I have trouble with the BCS penalizing Mizzou for making their conference championship game and losing. Their only 2 losses are to the same team...Oklahoma....a BCS team. Kansas gets into a BCS bowl as the "Cinderella team" when Missouri has beaten them head-to-head. Mizzou also owns a win over another BCS team...Illinois.
It seems a team is better off not taking the risk of a late season loss and NOT play in their conference championship game. (Example- Georgia) Or to not have a championship game at all (USC and Ohio St and Illinois). Maybe Mizzou should have declined to play OU again and made a BCS game that way.
Also, what is wrong with looking for better match-ups? How about Kansas vs Hawaii if you have to have both in th BCS? How about both at large teams playing each other....USC vs Georgia? This system could be so much more entertaining to the fans if we could break from the structure of conference tie-ins and having specific conferences dictate where they will or won't play (Pac-10 and Big-10). Make those two cry-baby conferences adopt a championship game so they are on equal footing with the other major conferences. Then they will have the same opportunity for the late season win or loss that puts them in or out of the BCS title game. (Then they won't have the 60 day layoff between their last game and the BCS title game.)
__________________
Like a famous coach once said, "There's no "I" in TEAM.....but there is "U" in SUCK."
|