Winning your conference is more impressive then losing your conference.
They didn't "lose" their conference. That's a silly way to describe it. They came in 2nd. Losing their conference is when you came in last.
Florida is #3 in the BCS. They came in 2nd in one of the toughest conferences in the country. They were 11-1, beating numerous ranked teams. To argue they were less deserving, simply because they didn't play in the Big East where mediocrity is king, is simply silly.
Yes. Because this system places an emphasis on winning your conference, and Florida was not good enough to do that.
No it doesn't. This current system does no such thing. Alabama didn't even compete for their conference title and was crowned National Champions last year. I'm not sure you're following the same sport I am.
Yeah, I can. College football is a fucked up system that rewards teams for winning their conference, EXCEPT if that conference isn't the PAC 12, Big 10, Big 12, or SEC. I think that system is disgusting, and if you're gonna reward teams for winning conferences, then you should reward ALL conferences.
So instead of taking the common sense approach, which would be that only DESERVING teams that win the conference gets to play in the BCS, you go in the complete opposite direction.
Why? Why not just say "Hey, we have this BCS system. We have 5 BCS bowls. The top 10 teams in the BCS play in the BCS bowls"? That would make a whole lot more sense than your silly scenario. And if you want to prevent overrated conferences from getting too many teams in, then only take a max 2 or 3 teams from each conference, and then just move down to numbers 11 and 12 if you need to.
Your way is stupid. My way makes sense. Your way allows for 7-5 Wisconsin, who was only Big 10 champions because the Big 10 was terrible and Ohio State is on probation, to play in the BCS, while a much more deserving team in Georgia, who was 5 yards away from a National Championship game, is not.
It's not silly, it's fair. Why bother even having conferences if winning the conference means nothing?
It's completely silly. And I already answered your conference questions.
How is that nonsensical? You know what, I don't think the winner of the NFC deserves to be in the Super Bowl this season. The Super Bowl should be played between the 2 AFC Teams. That's the logic you are using.
The fact you're trying to compare a professional football league, where all the teams answer to the same overall company, to college football, where conferences are completely independent, just shows how far you are reaching.
And the fact that Louisville is clearly the better team means shows that the correct decision was made.
No, it doesn't. That's a fallacious argument, made only by fools.
If I invest in Apple stock today, and three days from now it's discovered widespread fraud accounting has been taking place in Apple for years, artificially inflating their profits, and thus their stock, does that mean my investment today is bad? Absolutely not.
Your argument is completely fallacious. And I said the same thing when people said NIU didn't deserve their BCS bid because they lost. Winning or losing the game has nothing to do with whether they deserved to be there in the first place. It didn't last year when Alabama won and it doesn't this year when NIU loses or Louisville wins.
Then why were they not able to win their conference?
Because Georgia was better than Florida. But your argument that 7-5 Wisconsin is better than 11-1 Florida, simply because Georgia is better than Florida, is all kinds of silly and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it.
No, I'm saying that If you're gonna have conferences, then ALL conference champions should be in the game.
And I'm saying you're just being silly.
A National Championship without representation from all conferences means that it's a regional championship and certain regions are excluded because they weren't thought of as highly because of the region they play in.
And because they weren't as good.
The National Champion represents the very best team in the country. If you've lost twice, you're clearly not the best team in the country. As I said before, if a team runs the table and is undefeated, I could buy your argument as reasonable. But when Louisville plays in a ridiculously weak conference and still loses two games in the conference, they're clearly not the best team.
I said eliminate conferences for one sport, not all sports.
Who is going to eliminate the conference? The NCAA has no control over them. Hell, the NCAA really has little control over the whole BCS system (which I think is stupid, but whatever).
Your suggestion to eliminate conferences is beyond stupid, it's completely irrational, because the only people who have the power to disband conferences are the people who understand the benefits the conferences bring. You need to come back to reality.
And TV Contracts can just as easily be done by the team, or the entirety of the NCAA. Hell, Notre Dame has its own TV Contract, and Texas has it's own Network.
And if Missouri could have their own TV contract and its own network, they would. The same goes for Vanderbilt, Florida State, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, and just about every other team in the country. But the fact is they simply are not strong enough to do so. Notre Dame and Texas are the two biggest football programs in the country. That's why they can do those things.
And Revenue Sharing should be shared throughout all the FBS teams, not just the conferences.
Again, you don't seem to understand that the NCAA doesn't control the institutions. The NCAA is not the NFL, they don't have control over the teams within. You don't seem to understand this very basic and very important concept.
Brand building? What better way to build a brand then to get into a national championship tournament?
To join a conference like the SEC, where the brand has already been built and you just reap the benefits of playing in it, while they reap the benefits of expanding their influence.
Common sense, you need to find it soon.
You've yet to name on thing that Conferences do that can't be done better without conferences.
Only because you ridiculously think those things can be done by individual schools, when common sense would tell you it cannot. Just because your understanding of college sports is incredibly limited, it doesn't change the fact I'm right.
That's something we can agree on.
Just like we can agree that Louisville is kicking Floridas ass.
Yup. The first we agree on and the second we agree on. Where we differ on the second is whether we engage a fallacious argument. You want to, I don't.
