ESPN’s annual dissing of UGA was backed last year by the fact we had Herbstreit saying how we shouldn’t have a chance since we didn’t win our conference when he was also the same one lobbying for an Ohio State/Michigan rematch when Michigan didn’t win their conference.

Someone actually had a youtube video of Herbstreit saying something along the lines of “I know Michigan didn’t win their conference, but in my opinion they are the second best team right now so they deserve to get in the NC game for a rematch”. Then the clip cuts and he’s saying “Georgia didn’t even win their conference. There is no way a team that doesn’t win their conference can be the best team in the nation.” It’s like “What?”.

Not sure if he’ll be lobbying for Texas to get in should Oklahoma lose, but if so I guess they could add on to that clip. ESPN is just ruining CFB, flavor-of-the-week crap.

That said, UGA should NOT have been in the NC last year and I’ll repeat what I said after the Florida loss : Maybe we (UGA fans) should hold off on the “No respect” card for awhile until our team can finish the drill.

And the two high-profile losses (beatdowns) set us back a couple years at least.

and while I think that the ultimate result (a team who is not a conference champion having the chance to play for the title) is the same, there are some substantial differences. I’ll do my best to break it down the way that it makes the most sense, which is, to me, how the teams were prevented from playing for their conference championship.

Georgia lost two regular season games, one of which was a thorough trouncing at the hands of Tennessee, the team that ended up representing the SEC East in the conference championship. This was not influenced by the BCS, was not left up to voters to decide, it was quite simple. There were two teams in the East with two losses and Tennessee won the head-to-head matchup.

Texas, however, lost only one regular season game in a close overtime matchup against Texas Tech. Oklahoma, who is representing the South, lost a fairly close game against Texas, but demolished the Red Raiders. Thus, a three way tie, so it came down to the representative being decided by who was higher in the BCS standings…influenced by voters and computers.

That said, I think this brings us to the major difference in the two scenarios. Georgia’s argument to playing in the National Championship was based simply on the fact that Georgia was on a hotstreak and was playing fine football and ranked highly. There was no argument for being shafted by the BCS and not allowed to play for the conference championship. While I do not agree with the way the Worldwide Leader manipulated the voters last year, based on the current system, Georgia really had no argument to play for the title. They had two losses, were beaten soundly by Tennessee, who was beaten in the conference championship by two loss LSU. LSU plays for the title.

On the other hand, Texas has a very legitimate argument for why they should play for the title. They have one loss (as does Oklahoma). They beat Oklahoma head-to-head. They were jumped by Oklahoma at the last minute in the polls, allowing Oklahoma to squeak into the conference championship. Granted, Texas Tech could make this same argument if Texas were representing the south, but the fact that Texas Tech was obliterated by Oklahoma ruins any possible arguments they might have with the voters. Basically, it comes down to the voters taking issue with the current BCS system. Oklahoma jumped Texas because of their rankings in the computer polls, while the human voters, by and large, voted Texas ahead of Oklahoma. For this reason, I could definitely see the voters putting Texas into the NC game for the sole reason of vindicating Texas…righting a wrong.

To end this, I’ll just look at it this way. If Oklahoma ends up somehow dropping the ball and loses to Mizzou, who ends up playing for the title against Florida or Bama, if not Texas? Certainly not the champion of the Big East or ACC. Might we have an SEC title rematch? If Florida wins a close one against Bama, that could very well be feasible, but would the voters vote for it? I doubt it. The other teams with a legitimate shot would be USC, Penn State, and Utah. That said, my prediction (should Oklahoma lose) is a toss-up between SEC vs. USC or SEC vs. Texas. It all depends on who the Worldwide Leader (or Misleader, as Foxsports likes to call them) decides they want to see play.

For starters, I don’t agree that Texas should be considered for the NC game if Oklahoma loses.

I don’t think it’s the same thing last year for UGA as it is this year for Texas. Had Tennessee beat LSU, UT would have gone to the Sugar bowl, not the NC game. If OU wins, they will (deservedly) go to the NC game. If Mizzou beats OU, they will not go to the NC game as LSU did last year. We lost to USC (a game we should have won) and to Tennessee (in horrendous fashion) last year. Texas only lost a close one to TTU.

Again, I don’t think Texas would deserve the shot. I am simply pointing out why I think Texas may be getting more credit in the so-called what-if-this-or-that-happened-who-would-play-in-this-or-that-bowl run around that takes place every year.

Basically, I always try not to make the same arguments for my team that I think are irrational when made by the partisans of other teams. UGA didn’t deserve it last year, and Texas doesn’t deserve it this year. I didn’t make the argument last year for UGA. I made it instead for LSU. If you reversed the roles on OU and Texas right now, both teams’ partisans would be making exactly the opposite argument than the one they’re making right now. Which would be the same argument that they are calling out the other side on. It gets old and annoying to see the hypocrisy of teams fans. I bleed red and black, but I didn’t see a reason we should have been in the NC game last year.

Was the last time a NON Conference winning team played for the NC when either Oklahoma who jumped an undefeated Auburn team or Nebraska who jumped Miami?

I also have another take on this NC issue. i don’t personally feel it is right for a team, even if in a BCS conference, to be eligible for THE National Championship game if their conference (Pac-10 Big 10) doesn’t have a conference championship game. doesn’t seem right that USC for instance can play in a pitiful weak conference….go undefeated….and have a spot in the big game.

1) Both teams didn’t win their division outright, but Georgia lost to the team that ended up representing the division; Texas beat the team that did.

2) Last year, there was a bevy of two-loss teams jockeying for position. LSU was (rightly) deemed the most worthy of these teams, due to its a) conference title (which UGA—a team in that conference—did not have), b) crushing victory over another BCS champ (Va. Tech), and c) the nature of its two losses (in triple-overtime).

3) Conversely, UGA lost badly to Tennessee and to a mediocre South Carolina team at home.

4) Texas has, as a team, one of the top-3 resumes in the country. The only two teams I’d rank ahead right now are Alabama and Oklahoma…and both of those teams could lose. Texas, it could be argued, would deserve a shot at the title before USC, Florida, or Penn State.

With all of that being said though, it’d be best if the NC game was left to winners of conferences, but Texas this year has a very good case to circumvent that. They just picked a bad year to go 11-1.

You all make great points, however fundamentally they are still the same situation. Two teams, playing great football, whom the pollsters and computers think enough of to continue to rank high, that won’t play for their conference championship. How both teams arrived at this destination is certainly different, but it doesn’t change the fact that the “unwritten rule” of the BCS is “if you don’t win your conference how can you play for the National Championship”.

For the record I don’t think we deserved to play for the MNC last year either. My point is that if you are going to apply the rules (even the unwritten ones) you have to apply them consistantly no matter how swell a guy Mack Brown is.