Assuming two, closely matched and talented teams, but neither having a perfect record that would ensure that the winner would advance into the BCS NC game, the winner of the regular season game could actually be at a disadvantage of sorts, cutting that team ( this year it would be USC) out of the BCS bowls entirely. Again, as Wilner noted, he does not think USC could win two games against Oregon (even though he has USC ranked higher than Oregon by one spot). The two teams being nearly equal in ability to win games, the winner of the regular season match-up is almost inconsequential, because both schools have proven they have the capability to win at the other's house.
In this scenario, USC wins the regular season match-up, but going into the PAC-12 championship game rematch, both teams have one loss. If USC loses in the championship game, USC would then have two losses on the season, and likely misses out on an at-large bid to a BCS bowl.
Were it not for the bowl ban last year, we may have seen this scenario played out, had USC and Oregon met in the inaugural PAC-12 championship, and had Oregon won that game. Stanford, at 11-1 with its only loss to Oregon (and a win against USC), would have trumped a 10-3 USC team.
The scenario plays out in both directions, too. If Oregon wins the first match-up but loses the second one, they will likely be shut out of the BCS bowls.
So the quirk is, that even if you win the first game, you still have to win the second. But if you lose the first one, you get a second chance to win it all -- that's one heck of a consolation prize for the loser of the regular season match-up, huh?
And so long as USC and Oregon remain solidly talented teams, this scenario could be played out year after year.
No comments:
Post a Comment