Friday, January 9, 2009

And Your National Champion Is....


Ok, so Florida won last night. And made a good case that they are way better than Oklahoma. Either that or Tim Tebow is really the second coming of Christ and God just couldn't bear to see them lose. But I now want a playoff game between Florida and Utah. Which probably should have been a possible championship match up to begin with.

Florida lost one game this season. But after the loss to Ole Miss they won all their games until the SEC Championship game by at least 28 points. They made a good case and I have no problem with them being the champion. But poor Utah never even got a chance at the title. They managed to go undefeated all season. And then they thumped Alabama in their Sugar Bowl. Alabama spent a good portion of the year as the number one ranked team. Utah made a great case to be in the title bowl. The problem is no one heard it.

Voting members of the BCS poll have openly admitted that they never saw Utah play until the Sugar Bowl. Or that they really couldn't remember if they had or not. They just assumed since Utah plays in the Mountain West that they were not as good as the other teams. Now there's the problem with the BCS system. It's not just the computer polls, its also the people voting.

What better proof does there need to be to get a playoff system. One of the best teams in the country wasn't even watched by some of the voters. With a playoff system these questions would be answered. The Mountain West went 6-1 against the Pac-10 this year and won all their bowl games. That's more impressive than most conferences including the ACC and the Big Ten and they both get automatic BCS bids.

So once again there is a legitimate argument for two National Championship teams. If I was from Utah, I'd be claiming they are the actual National Champions. The BCS is so busted. President Obama will be inaugurated in a few days. So he has almost a whole year to fix this system. It really can't be that hard. Until then, we'll just have to settle for disputed championships

0 comments: