Quote:
Originally Posted by cougjunkie
I think what he is saying is that BCS teams automatically receive the benefit of the doubt. If Nebraska was 4-0 and had played North Texas, La-Monroe, Ohio, and Troy, and Texas was 4-0 and had played a similar schedule. If Texas lost to Nebraska they would just assume that Nebraska was back to being a powerhouse and Texas would not be penalized much. Eventhough neither team has proven its worth. If a MWC team had won 4 games over those type of opponents and then lost to a team like Nebraska the MWC team would be heavily penalized and people would say they got "exposed".
|
I know this....but this is why I am still confused.
The BCS was created by....well, the six BCS conferences. They wanted to maximize their revenues. This is a club that was founded to make money. They can make whatever rules they wish. It is their club. So naturally they will always get the benefit of the doubt.
I would understand all these "fairness" arguments if some random, neutral group invented the BCS and then hand selected the 6 conferences based on this neutral group's perception of which conferences were superior and which were inferior. Then maybe I could see why the mids would be clamoring about fairness, about "hey, you didnt even consider us...we are just as good, etc..."
But this is simply 6 people getting together and forming a club. No more, no less than that. Their club, their rules.