Backing in to the National Championship

[UF_Cheme_Student]

I was reading the On the Mark article on ESPN and it mentioned UF could "back into the NC" with a ND loss. I have never understood why people use this prase when describing some teams journey to the National Championshop. For the most part, unless two teams go wire to wire #1 & #2, then every team needs some help to get in.

[SavannahGator]

I was reading the On the Mark article on ESPN and it mentioned UF could "back into the NC" with a ND loss. I have never understood why people use this prase when describing some teams journey to the National Championshop. For the most part, unless two teams go wire to wire #1 & #2, then every team needs some help to get in.

Good point. Even our 1996 team had to have (1) Texas upset Nebraska in the inaugural Big XII title game, (2) us beat Alabama in the SEC title game, and (3) tOSU, of all teams, defeat Arizona State and Jake "the Snake" Plummer in the Rose Bowl, just so our #1 F$U vs us @ #3 Sugar Bowl game would be for the MNC.

As much as many give Gary Danielson s**t, in what I think was his first (or perhaps it was his second) year as Verne's sidekick, he actually "lobbied" for us instead of Meechigan to face tOSU for the 2006 title.

Look at last year - LSU probably never imagined they'd have to face Bama, AGAIN, for the title. Several different things happened for Bama to "back into" the #2 spot after losing that FG game in Tuscaloosa during the regular season.

So b/c this isn't the NFL, where there's some equivalency in who plays whom, just about every team that plays for the title somehow has to have help from some other team.

[mrgator]

It's an unfortunate term used by the pundits. I agree with you. Any team that has one or more losses is "backing into" the national championship. These same pundits try to say that teams should be evaluated on an entire body of work so there is no reason to think UF is backing into anything.

Having said that, if/when we beat FSU in Tally then they will at least have to give us a small benefit of the doubt considering our #1 SOS. Not that many of them would but it will give our image a boost again.

[-THE DUDE-]

I absolutely hate this freaking term...it makes no sense. I guess it makes some people feel better to describe it that way instead of saying that they didn't control their own destiny. I guess everyone that doesn't go undefeated "backs in to" the championship game.

[biggator6]

If you don't win your conference, much less your division within your conference (Bama last year)... I'd agree that it could be considered 'backing in'.

If you win your conference but need help getting to the championship game (like 96) - that is NOT backing in.

[DCflorida]

Wins against 3 of 4 top 10 teams, and the only loss being a very close loss to the current #3 team, isn't backing into anything (FSU pending of course).

After enduring 6 weeks of people antagonizing and downgrading us, just like in 2006, we'll tear the ass outta whoever we play in Miami.

[Gatorlaw92]

Wins against 3 of 4 top 10 teams, and the only loss being a very close loss to the current #3 team, isn't backing into anything (FSU pending of course).

After enduring 6 weeks of people antagonizing and downgrading us, just like in 2006, we'll tear the ass outta whoever we play in Miami.

Exactly. There is no such thing as backing in. If other teams lose, they lose and it is part of their record. You are what you are. Rankings also only mean how good you are PERCEIVED TO BE, not necessarily how good you actually are, until you prove it on the field, which is why a playoff is really needed. Only a playoff head-to-head scientifically proves the champ. When there is no playoff, and we have a bcs system of rankings only, then you can make it to the title game without even winning the division of your conference, like bama did last year. This is another reason a playoff is needed. Even if teams go #1 and #2 in the polls wire-to-wire doesn't necessarily mean they are the 2 best teams, just the perceived best teams.

[shortcast]

this is reminding me somewhat of 2006. While we had the toughest rated schedule in the nation...we only had one loss to Auburn. For some reason we just didn't win pretty enough to satisfy the media and NO ONE really thought we had a ghost of a chance to beating Ohio. I like us being the underdog here. We just need to take care of business and beat FSU now....everything else will take care of itself. We beat FSU...at worst we play in a BCS bowl...and at best...we play Bama in Miami.

[GatorKen]

when you did not even earn the chance to play for your conf championship and you land in the National Title game. Then yes, you backed into that game.


That is like someone calling us Co-SEC East Champs. Really? The co-champs get to watch the game on tv.... means we are not the SEC East Champs. We are spectators who by luck may get to play in the big game.

[Mighty O. and B.]

I really think it would be backing in. We aren't going to win the conference. Alabama completely lucked out last year and got a do-over.

I really don't see this happening anyway. We still have to beat FSU and that's not looking too promising right now. I'd be happy just getting to a BCS bowl.

[CapitalGator02]

Consider the source:

Mark Schlabach graduated from the University of Georgia.

He spent nine years at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, covering University of Georgia...

Funny considering UGA will take the backdoor approach to the MNC as well if they beat Bama. Who cares, most anyone that works at ESPN are hacks anyways...

[rogdochar]

If we back-in, don't that mean we're really back ??

[soflagator]

when you did not even earn the chance to play for your conf championship and you land in the National Title game. Then yes, you backed into that game.


That is like someone calling us Co-SEC East Champs. Really? The co-champs get to watch the game on tv.... means we are not the SEC East Champs. We are spectators who by luck may get to play in the big game.

I'd have to agree. This year it would be an accurate statement. We don't need "help" like in past years, as we simultaneously take care of business by winning the conference. We're completely helpless and dependent.

On the co-champs point, you're right again. They have the same record but own the head to head. Therefore, they are the champs. 2003 might be the only exception where there truly was a 3-way tie that needed to be decided by the BCS. Other than that, the formula is pretty simple.

To say we backed in years like '96, '06 or '08 is kind of ridiculous when you consider how many teams there are competing for a NC each season. Virtually everyone, including 2 of Saban's 3 NC teams, needs help along the way.

Now, I do call out the bulldogs for never having won the Division by beating each team. We're not talking about the whole country here. There are 5 teams that you have to best. If you can't do that, and have to rely on losses by the Div team that beat you, that's backing in. We did it in '92, but have not needed help in the 9 appearances since. If not for OM and Lsu in 2002, uga doesn't win the East. If not for Lsu, Ala and Usc, they don't win it in 2005. And of course, they've benefited by playing weak SEC West teams while USce has dropped 2 games the past 2 seasons, opening the door for them. That's kind of sad, imo.

All that said, if we back in and somehow found a way to win it all, I'd be ok with that. The national--possibly international meltdown--would be classic, and the Purifoy block would gain Moss-****-block status.

[law98gator]

Is Cheeseburgering into the NC a better term? What else do you call it other than backing in?

[obsessedgator]

Who cares what you call it. We beat FSU and USC beats ND.....we are playing for a freaking National Title!!!

Give us a month to prepare for UGA or Bama and I guarantee you our defense will give them hell.

[law98gator]

Who cares what you call it. We beat FSU and USC beats ND.....we are playing for a freaking National Title!!!

No we won't.

But let's get back to slamming the Clown Technical College.

[Swamp82]

when you did not even earn the chance to play for your conf championship and you land in the National Title game. Then yes, you backed into that game.


That is like someone calling us Co-SEC East Champs. Really? The co-champs get to watch the game on tv.... means we are not the SEC East Champs. We are spectators who by luck may get to play in the big game.

No luck by record, and no co anything.

[Ancient Reptile]

when you did not even earn the chance to play for your conf championship and you land in the National Title game. Then yes, you backed into that game.


That is like someone calling us Co-SEC East Champs. Really? The co-champs get to watch the game on tv.... means we are not the SEC East Champs. We are spectators who by luck may get to play in the big game.

I strongly disagree with this conference championship notion. Conference champs is baloney, particularly in the SEC where schedules vary enormously as Spurrier pointed out last year.

Those of you who favor the necessity of a Conference Championship must answer the following questions:

If some conferences in some sports teams have found it necessary to lose--yes, lose--the final game in order to win the conference championship. This is not speculation, it is historical fact. So do you actually berlieve that those teams which refused to throw the final game and did the honorable thing and played and won should be barred from further consideration? Just "yes" ir "no", no weasling.

[oxrageous]

Who cares what you call it. We beat FSU and USC beats ND.....we are playing for a freaking National Title!!!

No we won't.

But let's get back to slamming the Clown Technical College.

Then tell us who does. And don't say Notre Dame.

[Gator Fever]

Who cares what you call it. We beat FSU and USC beats ND.....we are playing for a freaking National Title!!!

No we won't.

But let's get back to slamming the Clown Technical College.

Yes we will unless UCLA beats Stanford letting Oregon make their conference championship game.