BCS bowl matchups

[RickStain]

If the point is just to win games, regardless of who they win them against, why schedule anyone good? Why even be in a good conference? Florida and USC can join the Sun Belt or MAC or go independent, play Army and Western Kentucky and Eastern Michigan, and whoever is undefeated gets to be in the national title game.

Strength of schedule is reasonable as a tiebreaker, given that there isn't any other decenet way to do it with no head to head.

In that way, scheduling is strategic with multiple good choices. If you have a difficult schedule, you are guaranteed to be in the title game if you win out. If you have a weak schedule, you are gambling that you'll be one of the only undefeateds.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

If the point is just to win games, regardless of who they win them against, why schedule anyone good? Why even be in a good conference? Florida and USC can join the Sun Belt or MAC or go independent, play Army and Western Kentucky and Eastern Michigan, and whoever is undefeated gets to be in the national title game.

Strength of schedule is reasonable as a tiebreaker, given that there isn't any other decenet way to do it with no head to head.

In that way, scheduling is strategic with multiple good choices. If you have a difficult schedule, you are guaranteed to be in the title game if you win out. If you have a weak schedule, you are gambling that you'll be one of the only undefeateds.

Which Boise seems to be doing by insisting on home-and-home series despite being an arriviste to the upper levels of college football. Beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl isn't the golden ticket to Willy Wonka's football factory.

Still, if we went strictly off records and didn't try to measure one team's 12-0 with another team's 11-1 when it calls for it, then it'd be a good gamble. It's pretty rare to have more than two unbeaten teams in a season (at least that I can recall, I can't find a good source at the ready to make this point, but certainly the idea of five unbeaten teams like we could have this season would be strange indeed)

 

[Roscablo]

If the point is just to win games, regardless of who they win them against, why schedule anyone good? Why even be in a good conference? Florida and USC can join the Sun Belt or MAC or go independent, play Army and Western Kentucky and Eastern Michigan, and whoever is undefeated gets to be in the national title game.

Strength of schedule is reasonable as a tiebreaker, given that there isn't any other decenet way to do it with no head to head.

In that way, scheduling is strategic with multiple good choices. If you have a difficult schedule, you are guaranteed to be in the title game if you win out. If you have a weak schedule, you are gambling that you'll be one of the only undefeateds.

Which Boise seems to be doing by insisting on home-and-home series despite being an arriviste to the upper levels of college football. Beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl isn't the golden ticket to Willy Wonka's football factory.

Still, if we went strictly off records and didn't try to measure one team's 12-0 with another team's 11-1 when it calls for it, then it'd be a good gamble. It's pretty rare to have more than two unbeaten teams in a season (at least that I can recall, I can't find a good source at the ready to make this point, but certainly the idea of five unbeaten teams like we could have this season would be strange indeed)

Exactly. And the run of unbeaten BCS teams is a fairly recent trend -- Utah in 2004, Boise in 06, Hawaii in 07 and Utah and Boise last year. Before that I don't know if there had been one since Tulane (in 98?). Still pretty tough to go undefeated, which I guess is a knock against non-BCS conferences. And as of right now, a one-loss non-BCS team is not going to make it into into a BCS game. It may never happen. Strength of schedule does matter to that extent.

You put USC in the MAC and several things count against it (and every other non-BCS team). If it has one of its yearly dumb losses to a MAC team, it seriously hurts its BCS chances, whereas now for some reason losses to Washington are forgiven immediately. If it went undefeated, it might be subject to the same schedule arguments Boise State faces now. Then it would also lose its BCS money.

When talking about schedules and everything else, let's not forget how well off BCS teams have it just from exposure and money alone. You give those things to non-BCS conferences and I'd be willing to bet it would increase their overall competitiveness fairly quickly and maybe strength of conference schedule wouldn't be such a huge piece of this argument.

 

[JayFarrar]

I know things are cyclical but I guess the point is why does the Big East, for one, have an automatic bid over, say, the Mountain West?
You put TCU there and they cruise, just like they are now.
So if they add a bowl — Cotton — to the BCS, extend the Mountain West an automatic bid and the added bowl would create at least one more slot for another team. Since it would go from 10 teams to 12.
Maintain the two teams from a conference rule and everything would be dandy. As far as I'm concerned.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Not a bad plan at all, Jay.

 

[dreunc1542]

I love that A_QB completely ignored the argument from Oz on the last page and instead jumped on Scribe's usual inch-deep argument. A_QB, how exactly is PSU's record this year, beating a bunch of horse**** teams and losing to the good teams they played, more impressive than Boise's?

Also, the Big 10 gave up its right to the assumption that it's a quality league during the past five years when they've consistently been manhandled in the BCS. I'd take Boise straight up on a neutral field against Iowa or OSU. Neither of those teams has done anything to impress me this year.

And what the **** has Boise done to prove they're any more impressive than Iowa or Penn State? Iowa's beaten two teams currently ranked in the BCS standings, Boise's beaten one.

Oh, that's right, Boise beat Oregon way the **** back in September so they must be great. Never mind that Arizona - which Iowa beat - has just as much of a chance to play in the Rose Bowl as Oregon does at this point.

Iowa's also played eight bowl teams this year. Boise's played three. Iowa's opponents have an overall record of 63-43. Boise's opponents have an overall record of 51-60

Tell me again how Boise is so much better than Iowa?

The fact that you can't make an argument without throwing throwing in random ****s shows the depth of your argument. Your extreme hard-on for the Big Ten, and Iowa in particular, is showing. They lost two games since Stanzi went down. If we're looking at things the way the NCAA Selection Committee does and look at how Iowa has played without Stanzi, they don't even deserve to be in the conversation.

 

[DanOregon]

[size=10pt]But then you're diluting the value of the bowls!!!!!![/size]

 

[Mystery Meat II]

I know things are cyclical but I guess the point is why does the Big East, for one, have an automatic bid over, say, the Mountain West?
You put TCU there and they cruise, just like they are now.
So if they add a bowl — Cotton — to the BCS, extend the Mountain West an automatic bid and the added bowl would create at least one more slot for another team. Since it would go from 10 teams to 12.
Maintain the two teams from a conference rule and everything would be dandy. As far as I'm concerned.

Not sure about TCU cruising in the Big East. They'd obviously be competitive and they might well win it. But Cincinnati's a tough out, and West Virginia/South Florida would be tough as well, especially on the road. Rutgers too, to some extent.

As for why the Big East and not the MWC: Even the crappy teams have at least some level of success in the not-so-distant past. Louisville was strong a few years ago. Syracuse had the McNabb years and good teams before that. UConn's the new team, but they've generally been respectable. The idea they've been before means they could be good again with the right class or coach, and the programs have a heritage. So it makes the Big East in the big picture more attractive than the MWC (the likes of New Mexico and UNLV don't have the big season backstory, and nobody can ID a player from San Diego State not named Faulk).

That said, if the MWC continues to put up two or three top-20 teams, at some point they'll be considered a major.

An idea: Elevate that sixth game (the Cotton or Gator or something else), guarantee a spot to a non-BCS conference champion. That way, if something weird breaks (undefeated Ball State?), they'd have an in. Of course, you might need a BCS ranking floor in case all the champions are crap.

 

[DanOregon]

I almost think the non-BCS schools prefer the way it is now. If you are TCU, Utah or Boise and you get the Cotton, you'll end up playing a second place team, likely outside the Big 12 or SEC. I'm sure they'd much rather face an Oklahoma, Alabama or Florida, or the Big East or ACC champion.

 

[CitizenTino]

I know things are cyclical but I guess the point is why does the Big East, for one, have an automatic bid over, say, the Mountain West?
You put TCU there and they cruise, just like they are now.
So if they add a bowl — Cotton — to the BCS, extend the Mountain West an automatic bid and the added bowl would create at least one more slot for another team. Since it would go from 10 teams to 12.
Maintain the two teams from a conference rule and everything would be dandy. As far as I'm concerned.

Not sure about TCU cruising in the Big East. They'd obviously be competitive and they might well win it. But Cincinnati's a tough out, and West Virginia/South Florida would be tough as well, especially on the road. Rutgers too, to some extent.

As for why the Big East and not the MWC: Even the crappy teams have at least some level of success in the not-so-distant past. Louisville was strong a few years ago. Syracuse had the McNabb years and good teams before that. UConn's the new team, but they've generally been respectable. The idea they've been before means they could be good again with the right class or coach, and the programs have a heritage. So it makes the Big East in the big picture more attractive than the MWC (the likes of New Mexico and UNLV don't have the big season backstory, and nobody can ID a player from San Diego State not named Faulk).

That said, if the MWC continues to put up two or three top-20 teams, at some point they'll be considered a major.

An idea: Elevate that sixth game (the Cotton or Gator or something else), guarantee a spot to a non-BCS conference champion. That way, if something weird breaks (undefeated Ball State?), they'd have an in. Of course, you might need a BCS ranking floor in case all the champions are crap.

There should be a ranking floor for the automatic bids now, but you'll never see the conferences agree to that.

 

[Oz]

I almost think the non-BCS schools prefer the way it is now. If you are TCU, Utah or Boise and you get the Cotton, you'll end up playing a second place team, likely outside the Big 12 or SEC. I'm sure they'd much rather face an Oklahoma, Alabama or Florida, or the Big East or ACC champion.

I think they would much rather play for the national championship.

 

[ucacm]

I know things are cyclical but I guess the point is why does the Big East, for one, have an automatic bid over, say, the Mountain West?
You put TCU there and they cruise, just like they are now.
So if they add a bowl — Cotton — to the BCS, extend the Mountain West an automatic bid and the added bowl would create at least one more slot for another team. Since it would go from 10 teams to 12.
Maintain the two teams from a conference rule and everything would be dandy. As far as I'm concerned.

Not sure about TCU cruising in the Big East. They'd obviously be competitive and they might well win it. But Cincinnati's a tough out, and West Virginia/South Florida would be tough as well, especially on the road. Rutgers too, to some extent.

As for why the Big East and not the MWC: Even the crappy teams have at least some level of success in the not-so-distant past. Louisville was strong a few years ago. Syracuse had the McNabb years and good teams before that. UConn's the new team, but they've generally been respectable. The idea they've been before means they could be good again with the right class or coach, and the programs have a heritage. So it makes the Big East in the big picture more attractive than the MWC (the likes of New Mexico and UNLV don't have the big season backstory, and nobody can ID a player from San Diego State not named Faulk).

That said, if the MWC continues to put up two or three top-20 teams, at some point they'll be considered a major.

An idea: Elevate that sixth game (the Cotton or Gator or something else), guarantee a spot to a non-BCS conference champion. That way, if something weird breaks (undefeated Ball State?), they'd have an in. Of course, you might need a BCS ranking floor in case all the champions are crap.

There should be a ranking floor for the automatic bids now, but you'll never see the conferences agree to that.

Do you mean that a team should not be allowed to obtain an automatic bid if they are below a certain rank?

I couldn't find it anywhere in existence, but I believe, in an early incarnation of the BCS rules, that a conference would lose its automatic spot if its champion was ranked below X over a period of 4 or 5 years. As it is, the only thing similar in nature to that provision is that one of the non-AQC champions will get an automatic bid as long as it is in the top 16 and ranked above an AQC champion.

And for the love of Christ, people, EVERY CONFERENCE IS A BCS CONFERENCE.

 

[zagoshe]

I know things are cyclical but I guess the point is why does the Big East, for one, have an automatic bid over, say, the Mountain West?
You put TCU there and they cruise, just like they are now.
So if they add a bowl — Cotton — to the BCS, extend the Mountain West an automatic bid and the added bowl would create at least one more slot for another team. Since it would go from 10 teams to 12.
Maintain the two teams from a conference rule and everything would be dandy. As far as I'm concerned.

TCU would not cruise through the Big East and would likely lose to either Pittsburgh, Cincy or WVU and would have tougher games against the bottom half of the league than they have now.

 

[JayFarrar]

Oh, for the love of Tebow, here we go.
All teams not in one of the Big six conferences suck. All teams in the Big 6 are automatically great unless they lose to a non Big 6 school then that team is down.
So when Utah beat 'Bama, it didn't matter because 'Bama was down. When TCU kicks the **** out of Florida in the Sugar Bowl, it will be, well Florida wasn't really that good, they were just ranked high from the start and didn't lose until the SEC title game.
West Virginia lost to a terrible Auburn team, this season.
Pitt and Cincy are suddenly world beaters because they play in an overrated conference that got put into the Big 6 because of the teams they used to have, not the teams they have now.
The bottom half of the Big East has some of the worst teams in college football.
All the top-ranked Big 6 schools have major holes.
No one, outside of the fanbois, can look at any of the top three -- Florida, Bama and Texas -- and not have some doubts about them.
Florida has played one ranked team. One.
You could just go on and on, honestly, this is probably the worst year for college football in some time. Not a single, truly dominant team or, for that matter, a single, dominant player.

 

[highlander]

I know things are cyclical but I guess the point is why does the Big East, for one, have an automatic bid over, say, the Mountain West?
You put TCU there and they cruise, just like they are now.
So if they add a bowl — Cotton — to the BCS, extend the Mountain West an automatic bid and the added bowl would create at least one more slot for another team. Since it would go from 10 teams to 12.
Maintain the two teams from a conference rule and everything would be dandy. As far as I'm concerned.

Not sure about TCU cruising in the Big East. They'd obviously be competitive and they might well win it. But Cincinnati's a tough out, and West Virginia/South Florida would be tough as well, especially on the road. Rutgers too, to some extent.

As for why the Big East and not the MWC: Even the crappy teams have at least some level of success in the not-so-distant past. Louisville was strong a few years ago. Syracuse had the McNabb years and good teams before that. UConn's the new team, but they've generally been respectable. The idea they've been before means they could be good again with the right class or coach, and the programs have a heritage. So it makes the Big East in the big picture more attractive than the MWC (the likes of New Mexico and UNLV don't have the big season backstory, and nobody can ID a player from San Diego State not named Faulk).

That said, if the MWC continues to put up two or three top-20 teams, at some point they'll be considered a major.

An idea: Elevate that sixth game (the Cotton or Gator or something else), guarantee a spot to a non-BCS conference champion. That way, if something weird breaks (undefeated Ball State?), they'd have an in. Of course, you might need a BCS ranking floor in case all the champions are crap.

There should be a ranking floor for the automatic bids now, but you'll never see the conferences agree to that.

Do you mean that a team should not be allowed to obtain an automatic bid if they are below a certain rank?

I couldn't find it anywhere in existence, but I believe, in an early incarnation of the BCS rules, that a conference would lose its automatic spot if its champion was ranked below X over a period of 4 or 5 years. As it is, the only thing similar in nature to that provision is that one of the non-AQC champions will get an automatic bid as long as it is in the top 16 and ranked above an AQC champion.

And for the love of Christ, people, EVERY CONFERENCE IS A BCS CONFERENCE.

For the love of Christ, they are not. That's just an asinine statement. The Non-automatic qualifiers aren't equal in the BCS to the automatic qualifiers. The Non-AQ have to jump through hoops to have the chance to play in a BCS bowl.

 

[MileHigh]

Here's a concept ... maybe already broached: Get rid of the automatic qualifiers. Just take the 10 best teams.

 

[DanOregon]

Pat Forde had a good column on what a dud this season has been. I'd like to think this year is an anomaly, but with no immediate end in sight of the SEC champ vs. Big 12 champ projected National Championship Game, and really, even if Florida, Alabama and Texas all lost one along the way, we'd still be where we are now - it makes me think I might as well do something else on Saturdays. Between college football, college basketball, NASCAR and the NBA, too many sports are becoming too predictable, and college football seems to be making an extra effort to become MORE predictable. It's not why I became a sports fan.

 

[RickStain]

Here's a concept ... maybe already broached: Get rid of the automatic qualifiers. Just take the 10 best teams.

We already have a competition involving the 10 best teams. It's the SEC regular season.

 

[I Should Coco]

After all the debate about Boise State getting into a BCS game, it comes down to this: Texas vs. Nebraska.

If an upset happens, your auto qualifiers are Florida/Bama winner, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oregon, TCU, Cincy/Pitt winner, Ga. Tech/Clemson winner.

Teams up for the last three BCS spots are Florida/Bama loser, Texas, Iowa, Penn State, Boise State.

Florida/Bama loser is a lock for the Sugar Bowl. And Boise State getting in over Texas or a Big 10 team?

Hitch your wagon to Colt McCoy, Bronco fans.