If I had a vote in the AP

[bluefieldRocks 14]

I honestly don't think they're the best team in the country either. I mean WVU beat Oklahoma by 20 last year. Did I love it? yes I did. But do i think WVU was the better team? I say maybe, but alot of people would disagree with me.

[Hokies4Ever 23]

Are they the best team in the country? Maybe not. Do they deserve a shot at a national championship? Yes they do. There are a couple of teams that think they deserve a shot at the NC. Texas, USC, and Utah deserve to be there just as much as Florida and Oklahoma. The argument that Utah has is that there undefeated. The same thing happened to Auburn a couple years back when a 1 loss team was taken over them to play in the NC. If your undefeated you should be playing for the NC. If i had a vote i would vote them number 1.

[blueinbama 259]

Guys, let me give you another history lesson. Back before the BCS, no one cared even half as much for college football as they do know. Think about it, barring great WVU and VT teams that we may remember, the NFL dominated the 80's and 90's and no one even remembers the great college teams. Why? The BCS wasnt there.

 

Before you go bashing the BCS, look at what it has given you. Its earlier brother with added viewership lead to an overtime system. Remember that in the 80's and early 90's, when games ended in ties? What did that settle. Thank the Bowl Coalition for fixing that one. Most of you dont even know what that is.

 

Before 1992, 8 out of the 56 #1 and #2 teams met in the postseason. 14% of the time. No one watched then. College football wasnt exciting. It is now. #1 and #2 have met 100% of the time with the BCS, but now we argue over who is #1 or #2. If we went back to 1991, Id say we would be estatic over the system. We have forgotten where we were before the BCS, and what it has given us.

 

Every single one of you know Utah couldnt go undefeated in ANY BCS conference this year. They beat a heartbroken, heartless, injured Bama team who had gone undefeated all season and ran into a great team in the SEC championship and lost to UF, and lost the dream of a NC. Playing Utah in the Sugar Bowl was almost a slap in the face. Utah on the other hand had everything to gain from a win, Bama nothing. Thats why Utah won, Im not saying they dont have athletes, but heart has a lot to do with it in any sport.

 

But you use this as a way to try and get a playoff when you know Utah wouldnt have won out. But why isnt anyone saying, look at Texas, they played a usually horrible BCS team in Ohio State, and probably should have lost. Why isnt anyone saying that the BCS got it right? Oh thats right, because they really did. Texas with a blowout could have won the NC. Instead they proved the BCS right.

 

Argue all you want. You can say that a 16 team playoff would be great, but the "Toilet/Orange bowl" rule would be in effect. Getmoney called it this, Rules posted an article on it. Sure what a waste to see 3 and 4 loss teams play in a big bowl. What a waste it would also be to see 3 and 4 loss teams play in a playoff. The same rule applies.

 

Then you have the 8 team playoff, where Utah doesnt even probably get in. Where is your reasoning there? Are you going to take away Conference champions to get Utah in? Then what is the point of conferences? Or you might say let all the undefeateds in. Well we have 6 conference champions, and 3 mid major undefeateds. (it could have been Tulsa, Boise st, Ball st, Utah this year.) Who gets in then? What about the 1 loss Alabama team who was ranked #1 all year and wont get in because they lost 1 game? Thats not fair either.

 

Look. Life isnt fair. Amazingly though the BCS almost is. And if you say its not, well may I remind you of that little number of 14%. 8 out of 56. The BCS has brought all of you into loving college football. It has given you something great, dont turn around and throw that gift away.

 

Every game matters.

I agree with most of what you have said. However, I do disagree that no one cared about college football before the BCS. I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Some of the best years of college football were the years when Alabama, Penn State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. dominated.

 

Maybe you're saying college football wasn't that big in the Southwest Virginia area, and that may be true. But I grew up in an era when college football was king in the south, because we had no NFL teams to speak of, except for the Falcons, and they were terrible back then. The BCS is broken, and it will never be fixed. Until we have a playoff, these arguements will continue. We have always argued about who is awarded the true national championship, and as long as there is no playoff, we always will.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

I agree with most of what you have said. However, I do disagree that no one cared about college football before the BCS. I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Some of the best years of college football were the years when Alabama, Penn State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. dominated.

 

Lets just look recently at TV contracts, back in the 50's to the 80's, television paid anywhere from 1-2 million for a contract to show weekly games.

 

Now, CBS pays a record breaking 800 million to have SEC saturday games, 55 million a year.

 

Notre Dame recieves 9 million a year, and starting getting this with the Bowl Coalition, and just extended their contract.

 

Fox offered 80 million per year, but was outbid by ESPN with 125 million for the BCS games, and they dont get the Rose Bowl (ABC has a separate contract). This blew the previous contract with Fox out of the water.

 

Guys like me and you Bama, we love football, and college even more. We watch it. Thats why you think people loved it back then, cause you did. But with the new BCS system, it has garnered a new interest for the sport no one saw coming and you can see that from the contracts. The regular season in NCAA football is the most watched out of any televised sport. While a playoff would sure be fun, but after 1 year maybe 2, no one will watch the regular season. And that is where the fun is.

 

Every game matters.

[GetMoney55 11]

The argument that Utah has is that there undefeated. The same thing happened to Auburn a couple years back when a 1 loss team was taken over them to play in the NC..

 

 

Actually, USC and Oklahoma were both undefeated going into the National Championship that year.

[blueinbama 259]

Quote: "Thats why you think people loved it back then, cause you did."

 

I don't know how old you are, but you are sadly mistaken if you think college football wasn't HUGE in the 60's, 70's and 80's. My point is, stadiums were filled to capacity from Florida to Georgia, from Alabama to Tennessee, Notre Dame to Michigan, Southern California to Washington, and interest in college football was at its peak during this time. People lived college football 24-7, 365. I lived it...I know. I was there. I don't just "think" people loved it. I know people loved it. Money and TV contracts don't tell the whole story. As a matter of fact, the games are spread out so far now, some teams have waited as much as 50 days between the last game of the regular season 'til their bowl game. That's ridiculous! That's because of the BCS.

 

In the 60's, 70's, and 80's the south was consumed with college football from August 'til January. If you weren't alive during that era, you can't have any idea how exciting it was. New Years Day bowl games were awesome. At times there were two or three games being played at the same time. That was incredible. You stated "no one will watch the regular season". Are you kidding me? What a ridiculous statement. Do you think college football fans aren't already thinking about the matchup between Alabama and Va. Tech? People salivate waiting for football season to begin, and the BCS has nothing to do with that. College football would continue to flourish without the BCS, just like it did in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. We need a playoff, and we don't need the BCS tagging along to screw things up.

Edited January 7, 2009 by blueinbama

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Quote: "Thats why you think people loved it back then, cause you did."

 

I don't know how old you are, but you are sadly mistaken if you think college football wasn't HUGE in the 60's, 70's and 80's. My point is, stadiums were filled to capacity from Florida to Georgia, from Alabama to Tennessee, Notre Dame to Michigan, Southern California to Washington, and interest in college football was at its peak during this time. People lived college football 24-7, 365. I lived it...I know. I was there. I don't just "think" people loved it. I know people loved it. Money and TV contracts don't tell the whole story. As a matter of fact, the games are spread out so far now, some teams have waited as much as 50 days between the last game of the regular season 'til their bowl game. That's ridiculous! That's because of the BCS.

 

In the 60's, 70's, and 80's the south was consumed with college football from August 'til January. If you weren't alive during that era, you can't have any idea how exciting it was. New Years Day bowl games were awesome. At times there were two or three games being played at the same time. That was incredible. You stated "no one will watch the regular season". Are you kidding me? What a ridiculous statement. Do you think college football fans aren't already thinking about the matchup between Alabama and Va. Tech? People salivate waiting for football season to begin, and the BCS has nothing to do with that. College football would continue to flourish without the BCS, just like it did in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. We need a playoff, and we don't need the BCS tagging along to screw things up.

 

 

No of course your right. TV contracts have just went up 500+%, more people are watching it than ever. But I mean if you say so.

 

And how does the BCS spread the season out? Please elaborate. You are way off the reservation with that one, chief.

 

And guess what, with a playoff the Alabama/VT game doesnt matter. You could be an at large easily with 3 losses, especially in a non conference game. People are watching the game because with a loss, that ends Bamas or VTs run at a title. Without that factor, people wouldnt watch. UNC/Dook is the biggest rivalry in the world. What if the winner got to go on to the playoffs, loser stayed at home. Wow. I can't even fathom what the viewership or intensity would be like. Thats what the BCS gives you.

 

Every game matters.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Maybe I am young in years, but listen to Bill Plaske, often on Around the Horn...

 

"Even those longtime BCS critics like myself have to finally admit that the imperfect system has perfectly transformed the sport from a Saturday afternoon cookout to a national obsession." — Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 6, 2008

 

Heck, even Mack Brown, yes the Texas HC, knows it has improved college football...

 

"As much as coaches beat up the BCS, and I'm one of those that have been critical, I do think it's much better than the system we had when it got in place. There are a lot of really good things about the BCS, and it's got everybody talking about it right now. It's what college football wants. It wants attention, good attention, and everybody is sitting down with a pencil and a piece of paper trying to figure out how this crazy stuff is going to work." — Texas coach Mack Brown, to Jerome Solomon, Houston Chronicle, November 10, 2008

 

And another claiming the BCS has made college football greater than it was ever before...

 

"But here's the thing: since college football adopted the BCS as a convoluted, inexplicable method of staging a national championship game, the sport has never been more successful." — Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com, May 2008

 

Urban Meyer knows the BCS has created a football giant...

 

"(The BCS) has been great for college football. It's not perfect, but it has been great for college football." — Florida coach Urban Meyer, December 7, 2008

 

I could go on for days. Everyone knows college football is at its greatest right now. Its undeniable. But I mean I guess you want to go back to where the President declares the National Champion. Yeah. That worked (1984-Nixon). That was fun.

 

Ill leave you with this, I should have listened to him all along.

 

"There is no regular season that delivers like college football. In movie parlance, it's an unpredictable two-hour thrill ride. Amid all the fun, we have people yelling that the sport has to change. It needs a playoff system. Why? So the casual fans who are confused by the BCS and the angry columnists who write about college football three times a year can get finality. So the next time someone complains about a 'BCS mess' or you hear the inane 'the BCS shouldn't have a 'C' in it' comment, roll your eyes, shake your head and smile. You know better." — Teddy Greenstein, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 1, 2007

[blueinbama 259]

Quote: "No of course your right. TV contracts have just went up 500+%, more people are watching it than ever. But I mean if you say so".

 

And how does the BCS spread the season out? Please elaborate. You are way off the reservation with that one, chief."

 

Point #1. I don't give a damn about TV contracts. I'm talking about the love of the game. TV contracts have nothing to do with how much people loved the game in the 80's and 90's. You said people weren't interested in football in the 80's and the 90's. Those were YOUR words. That's an irresponsible statement. I'm not saying people aren't in love with the game now, I'm disputing your point that fans didn't love the game then. If we didn't have the BCS, people would still love college football. It's not all about money to the fans of college football. You can copy and paste all the comments from talking heads and coaches all you want, but you're missing my point...and in this case you're dead wrong.

 

Quote: "And how does the BCS spread the season out? Please elaborate. You are way off the reservation with that one, chief".

 

 

Point #2. Ohio State last year waited over 50 days between their last game and the NC game. That's way too long. It's January 7, and we're watching one game a day for the last few days of the season. Why? Friday was great. We had three great games, all at different times, and I had a blast watching all three of them. It was the most exciting day of the bowl season for me, and not just because Bama played that day. It's because I had the chance to enjoy college football all day Friday. Why not follow that up with three more on Saturday? Why drag the season out like the BCS likes to do? The NC game could have been played already, and the teams wouldn't have had such a long layoff between games. That's what I mean by spreading the season out, "chief".

 

I'm sorry if you weren't around when New Years Day bowl games were the climax of the college football season. It was great. It was exciting. It brought people together on a day when more fans were off work, and able to retain the exciting atmosphere that we as college football fans experience every Saturday during the season. The BCS has diluted that.

 

The regular college football season means the world to the true college football fan, regardless of the effect it has on the polls. I am excited and looking forward to the matchup between Alabama and Va. Tech because I love both schools, I know players from both schools and have watched them grow up playing high school football, and I am a fan of the game. It's not always about your team competing for a mythical trophy. It's about the players and the fans. It's personal. It's not about TV revenue to me.

 

By the way, please don't stoop to calling names. You don't call me chief, and I won't call you punk. Deal?

Edited January 7, 2009 by blueinbama

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

It's not always about your team competing for a mythical trophy.

 

Oh really? Then what is the real point of getting a playoff? I mean why change all that we have in football, that is truly unique, for a mythical trophy that doesnt really matter in your words.

 

And another thing, the BCS does not decide when the games are. The owners of the bowl games, the sponsors, and TV decides. Not the BCS. All they do is rank the teams. The bowls pick who they want according to the rankings and the rules. And even if you want to argue that they still do, the talking heads of each conference are heads of the BCS bowl committee. Not the "BCS". And all they do is aid the selection of the teams, after the NC.Thats why I said you are way off the reservation, chief. A common expression.

 

Thats all im gonna say, i should have listened to Teddy Greenstein.

Edited January 7, 2009 by BEAVERTAIL

[blueinbama 259]

Oh really? Then what is the real point of getting a playoff? I mean why change all that we have in football, that is truly unique, for a mythical trophy that doesnt really matter in your words.

 

And another thing, the BCS does not decide when the games are. The owners of the bowl games, the sponsors, and TV decides. Not the BCS. All they do is rank the teams. The bowls pick who they want according to the rankings and the rules. And even if you want to argue that they still do, the talking heads of each conference are heads of the BCS bowl committee. Not the "BCS". And all they do is aid the selection of the teams, after the NC.Thats why I said you are way off the reservation, chief. A common expression.

 

Thats all im gonna say, i should have listened to Teddy Greenstein.

 

The point of having a playoff is to actually decide a true national champion...that's why I refer to the current system controlled by the BCS as being "mythical". Having a true head to head winner would change all that.

You're a very smart young man, and I understand your point...I just think you're wrong in saying football wasn't important in the '80's and the 90's. It was important to me and a lot of other fans, parents, and players who were involved in that time period. That's my main objection to your point.

 

I know calling someone "chief" is a common expression, and so is calling someone a "punk" because they are young. I just didn't want to go there. It's much more polite to address someone respectfully by their name or their username in this case. And you shouldn't have to listen to Teddy Greenstein or anyone else...it's ok to debate issues. That's part of what makes this country great. No hard feelings here...we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[fieldgeneral 10]

I honestly don't think they're the best team in the country either. I mean WVU beat Oklahoma by 20 last year. Did I love it? yes I did. But do i think WVU was the better team? I say maybe, but alot of people would disagree with me.

 

Anyone can think what they want about a non-BCS conference and Utah or whoever goes undefeated, but you cannot say they aren't the best, and you cannot say they are the best. It's left unproven because there is no playoff system to prove it. Tail and I had a lengthy discussion before on here about this. I've enjoyed the BCS in the past and it has given rise to college football, but the popularity of football has grown as well due to the part of the pro sports being too money hungry and getting away from the sport itself. I love college sports for the tradition and school atmosphere of it. The players play for the love of the game, some have their eyes on the prize of the NFL, but still, more fun to me.

 

Anyway Rocks proves the point that you can't say Bama was the better team, on paper yes! Utah beat them soundly fair and square on a huge stage and many more miles from home than Bama. WVU had just as big of a loss last year, to their biggest rival on their own field and losing their HC, many would say they had nothing to play for. They came out and won 48-28 over a "much better" team who had plenty to prove in their recent bowl games. Maybe I'm just used to a different brand of football being played at WVU but I can't help but to think that it's taught at all the schools who want to win. Utah deserves a shot at the NC but noone will ever know if they could have won it, because they didn't get the opportunity. They did as much as they could do and it was perfection. I love college football, but I would love to see these matchups, with a shot at the title on the line. What if Utah could have knocked off Bama, OSU, and or UF in the same playoff, wow! Not likely but what if...I guess we will never know.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

First off, I know the 80's even the 70's were great in college football. I never denied that. But college football has grown to an all time high. More people are interested than ever. I would say it has outgrown the NFL. Thats a great thing, and there is no need to lose that.

 

And Fieldgeneral, WVU had EVERYTHING to play for. Many thought they lost because of RR, they had to prove them right. They were playing in spite of RR, and pissed off, just like many of you were. They were playing for Bill Stewart. They had everything to gain, and they played like that. They knew they had to win that game to restore everything they had accomplished. They played not like their couch was on fire, but their hearts.

[blueinbama 259]

First off, I know the 80's even the 70's were great in college football. I never denied that.

You're kidding, right? You have a really short memory. Here's exactly what you said...that's the whole point of my disagreement with you on this, and nothing more. You said "Guys, let me give you another history lesson. Back before the BCS, no one cared even half as much for college football as they do know. Think about it, barring great WVU and VT teams that we may remember, the NFL dominated the 80's and 90's and no one even remembers the great college teams. Why? The BCS wasnt there".

 

Now you're saying that's not what you said? "No one even remembers the great college teams". That's why I said you are dead wrong. And you are. You can't make a statement like that and then turn around and say you didn't say that. If you hadn't made that statement you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Edited January 7, 2009 by blueinbama

[fieldgeneral 10]

You probably watched them play one game. Maybe 2. If you say more I would say I know your lying, I looked up the TV schedule. And you can judge that this team would go undefeated?

 

Ok lets say they did win out in a BCS conference. Alabama would have destroyed them. They would have had a shot at the NC and Bama would have had a reason to play. Bama has a better football team, just not on the 2nd when they had nothing to play for. In the other thread Gman and UVAobserver echoed this as well as Saban.

 

Im done on this subject. Utah is not the best team in the country we all know this.

 

Ive spoken my part above, and if you all dont see what you have been given by the BCS, and what you could be missing with still all kinds of controversy, well I dont know what i can do.

 

How do you know that Bama would have destroyed them? How do you know Bama has a better football team? On paper and what ESPN may tell you would make you think that they are, well obviously they weren't. It doesn't matter the date or the circumstances, they were beat which maked them better than Bama and will be ranked ahead of them. If Bama can't get up and play or find some reason to play and win, then they need a new coach and some new players. I don't know if you have ever been on a football team or not, but you find a reason for victory even when there is none. I don't care how awful or awesome your team is. Saying they had nothing to play for is ridiculous, it was the SUGAR BOWL.

 

I say that WVU had plenty to play for, but they had a shot at the national title their first ever, if things went the right way. They had every reason in the world to quit or lay down and take a Big XII foot in the rear. They rallied around an interim coach and some great players and proved 84% of those fans wrong. In my opinion, they had even more of a reason to quit with the coaching changes and they way it all went down. They lost a HC, DB coach, OC, AND STRENGTH staff which Barwis was present for the game. I feel that they had more of a reason to call it a season after all that than Bama did. They used it as fuel for their fire to win. That took tons of heart, heart that Bama didn't have. Utah did have that heart and sometimes that makes you a better team and it did. The only way to prove which team is better is let them play! They did, the best team came out on top!

Edited January 7, 2009 by fieldgeneral

[fieldgeneral 10]

this is up for opinion. I am not changing my view and there is nothing anyone can say that can make me think otherwise. It's probably one of those agree to disagree things.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

You're kidding, right? You have a really short memory. Here's exactly what you said...that's the whole point of my disagreement with you on this, and nothing more. You said "Guys, let me give you another history lesson. Back before the BCS, no one cared even half as much for college football as they do know. Think about it, barring great WVU and VT teams that we may remember, the NFL dominated the 80's and 90's and no one even remembers the great college teams. Why? The BCS wasnt there".

 

Now you're saying that's not what you said? "No one even remembers the great college teams". That's why I said you are dead wrong. And you are. You can't make a statement like that and then turn around and say you didn't say that. If you hadn't made that statement you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

We are having a misunderstanding over few words. When i said "cared" I meant as in people who watched. You may have thought I meant actually loved/cheered/followed. And when I said I know the years were great, well the teams and the players were. The system was not, and many who watch today did not watch. More later. In addition, Viewership is doubling at amazing rates. I dont know how else to put it.The 2005 NC was the most viewed game of the 2000's and tromped the most viewed game of the 80's. There are twice as many college football fans out their because of the BCS.

 

I also said that their were great teams. And who is to say their isnt? But no one can remember them because of a few reasons similar to the ones above...

 

1. The BCS causes drama. Can anyone honestly deny that? People remember if there was a split NC, its already been mentioned on here plenty of times. People will remember Utah. People want controversy. The BCS is the biggest reality TV series ever and people are attracted.

 

2. Before the BCS, there was a 14% chance that 1 played 2. The bowl games were there pitting annual conference winners against each other. Only on the chance that lets say the Big 10 undefeated played an undefeated Pac 10 team, would a true national champion be seen. People want to see the big boys play. And since they didnt, not as many people cared as they do now.

 

3. Not only does a loss matter, but so does how you lose. Where, to who, and by how much all matters. Every part of a college football game is analyzed nowadays. People know that any one loss can create disaster. Seasons are on the line every saturday.

 

Like I said earlier, there were great teams, but the viewership and people who followed werent that great. I am basing this on the above and TV contracts/viewers. I didnt even mention the new Big 10 network which came about only because of realizing the giant game in OHST and MICH where both were undefeated and vying for a NC spot. College football has always been good or great as in the sport itself, but now it is a giant, and is overtaking the NFL, where the most drama takes place is when almost .500 teams fight to get in, and the all amazing fight for home field advantage.

 

In conclusion, I cant think of when college football hasnt been "great" BUT, it is at an all time high right now. And that is where I base everything I have said.

Edited January 7, 2009 by BEAVERTAIL

[fieldgeneral 10]

We are having a misunderstanding over few words. When i said "cared" I meant as in people who watched. You may have thought I meant actually loved/cheered/followed. And when I said I know the years were great, well the teams and the players were. The system was not, and many who watch today did not watch. More later. In addition, Viewership is doubling at amazing rates. I dont know how else to put it.The 2005 NC was the most viewed game of the 2000's and tromped the most viewed game of the 80's. There are twice as many college football fans out their because of the BCS. Ill on why elaborate later.

 

I also said that their were great teams. And who is to say their isnt? But no one can remember them because of a few reasons similar to the ones above...

 

1. The BCS causes drama. Can anyone honestly deny that? People remember if there was a split NC, its already been mentioned on here plenty of times. People will remember Utah. People want controversy. The BCS is the biggest reality TV series ever and people are attracted.

 

2. Before the BCS, there was a 14% chance that 1 played 2. The bowl games were there pitting annual conference winners against each other. Only on the chance that lets say the Big 10 undefeated played an undefeated Pac 10 team, would a true national champion be seen. People want to see the big boys play. And since they didnt, not as many people cared as they do now.

 

3. Not only does a loss matter, but so does how you lose. Where, to who, and by how much all matters. Every part of a college football game is analyzed nowadays. People know that any one loss can create disaster. Seasons are on the line every saturday.

 

Like I said earlier, there were great teams, but the viewership and people who followed werent that great. I am basing this on the above and TV contracts/viewers. I didnt even mention the new Big 10 network which came about only because of realizing the giant game in OHST and MICH where both were undefeated and vying for a NC spot. College football has always been good or great as in the sport itself, but now it is a giant, and is overtaking the NFL, where the most drama takes place is when almost .500 teams fight to get in, and the all amazing fight for home field advantage.

 

In conclusion, I cant think of when college football hasnt been "great" BUT, it is at an all time high right now. And that is where I base everything I have said.

 

there is more to credit than the BCS...granted it has made it more mainstreamed, but there are many factors.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

The OC Magee stayed for the bowl. He didnt leave. Just a correction.

 

 

I liked one of the announcer's comments during the games:

 

"Alabama looks like they want to be playing in the National Championship game...Utah looks like they want to be playing in the Sugar Bowl."

 

That pretty much summed it up...'bama didn't show up ready to play in the Sugar Bowl and Utah did...

 

Saban pretty much said the exact same thing afterward.

And it's spot on.

 

I agree...

 

Alabama had a whole month almost to stew over the loss. A loss that ended what they thought for the whole season could happen. Ever had your hopes and dreams shattered? Bama did. Adding insult to injury, they lost in the final minutes. As you can see above im not the only one who thinks so.

 

When you are playing somewhere you dont want to be, players have a hard time studying plays, giving 100% of the time they have to winning, giving a 100% in practice. Same goes for the coaches. Their goal of 2008 is over, and time spent recruiting is probably on the mind more than anything else.They are exhausted from a grueling 14 week system, the holidays, and making sure each kid get through exams. They dont want to put the time in to a game that in the end is not where they want to be. Utah was excited for the upcoming game. And when I played any sport the practices before a big game was always exciting and upbeat. We wanted to win. I wanted to practice. Utah had the same passion.

 

How many times have we seen a lower quality team dominate for a majority of a game then a the lose at the end. Happens all the time. Unfortunately for Alabama, Utah was good enough to take 21 points and still win.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

there is more to credit than the BCS...granted it has made it more mainstreamed, but there are many factors.

 

I am very intrigued to hear the other factors. Seriously. I can think of a few, but none that are bigger than the BCS, or even remotely close.

[fieldgeneral 10]

The OC Magee stayed for the bowl. He didnt leave. Just a correction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama had a whole month almost to stew over the loss. A loss that ended what they thought for the whole season could happen. Ever had your hopes and dreams shattered? Bama did. Adding insult to injury, they lost in the final minutes. As you can see above im not the only one who thinks so.

 

When you are playing somewhere you dont want to be, players have a hard time studying plays, giving 100% of the time they have to winning, giving a 100% in practice. Same goes for the coaches. Their goal of 2008 is over, and time spent recruiting is probably on the mind more than anything else.They are exhausted from a grueling 14 week system, the holidays, and making sure each kid get through exams. They dont want to put the time in to a game that in the end is not where they want to be. Utah was excited for the upcoming game. And when I played any sport the practices before a big game was always exciting and upbeat. We wanted to win. I wanted to practice. Utah had the same passion.

 

How many times have we seen a lower quality team dominate for a majority of a game then a the lose at the end. Happens all the time. Unfortunately for Alabama, Utah was good enough to take 21 points and still win.

 

True McGee did stay for the bowl , but they did know he was leaving after the game. That was what I was getting at. Of all that left, I wished he had stayed or was HC.

 

As for the comments on Bama, I find it sad that their goal was over and they could not find it within themselves to put forth their best effort to win a big BCS bowl game. I thought DI coaches and players were better than that. It sounds like the spoiled brat at his birthday whining over not getting the better gift. I guess all this makes these other teams that have gone on to win their bowl games after having their dreams crushed look good. Maybe we can use this to as support for a playoff, that way we get everyones best shot every game! Why would they not want to be there. Have you seen or heard of the gifts these players get for just being on a BCS team, not to mention it is a BCS game. You are still in the elite of teams.

 

Have you played football? You didn't clarify that. It is different than any sport. You have to be fully prepared for every game. Every game is different. The next game is your biggest game. Football is more emotional and fulfilling than any sport IMO. There is no excuse for some team not to bring it no matter the situation. Bama did not and that IMO makes them a lesser team!

 

The difference in those games where the "lower quality" teams play with the lead only to lose and Utah, is that they lost and Utah didn't. Utah didn't lose to anyone at all.

 

Oh this dude agrees with me....

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3815656

[blueinbama 259]

Quote: "As for the comments on Bama, I find it sad that their goal was over and they could not find it within themselves to put forth their best effort to win a big BCS bowl game. I thought DI coaches and players were better than that. It sounds like the spoiled brat at his birthday whining over not getting the better gift".

 

No one knows how the players felt about the game, or whether or not they put fourth their best effort except the players themselves. No excuses here or by most Bama fans I know. Bama got whipped. Plain and simple.

[fieldgeneral 10]

I am very intrigued to hear the other factors. Seriously. I can think of a few, but none that are bigger than the BCS, or even remotely close.

 

how about the:

 

unattractive money game that the pros have become.

the rise in popularity of sports in general not just football.

the great teams or players themselves that have past through.

the legendary coaches that have been in this game or are in this game.

the tradition of rivalry

 

I could list other things or even bs some stuff, but all I'm saying is that the BCS is not solely the parent of modern college football. The BCS has been good for the popularity of the sport, but there is nothing wrong with improving it. It's just my opinion , but making it better for the fairness of the sport is great in my opinion.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

how about the:

 

the great teams or players themselves that have past through.

the legendary coaches that have been in this game or are in this game.

the tradition of rivalry

 

Every single one of these were evident before the BCS, ask BlueinBama. He will tell you.

 

As for your earlier statements about teams getting up for every game, i mean your right, every team comes equally prepared and excited about every game equally. Even when a team plays a bottom dweller, they are as pumped as the team who has a chance to make national headlines with an upset. What was I thinking?

[fieldgeneral 10]

Every single one of these were evident before the BCS, ask BlueinBama. He will tell you.

 

As for your earlier statements about teams getting up for every game, i mean your right, every team comes equally prepared and excited about every game equally. Even when a team plays a bottom dweller, they are as pumped as the team who has a chance to make national headlines with an upset. What was I thinking?

 

lol, well excuse me coach or player, not sure which you have been if either because you still won't answer that, but anyway.

 

I'll put it this way, Utah is better than Bama, they proved it, end of discussion on that! As far as the BCS vs. Playoff business, we have our opinions, we'll see where it goes in real life.