Congress stepping in against BCS? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 12-11-2008, 02:21 PM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6157589.html

Tex · 12-11-2008, 02:33 PM

Much as I hate the BCS, I disagree with this. I don't think it's government's place to step in and regulate how college football selects its national champion. The system is screwed up, yes, but we don't need some politicians making it even worse.

MikeWaters · 12-11-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Much as I hate the BCS, I disagree with this. I don't think it's government's place to step in and regulate how college football selects its national champion. The system is screwed up, yes, but we don't need some politicians making it even worse.

It's not like he is forcing a playoff system. He is merely saying the BCS championship cannot be touted as a "national championship."

Of course anyone with a lick of sense knows that it isn't a natl. championship, no matter what anyone else says.

il Padrino Ute · 12-11-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's not like he is forcing a playoff system. He is merely saying the BCS championship cannot be touted as a "national championship."

Of course anyone with a lick of sense knows that it isn't a natl. championship, no matter what anyone else says.

Yep. The BCS is not a national championship. It's astounding that it may take an act of Congress to point that simple fact out to those who are the BCS.

SeattleUte · 12-11-2008, 03:54 PM

Right now I have no problem with the BCS. I think Utah has used that system to its enormous advantage. Ute fans hating the BCS would be like Obama hating the Chicago machine. As Il Padrino said, the important thing about the BCS is it's just a bunch of prestigious bowl games, not a national championship. For Utah it's been a shortcut to national prominence. If Utah beats Alabama, we can claim we're no. 1 just like Florida did. It will have about as much meaning. Leave the BCS alone.

BarbaraGordon · 12-11-2008, 05:43 PM

And this is what happens when Texas gets shafted.

Auburn gets shafted...Utah...Boise...sure you hear some whining. There's some crying into beers. But that's about the extent of it. You piss off Texas and there's hell to pay.

The funny thing is that the BCS is no more invalid a national title than the system before. Back in the fifties there were years when there were four shared title-holders. And even in the eighties and nineties there were split titles.

Personally, I preferred the previous method of crowning a mythical champion to this one, but that's just me.

SeattleUte · 12-11-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

And this is what happens when Texas gets shafted.

Auburn gets shafted...Utah...Boise...sure you hear some whining. There's some crying into beers. But that's about the extent of it. You piss off Texas and there's hell to pay.

The funny thing is that the BCS is no more invalid a national title than the system before. Back in the fifties there were years when there were four shared title-holders. And even in the eighties and nineties there were split titles.

Personally, I preferred the previous method of crowning a mythical champion to this one, but that's just me.

I like this system way better than the old one.

il Padrino Ute · 12-11-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

And this is what happens when Texas gets shafted.

Auburn gets shafted...Utah...Boise...sure you hear some whining. There's some crying into beers. But that's about the extent of it. You piss off Texas and there's hell to pay.

The funny thing is that the BCS is no more invalid a national title than the system before. Back in the fifties there were years when there were four shared title-holders. And even in the eighties and nineties there were split titles.

Personally, I preferred the previous method of crowning a mythical champion to this one, but that's just me.

I'm with you Barbara. With the old method, there was no immediate exclusion from a fake championship. And a lot fewer bowl games.

12-11-2008, 02:21 PM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Congress stepping in against BCS? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6157589.html

12-11-2008, 02:33 PM	#2
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	Much as I hate the BCS, I disagree with this. I don't think it's government's place to step in and regulate how college football selects its national champion. The system is screwed up, yes, but we don't need some politicians making it even worse. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

12-11-2008, 03:54 PM	#5
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Right now I have no problem with the BCS. I think Utah has used that system to its enormous advantage. Ute fans hating the BCS would be like Obama hating the Chicago machine. As Il Padrino said, the important thing about the BCS is it's just a bunch of prestigious bowl games, not a national championship. For Utah it's been a shortcut to national prominence. If Utah beats Alabama, we can claim we're no. 1 just like Florida did. It will have about as much meaning. Leave the BCS alone. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

12-11-2008, 05:43 PM	#6
BarbaraGordon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gotham City Posts: 7,157	And this is what happens when Texas gets shafted. Auburn gets shafted...Utah...Boise...sure you hear some whining. There's some crying into beers. But that's about the extent of it. You piss off Texas and there's hell to pay. The funny thing is that the BCS is no more invalid a national title than the system before. Back in the fifties there were years when there were four shared title-holders. And even in the eighties and nineties there were split titles. Personally, I preferred the previous method of crowning a mythical champion to this one, but that's just me.