I get so tired of this same crap year after year.:smh: The SEC has not just won championships during the BCS era, THEY HAVE DOMINATED THEIR OPPONENTS. This, is why we see so many of the SEC teams ranked so high.
Sorry ass unranked UT was beating the crap out of Oregon and who knows what would have happened if they didn't have the delay. On the other side of the coin, if VT doesn't do in the 1st half what Boise did in the second, they win going away. Then VT turns around and loses to James Madison.:smh:
Even if Boise gets to the champioship and gets destroyed, some of us are still going to find a reason to hate instead of congratulate.:smh:
Man, ain't nobody hating on Bama or no other school from the SEC if another national title comes from that league. Our issue is that it is unfair for a team like Boise State to be denied the opportunity to play for a national title even if they are undefeated.
Like I said earlier, if Bama and OSU go unbeaten, then Boise State really has no argument. You just have to tip your cap to No. 1 and No. 2 for not losing. However, to go out and say it would be unfair for an undefeated BSU to play for the national title over a one or two loss BCS school makes no sense at all. All it shows is a form of elitism that has existed in college athletics.
The system was never designed for non-BCS schools to ever have a chance of winning the national championship. It was designed to keep the money and championships inside the big six conferences.
I never heard or experienced anywhere in sports that it would be unfair for any unbeaten team to play for the championship (unless that team was involved in some type of on field or off the field cheating).
Heck, we know the SEC has been the best conference in the country. But that don't mean nobody else should be denied the chance to compete for a national title.
Look, we all know that the best soccer is not played in the U.S. The best soccer is played in South America and in Europe. Team USA did not have to beat the same caliber of teams to qualify for the World Cup that Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Germany and Argentina did. But nobody said Team USA shouldn't be in the World Cup. They earned the right to play in that tournament just like everyone else who qualified did.
Angola, Lativa, Mali and New Zealand are no where near as good in basketball as USA, Argentina, Spain or China, but nobody said it was unfair for them to be in the 2008 Olympics.
To use a better example let's say Seth Davis goes on CBS on Selection Sunday and says
"Even though SWAC U. went 18-0 in league play and won the conference tournament, they don't belong in the field of 65." Look at who they played. Look at that their RPI." A bubble team from the ACC, Big East or Big Ten school should get one of those slots instead of a SWAC school in a mediocre conference.
Folks who support HBCUs in general schools would lose their minds. Heck, I would be upset.
I feel that if a team goes unbeaten, they should have an opportunity to compete for a championship if the teams ahead of them have losses.
I don't like all this BSU or TCU has to win by 50 points to get respect. If they played in SEC or Big 12 they wouldn't be as good, crap. Probably not. I don't know. But I don't think the SEC will be changing its entrance requirements to allow a non-AQ into the league.
Do you know that if the Boston Red Sox played in the AL West, they would have won the division instead of the Rangers? But ain't no national baseball analyst moaning about it, saying it's not fair that Texas gets in the playoffs and not Boston.
Shaking my head at this nonsense.
