From: mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Bowl alliance a crock!
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:18:04 GMT
Organization: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech

wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) wrote:

}I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal about #1 never playing
}#2 in the bowls.  Without a true playoff system, all these rankings
}are just hypothetical.  

Certainly the rankings are hypothetical, but the vote for #1
becomes a lot less hypothetical if the 2 most obvious candidates
can square off at the end of the season.  The past 2 seasons
are excellent examples of how satisfying this could be:

1991:  #1/#2 Miami (11-0) vs. #2/#1 Washington (11-0)
1990:  #1 Colorado (10-1-1) vs. #2 Georgia Tech (10-0-1)

In both of these cases there would have been no team with a
serious argument for number one after the game.

Unfortunately things are not always so clear-cut, and in many
seasons your skepticism about the worth of #1 vs. #2 would be
validated.  In 1989, the #1 was obvious (11-0 Colorado) but
the #2 would have been very arguable amongst 10-1 Miami, 
11-1 Notre Dame, 10-1 Alabama, 10-1 Tennessee, 10-1 Arkansas,
and possibly several others.  Certainly #1 vs. #2 would have been
no worse than what the haphazard bowl system gave us though.

}                        Frankly, I think Miami got off EASY by only
}going down to #2 in the AP.  If it were anyone else they'd go down to
}#5 or #6 but Eastern Media Bias being what it is...

Actually that is totally false.  Miami is only the 2nd team in the
history of either poll to drop from the #1 spot the week after
winning a game.  

}Even though Arizona lost, I think they once again proved that
}the Pac 10 is the strongest conference in football.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.  Miami certainly
deserves to be reevaluated based on the poor showing, but it's very
early in the season to be concluding that they are not top 4 material.
Teams do have bad games.

}                                                     Washington,
}UCLA, USC, Stanford, and California are all top 25 teams (Ok, Cal is #27).
}The Pac 10 is a rugged conference and when a team goes undefeated it
}is quite an acheivement.   Arizona is not one of the better teams in
}the conference and look at what it does to the #1 team.

And Cal *is* one of the better teams in the conference and look 
what it does to lowly Purdue.  If you have blinders on that only
let you see the strong performances by the league it will surely
skew your judgement.  And besides, if you want to compare top
25 teams, you need to work on your counting skills: the ACC has
5 to the PAC-10's 3 (and a half :-) ).  

}Somehow there exists a bias against the Pac 10 teams because somehow
}they're not as "tough" as the teams from the other parts of the country.
}If toughness means pulling off the win, like USC did against Oklahoma,
}or Cal did against Clemson in last year's Citrus Bowl, what is it about
}the Pac 10 that is viewed with disdain?  

If you truly believe that the PAC-10 is "viewed with disdain" you
must be paranoid.  The PAC-10 is perenially recognized as one of
the 2 or 3 best leagues in the country, often the best.  I really 
can't think of any national poll or rating system in the last several 
years which hasn't said this.

However, the fact the PAC-10 champion always plays in the Rose
Bowl against the Big Ten champion certainly doesn't help.

-- 
Mark Mitchell           Georgia Tech            mm42@prism.gatech.edu

    "I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!"