NC repeat game has happened bfore.HUM!

[crimson&cream]

For all of those who didn't want a repeat game I wonder if they B!tched when in 96 Florida got beat by FSU during the regulas season then got their 2nd chance when they played FSU again in the Sugar Bowl NC game and won this time big time. HUM .......so much for no NC repeat games.:mad:

[Frozen Sooner]

As it happens, people bitched quite a bit about it.

But I thought then they were stupid, and I think now they're stupid.

Everyone agreed to the rules at the beginning of the year, just like they did in 2003 and 2004.

If Michigan had ended up as #2 in the BCS, I wouldn't have had any problem with them playing tOSU again any more than I would have a problem with two NFL teams that had played each other earlier in the season playing in the playoffs.

[Octavian]

The difference in '96 was that the Gators needed help to win the NC before they played FSU.

They needed Texas to beat Nebraska in the BigXII title game (it happened) and then needed Ohio St. to knock off an undefeated Arizona St. in the Rose Bowl (also happened).

The UF-FSU Sugar Bowl was not a #1 vs. #2 matchup....the Gators needed help and got it.

[Ground_Attack]

that wasn't a true "championship game". The BCS didn't start until 1998-99. Before that, it was the Bowl Alliance and it didn't involve the Big 10 or the Pac 10. Arizona St was #2 in both polls (not sure how it would be in BCS speak) so it was #1 against #3. turns out #1 and #2 lost so UF got the title. This isn't the same kind of situation. The "rematch" last time was the result of the Pac 10 noting wanting to be involved in the Bowl Alliance

[crimson&cream]

that wasn't a true "championship game". The BCS didn't start until 1998-99. Before that, it was the Bowl Alliance and it didn't involve the Big 10 or the Pac 10. Arizona St was #2 in both polls (not sure how it would be in BCS speak) so it was #1 against #3. turns out #1 and #2 lost so UF got the title. This isn't the same kind of situation. The "rematch" last time was the result of the Pac 10 noting wanting to be involved in the Bowl Alliance
Did I say the BCS was in place?. No!. Did Florida get a 2nd chance at FSU in what happened to be a NC game?????????????????????????????????????? YES!

[crimson&cream]

The UF-FSU Sugar Bowl was not a #1 vs. #2 matchup....the Gators needed help and got it.[/QUOTE].................................................. .................. So what...................
Did Florida get a 2nd chance at FSU that just happened to be a NC game.? Screw A-St etc
My statement was a bottom line statement,that Florida got a 2nd chance at FSU in a NC game. Yes there was no BCS, but the media this time around was playing up the repeat thing so much that it divided the country on whether that should happen or not. That sentiment had to have a effect on how some voters voted recently who didn't want a repeat game. While back then was how it was done mainly then end result of the polls which maybe that game FSU/Florida help bring about the BCS mess..

[Ground_Attack]

If Arizona St would have won the Rose Bowl, they would have probably either won the title outright or at least split.

[crimson&cream]

[QUOTE=Ground_Attack]that wasn't a true "championship game".
So there's an asterik in the record books that wasn't true NC game and Florida is not a true NC. I say that arguement could still be made today with the BCS in place.

[crimson&cream]

If Arizona St would have won the Rose Bowl, they would have probably either won the title outright or at least split.
IF........................................... what a powerful word.

[Ground_Attack]

IF...........meaning it wasn't a championship game. the champion just happened to play in it. :rolleyes:

[Ground_Attack]

So there's an asterik in the record books that wasn't true NC game and Florida is not a true NC. I say that arguement could still be made today with the BCS in place.

I didn't say that. I was simply stating that it wasn't a #1 against #2 situation like we have now.

[crimson&cream]

that wasn't a true "championship game". The BCS didn't start until 1998-99.
What ? then what was it. It was true in the sense that system then was as flawed as it is now.


as the ole saying goes LOL boy everybody here(including me) got busy on the proof.

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

[MiccoMacey]

As it happens, people bitched quite a bit about it.
But I thought then they were stupid, and I think now they're stupid.

So now I'm stupid? ;)


Everyone agreed to the rules at the beginning of the year, just like they did in 2003 and 2004.

And the rules worked this time. Florida jumped Michigan (for whatever reasons the voters wanted to move them ahead of Michigan), and we have a legitimate #1 vs. #2. Nothing changed, except Florida won an extra game, and voters decided to reward them for beating Arkansas and winning their conference. People have moved their orders around all year long. Why all of a sudden people are up in arms about voters moving Michigan is beyond me. It happened all year long.


If Michigan had ended up as #2 in the BCS, I wouldn't have had any problem with them playing tOSU again any more than I would have a problem with two NFL teams that had played each other earlier in the season playing in the playoffs.

But it's not the NFL, where there are only 32 teams. It's the NCAA where there are 117 teams. And we don't have a playoff, like they do in the NFL. Your whole NFL analogy is offbase, other than it's still regarded as football.

If the SOLE reason people had for moving Florida ahead of Michigan was because they didn't want to see a rematch, I could see your point. But since Florida had a better record than Michigan with the extra win, had a tougher schedule, beat more bowl-eligible teams, and won a conference title, there are more than enough other legitimate reasons to move Florida past Michigan that the rematch question is irrelevant.

[Frozen Sooner]

If the SOLE reason people had for moving Florida ahead of Michigan was because they didn't want to see a rematch, I could see your point. But since Florida had a better record than Michigan with the extra win, had a tougher schedule, beat more bowl-eligible teams, and won a conference title, there are more than enough other legitimate reasons to move Florida past Michigan that the rematch question is irrelevant.

Yep.

I have no problem with Florida being in the title game at all. They've had a great season.

My two personal commandments on the BCS are this:

1. Don't make up rules as you go.
If there's no provision that you must win your conference, then don't bring it up at the end of the year.
If there's no provision that you must have won your last game in the regular season, then don't bring it up at the end of the year.
If there's no provision that there can't be a rematch, don't bring it up at the end of the year.

2. Once you lose a game, you lose the right to complain.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Actually they are ****ed USC or Domers didn't get into the title game...so next year's new stipulation will be you either have to be a Catholic School or have US and C as initials to be eligible for the final BCS spot!

[soonerjoker]

so it'll be St.Benedict versus south carolina.

[MiccoMacey]

Mike,

I think we agree (I think). :D

[soonerjoker]

me too.

and, it's not an NC game unless it's #1 vs #2 !!!!!

[TheLlama]

me too.

and, it's not an NC game unless it's #1 vs #2 !!!!!

Couldnt have said it better myself.

[TopDawg]

me too.

and, it's not an NC game unless it's #1 vs #2 !!!!!

I think a better way to say it is that it's not an NC game unless the winner is guaranteed (without any ifs, ands or buts about other games) to be the national title winner.

That wasn't the case in 1996.

[Octavian]

I think a better way to say it is that it's not an NC game unless the winner is guaranteed (without any ifs, ands or buts about other games) to be the national title winner.

yep


That wasn't the case in 1996.

It wasn't when the bowls were announced but it became a legitimate NCG once ASU lost.

'96 was very similar to '85. OU-Penn St wasn't a true NCG when the matchup was announced but once Tenn beat Miami, the OB became a legitimate national title game with the winner taking the titlle no matter what happened anywhere else.