. It didn't prevail. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect the views of those who were against it."

Efforts to reach Castiglione also failed, however, he told Mandel: "There could be an argument for a split national champion, and that may be stated by any number of people. The AP is a very reputable poll. We just wanted to play the highest-ranked team. That was our goal all along.

"(This) is a real interesting element worthy of further exploration. I just hope at some point in time we can hear an explanation of why this wasn't possible given the fact the rules provided that opportunity if it was in everybody's best interest. Clear-thinking, well-intentioned minds would like to know whether something like this is possible."

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think OU may win the McAlester News and Democrat National Championship

[SoonerShark]

Why should ND get a vote just like entire conferences? Actually, any school that agrees to play them in South Bend needs to have their leaders' heads examined in that they are providing programming for their private network.

[Blues1]

Sounds like the "Powers to be" are controlling who's gonna be "The National Champioinship Team" - It's all beginning to Look Like a Joke.....JMHO....!!!

[sooneron]

Deja vu thread du jour.

[MamaMia]

Wow. I'm beginning to feel the same way about the BCS, as I do toward congress. :(

[MextheBulldog]

Of course a possible VT/OU matchup could muddle the already cloudy national title waters, especially if one team were to dominate. This is nothing more than some CYA by the BcS commissioners.

[KingBarry]

I really don't get why they did this (or I know why they did this and I'm just trying to ignore it). I realize that the BCS system was created in large part to make a reasonable attempt to pair Nos. 1 and 2. But why shouldn't they make reasonable accomodation to create as many marquee matchups as possible?

The way things are, I'd almost just rather go back to the way things used to be. It was kinda fun when the AP #1/UPI #3 played the AP #8/UPI #10 while the AP#2/UPI #1 played the AP #5/UPI #7. The network would always advertise the teams by their higher ranking, so you got to see both #1s play in bowl games. Then they would both inevitably lose and you scrambled to the paper the following morning with no idea who the new #1 would be only to see a split title. But you really didn't care because nobody went through the motions of "crowning" a champion.

It was quaint, sure, but it seemed to have some sort of detached dignity (of course this might not be the same in the message board era). The way things are now are just frustrating.

Regarding your first paragraph, I remember back in the pre-BCS era (was that the Bowl Alliance), the idea was that #1 and #2 would square off in the championship game, and #3 and #5 along with #4 and #6 would meet in the other games. Then the Rose Bowl came in and immediately signed conference
tie-ins with you know who. Then the other bowls followed suit and now we have the mess we've got. The whole point of the BCS was to get away from conf tie-ins, the Rose killed us.

Regarding your second paragraph, the old system WAS much better thant his charade. I've finally gone over to favoring a playoff, but the old system is my second choice. The BCS is a distant third.

[picasso]

I'm probably in the minority here, but while I think diluting the other bowls to prop up a weak championship match is stupid I also am glad that OU isn't really in position to get a "split" national championship. To me the AP championship is now as irrelevant as the multitude of other "championships" awarded outside the BCS every year.
you say that, yet everyone just mentions '03 USC as national champs.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Do they really think people are buying that the reason they didn't do it was because it could take some luster off the BCS championship game? What a bunch or focktards

[Soonermagik]

Your man card can be returned to the front desk. Thank you for your stay. We hope you enjoyed your time in Manville, and hope one day you can return with a new set of cajones.;)

Trust me, you would be afraid of her too. ;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'm already afeared and I don't know her!

[Little Al]

Include ND as a 12th commissioner and you have the possibility of a tie - and thus, more confusion.

BC$

'nuff said.

[silverwheels]

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/12719172.html


Oklahoma apparently doesn't feel the Mountaineers are a good enough test in this year's Fiesta Bowl. According to a report from SI.com, Oklahoma was trying to set up a matchup with Virginia Tech.

The move would have utilized a never-used-before clause in the BCS bylaws which allows commissioners to switch up the bowl matchups after the selection process is over.

SI.com's report says late Monday night OU athletic director Joseph Castiglione contacted Fiesta Bowl officials about the possibility of using that clause to get OU matched up against the highest-ranked team available.

The report says the Sooners were trying to arrange a Orange Bowl matchup with the #3 ranked Hokies.

The request has been denied by BCS officials, and the Sooners are set to play the Mountaineers January 2 at 7:30.

Sorry-*** reporting. And look at the comments. Mis-inform the people and they look...well, mis-informed.

[Soonermagik]

I'm already afeared and I don't know her!

Smart dude, LOL!!! :D

[douxpaysan]

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/12719172.html



Sorry-*** reporting. And look at the comments. Mis-inform the people and they look...well, mis-informed.
Report the truth...that would be a sorry state of affairs, just make things up as we go along like we have done for years. Besides, it sells, yokels everywhere will eat it up.:rolleyes:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Truth is overrated...there needs to be a playoff so that truth U doesn't collect anymore undeserved championships.