Talk:2000 NCAA Division I-A football season

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Washington title shot[edit]

the article mentions that Washington "deserved a shot at the national championship" this is not a indisputable fact and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.52.103 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what is trying to be said is that since one-loss Miami used the argument that it deserved to be in the title game more than one-loss Florida State because they were responsible for Florida State's one loss, this argument could be extended to say that one-loss Washington deserved to be in the title game more than Miami, since Washington was responsible for Miami's one loss. I personally agree with this. The argument against Washington being in the title game is that its loss was dealt by 2 loss Oregon. Actually, there was a log jam atop the Pac-10 that year as Washington beat one loss Oregon State who beat two loss Oregon (this game being Oregon's only Pac-10 loss, the other loss being an OOC game at Wisconsin). So they had to break the triangle to determine the Pac-10 champion (I know they technically all shared the conference title that year, but when I say Pac-10 champion, I am referring to the team that is offered the Rose Bowl berth), using whatever rules they had and it was ultimately Oregon's loss to Wisconsin that put it at the bottom of the three teams. The fact that they had to resort to looking at an OOC game to break the tie does bring into question somewhat whether Washington was indeed the best team in the Pac-10 that year. However, like I said, I personally believe that Washington deserved to play Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl more than Miami that year because they did win the Pac-10 and using Miami's own argument, they deserved to be #2 more than Miami. I don't know how you could incorporate all this info in a sentence or two, but these are all the details behind that claim. I guess in the end, it is a matter of opinion whether Washington, Miami, or Florida State was the team that most deserved to play Oklahoma.76.230.104.72 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech "ranked higher."[edit]

I'm going to take out the Virginia Tech paragraph above the Contents. Although Virginia Tech was more highly rated than Notre Dame, it was not consistently more highly rated than Oregon State. The Coach's Poll, as well as three BCS computer polls rated Oregon State higher than Virginia Tech. Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]