Goin' Bowling: The BCS etc.

We already covered this somewhere, but I can't remember where. I believe the stipulation is the bowls with conference tie-ins can't pass over a 7-5 team for a 6-6 team from the <i>same conference.</i> So the Independence Bowl, for example, couldn't pass over Mississippi State for South Carolina. Don't think it applies to teams from other conferences, though.

 

Well, there ya go. Thanks for clearing that up, FH.

 

Having watched Georgia take it in the ass in Knoxville, it just staggers me that this team is a lock for a BCS bowl.

 

Hopefully without sounding like a looser fanboy, I'd say Georgia is a much better team now than it was then. Moreno hadn't caught fire at running back at that point and Richt hadn't started pushing all the right buttons.

I don't know that Georgia is really as good as its ranking, but it has won six in a row to end the regular season while nearly everyone else has lost a game or two.

 

Is there any 1- or 2-loss team that isn't eligible for an automatic bid (i.e., that hasn't already won its conference or will be playing for it on Saturday) that doesn't have a bad loss this season? Hawaii's undefeated and Kansas' one loss is to Missouri. But after that ...

Illinois lost to Iowa
Clemson lost to Georgia Tech
BYU lost to UCLA

Maybe Florida has a better resume than Georgia, but they lost to the Bulldogs head-to-head.

And while we're on the subject of automatic bids, anybody care to explain how UCLA can win the Pac-10? Does it have to be a 4-way tie (UCLA beats USC, Arizona beats Arizona State and then the Oregon/Oregon State winner)?

 

As long as Hawaii is in the top 12 in the BCS standings, the Warriors have an automatic bid to a BCS bowl. Right now, they're 12th and have an automatic bid.

 

Sweet, I'm rooting for that then. ;D

 

So in two steps, the Pac-10 champion could be a team that lost at home to the worst Notre Dame team in 50-some years? Awesome!

 

I looked around for a little while -- even on the UCLA and Pac-10 web sites -- and never saw it explained, other than UCLA would win the tiebreaker.

 

No, because UCLA went in 1998/99 and Arizona State in 1997/98.

Found it. Courtesy of the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-tiebreaker27nov27,1,6620582.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-coll-usc

If UCLA and Arizona State both win on Saturday:

UCLA, Arizona State, USC and the winner of Saturday's Oregon-Oregon State game would be 6-3 in conference play.

In a four-way tie among USC, UCLA, Arizona State and Oregon, UCLA and Oregon would, at 2-1, have the best record against the other three teams in the tie, and since UCLA beat Oregon the Bruins would win the tiebreaker.

If there's a four-way tie among USC, UCLA, Arizona State and Oregon State, it's more complex.

USC, UCLA and Arizona State would all be 2-1 against the other teams in the tie; Oregon State would be 0-3, so the Beavers would be eliminated.

The next tiebreaker is each remaining team's record against the other two -- still a tie; all would be 1-1.

The next consideration is each team's record against the next team after the four-way tie in the standings -- which would be Oregon and Arizona, tied for fifth. USC and UCLA would be 1-1; Arizona State would be 0-2, eliminating the Sun Devils.

That takes it to a head-to-head tiebreaker between UCLA and USC . . . and the Bruins would go based on their win over the Trojans.

 

Is there a lower-tier bowl that would gladly suffer mocking in place of accepting the money that is guaranteed to come from South Bend, Indiana?

I say that tongue-partly-in-cheek.

Oh, the latest bowl projects from Rivals: