BCS is better than the old regime, that's for sure

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Isn't that against the honor code?

Utes have no code of honor. And he's a Hoya to boot.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Utes have no code of honor. And he's a Hoya to boot.

He's not talking about Utes or Hoyas. He's talking about Cougars.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

He's not talking about Utes or Hoyas. He's talking about Cougars.

Correct, why would anybody discuss the Utes or Hoyas. Good point.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Correct, why would anybody discuss the Utes or Hoyas. Good point.

Well, the Utes are ranked 4th in the computer rankings, so you hear a mention now and then, and as for Georgetown, I guess there's always basketball.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Well, the Utes are ranked 4th in the computer rankings, so you hear a mention now and then, and as for Georgetown, I guess there's always basketball.

Speaking of which, when is SU going to start rapping GU basketball?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

In 2004 the Utes would never have played in a major bowl under the old system. That's for sure. The old system was more exclusionary than the current one, and asked for a debacle like BYU playing 6-5 Michigan for the nc in the Holiday Bowl (the old upstart Holiday Bowl).

I'm actually not that much against the BCS until something more practical is executed. It's not the worst of all worlds.

Do you even realize that your first sentence completely contradicts your third sentence? Of course Utah could have played in a major bowl under the "old system." BYU did. BYU played for the title, and won. BYU played in the Cotton Bowl in 1996. BYU played in the Holiday bowl for a decade. How many non-BCS teams have competed for the national title since the advent of the BCS?

The early version of the BCS was the worst of all worlds (where non-BCS teams had almost no shot at even playing in a BCS game, as if that, in and of itself, should be the greatest glory a non-BCS team could ever aspire to). The current iteration of the BCS does give non-BCS teams a great chance to play in a BCS game, but people act like that is sufficient. It isn't. Every team should have the chance to compete for a title every year. Right now, it would take a miracle. It is possible, but it is remote (in part because BCS teams don't care to play the best non-BCS teams on a regular basis, and rarely on the road, although there are some exceptions).

If the BCS now is better than the "old" system, it is only because it is a bit more egalitarian in the sense that one mid-major team can play in a BCS game each year (maybe 2 in a miracle season) and in the sense that #1 actually plays #2 (although who is #1 and #2 is still hotly disputed each year) for the title. That's it. Why should we stop there or act like we are or should be content simply because we find the aforementioned characteristics of the current system to be good? Shouldn't we, instead, push for a system that is even better? If egalitarianism is the goal, and if we really want #1 to play #2, a system does exist that provides the best answer for both: a playoff. Anything short of that, and we are settling for a crappy system, even if slightly less crappy than another system.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

BYU sucks.

Sometimes you make me sooooooooooooooooo mad.

And btw, the Dawgs were invited to play BYU in said Holiday Bowl, which would have dispelled any doubts about the legitimacy of BYU's ranking. But Washington wussed out, preferring money from the Orange Bowl and preserving its ability to whine about BYU; this sniveling will someday violate the Rule Against Perpetuities. Cowardice, coupled with a preference for money over honor, seems to be a defining characteristic of that state.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Do you even realize that your first sentence completely contradicts your third sentence? Of course Utah could have played in a major bowl under the "old system." BYU did. BYU played for the title, and won. BYU played in the Cotton Bowl in 1996. BYU played in the Holiday bowl for a decade. How many non-BCS teams have competed for the national title since the advent of the BCS?

The early version of the BCS was the worst of all worlds (where non-BCS teams had almost no shot at even playing in a BCS game, as if that, in and of itself, should be the greatest glory a non-BCS team could ever aspire to). The current iteration of the BCS does give non-BCS teams a great chance to play in a BCS game, but people act like that is sufficient. It isn't. Every team should have the chance to compete for a title every year. Right now, it would take a miracle. It is possible, but it is remote (in part because BCS teams don't care to play the best non-BCS teams on a regular basis, and rarely on the road, although there are some exceptions).

If the BCS now is better than the "old" system, it is only because it is a bit more egalitarian in the sense that one mid-major team can play in a BCS game each year (maybe 2 in a miracle season) and in the sense that #1 actually plays #2 (although who is #1 and #2 is still hotly disputed each year) for the title. That's it. Why should we stop there or act like we are or should be content simply because we find the aforementioned characteristics of the current system to be good? Shouldn't we, instead, push for a system that is even better? If egalitarianism is the goal, and if we really want #1 to play #2, a system does exist that provides the best answer for both: a playoff. Anything short of that, and we are settling for a crappy system, even if slightly less crappy than another system.

Child, the Holiday bowl wasn't a major bowl then. Even less so than now, and it still isn't.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Child, the Holiday bowl wasn't a major bowl then. Even less so than now, and it still isn't.

Come on, SU. The MWC would kill to have matchups like what it got in the Holiday Bowl, and it is a big bowl today (Pac 10#2 v Big 12#3).

Here are the teams that played in the Holiday Bowl in the 80's (I am not listing WAC/MWC teams):

SMU (with Erik Dickerson)
WSU
Ohio State
Missouri
Michigan
Arkansas v ASU
Iowa
Oklahoma State
Penn State

And then the 90's:

A&M
Iowa
Illinois
Ohio State
Michigan
Kansas State
Colorado v Washington
Missouri
Nebraska v Arizona
KSU v Washington

And then in the 2000's:

Oregon v Texas
Texas v Washington
KSU v ASU
WSU v Texas
TTU v Cal
OU v Oregon
Cal v A&M
Texas v ASU

What are Utah's options now if they don't get into the BCS (which realistically only 1 non-BCS team can do)? Pac 10#4/5 in Vegas, or even worse if they slide out of the Vegas Bowl.

The MWC would kill for a tie in with the Holiday Bowl.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

In 2004 the Utes would never have played in a major bowl under the old system. That's for sure. The old system was more exclusionary than the current one, and asked for a debacle like BYU playing 6-5 Michigan for the nc in the Holiday Bowl (the old upstart Holiday Bowl).

I'm actually not that much against the BCS until something more practical is executed. It's not the worst of all worlds.

The reason the Utes wouldn't have played in a major bowl has nothing to do with the BCS. It would have been because they would have been locked into the Holiday Bowl. As it was, the conference still had to hand over a significant amount of that BCS payout to the Liberty Bowl.