BCS Armageddon

[Arles]

I was talking with a buddy and we went through a few scenarios. I know it's a stretch, but think if this happens:

Big 12:
Texas wins out (blow out people by 30 each game)
Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma
Oklahoma loses to Missouri in the Big12 title game

Pac10:
USC loses to UCLA in an improbable rival loss
Oregon State wins out

Big10:
Penn State loses to Michigan State in a close game
Ohio State beats Michigan

SEC:
Florida loses to Florida State
Alabama loses to Auburn
Florida beats Alabama in the SEC title game

Big East:
Cincy wins the title

ACC:
Maryland wins the title

Both Utah and Boise State win by 30 in remaining games.

Potential end result:
Texas vs. Utah in the title game (1v2 in BCS)

Other BCS
Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Florida vs. Missouri
Cincy vs. Maryland
Alabama vs. Boise State

Texas Tech, who beat Texas and has only 1 loss, finishes 3rd in the BCS and doesn't go to a BCS game.

[DeToxRox]

Don't forget Ball State who's right around #12.

The problem is the BCS only has to take the top non BCS conference team and not obligated to any others.

[rowech]

If they're 100% never going to any kind of playoff system, it's time to scrap this crap and just go back to the way it used to be with the automatic bowl tie-ins and just keep voting like they always used to.

[kcchief19]

At first I was going to say it wasn't possible because to automatically qualify but forgot that No. 3 in the BCS doesn't qualify automatically if their conference goes to the title game and you can't get three schools from one conference in the BCS.

There are some glitches in the scenario -- I'm not convinced Oklahoma goes to the Big 12 title game with a win over Tech. That would create a three-way in the Big 12, and believe it or not under that scenario the last tie-breaker is BCS standings. OU would have to jump past Texas in the BCS to go to the Big 12 title game.

BCS chaos is guaranteed -- happens every year. The chances of Alabama and Tech winning out seem remote to me. Alabama has to get past Florida and Tech needs to get by both OU and MU. I'm rooting for Tech to win out because MU matches up well with Tech.

If Tech loses to MU and Alabama loses to Florida, Texas still ends up in the title game against Florida.

Personally, I'm rooting for this scenario:
Alabama loses to Auburn
Alabama beats Florida
OU beats Tech
MU beats Texas (HA!)
BYU beats Utah
Ball State wins out

National title game: USC vs. Penn State

Why? Two things -- having the Pac 10 and Big 11 back their way into the national title game might finally convince the other BCS conferences to go out and buy some stones and tell the Pac 10 and Big 11 to add conference title games or we're going to go create our own playoff and you can go screw yourselves. Plus, if Ball State goes undefeated and ends up in the GMAC or Motor City Bowl, Letterman will go off on the BCS until it is destroyed. :)

[DeToxRox]

The problem is an 8 team playoff settles nothing, and that is the only fathomable playoff scenario.

16 teams will never be an option.

[Atocep]

The BCS isn't going anywhere. It has absolutely nothing to do with who gets into the title game and how. Its about the BCS conferences controlling postseason money.

[SackAttack]

I was talking with a buddy and we went through a few scenarios. I know it's a stretch, but think if this happens:

Big 12:
Texas wins out (blow out people by 30 each game)
Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma
Oklahoma loses to Missouri in the Big12 title game

Pac10:
USC loses to UCLA in an improbable rival loss
Oregon State wins out

Big10:
Penn State loses to Michigan State in a close game
Ohio State beats Michigan

SEC:
Florida loses to Florida State
Alabama loses to Auburn
Florida beats Alabama in the SEC title game

Big East:
Cincy wins the title

ACC:
Maryland wins the title

Both Utah and Boise State win by 30 in remaining games.

Potential end result:
Texas vs. Utah in the title game (1v2 in BCS)

Other BCS
Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Florida vs. Missouri
Cincy vs. Maryland
Alabama vs. Boise State

Texas Tech, who beat Texas and has only 1 loss, finishes 3rd in the BCS and doesn't go to a BCS game.

Honestly, I don't see Texas Tech losing that late in the season and still remaining as high as 3rd in the BCS.

[Arles]

Honestly, I don't see Texas Tech losing that late in the season and still remaining as high as 3rd in the BCS.
Well, when Florida, Alabama, USC, Penn State and Oklahoma also lose, you're running out of teams to move up. I already put Utah and Texas ahead of them. If you don't want Tech 3rd in that scenario, you'd have to put a 2-loss Ohio State ahead of them. Everyone else would have lost late as well.

[st.cronin]

I actually like the BCS. I do think they should junk the half computer ratings/half poll clusterfudge and do it either via committee like the basketball tournament or strictly via computer ratings like the hockey tournament.

[kcchief19]

Don't forget Ball State who's right around #12.

The problem is the BCS only has to take the top non BCS conference team and not obligated to any others.
Precisely.

Some of those bowl matchups wouldn't work. Under Arles' scenario, Missouri goes to the Fiesta, Ohio State and Oregon State go to Rose, Florida goes to Sugar, Maryland goes to Orange. The only automatic not tied to a bowl would be Cincy.

Likely eligible at-large: Alabama, USC, Penn State, Boise State, Ball State, Georgia, BYU

NCG: Texas vs. Utah
Rose: Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Fiesta: Missouri vs. USC (first pick)
Sugar: Florida vs. Penn State (second pick)
Orange: Maryland vs. Cincinnati (third pick)

No way Fiesta touches a non-BCS school with USC eligible. After the Hawaii debacle, no way Sugar does either.

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.

The BCS would also be improved by upping the win requirement from 9 to 10. If your conference champion has three loses, enjoy the Gator or Liberty Bowl -- it's where you belong. You don't need to be cluttering up a perfectly good bowl game.

It also may be time to do away with the two-school limit on the BCS. In a year where the cream is in the Big 12 and SEC, if those conferences earn multiple bids, they should get them.

There is nothing about the BCS that makes any sense and is good for college football.

[RedKingGold]

The BCS isn't going anywhere. It has absolutely nothing to do with who gets into the title game and how. Its about the BCS conferences controlling postseason money.

Yup. If you really want to root for BCS destruction, root for bowl matchups which are incredibly uninteresting to watch.

Less people watching = less money = more impetus for some kind of playoff.

[QuikSand]

I think it's amazing how many people get all worked up over the entirety of the BCS. Really, if what we care about is a national championship, we now have it arranged that the top two teams (by a pre-arranged structure) meet in a one-game playoff to determine that winner. I know a lot of people don't like exactly how it works, but that is what we have.

I love how all the vegetables get thrown at the process used to determine which teams get to play in the #3 and #4 non-title-implication bowl games versus the #5 and #6 non-title-implication bowl games. I understand there's cash money at stake, but from a "purity of the game" perspective, who really gives a shit whether a late-losing Texas Tech plays in the Orange Bowl or the Cotton Bowl? They're out of the title game, that's really all that matters, isn't it?

[Vegas Vic]

Let the bookies decide. :lol:

Las Vegas Sports Consultants delivers the opening lines to the onshore and offshore sports books. They think that Florida and Oklahoma are the two best teams right now.

[Logan]

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.

West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28.

Louisville 24, Wake Forest 13.

West Virginia 38, Georgia 35.

The last three BCS games played by the Big East, and they beat three different supposed power conferences. You don't think actually winning the fucking game that's being played should be part of the requirements for deserving to be in it?

[astrosfan64]

Precisely.

Some of those bowl matchups wouldn't work. Under Arles' scenario, Missouri goes to the Fiesta, Ohio State and Oregon State go to Rose, Florida goes to Sugar, Maryland goes to Orange. The only automatic not tied to a bowl would be Cincy.

Likely eligible at-large: Alabama, USC, Penn State, Boise State, Ball State, Georgia, BYU

NCG: Texas vs. Utah
Rose: Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Fiesta: Missouri vs. USC (first pick)
Sugar: Florida vs. Penn State (second pick)
Orange: Maryland vs. Cincinnati (third pick)

No way Fiesta touches a non-BCS school with USC eligible. After the Hawaii debacle, no way Sugar does either.

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.

The BCS would also be improved by upping the win requirement from 9 to 10. If your conference champion has three loses, enjoy the Gator or Liberty Bowl -- it's where you belong. You don't need to be cluttering up a perfectly good bowl game.

It also may be time to do away with the two-school limit on the BCS. In a year where the cream is in the Big 12 and SEC, if those conferences earn multiple bids, they should get them.

There is nothing about the BCS that makes any sense and is good for college football.


Please learn about college football before you talk. The Big East has smacked down the ACC, Big12 and the SEC. What else can they do?

[Atocep]

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.


Are you kidding me?

[SFL Cat]

The problem is an 8 team playoff settles nothing, and that is the only fathomable playoff scenario.

16 teams will never be an option.

It settles things a lot more than the current system.

[GrantDawg]

Actually, there is a much better argument that the ACC doesn't deserve a BCS automatic bid more than the Big East doesn't.

[DeToxRox]

It settles things a lot more than the current system.

How though? An 8 team playoff fucks non BCS teams. You'll have six division champs from the BCS conferences, and two at larges. A non mid major would NEVER get in because there are always two teams in the top 8 that won't win the conference.

[Atocep]

It settles things a lot more than the current system.

This gets argued here every season, but this is nothing more than perception.

[GrantDawg]

BTW, they are expanding the the Division 1 playoffs again. Because, you know, there is no way college football teams could play in a playoff system unless they are schools with smaller squads and less money. :)

[Buccaneer]

This gets argued here every season, but this is nothing more than perception.

That is true and like politics, people are stubborn. I would say that it is more than perception, more like a fantasy.

[rowech]

The only true playoff that would be worth anything is to take all conference champions and put them in a playoff...that's it. Everyone else can go to a bowl if they want. No at-large berths because a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion.

[Buccaneer]

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs

[miami_fan]

The quickest way to a playoffs would be for the BCS conferences to turn on each other by taking away automatic bids or forcing conferences to either all have conference championship games or to get rid of them all.

[GrantDawg]

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs


Playoffs> BCS > Traditional Bowl System

[digamma]

Texas Tech, who beat Texas and has only 1 loss, finishes 3rd in the BCS and doesn't go to a BCS game.

Alternatively, Texas Tech stays in front of Utah. You have a Texas Tech vs. Texas rematch for the national title and Missouri, as a conference champion, is left out of the BCS by rule.

[Crim]

West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28.

Louisville 24, Wake Forest 13.

West Virginia 38, Georgia 35.

The last three BCS games played by the Big East, and they beat three different supposed power conferences. You don't think actually winning the fucking game that's being played should be part of the requirements for deserving to be in it?

LOL I was thinking this as I was reading his post, I see you got to it first.

[Crim]

The only true playoff that would be worth anything is to take all conference champions and put them in a playoff...that's it. Everyone else can go to a bowl if they want. No at-large berths because a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion.

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.

[Crim]

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs

Damn you're old, aren't you?

[GrantDawg]

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.


Maybe because it is not true of any other sport?

[albionmoonlight]

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs

I (almost) agree. Every team's goal at the beginning of the season should be to win your conference and win your bowl game. Let the writers and fans debate over who the champ should be.

I don't however, like the BCS better than a playoff because it gives an air of legitimacy to what is still a very flawed process.

A playoff will lessen the import of regular season game and not be worth it. People disagree with me here.

In the end, the problem is that unless you drastically limit the number of teams in D1-A or increase the number of games, you don't have a large enough sample size to cleanly determine a champion each season.

A playoff would not solve this problem. It would simply paper over it at the expense of the regular season.

[Atocep]

In the end, the problem is that unless you drastically limit the number of teams in D1-A or increase the number of games, you don't have a large enough sample size to cleanly determine a champion each season.

A playoff would not solve this problem. It would simply paper over it at the expense of the regular season.

Congrats on being one of the few people that actually get it.

[Buccaneer]

Sheesh, we go through this every year, and I always appreciate albion's input. The reason I put BCS ahead of the playoffs is simply BCS's goal of matching the top 2 (or thereabouts) teams - ignoring the rest of the "BCS" bowls which are nonsense. There are simply too many teams and too many apples and oranges comparison that it comes down to subjectiveness (whether choosing the BCS teams, the playoffs seeding or the final polls). Might as well just give the schools a post-season reward (assuming you can cut the number of bowls in half) for a job well done and let the pollsters (whomever you think would be the best judge) sort it out - if you really think that's important enough.

[Chubby]

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

[Buccaneer]

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

There is a very systemmatic way of determining seeding in the NFL. You can't even come close to duplicating that in college football.

[Chubby]

There is a very systemmatic way of determining seeding in the NFL. You can't even come close to duplicating that in college football.

Does the 1-AA playoffs dimisnh the regular season?

Clearly 1-A football has it right while every other sport known to man has it wrong ;)

[QuikSand]

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

I think the complete answer is yes they do, but more than any other sport they provide material incentives to perform well in the regular season to be rewarded in the postseason. It still kinda sucks when a 9-7 division winner gets to host a 12-4 wild card team (and when that 9-7 team wins in overtime and advances while the other team goes home) but the NFL gets as close to anyone out there (with the home field advantage and bye system) in making the regular season really count.

[QuikSand]

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.

Just checking, but you must absolutely hate the college basketball tournament, right?

[digamma]

what albion said.

[Arles]

I love how all the vegetables get thrown at the process used to determine which teams get to play in the #3 and #4 non-title-implication bowl games versus the #5 and #6 non-title-implication bowl games. I understand there's cash money at stake, but from a "purity of the game" perspective, who really gives a shit whether a late-losing Texas Tech plays in the Orange Bowl or the Cotton Bowl?
Because I would like to watch the BCS games. Getting a Ohio State-Maryland matchup with teams like Texas Tech, USC and/or Penn State left out would be a bore to me. I don't expect fantastic matchups for ever bowls, but I would like compelling games. Since we don't care about actually determining a winner in the manner nearly every other major sport does, atleast the games can be somewhat compelling.

I'm an Illinois fan, but the fact I had to watch the shell of a team they had last season get lambasted in a BCS game was a joke. If Ohio State is allowed in instead of a team like Texas Tech or Texas, it will be another similar travesty. Fortunately, I think we will luck out and all will be OK this season. Still, it's interesting to speculate on situations that could have both a questionable championship game and uninteresting BCS bowl matchups. Which, until there is some kind of playoff situation, is all we really have to look forward to.

[QuikSand]

Is it your view that the BCS process systematically creates less interesting games than we would have under the traditional bowl process? Just curious -- I don't think I have ever heard someone really stand by that claim.

[Atocep]

Does the 1-AA playoffs dimisnh the regular season?

Clearly 1-A football has it right while every other sport known to man has it wrong ;)

Considering the number of teams and the limited schedule, Division 1-A does as good a job as is realistically possible in crowning a champion. A playoff in Div 1-A would be a step back in crowning the best team champion.

The BCS isn't a perfect system, but it does a solid job of eliminating mediocrity. People generally want to see a playoff so they can see that 1 game in 10 that a Ball St could knock off a Texas or Oklahoma because it gives them a nice warm, fuzzy feeling that makes them feel better about themselves.

I know I'm in the minority, but I want to see the best teams playing. The George Masons, ect can stay at home.

[Radii]

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

Imagine the difference in level of excitement with the craziness going on between Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech this year if you knew all three of them were going to the playoffs anyway and they were just playing for bragging rights/seeding. A playoff system is either going to only allow conference champions and screw over the crying mid-majors even more(and teams like Texas/Texas Tech/Alabama while Maryland and Cincinnati get their shot), or its going to let lots of teams in and *completely* diminish the regular season.

I wouldn't mind a playoff system at all personally, but this is a ridiculous point IMO.

[Chubby]

Imagine the difference in level of excitement with the craziness going on between Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech this year if you knew all three of them were going to the playoffs anyway and they were just playing for bragging rights/seeding. A playoff system is either going to only allow conference champions and screw over the crying mid-majors even more(and teams like Texas/Texas Tech/Alabama while Maryland and Cincinnati get their shot), or its going to let lots of teams in and *completely* diminish the regular season.

I wouldn't mind a playoff system at all personally, but this is a ridiculous point IMO.

That's exactly what they ARE doing. Instead of being in the top 8 with a shot at the title they have to be top 2.

There's a good amount of volatility in the BCS rankings that they could use the top 8 in BCS rankings to seed the playoffs if they ever had them. Regular season not important? Try telling that to a top team that loses down the stretch and seems them drop out of the top 8...

[DeToxRox]

You cannot compare the NFL playoffs to having a college playoff.

32 teams playing 16 games generally gives you your 12 best teams for the playoffs.

119 teams playing 12 games settles nothing that should go in determining the top 8 teams who compete in a playoff.

[Radii]

That's exactly what they ARE doing. Instead of being in the top 8 with a shot at the title they have to be top 2.

Are you seriously trying to argue that playing for the top 8 vs playing for the top 2 are the same thing and does not diminish the games played between those teams at all?

[Crim]

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.

Maybe because it is not true of any other sport?

Your assertion does not hold water, GD. Take the NFL for example. By winning your division, you assure yourself an advantage in the postseason, i.e. home field, lesser competition in the early round(s), etc.

When a college team loses its conference championship game, and is still rewarded with a trip to the BCSNCG, that trumps all advantages that should accompany the winning of its conference.

The Giants did not win their division last year, and won the Super Bowl. But they had one hell of an uphill climb to get there in the post season.

When Oklahoma lost to Colorado in the B12 Championship and was still awarded a place in the National Championship Game, it was a travesty, in my opinion. Thank goodness they got rolled up in that game, because it is my contention that they did not deserve to be there.

My opinion changes entirely when there is a playoff involved, though GrantDawg. At that point the teams settle on the field the right to advance, so a couple of at-large teams being included does not bother me. Currently though, the only thing settled on the field in the above Oklahoma scenario (assume they won the NC) is that they were unable to win their conference and were immediately given a free pass to the championship game.

[Crim]

Just checking, but you must absolutely hate the college basketball tournament, right?

No. Losing the conference championship game, and immediately punching a ticket to the NCG is not analogous to March Madness.

Win Or Go Home >>>>> Lose And Still Advance.

[Arles]

Is it your view that the BCS process systematically creates less interesting games than we would have under the traditional bowl process? Just curious -- I don't think I have ever heard someone really stand by that claim.
No, my point is that the BCS has done nothing to improve the quality of the major bowl games. Which, if you aren't sold on the national championship matchup, makes the BCS fairly useless.

[Crim]

You cannot compare the NFL playoffs to having a college playoff.

32 teams playing 16 games generally gives you your 12 best teams for the playoffs.

119 teams playing 12 games settles nothing that should go in determining the top 8 teams who compete in a playoff.

I cannot agree with this, at all.

After 12 games, plus conference championships, you don't feel able to pick out eight deserving teams? (I know, there's going to be argument, but it's a lot easier to explain why one two-loss ninth-seed team didn't get in, as opposed to why one of four one-loss team got picked to get in.)

[molson]

The only true playoff that would be worth anything is to take all conference champions and put them in a playoff...that's it. Everyone else can go to a bowl if they want. No at-large berths because a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion.

I really don't think a tournament that includes Troy or Louisiana-Lafayette and not the 2nd place team from the SEC is an improvement over the current system.

Though if that ever did happen, I wonder if the Sun Belt conference would get flooded by requests to join from weaker BCS schools.

[Arles]

I really don't think a tournament that includes Troy or Louisiana-Lafayette and not the 2nd place team from the SEC is an improvement over the current system.

Though if that ever did happen, I wonder if the Sun Belt conference would get flooded by requests to join from weaker BCS schools.
Agreed. Just go with the top 7-8 teams (plus maybe an allowance for a top 12 non-BCS to avoid the anti-trust argument made against the BCS). If you're just going with 8 teams, there's no reason to honor all conference champions. If you won your conference and weren't in the top 6-7, then your conference probably wasn't very strong.

There could very well be seasons where a Mountain West, WAC or even MAC team is better than a BCS conference champ (ie, ACC this year). Why force a playoff to choose Maryland over Utah if the goal is to get as close as possible to the top 8 teams?

This system (even with an 8-team playoff) is never going to be "fair", so why try and make it appear so. If you're only going top 8, the goal should be to get the top 8 teams, why make rules to potentially prevent that (outside of maybe one non-BCS allowance)?

[molson]

I think we're moving closer to a playoff. The separate national championship game, outside of the bowls, was the first step. Eventually we'll see a +1 or +2 after the BCS bowls. 4 BCS Bowl winners go to a "final four" two week tournament. The BCS Conferences are protected (the other conferences will be screwed at first, otherwise this will never happen), and the interest in the BCS Bowls isn't hurt too much (and may even be enhanced).

[BishopMVP]

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.Assuming Oklahoma beats Texas Tech and Missouri beats the B12 South champion, I don't see how anyone can argue one of the two 1-loss B12 South teams isn't one of the two most deserving teams in the country (especially since USC probably won't win its conference either.)

It's probably all moot anyway - we have this same articles/arguments every year about the new "nightmare scenario" and it rarely happens. Except in 2004, when an SEC team went undefeated and didn't play for/win the national title. If that didn't overturn the BCS, nothing will until the end of the contract.

[Big Fo]

I really don't think a tournament that includes Troy or Louisiana-Lafayette and not the 2nd place team from the SEC is an improvement over the current system.

11 conference champions + 5 wild card teams determined by a BSC-like ranking system in a standard 16-team playoff would be cool.

[Vegas Vic]

I understand there's cash money at stake, but from a "purity of the game" perspective, who really gives a shit whether a late-losing Texas Tech plays in the Orange Bowl or the Cotton Bowl? They're out of the title game, that's really all that matters, isn't it?

From a fan's perspective it matters, whether they're attending the game in person or watching it on TV.

There's a big difference in freezing your ass off in January in an antiquated facility in Dallas as opposed to enjoying the balmy weather in a state of the art stadium in Miami. Also, the bigger BCS bowls tend to have a lot more ancillary activities and attractions for the fan bases that you don't see at the smaller bowls.

If you're watching the games on TV, there's a big difference in having to wake up with a hangover at 8:00 A.M. PST on New Year's Day to watch the Cotton Bowl, as opposed to watching the Orange Bowl in prime time, with no other games being played at that time.

[Vegas Vic]

Assuming Oklahoma beats Texas Tech and Missouri beats the B12 South champion, I don't see how anyone can argue one of the two 1-loss B12 South teams isn't one of the two most deserving teams in the country (especially since USC probably won't win its conference either.)


I think the situation in the Big XII South is a bit unique this year in the old argument of "if you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to play in the national championship." This time, if there are three teams with 7-1 records, the tie-breaker that will decide who gets to play in the Big XII Championship is the BCS ranking. This is not the same as the past examples where there was no tie-breaker involved. In 2001, Nebraska didn't win the Big XII North, and in 2003, Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Big XII Championship.

[kcchief19]

West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28.

Louisville 24, Wake Forest 13.

West Virginia 38, Georgia 35.

The last three BCS games played by the Big East, and they beat three different supposed power conferences. You don't think actually winning the fucking game that's being played should be part of the requirements for deserving to be in it?
You've completely missed the point and your logic doesn't help your argument.

What makes the Big East more worthy of a BCS bid that a non-BCS conference? West Virginia was No. 9 in the final BCS last year; Hawaii was No. 10. Louisville was No. 6 in In 2006, Boise State was No. 8. West Virgina was No. 11 in 2005. Had the Big East not received an automatid bid, West Virgnia would have been eligible but not received a bid.

They won some games. Good for them. Boise State beat Oklahoma too. If Boise State makes a BCS bowl this year and wins, should the WAC be a BCS conference? Their pedigree over the last three season would be comparable to the Big East.

Please learn about college football before you talk. The Big East has smacked down the ACC, Big12 and the SEC. What else can they do?
Win more than three games in three years. Where exactly is the smack? Cincinnati, the top ranked team this year, got blown out by Oklahoma by 26. The conference BCS wins this season are against Kansas, Auburn, Iowa and Kansas State, a group where the best record will be 7-5. Louisville lost to Kentucky 27-2.

You tell me why the Big East is the only BCS conference without an automatic tie-in to one of the bowls? The Fiesta wants the Big 12 winner every year. The Sugar wants the SEC winner ever year. The Orange wants the ACC -- and yes, there are years like this year where the ACC doesn't deserve an automatic bid either. The Rose Bowl doesn't want to live if it can't get the Big 10 and Pac 10 winners. Why doesn't a bowl want the Big East winner?

[kcchief19]

I understand there's cash money at stake, but from a "purity of the game" perspective, who really gives a shit whether a late-losing Texas Tech plays in the Orange Bowl or the Cotton Bowl? They're out of the title game, that's really all that matters, isn't it?
Vic pretty much summed it up for me from a fan perspective. I want to see interesting games. For me, I would prefer to see the best teams battle to see who is the best -- let's put #3 vs #4 rather than #3 vs #8 just because 4 is Texas Tech and 8 is Ohio State and OSU is the "name."

I'd also rather see an undefeated Utah, Boise State or Ball State get their chance than a two or three loss BCS team. Regardless of the competition, going undefeated is an accomplishment and often we don't know how good these teams are until they are tested. OU/Boise State was one of the greatest games I've ever seen.

If it were 1995, we wouldn't have gotten that matchup. The BCS has begrudgingly given fans some of what they wanted because of the whining and complaining. When the BCS was created, it would have almost taken an act of god to get a Boise State into a BCS bowl. Today, these teams have a legitimate shot if they take care of business. As a fan, I like to see those teams get their shot.

I just don't care to see run of the mill BCS teams cash a check and occupy prime time.

[Logan]

Why doesn't a bowl want the Big East winner?

Simple answer? Because when the last round of negotiations took place, the ACC had just completed its raid of the conference and nobody wanted anything to do with us. Everyone thought we would self destruct, the new schools wouldn't add any value, etc. That's why the so-called "Big East rule" was put in place that could allow for the conference to lose its auto bid. But they were proved wrong. The bowl re-negotiations take place soon, and we'll get an affiliation. Especially once the stage is set for the football-playing schools to break away from the basketball-only schools in 2010. Our bowl teams have traveled very well, and will continue to do so. There's about 4 programs in the country that a bowl committee would rather have than West Virginia.

And for the record, the reason I brought up how the Big East has won it's last three BCS games is because of your pathetic shot at the conference..."Big (L)East." I mean really, did you chuckle when you typed that? Pretty creative, you should be proud.

[BishopMVP]

I think the situation in the Big XII South is a bit unique this year in the old argument of "if you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to play in the national championship." This time, if there are three teams with 7-1 records, the tie-breaker that will decide who gets to play in the Big XII Championship is the BCS ranking. This is not the same as the past examples where there was no tie-breaker involved. In 2001, Nebraska didn't win the Big XII North, and in 2003, Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Big XII Championship.Yes, but it's not exactly a unique situation/possibility. An undefeated team could come out of the Big10 and "lose" the conference championship to a 4 loss team. Even if we take out the arcane tiebreaker possibilities and have a situation where Team A (USC) loses the conference to Team B (Oregon St) because they lost to them head to head, Team A (USC) is still the "better", "more deserving" team.

Winning your conference is an impressive achievement that should be celebrated, but if we're talking about the national title, then no, it shouldn't be a requirement and people only rail about it because the two teams in question got smoked (I'm also pretty sure I thought neither should have been the 2nd team in, but for different reasons).

[Swaggs]

You've completely missed the point and your logic doesn't help your argument.

What makes the Big East more worthy of a BCS bid that a non-BCS conference? West Virginia was No. 9 in the final BCS last year; Hawaii was No. 10. Louisville was No. 6 in In 2006, Boise State was No. 8. West Virgina was No. 11 in 2005. Had the Big East not received an automatid bid, West Virgnia would have been eligible but not received a bid.

They won some games. Good for them. Boise State beat Oklahoma too. If Boise State makes a BCS bowl this year and wins, should the WAC be a BCS conference? Their pedigree over the last three season would be comparable to the Big East.


Win more than three games in three years. Where exactly is the smack? Cincinnati, the top ranked team this year, got blown out by Oklahoma by 26. The conference BCS wins this season are against Kansas, Auburn, Iowa and Kansas State, a group where the best record will be 7-5. Louisville lost to Kentucky 27-2.

You tell me why the Big East is the only BCS conference without an automatic tie-in to one of the bowls? The Fiesta wants the Big 12 winner every year. The Sugar wants the SEC winner ever year. The Orange wants the ACC -- and yes, there are years like this year where the ACC doesn't deserve an automatic bid either. The Rose Bowl doesn't want to live if it can't get the Big 10 and Pac 10 winners. Why doesn't a bowl want the Big East winner?

The Big Least (very original Matt) is one of three "BCS" conferences that has winning record in BCS games. They have also had at least one current team (and as many as three) finish in the top 10 in each of the last four seasons (something that not all "BCS" conference teams can claim). The conference is not among the top 3, but it can lay claim (both by computer and on-field success) to being solidly in the group of the bottom 2-3 BCS conferences and ahead of the WAC and MWC. The conference has proven that it deserves a seat at the table.

[sooner333]

2001 Nebraska was a fluke occurence that was able to happen only because Oklahoma lost the next day, Texas lost the next week, and Tennessee lost the week after. Colorado was ranked too low at the beginning and the fact that beating Nebraska and Texas back-to-back wasn't enough shows where they were that season. Nebraska got crushed, but it's hard to say that anyone else wouldn't have against that Miami team.

2003 Oklahoma getting in was the benefit of computers and strength of schedule. Their beating conventional poll logic was what spurred the new formula in the first place. But, the outcome against LSU wasn't the issue, but the fact that it wasn't against USC, the percieved best team was. OU could have crushed LSU, and people still would have been upset.

[sooner333]

The Big Least (very original Matt) is one of three "BCS" conferences that has winning record in BCS games. They have also had at least one current team (and as many as three) finish in the top 10 in each of the last four seasons (something that not all "BCS" conference teams can claim). The conference is not among the top 3, but it can lay claim (both by computer and on-field success) to being solidly in the group of the bottom 2-3 BCS conferences and ahead of the WAC and MWC. The conference has proven that it deserves a seat at the table.

I don't think very many people want to take out the Big East and put in another team. The just want the Big East out and give them an opportunity to get an at-large bid...or at least qualify the automatic with a certain ranking (probably should be done for all leagues). If they were outside the BCS, they wouldn't have a team in there this year because they are behind the MWC (three teams ahead), WAC, and MAC for a spot at the table.

[Swaggs]

I don't think very many people want to take out the Big East and put in another team. The just want the Big East out and give them an opportunity to get an at-large bid...or at least qualify the automatic with a certain ranking (probably should be done for all leagues). If they were outside the BCS, they wouldn't have a team in there this year because they are behind the MWC (three teams ahead), WAC, and MAC for a spot at the table.

Why the Big East and not the ACC though? The BE has two higher ranked teams than the ACC right now (if that is what we are going on). The ACC has only won ONE BCS bowl game in the history of the BCS (and that was in the '00 Sugar Bowl), while the BE has won its last 3 and has won 6 of 10 overall. And, the ACC has sent as many undeserving teams (VT has been the only ACC team in the past five, counting this year, years to finish in the top 10 and they were the BCS rep just twice).

The ACC still belongs due to the strength of its programs and market influence and so does the Big East.

[astrosfan64]

I don't think very many people want to take out the Big East and put in another team. The just want the Big East out and give them an opportunity to get an at-large bid...or at least qualify the automatic with a certain ranking (probably should be done for all leagues). If they were outside the BCS, they wouldn't have a team in there this year because they are behind the MWC (three teams ahead), WAC, and MAC for a spot at the table.

This is a silly argument. 2 bowl seasons ago, the Big East went 5 and 0 in their Bowl Games.

Every conference has a down year. You could say the SEC isn't that great this year and is overrated. In fact I am saying that.

They have 2 good teams.

Alabama hasn't played anyone outside of the SEC.

LSU is garbage.
Tennesee Garbage.
Georgia - so so
Auburn - garbage
vandy - garbage
Ole Miss - so so
Arkansas - garbage
Kentucky - garbage
Florida - fantastic but still lost a game
Alabama - good but haven't beaten anyone noteworthy
Miss St. - garbage

This is a down year for the Big East - but all I can say is this.

The last three years their best team, beat the best team from the conference it played.

Georgia went down - mighty SEC got spanked.
ACC - went down
Big12 - essentially the same Oklahoma team as this year, got spanked.

Oh btw - the mighty Florida team last year lost to Michigan in their bowl game...

[Butter]

Why are we ripping on Ohio State so much in this thread? They won like 4 straight BCS games before losing the last 2 national title games. It's not like they're Wake Forest or Kansas or some flash in the pan that can only win a game against a top team under the right circumstances.

I would rather see a playoff, but if we're going to have a BCS system, you can hardly complain about the BCS taking an available Ohio State team, considering the amount of cash their fans are likely to bring to your bowl game. Texas Tech or Ball State just isn't going to do that.

[Dr. Sak]

Why are we ripping on Ohio State so much in this thread? They won like 4 straight BCS games before losing the last 2 national title games. It's not like they're Wake Forest or Kansas or some flash in the pan that can only win a game against a top team under the right circumstances.

It's cool to rip on the Big Ten...then turn a blind eye to the SEC who is an average conference this year. But since the Media tells us that the SEC is great and the Big Ten is down (again) it must be truth. Even though the Big Ten is 9-8 against the SEC in the past few years.

I'm sorry but besides Florida, and maybe Alabama, the SEC is not that good when compared to recent years. Even Florida, who has looked impressive, did not have an easy time with Miami. The score does not show how close that game was, plus many here are dismissing the ACC as garbage so I thought I'd throw that one in there.

Georgia has been a big bust this year. They have so much talent but cannot bring it together on the field. They got creamed by Florida (some say the refs were the cause of that) and Alabama (don't let the score fool you), barely beat South Carolina, Auburn, Kentucky, and look less than stellar against a Arizona State team that couldn't block their way out of a wet paper bag.

LSU doesn't have a quarterback to save their lives. I've seen more offensive power from a High School team than at South Carolina and Auburn. Heck you can even throw Mississippi State in there too. The SEC can continue to beat their chest saying how tough it is to play in there because they don't play any out of conference games. Florida has a tough one against The Citidal this week. Alabama played Clemson, who we now know is average at best...same with Georgia's win over Arizona State, not looking good right now.

Really, besides those two OOC wins...maybe their other marquee win was Kentucky over Louisville, Florida over Miami? That could all change in a few weeks when Florida and Florida State play. It's time people start holding the SEC to the same standards as the rest of the Nation. They've had good years the past two years...so great...but this year is different and it's about time fans start admitting it.

[astrosfan64]

It's cool to rip on the Big Ten...then turn a blind eye to the SEC who is an average conference this year. But since the Media tells us that the SEC is great and the Big Ten is down (again) it must be truth. Even though the Big Ten is 9-8 against the SEC in the past few years.

I'm sorry but besides Florida, and maybe Alabama, the SEC is not that good when compared to recent years. Even Florida, who has looked impressive, did not have an easy time with Miami. The score does not show how close that game was, plus many here are dismissing the ACC as garbage so I thought I'd throw that one in there.

Georgia has been a big bust this year. They have so much talent but cannot bring it together on the field. They got creamed by Florida (some say the refs were the cause of that) and Alabama (don't let the score fool you), barely beat South Carolina, Auburn, Kentucky, and look less than stellar against a Arizona State team that couldn't block their way out of a wet paper bag.

LSU doesn't have a quarterback to save their lives. I've seen more offensive power from a High School team than at South Carolina and Auburn. Heck you can even throw Mississippi State in there too. The SEC can continue to beat their chest saying how tough it is to play in there because they don't play any out of conference games. Florida has a tough one against The Citidal this week. Alabama played Clemson, who we now know is average at best...same with Georgia's win over Arizona State, not looking good right now.

Really, besides those two OOC wins...maybe their other marquee win was Kentucky over Louisville, Florida over Miami? That could all change in a few weeks when Florida and Florida State play. It's time people start holding the SEC to the same standards as the rest of the Nation. They've had good years the past two years...so great...but this year is different and it's about time fans start admitting it.

Can I a get an AMEN!

AMEN!!!!

For what it is worth. Oregan State has a good shot of winning the PAC10. Penn State absolutely trounced them.

Penn State should be over USC right now.

[astrosfan64]

Win more than three games in three years. Where exactly is the smack? Cincinnati, the top ranked team this year, got blown out by Oklahoma by 26. The conference BCS wins this season are against Kansas, Auburn, Iowa and Kansas State, a group where the best record will be 7-5. Louisville lost to Kentucky 27-2.



Two Bowl seasons ago, the BIG EAST went 5 and 0 in their Bowl Games and "won" the Bowl Challenge conference trophy thing ESPN is always talking about.

[Crim]

I think the situation in the Big XII South is a bit unique this year in the old argument of "if you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to play in the national championship." This time, if there are three teams with 7-1 records, the tie-breaker that will decide who gets to play in the Big XII Championship is the BCS ranking. This is not the same as the past examples where there was no tie-breaker involved. In 2001, Nebraska didn't win the Big XII North, and in 2003, Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Big XII Championship.

This is a valid point, I'll admit.

[sooner333]

A) I agree the SEC is down. They are still probably the second best conference, but they aren't as good top to bottom and I still don't think Alabama has beaten anyone that is truly a good football team (although I guess you could say the same thing about Oklahoma to this point).

B) I'm not saying the Big East has always been bad or didn't win a lot of bowl games in the past few years. They have kind of a weaker set of bowl games, but that's beside the point. The point is that this season they don't have highly ranked teams--next year it could be the ACC, Pac 10, Big 12, etc. Why don't we have a rule that says, if no team is in the top 14, then they don't get an automatic bid? Does Cincinatti (or Pitt or West Virginia) deserve a BCS bid so they can have a boring matchup with an ACC team that also doesn't deserve a BCS bid? Can't this simply be played in the Gator Bowl while we can use the BCS flexibility to create a much better match-up with better teams?

[Atocep]

Why don't we have a rule that says, if no team is in the top 14, then they don't get an automatic bid? Does Cincinatti (or Pitt or West Virginia) deserve a BCS bid so they can have a boring matchup with an ACC team that also doesn't deserve a BCS bid? Can't this simply be played in the Gator Bowl while we can use the BCS flexibility to create a much better match-up with better teams?

Because the BCS is about money and its going to hard to get these conferences to sign off on something that potentially leaves them out of the BCS money any given season.

[Arles]

Can I a get an AMEN!

AMEN!!!!

For what it is worth. Oregan State has a good shot of winning the PAC10. Penn State absolutely trounced them.

Penn State should be over USC right now.
You can play that game with Ohio State. USC destroyed Ohio State and Penn State barely squeaked by. The good thing is both should make it if they win out.

What bother me about the Big Ten is they are the only conference who doesn't play all their opponents or have a conference championship game. So, you can have a team like Wisconsin a few years back who goes undefeated without ever playing the other top conference team. It bothers me that instead of getting even closer (playing 9 conf games like the Pac 10), they stay with this 8 conference + 4 nonconf schedule that gets nearly every Big 10 team bowl eligible because of their extremely weak non conference SOS.

[digamma]

Not really. You could play it if USC had beaten Iowa.

I don't really buy astrosfan's argument, but it carries more weight than yours, simply because it's purely the transitive property, while yours relies on score comparisons.

[Arles]

Not really. You could play it if USC had beaten Iowa.

I don't really buy astrosfan's argument, but it carries more weight than yours, simply because it's purely the transitive property, while yours relies on score comparisons.
My point was they both were silly. The transitive property doesn't mean a ton in college football. With Road/home (USC was @OSU, Penn played them at home) and injuries/time of season, it doesn't mean a whole lot. But, I guess if we are going to buy this logic then we can all agree that Wake Forest is better than Florida since they beat Ole Miss.

[Dr. Sak]

My point was they both were silly. The transitive property doesn't mean a ton in college football. With Road/home (USC was @OSU, Penn played them at home) and injuries/time of season, it doesn't mean a whole lot. But, I guess if we are going to buy this logic then we can all agree that Wake Forest is better than Florida since they beat Ole Miss.

I don't buy score comparisons but when there are two teams with equal records and they have a common opponent...that should come into play. How else are we suppose to judge these teams? It isn't like Oregon State is some door mat team in the Pac 10 that USC had a slip up against. The Beavers control their destiny...they win out...they go to the Rose Bowl.

I'm willing to bet you that USC would not have won as big if they played at Ohio State with a healthy Beanie. Not to mention Pryor had 4 more games under his belt to get comfortable.

[BishopMVP]

The SEC can continue to beat their chest saying how tough it is to play in there because they don't play any out of conference games. Florida has a tough one against The Citadel this week. Alabama played Clemson, who we now know is average at best...same with Georgia's win over Arizona State, not looking good right now.I'm all in with your overall point that the B10 is better at the top/middle than the SEC this year, but this is a silly line. Make fun of Florida for scheduling the 1-AA team du jour, but you can't knock a team/conference for scheduling games against preseason top 10 teams that have fallen on their faces. Georgia went across country to play the 2nd-best team from the Pac-10. Alabama, in a "rebuilding year", started the season away from home against a top 10 team.

[sooner333]

I'm pretty sure Alabama played Clemson at a neutral site in the Georgia Dome.

[digamma]

Actually, there is a much better argument that the ACC doesn't deserve a BCS automatic bid more than the Big East doesn't.

Let's play name that conference:

Conference A
12 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
7 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
10 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
9 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
10 total out of conference losses
1 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference B
7 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
2 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
12 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
6 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
10 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference C
8 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
5 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
5 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
12 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference D
6 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
7 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
4 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
13 total out of conference losses
1 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference E
5 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
1 out of conference win against bowl eligible BCS teams
5 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
5 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
9 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference F
5 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
2 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
4 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
16 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

[BishopMVP]

I'm pretty sure Alabama played Clemson at a neutral site in the Georgia Dome.Touche. :(

[Dr. Sak]

I'm all in with your overall point that the B10 is better at the top/middle than the SEC this year, but this is a silly line. Make fun of Florida for scheduling the 1-AA team du jour, but you can't knock a team/conference for scheduling games against preseason top 10 teams that have fallen on their faces. Georgia went across country to play the 2nd-best team from the Pac-10. Alabama, in a "rebuilding year", started the season away from home against a top 10 team.

2nd best team in the pac 10...Arizona State has 4 wins? Maybe last year they were good, but this is 2008...they aren't good. And honestly, if you can name the last time Georgia left the south to play an away game, you win a prize.

Again your point about Clemson being a top 10 team...that was BEFORE any game was played. They are in serious danger right now of not even making a bowl game. Please don't confuse the preseason and last year with what is going on now.

They are good teams in name only, but don't look at their names...look at their resume'

[Swaggs]

B) I'm not saying the Big East has always been bad or didn't win a lot of bowl games in the past few years. They have kind of a weaker set of bowl games, but that's beside the point. The point is that this season they don't have highly ranked teams--next year it could be the ACC, Pac 10, Big 12, etc. Why don't we have a rule that says, if no team is in the top 14, then they don't get an automatic bid? Does Cincinatti (or Pitt or West Virginia) deserve a BCS bid so they can have a boring matchup with an ACC team that also doesn't deserve a BCS bid? Can't this simply be played in the Gator Bowl while we can use the BCS flexibility to create a much better match-up with better teams?


Why wait until next year? The BE currently has two teams ranked higher than the highest ranked ACC team.

I get your point, but I get tired of the Big East criticism. They may be among the weakest links, but the BE has outperformed the ACC (and, by at least some metrics, some of the other BCS conferences in some of the past few seasons) over the past several seasons.

The fact that the BE continues to get singled out gets old and is a lazy talking point by folks that haven't paid attention to college football, as a whole, since immediately after the ACC raided the BE.

[digamma]

Why wait until next year? The BE currently has two teams ranked higher than the highest ranked ACC team.


And last week the ACC had two teams ranked above the highest Big East team until they both lost conference games.

The ACC is eating its young this year like no other conference. What it is lacking is a really top tier team, but it's depth is pretty solid--8 teams receiving some votes in the top 25.

[SFL Cat]

Then lets go back to the old school bowl system and forget all this BCS bullsh*t.

[BishopMVP]

2nd best team in the pac 10...Arizona State has 4 wins? Maybe last year they were good, but this is 2008...they aren't good. And honestly, if you can name the last time Georgia left the south to play an away game, you win a prize.

Again your point about Clemson being a top 10 team...that was BEFORE any game was played. They are in serious danger right now of not even making a bowl game. Please don't confuse the preseason and last year with what is going on now.

They are good teams in name only, but don't look at their names...look at their resume'Yes, Arizona State was the 2nd best Pac-10 team in the preseason, Clemson was preseason top 10 and both have fallen on their faces and shown to be wholly undeserving of their rankings. But you can't knock Georgia or Alabama's scheduling by pointing to those games.The SEC can continue to beat their chest saying how tough it is to play in there because they don't play any out of conference games.They scheduled the games this year - it's not their fault the teams they scheduled failed to live up to expectations. (As you point out, it was somewhat shocking that Georgia agreed to play cross-country, against a presumably good team. So why put that up there next to Florida scheduling the Citadel.)

[sooner333]

Why wait until next year? The BE currently has two teams ranked higher than the highest ranked ACC team.

I get your point, but I get tired of the Big East criticism. They may be among the weakest links, but the BE has outperformed the ACC (and, by at least some metrics, some of the other BCS conferences in some of the past few seasons) over the past several seasons.

The fact that the BE continues to get singled out gets old and is a lazy talking point by folks that haven't paid attention to college football, as a whole, since immediately after the ACC raided the BE.

Oh, the ACC is pretty bad, don't get me wrong. They have a lot of mediocre teams, not too many terrible, but certainly no good one's this season. I think the Big East's weak spot in the public eye is the fact that there isn't really any football tradition there...or at least the traditional teams have sucked recently (Syracuse, Pitt). That's not really their fault, nor should it be held against them. The worst thing that happened to them was having West Virginia lose to Pitt last year because I think they could have beat LSU and maybe kept Rich Rodriguez in the process (although the latter point is in pretty severe doubt after the aftermath--it would have taken a lot to patch things up before that tipping point).

Another problem with the Big East's perception is that over the past two years people have gotten really behind the newcomer that has turned into a flop. USF last year was the prime example...they went up too fast, people got behind them, then free-fall. Rutgers was a good team the past two years and people were all about them being able to captivate the NYC market and get recruits from Florida...don't look now.

The ACC is bad...they don't deserve a bid this year either, but whether it's right or wrong, they still have Florida State and Miami and people will give them respect whether it's deserved or not.

[RainMaker]

The BCS is stupid for the sole fact that half the schools in D1-A have no possibility to win a National Championship. It would be like the NFL deciding one day that half the divisions aren't eligible to play in the Super Bowl, but they can play out the regular season for fun.

It's the only sport that is built so that teams are not necessarily playing for championships. They play for 6 wins and an extra meaningless game in a neutral stadium.

[Atocep]

The BCS is stupid for the sole fact that half the schools in D1-A have no possibility to win a National Championship. It would be like the NFL deciding one day that half the divisions aren't eligible to play in the Super Bowl, but they can play out the regular season for fun.

It's the only sport that is built so that teams are not necessarily playing for championships. They play for 6 wins and an extra meaningless game in a neutral stadium.


Div 1-A is stupid for having teams with no chance to compete financially on the same level as teams with multi-million dollar football programs that fill stadiums with 75k+ each Saturday.

It would be like the NFL bringing back the world league and adding it, the arena league, and the CFL, having them play 75% of their games against each other, holding them to the same financial limitations they currently have, and then having everyone compete for the same championship. It just doesn't make sense.

[sooner333]

The BCS is stupid for the sole fact that half the schools in D1-A have no possibility to win a National Championship. It would be like the NFL deciding one day that half the divisions aren't eligible to play in the Super Bowl, but they can play out the regular season for fun.

It's the only sport that is built so that teams are not necessarily playing for championships. They play for 6 wins and an extra meaningless game in a neutral stadium.

Don't blame the BCS, it's pretty much the same as it was before the BCS as far as chances to win the championship.

[DeToxRox]

Div 1-A is stupid for having teams with no chance to compete financially on the same level as teams with multi-million dollar football programs that fill stadiums with 75k+ each Saturday.

It would be like the NFL bringing back the world league and adding it, the arena league, and the CFL, having them play 75% of their games against each other, holding them to the same financial limitations they currently have, and then having everyone compete for the same championship. It just doesn't make sense.

So blame the small schools as much as the big schools. I heard a year ago EMU got 400K to play at Michigan. EMU is literally 20 minutes from Ann Arbor and they got 400K for three hours.

They can't get that being a 1-AA school, and let's be honest, D1 sports bring a lot of students into the school. It's a huge selling point for perspective students.

It's all a business and that is why a team like Western Kentucky would rather be an indpendent team in D1 then a DII power.

[molson]

College football just isn't a "league" in the way the NFL is. It's interesting how differently we think of sports these days - everything has to be strictly structured, organized, balanced.

It wasn't all that long ago that most college football teams were independents, and they just scheduled a bunch of games and went and played.

College football is the last vestige of that old-timey kind of barnstorming sports model. A playoff is inevitable and it'll be fun when it gets here, but the chaos is unique and I'll miss that when it's gone.

[Atocep]

So blame the small schools as much as the big schools. I heard a year ago EMU got 400K to play at Michigan. EMU is literally 20 minutes from Ann Arbor and they got 400K for three hours.

They can't get that being a 1-AA school, and let's be honest, D1 sports bring a lot of students into the school. It's a huge selling point for perspective students.

It's all a business and that is why a team like Western Kentucky would rather be an indpendent team in D1 then a DII power.

Oh I don't blame the big schools. The small schools are in 1-A knowing they can't compete with the major college programs and for them its the same reason; money. They know the potential is there to make a lot more money moving up to 1-A or staying in 1-A so its their choice, yet people still want to feel sorry for them.

[RainMaker]

Div 1-A is stupid for having teams with no chance to compete financially on the same level as teams with multi-million dollar football programs that fill stadiums with 75k+ each Saturday.

It would be like the NFL bringing back the world league and adding it, the arena league, and the CFL, having them play 75% of their games against each other, holding them to the same financial limitations they currently have, and then having everyone compete for the same championship. It just doesn't make sense.

You mean like major league baseball? Where teams with payrolls 1/10th of their competitors are playing one another? Where they are allowed to play for the same title?

If everything was fair, there would be 6 or 7 levels for collegiete athletics. Unfortunately that just isn't plausible. But just because there are big differences in budgets between schools doesn't mean that some should automatically be eliminated from championship contension. Shouldn't titles be determined on a field and not on a balance sheet?

I also believe that the lack of being able to play for a title directly impacts those schools ability to build strong teams. Why bother going to a non-BCS school at all if you have any talent?

Fact is that if the NCAA is going to allow schools to play at a particular level, they should afford them the opportunity to play for a national title. Every other level of college athletics in every single sport does this with the exception of Division 1-A college football.

[RainMaker]

Oh I don't blame the big schools. The small schools are in 1-A knowing they can't compete with the major college programs and for them its the same reason; money. They know the potential is there to make a lot more money moving up to 1-A or staying in 1-A so its their choice, yet people still want to feel sorry for them.

If all the smaller 1-A schools moved down to 1-AA, it would just create a batch of 1-AA schools who couldn't compete with schools that had bigger budgets. A Fresno State or BYU would absolutely annihilate 1-AA. It's a never ending cycle. There will always be lower tier and higher tier teams in each division of college sports. It doesn't mean that those lower tier teams shouldn't have a shot at playing for their national championship.

[Dr. Sak]

Yes, Arizona State was the 2nd best Pac-10 team in the preseason, Clemson was preseason top 10 and both have fallen on their faces and shown to be wholly undeserving of their rankings. But you can't knock Georgia or Alabama's scheduling by pointing to those games.They scheduled the games this year - it's not their fault the teams they scheduled failed to live up to expectations. (As you point out, it was somewhat shocking that Georgia agreed to play cross-country, against a presumably good team. So why put that up there next to Florida scheduling the Citadel.)

I am not knocking them for putting them on their schedules. But I am certainly not going to boost their resume' because they've beaten a 4 and 5 win team respectively. In my opinion I think preseason polls are garbage. So what if they were ranked in the top 10 preseason. That was all opinion of a bunch of writers and coaches.

Games have been played now...9 or 10 of them. So judge the teams based on that. Not based on beating a team that was ranked in the preseason. I hate preseason polls more than anything. They give certain teams unfair advantages and teams that fly under the radar...they have a tougher time moving up and leap frogging because of some stupid preseason polls where zero games have been played.

My Florida thing with the Citadel was more TIC to SEC fans. I wasn't comparing them to Clemson and Arizona State sorry.

[RedKingGold]

I'll only add that playoffs do not determine "who is the best team" but only "who is the hottest team at the moment"

Thinking adding playoffs will solve who is the best team in D-1A college football is deluding themselves.

That being said, I'd love to see a playoff just because watching the #2 vs. the #7 seed would be more interesting then watching Maryland vs. Utah.

[TroyF]

I think the complete answer is yes they do, but more than any other sport they provide material incentives to perform well in the regular season to be rewarded in the postseason. It still kinda sucks when a 9-7 division winner gets to host a 12-4 wild card team (and when that 9-7 team wins in overtime and advances while the other team goes home) but the NFL gets as close to anyone out there (with the home field advantage and bye system) in making the regular season really count.

I always get a kick out of the entire "the regular season really means something in college football"

Does it really? If Texas Tech has an off day and loses to Mizzou in the Big12 title game, they are gone.from the title game. (and I agree with you, who cares where they end up, the only important thing is that they are toast) What did the regular season really mean for Tech? It means they'll watch a team they beat on the football field in the regular season play for the national title.

It's not that the regular season is important, it's when you lose and how impressive you blow teams out after the loss that's important.

I know you used the basketball tourney earlier in the thread to show why people shouldn't care about a conference title. I go back to this. . . you are telling me the regular season is important in college football and that makes it special. Yet in the same breath you are going to tell me that it's possible a team who didn't even win its own division can win a national title?

I'm sorry, that doesn't add up for me. If the regular season is important, I think you should be forced to win the conference title to be in consideration for the title game.

It's not like it matters anyway. We should just go back to the asinine bowl system and stop pretending there is a real champion. FWIW, that's what I think should happen anyway. Let's just stop with listening to the lies of university presidents and make them tell the truth. They don't want a playoff because that'd mean sharing the money with smaller conferences. End of story.

[cartman]

College football just isn't a "league" in the way the NFL is. It's interesting how differently we think of sports these days - everything has to be strictly structured, organized, balanced.

It wasn't all that long ago that most college football teams were independents, and they just scheduled a bunch of games and went and played.

College football is the last vestige of that old-timey kind of barnstorming sports model. A playoff is inevitable and it'll be fun when it gets here, but the chaos is unique and I'll miss that when it's gone.

There is some revisionist history going on here. There was never a time when a majority of the teams were independents. Up until the early 80s, there were usually around 30 teams out of the 125 or so that were not members of a conference. Looking at the historical lists, quote a few of the schools (UT-Arlington, Xavier, Tennessee-Chattanooga, Holy Cross, Colgate, etc.) are long gone from Division 1A/FBS. And in most years, only three or four of the independent teams were in the upper tier of teams, usually Notre Dame or Penn State.

Here is a link to a site that has the historical year by year records.
Kiko13 College Football Historical Rankings (http://www.kiko13.com/cflrankings/history.htm)

[cartman]

I'll only add that playoffs do not determine "who is the best team" but only "who is the hottest team at the moment"

Thinking adding playoffs will solve who is the best team in D-1A college football is deluding themselves.

That being said, I'd love to see a playoff just because watching the #2 vs. the #7 seed would be more interesting then watching Maryland vs. Utah.

There is the old motto, "it's not about how you start, it's about how you finish".

You are making the assumption that champion=best, and that is not necessarily the case. You'd be hard pressed to say that the Patriots weren't the best team in the NFL last season. But they were not the champions. They might have been the best team, but they didn't win the championship. Because the process of selecting the teams to participate in the NFL playoffs isn't considered arbitrary or due to the popularity of a team, the legitimacy of the eventual champion isn't questioned.

[RedKingGold]

There is the old motto, "it's not about how you start, it's about how you finish".

You are making the assumption that champion=best, and that is not necessarily the case. You'd be hard pressed to say that the Patriots weren't the best team in the NFL last season. But they were not the champions. They might have been the best team, but they didn't win the championship. Because the process of selecting the teams to participate in the NFL playoffs isn't considered arbitrary or due to the popularity of a team, the legitimacy of the eventual champion isn't questioned.

See, not making that assumption at all. I'd agree that "champion" does not mean "best" and that was the point behind my statement.

To borrow from someone else, Villanova was the 1985 basketball champion, but was not the best overall team in 1985.

Similarly, a college football playoff system would eventually result in a team who was not the best the entire season, but got hot in the end and rode that momentum through the tournament being the champion.

Thus, the argument that playoffs will determine who is the best team is simply false. Further, if you want to determine who is a "champion", how exactly does a playoff system prove that better than the BCS?

[MJ4H]

We should just vote on who is the best team based on thet team photo and recruiting websites. I would hate to let any actual football gameplay cloud our judgement about who is the best.

[KWhit]

Thus, the argument that playoffs will determine who is the best team is simply false. Further, if you want to determine who is a "champion", how exactly does a playoff system prove that better than the BCS?

The reason why a playoff will more likely prove which team is best is because it is nearly impossible to determine who the top 2 teams are at the end of the season. Because of the fact that almost all of a team's tough games are played inside their own conference makes it really really tough to gauge which team is best. No one could foresee that Ohio State would look totally outclassed in the NC game the past two years because they looked great in their conference.

And who really knows exactly how the top teams from the Big East stack up against the Big 12 or SEC?

When you only have the ability to choose 2 teams at the end of the season, sometimes the strongest team in the country will get left out. If that were to be expanded to 8 teams, at least you have a much better shot of getting the BEST team into the playoff with a chance to win it all.

Once the playoff begins, of course, you get upsets and the "best" team can lose, but that's different because at least then there's not as much of a subjective judgement. They just lost on the field.

And yes, there is still the issue of the bubble teams at #8-#9 in the rankings, but I have a lot less sympathy for a #9 ranked team missing out than I do a #3 team who misses out today because of what I said above. It is very very possible that the #3 team is actually the best team in the country, where the #9 team is much more unlikely to be so.

And I would LOVE to see those playoff games. That would be Must Watch TV for sure.

[KWhit]

Oh, and any system that lets a team go undefeated (especially one in a power conference like Auburn in the SEC) and not get a chance to play in the NC game is a joke.

[cartman]

Further, if you want to determine who is a "champion", how exactly does a playoff system prove that better than the BCS?

As I mentioned in my previous post, a playoff with at least 8 teams (preferably 16 teams) would go a long way towards legitimizing a champion. Currently the BCS only selects two teams to play for the championship. The current process still has many flaws, and there is almost always debate over which should be the two teams included. The process is currently very subjective, since 2/3 of the decision is left up to human voters. You almost never hear in other sports of complaints about who is included in the playoffs. About the only other sport I can think of is College Basketball, but even then there are only 2 or 3 teams that are mentioned each year as deserving of spots but not selected. Get general consensus over the teams competing for a championship, and the legitimacy is there. There is too much subjectiveness and exclusion right now in the BCS for most people to accept it as definitive.

My personal preference is to take the 11 conference champions, plus 5 at-large teams for a 16 team playoffs. This is what I suggested to Arlie to include in BBCF, and is how we have it in the fictional FOFC-BBCF. Some might argue that the Sun Belt champ isn't deserving of an automatic bid, but I say they are a Div. 1A/FBS school. Change the requirements to be in Div. 1A/FBS to send the weaker teams to Div. 1AA/FCS if that is an issue, so create it so that the top 8 conferences get automatic bids, plus 8 at large teams. Or put in some restriction that the conference champ has to be in the Top 25 or something along those lines. Yes, like in basketball there will be disagreements over who was the bubble team that got left out, but the process would be accepted.

Plus, I'd still have the bowls for teams that didn't make the playoffs. It would be like the NIT in college basketball.

[Dr. Sak]

My cousin who is a sports writer for a local paper wrote something to me on a 16 team playoff. Here's the link...and the shameless plug to my blog...

Presenting Matta’s Data NCAA Playoff | In The Bleachers College Football Blog (http://inthebleachers.net/commentary/presenting-mattas-data-ncaa-playoff/)

[Logan]

Another problem with the Big East's perception is that over the past two years people have gotten really behind the newcomer that has turned into a flop. USF last year was the prime example...they went up too fast, people got behind them, then free-fall. Rutgers was a good team the past two years and people were all about them being able to captivate the NYC market and get recruits from Florida...don't look now.

The fruits of Rutgers' success in 06 hasn't really been seen yet because the players who were recruited off of that are first getting on the field now, or are coming into school next year. It takes a couple seasons for the talent to catch up. That's all not to mention that if Mike Teel wasn't a shithead against Cincy, we'd be in the BCS driver's seat this year.

As for our recent lack of success in Florida, attribute that to the Florida schools not liking how we were getting kids out of there when we weren't very successful and petitioning the NCAA to institute the so-called "Rutgers Rule" where you can only hold recruiting camps in your own state. Without the Rutgers camps in FL, it's trailed off a bit.

[digamma]

Let's play name that conference:

Conference A
12 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
7 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
10 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
9 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
10 total out of conference losses
1 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference B
7 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
2 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
12 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
6 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
10 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference C
8 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
5 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
5 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
12 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference D
6 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
7 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
4 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
13 total out of conference losses
1 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference E
5 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
1 out of conference win against bowl eligible BCS teams
5 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
5 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
9 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference F
5 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
2 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
4 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
16 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

So, none of you who are all excited about showing your conference off in the shower want to actually take a shot at this?

[JonInMiddleGA]

The reason why a playoff will more likely prove which team is best is because it is nearly impossible to determine who the top 2 teams are at the end of the season.

Horseshit.

And who really knows exactly how the top teams from the Big East stack up against the Big 12 or SEC?

Better question: how many people actually care? It's not football country, they could win b2b national championships in the BCS system & still not be considered anywhere near the level of the traditional football power conferences.

[sooner333]

So, none of you who are all excited about showing your conference off in the shower want to actually take a shot at this?

The Big 12 is conference B. 3rd place OU waxed the Big East leader.

[digamma]

The Big 12 is conference B. 3rd place OU waxed the Big East leader.

Correct.

[RainMaker]

My cousin who is a sports writer for a local paper wrote something to me on a 16 team playoff. Here's the link...and the shameless plug to my blog...

Presenting Matta’s Data NCAA Playoff | In The Bleachers College Football Blog (http://inthebleachers.net/commentary/presenting-mattas-data-ncaa-playoff/)

I'm kind of torn on the number of teams that should be involved in a playoff. On one hand, 16 would be optimal. You could give an automatic birth to all conference champions which would give a lot of meaning to winning it. The rest could be filled in with at-large teams.

12 would be interesting as well. Other levels of college football have bye weeks so it's not out of the question. You can give the top 7 ranked conference champions an automatic bid (this should be your BCS schools + one other conference champ). The other 4 conference champs would play a one game play-in game against each other. So now you have 9 schools in, all conference champs. You throw in 3 at-large schools then, seed them all, and play.

I'd be for an 8-team tournament too but it should require a chance for smaller conferences to play their way into the tournament.

I just want to see a system setup that allows everyone the chance to win a national championship. Even if it means winning extra games, everyone should have the chance to win it on the field. That's my issue with college football, their title isn't determined on the field.

[digamma]

I just want to see a system setup that allows everyone the chance to win a national championship. Even if it means winning extra games, everyone should have the chance to win it on the field. That's my issue with college football, their title isn't determined on the field.

Sure it is. It's just done over the course of a season rather than a post-season.

[RainMaker]

Sure it is. It's just done over the course of a season rather than a post-season.
So how does Boise State and Utah play their way into a national championship? Both will win every single game they play.

[digamma]

So how does Boise State and Utah play their way into a national championship? Both will win every single game they play.

The same way USC won a share of a national title in 2004 even though they didn't play in the BCS title game.

[Vegas Vic]

So how does Boise State and Utah play their way into a national championship? Both will win every single game they play.

They need to schedule some non-conference games against top ten teams, and then go undefeated. Unfortunately, Utah beat a horrible Michigan team this year, but if this had been the Michigan team of a few years ago, Utah could very well be in the national championship mix.

[RainMaker]

The same way USC won a share of a national title in 2004 even though they didn't play in the BCS title game.
That isn't winning your way into anything. USC won the AP National Championship. That's just getting a majority of writers to vote for your team. The BCS Championship is the real championship. And like I said, those teams can't win it.

[Dr. Sak]

They need to schedule some non-conference games against top ten teams, and then go undefeated. Unfortunately, Utah beat a horrible Michigan team this year, but if this had been the Michigan team of a few years ago, Utah could very well be in the national championship mix.

In Utah's defense they have a pretty good resume'. They beat Oregon State too. Plus when you look at the Mountain West Conference, they put a beat down on the Pac Ten overall this season.

[RainMaker]

They need to schedule some non-conference games against top ten teams, and then go undefeated. Unfortunately, Utah beat a horrible Michigan team this year, but if this had been the Michigan team of a few years ago, Utah could very well be in the national championship mix.

Top ten teams aren't exactly jumping at the chance to play those schools. I guarantee you that Boise State would play any top 10 team that would play them. Unfortunately, it's a lot safer for the top 10 schools to schedule a D1-AA opponent who they can beat by 70 and still make bank at the ticket gate.

But you proved my point. These teams can't control their own destiny in winning a championship. They have to pray teams schedule them, then pray those teams are good.

[cartman]

The BCS Championship is the real championship.

There is no 'real' championship in NCAA Div. 1A/FBS. The NCAA doesn't officially recognize a champion for this sport and level, the only such instance out of all levels and sports they sanction where they don't recognize a 'National Champion'.

[Vegas Vic]

Top ten teams aren't exactly jumping at the chance to play those schools. I guarantee you that Boise State would play any top 10 team that would play them. Unfortunately, it's a lot safer for the top 10 schools to schedule a D1-AA opponent who they can beat by 70 and still make bank at the ticket gate.

USC or Oklahoma would play them, and I'm sure there are others. USC will play anybody that wants to schedule a game, and OU has a policy of working good non-BCS opponents into its non-conference schedule (home and away vs. TCU), Tulsa (home and away), Air Force (away, when they were good a few years ago) and Fresno State (home a few years ago, when "nobody wanted to play them").

[Klinglerware]

There is no 'real' championship in NCAA Div. 1A/FBS. The NCAA doesn't officially recognize a champion for this sport and level, the only such instance out of all levels and sports they sanction where they don't recognize a 'National Champion'.

And this also supports the general point that in the end, even the NCAA is powerless to effect real change at the highest levels of college football.

The BCS schools call the shots on this one. If they can be convinced that a playoff system will result in a higher net profit for its membership than the current bowl system, then they will move to a playoff system. If not, then they wont.

[DanGarion]

How dare you mention Notre Dame winning their last two (including against USC) doesn't that then give them automatic in BCS? :) j/k

[Samdari]

Let the bookies decide. :lol:

Las Vegas Sports Consultants delivers the opening lines to the onshore and offshore sports books. They think that Florida and Oklahoma are the two best teams right now.

Wrong, they think that Florida and Texas are perceived by the public as the strongest. They try to set lines based on what they think will cause an even number of bets on either side, not who they think is better by X points on that field.

They try to accurately measure public perception of team strength, not actual team strength.

[Vegas Vic]

Wrong, they think that Florida and Texas are perceived by the public as the strongest. They try to set lines based on what they think will cause an even number of bets on either side, not who they think is better by X points on that field.

They try to accurately measure public perception of team strength, not actual team strength.

Yes, I understand how they set lines. A good friend of mine works for them. They have a comprehensive set of power ratings, and they adjust them slightly for public opinion, moreso for key injuries. They usually don't deviate too much from the power ratings on the opening line. According to them, Florida would be a one or two point favorite over Oklahoma, and they both would be favored over any one else at this point in time (which is obviously subject to change in the next several weeks).

[SFL Cat]

I'll only add that playoffs do not determine "who is the best team" but only "who is the hottest team at the moment"


Can't really agree with this. If you're the best team, you win...period. If you're not hot, you win ugly.

[molson]

Can't really agree with this. If you're the best team, you win...period. If you're not hot, you win ugly.

You don't believe in the concept of upsets?

You can take any college football season, take a great team, see who beat them, who beat that team, and so forth, and go REALLY far down the line. That doesn't make the bottom team on that line the best team.

Florida lost to Mississippi. Mississippi lost to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt lost to Mississippi State. Mississippi State lost to Louisiana Tech. Louisiana Tech lost to Army. Army lost to New Hampshire. New Hampshire lost to William & Mary.

William & Mary ain't better than Florida.

[RainMaker]

You don't believe in the concept of upsets?

You can take any college football season, take a great team, see who beat them, who beat that team, and so forth, and go REALLY far down the line. That doesn't make the bottom team on that line the best team.

Florida lost to Mississippi. Mississippi lost to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt lost to Mississippi State. Mississippi State lost to Louisiana Tech. Louisiana Tech lost to Army. Army lost to New Hampshire. New Hampshire lost to William & Mary.

William & Mary ain't better than Florida.

The difference being that a playoff system is determining the championship on the field. Of course upsets happen, but the team that was upset had a fair shot at winning the national championship. It is their fault they lost. This beats having a computer determine who is the best teams.

[astrosfan64]

You can play that game with Ohio State. USC destroyed Ohio State and Penn State barely squeaked by. The good thing is both should make it if they win out.

What bother me about the Big Ten is they are the only conference who doesn't play all their opponents or have a conference championship game. So, you can have a team like Wisconsin a few years back who goes undefeated without ever playing the other top conference team. It bothers me that instead of getting even closer (playing 9 conf games like the Pac 10), they stay with this 8 conference + 4 nonconf schedule that gets nearly every Big 10 team bowl eligible because of their extremely weak non conference SOS.

Penn State played Ohio State in Ohio.

USC played Ohio State @ USC.

Ohio State didn't have Beenie wells against USC. Ohio State didn't have Tyrod Tyler playing yet either.

Two totally different teams when Penn State played them and USC played them.

So I believe your argument is blah at best.

[RainMaker]

USC or Oklahoma would play them, and I'm sure there are others. USC will play anybody that wants to schedule a game, and OU has a policy of working good non-BCS opponents into its non-conference schedule (home and away vs. TCU), Tulsa (home and away), Air Force (away, when they were good a few years ago) and Fresno State (home a few years ago, when "nobody wanted to play them").
Those are the exceptions, not the rules. Ask yourself how many teams have jumped at the chance to go to Boise for a game. The average team in the WAC can't just call up Texas and say "hey, let's play a game here next year" and have it happen.

[JPhillips]

Ohio State didn't have Tyrod Tyler playing yet either.

To be fair he didn't play for OSU against Penn State either.

[RainMaker]

If Utah wins out and some other teams lose, they could have a case for playing in the NC game. They would have beaten two top 15 schools, a team with one of the best defenses in the country, and the Pac-10 champs.

[Crim]

The reason why a playoff will more likely prove which team is best is because it is nearly impossible to determine who the top 2 teams are at the end of the season. Because of the fact that almost all of a team's tough games are played inside their own conference makes it really really tough to gauge which team is best. No one could foresee that Ohio State would look totally outclassed in the NC game the past two years because they looked great in their conference.

And who really knows exactly how the top teams from the Big East stack up against the Big 12 or SEC?

When you only have the ability to choose 2 teams at the end of the season, sometimes the strongest team in the country will get left out. If that were to be expanded to 8 teams, at least you have a much better shot of getting the BEST team into the playoff with a chance to win it all.

Once the playoff begins, of course, you get upsets and the "best" team can lose, but that's different because at least then there's not as much of a subjective judgement. They just lost on the field.

And yes, there is still the issue of the bubble teams at #8-#9 in the rankings, but I have a lot less sympathy for a #9 ranked team missing out than I do a #3 team who misses out today because of what I said above. It is very very possible that the #3 team is actually the best team in the country, where the #9 team is much more unlikely to be so.

And I would LOVE to see those playoff games. That would be Must Watch TV for sure.

An effective and succint post. Plus one.

[Vegas Vic]

Those are the exceptions, not the rules. Ask yourself how many teams have jumped at the chance to go to Boise for a game. The average team in the WAC can't just call up Texas and say "hey, let's play a game here next year" and have it happen.

Mack Brown has a different philosophy than Pete Carroll and Bob Stoops on non-conference scheduling, although I give Texas major props for the Ohio State series of a few years ago. I hate USC, but I have to concede that they'll play anybody, any time, any place. They went to Hawaii and beat the crap out of Colt Brennan and the Rainbow Warriors, 63-17.

[SFL Cat]

You don't believe in the concept of upsets?

You can take any college football season, take a great team, see who beat them, who beat that team, and so forth, and go REALLY far down the line. That doesn't make the bottom team on that line the best team.

Florida lost to Mississippi. Mississippi lost to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt lost to Mississippi State. Mississippi State lost to Louisiana Tech. Louisiana Tech lost to Army. Army lost to New Hampshire. New Hampshire lost to William & Mary.

William & Mary ain't better than Florida.

There will always be upsets, just saying when you're playing with something on the line, I'm a big believer that the last man left standing takes the ring.

[astrosfan64]

To be fair he didn't play for OSU against Penn State either.

Duh, I meant Pryor.

[Atocep]

It is very very possible that the #3 team is actually the best team in the country, where the #9 team is much more unlikely to be so.


So why have an 8 team playoff if you admit the teams at the bottom really aren't the best in the country?

[Atocep]

There will always be upsets, just saying when you're playing with something on the line, I'm a big believer that the last man left standing takes the ring.

This is the flawed thinking that some playoff proponents have. Upsets only happen during the regular season. If the #1 seeded team were to lose to a #12 or #15 (referencing the NCAA tourney here) then they really weren't the best team because they didn't show up when "everything was on the line".

It makes zero sense that there can be upsets during the regular season when nothing is on the line (although I'm interested to see anyone point out a meaningless game in college football when you're in the national championship hunt) but in the playoffs everyone plays their best.

[KWhit]

So why have an 8 team playoff if you admit the teams at the bottom really aren't the best in the country?

1) Because it would be fun as hell to watch. Right now, there's pretty much only one bowl game that actually matters. The rest are lame exhibition games and usually there is one team that is disappointed that they are in that bowl (instead of one more prestigious) and they don't show up for the game.

2) Because any one of the top 6-8 teams COULD be the best in the country. Certainly Auburn the year they went undefeated had a claim that maybe they were best. USC last year (maybe even UGA, though I'm biased). And who knows, Boise from a couple of years ago might have even been as good as anyone the year they beat Oklahoma. And like I said in my earlier post, #9 might even be the best, but it's much more unlikely than #3.

[st.cronin]

Right now, there's pretty much only one bowl game that actually matters.

I agree. This year, its likely the Motor City Bowl. Sigh.

[st.cronin]

Probably meaningless, but conference ratings from Football Frontier:

1. ACC
2. Big 10
3. SEC
4. Big 12
5. Big East
6. Mountain West
7. Pac 10

[KWhit]

ACC #1????

WTF?

[rowech]

Probably meaningless, but conference ratings from Football Frontier:

1. ACC
2. Big 10
3. SEC
4. Big 12
5. Big East
6. Mountain West
7. Pac 10

If those are their rankings then you are correct...they are meaningless.

[cartman]

Yeah, Solecismic's rankings this season seem out of whack this late into the year.

[Kodos]

Lawmaker proposing bill to end BCS system

Lawmaker proposing bill to end BCS system - College Football - Rivals.com (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-congress-bcs&prov=ap&type=lgns)

By HOWARD FENDRICH, AP Sports Writer

Dec 10, 2:39 pm EST

WASHINGTON (AP)—Taking aim at a BCS system he said “consistently misfires,” a member of Congress planned to introduce legislation Wednesday that would force college football to adopt a playoff to determine the national champion.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn’t specify what sort of playoff he wants—only that the BCS should go.

“In some years the sport’s national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title,” Barton said in a statement released ahead of the bill’s introduction. “Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on.”

He said the bill—being co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, and Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican—“will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a ‘national championship’ football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice.”

The BCS was created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences. Since then, the system has been tweaked to make it easier for teams from smaller conferences to qualify for the top games. The sites for the four BCS bowls—the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta—take turns hosting a championship game between the top two teams in the BCS standings, which are based on two human polls and six computer ratings.

This season, Florida (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) will meet in the BCS title game Jan. 8 in Miami.

Barton cited Southern California in 2003 and undefeated Auburn in 2004 as examples of worthy teams left out of the BCS national championship game.

“This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the ‘championship,’ while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become ‘champion,”’ he said.

When an Energy and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing about the BCS in 2005, lawmakers said they weren’t going to pursue legislation.

“The BCS method of determining who is No. 1 consistently misfires,” Barton said Wednesday. “Simply exposing the flaws and subjecting them to discussion … hasn’t led to improvement by those who run the system.”

[sooner333]

I think there's a better argument for anti-trust. You could say that we do have a playoff system right now, albiet a two-team playoff.

[Logan]

Shocking that it's a dude from Texas.

So if this passes, they have to call it the BCS World Championship instead. Good job man.