(11-18-2011 07:15 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: I would say the number one v number two was the primary concern and the consolidation in name was gravy (they already had the the power in reality even if it wasn't as overt).
Also controversy isn't limited to the BCS and in fact it is less controversial. Before the BCS you had some really controversial national champions since the best teams may never have played each other at all. The BCS has controversy like the NCAA tournament in basketball causes problems, there is just not enough games beforehand and there are too many teams to eliminate all the controversy and you will always have people claiming this one team deserved and this one did not so long as there are any teams close to each other (in fact the basketball tourney might be more problematic in this regard).
Yeah, I've heard this song before but I don't necessarily agree with it. I think it is historical revisionism put out there by BCS apologists.
Prior to the advent of the Bowl Coalition => Bowl Alliance => Bowl Championship Series, when there was a discord on who to name as the national champion, the voters would usually split the difference, cop out and simply name both teams national champions.
It was certainly less clean than the current system but with a few exceptions it wasn't really all that controversial because that was the only system we had ever known to that point. Also, it was at least consistent with the rest of the antiquated system. Once the BCS implemented a "championship" game it essentially created a two-team playoff which changed the whole paradigm.
From that point forward people began to look at the championship game featuring the two best teams as an expectation, rather than as a bonus like it was prior to 1993. It also guaranteed that much of the public would always be somewhat dissatisfied until a full, eight or 16 team playoff is implemented - which will happen eventually.
So when Nebraska squeaked into the BCS national championship game despite not even winning the B12, that created outrage in Eugene, OR and Boulder, CO - each of whom believed they were more deserving than the Cornhuskers. And in 2003, even after LSU beat Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, the voters still split the title with USC and demanded a playoff between the two.
There will always be disagreement about who should be team No. 8 and team No. 9 or team No. 16 and team No. 17 but that would pale in comparison to the system we have now where fans of most teams feel like the system is broken and unsatisfactory.
There is no logical reason college football to not institute at least an eight team playoff.
It wasn't as definitive as