GatewayRedbirds.com

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.

But the specific point I'll make here is that even if you ignore the fact that Mizzou would have played in the National Championship game had they not played Oklahoma, if there were no Big 12 Championship game Missouri would have won the Big 12.

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.

But the specific point I'll make here is that even if you ignore the fact that Mizzou would have played in the National Championship game had they not played Oklahoma, if there were no Big 12 Championship game Missouri would have won the Big 12.

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.

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.