Spence wrote:
Most people I knew and most people on this board at that time thought Pitt would lose.
West Virginia wasn't ranked in the twenties like Pitt was, and West Virginia clearly had a pretty good team this year. I remember Pitt that year and they weren't good. Maybe the reason that WVU wasn't ranked higher was because of the poor showing by Pitt. Maybe the voters were gunshy. That is the problem WVU will have this year. Trying to prove they are good enough amid a schedule that could be stronger. It isn't fair, especially in light of the win over Georgia, but it will go down that way. West Virginia will need to dominate a few of those teams to make a championship run. They are in position to make a run though.
Pittsburgh was maybe fortunate that Louisville wasn't already a Big East member, if they had been, then Louisville likely would have occupied the spot in the BCS. BCS is based primarily upon representation. That's how it was organized. Pittsburgh isn't the only team to be selected that was ranked fairly low, Florida State, last year held a similar position.
But, as with Pittsburgh, I think they 'deserved' their bid.
Boston College was in position to win the Big East, but lost to Syracuse, even after losing to Pittsburgh earlier in the year. I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue Pittsburgh didn't 'earn' their bid. They did lose to Syracuse, however, so maybe Syracuse ought to have gone?
It's possible someone could maybe make an argument for W. Virginia, too since they only lost to Boston College and Pittsburgh, but they knew going into those games what was at stake.
For all those reasons, I still believe Pittsburgh was a 'worthy' representative to the BCS. It's a case reminiscent of how TCU was overlooked last year, but applied to Louisville. Both teams were 10-1 were likely better (or as good as) a BCS representative (Pittsburgh, 2004, FSU 2005). But that's how the BCS is organized. It would appear to support my opinion that the BCS should adopt a more 'competitive' arrangement whereby any team can legitimately qualify itself. You can't base your whole argument on one team. Pittsburgh maybe wasn't the 'ideal' representative, but they went.
Florida State, actually wasn't too bad, nearly beating Penn St, in the Orange Bowl. It might just be an example of Utah being a lot better.
Sure, they were competitive, overall, but they also were 'lucky' to play most of their 'key' games at home. I say TCU, 2005, was likely as good as Utah, 2004. They will play in SLC, this year, will likely decide the MWC. Btw, I've never supported allowing the MWC a 'direct' bid to the BCS. My proposal relies on competitive bowl pairings, prior to the BCS, to select 'deserving' representatives.
The reality is, if applied, it likely would have selected a more competitive BCS, than the 'traditional' model.
The Liberty Bowl champion, in general would make a very good BCS representative, even last year I believe Tulsa was a deserving representative, at 9-4. We disagree on that point, obviously, but my proposal relies on competiitve pairings of teams.
TCU was ignored completely, by the Liberty Bowl, Holiday Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Alamo Bowl, the Houston Bowl invited them, mostly out of necessity. They were maybe 'fortunate' to play a 'competitive' team in Iowa St, but they probably 'deserved' a more competitive pairing.
TCU maybe isn't exceptional, by most people's standards, but they are consistently good, and I believe they likely win any of the aforementioned bowl pairings. I think they were a better team than Oregon, Fresno St, Alabama, Michigan or Tulsa. That's why I would prefer an arrangement that gives them that opportunity.
