In response to productive posts...
BenNX74205 wrote:vinsanity wrote:Yes, the Rose Bowl stuck with the tradition of having a Big 10 team play, so what? Instead of [expletive] about it WIN THE DAMN BIG 12!
I know I've brought this point up in general terms in complaining about the BCS system, but having some conferences play a championship game and others not, it forces some teams to play an extra game against a very tough opponent while allowing other teams to avoid that requirement.
Sometimes it helps ya, sometimes it hurts ya. But if you are going to do a national ranking system to determine a national champion, I agree. If the Big 12 and SEC have conference championships why not the Big 10 and others?
Socnorb11 wrote:It's all about the almighty dollar for conferences like the Big Twelve.
I appreciate the fact that the Big Ten still honors the tradition regular-season champion, and hasn't sold out like some other conferences.
I've been defending the Big 10 here, but I gotta disagree. I think part of the reason a Big 10 team is going to the Rose has a lot to do with money. Of course I (and presumably) no one really knows what kind of deal there is between the Rose Bowl Committee and the Big-10/Pac-10.
If the BCS really wants to do it this way they need to just matchup 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 regardless of conference. Then no one can complain. But it's the almighty dollar. I think everyone agrees. Every year people say it's a sham and worthless and say they won't put stock in it. Then the following year get in a twist when something happens. But if they just went down the line, the only debates are the actual rankings (to which human polls play a large factor. Much of the complaints about Hawaii getting a game or LSU in the title game would then need to be directed at the voters.)
I have now washed my hands of this and tied off my loose (pardon the pun) threads.
