Wasn't sure where this discussion might fit, so one of the mods can feel free to shift it somewhere else as they see fit.
Got into a little chat last night with a friend who has long expressed his disdain for the BCS in college football. I admit it's not a perfect system while also admitting to being something of a sentimentalist with regards to the 'traditional bowl structure.'
We talked a little about Syracuse upsetting UConn yesterday, and I baited him a bit with the notion that I still think UConn deserves a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament. He agreed hands down that UConn still deserved a top spot.
Then I reminded him that he was all over the Nebraska football team back in 2001 when they got crunched in their season finale at Colorado yet were given the #2 hole in the BCS. His claim, and many others then, was that if Nebraska wasn't even playing in their conference championship, how the heck could they rate a BCS bid? I threw that back at him last night: How can UConn get a #1 seed if they aren't playing in their conference championship?
I find some correlation between the two notions, and still think both Nebraska's gridironers in 2001 and UConn's hoops squad this year deserve what they got or are likely going to get. Anyone else agree or disagree?
This isn't a debate on the BCS, by the way. Just a question of whether or not you see any similarities to the two.
Got into a little chat last night with a friend who has long expressed his disdain for the BCS in college football. I admit it's not a perfect system while also admitting to being something of a sentimentalist with regards to the 'traditional bowl structure.'
We talked a little about Syracuse upsetting UConn yesterday, and I baited him a bit with the notion that I still think UConn deserves a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament. He agreed hands down that UConn still deserved a top spot.
Then I reminded him that he was all over the Nebraska football team back in 2001 when they got crunched in their season finale at Colorado yet were given the #2 hole in the BCS. His claim, and many others then, was that if Nebraska wasn't even playing in their conference championship, how the heck could they rate a BCS bid? I threw that back at him last night: How can UConn get a #1 seed if they aren't playing in their conference championship?
I find some correlation between the two notions, and still think both Nebraska's gridironers in 2001 and UConn's hoops squad this year deserve what they got or are likely going to get. Anyone else agree or disagree?
This isn't a debate on the BCS, by the way. Just a question of whether or not you see any similarities to the two.