College Football Week 15 (Championship) thread........

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Add to that the fact that OSU wet the bed the last 2 years in the BCS.

And they will again this year.

The Ohio State's formula for making the BCS makes me want to vomit. Play a weak OOC except for one big game ( Texas, USC) then beat Michagen.
Since they start in the top 5 every year they dont have as big a climb to make when they lose to UT or USC, and lets face it, it is better to lose to USC then beat Akron.

If Ohio State didnt start the season ranked so high every year they wouldn't even sniff the BCS

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Bowling Green, Houston, and Oregon? None of those teams were in the top 25 at year's end.

Virginia Tech, Colorado State, BYU, and Notre Dame? Same. Not one was a top 25 team.

In fact, if you look at the whole schedule:

Auburn beat the #4, #5, #8, #10, and #15 teams.

Oklahoma beat the #5, #20, and #22 teams.

USC beat the #3, #7, and #19 teams.

I love it how people only want to talk about Auburn's OOC schedule when in their full season had many more big wins than either OU or USC.

My point isn't that they were better than USC or OU, because I don't know if they were or not, but they deserved a chance to find out.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news buddy but Va Tech finished 10th in the country that year. Also Bowling Green was just outside the top 25 at #27 (not great but not as bad as you say).

Im done arguing with this, you arent going to change my mind and im not going to change yours. The last thing i want is for College Football to be watered down like CBB is. As exciting as march madness is I really don't think it rewards the best team all the time.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

If you think you have crappy OOC games now, imagine if there is a playoff?

Yes, there would be one creampuff on everyone's schedule, since they'd all be in 12-team conferences and playing every other team once

[digamma]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Actually, if the SEC champ gets an automatic bid, I'd be more likely to schedule tough non-conference games early in the season to try to season my team for the big SEC games coming later.

As it is right now, there is no reason for a team like UGA to schedule tough out of conference games because their schedule is already among the toughest in the country and a loss is devastating under today's system. Why take the risk of a loss?

The first thing you do is eliminate the Georgia Tech game, or potentially move it to the beginning of the season.

[Young Drachma]

College Football Ranking Comparison

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

If you think you have crappy OOC games now, imagine if there is a playoff?

We could also look forward to seeing teams that have clinched a playoff berth rest their starters for those now meaningless rivalry games on the last week of the season.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

We could also look forward to seeing teams that have clinched a playoff berth rest their starters for those now meaningless rivalry games on the last week of the season.

I doubt greatly that they would for rivalry games.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I doubt greatly that they would for rivalry games.

Heck, they won't rest them in the fourth quarter of blowouts, why would they for a rivalry?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

So by your thinking...let's just look at an 8 or 16 team playoff. By the end of the season both Florida and Alabama would probably be in the playoff no matter what happened in their last game or the SEC Title game.

In the last week Florida and Alabama both played pretty big games against their rivals. In a playoff system, it wouldn't matter if they lost so they could have sat all of their starters which would've made for sucky rivalry games that mean nothing. But in this system they HAD to win because another loss would've been devastating, and with the way Auburn's season (and FSU's for that matter cause BC won) that would've made their season to knock their rival out of a chance to play for the MNC.

For each reason you give that the playoffs make the regular season more meaningful, I can give you reasons why they won't.

I think there is something to be said about momentum and seeding for this tournamnet. The rivalry games would have still mattered. Neither team would have wanted to afford to lose their last two games. Neither team would have wanted to drop to the bottom tier of the rankings/seedings. In a 16-game playoff, there would be a huge advantage to being #1 and potentially facing a Sun Belt/MAC school in the first round. It's no different than college hoops that see teams essentially qualify by midseason. They know they are playing for seeding and pride, I never see these schools resting starters.

One other aspect though is that it adds more meaning to more games. Thing of teams on the bubble who desparately need to win to get in. Think of the impact this would have on conference play or conference championship games in other conferences. The ACC Championship suddenly has a lot more meaning. This is the same argument that was made about the wildcard in baseball, and all it ended up doing was making games matter for more teams later in the season. That's not a bad thing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

In OSU's defense their losses are to two top 5 teams. Has Boise even played anyone in the top 25? Ball State was the same way until they lost to...Buffalo.

There are few major schools that will schedule Boise State. There are zero that will play that game in Boise. If you want to argue about who they play, then make a system that forces some balance to the schedules.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

KWhit,

You are a Georgia fan, no? Let's pretend you are the Georgia AD. A play-off system has just been passed and the SEC champion gets an automatic bid. What is the first thing you do to your schedule?

You schedule tougher games to test your players. Since OOC means a little less, why not make it tougher? Kind of like how they do it in college basketball.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

We could also look forward to seeing teams that have clinched a playoff berth rest their starters for those now meaningless rivalry games on the last week of the season.

Why would any team bench their starters and potentially hurt their seeding in a playoff? In a 16-team playoff, you honestly would rather be an 8 or 9 seed and have to play a team like Ohio State or a 1 seed and play Buffalo?

[MJ4H]

More interestingly, to me at least, why not put some byes into the playoff so that there is something even more valuable to be playing for?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I hate to be the bearer of bad news buddy but Va Tech finished 10th in the country that year. Also Bowling Green was just outside the top 25 at #27 (not great but not as bad as you say).

Im done arguing with this, you arent going to change my mind and im not going to change yours. The last thing i want is for College Football to be watered down like CBB is. As exciting as march madness is I really don't think it rewards the best team all the time.

Looks like you're right. I was going by this at ESPN, which had VT not ranked, but that looks to be a mistake.

ESPN - USC Football - Trojans Schedule - College Football


Still, Auburn had better wins overall, even with their "weak" schedule.


Revised:

Auburn beat the #4, #5, #8, #10, and #15 teams.

Oklahoma beat the #5, #20, and #22 teams.

USC beat the #3, #7, #10, and #19 teams.


And the reason why NCAA basketball feels "watered down" is because every team plays between 30 and 40 games a season and a very high percentage of the teams make the postseason. Each individual regular season game matters little.

But in football, where you only play 11-12 games, the games will still matter greatly with an 8 team playoff (or even a 16 team playoff). Every game will still matter.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

More interestingly, to me at least, why not put some byes into the playoff so that there is something even more valuable to be playing for?

Or homefield advantage for the first round or two...

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by digamma

The first thing you do is eliminate the Georgia Tech game, or potentially move it to the beginning of the season.

Nah. The UGA / GT game actually does more to potentially damage a National Championship caliber season under the current system than it would in a playoff scenario.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by KWhit

And the reason why NCAA basketball feels "watered down" is because every team plays between 30 and 40 games a season and a very high percentage of the teams make the postseason. Each individual regular season game matters little.

But in football, where you only play 11-12 games, the games will still matter greatly with an 8 team playoff (or even a 16 team playoff). Every game will still matter.

Incorrect on your math there, KWhit

119 FBS teams, 68 teams play a postseason game: Percentage: 57%
334 Div 1-A Basketball teams, 96 Play a postseason game (64 NCAA, 32 NIT), 28.7 %

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Incorrect on your math there, KWhit

119 FBS teams, 68 teams play a postseason game: Percentage: 57%
334 Div 1-A Basketball teams, 96 Play a postseason game (64 NCAA, 32 NIT), 28.7 %

+1

[EagleFan]

I have to say... I have a great wife!!! First she had gotten me NCAA09 for Christmas (a surprise I had blown by picking it up sale around the same time she got it for me) then today after seeing a commercial about the Heisman as I am walking out of the room into the room she is in I jokingly ask her who she thinks will win the Heisman and she says "Tebow". I think she's wrong but at least she knew who was in the running.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Incorrect on your math there, KWhit

119 FBS teams, 68 teams play a postseason game: Percentage: 57%
334 Div 1-A Basketball teams, 96 Play a postseason game (64 NCAA, 32 NIT), 28.7 %

No. I was talking about an 8 or 16 team playoff and said so in my post. I'm not counting the meaningless exhibition games tacked onto the end of the year that people call "bowl games" today.

Right now you have a 2 team playoff in football - #1 vs #2. That's 1.6%.

So an 8 team playoff would be 6.7%. Still not "watered down."

And 16 teams would be 13%. Nope. Not watered down at all - especially with such a short regular season.

And you are kind of making my point for me. The current system "rewards" way too many teams with a meaningless bowl game. That's watered down!

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The Ohio State's formula for making the BCS makes me want to vomit. Play a weak OOC except for one big game ( Texas, USC) then beat Michagen.
Since they start in the top 5 every year they dont have as big a climb to make when they lose to UT or USC, and lets face it, it is better to lose to USC then beat Akron.

If Ohio State didnt start the season ranked so high every year they wouldn't even sniff the BCS

They would have made the BCS regardless the last 2 years by winning the conference. Your OOC argument makes no sense, because as long as they win the Big Ten, they are going to a BCS bowl.

And how many schools out there won't even schedule any big OOC games against other top-10 caliber programs? I would say the answer is "most".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe this came up in the thread already & I missed it, but I don't recall it coming up here or anywhere else, but based on something that I worked out as part of a discussion on another forum, there was no way Boise could have been selected instead of Ohio State (as some people seemed to wish had been done regardless of their feelings about the BCS). OSU was ultimately an automatic qualifier.

Here's a link to the applicable rules I refer to below. Thanks in advance if someone spots an error in my flow.

There are ten slots to fill.

Automatic qualifiers (by rule section)
1) Oklahoma & Florida, the top two in the BCS standings

2) Remaining conference champions provided Va Tech, Cincinnati, USC, and Penn State to bring the total to six.

3a) Utah is number seven by virtue of winning a non-BCS conference AND finishing in the top 12 of the final BCS standings. Boise blocked from an automatic by the presence of Utah, although if not for the Utes Boise could have been as low as 16th and still have gotten in by virtue of being ahead of a conference automatic qualifier (Va Tech).

4) Notre Dame _not_ qualified under rule

5) Texas _not_ an automatic under the rule because OU is in the title game

6) Alabama _not_ an automatic under the rule because Florida is in the title game

So automatic qualifiers provide seven teams, leaving three at-large berths.

The pool for those teams consists of any team with 9 regular season wins AND in the top 14 of the final BCS poll that did not earn an automatic entry.

#3 Texas, #4 Alabama, #7 Texas Tech, #9 Boise St, #10 Ohio State, #11 TCU, #13 Oklahoma State, and #14 Georgia Tech are the eight remaining candidates. But because there are less than ten available teams, the rules expand the pool to the top 18. That adds #15 Georgia, #16 BYU, #17 Oregon, and #18 Michigan State, bringing the total to 12.

That's bring us to a sub-section of the At-large eligibility rules.

"(1) if any conference has two or more teams in the top 14, then two of those teams must be selected and (2) from the teams ranked 15-18, a bowl can select only a team from a conference that has fewer than two teams in the top 14."

Before the first half of rule can be applied (I think) the second section of the rule would then eliminates Georgia (since the SEC had two in the top 14), BYU (because of Utah & TCU in the top 14), and Michigan State (because of PSU & OSU).

Because there's fewer than ten teams available (12 minus 3) the pool has to be expanded in blocks of four teams until an eligible group of ten is reached. Looks like that would add #20 Pitt and #22 Ball State to the at-large pool, bringing the total to 11 choices.

Once the group of ten is settled, then by virtue of the first section of the rule above, Ohio State being the second and only other Big 10 team in the top 14, their selection is required by rule. AND it looks like Alabama is also a required selection as the only other SEC team in the top 14.

That leaves one spot available from the remaining nine teams:#3 Texas, #7 Texas Tech, #9 Boise St, #11 TCU, #13 Oklahoma State, #14 Georgia Tech, #17 Oregon, #20 Pitt, and #22 Ball State.

From there, the slots are filled according to the rules:

By selection rule
1)NCG: Oklahoma
NCG: Florida

2) Orange - Va Tech (ACC Champ)
Rose - Penn State (Big 10 Champ)
Rose - USC (Pac 10 Champ)
Fiesta - none (lost Big 12 Champ to NCG)
Sugar - none (lost SEC Champ to NCG)

3) Provides the Fiesta & Sugar replacement picks
Rule 3c prohibits "the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents". (Basically meant the Fiesta could not take Alabama away from the Sugar)

Fiesta - Texas (as replacement selection, which effective closed the loop as the lone team not previously guaranteed one of the ten spots)

Sugar - Alabama (as replacement selection)

The remaining spots are then filled from a pool consisting of Utah, Ohio State, and Cincinnati

4c) dictates the selection order
Fiesta - Ohio State (by choice)
Sugar - Utah (by choice)
Orange - Cincinnati (by default)

edited to add: And now that I think about it a little more, the loop was actually down to two teams before the Fiesta bowl made their selection: either Texas or Texas Tech, because the Big 12 had two teams in the top fourteen and by rule they must get two selections once the at-large pool expanded.

[BrianD]

Anybody else's head hurt after reading all of that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Anybody else's head hurt after reading all of that?

If reading it was tough, imagine the fun of working it all out

[cartman]

Texas was an automatic qualifier due to rule 5, because OU wasn't an at-large selection to the NC game. And Alabama was an automatic qualifier due to rule 6, because Florida wasn't an at-large selection.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

They would have made the BCS regardless the last 2 years by winning the conference. Your OOC argument makes no sense, because as long as they win the Big Ten, they are going to a BCS bowl.

And how many schools out there won't even schedule any big OOC games against other top-10 caliber programs? I would say the answer is "most".

I understand your point about the last 2 seasons, but do you really think OSU belongs in the BCS this year? The Big 10 has been a joke of a league the past few years, OSU's BCS game performances prove that.

Had they not been ranked so high to start the year they never get there, what's their best win this year, Michagen State?

It's a joke that teams like OSU and Notre Dame have a free pass to a BCS game as long as they win a certain number of games, regardless of who it is against.

I can think of at least 3 schools that belong their over OSU. Boise St, Texas Tech, and Georgia all deserve it more ( yes I know conferences can't have 3 teams).

I also think there are a number of teams that make it a game. TCU, Oregoen, etc...

[BrianD]

Why wouldn't TCU be guaranteed a spot as the second team from the MWC ranked below 14?

Edit: Nevermind, the MWC isn't allowed more than one automatic berth. The two teams per conference rule must only be for BCS conferences.

Edit#2: Still seems like they should get an al-large berth though, no?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Texas was an automatic qualifier due to rule 5, because OU wasn't an at-large selection to the NC game.

Ah, good catch.

I didn't apply rules one & two properly (thought of it initially as them being an "at-large" of sorts and mentally misapplied rule two as being something along the lines of "all these conference champs who didn't qualify under rule one")

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Why wouldn't TCU be guaranteed a spot as the second team from the MWC ranked below 14?

The BCS is only under contract to take 1 non-bcs school even if more than 1 meet the requirements.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Why wouldn't TCU be guaranteed a spot as the second team from the MWC ranked below 14?

Presumably because Ohio State was ranked higher & would qualify under the same "two conferences in the top 14" rule.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

And Alabama was an automatic qualifier due to rule 6, because Florida wasn't an at-large selection.

Alabama can't qualify under rule 6 because Texas already qualified under rule 5.

6. If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 5, and if no team qualifies under paragraph No. 5 and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 4 in the final BCS Standings, that team will become an automatic qualifier provided that no at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the national championship game.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Presumably because Ohio State was ranked higher & would qualify under the same "two conferences in the top 14" rule.

The whole argument is pointless.

Boise St was ranked higher then both of them and didn't get the bid.

I know it sounds like I am really railing against OSU, but if they are elidgeable they are going to a BCS game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The whole argument is pointless. Boise St was ranked higher then both of them and didn't get the bid.

Because they were the only team in the top 14 from their conference, whereas
the "two out of 14" rule made both OSU and TCU eligible for a required selection from the at-large pool.

If the WAC had anybody else in the top 14 they were subject to the same opportunity as TCU.

[Lathum]

OSU is a 10.5 dog. I'll jump all over Texas at that number.

[BrianD]

If TCU had been ranked better than OSU, can we assume OSU would have been selected anyway since they are a BCS team and TCU isn't?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I understand your point about the last 2 seasons, but do you really think OSU belongs in the BCS this year? The Big 10 has been a joke of a league the past few years, OSU's BCS game performances prove that.

Had they not been ranked so high to start the year they never get there, what's their best win this year, Michagen State?

It's a joke that teams like OSU and Notre Dame have a free pass to a BCS game as long as they win a certain number of games, regardless of who it is against.

I can think of at least 3 schools that belong their over OSU. Boise St, Texas Tech, and Georgia all deserve it more ( yes I know conferences can't have 3 teams).

I also think there are a number of teams that make it a game. TCU, Oregoen, etc...

Boise State is the only team that was realistically in the BCS hunt besides OSU, thanks to the "no 3 teams from any one conference rule". And if I am a bowl organizer, there is no way I am taking Boise State over Ohio State. No way. This is a flaw with the bowl system as opposed to a playoff. Money wins every time.

As for your argument about who Ohio State's best win is... OSU has a better schedule all around than Boise State. No question. No wonder Boise is undefeated every year, the WAC is a joke.

I think Texas will take apart Ohio State, and I am an Ohio State fan. But I think that is true of just about anyone paired against the Longhorns. I would have been perfectly happy with a Capital One pairing against Georgia, and mostly expected it. But with the current system, Ohio State is going 10 times out of 10. Blame the system, not the players. Ohio State is scheduling at least one high quality OOC game every season, and running the table in its conference virtually every year. I'm not sure what else you expect them to do to prove they are "worthy" of a BCS bid.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Boise State is the only team that was realistically in the BCS hunt besides OSU, thanks to the "no 3 teams from any one conference rule". And if I am a bowl organizer, there is no way I am taking Boise State over Ohio State. No way. This is a flaw with the bowl system as opposed to a playoff. Money wins every time.

As for your argument about who Ohio State's best win is... OSU has a better schedule all around than Boise State. No question. No wonder Boise is undefeated every year, the WAC is a joke.

I think Texas will take apart Ohio State, and I am an Ohio State fan. But I think that is true of just about anyone paired against the Longhorns. I would have been perfectly happy with a Capital One pairing against Georgia, and mostly expected it. But with the current system, Ohio State is going 10 times out of 10. Blame the system, not the players. Ohio State is scheduling at least one high quality OOC game every season, and running the table in its conference virtually every year. I'm not sure what else you expect them to do to prove they are "worthy" of a BCS bid.

I definantly blame the system.

As for being worthy their last 4 games against BCS caliber teams were

@ USC lost 35-3
Home to Penn St- Lost 13-6
BCS Champinship game- Lost to LSU 38-24
BCS Championship game- Lost to Florida 41-14

Thats 0-4 while getting outscored 127-47.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I definantly blame the system.

As for being worthy their last 4 games against BCS caliber teams were

@ USC lost 35-3
Home to Penn St- Lost 13-6
BCS Champinship game- Lost to LSU 38-24
BCS Championship game- Lost to Florida 41-14

Thats 0-4 while getting outscored 127-47.

0-5...they lost to Illinois who went to the Rose Bowl last year

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

0-5...they lost to Illinois who went to the Rose Bowl last year

excellent point

[ISiddiqui]

Jon, I think that subsection can be read a bit differently:

If fewer than 10 teams are eligible for selection, then the Bowls can select as an at-large team any Football Bowl Subdivision team that is bowl-eligible, has won at least nine regular-season games and is among the top 18 teams in the final BCS Standings subject to the two-team limit noted above and also subject to the following: (1) if any conference has two or more teams in the top 14, then two of those teams must be selected and (2) from the teams ranked 15-18, a bowl can select only a team from a conference that has fewer than two teams in the top 14. If fewer than 10 teams are eligible for selection, then the Bowls can select as an at-large team any Football Bowl Subdivision team that is bowl-eligible, has won at least nine regular-season games and is among the top 18 teams in the final BCS Standings subject to the two-team limit noted above and also subject to the following: (1) if any conference has two or more teams in the top 14, then two of those teams must be selected and (2) from the teams ranked 15-18, a bowl can select only a team from a conference that has fewer than two teams in the top 14.

I read that as being if fewer than 10 teams are eligible among the combined automatic and at-large teams that have at least 9 wins and in the Top 14 of the BCS, THEN the pool of at large teams can expand to 18 in the BCS. And the the subrules say that even if a team has 8 wins, if it is in the top 14 of the BCS and its conference slots are not filled, it gets an automatic at-large bid.

Otherwise, I can't see how you'd EVER be able to get a pool of 10 at large teams within the first 14 of the BCS (considering that #1 and #2 are auto qualifiers and then 3 of the remaining BCS conference champions).

[RedKingGold]

It hurts my head to read Lathum-typed posts.

[RainMaker]

Doesn't that rule just add credence to the notion that the regular season is meaningless for certain teams? I mean it's not based on what team is better (the system determined Boise was), but what the teams in their conference did.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

It hurts my head to read Lathum-typed posts.

style or substance?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

0-5...they lost to Illinois who went to the Rose Bowl last year

Dammit, bsak, you're supposed to be helping me out here! Big Ten, and all that.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I can think of at least 3 schools that belong their over OSU. Boise St, Texas Tech, and Georgia all deserve it more ( yes I know conferences can't have 3 teams).

Holy crap. How in the world can Georgia deserve a BCS bid? The best team they beat was Central Michigan (8-4, 6-2 in the MAC). Other than that, they didn't beat a single team with more than 7 wins, and didn't beat a single team with better than a .500 conference record.

South Carolina (7-5, 4-4)
Arizona State (5-7, 4-5)
Tennessee (5-7, 3-5)
Vanderbilt (6-6, 4-4)
LSU (7-5, 3-5)
Kentucky (6-6, 2-6)
Auburn (5-7, 2-6)

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The pool for those teams consists of any team with 9 regular season wins AND in the top 14 of the final BCS poll that did not earn an automatic entry.

#3 Texas, #4 Alabama, #7 Texas Tech, #9 Boise St, #10 Ohio State, #11 TCU, #13 Oklahoma State, and #14 Georgia Tech are the eight remaining candidates. But because there are less than ten available teams, the rules expand the pool to the top 18. That adds #15 Georgia, #16 BYU, #17 Oregon, and #18 Michigan State, bringing the total to 12.

I think this is your error. The ten eligible teams isn't ten eligible at large teams, it is ten eligible teams period. So if you couldn't fill the extra slots with teams who had 9 wins and were in the top 14, then you go to the top 18. That wasn't necessary this year, so the must take 2 from a conference with 2 in the top 14 rule was never triggered.

Boise could have been taken over OSU.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting tidbit from an article in The Columbus Dispatch

There have been three BCS games involving schools from non-BCS leagues, and each is among the seven lowest-rated of the 42 all-time BCS games: Utah versus Pittsburgh in the 2005 Fiesta (a 7.4 rating), Boise State against Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta (8.4) and Hawaii versus Georgia in the 2008 Sugar (7.0).

That averages out to a 7.7 rating. Contrast that with 11.0, which is Ohio State's average rating in its three games as a BCS at-large team.

Bottom line? More people would rather watch tOSU get blown out than watch non-BCS teams regardless of outcome.

[Logan]

Breakdown of the rating for each of those games and who they played?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Breakdown of the rating for each of those games and who they played?

I didn't write the article so I'm not sure but looking at the list and trying to figure out when they were an at-large selection, it looks like

1999 - Sugar vs Texas A&M 11.5
2004 - Fiesta vs K-State 8.5
2006 - Fiesta vs Notre Dame 12.9

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bottom line? More people would rather watch tOSU get blown out than watch non-BCS teams regardless of outcome.

Ohio State's record in BCS games is actually 4-2. Oklahoma is 2-4 and no one seems to remember.