However, in the interest of being fair, I would like to see some comments below if you find my analysis to be off the mark or leaning too heavily towards blind loyalty.
That said, I felt compelled to write this article after reading a piece featured on College Football News (CFN) titled "State of the Game".
It's focus was on this question: Will you be okay if the SEC Champ isn't in the BCS Championship—assuming said winner has only one loss—even if either the Big Ten or the Big XII each bring an unbeaten team to the table.
Several members of the local and national media chimed in with their response, including CBSSports.com senior writer, Dennis Dodd.
In his response, Dodd had this to say:
Weeeell, that's a bit superficial don't you think? Start with the fact that beyond Ala and Fla, the SEC isn't particularly strong this year. What is the third-best team -- Arkansas?, LSU?, South Carolina? (Please don't give me Georgia). In your scenario, then, (a loss to Florida), the only team you're talking about is Alabama. If the strength of schedules are relatively even, then, yes I'm OK with the SEC champion not playing in the BCS title game. You're talking about an undefeated Ohio State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas. I have no problem with that 1) because the SEC is down; 2) the Big Ten is making a comeback; 3) Texas and Oklahoma are loaded in a tough conference and 4) don't forget Boise in that mix. It's going to start in the top five. Voters will by hypocritical if they drop the Broncos after winning all their games.
Now, while I understand and appreciate that Mr. Dodd is entitled to his opinion, I have a bone to pick with just about everything he has to say in his response—obviously.
"...Start with the fact that beyond Ala and Fla, the SEC isn't particularly strong this year. What is the third-best team -- Arkansas?, LSU?, South Carolina? (Please don't give me Georgia)."
First of all, the SEC isn't so much weak this year as it appears to have more parity. It's probably the first time in more than a few seasons that you couldn't clearly state who the champion of the east and west divisions would be.
The departure of Tim Tebow has left Florida looking a lot more vulnerable than in season's past and the questions about the Alabama defense, coupled with close losses to both Tennessee and Auburn last season, make the Tide look ripe for an upset on their drive back to Atlanta this year.
Parity is a good thing, Dennis.
Secondly, what's with the "Please don't give me Georgia" comment? Mark Richt might be the owner of a program that finished 8-5 in 2009, but he is certainly not an SEC afterthought. He's posted a winning record against every team in the conference since his arrival, save Florida (2-7) and LSU (3-3) and that means he's worthy of a lot more respect than he's gotten from guys like you over the last eight months.
"...If the strength of schedules are relatively even, then, yes I'm OK with the SEC champion not playing in the BCS title game."
I admit I'm an SEC loyalist, but there is little doubt that the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation. There is no such thing, at least not at present, of a "relatively even" strength of schedule when compared to the SEC's.
Get real, Dennis.
"...You're talking about an undefeated Ohio State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas. I have no problem with that 1) because the SEC is down; 2) the Big Ten is making a comeback; 3) Texas and Oklahoma are loaded in a tough conference..."
While I have no problem seeing Iowa or Ohio State make a BCS appearance—despite the fact that Ohio State has had their backsides handed to them twice by an SEC team, it's idiotic to say that Texas and Oklahoma are playing in a tough conference. Aside from said teams, who on earth offers them any legit competition in the Big XII? Baylor? Kansas? Kansas State?...Oklahoma State (minus Robinson, Bryant, and Cox)?, Colorado?...You're joking right?
I guess Dennis has to say the Big XII is tough (after all, he is a Mizzou alum), but everyone else knows that after Oklahoma and Texas, there is only Nebraska—and once they leave...well, you fill in the blanks.
"...and 4) don't forget Boise in that mix. It's going to start in the top five. Voters will by hypocritical if they drop the Broncos after winning all their games."
LOL...wait, let me get this straight: Boise plays in the WAC...THE WAC. There is literally no excuse for them not to run all over and through their conference with ease. The WAC is not a competitive place for the Broncos to play—everyone knows that.
Additionally, Boise's OOC schedule tends to be equally as laughable and, aside from their early season match-up with Virginia Tech in September, it offers nothing in the way of competition this year either. That said, people should take them seriously if they go undefeated in 2010, why?
I know they can only play the games they are scheduled to play but, the fact remains, they have the easiest road to the BCS Title Game—hands down. So, if they finish undefeated while a Big Ten or SEC team suffers one loss, I'm giving the edge to the SEC or Big Ten team and so would most every other voter.
If Boise wants legitimacy, a win over Virginia Tech will be necessary. If they lose, they SHOULD go to the back of the line—period.
The whole CFN article can be found here, if you're interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment