This stat is actually not true. Tennessee was preseason #10 in 1998, when they won the BCS national title. Edit: I see you beat me to disproving the stat Hook.
I was curious to see if it was true, but hadn't verified it. In 2003 though, there wasn't really a NC game like there has been the last few years.
No the BCS National Championship came into existence in 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_National_Championship_Game
Vito I just figured out what you are talking about. The BCS has put #1 vs #2 against each other since 1998. In 2007 all they did was add an additional game to the BCS to make it 5 games instead of 4.
98-06, there were 4 BCS games. They picked one where #1 played #2 in the BCS standings, but it was still the "Rose Bowl", for example. 2007 started the "BCS National Championship Game", and now there are 5 BCS games. Look at the "Bowl Game" column under the link you posted. Edit: I was typing before you made your last post.
The fact still remains that in that given year the Rose Bowl was the National Title Game. Nothing has changed to make that 5th game anymore special then when it was just 4. All that did was allow 2 more teams into the mix to get some of that money..
Do not get me wrong here, I myself do not believe Boise should just get a shoe in to the NC game if they are undefeated. But, under the current BCS BS format, that is what will likely happen. You and I were looking at this debate in a different manner. I was looking at it in regard to the BCS formula of choosing teams for the BCS game. You are looking at it from the point of view of "right vs. wrong". *Rant* I am not a fan of the current system, but do not complain about the way everything works out under this system. I see no need to get worked up over something I cannot control. *End rant* Do I feel it should be OK for Boise to cruise into the NC game playing glorified high school teams? While other teams are battling it out every week? NO. We agree on "right vs. wrong", but I tend to not look at it in this regard because in this current BCS system "right" doesn't matter.
Boise is trying, actually not a lot of conferences want them nor do many of the big schools want to play them for non-conference. Boise is joining the Mountain West next year. It was the best gig they could find. The PAC 10 didnt want them and I know they would have loved to have gotten in there. I do feel like the Mountain West is a much better conference for Boise St to have to produce in than the WAC which is definately weak.
On another note, I obviously want BSU to run the table and get a crack at the National Championship, but I still think it will be very difficult for them to get in. The BCS did away with blow out victorys this year and are concentrating on strength of schedule. BSU's strength of schedule is poor. So even if they go undefeated and a couple top level programs have 1 loss I doubt we will see BSU in a NAC game. The only overidding factor may be $/ ratings and I can't see how BSU would be able to generate higher ratings than say a Ohio St. vs Texas type game even if those teams each have 1 loss. Personally yes I want BSU to get a crack at it. Logically I still doubt that its going to happen. But if they run it, they will be in the talk and I do believe what the BSU's and TCU's are doing... is good for college football as a whole. I'd just like to see a true playoff then there would be no doubt. But will that ever happen due to big $ deals. I doubt it.
Different perspectives. I see where you're coming from.....believe me. But, I think what's going on with THE BSU is terrible for college football. My guess is, we have different definitions, though. Good for the fans? Yeah. Conceded. But, it puts a LOT of pressure on the powers that be to include a team that shouldn't be included into the NC mix. If they cave, you'll see the "pencil whipping" I spoke of earlier. And, that will be TERRIBLE for college football.
I think another thing that is bad for the sport is alot of writers will use anything to push their agendas. I just read that Boise picked up 6 or 7 more first place votes. Now lets look at it this way...again I am an Alabama homer so bear with me, If Boise is truly a #3 team and deserving of their ranking why are'nt the writers questioning how an over rated #10 team almost came back from 17 down and put them away. If Alabama, Florida etc would have "struggled" with a lower seed we would be hearing over rated, bama is in trouble etc...the last thing they would do would be give us more first place votes. Alabama pummeled this same school (VT) in the dome a couple years ago, after the game all I heard and read was how over rated they were...now they are worthy of 7 more votes with a brand new defense. Shed, thanks for the un biased insight from an actual fan of the squad...I hope you understand I am not a hater and have stated that many times.
That is a very good point. If Boise had blown VT out though, there would be plenty of writers/fans saying it was because VT is always overrated. Just sayin...
My take on the game. It was a big win for Boise. How big depends on how V-Tech finishes the season. I could see them finishing 3rd in the ACC, which will deminish the victory some what. Either way, Boise strapped them on and won that game. V-Tech was only in the game due to Taylor's freakish athletic ability. There was sloppy play on both sides, but IMO, the best team won. I have always been anti Boise. Same arguements as above, schedule strength, etc. But this year I think they have a legitimate arguement. This team is exprienced, talented, and very well coached. In a one shot deal, they would beat the majority of the top 10 on any given Saturday. If they run the table, I think they deserve a shot over any one loss team.
