I've been thinking of this for a while. Now that the BCS has 4 at-large slots, should they get rid of the rule that says there can't be more than 2 teams from each conference in the BCS?
Everyone was making a big fuss about Wisconsin getting left out for Notre Dame. I actually think Notre Dame is better. Regardless of what I think, Wisconsin did finish 11-1. They got left out because the Big 10 had 2 teams in the BCS already.
So, with 5 BCS bowls, should the rule be gone?
I would think so. Look, this year things worked out with the BCS having an undefeated Boise State team and Notre Dame being ranked appropriately. But what if that doesn't happen? Say Boise State finishes 11-1 and gets left out next year. Say Notre Dame goes 8-4 with that tough schedule and a new quarterback. Who goes? Teams that are ranked around #14 and #18? Is that fair to the teams at the top?
This year, West Virginia and likely Virginia Tech would have been in the BCS.
BCS
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
-
mountainman
I don't think so, Eric. Not at this point anyway. The primary reason I say that is the current bowl selection process. Voters and computers are subjective, and there is simply no finite way to measure teams as to which ones actually are the best. Taking the conference champions is a good selection method, in most cases (ties can get sticky), but after that things start drifting toward subjectivity and formulas. 
I believe the current format with five bowls is setting the stage for a plus-1 format in the future.
And besides, Wisconsin had their opportunity, but lost to Michigan. What would concern me most would be if the system denied any team an opportunity to participate .... and I don't believe that's the case.
Can't speak for the Hokies, but the Mountaineers blew their chance at a BCS game when they lost to South Florida after they blew their chance at the title game when they lost to Louisville.
I believe the current format with five bowls is setting the stage for a plus-1 format in the future.
And besides, Wisconsin had their opportunity, but lost to Michigan. What would concern me most would be if the system denied any team an opportunity to participate .... and I don't believe that's the case.
Can't speak for the Hokies, but the Mountaineers blew their chance at a BCS game when they lost to South Florida after they blew their chance at the title game when they lost to Louisville.
-
Cane from the Bend
- Athletic Director
- Posts: 5218
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:25 am
- Location: South Bend, IN (domerville usa)
- Contact:
Re:
Did you mean, "should the BCS rethink their rule about not allowing 3 teams from one conference in?"
Mountainman is right, in that too much politicing already goes into the BCS selection as it stands.
Even this seasons National title game had its own level of subjectivity.
Are the 2 best teams in all of Div I-A College Football truly playing each other?
That is what happens when Coaches & school presidents get involved with the selection process.
I don't particularly mind that the lizards are going to play for the Championship (well, actually I do... just for a different reason).
However, I did lose what possible respect I might have had for th.... Oh! who am I fooling? I don't respect the gators at all.
But now, even less so.
urban meyer saying on camera, if our team doesn't get the chance to play for the BCS title because of style points, then we need to ditch the system and put together a playoff.
meyer sure as hell didn't have a problem with the system before, while running up the score on opponents at Utah. Now that he can't put that many points on the board because of better competition, he has a problem with the system.
And if that wasn't enough, the university of florida's school president went on record stating, "if Michigan goes to the National Championship over us then we need to get rid of the BCS and have a playoff."
Okay, that does it.
First off, the u of f president is a crook, and nobody should give that brainless twit mind enough to rule in cause for concern with.
Second, this is what I take from that statement; We like the system, but only when it works for us. If we don't get things our way, then let's find another one.
Third, pure and absolute manipulation. They know the rest of the school presidents do not want a playoff. And so, by saying they think there should be one, if they don't get what they want, pressures the voters into giving in to those morons.
My disapproval of florida has just increased, and that is hard thing to accomplish.
>
Anyway, I am not so sure that, in rare cases, it is a good idea to neglect a team (Wisconsin) because they would be a third team in.
True, it may seem unfair to some, but, does LSU deserve the Sugar Bowl anymore than the Badgers?
I don't think notre dame deserves it anymore than Wisconsin.
It is easy to say, Wisconsin had their chance, and lost it because they didn't win against Michigan.
But the same case could be stated for notre dame.
They had their chances, but lost them to Michigan and usc. The irish didn't even finish in the top 9 of the BCS rankings, which is where they would receive the autobid. They're #11 in the rankings.
Any team in the top 10 should be capable of competing with any other team in the top 10. And likewise, any team who is to be matched up in a BCS bowl with a top 10 team should be able to compete on that level.
notre dame played exactly two top 10 teams this season. And both times got embarrassed, losing by 20+ points in each game. One of which happened on their home field.
So, if urban meyer can cry his way into a National title game. Then the system should allow an 11-1 Wisconsin team to play in a BCS bowl, eventhough they would be the 3rd team from their conference.
Mountainman is right, in that too much politicing already goes into the BCS selection as it stands.
Even this seasons National title game had its own level of subjectivity.
Are the 2 best teams in all of Div I-A College Football truly playing each other?
That is what happens when Coaches & school presidents get involved with the selection process.
I don't particularly mind that the lizards are going to play for the Championship (well, actually I do... just for a different reason).
However, I did lose what possible respect I might have had for th.... Oh! who am I fooling? I don't respect the gators at all.
But now, even less so.
urban meyer saying on camera, if our team doesn't get the chance to play for the BCS title because of style points, then we need to ditch the system and put together a playoff.
meyer sure as hell didn't have a problem with the system before, while running up the score on opponents at Utah. Now that he can't put that many points on the board because of better competition, he has a problem with the system.
And if that wasn't enough, the university of florida's school president went on record stating, "if Michigan goes to the National Championship over us then we need to get rid of the BCS and have a playoff."
Okay, that does it.
First off, the u of f president is a crook, and nobody should give that brainless twit mind enough to rule in cause for concern with.
Second, this is what I take from that statement; We like the system, but only when it works for us. If we don't get things our way, then let's find another one.
Third, pure and absolute manipulation. They know the rest of the school presidents do not want a playoff. And so, by saying they think there should be one, if they don't get what they want, pressures the voters into giving in to those morons.
My disapproval of florida has just increased, and that is hard thing to accomplish.
>
Anyway, I am not so sure that, in rare cases, it is a good idea to neglect a team (Wisconsin) because they would be a third team in.
True, it may seem unfair to some, but, does LSU deserve the Sugar Bowl anymore than the Badgers?
I don't think notre dame deserves it anymore than Wisconsin.
It is easy to say, Wisconsin had their chance, and lost it because they didn't win against Michigan.
But the same case could be stated for notre dame.
They had their chances, but lost them to Michigan and usc. The irish didn't even finish in the top 9 of the BCS rankings, which is where they would receive the autobid. They're #11 in the rankings.
Any team in the top 10 should be capable of competing with any other team in the top 10. And likewise, any team who is to be matched up in a BCS bowl with a top 10 team should be able to compete on that level.
notre dame played exactly two top 10 teams this season. And both times got embarrassed, losing by 20+ points in each game. One of which happened on their home field.
So, if urban meyer can cry his way into a National title game. Then the system should allow an 11-1 Wisconsin team to play in a BCS bowl, eventhough they would be the 3rd team from their conference.
Cane... [__]
"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...
Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .
It seems the Rapture did come for two worthy souls:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy
In Memory of Donovan Davisson
"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...
Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .
It seems the Rapture did come for two worthy souls:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy
In Memory of Donovan Davisson
-
mountainman
Two wrongs wouldn't make it right.
We should not accept that one team gets to go or not go based on something in the system that is questionable to begin with.
What the BCS needs to do is to continue to fine tune and make changes to the ranking and selection process when it comes to the at large pool of teams.
In other words we shouldn't try to make an argument about the plight of Wisconsin because of the how things turned out for Notre Dame and LSU. Instead, we should made a case using examples such as this to make the system better.
Wisconsin was not chosen because of the rule saying that only two teams from any one conference could go. If the Badges would have beaten Michigan I suspect they would be in the Rose Bowl ... or maybe even in the title game.
It's going to take some cooperation in some cases and a change of attitude in other cases by the conferences and the bowl selection committees by doing things such as have all conference members play every other conference member and for the bowl selection folks to take the teams that qualify even though those teams may not be what they would hope for.
There's a number of players in this whole BCS thing, the college presidents, the conferences, the bowl host cities and committees, the BCS Oversite Committee, the TV guys, etc, that share some of the responsibility to get this thing right .... I believe it can be done and everybody still get their piece of the pie.
We should not accept that one team gets to go or not go based on something in the system that is questionable to begin with.
What the BCS needs to do is to continue to fine tune and make changes to the ranking and selection process when it comes to the at large pool of teams.
In other words we shouldn't try to make an argument about the plight of Wisconsin because of the how things turned out for Notre Dame and LSU. Instead, we should made a case using examples such as this to make the system better.
Wisconsin was not chosen because of the rule saying that only two teams from any one conference could go. If the Badges would have beaten Michigan I suspect they would be in the Rose Bowl ... or maybe even in the title game.
It's going to take some cooperation in some cases and a change of attitude in other cases by the conferences and the bowl selection committees by doing things such as have all conference members play every other conference member and for the bowl selection folks to take the teams that qualify even though those teams may not be what they would hope for.
There's a number of players in this whole BCS thing, the college presidents, the conferences, the bowl host cities and committees, the BCS Oversite Committee, the TV guys, etc, that share some of the responsibility to get this thing right .... I believe it can be done and everybody still get their piece of the pie.
Did you mean, "should the BCS rethink their rule about not allowing 3 teams from one conference in?"
Yeah......that is what I asked
Well, why don't you tell LSU that they should've beat Auburn/Florida or else they don't deserve their chance? I don't understand your argument. Why don't you tell Notre Dame that they should've competed with USC or Michigan?
I think LSU and Notre Dame deserve their bids over Wisconsin, but that's not my point. I'm looking ahead to future seasons. What happens if Notre Dame (especially next season) wins 8 or 9 games and if there are no non-BCS teams that are eligible for the BCS like we had in 2005?
This year, West Virginia and Virginia Tech would be in the BCS if Notre Dame and Boise State didn't go and this year's rules applied. Would you be cool with both of those teams, being ranked in the teens and not winning their conference, being in the BCS?
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
The problem is money...an inordinate amount of money goes with a BCS bowl...vs the $750,000, say, that the Emerald Bowl pays..conferences share the money.
Call me cynical, but I think that coaches will eventually feel pressure to vote for the money in their conference...having a third team magnifies the problem.
Call me cynical, but I think that coaches will eventually feel pressure to vote for the money in their conference...having a third team magnifies the problem.
Last edited by billybud on Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”
-
Cane from the Bend
- Athletic Director
- Posts: 5218
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:25 am
- Location: South Bend, IN (domerville usa)
- Contact:
Re:
I'm not saying that Wisconsin should be in the Sugar bowl this season. I'm saying that the system does need some fine tuning, and that this is one of those scenarios that raises some eyebrows.
No, two wrongs don't make a right, and yet again, whom ever is chosen would seem the second wrong, regardless of how you look at the decision making.
Some one is getting left out. That team is Wisconsin.
Yes, they lost to Michigan. And that alone excludes them from playing in the National Championship.
Had they beat Michigan, then they would be the only other undefeated BCS conference team. Hence, they would be playing for the Nation title.
florida lost 1 game, and they are playing for the championship.
Okay, they won their conference, but still didn't prove themselves overall more so deserving then the Wolverines or the Badgers.
However, in Wisconsins case, not only did 1 single loss prevent them from playing in the BCS Championship game. It removed them from playing in a BCS game altogether.
Make your case any which way you like, but it doesn't change what did actually happen, because of a minor technicality.
As far as Money is concerned.
Just remember that nd does not play in a conference.
These BCS match ups ultimately come down to who the Bowl committees want.
No, two wrongs don't make a right, and yet again, whom ever is chosen would seem the second wrong, regardless of how you look at the decision making.
Some one is getting left out. That team is Wisconsin.
Yes, they lost to Michigan. And that alone excludes them from playing in the National Championship.
Had they beat Michigan, then they would be the only other undefeated BCS conference team. Hence, they would be playing for the Nation title.
florida lost 1 game, and they are playing for the championship.
Okay, they won their conference, but still didn't prove themselves overall more so deserving then the Wolverines or the Badgers.
However, in Wisconsins case, not only did 1 single loss prevent them from playing in the BCS Championship game. It removed them from playing in a BCS game altogether.
Make your case any which way you like, but it doesn't change what did actually happen, because of a minor technicality.
As far as Money is concerned.
Just remember that nd does not play in a conference.
These BCS match ups ultimately come down to who the Bowl committees want.
Cane... [__]
"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...
Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .
It seems the Rapture did come for two worthy souls:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy
In Memory of Donovan Davisson
"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...
Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .
It seems the Rapture did come for two worthy souls:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy
In Memory of Donovan Davisson
I agree with Eric on this in theory. The problem I would have with three teams for one conference in the BCS is what it would do to the domino effect on the other bowl games.
For example, if 3 Big Ten teams had been in BCS games this year does that mean that the 4th and 5th place Big Ten teams would be filling the Big Ten tie-ins at the Capitol One and Outback Bowls? Call me crazy but I already think it is pretty absurd that Penn State is playing on New Years Day but if Wisconsin was in the BCS you'd also have someone like Iowa, Minnesota, or Purdue playing in a January 1 bowl. Were any of those teams deserving this year? No, not even close.
Plus, look what it would do to the bottom tier of bowls. The Motor City Bowl rarely has a Big Ten team eligible to fill its tie-in. This would only lessen the chances that it would be filled.
I guess in short what I am saying is that it would make sense to change the rule from a strictly BCS standpoint but I would not be for it unless there was a complete overhaul of the bowl tie-ins that currently exist.
For example, if 3 Big Ten teams had been in BCS games this year does that mean that the 4th and 5th place Big Ten teams would be filling the Big Ten tie-ins at the Capitol One and Outback Bowls? Call me crazy but I already think it is pretty absurd that Penn State is playing on New Years Day but if Wisconsin was in the BCS you'd also have someone like Iowa, Minnesota, or Purdue playing in a January 1 bowl. Were any of those teams deserving this year? No, not even close.
Plus, look what it would do to the bottom tier of bowls. The Motor City Bowl rarely has a Big Ten team eligible to fill its tie-in. This would only lessen the chances that it would be filled.
I guess in short what I am saying is that it would make sense to change the rule from a strictly BCS standpoint but I would not be for it unless there was a complete overhaul of the bowl tie-ins that currently exist.
Yeah, Jason G, I didn't think of that. I know that it is rare that the Big 10 is usually this bad, but obviously seasons like this do occur and it would have a big shakeup on the bowl season.
Here's an idea for the BCS: Have 4 BCS games and allow 2 at-large bids
!
Here's an idea for the BCS: Have 4 BCS games and allow 2 at-large bids
!Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
Here's an idea for the BCS: Have 4 BCS games and allow 2 at-large bids
OK...have the champs of the three conferences with a CCG and any other two from non CCG conferences.
Oh yeah...and have a rule that your end of season SOS must bein the top 30 to go to a BCS game.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”
-
Cane from the Bend
- Athletic Director
- Posts: 5218
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:25 am
- Location: South Bend, IN (domerville usa)
- Contact:
Re:
Oh yeah...and have a rule that your end of season SOS must bein the top 30 to go to a BCS game.
Now that I can agree with.
Cane... [__]
"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...
Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .
It seems the Rapture did come for two worthy souls:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy
In Memory of Donovan Davisson
"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...
Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .
It seems the Rapture did come for two worthy souls:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy
In Memory of Donovan Davisson
billybud wrote:Here's an idea for the BCS: Have 4 BCS games and allow 2 at-large bids
OK...have the champs of the three conferences with a CCG and any other two from non CCG conferences.
Oh yeah...and have a rule that your end of season SOS must bein the top 30 to go to a BCS game.
Ohio State would not go this year...maybe that was your point...
Statistics are the Morphine of College Football
Using Sagarin...The Top 10 teams (who also have an SOS in Top 30) would be..
So Cal
Mich
Fla
LSU
Cal
Tenn
Notre Dame
Oregon State
UCLA
Oregon
The scheduling of that 12th team would look a lot different if the rule was in effect.
So Cal
Mich
Fla
LSU
Cal
Tenn
Notre Dame
Oregon State
UCLA
Oregon
The scheduling of that 12th team would look a lot different if the rule was in effect.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests