BCS standings and ramifications

[hurleyfor3]

So Alabama is locked into the BCS championship game. Can Lsu get away with losing the SEC championship (to Georgia) but still making the BCS championship game?

Didn't Nebraska win a BCS championship a few years ago by the "Alabama route"? If you're a good team, but are in the same division as another good team, this seems like the smart way to go.

[JasonEvans]

So Alabama is locked into the BCS championship game. Can Lsu get away with losing the SEC championship (to Georgia) but still making the BCS championship game?

Didn't Nebraska win a BCS championship a few years ago by the "Alabama route"? If you're a good team, but are in the same division as another good team, this seems like the smart way to go.

The consensus is that even if LSU were to lose to Georgia, the voters would drop them no further than #2 in the polls and they would still get into the BCS title game. In fact, this is the scenario that allows the SEC to have the unprecedented 3 teams in BCS games with UGA as the automatic qualifier and LSU/Bama as the #1 and #2 teams automatically placed into the national title game. How crazy is that?!?!

LSU's season has been so impressive, I would go so far as to say that if LSU loses to UGA, the Bayou Bengals are likely to remain #1 in the polls.

-Jason "I do vaguely recall someone making the national title game recently who did not make it to their conference championship game" Evans

[Bluedog]

Didn't Nebraska win a BCS championship a few years ago by the "Alabama route"? If you're a good team, but are in the same division as another good team, this seems like the smart way to go.


-Jason "I do vaguely recall someone making the national title game recently who did not make it to their conference championship game" Evans

I don't recall an instance wherein the team didn't even make the conference championship game and got to the BCS Championship game, but there have been two cases that I remember where they lost their conference title game: Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003. Both lost in the title games after losing the conference championship games.

[tommy]

I don't recall an instance wherein the team didn't even make the conference championship game and got to the BCS Championship game, but there have been two cases that I remember where they lost their conference title game: Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003. Both lost in the title games after losing the conference championship games.

Yes, everyone griped about Nebraska getting into the big game in 2001 after being badly beaten in the Big 12 Championship game. Everyone was right. Nebraska was absolutely dismantled by one of the great Miami teams of all time in the Rose Bowl.

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't recall an instance wherein the team didn't even make the conference championship game and got to the BCS Championship game, but there have been two cases that I remember where they lost their conference title game: Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003. Both lost in the title games after losing the conference championship games.


Yes, everyone griped about Nebraska getting into the big game in 2001 after being badly beaten in the Big 12 Championship game. Everyone was right. Nebraska was absolutely dismantled by one of the great Miami teams of all time in the Rose Bowl.

Correction. Nebraska lost on Thanksgiving weekend to Colorado, and did NOT play in the Big XII Championship game (so there is precedent). Colorado went on to beat Texas, who would have been the sacrificial lamb to Miami had they won the Big XII championship.

Nebraska got killed by Miami (as expected), and Joey Harrington and Oregon cruised past Colorado (as expected).

I am sure that someone can dream up a scenario where a non-conference champion should go instead of a conference champion, but I can't think of one. It's a simple rule to add to the equation. If we had it this year, Okie State and Va Tech would be battling it out in the polls assuming (big assumption) that they both win this weekend.

I don't need to see LSU and 'Bama play again even if they are the 2 best teams. LSU already beat 'Bama. Case closed. If 'Bama can play LSU again, making that original game meaningless, let's at least ad a "plus one" for god sakes.

Oklahoma St. gained ground on 'Bama this weekend, and there is a longshot chance that if they beat Oklahoma badly that they could get some push in the Harris Poll especially. They will have a large gap on 'Bama in the computers, so if they gain ground in the Harris poll there's a shot. It's a longshot, but it's there.

[Nrrrrvous]

Keep in mind this is coming from a big Hokie Football fan. (stop throwing things at your monitor) I just want people around here (Richmond, VA) to stop talking about the "possibility" of Tech playing for the Championship! I have watched every Tech game and a few of the SEC games. Tech should not even be mentioned in the same breath as LSU and Alabama. Not this year. Every time I turn on my radio now, "If so and so loses and Tech beats Clemson, blah, blah, blah" MAKE IT STOP!!

[Wander]

Oddly, there's some talk about Alabama needing LSU to win the SEC championship game. The thinking is this: there's nothing logically inconsistent about the two best teams being the same conference or even the same division, but you can't be the third "best" team from the SEC and still be one of the two best teams in the country (Alabama would be third behind Georgia and LSU). You can't be the second best team in the country if you're only the second best team in your division AND that division doesn't win the conference championship.

I'm not convinced this line of thinking is all that realistic, but I've seen it mentioned a few times: it's possible that an LSU loss hurts Alabama.

And if that's the case, is LSU better off throwing the game and losing on purpose in order to face a presumably weaker foe like Oklahoma State or Stanford? (I know this has zero percent chance of happening, I'm just throwing it out there for fun)

[JasonEvans]

I don't need to see LSU and 'Bama play again even if they are the 2 best teams. LSU already beat 'Bama. Case closed. If 'Bama can play LSU again, making that original game meaningless, let's at least ad a "plus one" for god sakes.

I know it is all but inevitable, but the LSU-Bama rematch feels like a cheat. I mean, if Bama wins that means they will have split with LSU (who played a tougher schedule) but Bama gets to be national champs because they won the late game instead of the early one. Really?!?!

Then again, the same kind of thing happens all the time in other sports' playoffs. Duke beats Maryland twice in the regular season but the Terps win the 3rd time in the ACC Championship.

It is also worth noting that the first LSU-Bama game was very close and a solid argument could be made that Bama was the better team. They outgained LSU in total yards. The difference in the game was the Bama kickers went 2-for-6 on FGs while LSU went 3-for-3. Of course, the game was at Bama.

-Jason "I am starting to convince myself this rematch is a good thing" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

It is also worth noting that the first LSU-Bama game was very close and a solid argument could be made that Bama was the better team. They outgained LSU in total yards. The difference in the game was the Bama kickers went 2-for-6 on FGs while LSU went 3-for-3. Of course, the game was at Bama.



And a blown interception call on the goal line IIRC.

If there is a rematch, I hope 'Bama wins by three or less. That will mean that LSU beat 'Bama in Alabama by three, but Alabama is champion because they won the rematch on a neutral field by the same margin or less.

BCS blows. Have a four team championship. #1 plays #4, and #2 plays #3, in the New Year's bowls. Winners play each other the Saturday right before Superbowl Sunday.

That is my platform, I ask for your vote and support. And to donate to my SuperPAC, by sending Paypal donations to me through the link at my name.

[burnspbesq]

Alas, the hottest team in college football is on probation. I would like USC's chances against any team ahead of the Trojans in the AP poll.

[Newton_14]

I know it is all but inevitable, but the LSU-Bama rematch feels like a cheat. I mean, if Bama wins that means they will have split with LSU (who played a tougher schedule) but Bama gets to be national champs because they won the late game instead of the early one. Really?!?!

Then again, the same kind of thing happens all the time in other sports' playoffs. Duke beats Maryland twice in the regular season but the Terps win the 3rd time in the ACC Championship.

It is also worth noting that the first LSU-Bama game was very close and a solid argument could be made that Bama was the better team. They outgained LSU in total yards. The difference in the game was the Bama kickers went 2-for-6 on FGs while LSU went 3-for-3. Of course, the game was at Bama.

-Jason "I am starting to convince myself this rematch is a good thing" Evans

I suppose I am going against the grain here, but given the current format, I want the two best teams to play, no matter who they are. This season that means LSU and Alabama. Agree it is a weird situation, but since their isn't going to be two undefeated teams (shame on you Boise for blowing a chance to blow up the BCS), then Alabama has to be selected. They are easily the best of the one loss teams. Anyone think Alabama would lose to Iowa St or barely scratch by Duke 14-10?

I hate the BCS as much as anyone and wish we could have at least a 4 Team tournament, but until then, my preference is to have the 2 best teams play even if that means a rematch.

As I mentioned earlier, I really wanted Boise St to remain undefeated and force the BCS to choose them or face the wrath of the media by choosing a one-loss team over an undefeated Boise St. Darn FG kicker!

[JasonEvans]

...but since their isn't going to be two undefeated teams...

Really?
2154

-Jason

[Wander]

Really?


Write it down: Houston is going to beat Michigan or Virginia Tech in a BCS bowl and finish the entire season undefeated.

[Newton_14]

Really?
2154

-Jason

Ooops! My bad. Totally missed the fact that Houston is still undefeated.

[ForkFondler]

It's very simple, really. There is NO EXCUSE for not having a four or eight team playoff. Maybe a very few people will make more money otherwise, but the sooner we get those very few people out of the decision making process, the better. If LSU and Bama beat one or two nonconference teams on the way to the championship, nobody would be arguing about the winner.

[-jk]

As soon as there is any playoff beyond two teams in a "bcs championship", the ncaa wrests the money from the bcs. This is a huge deal - expect the bcs conferences to fight this one to the bitter end.

-jk

[A-Tex Devil]

As soon as there is any playoff beyond two teams in a "bcs championship", the ncaa wrests the money from the bcs. This is a huge deal - expect the bcs conferences to fight this one to the bitter end.

-jk

Why? I hear this all the time by why couldn't the BCS powers that be make 2 BCS bowls a rotating semifinals with what is now the BCS championship be the final - without turning it over to the NCAAs.

[ForkFondler]

As soon as there is any playoff beyond two teams in a "bcs championship", the ncaa wrests the money from the bcs. This is a huge deal - expect the bcs conferences to fight this one to the bitter end.

-jk

In the bitter end, maybe the NCAA can be more flexible. Compared to the amount of money made from conference TV contracts, the BCS nonsense is small potatoes. If the NCAA wants more money to distribute to the schools that don't pay their coaches $5 mil a year (also absurd, of course), then maybe they can cut a deal.

[ForkFondler]

Why? I hear this all the time by why couldn't the BCS powers that be make 2 BCS bowls a rotating semifinals with what is now the BCS championship be the final - without turning it over to the NCAAs.

The NCAA has regulations about how many games a team can play. Playoffs represent an exception, but they have to be NCAA playoffs.

[superdave]

Why? I hear this all the time by why couldn't the BCS powers that be make 2 BCS bowls a rotating semifinals with what is now the BCS championship be the final - without turning it over to the NCAAs.

Isnt this what the 16-team mega-conferences is all about? Push the NCAA to the side and control all that college football tv money, then do the bowls and BCS and maybe playoffs how they want.

If not for bad FG kicking and that goal-line pick, Bama is undefeated. I'll take them again vs. LSU, and that is my preferred matchup too. Better than Ok St or anyone else....

[sagegrouse]

The NCAA has regulations about how many games a team can play. Playoffs represent an exception, but they have to be NCAA playoffs.

Not to be too persnickety, but the NCAA is not on strong turf in bludgeoning the football powers. They can easily take their ball, go home, and form their own association of intercollegiate athletics.

sage

[dcdevil2009]

If not for bad FG kicking and that goal-line pick, Bama is undefeated. I'll take them again vs. LSU, and that is my preferred matchup too.

You were so close. I think you meant to say "if not for bad FG kicking, Boise State is undefeated...that is my preferred matchup too."

I'd agree with you that Bama and LSU are the best two teams, and that given the system we're stuck with, an LSU-Bama matchup is better than the alternatives for a "national championship" game. But I do find it pretty interesting that of the five 1 loss teams, three of them would be undefeated if they could change one play in overtime or at the end of regulation: Boise State's missed FG, Bama's missed FG in overtime, OK St.'s missed FG with 1:17 in the 4th (or overtime interception). However, Boise is the only team who would have won outright with the change. Also, OK St. still has to beat Oklahoma, which will be difficult at best.

...

As to a four team playoff I don't think it is that much of an improvement over the BCS's two team "playoff." While it's at least marginally better than the BCS system, I think it would consistently leave out legitimate national championship contenders. This year, you obviously have LSU in the top 4, but Houston, Bama, Oklahoma St., and Stanford all have strong arguments to be included and VT and Boise State each have a case as well. Last year there were 3 undefeated teams (Auburn, Oregon, TCU) before the bowls and 6 one loss teams (Stanford, Wisc, Ohio St., Michigan State, Boise, and Nevada). The three Big Ten teams beat each other and Stanford's only loss was to Oregon.

The nice thing about the basketball tournament is that even though we argue whether or not a bubble team should have made it, most would agree that no championship contenders are left out. A four team football playoff could leave out a real contender while not necessarily answering the national champion question. On the other hand, an 8 team playoff would make the bubble debate over whether a team deserved to make the playoffs instead of whether an omitted team could have won the title and be difficult enough to avoid a fluke team winning it.

[-jk]

Not to be too persnickety, but the NCAA is not on strong turf in bludgeoning the football powers. They can easily take their ball, go home, and form their own association of intercollegiate athletics.

sage

I've wondered about this: should the top 64ish FB teams pull out of the NCAA, would they be sent packing in all the rest of the sports, too? Would it then be worth it?

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

I've wondered about this: should the top 64ish FB teams pull out of the NCAA, would they be sent packing in all the rest of the sports, too? Would it then be worth it?

-jk

I think that is the goal. Which is why I think that Notre Dame at some point will realize that its Gollum-like quest to keep its precious independence will have to be abandoned. And, the ACC is a better match than the other three big-16's that will be left standing.

The WSJ had an article a few months ago, pointing out that there are about 69 major football programs +/-. 64 of those could get into four conferences of 16 and basically have their own playoffs without the BCS. Who wants to be one of the five teams left standing on the outside, looking in?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I thought that the LSU/Bama game was one of the best college football games I have ever seen, and I relish the chance to see them play again.

HOWEVER - I would ten times rather have a 4/8/16 team playoff and I have a question for those on the board who are smarter and more well-informed than myself:

The explanation I always hear about the current bowl and BCS situation is that it all boils down to money. I cannot understand this for a moment. Is the idea that more people watch the second tier bowl games than would watch a single elimination playoff? Because I simply don't believe that. I have very little interest in watching Ohio State play UNC in the Tire Bowl, or even Michigan State against Oregon. However - if it's a playoff with championship implications - I would watch every damned minute of every game. Is it even possible that ticket sales, TV ratings, advertising, etc wouldn't be up a significant amount? Not to mention that there would be at least one (or more) additional games to tack on revenue? If it's all about the crappy sponsorship of these games, then heck, call it The Tostitos Round One of the playoffs.

There is certainly a big piece that I am missing, because I do believe that if it were more economically viable to have a playoff, it would have happened ages ago. So please DBR community - what is the puzzle piece that I am not seeing?

/I hope they get this miss squared away in the next few years so that Duke doesn't get screwed out of a BCS Championship

[Sixthman]

I suppose I am going against the grain here, but given the current format, I want the two best teams to play, no matter who they are. This season that means LSU and Alabama. Agree it is a weird situation, but since their isn't going to be two undefeated teams (shame on you Boise for blowing a chance to blow up the BCS), then Alabama has to be selected. They are easily the best of the one loss teams. Anyone think Alabama would lose to Iowa St or barely scratch by Duke 14-10?

I hate the BCS as much as anyone and wish we could have at least a 4 Team tournament, but until then, my preference is to have the 2 best teams play even if that means a rematch.

As I mentioned earlier, I really wanted Boise St to remain undefeated and force the BCS to choose them or face the wrath of the media by choosing a one-loss team over an undefeated Boise St. Darn FG kicker!

Alabama managed to be in the SEC and play a fairly soft schedule (see below). Penn State, Arkansas, and Mississippi State are their good wins. Should Oklahoma State beat Oklahoma (which is certainly in major doubt), they would have one overtime loss on the road to Iowa Sate (certainly no LSU), but then have seven very high quality wins on top of that, including beating three teams who were rated in the top ten at the time (KSU, A&M and Olahoma), and then Texas, Baylor, Missouri and Texas Tech who were top twenty. The BCS systems takes the quality of wins and losses into account and concludes Alabama is the better team. I think we will find that if Okalhomas State beats Oklahome, the margin between Alabama and Oklahoma State in the BCS will be thin. I for one think Oklahoma State is better than Alabama and LSU and would enjoy seeing them play it out on the field.


2011 ALABAMA FOOTBALL SCHEDULE
Overall
11-1 Conf.
7-1 Home
6-1 Away
5-0

Date Opponent / Event Location Time / Result

09/03/11 vs. Kent State Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 48-7
09/10/11 at Penn State State College, Pa. W, 27-11
09/17/11 vs. North Texas Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 41-0
09/24/11 vs. Arkansas * Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 38-14
10/01/11 at Florida * Gainesville, Fla. W, 38-10
10/08/11 vs. Vanderbilt * Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 34-0
10/15/11 at Ole Miss * Oxford, Miss. W, 52-7
10/22/11 vs. Tennessee * Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 37-6
11/05/11 vs. LSU * Tuscaloosa, Ala. L, 9-6
11/12/11 at Mississippi State * Starkville, Miss. W, 24-7
11/19/11 vs. Georgia Southern Tuscaloosa, Ala. W, 45-21
11/26/11 at Auburn * Auburn, Ala. W, 42-14



SCHEDULE/RESULTS
PREVIOUS GAMES
WEEK DATE OPPONENT RESULT RECORD
1 Sat., Sep 3 Louisiana-Lafayette W 61-34 1-0
2 Thur., Sep 8 Arizona W 37-14 2-0
3 Sat., Sep 17 @Tulsa W 59-33 3-0
4 Sat., Sep 24 @Texas A&M W 30-29 4-0
6 Sat., Oct 8 Kansas W 70-28 5-0
7 Sat., Oct 15 @Texas W 38-26 6-0
8 Sat., Oct 22 @Missouri W 45-24 7-0
9 Sat., Oct 29 Baylor W 59-24 8-0
10 Sat., Nov 5 Kansas State W 52-45 9-0
11 Sat., Nov 12 @Texas Tech W 66-6 10-0
12 Fri., Nov 18 @Iowa State L 37-31 (OT) 10-1

[JasonEvans]

Question--

How big does the playoff have to be to allow a team like Houston to be included?

No way Houston (or Hawaii a few years back or Boise before their rep grew) gets included in a 4-team playoff. Would they even make an 8-team playoff? I know the Cougars record has been compiled against less than stellar competition, but I still sorta feel like an undefeated team is deserving of some kind of shot at the title. I mean, we are talking about a team that has beaten all its opponents by 30+ points for the past 2 months.

Does anyone think Houston has a shot in the Orange or Fiesta or whatever bowl it is they play in?

-Jason "if Bama beats LSU and Houston whups Va Tech or whoever... does Houston have a case?" Evans

[A-Tex Devil]

Question--

How big does the playoff have to be to allow a team like Houston to be included?

No way Houston (or Hawaii a few years back or Boise before their rep grew) gets included in a 4-team playoff. Would they even make an 8-team playoff? I know the Cougars record has been compiled against less than stellar competition, but I still sorta feel like an undefeated team is deserving of some kind of shot at the title. I mean, we are talking about a team that has beaten all its opponents by 30+ points for the past 2 months.

Does anyone think Houston has a shot in the Orange or Fiesta or whatever bowl it is they play in?

-Jason "if Bama beats LSU and Houston whups Va Tech or whoever... does Houston have a case?" Evans



If Houston wins on Saturday afternoon, they are in the BCS. Unfortunately they will probably play the Big East champ in a game no one will watch and that will do nothing to validate their season. That is too bad for them because they are pretty good. Look what they did to Tulsa, at Tulsa, compared to Boise, Okie State and OU.

[Kfanarmy]

1) If your conference has a championship game and your team isn't in it, you should not be in a national title game period. LSU has a chance to lose a conference championship game and potentially drop in the polls without any reward relative to an NCAA Championship. Alabama gets to sit home and maintain status in a rediculous system.

2) The other team in should be Houston if they remain undefeated. In 2009, Alabama's only loss was to Florida in the SEC championship game. Alabama got matched up against undefeated, yet lowly, Utah. I was at that game. One loss Alabama wasn't even in Utah's league for speed, toughness and precision. The 14 point difference at the end of the game wasn't indicative of how bad Utah made the "undefeated in the regular season" #2 team in the SEC look.

not bashing the SEC; but the idea that a SEC team who can't get into the SEC championship is more deserving than any other conference champion, yet alone and undefeated conference champion, is rediculous.

[Dev11]

1)...relative to an NCAA Championship...

2)...One loss Alabama wasn't even in Utah's league for speed, toughness and precision. The 14 point difference at the end of the game wasn't indicative of how bad Utah made the "undefeated in the regular season" #2 team in the SEC look.

1) No such thing, man, unless we're talking about the FCS one.

2) I think the point has been made time and again that although Utah did whoop up on Alabama, Utah was actually playing for something. I wouldn't pull that Sugar Bowl out as an example of anything, although generally I agree that undefeated teams deserve a shot at the title.

[Kfanarmy]

1) No such thing, man, unless we're talking about the FCS one.

2) I think the point has been made time and again that although Utah did whoop up on Alabama, Utah was actually playing for something. I wouldn't pull that Sugar Bowl out as an example of anything, although generally I agree that undefeated teams deserve a shot at the title.

amazing how little a Bowl game means to a team after they lose it.

[Wander]

How big does the playoff have to be to allow a team like Houston to be included?


A playoff needs to be at least 11 teams large in order to keep its integrity and include all the conference champions. My preferred size is 16, which leaves room for a nice number of at-large teams that are obviously very good. This year, that would Alabama, Stanford, Boise State, Arkansas, and Oklahoma (replace with LSU if they lose to Georgia).

[JasonEvans]

A playoff needs to be at least 11 teams large in order to keep its integrity and include all the conference champions.

I don't for a minute think we must include all conference champions. All the conferences are not created equally, especially in football. A 16 team playoff is too big for now. No way these schools add 4 more games to the schedule.

I think an 8-team playoff is just fine. Hard to argue with the #9 team being left out. I could see automatic bids to the 5 legit BCS conferences (buh-bye Big Least) and have 3 at-large bids determined by some combination of polls, computers, and total losses. Houston would clearly get one this year as would Alabama and probably Stanford.

We'd likely end up with something like this--

1. LSU
2. Bama
3. Okie State
4. Va Tech
5. Oregon
6. Stanford (or maybe Boise?)
7. Houston
8. Mich State (or some Big Ten team)

-Jason "this idea would make $200+ million... I am convinced of it" Evans

[Wander]

I don't for a minute think we must include all conference champions. All the conferences are not created equally, especially in football. A 16 team playoff is too big for now. No way these schools add 4 more games to the schedule.

The point of including all conference champions is not because the conferences are created equally. They're not created equally in basketball, either. It's to keep the integrity of the process. Including conference champions means is a "checks and balances" type approach against human error - it means that at the beginning of the season, every single team is guaranteed to control their own destiny. Note that your proposal is a Georgia upset away from knocking an undefeated Houston out of the playoffs.

Plus, it's a nice incentive to play really well in the regular season - getting to play the Sun Belt champion at home in your first round game is way more desirable than playing an at-large Big 12 team.

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't for a minute think we must include all conference champions. All the conferences are not created equally, especially in football. A 16 team playoff is too big for now. No way these schools add 4 more games to the schedule.

I think an 8-team playoff is just fine. Hard to argue with the #9 team being left out. I could see automatic bids to the 5 legit BCS conferences (buh-bye Big Least) and have 3 at-large bids determined by some combination of polls, computers, and total losses. Houston would clearly get one this year as would Alabama and probably Stanford.

We'd likely end up with something like this--

1. LSU
2. Bama
3. Okie State
4. Va Tech
5. Oregon
6. Stanford (or maybe Boise?)
7. Houston
8. Mich State (or some Big Ten team)

-Jason "this idea would make $200+ million... I am convinced of it" Evans

Jason,

I think this is a good system as well. It will be tough to get there without breaking away from the NCAA, and while I think the inertia is getting greater to do that, it's still a hell of a barrier to break through. If the conferences eventually want to do this, they'll need to appoint a commissioner to create a team and lead the charge at establishing the logistical and economic network required to break off from the NCAA. Add that to the fact that the NCAA leadership are generally associated with the universities that might break away, and there will be a real fight.

I think that you may see the NCAA soften on the number of games limitation people discussed above (in response to my questions) to allow for a plus 1 in the near future (maybe after 2015)

In the meantime, there are 2 ways you can address the problem of a team like Alabama playing for the National Championship. One simple, but possibly creating unwanted results, and one much more complex. Before getting to those, we must acknowledge that the BCS was set up to pit the best 2 teams against each other at the end of the year. It was that simple. I don't think it is unreasonable that those 2 teams are LSU and 'Bama even if LSU loses on Saturday.

The 2 ways to address this are:

1. One additional rule -- no team that is not a conference champion can play in the BCS title game. OK. So what happens when Georgia beats LSU on Saturday? Yikes. We get an OSU/Va Tech matchup? If one of those teams lose (and both could), we might fall all the way down to Oregon/Houston? (I'll note, for those that might have forgotten, TCU is the Mountain West Champion, not Boise St.).

So you have inherent problems with a "conference champions only" rule, much like you did in basketball in the '70s when so many good ACC teams were frozen out of the NCAAs.

2. You apply a conference champion only rule (and I would also apply a 0 loss, then 1 loss only rule), but if that drops you out of the top 5 (or some other arbitrary number between 3 and 7) in the BCS to fill the BCS title game, those rules go away. This gets complicated, and Murphy's Law suggests that once you implement it, the doomsday scenario that busts this system (whatever that may be) would immediately happen the following year.

But here is the rub -- none of the 5 major conferences will EVER vote for either of these rules because it would prevent the huge payday that the SEC has coming to it this year, and each of these conferences (except perhaps the ACC) would like to perceive themselves as capable of such a feat on a yearly basis.

[A-Tex Devil]

The point of including all conference champions is not because the conferences are created equally. They're not created equally in basketball, either. It's to keep the integrity of the process. Including conference champions means is a "checks and balances" type approach against human error - it means that at the beginning of the season, every single team is guaranteed to control their own destiny. Note that your proposal is a Georgia upset away from knocking an undefeated Houston out of the playoffs.

Plus, it's a nice incentive to play really well in the regular season - getting to play the Sun Belt champion at home in your first round game is way more desirable than playing an at-large Big 12 team.

My problem with including all conference champions is that there is no way a place should be wasted for the Sun Belt or WAC champs if we had such a playoff this year. I am for auto-bids for all conferences if its champion is in the top 15 of the BCS and/or has no more than 1 loss - I'll even carry the torch that this rule should apply to all conferences even though the big 5 or 6 would never agree to it. This is different than basketball, and the Big East teams that have been literally STEALING BCS bids last year and this year from more deserving teams are perfect examples as to why conference champs shouldn't be automatically included in the playoff.

[A-Tex Devil]

Every single school in the SEC is rooting for Georgia on Saturday. That's more money to the SEC if they get 3 teams in the BCS.

It's possible that a Georgia win could knock 'Bama or LSU out of the game, but that is doubtful at this point.

[blazindw]

Pretty interesting blind comparison of all the one-loss schools:
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/33566427

Interesting when you compare them side by side how one team seems to separate themselves from the pack and it's not Alabama.

[Wander]

This is different than basketball, and the Big East teams that have been literally STEALING BCS bids last year and this year from more deserving teams are perfect examples as to why conference champs shouldn't be automatically included in the playoff.

How is it different than the America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big West, Ivy League, MAAC, MEAC, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Southland, SWAC, or Sun Belt "stealing" NCAA tournament bids from more deserving teams in basketball?

[Duvall]

My problem with including all conference champions is that there is no way a place should be wasted for the Sun Belt or WAC champs if we had such a playoff this year. I am for auto-bids for all conferences if its champion is in the top 15 of the BCS and/or has no more than 1 loss - I'll even carry the torch that this rule should apply to all conferences even though the big 5 or 6 would never agree to it. This is different than basketball, and the Big East teams that have been literally STEALING BCS bids last year and this year from more deserving teams are perfect examples as to why conference champs shouldn't be automatically included in the playoff.

Stealing? If the other AQ conferences didn't like giving a BCS berth to the Big East champion every year they shouldn't have become contractual partners with the Big East.

[A-Tex Devil]

Pretty interesting blind comparison of all the one-loss schools:
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/33566427

Interesting when you compare them side by side how one team seems to separate themselves from the pack and it's not Alabama.

The problem is that the article completely ignores who teams have lost to and the eyeball test. The Iowa St. loss is by far the worst loss of any team still in the top 10. Say what you want about the "eyeball" test, but I think it is worthwhile. Just think back to 2001 when people were up in arms at Nebraska getting the slot instead of Oregon.

I have seen Oklahoma State play in person against Texas. Okie St. had 2 long runs on blown Texas assignments and a kickoff return for a TD that won them the game. Their passing game, yardage aside, was pedestrian, and Texas was in it until the 4th. Texas has a really good defense, but it is not Alabama or LSU. Go look at the Okie St./Kansas St. game (or Texas, for that matter) for an example of what a power rushing team will do against the Oklahoma St. defense.

That said, I hope Okie St. makes it just to have an offense versus defense type matchup. With weeks to prepare, I think Okie St. scores on either 'Bama or LSU more than either team is used to. But I doubt it would be enough, and either LSU or 'Bama would control clock and score on just about every possession. Caveat this with the fact that turnovers change everything, and OSU is an opportunistic defense. But setting that unknown aside, I think OSU's defense would be beaten to a pulp by the end of the game.

[A-Tex Devil]

Stealing? If the other AQ conferences didn't like giving a BCS berth to the Big East champion every year they shouldn't have become contractual partners with the Big East.

I was being hyperbolic. Of course they are contractually looped in, but no one other than UCONN's fans and conference mates wanted to see UConn in the Fiesta Bowl last year, and only its fans wanted to watch them. Same with whoever comes out of that clusterfudge this year. Having a system that allows a 5 loss Sun Belt champ into a limited playoff is foolish, in my opinion (not the case this year, but has been in several years).


How is it different than the America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big West, Ivy League, MAAC, MEAC, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Southland, SWAC, or Sun Belt "stealing" NCAA tournament bids from more deserving teams in basketball?

Call me naive, hypocritical, or whatever, but to me, football is a completely different animal than basketball. VCU or Butler can win 5 or 6 games in a row. And even though a 16 has never beaten a 1, it will happen one day (although the fact it hasn't happened yet is also telling).

The Arkansas States and Louisiana Techs of this world are NEVER beating this year's 'Bama or LSU in football, not 1 in 100 times, much less winning 3-4 games in a row against top 15 teams. But Oregon or Oklahoma might. If Arkansas St. or Louisiana Tech are undefeated, or perhaps one loss and a good resume, fine, let them in. But there should be standards to get into the playoffs, even for conference champions. And as mentioned, I am fine applying that across the board.

[Wander]

VCU or Butler can win 5 or 6 games in a row.

But VCU and Butler aren't in any of the conferences that I listed.

I don't mean that to sound nitpicky - there's a large difference between the Missouri Valley/Horizon/Colonial/WAC/MWC and the conferences I originally listed. I don't think you're naive in thinking Arkansas State doesn't stand much of a chance against Alabama, but Boise State, not Arkansas State, is the equivalent of Butler or Gonzaga or Xavier.

I just don't see the point of saying "well, sometimes we'll let the lower conference champions in, if they're ranked in the top X of the BCS, have Y or less losses, have had at least Z final margin of victories that are Q points or more, played at least two games on a weekday, and have scored a prime number of touchdowns." It's all unnecessary, and I don't see the point of trying to awkwardly fit the current BCS rankings or bowls into a new system. 11 conference champions, 5 at-large bids, play all the games except the championship at the stadium of the higher seed. Simple, fair, and - wait for it - keeps the college football postseason as the most selective of any American sport. You'd still have 10-2 teams regularly missing the playoffs. The regular season would matter A LOT.

[ForkFondler]

I don't think a 16 game playoff is at all feasible with conference championships. Yes, there is an FCS 16 game playoff, but they play eleven game regular season schedules and they don't have conference championships. Even an eight game playoff is a problem. I think the most feasible solution is make the conference championships part of the regular season (every team finishes with a cross divisional game, one of which is the championship), and then play the first round of an eight team playoff the first week of December. Then any team not in the final four can go find a bowl. I'd go with 5 or 6 AQs plus 2-3 at large teams. That should cover just about any team with a chance of winning.

[Rogue]

Be prepared for many more "re-matches" of these type games in the future. These mega conferences, and conference championship games will have plenty.
Ohio State will play Michigan in their typical last game of the season, then in many years will play them again in the conference championship a week or two later. Same might be said for Southern Cal and Oregan maybe. Many of these re-matches will result in spliting the wins.

I don't pretend to understand why they college presidents of the BCS are against a playoff. We keep hearing it's to protect the bowl games. I find that hard to believe.
A 16 team play-off with the first round giving 8 teams home games, then going to neutral locations, would be a HUGE financal bananza for the BCS teams. Use the same BCS rankings, and take the top 16 and go at it. There should be enough NFL stadiums to offer plenty of neutral sites and prevent teams from the south having to go to Pasadena to play a game.

I can't imagine this not being much bigger to the BCS school $$$$ pocket books, than the current system. ESPN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS would pay dearly for a playoff.

[gcashwell]

Be prepared for many more "re-matches" of these type games in the future. These mega conferences, and conference championship games will have plenty.
Ohio State will play Michigan in their typical last game of the season, then in many years will play them again in the conference championship a week or two later. Same might be said for Southern Cal and Oregan maybe. Many of these re-matches will result in spliting the wins.

I don't pretend to understand why they college presidents of the BCS are against a playoff. We keep hearing it's to protect the bowl games. I find that hard to believe.
A 16 team play-off with the first round giving 8 teams home games, then going to neutral locations, would be a HUGE financal bananza for the BCS teams. Use the same BCS rankings, and take the top 16 and go at it. There should be enough NFL stadiums to offer plenty of neutral sites and prevent teams from the south having to go to Pasadena to play a game.

I can't imagine this not being much bigger to the BCS school $$$$ pocket books, than the current system. ESPN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS would pay dearly for a playoff.

I agree 100%. The nation would basically shut down. It would be bigger than March Madness.

[A-Tex Devil]

I just don't see the point of saying "well, sometimes we'll let the lower conference champions in, if they're ranked in the top X of the BCS, have Y or less losses, have had at least Z final margin of victories that are Q points or more, played at least two games on a weekday, and have scored a prime number of touchdowns." It's all unnecessary, and I don't see the point of trying to awkwardly fit the current BCS rankings or bowls into a new system. 11 conference champions, 5 at-large bids, play all the games except the championship at the stadium of the higher seed. Simple, fair, and - wait for it - keeps the college football postseason as the most selective of any American sport. You'd still have 10-2 teams regularly missing the playoffs. The regular season would matter A LOT.

Fair enough, but I look at football games as being at a premium, even if we have a real playoff that is 3 or 7 or 15 games. I don't want to waste one of those games watching a top 5 team kill a Sun Belt team. There are more than double the number of basketball games in the regular season, and 67 NCAA tourney games. In basketball, I am not that concerned if a SWAC or Patriot League champion ranked in the bottom half of the RPI gets in over Virginia Tech that sits somewhere in the 40s or the 50s in RPI. But in football, if the 2010 Sun Belt champion - a team with 5 losses - gets in over a top 10 team, that sucks to me, and lessens the potential of the playoff product. It just feels to me like a completely different and distinct animal than basketball. Maybe others feel differently.

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't pretend to understand why they college presidents of the BCS are against a playoff. We keep hearing it's to protect the bowl games. I find that hard to believe.


My feeling is that they aren't against it -- they (and the bowls) just don't want to share.

As others have educated me, apparently the NCAA limits the amount of games a team can play a year to 12 regular season (unless you travel to Hawaii, then you get 13, I believe, or at least it used to be that way), a championship game, and a bowl. I don't begin to understand why the NCAA has control over this and other stupid rules like requiring 12 teams in order to have a conference championship game, but apparently they do.

So in order to have a playoff, the conferences and bowls must go to the NCAA and ask for more games. The NCAA will likely say "Yes, if we get a cut and have control over it." The conferences/bowls don't want to do this, even though, as many assume, they may make more even having to share with the NCAA.

So what to do? Separate from the NCAA. Create a new system. I believe we are slowly heading that way, but the NCAA has too many tentacles in major college football and vice versa for this to be a clean and quick split.

[JasonEvans]

My feeling is that they aren't against it -- they (and the bowls) just don't want to share.

As others have educated me, apparently the NCAA limits the amount of games a team can play a year to 12 regular season (unless you travel to Hawaii, then you get 13, I believe, or at least it used to be that way), a championship game, and a bowl. I don't begin to understand why the NCAA has control over this and other stupid rules like requiring 12 teams in order to have a conference championship game, but apparently they do.

So in order to have a playoff, the conferences and bowls must go to the NCAA and ask for more games. The NCAA will likely say "Yes, if we get a cut and have control over it." The conferences/bowls don't want to do this, even though, as many assume, they may make more even having to share with the NCAA.

So what to do? Separate from the NCAA. Create a new system. I believe we are slowly heading that way, but the NCAA has too many tentacles in major college football and vice versa for this to be a clean and quick split.

So, the SEC, Big Ten, Pac Ten, and ACC come to the NCAA and say, "we are holding an 8-team playoff and it will make us hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Are you going to stop us or adjust the rules to make this work?"

What are the odds the NCAA dares to say, "no" or even "not unless you give us a share of the pie." These conferences would laugh at the NCAA for making a demand. The NCAA would be more likely to BEG to get a tiny little slice of the profits.

The power conferences, with the teams that draw TV ratings, have all the power here. They can do what they want, I am convinced of that. What could the NCAA possibly say or do to them that would matter? These schools hold all the cards in every sport.

-Jason "come on conferences, get it done" Evans

[Rogue]

My feeling is that they aren't against it -- they (and the bowls) just don't want to share.

As others have educated me, apparently the NCAA limits the amount of games a team can play a year to 12 regular season (unless you travel to Hawaii, then you get 13, I believe, or at least it used to be that way), a championship game, and a bowl. I don't begin to understand why the NCAA has control over this and other stupid rules like requiring 12 teams in order to have a conference championship game, but apparently they do.

So in order to have a playoff, the conferences and bowls must go to the NCAA and ask for more games. The NCAA will likely say "Yes, if we get a cut and have control over it." The conferences/bowls don't want to do this, even though, as many assume, they may make more even having to share with the NCAA.

So what to do? Separate from the NCAA. Create a new system. I believe we are slowly heading that way, but the NCAA has too many tentacles in major college football and vice versa for this to be a clean and quick split.

It wasn't so long ago a college football season was 10 games,, then 11, now 12. It can be changed again.
I know they keep adding games so the large stadium teams get that extra pay day and play a typical little sisters of the poor. I still believe the playoff system would generate more money in the long run for a Texas / LSU/ Alabama etc..
I can't figure out why the "bowls" have any say in this at all. They aren't apart of the BCS , the NCAA..

The FCS ( division II ) play more than 12 games and travel all over the country to play games , Look at the locations their next rounds are being played.

[A-Tex Devil]

So, the SEC, Big Ten, Pac Ten, and ACC come to the NCAA and say, "we are holding an 8-team playoff and it will make us hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Are you going to stop us or adjust the rules to make this work?"

What are the odds the NCAA dares to say, "no" or even "not unless you give us a share of the pie." These conferences would laugh at the NCAA for making a demand. The NCAA would be more likely to BEG to get a tiny little slice of the profits.

The power conferences, with the teams that draw TV ratings, have all the power here. They can do what they want, I am convinced of that. What could the NCAA possibly say or do to them that would matter? These schools hold all the cards in every sport.

-Jason "come on conferences, get it done" Evans

I get it, but take a look at the list of NCAA Board of Directors (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=BOARD). The college presidents clearly have one foot in each side of it. I have no idea how easy it would be for conferences to extricate themselves from the NCAA, but if makeup of the NCAA leadership is any indication, it appears it would be difficult.

We talked in the alignment debate that the conferences are not beholden to the NCAA. But the schools are. It's a power structure I won't begin to understand, but if there is war/schism between the 5-6 major conferences and the NCAA, it could be a civil one. And by "civil," I don't mean civilized.

Edited to add -- what could the NCAA do? They could put a school on probation. Maybe that is what it will take. A conference backing up one of its schools and allowing it to ignore the probation. The "Gulf of Tonkin" of the NCAA/Conference war, so to speak.

[A-Tex Devil]

It wasn't so long ago a college football season was 10 games,, then 11, now 12. It can be changed again.
I know they keep adding games so the large stadium teams get that extra pay day and play a typical little sisters of the poor. I still believe the playoff system would generate more money in the long run for a Texas / LSU/ Alabama etc..
I can't figure out why the "bowls" have any say in this at all. They aren't apart of the BCS , the NCAA..

The FCS ( division II ) play more than 12 games and travel all over the country to play games , Look at the locations their next rounds are being played.

Bowls are a part of the BCS (hence the name). THe NCAA would probably gladly allow for an FCS type playoff in FBS if they ran it and got the TV money like they do in basketball.

Everyone is preaching to the choir here. We want a playoff of some kind, even if it's just a plus 1. But the entanglements of school presidents, conferences, the NCAA, the BCS and bowls, and the wants and needs of each party (read: greed) are preventing it.

[TexHawk]

Alabama managed to be in the SEC and play a fairly soft schedule (see below). Penn State, Arkansas, and Mississippi State are their good wins. Should Oklahoma State beat Oklahoma (which is certainly in major doubt), they would have one overtime loss on the road to Iowa Sate (certainly no LSU), but then have seven very high quality wins on top of that, including beating three teams who were rated in the top ten at the time (KSU, A&M and Olahoma), and then Texas, Baylor, Missouri and Texas Tech who were top twenty. The BCS systems takes the quality of wins and losses into account and concludes Alabama is the better team. I think we will find that if Okalhomas State beats Oklahome, the margin between Alabama and Oklahoma State in the BCS will be thin. I for one think Oklahoma State is better than Alabama and LSU and would enjoy seeing them play it out on the field.

The "at the time" argument doesn't really work. Florida was top 10 when Alabama beat them. Auburn was ranked when Alabama beat them. Missouri was ranked when OSU beat them, but they fell apart and finished 7-5, culminating in a dogfight win over the fighting Turner Gills (arguably the worst BCS team ever). And Texas Tech? Yeesh. After their out-of-the-blue win over OU, they lost every single game after that, giving up 41-52-66-31-66 points.

[Duvall]

Missouri was ranked when OSU beat them, but they fell apart and finished 7-5, culminating in a dogfight win over the fighting Turner Gills (arguably the worst BCS team ever).

Ah, no. You happen to be speaking to experts on that particular topic. Don't think the 2-10 Jayhawks come close to qualifying.

[ForkFondler]

Ok, here's my new solution, which I think is compatible with current NCAA strictures:

1. For football, completely ignore conference affiliations and divide the BCS into 3 40 team "segments", 1a1, 1a2, and 1a3.

2. Divide each "segment" into four geographic "divisions" of ten teams each, and two "conferences".

3. Divisions play each other for a nine game schedule, with three OOD games.

4. Matched division champions play each other for a conference championship. The two conference winners play each other in a bowl for the segment championship. (i.e. a four team playoff for each segment)

5. Monkey with the divisions/conferences/segments a little every year. a) promote and relegate four teams a year. b) Alternate the divisional-conference combinations from N-S to E-W.

[House G]

If Houston wins on Saturday afternoon, they are in the BCS. Unfortunately they will probably play the Big East champ in a game no one will watch and that will do nothing to validate their season. That is too bad for them because they are pretty good. Look what they did to Tulsa, at Tulsa, compared to Boise, Okie State and OU.




The Arkansas States and Louisiana Techs of this world are NEVER beating this year's 'Bama or LSU in football, not 1 in 100 times, much less winning 3-4 games in a row against top 15 teams. But Oregon or Oklahoma might. If Arkansas St. or Louisiana Tech are undefeated, or perhaps one loss and a good resume, fine, let them in. But there should be standards to get into the playoffs, even for conference champions. And as mentioned, I am fine applying that across the board.

While I agree that Louisiana Tech would not beat this year's LSU team, I think it is noteworthy that they led Houston 34-7 late in the third quarter before losing 35-34. Louisiana Tech has had some decent football teams, so much so that LSU was often reluctant to schedule them. After Terry Bradshaw graduated ;), they won the Division II National Championship in 1972 and 1973. These teams were loaded with future NFL players, including Fred Dean, Roland Harper, Mike Barber, Roger Carr, Pat Tilley, and Billy Ryckman.

[OldPhiKap]

What does the non-BCS division do? Why don't we just apply that to the BS -- er, BCS -- division as well?

No reason to reinvent the wheel, or put in a system that isn't proven to already be practical and applicable.

Done and done.

[JasonEvans]

Edited to add -- what could the NCAA do? They could put a school on probation. Maybe that is what it will take. A conference backing up one of its schools and allowing it to ignore the probation. The "Gulf of Tonkin" of the NCAA/Conference war, so to speak.

Huh? It would put a school on probation because a bunch of schools wanted to form a football playoff? Yeah, I am sure that would fly in the court of public opinion.

If the big conferences want a playoff, they will get a playoff. They control this situation, not the NCAA. The NCAA needs them, they do not need the NCAA nearly as much.

-Jason

[ForkFondler]

What does the non-BCS division do? Why don't we just apply that to the BS -- er, BCS -- division as well?

No reason to reinvent the wheel, or put in a system that isn't proven to already be practical and applicable.

Done and done.

I think the current FCS system is practical. The BCS "system", not so much.

[A-Tex Devil]

While I agree that Louisiana Tech would not beat this year's LSU team, I think it is noteworthy that they led Houston 34-7 late in the third quarter before losing 35-34. Louisiana Tech has had some decent football teams, so much so that LSU was often reluctant to schedule them. After Terry Bradshaw graduated ;), they won the Division II National Championship in 1972 and 1973. These teams were loaded with future NFL players, including Fred Dean, Roland Harper, Mike Barber, Roger Carr, Pat Tilley, and Billy Ryckman.

Forest for trees. Louisiana Tech is an example. If a team has 5 losses or if it can be avoided, 3, they don't belong in a football playoff. My point is that football is a different animal than basketball and I'd prefer not to waste playoff spots on teams that don't even have a chance to win one game. Just my opinion.

[A-Tex Devil]

Huh? It would put a school on probation because a bunch of schools wanted to form a football playoff? Yeah, I am sure that would fly in the court of public opinion.

If the big conferences want a playoff, they will get a playoff. They control this situation, not the NCAA. The NCAA needs them, they do not need the NCAA nearly as much.

-Jason

Bad, extreme example on my part, but to your second paragraph, if it is that easy, why isn't it happening? I do believe the inability (or unwillingness) for the schools that are in the NCAA to extricate themselves is a big reason the conferences can't. The NCAA is made up of and run by representatives from the schools and so are the conferences. It's pretty easy to see that the conferences and the NCAA are intertwined enough that it's not as easy as a simple "see ya" to the NCAA from the conferences.

[hurleyfor3]

SEC Championship game... All Lsu has to do is not get embarrassed, right?

Second quarter, Georgia 10, Lsu 0, and Lsu just had a three-and-out.

Uh-oh.

[Wander]

LSU might go the entire half without a first down.

[hurleyfor3]

I'm not sure I've ever seen worse punt return coverage. And I endured Chuck Noll's Steelers stubbornly refusing to hire a special teams coach.

[Sixthman]

I think Oklahoma State belongs in the championship game. In order to put Alabama in over Oklahoma State you have to consider quality of losses without considering quality of wins. If you are going to consider quality of wins and losses, then in order to choose Alabama over Oklahoma State you have to presume that unranked teams from the SEC are substantially better than ranked teams from the Big 12. While this is possible, I don't think it's true, and basing a decision on this bias would be unfair and unreasonable. Not only did Alabama not win the SEC, Oklahoma State is undefeated against the SEC, having played all of its SEC games on the road (Texas A&M and Missouri) :). Oklahoma State has more wins against top 25 teams, and while Alabama's margin of victory in its games is respectable, it does not equal Oklahoma State's. Also, there is the part where Oklahoma State won the Big 12. While subjectively we presume the SEC is better than the Big 12, we all regard the Big 12 as one of the power football conferences. Both objectively and subjectively we can all agree that on the whole, the SEC is not as strong as ususal this year. Finally, an LSU - Oklahoma State game will be more compelling. It gives us a chance to see offense against defense, it gives LSU a chance to drub Oklahoma State and thereby prove it is a great team on a national stage instead of the best in the SEC, it gives us a new face -- Oklahoma State -- playing for the title, it gives us the story line of Mike Gundy coaching against his former head coach, of Les Miles coaching against his former team, etc . . . And finally, it will, this year, ensure a true national champion. I say this becuase, if Alabama and LSU play to another scoreless tie, or Alabama wins, and Oklahoma State beats Stanford (or does to Stanford what it just did to Oklahoma), I won't be the only one saying Oklahoma State is the true national champion.

[A-Tex Devil]

I think Oklahoma State belongs in the championship game. In order to put Alabama in over Oklahoma State you have to consider quality of losses without considering quality of wins. If you are going to consider quality of wins and losses, then in order to choose Alabama over Oklahoma State you have to presume that unranked teams from the SEC are substantially better than ranked teams from the Big 12. While this is possible, I don't think it's true, and basing a decision on this bias would be unfair and unreasonable. Not only did Alabama not win the SEC, Oklahoma State is undefeated against the SEC, having played all of its SEC games on the road (Texas A&M and Missouri) :). Oklahoma State has more wins against top 25 teams, and while Alabama's margin of victory in its games is respectable, it does not equal Oklahoma State's. Also, there is the part where Oklahoma State won the Big 12. While subjectively we presume the SEC is better than the Big 12, we all regard the Big 12 as one of the power football conferences. Both objectively and subjectively we can all agree that on the whole, the SEC is not as strong as ususal this year. Finally, an LSU - Oklahoma State game will be more compelling. It gives us a chance to see offense against defense, it gives LSU a chance to drub Oklahoma State and thereby prove it is a great team on a national stage instead of the best in the SEC, it gives us a new face -- Oklahoma State -- playing for the title, it gives us the story line of Mike Gundy coaching against his former head coach, of Les Miles coaching against his former team, etc . . . And finally, it will, this year, ensure a true national champion. I say this becuase, if Alabama and LSU play to another scoreless tie, or Alabama wins, and Oklahoma State beats Stanford (or does to Stanford what it just did to Oklahoma), I won't be the only one saying Oklahoma State is the true national champion.

While I think that 'Bama would beat Okie State, I agree with everything else. Okie St. did what they needed to do to convince people to move them up. Va Tech lost, so they'll hopefully get more help from that than 'Bama will. Should be interesting.

Other interesting thing to watch this weekend is if TCU gets in the top 16. IF they do, by rule as a non-qual conference champion ranked in the top 16 and higher than a auto-qual conference champion (the Big East champ), they'll have a spot, probably in the Sugar Bowl against Michigan.

[JasonEvans]

OSU's win was impressive, but I don't think it is going to make a difference and put them ahead of Alabama. LSU's second half was just plain scary. The Honey Badger might be the best player in college football right now.

Meanwhile, I just have to link this interesting article (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_sec_reaps_reward_rejection_120311) by Dan Wetzel.


In 2008, SEC commissioner Mike Slive pitched a so-called “plus-one” plan that essentially was a four-team playoff using existing bowl games. Other than the ACC, the other conferences not only summarily rejected the plan, they refused to even discuss its details.

Wetzel points out that after those other leagues rejected the plan, it led to the ACC raiding the Big East and the SEC and Pac 12 raiding the Big 12. If all those other leagues had gone along with this plan, Wetzel thinks the rush to expansion would not have happened because the college football post-season would have seemed more stable. He seems to believe that the expansion moves have been so conferences can assure themselves of proper positioning in the very, very lucrative postseason playoff that will happen eventually.

Not sure I 100% agree with his logic, but it is worth considering. It makes me happy to blame the idiocy of the lack of a real playoff on stupid leagues like the Big East and others.

-Jason "apparently Bama is going to make the championship game... just heard it on the radio" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Other interesting thing to watch this weekend is if TCU gets in the top 16. IF they do, by rule as a non-qual conference champion ranked in the top 16 and higher than a auto-qual conference champion (the Big East champ), they'll have a spot, probably in the Sugar Bowl against Michigan.

Wait a sec... you mean there is a rule that if one of the automatic qualifier conferences is soooo bad that its champ is not in the top 16, then a non-AQ conference who's champ is better than the AQ champ also gets in?

Whaaaat?!?!

So, by translation, if one team that gets into the BCS is really bad, we are sorta required to take another really bad team??!?!

Who makes up this insanity! The BCS should strive to take the top 8-10 teams in the nation... period. Why do we go through this nonsense of adding undeserving teams instead of deserving ones? Sheesh!

--Jason "please, please, please give us a playoff... like every other league in every other sport" Evans

[A-Tex Devil]

Wait a sec... you mean there is a rule that if one of the automatic qualifier conferences is soooo bad that its champ is not in the top 16, then a non-AQ conference who's champ is better than the AQ champ also gets in?

Whaaaat?!?!

So, by translation, if one team that gets into the BCS is really bad, we are sorta required to take another really bad team??!?!

Who makes up this insanity! The BCS should strive to take the top 8-10 teams in the nation... period. Why do we go through this nonsense of adding undeserving teams instead of deserving ones? Sheesh!

--Jason "please, please, please give us a playoff... like every other league in every other sport" Evans

Yep. But that non-AQ has to be in the top 16. Why that is different than, say, the at large's being in the top 14, I have no idea, but they've chosen those rankings, apparently.

I think 'Bama is going to get in, but the Harris isn't out yet, and if some people get distaste for a rematch, there could be some momentum for the Cowboys. Okie St. has to be #2 in all but 1 of the computer polls to even have a chance, though.

I will be interested to see what the lowest ranks for OSU and 'Bama are. If anyone ranks either team lower than 4th they need to be investigated for bribery.

[Olympic Fan]

-Jason "apparently Bama is going to make the championship game... just heard it on the radio" Evans



As a certain football analyst would say, "Not so fast, my friend." According to this site, Oklahoma State is going to pass Alabama in the final standings:

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/12/4/2609593/bcs-rankings-standings-projections-oklahoma-state-alabama/in/2373757

Frankly, I don't know enough to have an opinion as to how it will work. Everybody I've read this morning agrees that the coputers that make up a third of the BCS standings all agree that Oklahoma State is No. 2 and Bama No. 3 .... the question is whether the Okies can close the gap in the coaches poll and in the Harris poll. Pretty certain they will close the gap -- but will they close it enough. Brad Edwards of Sports Illustrated thinks its going to be tough -- he said they need one-quarter of the No. 2 votes and the rest of the No. 3 votes to pass Bama. Virginia Tech's loss to Clemson helps OSU -- they were ranked ahead of OSU by most voters last week ... they on't be this week.

I think it's going to be close. How many voters:

(1) genuinely think OSU is better than Bama? Probably just a few, but a few more after Saturday's massive beatdown of Oklahoma. Hey, the computers all think OSU is better.
(2) Don't want to see a rematch in the title game? Probably a few more.
(3) Don't believe a team that didn't win its conference (or even its division) should play for the national title? Add a few more.
(4) Are non-SEC coaches who get sick of the way CBS-TV (the SEC's network) shamelessly promoted the Alabama-LSU rematch as the only title fair game? Maybe a handful.

All in all, it's going to be close ... in fact, tonight's announcement might be more dramatic than anything that would happen on the field if we do get a Bama-LSU rematch.

My personal opinion is that Alabama is probably a slightly better team than LSU. But they had their chance -- at home -- and couldn't get it done. I don't see where they deserve a second chance ... I'd like to see Oklahoma State get a shot.

After all, I thought the BCS motto was "Every game counts" ... if you rematch Bama and LSU aren't you saying that the first meeting didn't count?

[throatybeard]

ErinAndrews Erin Andrews
I've read all your responses abt the title gm..and I hear you..but a loss to LSU and a loss to Iowa St is what I'm stuck on..
2 hours ago
Retweeted by throatybeard

[Troublemaker]

The suspense was sucked out of this when Andy Staples (SI reporter) revealed that Bama is #2 in the Wolfe computer ranking. The Sagarin computer also favors the Tide, which means that Bama has captured at least two of the six computer rankings when Okie State needed to have gone 6-for-6 or 5-for-6 to have a realistic shot at jumping into the 2 spot. Only realistic way Okie State gets in now is if Staples' report is wrong about the Wolfe ranking.

[sporthenry]

Lets just hope for a small win by Alabama then we can get rid of this silly system. I've heard the BCS is a cash cow but I'm not sure how a playoff would not make more. An 8 team playoff would give you 7 great games that everyone would watch and would also give casual fans a month to learn teams. You can keep the bowls for everyone else.

[Acymetric]

This might be the first year I don't watch the BCS title game. Heck, I might not watch any BCS games this year, none of the matchups excite me and pitting Alabama against LSU is plain stupid.

[A-Tex Devil]

Lets just hope for a small win by Alabama then we can get rid of this silly system. I've heard the BCS is a cash cow but I'm not sure how a playoff would not make more. An 8 team playoff would give you 7 great games that everyone would watch and would also give casual fans a month to learn teams. You can keep the bowls for everyone else.

Not to rehash things all over again, but OK. I am for a playoff. I agree that a playoff will make more money. But what can't be agreed on is what that 8 team playoff would look like, and the conferences would rather entrench themselves in the current system than agree to something that might freeze them out in a bad year (Big Ten/ACC this year, for example). It's a simple matter of inertia that can't get the momentum it needs among the powers that be. My feeling is that it will first take a "football commissioner" or something put in place to get the conferences and presidents in line -- and no, the NCAA cannot be that entity, and when I say "cannot" I mean both that it shouldn't be that entity, and that it is also incapable.

I would be happy to get the 4 team plus one playoff and leave it at that. It seems like a pretty good compromise that will still have controversy, but less so in my mind. I guess Boise would get left out this year. Whoop dee do.

[A-Tex Devil]

This might be the first year I don't watch the BCS title game. Heck, I might not watch any BCS games this year, none of the matchups excite me and pitting Alabama against LSU is plain stupid.

This is what it would take on a massive scale over multiple years. We clearly don't have the collective will power as a country to not watch, nor do I necessarily think we should. I may or may not watch. One of my best friends is an LSU grad, so I imagine I probably will to support him.

If 'Bama and LSU play, this is clearly the first unattractive game since LSU-Ohio St. which was unpopular fo many of the same reasons people are upset about this year's game. But the thing is, the final matchups are almost always compelling regardless of how we get there, and they are going to draw eyeballs. There will be great ratings on January 9th, even if it is another field goal fest. We'll be complaining about the outcome after Oklahoma St. destroys Stanford (or vice versa) in the Fiesta Bowl, and the Mouse will be counting its advertising money, cackling with glee.

[Duvall]

ErinAndrews Erin Andrews
I've read all your responses abt the title gm..and I hear you..but a loss to LSU and a loss to Iowa St is what I'm stuck on..
2 hours ago
Retweeted by throatybeard

So we just ignore the other twenty-two games then? Cool.

[hurleyfor3]

So we just ignore the other twenty-two games then? Cool.

You will submit to whatever Erin Andrews tells you.

[77devil]

ErinAndrews Erin Andrews
I've read all your responses abt the title gm..and I hear you..but a loss to LSU and a loss to Iowa St is what I'm stuck on..
2 hours ago
Retweeted by throatybeard

I mean really, is there possibly anything else of lesser consequence. Yawn.

[fan345678]

rumors are flying that the ACC is going to finally get its BCS at-large: VT in the Sugar Bowl vs. Michigan

[hurleyfor3]

Espn teevee reporting it's (1) Lsu, (2) Alabama and (3) Okie State. Championship game will be Lsu/Bama on January 9.

[Duvall]

rumors are flying that the ACC is going to finally get its BCS at-large: VT in the Sugar Bowl vs. Michigan

Really?






Why?

[Newton_14]

So we just ignore the other twenty-two games then? Cool.


You will submit to whatever Erin Andrews tells you.

And ye shall like it!:D

[SoCalDukeFan]

Mark May says he looked at the "body of work, inside and outside of conference for Alabama" and they deserve to play for the NC.

Outside of conference, Kent State, Penn State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern. 3 yawners in any year and Penn State.

If there was any justice they would cancel the BCS game and give the trophy to LSU, who at least played Oregon out of conference.

I would much rather see OK State play LSU.
BTW if Ok State avoids a double overtime loss on the road then these same commentators would be saying how we have the two best teams.

How can Va Tech be in a BCS bowl?

How can Arkansas, Boise and KState and South Carolina - teams ranked 6,7,8 and 9 not be in one.

I will look forward to Ok State vs Stanford, KState vs Arkansas, Oregon vs Wisconsin. I am sure that some of the others will be great games but these three I think are the most interesting. I guess I also want to see Baylor play.

SoCal

[vick]

How can Arkansas, Boise and KState and South Carolina - teams ranked 6,7,8 and 9 not be in one.
SoCal

To be fair, the reason Arkansas and South Carolina aren't in BCS bowl games is that the selection procedures don't allow more than two teams from a single conference, unless those two are in the national title game and aren't the conference winner (which theoretically could have happened if Georgia beat LSU). In some sense the complaint is rather the opposite of the "no rematch of SEC teams" argument--here you seem to be arguing that the BCS bowl games should just be the best teams regardless of conference (thus including Arkansas and South Carolina), but for the championship game, should conference affiliation again become meaningful?

[SoCalDukeFan]

To be fair, the reason Arkansas and South Carolina aren't in BCS bowl games is that the selection procedures don't allow more than two teams from a single conference, unless those two are in the national title game and aren't the conference winner (which theoretically could have happened if Georgia beat LSU). In some sense the complaint is rather the opposite of the "no rematch of SEC teams" argument--here you seem to be arguing that the BCS bowl games should just be the best teams regardless of conference (thus including Arkansas and South Carolina), but for the championship game, should conference affiliation again become meaningful?

I am not arguing against no rematch. If Ok State had two losses then LSU/Alabama would be fine with me as I don't think over say Stanford or Oregon.
I am saying that Ok State had a tough loss on the road in double overtime. Outside of conference Alabama scheduled one traditionally good team and 3 cupcakes. I don't think their "body of work" out of conference qualified them for anything.

SoCal

[vick]

I am saying that Ok State had a tough loss on the road in double overtime.


Alabama's only loss was also in overtime, though, to a much tougher opponent. I don't see how comparing losses works in OSU's favor.



Outside of conference Alabama scheduled one traditionally good team and 3 cupcakes.

OSU's nonconference schedule consisted of a decent Tulsa team, a 4-8 Arizona team, and Louisiana-Lafayette. Alabama played Penn State in Happy Valley, a tougher match than any OSU nonconference game. This also doesn't look like it's in OSU's favor--comparing the only games that a national championship-quality team should even have to play their starters for (@Tulsa vs. @Penn St.), I would give the edge to Alabama again.

It's not just "best loss" or "nonconference schedule" that I think is in Alabama's favor either. OSU won by 1 against a 6-6 Texas A&M team (although one of the best 6-6 teams I've ever seen). They won by 7 at home vs. Kansas State. Meanwhile, if you take away the LSU game, the closest anybody has come to Alabama is the 16 point Penn St. game, and this includes a 38-14 win against Arkansas (probably a rough equivalent to Kansas State). Consistency breaks Alabama's way as well. There's good reason that Alabama would be favored on a neutral site vs. OSU (I have yet to see anyone actually dispute that point, by the way).

I like playoffs and think they'd be fun to watch. But the BCS was designed to put the teams who played the best over the entire season in a bowl game to play one another. I think it's done that quite well this year.

[sporthenry]

Not to rehash things all over again, but OK. I am for a playoff. I agree that a playoff will make more money. But what can't be agreed on is what that 8 team playoff would look like, and the conferences would rather entrench themselves in the current system than agree to something that might freeze them out in a bad year (Big Ten/ACC this year, for example). It's a simple matter of inertia that can't get the momentum it needs among the powers that be. My feeling is that it will first take a "football commissioner" or something put in place to get the conferences and presidents in line -- and no, the NCAA cannot be that entity, and when I say "cannot" I mean both that it shouldn't be that entity, and that it is also incapable.

I would be happy to get the 4 team plus one playoff and leave it at that. It seems like a pretty good compromise that will still have controversy, but less so in my mind. I guess Boise would get left out this year. Whoop dee do.

Well I look at a playoff as inevitable. I would liken it to instant replay in sports where eventually you had enough people get screwed on bad calls that they started to promote instant replay. I know that isn't the only reason but I do think eventually you will see enough conferences and teams get screwed that this will provide that initial inertia. Although the conferences might not care as much since as you put it, they want the guaranteed money of the BCS but as the SEC is dominating everyone else so much that other conferences don't get a chance, this might make some conferences take steps to rectify that. I think 8 teams or even 6 could get everyone you need in the playoffs but 4 could be a bit light granted you would probably have the best team in those 4. Either way, the fact we have more than a month provides ample time for any playoff.

[COYS]

I like playoffs and think they'd be fun to watch. But the BCS was designed to put the teams who played the best over the entire season in a bowl game to play one another. I think it's done that quite well this year.

I predict that the chaos will continue after the final game is over if Alabama wins. Bama will have gone 1-1 against an LSU team that actually won more games than Bama. I could see a split champion vote in the AP poll. I could even see Okie St. gaining votes if they massacre their bowl opponent. The title game might be set, but if the Tigers don't win, I'm not sure that anyone will be satisfied with the outcome.

[vick]

I predict that the chaos will continue after the final game is over if Alabama wins. Bama will have gone 1-1 against an LSU team that actually won more games than Bama. I could see a split champion vote in the AP poll. I could even see Okie St. gaining votes if they massacre their bowl opponent. The title game might be set, but if the Tigers don't win, I'm not sure that anyone will be satisfied with the outcome.

I think the OSU getting votes (potentially even getting the AP crown) scenario is actually substantially more likely than the scenario where Alabama beats LSU and LSU is still voted AP champion. If LSU had blasted Alabama, and it was a fluke year like 2007 where a two-loss Alabama team made the title game...maybe. But a rematch after an overtime game? Doubtful to me. I mean, in 1996, FSU was undefeated, lost a rematch to Florida (final score 52-20 but a closer game than that looks, it got somewhat out of hand late), and they weren't even voted second in the final polls.

[dcdevil2009]

How can Va Tech be in a BCS bowl?

How can Arkansas, Boise and KState and South Carolina - teams ranked 6,7,8 and 9 not be in one.

With the exception of the championship game, the BCS is a relatively unapologetic cash grab on the part of the major conferences. The championship is an apologetic cash grab. After the championship game and other auto-qualifiers take their spots in the bowls, the different bowls pick the teams that will result in the biggest profit. The BCS system spits out a number 1 and number 2 team, up to 10 automatic qualifiers and a list of acceptable at large teams if the 10 BCS spots aren't filled by AQs. From that point, the selection committees for the respective BCS bowls could care less about the relative rankings of the at large eligible teams. As far as I know, they don't claim to. To use the NCAA basketball tournament as a comparison, it would be like if the selection committee determined the best 68 teams without ranking them and let the four regional sites each pick the Sweet 16 match ups based on ticket sales without player the first weekend of games.

The result for football is that it doesn't matter if Boise or K State are better than Michigan, VT or Stanford because VT and Michigan will bring the bowls more money. The sooner commentators start realizing that, the better. I'm tired of the commentators praising the BCS bowls for choosing the correct match ups in years where the best and most profitable selections are the same and then complaining that the BCS got it wrong by leaving out the Boises and K-States because they are the better teams, but not the most profitable. They need to stop focusing on the selections and instead realize that it's the selection process itself.

[SoCalDukeFan]

With the exception of the championship game, the BCS is a relatively unapologetic cash grab on the part of the major conferences. The championship is an apologetic cash grab. After the championship game and other auto-qualifiers take their spots in the bowls, the different bowls pick the teams that will result in the biggest profit. The BCS system spits out a number 1 and number 2 team, up to 10 automatic qualifiers and a list of acceptable at large teams if the 10 BCS spots aren't filled by AQs. From that point, the selection committees for the respective BCS bowls could care less about the relative rankings of the at large eligible teams. As far as I know, they don't claim to. To use the NCAA basketball tournament as a comparison, it would be like if the selection committee determined the best 68 teams without ranking them and let the four regional sites each pick the Sweet 16 match ups based on ticket sales without player the first weekend of games.

The result for football is that it doesn't matter if Boise or K State are better than Michigan, VT or Stanford because VT and Michigan will bring the bowls more money. The sooner commentators start realizing that, the better. I'm tired of the commentators praising the BCS bowls for choosing the correct match ups in years where the best and most profitable selections are the same and then complaining that the BCS got it wrong by leaving out the Boises and K-States because they are the better teams, but not the most profitable. They need to stop focusing on the selections and instead realize that it's the selection process itself.

and ESPN should just say that the BCS bowls are set up to be moneymakers and little else.

I do like it that the Rose Bowl has the Pac 12 and Big 10 champs and the Orange Bowl has conference champs as well.

SoCal

[COYS]

I think the OSU getting votes (potentially even getting the AP crown) scenario is actually substantially more likely than the scenario where Alabama beats LSU and LSU is still voted AP champion. If LSU had blasted Alabama, and it was a fluke year like 2007 where a two-loss Alabama team made the title game...maybe. But a rematch after an overtime game? Doubtful to me. I mean, in 1996, FSU was undefeated, lost a rematch to Florida (final score 52-20 but a closer game than that looks, it got somewhat out of hand late), and they weren't even voted second in the final polls.

I certainly agree that LSU probably won't get votes if Bama wins by a substantial margin. But if Bama wins in overtime by a field goal, you never know. In my opinion, the best hope OSU has of sharing any type of championship is for Alabama to win in just such a way while the Cowboys blow Stanford out of the water. It's still unlikely because its clear that all the voters believe Alabama and LSU to be the two best teams. I think I agree with most voters, but at the same time, I wish they were playing the best out of conference teams in the bowls to prove it on the field. I definitely wish the Cowboys had found a way into the title game.

[A-Tex Devil]

I certainly agree that LSU probably won't get votes if Bama wins by a substantial margin. But if Bama wins in overtime by a field goal, you never know. In my opinion, the best hope OSU has of sharing any type of championship is for Alabama to win in just such a way while the Cowboys blow Stanford out of the water. It's still unlikely because its clear that all the voters believe Alabama and LSU to be the two best teams. I think I agree with most voters, but at the same time, I wish they were playing the best out of conference teams in the bowls to prove it on the field. I definitely wish the Cowboys had found a way into the title game.

It may have been someone upthread, but I agreed heartily with the point that if the Big XII team at issue was OU or Texas (or even Texas A&M to an extent) and the SEC team at issue was Mississippi St or Ole Miss, instead of Alabama, the Big XII team would have gotten in. I can't wait for the final Harris Poll results to come out to see what kind of gymnastics was used among the 1 and 2 loss teams to push certain voters' agendas. Should be interesting.

I am not against 'Bama/LSU per se, simply because it's reasonable to say they are the 2 best teams, which is all the BCS is supposed to do. There are a bunch of things we think the BCS should be chartered to do (avoid rematches, conference champions only, etc.), but the fact is it's not. So we have what we have. I would rather Okie State be in the BCSCG, but the "system" generally did what it is supposed to do. It's not broken as much as it's narrow minded and biased.

I am one of those folks that say the coaches poll should be yanked. The poll that should be included is the SBNation Blog Poll simply for the fact that it is sliced, diced and analyzed every week, and biases are called out to the public. Most of the pollsters also prepare explanations of their poll on a weekly basis. Making this poll more important than it is by putting it in the BCS may change it (and I'm sure that's one reason the AP pulled out of the BCS), but I've followed it the last few years and found it to bee pretty impressive in its thought and accountability -- unlike, say, SIDs and graduate assistants voting on behalf of their coaches. I will note -- it put 'Bama second as well.

[JasonEvans]

I know there are a lot of reasons why the computers and polls combined to give Alabama the narrow nod over Okie State... but you all need to look at this. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-final-coaches-ballots/51647436/1)

It is a graphic showing how all the coaches voted in their final poll. A majority of them voted for Bama to be the #2 team. No one had Bama lower than 3rd. But, check out all the guys who voted Okie St. 4th or even 5th.



Troy Calhoun of Air force had OkSt 5th.
Our David Cutcliffe had them 4th. Cut spent the majority of his career coaching in the SEC.
Doug Marrone of Syracuse also had them 4th. He used to coach at both Georgia and Tennessee.
Gary Pinkel of Mizzu had them 4th. He is in the Big 12... though he is leaving it to go to the SEC next year.
David Shaw of Stanford picked them 4th. He put his own team 3rd.
Nick Saban, who HAD AN ACTUAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTING, picked Okie State 4th behind Stanford.


I am not suggesting any grand conspiracy on the part of current and former SEC coaches. I am just pointing out the folly of having coaches get any say in who plays in the title game seeing as, for at least some of them, it means more or less money to their school. I don't doubt that friendship among coaches may also sometimes play a role. The whole process is just ridiculous.

-Jason "sigh... I am disgusted and I think Bama and LSU are the two best teams" Evans

[JasonEvans]

By the way, Va Tech getting a second bid for the ACC means an extra $900,000 per ACC team. That ain't nothing to sneeze at. The fact that Va Tech fans travel well probably really helped them get the nod over a lot of other schools who were higher in the BCS standings.

-Jason "thanks Va Tech -- you probably just paid for the Duke swim team for a year or something like that" Evans

[johnb]

It is a graphic showing how all the coaches voted in their final poll. A majority of them voted for Bama to be the #2 team. No one had Bama lower than 3rd. But, check out all the guys who voted Okie St. 4th or even 5th.

...


Troy Calhoun of Air force had OkSt 5th.
Our David Cutcliffe had them 4th. Cut spent the majority of his career coaching in the SEC.
Doug Marrone of Syracuse also had them 4th. He used to coach at both Georgia and Tennessee.
Gary Pinkel of Mizzu had them 4th. He is in the Big 12... though he is leaving it to go to the SEC next year.
David Shaw of Stanford picked them 4th. He put his own team 3rd.
Nick Saban, who HAD AN ACTUAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTING, picked Okie State 4th behind Stanford.

...

-Jason "sigh... I am disgusted and I think Bama and LSU are the two best teams" Evans

Very interesting stuff. As Jason noted, it's not exactly the old Soviet-era figure skating judges, but it's hard to imagine a legitimate justification for putting Ok State lower than 3rd.

I wondered why these guys--including Cutcliffe--aren't a bit embarrassed for people to view their vote as being sullied. One possible reason is they believe Stanford>Oklahoma State. Another is that they have lived their whole lives within a system that says you should do as much as the rules will possibly allow. And, further, do what you can get away with. This stems from having refs in place, so that it's not the wide receiver who calls interference or announces he trapped the pass. I wonder if golfers would behave more honorably if they were asked to publicly vote on who should make the Ryder team or a TPC.

[Duvall]

I know there are a lot of reasons why the computers and polls combined to give Alabama the narrow nod over Okie State... but you all need to look at this. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-final-coaches-ballots/51647436/1)

It is a graphic showing how all the coaches voted in their final poll. A majority of them voted for Bama to be the #2 team. No one had Bama lower than 3rd. But, check out all the guys who voted Okie St. 4th or even 5th.



Our David Cutcliffe had them 4th. Cut spent the majority of his career coaching in the SEC.


Well, that and he graduated from Alabama.

[A-Tex Devil]

I will be interested in seeing how this all plays out in the Heisman balloting.

In my opinion, there is an easy top 3, and it doesn't include Luck, Richardson or Barkley:

1. Robert Griffin III -- compare his stats and schedule against ANY, and I mean ANY QB in the country. It's not close, really.
2. Monte Ball -- Better than Trent Richardson in every measurable way this year.
3. Honey Badger -- Only Suh and Charles Woodson have had better seasons as defenders than this guy in the past 15 years.

Clearly it's not that black and white. I think Richardson wins based on the dogmatic tendencies of Heisman voters to have the winner in the BCS-CG. Only 2 heisman winners -- Tim Tebow and Carson Palmer -- have not played in the championship game in the last 11 years.

That said, it will be WIDE open, and I wouldn't be surprised to see as many as 8 people get first place votes. At least 6 will. Like polls, though, voters will stack their ballot against other favorites so that their own favorite might win. Should be interesting.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I know there are a lot of reasons why the computers and polls combined to give Alabama the narrow nod over Okie State... but you all need to look at this. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-final-coaches-ballots/51647436/1)

It is a graphic showing how all the coaches voted in their final poll. A majority of them voted for Bama to be the #2 team. No one had Bama lower than 3rd. But, check out all the guys who voted Okie St. 4th or even 5th.



Troy Calhoun of Air force had OkSt 5th.
Our David Cutcliffe had them 4th. Cut spent the majority of his career coaching in the SEC.
Doug Marrone of Syracuse also had them 4th. He used to coach at both Georgia and Tennessee.
Gary Pinkel of Mizzu had them 4th. He is in the Big 12... though he is leaving it to go to the SEC next year.
David Shaw of Stanford picked them 4th. He put his own team 3rd.
Nick Saban, who HAD AN ACTUAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTING, picked Okie State 4th behind Stanford.


I am not suggesting any grand conspiracy on the part of current and former SEC coaches. I am just pointing out the folly of having coaches get any say in who plays in the title game seeing as, for at least some of them, it means more or less money to their school. I don't doubt that friendship among coaches may also sometimes play a role. The whole process is just ridiculous.

-Jason "sigh... I am disgusted and I think Bama and LSU are the two best teams" Evans

This is just one of the many flaws in the system. The computers had OSU number 2. I can see why some like Bama and some like OSU. I think when its close then avoid the rematch.

No matter how many teams you put in a playoffs, the last team out would complain. If you went to four this year, then Oregon who beat Stanford and won the Pac 12 would be out and Stanford would be in.

I guess the new slogan for college football is "Almost every game counts."

The dynamics every year are different. Maybe play the bowls by Jan 2nd and then after the bowl games pick the two teams for the NC.

SoCal

[TexHawk]

I know there are a lot of reasons why the computers and polls combined to give Alabama the narrow nod over Okie State... but you all need to look at this. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-final-coaches-ballots/51647436/1)

It is a graphic showing how all the coaches voted in their final poll. A majority of them voted for Bama to be the #2 team. No one had Bama lower than 3rd. But, check out all the guys who voted Okie St. 4th or even 5th.



Troy Calhoun of Air force had OkSt 5th.
Our David Cutcliffe had them 4th. Cut spent the majority of his career coaching in the SEC.
Doug Marrone of Syracuse also had them 4th. He used to coach at both Georgia and Tennessee.
Gary Pinkel of Mizzu had them 4th. He is in the Big 12... though he is leaving it to go to the SEC next year.
David Shaw of Stanford picked them 4th. He put his own team 3rd.
Nick Saban, who HAD AN ACTUAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTING, picked Okie State 4th behind Stanford.


I am not suggesting any grand conspiracy on the part of current and former SEC coaches. I am just pointing out the folly of having coaches get any say in who plays in the title game seeing as, for at least some of them, it means more or less money to their school. I don't doubt that friendship among coaches may also sometimes play a role. The whole process is just ridiculous.

-Jason "sigh... I am disgusted and I think Bama and LSU are the two best teams" Evans

While this is awful and ridiculous, fair voting would not have changed the outcome. Brad Edwards (BCS "guru") ran the numbers, OSU still comes out at #3 if those coaches vote that way.

[A-Tex Devil]

While this is awful and ridiculous, fair voting would not have changed the outcome. Brad Edwards (BCS "guru") ran the numbers, OSU still comes out at #3 if those coaches vote that way.

Which is why I can't get too mad at the voters. I am guessing most people that voted 'Bama #2 (1) subjectively, but reasonably, thought 'Bama was better than OSU and (2) saw LSU and 'Bama as the best 2 teams. If a voter truly thought 'Bama was better than OSU, but moved OSU to #2 and 'Bama to #3, depending on the how and why of his voting strategy, if any, that's not much better than the people that voted OSU 4 to help 'Bama out.

[hurleyfor3]

Maybe the computers have become self-aware, and have calculated that the best way to destroy the human race is to start by making Alabama play Lsu again.

[CDu]

Maybe the computers have become self-aware, and have calculated that the best way to destroy the human race is to start by making Alabama play Lsu again.

The computers actually favored OSU. It was the voters in both the AP and Coaches' polls that picked Alabama. Had the voters wanted a non-rematch, all they had to do was vote OSU #2.

[Wander]

I know there are a lot of reasons why the computers and polls combined to give Alabama the narrow nod over Okie State... but you all need to look at this. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-final-coaches-ballots/51647436/1)

It is a graphic showing how all the coaches voted in their final poll. A majority of them voted for Bama to be the #2 team. No one had Bama lower than 3rd. But, check out all the guys who voted Okie St. 4th or even 5th.


That's nothing. Multiple Harris Poll voters had Oklahoma State ranked 6th. One of them ranked OSU behind Houston, a couple others behind Boise State.

This is idiotic. And not just to Oklahoma State. Find me a non-LSU team that has a better win on their resume than a road victory at USC...

[-jk]

Can the fb conferences figure a way to run a tourney and freeze out everyone else (to hang onto the obscene paycheck) without blowing up the ncaa overall?

I really think the 60 or 70 big-money schools don't want the ncaa gone for everything else - hoops and all those "olympic" (aka "non-revenue") sports. It's a mighty small pool going it alone, and they can't resolve how to pull this off otherwise. The Bowls have a long, vaguely reputable, history and can be manipated.

If they withdraw from the ncaa, the hoops tourney loses most value, and that's the operating budget for the ncaa and the vast majority of non-major-bcs conferences and teams. All the leftover schools would have to go to a Div II or III model, removing (among other things) football fodder and "guarantee" games for basketball for the majors.

So, until then, it'll continue to be shenanigans as usual.

-jk

[Duvall]

I will be interested in seeing how this all plays out in the Heisman balloting.

In my opinion, there is an easy top 3, and it doesn't include Luck, Richardson or Barkley:

1. Robert Griffin III -- compare his stats and schedule against ANY, and I mean ANY QB in the country. It's not close, really.
2. Monte Ball -- Better than Trent Richardson in every measurable way this year.
3. Honey Badger -- Only Suh and Charles Woodson have had better seasons as defenders than this guy in the past 15 years.

Clearly it's not that black and white. I think Richardson wins based on the dogmatic tendencies of Heisman voters to have the winner in the BCS-CG. Only 2 heisman winners -- Tim Tebow and Carson Palmer -- have not played in the championship game in the last 11 years.

That said, it will be WIDE open, and I wouldn't be surprised to see as many as 8 people get first place votes. At least 6 will. Like polls, though, voters will stack their ballot against other favorites so that their own favorite might win. Should be interesting.

Finalists: Griffin, Ball, Luck, Richardson and Mathieu. (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7320637/finalists-named-77th-annual-heisman-trophy)

[A-Tex Devil]

Finalists: Griffin, Ball, Luck, Richardson and Mathieu. (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7320637/finalists-named-77th-annual-heisman-trophy)

Looks like it may actually be an RGIII landslide (http://www.stiffarmtrophy.com/)!!

[Sixthman]

That's nothing. Multiple Harris Poll voters had Oklahoma State ranked 6th. One of them ranked OSU behind Houston, a couple others behind Boise State.

This is idiotic. And not just to Oklahoma State. Find me a non-LSU team that has a better win on their resume than a road victory at USC...

Try for example, beating Texas A&M on the road when A&M was ranked #8, or beating Kansas State when they were #8, or beating the tar out of Oklahomas when they were #10. Just sayin' . . .

[Duvall]

Try for example, beating Texas A&M on the road when A&M was ranked #8, or beating Kansas State when they were #8, or beating the tar out of Oklahomas when they were #10. Just sayin' . . .

Isn't USC better than all those teams? Maybe Kansas State, but probably not.

I've never understood judging the quality of a win by what a team was ranked before the game. Don't we know more about A&M now than we did two months ago?

[hurleyfor3]

The computers actually favored OSU. It was the voters in both the AP and Coaches' polls that picked Alabama. Had the voters wanted a non-rematch, all they had to do was vote OSU #2.

Somehow, I still fear that's part of the machines' master plan.

[CajunDevil]

I wish the powers that be would instill a playoff, however, until then let's get some perspective here - Oklahoma State lost on 11/18 to Iowa State, a 6-6 (3-6 in Big 12) team who is playing Rutgers in the Pinstripe Bowl. And, OSU should be playing LSU for the National Championship? No Way

[Newton_14]

My biggest beef this year is the Sugar Bowl selections. Vatech was a bad selection, but Michigan?? That makes no sense at all. I just wish they would institute the rule that all At-Large selections have to be ranked in the BCS Top 10. As usual, several Top 10 teams got screwed this year in favor of a VaTech team that lost their conference championship by 4 Touchdowns, not ranked in the Top 10, and a Michigan team that did not even make their conference championship game and is also not ranked in the Top 10. Crazy

[sporthenry]

I've never understood judging the quality of a win by what a team was ranked before the game. Don't we know more about A&M now than we did two months ago?

The only problem with doing this absolutely is that you completely dismiss how good a team they possibly were. Certainly some teams are overrated and don't play each other but there are also teams that just fall apart after a loss or two. I would liken it to a team like Michigan State last year who played Duke really tough in December but never put it together or even worse a team like Nova who was ranked 7 for several weeks last year before falling apart.

[ForkFondler]

Can the fb conferences figure a way to run a tourney and freeze out everyone else (to hang onto the obscene paycheck) without blowing up the ncaa overall?

I really think the 60 or 70 big-money schools don't want the ncaa gone for everything else - hoops and all those "olympic" (aka "non-revenue") sports. It's a mighty small pool going it alone, and they can't resolve how to pull this off otherwise. The Bowls have a long, vaguely reputable, history and can be manipated.

If they withdraw from the ncaa, the hoops tourney loses most value, and that's the operating budget for the ncaa and the vast majority of non-major-bcs conferences and teams. All the leftover schools would have to go to a Div II or III model, removing (among other things) football fodder and "guarantee" games for basketball for the majors.

So, until then, it'll continue to be shenanigans as usual.

-jk

There is no reason whatsoever to pit a playoff vs. "B"owls. You can easily have a playoff for the most deserving teams (4, 8, or 16) and bowl games (think NIT) for every one else. In fact, an eight team payoff for a 1A second division (think Duke) would be very teleworthy.

[Chicago 1995]

I wish the powers that be would instill a playoff, however, until then let's get some perspective here - Oklahoma State lost on 11/18 to Iowa State, a 6-6 (3-6 in Big 12) team who is playing Rutgers in the Pinstripe Bowl. And, OSU should be playing LSU for the National Championship? No Way

That ISU team is better than no less than 5 of Bama's "vaunted" SEC wins: UT, Vandy, UF, Ole Mis and Miss State. They're closer to Auburn than not.

A schedule with Baylor, K State and OU this year (and UT and Mizzou) is just a tougher schedule than Bama faced. No one has any idea if Bama could have survived a Big 12 schedule or not.

[CajunDevil]

That ISU team is better than no less than 5 of Bama's "vaunted" SEC wins: UT, Vandy, UF, Ole Mis and Miss State. They're closer to Auburn than not.

A schedule with Baylor, K State and OU this year (and UT and Mizzou) is just a tougher schedule than Bama faced. No one has any idea if Bama could have survived a Big 12 schedule or not.

Seriously? OSU lost to a team not even in top 25, yet they are more deserving than a team that barely lost to the #1 team in the nation? The SEC is like watching the NFL compared to other college conferences. Not even close...

[ForkFondler]

That ISU team is better than no less than 5 of Bama's "vaunted" SEC wins: UT, Vandy, UF, Ole Mis and Miss State. They're closer to Auburn than not.

A schedule with Baylor, K State and OU this year (and UT and Mizzou) is just a tougher schedule than Bama faced. No one has any idea if Bama could have survived a Big 12 schedule or not.

Sagarin conference ratings:

1 BIG 12 (A) = 84.86 84.09 ( 1) 10 84.34 ( 1)
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 80.13 80.88 ( 2) 12 80.56 ( 2)
3 PAC-12 (A) = 75.81 76.38 ( 3) 12 76.18 ( 3)
4 BIG TEN (A) = 75.61 75.09 ( 4) 12 75.34 ( 4)
5 ATLANTIC COAST(A) = 72.17 71.92 ( 5) 12 71.96 ( 5)
6 BIG EAST (A) = 71.87 71.86 ( 6) 8 71.86 ( 6)

So, how many teams does the top rated conference (by a lot) have in the BCS playoff: 0

[SoCalDukeFan]

Seriously? OSU lost to a team not even in top 25, yet they are more deserving than a team that barely lost to the #1 team in the nation? The SEC is like watching the NFL compared to other college conferences. Not even close...

was about a million miles from watching the NFL.

When was the last NFL game that ended in regulation in a 3-3 tie?

You can not be serious.

SoCal

[sporthenry]

Seriously? OSU lost to a team not even in top 25, yet they are more deserving than a team that barely lost to the #1 team in the nation? The SEC is like watching the NFL compared to other college conferences. Not even close...

You are getting way too hung up on who they lost to and just ignoring who they beat. Would you rather a team who has beaten better teams but had one bad game or a team who had no bad losses but not nearly the quality of wins? It isn't that black and white. And as somebody mentioned, the SEC is not the NFL by a long shot. It is CFL quarterbacks versus NFL cornerbacks.

[CajunDevil]

was about a million miles from watching the NFL.

When was the last NFL game that ended in regulation in a 3-3 tie?

You can not be serious.

SoCal

I was talking about the quality of the athletes and the defenses. No Big 12 defense is close to LSU or Bama and that is what will win the championship. Both LSU and Bama have serviceable offenses, and unreal defenses.

Another ringing endorsement for OSU - ISU was 1-6 vs. top 30 teams...

[CajunDevil]

You are getting way too hung up on who they lost to and just ignoring who they beat. Would you rather a team who has beaten better teams but had one bad game or a team who had no bad losses but not nearly the quality of wins? It isn't that black and white. And as somebody mentioned, the SEC is not the NFL by a long shot. It is CFL quarterbacks versus NFL cornerbacks.

The loss was 3 weeks ago... and they are supposed to jump Bama?? I'll concede that the quarterbacks in the SEC aren't great this year, but the defenses are made up of NFL corners, safeties, linebackers, linemen...

[mdj]

Seriously? OSU lost to a team not even in top 25, yet they are more deserving than a team that barely lost to the #1 team in the nation? The SEC is like watching the NFL compared to other college conferences. Not even close...

I've never understood evaluating a team based on their losses. based on this bama would have had a worse season had they beat lsu but lost to vandy. their loss would have been less impressive. this makes no sense. also you never hear someone saying the jets have 5 losses but they're all to quality teams therefore i think they're a super bowl contender. you do hear the cowboys have lost some games but they play well against great competition. why bama vs osu is being evaluated in the opposite way (looking first at the loss) is beyond me.

[mdj]

I was talking about the quality of the athletes and the defenses. No Big 12 defense is close to LSU or Bama and that is what will win the championship. Both LSU and Bama have serviceable offenses, and unreal defenses.

Another ringing endorsement for OSU - ISU was 1-6 vs. top 30 teams...

ooh thats a good idea lets evaluate teams on their record vs the top 25. Bama 1-1 OSU 4-0

[gcashwell]

The only problem with doing this absolutely is that you completely dismiss how good a team they possibly were. Certainly some teams are overrated and don't play each other but there are also teams that just fall apart after a loss or two. I would liken it to a team like Michigan State last year who played Duke really tough in December but never put it together or even worse a team like Nova who was ranked 7 for several weeks last year before falling apart.

Or Florida this year. They were a strong contender until Alabama destroyed their two quarterbacks. People just evaluate at the end of the season, and you can't do that. When AL beat Florida (in the swamp) Florida was a great team.

[Duvall]

Or Florida this year. They were a strong contender until Alabama destroyed their two quarterbacks. People just evaluate at the end of the season, and you can't do that. When AL beat Florida (in the swamp) Florida was a great team.

Based on what?

[gcashwell]

Based on what?

The eye, also known as the measuring stick for college football.

See how stupid not having a playoff is? ITT nobody is wrong. You can make a good case for OSU playing in the title game as well as Bama, maybe even a couple of other teams. It is ridiculous.

[sporthenry]

The loss was 3 weeks ago... and they are supposed to jump Bama?? I'll concede that the quarterbacks in the SEC aren't great this year, but the defenses are made up of NFL corners, safeties, linebackers, linemen...

That is just a huge exaggeration. Last year, the SEC had a total of 13 defensive players drafted. That makes an average of one NFL player per team. Similarly, the Big 12 had 17 defensive players drafted. Last year, the Big 12 had 5 defensive players selected in the first round compared to the SEC's 3.

And I just don't know how you can dismiss the importance of QB's. Perhaps that is why their defenses appear so good b/c of the QB level. Big 12 has 3 of the top 5 and 4 of the top 8 QB prospects in the 2012 draft according to CBS. You'd have to go to #20 to find an SEC QB in Brantley. Yes, you have Tyler Wilson, Bray, and Murray who are rated fairly highly in future years but the difference in experience is huge as I'm sure any team would much rather have faced Tyler Bray than Landry Jones.

[Dev11]

Michigan?? That makes no sense at all.

Until you start counting the Benjamins, at which point it makes perfect sense.

Nobody said this system was about determining winners in athletic competition. It's about guys making money. If I'm running a BCS bowl, I want 2 or 3 loss Michigan every single year over 1 loss Boise.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Until you start counting the Benjamins, at which point it makes perfect sense.

Nobody said this system was about determining winners in athletic competition. It's about guys making money. If I'm running a BCS bowl, I want 2 or 3 loss Michigan every single year over 1 loss Boise.

Boise will sell their full allotment of tickets. Game of TV will be David vs Goliath.

In any case, ESPN should promote these BCS Bowls as all about the money and not about the best teams. Maybe they should be televised on a financial channel.

SoCal

[CDu]

In any case, ESPN should promote these BCS Bowls as all about the money and not about the best teams. Maybe they should be televised on a financial channel.

The bowls have always been all about the money. I'm not sure why people are suddenly aghast by this concept. The BCS has at least made a step toward what "the people" want by having a championship game between the teams that people felt were the two best. Other than the championship game, the BCS bowls are not really that different (nor have they claimed to be different) than the old bowl system.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The bowls have always been all about the money. I'm not sure why people are suddenly aghast by this concept. The BCS has at least made a step toward what "the people" want by having a championship game between the teams that people felt were the two best. Other than the championship game, the BCS bowls are not really that different (nor have they claimed to be different) than the old bowl system.

My memory is that in the old system the major bowls filled at least one spot with a conference champion. The idea of a major bowl getting to pick both teams and going so low on the rankings seems new to me.

I do agree that the minor bowls have always been about money and trying to break even.

SoCal

[CDu]

My memory is that in the old system the major bowls filled at least one spot with a conference champion. The idea of a major bowl getting to pick both teams and going so low on the rankings seems new to me.

I do agree that the minor bowls have always been about money and trying to break even.

SoCal

Yes, the major bowls were largely based on the conference champ - but they always came from major conferences or elite independents. The BCS at least allows the small conference teams a small chance to participate. In the pre-BCS days, you'd never see a Boise State or TCU or Hawaii in the Sugar, Rose, Orange, or Fiesta Bowl. Those games were reserved for the big boys.

It was still all about money. They just made the decision before the season even started rather than after the regular season ended.

[Wander]

I know it's purely about money, but it's still a little bit odd to see a BCS bowl that has two at-large selections completely outclassed in rankings by a non-BCS bowl; Sugar has #11 vs. #13, but Cotton has #6 vs. #8.

I don't think I've ever been less excited about bowl season. Boise State, Oklahoma, Baylor, TCU, and Southern Miss are all good ranked teams that have games somewhere between "mildly interesting if you're a fan of one of the two teams involved" to complete trash - imagine Iowa and Arizona State playing each other, leaving Boise and Oklahoma to match off. Other than Arkansas vs Kansas State, which should give us a tiny bit of an idea of what the best conference is, and Penn State vs Houston, which we're only getting due to a ridiculously unusual set of circumstances that will never happen again, there's nothing I'm dying to see.

[A-Tex Devil]

The bowls have always been all about the money. I'm not sure why people are suddenly aghast by this concept. The BCS has at least made a step toward what "the people" want by having a championship game between the teams that people felt were the two best. Other than the championship game, the BCS bowls are not really that different (nor have they claimed to be different) than the old bowl system.

It's about the money, but not in the way most people think. Unlike big picture conference realignment, the bowls are about feet on the ground money, so to speak, more than TV money. The ad revenue is pretty much going to be sold regardless. In fact, I would guess Fox would prefer Boise or even K-State based on game results and getting viewers nationwide (Michigan is a no-brainer selection for TV and attendance reasons). But the Sugar Bowl gets the pick and what they want is fans in New Orleans. They made the judgment call that the Bowl and the city of New Orleans would be better served with Va Tech over K-State and Boise St. I am guessing there was a modicum of research done on this, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But one never knows, I guess.

I am not certain, as was posited above, that Boise sold all their allotment in their 2 BCS appearances. I can tell you that in 2008 at the Poinsettia Bowl in San Diego, they did not. My parents were at the Fiesta Bowl 2 years ago and said it was only 3/4 full.

The "BCS" as an entity has without question made it "easier" for small schools to get a shot - in that it's no longer impossible (as people have noted above). But now that the possibility exists, when Va Tech gets in ahead of Boise or Chris Petersen uses his Coaches Poll vote to punish a school that beat Boise and open that spot up for Boise, it's now a talking point. (Everyone is griping about the 'Bama/OSU votes, but Petersen pulled some similar poll gymnastics in his treatment of TCU).

[SoCalDukeFan]

It's about the money, but not in the way most people think. Unlike big picture conference realignment, the bowls are about feet on the ground money, so to speak, more than TV money. The ad revenue is pretty much going to be sold regardless. In fact, I would guess Fox would prefer Boise or even K-State based on game results and getting viewers nationwide (Michigan is a no-brainer selection for TV and attendance reasons). But the Sugar Bowl gets the pick and what they want is fans in New Orleans. They made the judgment call that the Bowl and the city of New Orleans would be better served with Va Tech over K-State and Boise St. I am guessing there was a modicum of research done on this, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But one never knows, I guess.

I am not certain, as was posited above, that Boise sold all their allotment in their 2 BCS appearances. I can tell you that in 2008 at the Poinsettia Bowl in San Diego, they did not. My parents were at the Fiesta Bowl 2 years ago and said it was only 3/4 full.

The "BCS" as an entity has without question made it "easier" for small schools to get a shot - in that it's no longer impossible (as people have noted above). But now that the possibility exists, when Va Tech gets in ahead of Boise or Chris Petersen uses his Coaches Poll vote to punish a school that beat Boise and open that spot up for Boise, it's now a talking point. (Everyone is griping about the 'Bama/OSU votes, but Petersen pulled some similar poll gymnastics in his treatment of TCU).

From Link (http://www.thebestdamnpoll.com/ScoresandNews/tabid/177/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1204/Default.aspx)

Just for fun, though, let's take a look at what probably made a difference with the selection and that is fan attendance and the money. Looking back on the 2010 Fiesta Bowl (2009 season) between Boise State and TCU, Boise State represented roughly 40,000 of 73,227 in attendance for that game. While they came up short on selling their ticket allotment (by around 300 tickets), many fans have stated they bought tickets from other places for cheaper options, simple as that (according to Kevan Lee). (1) Last year, the 2010 Las Vegas Bowl sold out for a match-up between Boise State and Utah.

[CajunDevil]

That is just a huge exaggeration. Last year, the SEC had a total of 13 defensive players drafted. That makes an average of one NFL player per team. Similarly, the Big 12 had 17 defensive players drafted. Last year, the Big 12 had 5 defensive players selected in the first round compared to the SEC's 3.

And I just don't know how you can dismiss the importance of QB's. Perhaps that is why their defenses appear so good b/c of the QB level. Big 12 has 3 of the top 5 and 4 of the top 8 QB prospects in the 2012 draft according to CBS. You'd have to go to #20 to find an SEC QB in Brantley. Yes, you have Tyler Wilson, Bray, and Murray who are rated fairly highly in future years but the difference in experience is huge as I'm sure any team would much rather have faced Tyler Bray than Landry Jones.

It's not just players on the defensive side of the ball that flow from the SEC to the NFL, it's on all sides of the ball - http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/22255/sec-heavy-nfl-teams- Are we seriously having an argument on which conference is the best in football? This is absurd. How many championships in a row must you win? The SEC is at 6, not because of some conspiracy, but because the SEC has better defenses, better athletes, better teams and just better players year after year.

[duke09hms]

It's not just players on the defensive side of the ball that flow from the SEC to the NFL, it's on all sides of the ball - http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/22255/sec-heavy-nfl-teams- Are we seriously having an argument on which conference is the best in football? This is absurd. How many championships in a row must you win? The SEC is at 6, not because of some conspiracy, but because the SEC has better defenses, better athletes, better teams and just better players year after year.

wow, someone just got owned. With pure knowledge.

[SoCalDukeFan]

It's not just players on the defensive side of the ball that flow from the SEC to the NFL, it's on all sides of the ball - http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/22255/sec-heavy-nfl-teams- Are we seriously having an argument on which conference is the best in football? This is absurd. How many championships in a row must you win? The SEC is at 6, not because of some conspiracy, but because the SEC has better defenses, better athletes, better teams and just better players year after year.

If I were King of College Football I would declare LSU National Champions. They are undefeated and played a tough schedule. They scheduled Oregon and West Virginia out of conference, two games they could lose.

Alabama did schedule Penn State. But they also put Kent State, North Texas, and mighty Georgia Southern on their patsy schedule.
And in my opinion do deserve a shot at the NC.

I also think USC right now would beat either of them.

SoCal

[mdj]

It's not just players on the defensive side of the ball that flow from the SEC to the NFL, it's on all sides of the ball - http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/22255/sec-heavy-nfl-teams- Are we seriously having an argument on which conference is the best in football?

certainly not over the past 5 years were not. that title goes to the sec. i believe the arguement was over who was more deserving osu or bama and while making your arguement you in my opinion oversold the sec a bit as sporthenry pointed out. question is is the sec's #2 more deserving than the big 12's #1 this season. it's not which team is the most talented. if that were the case we could just pull up the recruiting rankings or nfl projections and wouldn't even have to worry about w&l's. i think you can go with either team though i lean towards osu. as you pointed out rrecord vs top 25 is a great way to judge a team and that's kinda what i'm looking at. if you attempt to take subjectivity out of it and decide via a formula (ie who played tougher schedule or who did better against better competion based on opponents won loss) i think osu would usually come out on top. if you want to base decision on past 5 years, or nfl projections or tradition of the program bama comes out on top no question. any of those criteria makes more sense than basing decision on who had the most impressive loss.

[mdj]

wow, someone just got owned. With pure knowledge.

is that a quote from a movie?

[sporthenry]

It's not just players on the defensive side of the ball that flow from the SEC to the NFL, it's on all sides of the ball - http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/22255/sec-heavy-nfl-teams- Are we seriously having an argument on which conference is the best in football? This is absurd. How many championships in a row must you win? The SEC is at 6, not because of some conspiracy, but because the SEC has better defenses, better athletes, better teams and just better players year after year.

Well since I'm getting 'owned' on here, I figured I'd respond. As MJD pointed out, I never said the SEC wasn't the best conference, just that it isn't that much of a mismatch as you insinuated. I think just about everyone agrees from top to bottom the B12 was better this year so lets not make it out that Vandy, Ole Miss, and Kentucky are loaded with NFL talent. Secondly, while the SEC had the most players drafted, they beat the ACC by 3 players. Hardly condemning any conference that they got another guy drafted in the 6th or 7th round. The article also states the SEC had whatever # of MVPs. Well those guys were in the SEC in the 90's when I don't think many argued the SEC was this dominant so the argument that a guy who played QB 14 years ago is somehow indicative of the current SEC is pretty hollow. As far as the titles go, as we mentioned with the ACC/BE arguments, is the ACC better b/c Duke or UNC wins a title doesn't make the rest of the ACC better. If Butler would have won, would the Horizon league be the best?

And I bring up defense b/c you said it and many argue about how many NFL ready players and impact players the SEC has on defense. Well when was the last time the SEC had the DPOY in the NFL if we want to judge a conference by individual awards? 1998 with Reggie White by my calculations. If you look at last year's bowl results the 4th place SEC East team (Tenn) lost to 4th place ACC coastal team (UNC). 1st place ACC Atlantic beat 1st place SEC East (USC). 4th place SEC West beat 2nd place B10. 5th place SEC West beat 7th place B10 and 2nd place SEC East beat 6th place B10. 1st place B10 beat 2nd place SEC West. 3rd place SEC West beat 3rd place B10 South and 1st place SEC West beat 1st place Pac12. So the SEC was 5-3 in Bowl games and most games appeared to be against equal talent. And apart from two B10 games, the other games were fairly close so the drop in talent isn't huge.

[mdj]

one more thing the strength of the sec isn't really relevant. whats relevant is the strength of the teams bama played. they didn't play georgia and they didn't play south carolina so you can throw those two teams out of the mix. what annoys me the most about this is that the same voters who unequivocally say that osu had the better season voted bama ahead in the final poll. in my opinion it's purely based on the bama brand vs the osu brand which is rediculous. pretend bama had osu's resume and vice versa. lets say that bama beat lsu ranked #8, arkansas ranked #12 florida ranked #14 and penn state ranked #24 and lost to unranked vandy on the road. compare that to a hypothetical osu team that lost at home in overtime to #1 ou and beat #6 kansas state at home and #22 baylor on the road. is there any question who should be going to the national championship? would anybody even suggest that osu should play ou for the national championship ahead of bama? of course not. if the teams bama played are so much better than the teams osu played voters should vote that way. vote florida #12 vote auburn #14.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I agree completely with this article from the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dufresne-college-football-20111208,0,2808946.column

Key Points
"It was never accurate to say before Sunday that Louisiana State and Alabama were "clearly" the two best teams in the country.

And you still can't, because in the final BCS standings Alabama and Oklahoma State nearly ended up in a statistical draw.

Had one BCS computer flipped and a few more voters considered Oklahoma State's case, we'd be getting an entirely more festive bowl season.

LSU and Alabama might be the best teams. But if those teams have already played and "Team 3" is an equal alternative and champion from a great conference, to me it's a no-BCS brainer."

"Michigan and Virginia Tech is the first Sugar Bowl matchup not featuring top-10 teams since USA Today started administrating the coaches' poll in 1991."

"Alabama Coach Nick Saban voted Stanford No. 3 ahead of Oklahoma State, helping to create a wedge between his team and the team trying to catch his team in the BCS standings"

"ESPN's Craig James, an Associated Press voter, moved Boise State up one spot this week, to No. 23, while 52 out of 59 coaches voted Boise in their top nine.

The next breaking news bulletin should be the AP revoking James' voting privileges."

"Isn't this Interesting: Michigan, needing to move up two spots in the final BCS standings to be eligible, moved up three. Meanwhile, tadpole Texas Christian, needing to move up two BCS positions to earn an automatic bid, didn't budge a spot."

SoCal

[COYS]

Ok, I admit I'm fishing for any reason to throw the BCS into more chaos and turn what is, for me, a rather boring title game matchup into something more interesting. Nevertheless, what are the chances that LSU loses the title game and is still voted number one? Say Alabama skirts by LSU by 1 point (say 14-13) with the winning points coming on a touchdown run that includes a controversial non-call (say an obvious hold on an LSU would-be-tackler or two that even the announcers can't ignore). Thus, 'Bama splits the seasons series against LSU, loses the point margin battle, and only wins the "title" game on a terribly blown call. Furthermore, Alabama hasn't had the same number of quality wins as LSU and didn't even win their conference division, much less the conference title. Unsatisfied voters then split their vote. Plus, the computers would probably still favor the Tigers (do they run a computer poll after the bowl season is over?). Personally, I would love this!

[CDu]

Ok, I admit I'm fishing for any reason to throw the BCS into more chaos and turn what is, for me, a rather boring title game matchup into something more interesting. Nevertheless, what are the chances that LSU loses the title game and is still voted number one? Say Alabama skirts by LSU by 1 point (say 14-13) with the winning points coming on a touchdown run that includes a controversial non-call (say an obvious hold on an LSU would-be-tackler or two that even the announcers can't ignore). Thus, 'Bama splits the seasons series against LSU, loses the point margin battle, and only wins the "title" game on a terribly blown call. Furthermore, Alabama hasn't had the same number of quality wins as LSU and didn't even win their conference division, much less the conference title. Unsatisfied voters then split their vote. Plus, the computers would probably still favor the Tigers (do they run a computer poll after the bowl season is over?). Personally, I would love this!

Well, by rule, the BCS champion would be Alabama in that scenario. The computer rankings don't factor in after the championship game. And one of the polls (I believe it's the coaches' poll) is contractually obligated to vote for the BCS championship game winner. However, there are two polls. So the AP voters could vote for LSU or OSU if they so desired. There is precedent here, when in 2003 the AP voters chose USC over LSU despite LSU winning the BCS championship game in the Sugar Bowl.

I would be surprised if the AP voters went with LSU in that scenario. I could see them giving backlash and voting for OSU. But, even if the win is controversial and results in just a head-to-head split, I'd be surprised to see the AP voters go with LSU over Alabama.

And in any case, Alabama would still win at least a share of the national title as the BCS/Coaches' poll champ.

[House G]

Well, by rule, the BCS champion would be Alabama in that scenario. The computer rankings don't factor in after the championship game. And one of the polls (I believe it's the coaches' poll) is contractually obligated to vote for the BCS championship game winner. However, there are two polls. So the AP voters could vote for LSU or OSU if they so desired. There is precedent here, when in 2003 the AP voters chose USC over LSU despite LSU winning the BCS championship game in the Sugar Bowl.

Absolutely. A friend of mine who went to LSU tells me that, in this scenario, he will be true to himself and not claim part of the National Championship. (He did not think USC should have had a claim to the NC in 2003). Needless to say, the LSU fans are not happy that they have to play Alabama again. Ironically, I'm not sure Alabama would be in the championship game had LSU lost to Georgia.