Gentlemen, Start Your Boilerplate Columns: BCS Standings Released

[Piotr Rasputin]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcsstandings

Oklahoma No. 1, Oregon No. 2. Boise State, in trouble.

 

[Moderator1]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcsstandings

Oregon No. 1. Boise State, in trouble.

Oklahoma is No. 1 in the one I saw.

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcsstandings

Oregon No. 1. Boise State, in trouble.

Read your story. Second graf.

Oklahoma was first and Oregon was second Sunday, with Boise State in third place and in need of plenty of help to become the first team from a conference without an automatic Bowl Championship Series bid to play for the BCS title.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Sorry for typing too quickly. If I messpeeled unyting, leet meeeee no.

Anyone care to comment on the standings themselves?

 

[zagoshe]

Oklahoma and Oregon will both lose because they play real teams while Boise gets to beat up the WHACK and brag about beating a ****ty Va Tech team

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Sorry for typing too quickly. If I messpeeled unyting, leet meeeee no.

Anyone care to comment on the standings themselves?

Lot of games left to go. It's hard for me to see anyone bumping Oklahoma and Oregon if they run the table, but you never know.

Boise State is probably screwed, unless everyone else in the top 10 flops.

Assuming reports were correct that Boise would have been number one followed by Oregon last week, it's remarkable that Oregon is now ahead. Boise State won 48-0 and the Ducks were idle.

 

[GoochMan]

Oklahoma will lose this season. Auburn will lose this season.
Oregon may not lose, but if so they'll play a one-loss team in the BCS title game. Boise and TCU will go unbeaten and be shut out...if the powers that be have their way, they'll play each other again.

It's a bull**** system. Those are my bull**** prognostications.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

TCU would like a word with everyone.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

It's a bull**** system.

The excellent Chris Dufresne points out that it used to be much worse:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-1014-dufresne-20101014,0,7424881.column

The upcoming columns bemoaning the BCS always remind me of USC fans who bitched about recent Rose Bowl berths. How quickly they forgot the Paul Hackett years.

The memories of Penn State and Michigan getting screwed in the 1990s are still fresh for me, so I'm good with the BCS.

 

[GoochMan]

The system went from horrendous to pretty bad.

It's an improvement...but it's far from what it should be.

 

[SoCalDude]

I guess the dude -- it's unofficial, but he's always right -- who said Boise would be No. 1 in the first BCS standings was ... uh ... not right.

 

[zagoshe]

By the same token - if the current system was in place in the 1990's Michigan would not have a national title in 1997 or whatever year it was they shared with Nebraska because they'd have had to play Nebraska in the bowl game instead of Washington State and the Cornhuskers would have ****stomped them into the ground.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I guess the dude -- it's unofficial, but he's always right -- who said Boise would be No. 1 in the first BCS standings was ... uh ... not right.

The projection was for the BCS rankings if they had come out last week, not what they would be this week.

That said, it's surprising how different they are.

 

[zagoshe]

I guess the dude -- it's unofficial, but he's always right -- who said Boise would be No. 1 in the first BCS standings was ... uh ... not right.

The projection was for the BCS rankings if they had come out last week, not what they would be this week.

That said, it's surprising how different they are.

Not really when you consider two of the projected top five teams - Nebraska and Ohio State - both lost.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I guess the dude -- it's unofficial, but he's always right -- who said Boise would be No. 1 in the first BCS standings was ... uh ... not right.

The projection was for the BCS rankings if they had come out last week, not what they would be this week.

That said, it's surprising how different they are.

Not really when you consider two of the projected top five teams - Nebraska and Ohio State - both lost.

They were projected 5th and 7th last week.

 

[zagoshe]

I guess the dude -- it's unofficial, but he's always right -- who said Boise would be No. 1 in the first BCS standings was ... uh ... not right.

The projection was for the BCS rankings if they had come out last week, not what they would be this week.

That said, it's surprising how different they are.

Not really when you consider two of the projected top five teams - Nebraska and Ohio State - both lost.

They were projected 5th and 7th last week.

They were both in the top five in the human polls - which is a big piece of the overall BCS rankings. With those two losing - other teams moved up not too mention teams moving up in the computer polls.

It was a monkey wrench.

 

[JayFarrar]

AP story said Boise curb stomping San Jose hurt the Broncos more than it helped them.

Here's my theory on why the playoffs for DI haven't happened.

It mostly has to do with travel. Most teams, with Notre Dame being the notable exception, couldn't range that far from home. While it seems crazy nowadays, loading up 100 players, and 50 more coaches and support staff then jetting them from the Southeast to the West Coast was really only possible about once a year. And all but the wealthiest fans couldn't have afforded to follow the team anyway.

It wasn't until the mid-60s or so before the bowl games, once considered a very glorified scrimmage game, began to even matter and then being your league champ was as good as it got.

TV and easier travel began to enter into the equation in the 70s but, by then, the bowl system was ingrained and had so much money behind it, scrapping it and starting a 16 team playoff was out of the question.

The only real success of the BCS has been busting the Rose Bowl to allow Pac-10/Big 10 teams to play outside of Pasadena.

If you ask how the NCAA was able to pull off basketball, well with maybe a total of 20 players and coaches traveling and the ability to play an entire tournament in a week, makes it much easier. Crap, the NAIA still does that.
And, until just a few years ago, you had to win your conference to even get a bid so it wasn't like the 65 team March Madness of today.

 

[Roscablo]

I guess the dude -- it's unofficial, but he's always right -- who said Boise would be No. 1 in the first BCS standings was ... uh ... not right.

The projection was for the BCS rankings if they had come out last week, not what they would be this week.

That said, it's surprising how different they are.

Not really when you consider two of the projected top five teams - Nebraska and Ohio State - both lost.

They were projected 5th and 7th last week.

But their losses, especially Ohio State's, helped increase the standing of Oregon and Oklahoma in the human polls, which helped push them over Boise State. Oregon State also lost, which probably hurt Boise State's computer ranking. Boise pretty much only has Virginia Tech and Oregon State to boost those numbers right now and any dings to those two are going to really hurt the Broncos.

 

[Armchair_QB]

TCU would like a word with everyone.

And that word will be "ouch" after they get trucked by Utah.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

AP story said Boise curb stomping San Jose hurt the Broncos more than it helped them.

Here's my theory on why the playoffs for DI haven't happened.

It mostly has to do with travel. Most teams, with Notre Dame being the notable exception, couldn't range that far from home. While it seems crazy nowadays, loading up 100 players, and 50 more coaches and support staff then jetting them from the Southeast to the West Coast was really only possible about once a year. And all but the wealthiest fans couldn't have afforded to follow the team anyway.

It wasn't until the mid-60s or so before the bowl games, once considered a very glorified scrimmage game, began to even matter and then being your league champ was as good as it got.

TV and easier travel began to enter into the equation in the 70s but, by then, the bowl system was ingrained and had so much money behind it, scrapping it and starting a 16 team playoff was out of the question.

The only real success of the BCS has been busting the Rose Bowl to allow Pac-10/Big 10 teams to play outside of Pasadena.

If you ask how the NCAA was able to pull off basketball, well with maybe a total of 20 players and coaches traveling and the ability to play an entire tournament in a week, makes it much easier. Crap, the NAIA still does that.
And, until just a few years ago, you had to win your conference to even get a bid so it wasn't like the 65 team March Madness of today.

Actually, the NCAA tournament has had 64 or more teams since 1985, which is 25 years ago. Hardly a few years ago.

Plus, travel squads for BCS schools, is, I believe, 72 members. While that is considerably more than basketball teams, the hoopsters travel every week for a month when you factor conference tournaments in. The NCAA's claims of travel issues and missed class time is hogwash.

You are correct about the bowl history. There weren't that many of them until the 1970s, and it was a real novelty for a team to travel out of their region. Hard to believe, but NYC was a college football hotbed until the 1950s, and teams from all over the country would travel into NYC, and those games were almost as big as the bowls.

My theory, which I've stated here before, is that the NCAA knows they can still use the bowls as a way to claim the players are being rewarded. Having the players beat themselves up for an extra month for playoffs games wouldn't look too seemly.