[starang21]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

No, not at all. I'm saying that under the old system, where the pairings weren't necc 1 vs. 2, the situation would be different. OSU would probably play USC in the Rose, and thus its a championship game for OSU, but not for USC. USC winning doesn't mean their the national champs, just like I don't think UF or Michigan winning would really crown them the champs. I mean, say UF wins, some people might think its legitimate (no slight to UF, its just a bad system), but I wouldn't assume they're the best team in college football. At least under the pre-BCS polls and bowls system, we could get a split title. Note, I'm not in favor of splits, but I'd prefer a split title over shutting out a completely deserving team, and sending them home with nothing. I think if UF beats OSU (but not overly impressively) and Michigan takes it to USC, the AP should put Michigan at #1. Of course, this is all a result of my bias over AU getting hosed in 2004. I would never assume we were better or more deserving than USC, but to send a 13-0 SEC team home with nothing was ridiculous, and I don't want to see it happen to any other major conference team.

but then how would you do it? let's say you have the sugar bowl and the citrus bowl as semi-finals. then the rose bowl as the final. everything on a neutral field. while the bowls themselves will pay for travel expenses for the teams....what about the fans? say you're from florida and you want to watch your team in AZ to win the semifinal. are you gonna leave that next week to travel to california to watch them again?