Style
Gold Star Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Messages
- 3,650
- Reaction score
- 166
- Points
- 63
What do you think? Should an undefeated Rutgers get a shot at the title? On one hand, I could see how you say yes, as they're in a BCS conference, and will have run the table, defeating solidly ranked teams in WVU and Lousville. But on the other hand, do I really think they are better than some of the one loss teams that are out there like Auburn, Florida, Texas, USC, ND? I'm going to say no, they should not, for three reasons:
One, I do not think they're better than some of the one loss teams out there.
Two, if you put them in the title matchup, it sets a very bad precident. Why in the world should you schedule any one but creampuffs for your non-conference matchups if Rutgers can get in playing no one outside the Big East? You would basically be penalizing teams that schedule tough teams.
Three, if there was no BCS, Rutgers would still not win the national title. Many people are saying "Why even have the BCS if you're in a BCS conference, you run the table, and you get left home?" Well, the answer is that the BCS was created to pit the top two teams against each other in a national title bowl game. No where does it say anything about undefeated teams, only the two best teams. I don't believe Rutgers is one of the two best teams. And Rutgers can't blame the BCS. Rutgers is currently 14 in the AP (which isn't even part of the BCS any more). There are a couple TWO LOSS teams ahead of them (Tennessee & LSU), not to mention all the one loss teams! If there was no BCS and Rutgers won out, there is no way they'd climb all the way to #1. The probably wouldn't make it to the top 5!
There are many that don't agree with me, and think if you're in a BCS conference and you take care of your business, then you should play for the title, hence this thread. I'm curious what the rest of you think.
One, I do not think they're better than some of the one loss teams out there.
Two, if you put them in the title matchup, it sets a very bad precident. Why in the world should you schedule any one but creampuffs for your non-conference matchups if Rutgers can get in playing no one outside the Big East? You would basically be penalizing teams that schedule tough teams.
Three, if there was no BCS, Rutgers would still not win the national title. Many people are saying "Why even have the BCS if you're in a BCS conference, you run the table, and you get left home?" Well, the answer is that the BCS was created to pit the top two teams against each other in a national title bowl game. No where does it say anything about undefeated teams, only the two best teams. I don't believe Rutgers is one of the two best teams. And Rutgers can't blame the BCS. Rutgers is currently 14 in the AP (which isn't even part of the BCS any more). There are a couple TWO LOSS teams ahead of them (Tennessee & LSU), not to mention all the one loss teams! If there was no BCS and Rutgers won out, there is no way they'd climb all the way to #1. The probably wouldn't make it to the top 5!
There are many that don't agree with me, and think if you're in a BCS conference and you take care of your business, then you should play for the title, hence this thread. I'm curious what the rest of you think.
Last edited: