VJ11
On the Roster
- Joined
- May 2, 2007
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 3
Utah is a great CF team, because they were able to beat all their opponents. The fact that most of their opponents were mediocre teams doesn't diminish the feat of going unbeaten, but it does begs the question what they could have done against higher-ranked teams. Since Utah isn't in a BCS-afilliated conference, their chance of getting a berth in a BCS bowl was always slim to none. And the BCS isn't fair, simply because it never was intended to be fair.
Remember, the BCS is an arrangement between the Bowl Games with the most sponsor money and the perennial top conferences in College Football (at least, conferences who consider themselves to be such), in order to guarantee a match-up of the highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season, regardless of their won-loss record. After the top two of the rankings, the other bowl games can chose match-ups according to their own liking, most times according to the bowl tie-ins of the associated conferences. If those games get #3-vs-#4 or other high-rank combinations as match-ups, it's a bonus, not the goal. In the end, it's about the representatives of these top conferences taking the money of those bowl sponsors, knowing that it's almost guaranteed money. Money that in a play-off format would have to be shared with representatives of the second-tier conferences.
As far as I can see, a play-off for the highest level of college football should be the business of the NCAA. Since they changed the names of the divisions only two years ago from Division 1-A to Football Bowl Subdivision and Division 1-AA to Football Championship Subdivision (how appropriate), I don't see the NCAA changing their minds anytime soon.
With the NFL re-alignment of 2002 to 8 divisions with 4 teams each, winning the division title has become more important, while teams play 2 less games against division opponents. In that regard, the Patriots simply screwed up in 2008, they lost one game too much from a division opponent, and subsequently were dependent on the failure/success of other teams to make it to the play-offs. Other losses were also convincing losses to teams that did make the play-offs, so in that regard, the Patriots best wasn't good enough. The offense did sputter a bit too much, the defense wasn't always able to provide necessary stops or force a turnover, special teams was decent, but lacked some intensity. And injuries to several key players didn't help. Considering where we were in week 1 vs where we were in week 17, there is enough room for improvement for the 2009 offseason.
Remember, the BCS is an arrangement between the Bowl Games with the most sponsor money and the perennial top conferences in College Football (at least, conferences who consider themselves to be such), in order to guarantee a match-up of the highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season, regardless of their won-loss record. After the top two of the rankings, the other bowl games can chose match-ups according to their own liking, most times according to the bowl tie-ins of the associated conferences. If those games get #3-vs-#4 or other high-rank combinations as match-ups, it's a bonus, not the goal. In the end, it's about the representatives of these top conferences taking the money of those bowl sponsors, knowing that it's almost guaranteed money. Money that in a play-off format would have to be shared with representatives of the second-tier conferences.
As far as I can see, a play-off for the highest level of college football should be the business of the NCAA. Since they changed the names of the divisions only two years ago from Division 1-A to Football Bowl Subdivision and Division 1-AA to Football Championship Subdivision (how appropriate), I don't see the NCAA changing their minds anytime soon.
With the NFL re-alignment of 2002 to 8 divisions with 4 teams each, winning the division title has become more important, while teams play 2 less games against division opponents. In that regard, the Patriots simply screwed up in 2008, they lost one game too much from a division opponent, and subsequently were dependent on the failure/success of other teams to make it to the play-offs. Other losses were also convincing losses to teams that did make the play-offs, so in that regard, the Patriots best wasn't good enough. The offense did sputter a bit too much, the defense wasn't always able to provide necessary stops or force a turnover, special teams was decent, but lacked some intensity. And injuries to several key players didn't help. Considering where we were in week 1 vs where we were in week 17, there is enough room for improvement for the 2009 offseason.
