Non-Conference Scheduling rumors

[Top Ute]

BYU has never played in a BCS national championship game.

My point is, this silly argument that the BYU game is suddenly less important to Utah because they're now in a BCS conference is just that - silly. There's no logic behind it that can't be used both ways.

You've never played in any national championship game. The term implies either side could claim a national championship with a victory.

And of course the game is less important to Utah. It's not a conference game, and has no affect on our bowl prospects -- outside of the BCS title game. We can still play in the Rose Bowl, even with losing all of our non-conference games.

[Top Ute]

I think almost all of them have been awarded that way, unless I am missing something.

There have been more than a few 1 vs. 2 bowl games before the BCS/Bowl Alliance was formed. The two Fiesta Bowls in the 1980s (Miami-Penn State, Notre Dame-West Virginia) were definitely two of them.

[TripletDaddy]

There have been more than a few 1 vs. 2 bowl games before the BCS/Bowl Alliance was formed. The two Fiesta Bowls in the 1980s (Miami-Penn State, Notre Dame-West Virginia) were definitely two of them.

Agreed. But if you consider all national championships awarded, pretty much most have been the result of the traditional method. Again, unless I'm missing something.

[Blueintheface]

I'm just glad that this very fresh and very relevant argument is coming out now. It's about time.

[Top Ute]

I'm just glad that this very fresh and very relevant argument is coming out now. It's about time.

Hey, I wasn't the one who started making false claims in this thread.

[Blueintheface]

Hey, I wasn't the one who started making false claims in this thread.

Ugh. And I deleted the line "And don't give me any of the 'he started it' crap just before posting. I should always put in that disclaimer when Pat is involved. Lesson learned.

[LA Ute]

Ugh. And I deleted the line "And don't give me any of the 'he started it' crap just before posting. I should always put in that disclaimer when Pat is involved. Lesson learned.

"I don't care who started it. Two wrongs don't make a right!"

--Stated by my dad, about 1,000 times, to my brother and me while we were growing up.

While I'm at it, will you please stay off my lawn?

[EuropeanFootballMale]

it's funny to see BYU fans rush to defend a system they know is flawed.

Ha!! Says the all of a sudden BCS honk. You're hilarious.

[Paperback Writer]

There have been more than a few 1 vs. 2 bowl games before the BCS/Bowl Alliance was formed. The two Fiesta Bowls in the 1980s (Miami-Penn State, Notre Dame-West Virginia) were definitely two of them.

Probably more than many realize:
1978: Alabama - Penn St.
1982: Penn St. - Georgia
1983: Miami - Nebraska
1985: Oklahoma - Penn St.
1986: Penn St. - Miami
1987: Miami - Oklahoma
1988: Notre Dame - West Virginia
1992: Alabama - Miami
1993: Florida St. - Nebraska

Edit: The definition I am using is that the winner of the game is the National Champion. It's not always #1 vs #2. 1983 is an example where #1 Nebbraska plays #4 Miami. But undefeated Texas has already lost before the kickoff of the Orange Bowl so by game time it was understoond that the winner would be National Champion.

[Top Ute]

Agreed. But if you consider all national championships awarded, pretty much most have been the result of the traditional method. Again, unless I'm missing something.

About one-third of all national titles awarded in the modern, two-platoon era (which coincides nicely with the advent of a post-bowl poll) were the result of a 1 vs. 2 (AP poll only) matchup in a bowl game.

Several more, in all likelihood, pitted 1 vs. 2 from the coaches poll (without the same ranking by the AP), or 1 vs. 3 in a later New Year's Day game after No. 2 had already lost. I'd say it's about a 60-40 split in favor of national champs being decided outside of a 1 vs. 2 matchup.

[TripletDaddy]

Probably more than many realize:
1978: Alabama - Penn St.
1982: Penn St. - Georgia
1983: Miami - Nebraska
1985: Oklahoma - Penn St.
1986: Penn St. - Miami
1987: Miami - Oklahoma
1988: Notre Dame - West Virginia
1992: Alabama - Miami
1993: Florida St. - Nebraska

in 78 Alabama split that title with SC, so that game would not count under Top Ute's definition, since more than one game yielded a national championship.

[Top Ute]

Ha!! Says the all of a sudden BCS honk. You're hilarious.

Today's system is still flawed, but it's better than what we had under the old system. I've been consistent in my views on this and my ideal playoff format for years.

[Top Ute]

Probably more than many realize:
1978: Alabama - Penn St.
1982: Penn St. - Georgia
1983: Miami - Nebraska
1985: Oklahoma - Penn St.
1986: Penn St. - Miami
1987: Miami - Oklahoma
1988: Notre Dame - West Virginia
1992: Alabama - Miami
1993: Florida St. - Nebraska

More comprehensive link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Poll#No._1_vs._No._2

[TripletDaddy]

About one-third of all national titles awarded in the modern, two-platoon era (which coincides nicely with the advent of a post-bowl poll) were the result of a 1 vs. 2 (AP poll only) matchup in a bowl game.

Several more, in all likelihood, pitted 1 vs. 2 from the coaches poll (without the same ranking by the AP), or 1 vs. 3 in a later New Year's Day game after No. 2 had already lost. I'd say it's about a 60-40 split in favor of national champs being decided outside of a 1 vs. 2 matchup.

Thanks. So you are saying that the majority have been decided that way, including many of the ones earned by traditional national powers that now make up the current BCS conferences.

That is some pretty impressive company, I won't argue against that. You make a compelling point.

[falafel]

Look what you started, Killer Dog.