Yes, stolen from the Dr. Pepper commercial. I don't think I agree with this, but it would be nice to expunge Bama's 8 or whatever and start from scratch (by winning the first one.) The BCS championships were pretty legit to me. Prior to that, it was pretty shady.
2014: First true national champion ever?
- Thread starter bulldogbaja
- Start date
The BCS did what it intended to do. Put the #1 and #2 teams against each other by whatever formula was used.
I almost wish they used the BCS to pick the 4-team playoff.
I almost wish they used the BCS to pick the 4-team playoff.
I remember some sports writer making an argument years ago that you could say that for many selected years in the past there was no national champion. I can't think of any examples right off, but it kind of makes sense, especially in the years when you ended up with 7 teams with 10-1 records and they all played in different bowls.
I do wish that they would have kept it to pick the 4-team playoff. People can say what they want about agreeing or disagreeing with the formula that the system was using, but the severely unappreciated aspect of it was that it was all out there in front of us. Now, just imagine this year when someone's favorite team gets left out of the playoff and the only response that they're going to get is that their team just happened to end up on the outside looking in per the committee's seemingly arbitrary criteria.
The fact that they're going to start releasing rankings in a week or two is nice and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but they are in no way bound to selecting teams per those rankings, correct? Even if they were, I guess they could just manipulate them prior to the selection process. I don't know... I just have a feeling that a more defined criteria is going to be demanded of the committee during this off-season
The fact that they're going to start releasing rankings in a week or two is nice and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but they are in no way bound to selecting teams per those rankings, correct? Even if they were, I guess they could just manipulate them prior to the selection process. I don't know... I just have a feeling that a more defined criteria is going to be demanded of the committee during this off-season
I think the point of the rankings is that they are the teams that will be selected. So, when they release the first set of rankings, the teams ranked 1-4 would ostensibly be the four playoff teams if the season were to end then.
it will be a political decision...........
My bet is that it is conference champs only. SEC won't get two teams unless everything falls perfectly into place - meaning a bunch of 2 loss champs. My prediction is Oregon, Mich St, FSU and the SEC champ. It won't matter if Alabama, AU. State, OM or UGA are all better than Oregon or Mich St, the SEC will only get one slot.
My bet is that it is conference champs only. SEC won't get two teams unless everything falls perfectly into place - meaning a bunch of 2 loss champs. My prediction is Oregon, Mich St, FSU and the SEC champ. It won't matter if Alabama, AU. State, OM or UGA are all better than Oregon or Mich St, the SEC will only get one slot.
They should expunge everything pre-integration from the record. It's not a real championship if a large percentage of the population wasn't allowed to participate.
I'd argue they should do this for baseball too. Flame away baseball historians.
I'd argue they should do this for baseball too. Flame away baseball historians.
Well let's say 1972. I know that by that year all of the SEC was integrated (no shock that Ole Miss was the last team to integrate). There are some teams that were integrated that won titles before then, but any date you pick is going to be tough. But the principle that pre-integration football shouldn't count is pretty solid, no matter where you draw the line.
My understanding is that the committee's ranking that will be released starting next week will follow the same process that will be used for the final rankings that will determine the playoff teams. They're not only selecting the playoff teams in the end, but will be responsible for ranking 1-25 and populating the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach Bowls.
There was a mock committee held with some media people recently. Jerry Palm was involved. He wrote a couple of good articles about the process, as well as his thoughts on the data that the committee will use.
I'm against this sort of history book rewriting in almost every case, but from a politically correct standpoint, why would you belittle the contributions of black college football players dating back to the 1890's? Ohio State was the first school to win a national title with a black player on the roster in 1942, but there were lots of excellent players on powerhouse teams in the 19th century.
It's not "rewriting" anything. It's telling the whole story. That attitude is why racism continues on in our country. Don't remind us of the countless atrocities. Look we let one black guy play back in the 40's. We're totally not racist. Give me a break.
Is it belittling to say that all those teams, regardless of their backward or progressive stance on race, competed in an era where access was limited? That's a simple fact.
Just because Ohio State had one minority player on their squad in 1942 doesn't wash away the fact that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people were denied the same opportunity simply because of racism. And that limited access calls into the question the validity of anyone claiming to be a champion.
Is it belittling to say that all those teams, regardless of their backward or progressive stance on race, competed in an era where access was limited? That's a simple fact.
Just because Ohio State had one minority player on their squad in 1942 doesn't wash away the fact that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people were denied the same opportunity simply because of racism. And that limited access calls into the question the validity of anyone claiming to be a champion.
1984, it very much is rewriting. It happened the way it did; you want to erase it and change the narrative. Never mind that there were countless progressive-minded folks 125 years ago who never erected a color barrier in the first place. I'm sure William Lewis' teammates didn't appreciate Princeton's protest of his skin color, but I seriously doubt they'd think you should strip the Tigers of the national title Princeton earned by beating a Yale team that Harvard couldn't.
For that matter, where does this revisionism stop? Were all the Heisman trophies prior to your arbitrary date invalid?
Do you remove the list of presidents who served before blacks were allowed to vote? How about women?
History happened as it did, and instead of trying to tear down the accolades of many people who simply lived in their era without any responsibility for the circumstances at large and may have fought against those circumstances, the focus should be on celebrating those who made things better.
For that matter, where does this revisionism stop? Were all the Heisman trophies prior to your arbitrary date invalid?
Do you remove the list of presidents who served before blacks were allowed to vote? How about women?
History happened as it did, and instead of trying to tear down the accolades of many people who simply lived in their era without any responsibility for the circumstances at large and may have fought against those circumstances, the focus should be on celebrating those who made things better.
It's ten in the modern era. That being post 1936 and being awarded by the AP or UPI. Call them whatever you will, but that was the standard for the time. If you want to discredit someone repaint the stadium in oxford because OM has never won an AP or UPI title. It's funny that people always talk about the titles that BAMA claims, yet the discredit more titles than OM claims.
I feel like the BCS did it's job very well. I cringe to think of the human bias that will be involved with the PSC. A perfect system would've been the top 4 in the BCS.
I'm pretty sure that Bama has 48 or so of those "true national champions" banners.
as some weinie talking head was whining about last night on espn, the SEC is getting the benefit of having pre-season polls biased toward them. the only reason we are even in the top 10 right now is because LS-who and aTm were way over ranked so it looks like we are way better than we actually are.
as some weinie talking head was whining about last night on espn, the SEC is getting the benefit of having pre-season polls biased toward them. the only reason we are even in the top 10 right now is because LS-who and aTm were way over ranked so it looks like we are way better than we actually are.
Were they over ranked? Who have they lost to? Only other teams in the SECW. aTm might still beat 95% of other teams. All we have to go by is the SECW record against everyone else, which is around 30-1 at this point.
And for anyone who doesn't believe white privilege exists, just take a look at this short documentary. It will open your eyes.
https://screen.yahoo.com/white-000000112.html
This is my issue with the committee. I believe it was enacted to keep the BCS from selecting more than one team from a conference to play in the playoffs.
If we went just by final BCS standings to pick the top 4, the SEC would have had 2 teams in the playoffs 5 of the last ten years and that includes all of the last three years. The recency of SEC dominance helped with the creation of a committee instead of a formula like the BCS.