BCS Controversy Question

[callmetaternuts]

This may have been asked or mentioned before, but here goes anyways. Does it seem like there is always controversy as to who is #1 and #2 in the BCS on the game? The last two yeasr (NCAA 06 and 07) it seems that the one loss team ranked 3 gets in over the undefeated team. And im not talking about a one loss USC or Texas getting in over a Boise St, it seems when all the major schools are up there, every year the CPU BCS has controversy. Ive yet to see in my dynasties where its just simple 1 vs 2. I can see it happening if there are multiple undefeated teams or multiple one loss teams, but it seems to happen alot when there are two undefeateds and one gets screwed out of the title game.....thoughts?

[malek05]

I think this has to do with the comp. poll that is really the "strength of scheduele" stat that was suppose to be taking out of the bcs. I say this because in my FSU dynasty, I tinkered with my OCC scheduele so i could play top 25 teams, meaning I ended up playing 8 ranked teams. Early in the season I jumped to number 3 due to everyone else losing, but couldn't get past #1 Texas, and #2 Iowa. As the season went down the line however I finally started gaining on Iowa who was still undefeated, and in my last game against #5 ranked florida I jumped them overall .903 to .902. I checked there scheduele and they only played two ranked teams, OSU and Michigan. I've also seen this happen with West Virginia alot, where if I don't make my OOC tough I always get jobbed even if I am the only undefeated team.

USC and WVU are the only two teams I've seen this problem with however, as the other major conferences all play an extra championship game, usually against a high ranked opponent, which will give them that one final push. I know all thinkgs withstanding, on my game at least, that if there are a slew of 1 loss or undefeated teams, the SEC team and the ACC team always play for the NC. I guess this is due to EA thinking these are the two best conferences.

On a side note, I've noticed that even with the extra BCS game I rarely see a mid major conference play in one, it's always two second place teams from other conferences. IN one of my dynasties Boise State went undefeated for three years, including wins Florida State, Penn State, and Oklohoma, and never got higher than 18 in the polls.

[mercalnd]

Quote: Originally Posted by malek05

On a side note, I've noticed that even with the extra BCS game I rarely see a mid major conference play in one, it's always two second place teams from other conferences. IN one of my dynasties Boise State went undefeated for three years, including wins Florida State, Penn State, and Oklohoma, and never got higher than 18 in the polls.

That's not good since the BCS expansion specifically contains rules that almost ensure a mid-major makes the BCS every year. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's stated explicitly that unless some rare circumstance occurs, one of the two extra bids goes to a mid-major. Oh well.

[fsquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by spectralfan

That's not good since the BCS expansion specifically contains rules that almost ensure a mid-major makes the BCS every year. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's stated explicitly that unless some rare circumstance occurs, one of the two extra bids goes to a mid-major. Oh well.

non-BCS team has to be in the top 12 of the standings or being higher than the conference champ of a BCS conference.

[aukevin]

Last year's game I got into the NC game with a 9-3 record, jumping a 1 loss team. I ended up beating Miami in the NC game to make my record 10-3 and their record was 12-1. It looked funny.

This year's game I've only had one controversy and that was when I had 1 loss and got into the NC game against undefeated USC by jumping undefeated VT. VT got smashed in their bowl game though, so I didn't feel too bad.

I don't really pay attention to the NC game if I'm not in it, like my current season, so I'm not sure if a computer team is getting screwed or not.

[mercalnd]

Quote: Originally Posted by fsquid

non-BCS team has to be in the top 12 of the standings or being higher than the conference champ of a BCS conference.

Still, I have only been following NCAA football since the 2002 season but unless I forgot something one of those was true each the past four years and thus a mid-major would have gotten a bid in each of those years.

Also it used to be that top-12 made them BCS eligible but now it's guaranteed. Overall, I think we'll see a mid-mjor in a BCS game most years now. I just wish they'd take out the automatic bids to BCS conference champs. Four-loss teams or teams that are ranked #15 don't belong in the BCS regardless of winning their conference. At least, they should take the conference championship games out of the equation and take the team with the best record in the conference. The FSU situation was ridiculous last year. People praise NCAA football cause every game counts and each loss is supposed to be devastating but a four loss team gets a BCS bid.

[tedknick]

Last night in season 8 of my dynasty, I saw #1 Virginia Tech beat #4 USC in OT for the NC. USC did only have one loss, but no. 4!?!?

[marq]

This is interesting. In the '06 version, I was undefeated as Mich. and am set to play a TWO loss Florida team ranked #3 and #4 in the polls and didn't even play in the SEC title game (won by LSU, also with 2 losses, over Tenn.). Now, undefeated Iowa was knocked out of the title game by .003 but are ranked #2 in both polls. Guess there will be some sort of controversy...but whatever. Don't like that at all