Post-season Play-offs

[colorado_loves_football]

was the Big East better this year then they were last year? Yes. Last year they were scrambling to make up games left by the void of the teams that left. They were in total disarray. This year they had some structure as they are beginning to build their way back.

Are they a better conference without BC, Va. Tech, and Miami? They aren't and it isn't close. It would be like taking Ohio State and Michigan out of the B-10 or Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska out of the B-12. It is crazy to even suggest that the B-east is even close to being as good as they were.

Can they rebuild? Of course they can. It won't be easy and I think they need to add or find at least one more top tier team. Notre Dame maybe? West Virginia and Pitt are in the best position to rise up. Louisville is trying to make the transition, those programs can make the B-East into a powerful conference again if they stay consistently competitive. consistently is the key word here. The big thing that separates the majors from the mid-majors is that the majors win at a high level and they do it consistently. They don't have one or two good years and then fall off the map for ten more.

The reason the majors get priority over the mid majors isn't some big conspiracy. The majors get priority because they are consistently good.

Spence, I believe the Big East was better, obviously, than 2004, and in some ways superior to what they were in 2003, also. You all seem to suffer from 'short-term' memory loss. Does nobody rememebr Louisville's near upset of then top-ACC conference Miami? They later went on to lose 3 games, but were still in the running for a BCS bid, losing to Virginia Tech, in the process.
That to me, says volumes. If the ACC were so superior, it would have been evident then, and it wasn't. If anything Louisville, a C-USA team at the time, proved they were as good as, if not better than the best the ACC had to offer. Miami won, but barely, and it took Louisville losing their top QB, in the process.
Similarly, how much better is the ACC, now than before, through acquisitions from the Big East? FSU won the ACC, outright, this year, in a year, Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College were all ranked nationally. So it wasn't a 'fluke'. Louisville and Virginia Tech did meet, however, in a bowl, Virginia Tech winning, but in part because Louisville didnt' play to the level of their competition, but I won't qualify it, Va Tech won, fair and square, Marcus Vick 'stomp' included.
Still, I feel the competitive table has turned in the Big East's favor, and I wonder if any of you realize it. It's not about a 'few' acquisitions, specifically, Cincinnati, Louisville, and S. Florida. It's about competition, and opportunity for each program to be represented in the BCS.
So you are all missing the 'broader' picture, and focusing in on incidentals that don't matter, at all.
Doesn't anyone see how foolish Boston College, Virginia Tech, and to a lesser degree, Miami look now? They thought they would dominate the ACC and they aren't last year included. Virginia Tech won the ACC, but they struggled, losing I believe to Virginia, of all teams. So for all the 'hoop-la' accompanying their removal to the ACC, what good has it done them? Boston College ought to have won the Big East, last year, but didn't, in a year, they were admittedly better than in previous years.
So, if they can't win the Big East in a 'down' year, competitively-speaking, how can they be expected to win an ACC title, this year?
No, Spence the Big East isn't as good competitively as they were, but they are a better conference top-to-bottom, and that's what matters.

[Spence]

No one is objective about things they care about. Not me, not you, not anyone with an opinion.

Competitive, year-in, year-out.
Dominant? No. They don't need to be.

To get respect in the polls and to contend for a national championship, yes they do.

[colorado_loves_football]

No one is objective about things they care about. Not me, not you, not anyone with an opinion.

Competitive, year-in, year-out.
Dominant? No. They don't need to be.

To get respect in the polls and to contend for a national championship, yes they do.

I believe I'm objective in what I include within this format. I have no agenda other than fair play and unbiased representation in the BCS for any team sufficiently qualified to be included within its parameters. Part of the problem with the BCS is it's inherently biased against a team not traditionally part of it's 'scheme' that awards those teams already in 'proven' conferences, competitively speaking. To deny a team access purely due to its conference affiliation isn't simply a 'prerogative' for not being in the BCS, it's a 'flawed' selection process, one that gives those schools priority without a legitimate basis in competition, a force that drives most, if not all other successful organizations. In fact what the BCS has done, is remove the element of competition from how it selects a team, in general, but with the rise in conference championship games, that will likely change, if it hasn't already.

[Spence]

Well, TCU was 'dominant' in at least one respect, in how they played, in general. My complaint isn't that a team outside the BCS can't compete, it's that they aren't allowed to.

While TCU can't do anything about their conference schedule they could make up for it by playing a couple or three top 15 OOC games every year to prove they should be there. Give them credit for scheduling Oklahoma, it is too bad Oklahoma played so poorly early on or that would have been perceived as a better win. TCU and other teams from weaker conferences have to make up for their conference schedule by playing good OOC opponents.

Mount Union in Ohio is one of the most successful college football teams of all time. They play in D-III. As successfull as they have been they still don't deserve to play in a BCS game. Who you play does matter.

[colorado_loves_football]

While TCU can't do anything about their conference schedule they could make up for it by playing a couple or three top 15 OOC games every year to prove they should be there. Give them credit for scheduling Oklahoma, it is too bad Oklahoma played so poorly early on or that would have been perceived as a better win. TCU and other teams from weaker conferences have to make up for their conference schedule by playing good OOC opponents.

I am getting tired of defending TCU and their schedule, which by many people's standards was fairly strong OOC. Oklahoma finished 6-2 in the Big XII, nearly represented them in the Cotton Bowl, but for a questionable call against Texas Tech. Beating a team, on their home field, in a year that team played a BCS contender in Oregon, and won, I believe is 'towing the line'.
The other teams they played, non-conference were SMU, a team they lost to, 21-10, and Army, a team they beat. You can debate their merits if you want, but SMU was still a lot better than they were the year before when TCU beat them soundly, in Ft. Worth. So revenge was likely on their mind, and probably was a factor in the result of the game.
SMU was also rebounding from a loss to Baylor, a team that was also a lot better, by most people's standards.
TCU, incidentally plays Baylor, next year in Waco. So that ought to be a good test for both teams, from a competitive standpoint. That will be followed by a home game against Texas Tech, so that should (hopefully) satisfy your OOC requirement. They also play Army, a team that has played a lot better with Bobby Ross at the helm.
So, all I ask is give TCU credit for what they've done. Don't worship them, necessarily, but acknowledge they were good, from a competitive standpoint.

[mountainman]

The Utah Utes proved your point about "Who you play does matter".

During Utah's undefeated season of 2004, their regular season schedule included 4 BCS league teams, and no team they played during the season came within 2 touchdowns of the Utes.

As for slapping Pitt around in the Fiesta Bowl .......... Thanks.

*************************************************************
Edit:

It's hard for a Mountaineer to pull for Pitt. It's not hard for a Mountaineer to pull for the Big East.

In 1993 the Mountaineers had an undefeated regular season, 11 - 0. They were invited to the Sugar Bowl to play the University of Florida. The Gators and Steve Spurrier and his run and gun offense beat the Mountaineers worse than the final score of 41 - 7. The Pitt faithful had a lot of 'fun' at our expense over that one. We Mountaineers have a long memory and hold a grudge forever. Sorry, it's in the genes.

[Spence]

I actually argued last year that Pitt shouldn't have been in the BCS. They were obviously not good enough to be there. That wasn't based on how they played against Utah and that wasn't a shot at Utah. I thought Utah should have been paired against Auburn. That way they would either prove that an undefeated mid major belongs or doesn't belong. The BCS missed an opportunity there because they thought Utah-Auburn was a bad match up. If I were doing the match ups they would have played.

That wasn't the case this year with the BCS pairings. All of the teams picked by the BCS this year were good teams. All except Florida St. were highly ranked. All played pretty good schedules.

Teams from the big six should still have to be good to get in the BCS. I don't believe a team ranked higher then 15th should be aloud in the BCS, but I don't make the rules.

[mountainman]

What I like best about the BCS is that it promotes excellence and does not reward mediocrity.

I want to expand on my previous post a little. As usual and as part of the fun of this forum, I got a little side tracked.

To me, the BCS is promoting excellence throughout college football. They also recognize and address the different levels of play within Division-1. They provide for instances when any D-1 team has a contending team that that team is provided opportunity to participate.

For sure, it is tough for a non-BCS conference member to make the cut. Finish #1 or #2 and you are in the title game, in the top 6 for an automatic bid or in the top 12 for consideration.

It's also tough for BCS conference members to make the cut. Those members have to win their conference title (no easy task) or finish as #1 or #2 or finish in the top 6 spots or top 12 same as non-BCS conference members.

The 'Big Boys' of college football, such as Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, LSU, Ohio State, Tennessee, Nebraska and Virginia Tech and the like (I used these teams because they have appeared in the title game) are being pushed for excellence too.

The BCS tells the 'Big Boys' that if you want to play in the national title game you are going to have to earn it over the long haul. There are only two spots available and no excuses are valid. One slip up over the course of the regular season and your fate will be in the hands of the performance of other contenders. Not only do you have to win, you may have to demonstrate that you can win better than another contender. Once you prove that, you will be matched up with another contender that has demonstrated similar performance for one game.

This, in my mind anyway, is promoting excellence throughout D-1 college football.

[colorado_loves_football]

To me, the BCS is promoting excellence throughout college football. They also recognize and address the different levels of play within Division-1. They provide for instances when any D-1 team has a contending team that that team is provided opportunity to participate.

For sure, it is tough for a non-BCS conference member to make the cut. Finish #1 or #2 and you are in the title game, in the top 6 for an automatic bid or in the top 12 for consideration.

It's also tough for BCS conference members to make the cut. Those members have to win their conference title (no easy task) or finish as #1 or #2 or finish in the top 6 spots or top 12 same as non-BCS conference members.

The 'Big Boys' of college football, such as Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, LSU, Ohio State, Tennessee, Nebraska and Virginia Tech and the like (I used these teams because they have appeared in the title game) are being pushed for excellence too.

The BCS tells the 'Big Boys' that if you want to play in the national title game you are going to have to earn it over the long haul. There are only two spots available and no excuses are valid. One slip up over the course of the regular season and your fate will be in the hands of the performance of other contenders. Not only do you have to win, you may have to demonstrate that you can win better than another contender. Once you prove that, you will be matched up with another contender that has demonstrated similar performance for one game.

This, in my mind anyway, is promoting excellence throughout D-1 college football.

I have no problem with the BCS promoting 'excellence' if in fact that's what they are doing, with the criteria they have established.
But you have to wonder, in a year a 10-1 team, 8-0 in their conference is passed over in favor of a team that was 9-2. I'm referring to Notre Dame. But Notre Dame 'earned' their place in the BCS through their tough schedule, perhaps the most challenging of any team's BCS or otherwise. So I take nothing away from them, they 'earned' their bid.
Similarly, OSU was 9-2 and played a sufficiently difficult schedule to justify their selection. And obviously, W. Virginia was good enough to be selected, they were also undefeated in their conference.
Still, I wonder what a team necessarily has to do to be admitted.
I guess undefeated is the requirement, even if it isn't specified. But I think that's an impossible standard, myself.
Part of the reason TCU lost to SMU has historical relevance. I tried to make this argument in a previous thread, and was browbeaten for it, but the fact remains, in 1935, SMU 'ruined' TCU's run at a national title.
SMU was awarded the national championship largely on that victory, but they then lost to Stanford in the Rose Bowl, while TCU beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl, 3-2. A 'playoff' between those two teams would have selected a deserving champion. That isn't lost on me, and shouldn't be lost on you, either. One loss, to a rival, shouldn't 'ruin' a team's chances at a national championship. That it happened 70 years ago maybe is coincidence, but history has a way of repeating itself.

[mountainman]

Maybe in a perfect world, but college football is not in a perfect world.

As we have discussed before, there are other interests and views that must be heard and given consideration ..... the schools, the NCAA, the regular season fans, television and the cities of American that host the bowls.

That's a pretty diverse group with different interests and priorities.

[Spence]

You keep talking about fair representation. I contend that allowing conference champions from all conferences to play, without reference to strength isn't fair at all. What is fair about telling a team that is ranked 4th in the country to stay home in favor of an unranked conference champion from the "Big Sky"?

Why in the world would teams from the mid major conferences ever play an OOC game with a team that was from a "better" conference if they were assured of getting in if the win? They would load their OOC schedule with 1-AA teams. What would be the incentive to strive to get better?

Athletics is about competition and trying to be the best. The best of a sport should rise to the top. Why isn't just anyone allowed to play? You have to be invited to try and walk on to most college teams. The best play. If you are trying to reward the best with the best games, what your suggesting isn't fair.

In the case of TCU this year, they were matched up with the fifth place team in the B-12. It was an evenly matched game. Bowl games are all about creating the best matchups. If the MWC #1 team is matched up evenly with the fifth place B-12 team, what earns them the right to be matched up with a first or second place team?

No one is suggesting a play-off couldn't work in college football. Just that with all things considered it isn't the best option for college football as a whole. As I have said before, the bowl system gives 56 teams a chance at a post season game. Play-offs would eliminate all, but 16 of those teams. Play-offs would also make it harder for non play-off teams to get to the play off level because of the extra practice envolved in post season games, not to mention the recruiting advantages.

Don't try to contend that the other bowls can exsist in a play-off environment because TV just wouldn't need those games anymore. That is why most media want play-offs, because it they wouldn't cost as much to cover the games.

The only thing that letting all conference champions in the BCS does is promote mediocrity. That is why Pitt. shouldn't have played in the game last year. The best should play, period. Even if a member of the BCS conferences win, they should not play in a BCS game if they are ranked out of the top 25.

[colorado_loves_football]

2004 was a tough year for the Big East Conference, but they have already weathered the storm. Their BCS bid is assured, I think, barring some as of yet unforseen calamity.
When Pittsbugh went, that was actually helpful to the Big East confernece.
They had just suffered the losses of Miami & Virginia Tech, and Boston College was on the way out, so Pittsburgh going was something of 'poetic' justice, BC was denied a bid, thanks to Syracuse, and in fact, Syracuse would have represented the Big East had Pittsburgh lost to S. Florida, which they didn't.
Pittsburgh's poor showing was a disappointment, but they were probably mismatched, competitively against Utah. Utah had an outstanding team that year, even by MWC standards. Urban Meyer, will obviously have a lot of success at Florida, and would have likely won at Notre Dame.
But this year shows how muchbetter the Big East is, competitively-speaking. They will need to prove it every year, but they would appear to be back into the 'thick' of things if W. Virgnia's Sugar Bowl win means anything at all.

[mountainman]

Yep, Pitt tanked in that game. But I feel compelled to take up for the players on that team. The players were led to the tank and given a push by the selfish actions of the athletic director and head coach.

Pitt had an athletic director and and head football coach that could not get along. This situation was allowed to persist until it reached a boiling point. Both these guys put their own interest ahead of the players and the team. It was reported that both the athletic director and the head coach were 'removed' by the university before the following season.

I am not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that Pitt would have won their game with Utah if this had not been the circumstance. As I said, I'm simply taking up for the players on that team and telling what happened.

[Spence]

I made a mistake with Big Sky. Sunbelt would have been a better example.

What we don't agree on it the definition of fair. Your definition would be all - inclusive and mine would be to send the best teams.

If you were one of the 8 best candidates for 8 jobs with the same company, you were at least as qualified as seven others and better then the rest, would it be fair to you not to get it on the basis that that company had already hired someone that lives on the same side of town that you do? Should it go to a candidate who may not be as qualified (at least in terms of resume) as you are, simply because that person lives on the other side of town? Even if all things are fairly equal shouldn't past experience of excellence be given preference over the guy who, may be as good, but really hasn't proven it against the best and brightest?Shouldn't the lesser qualified candate have to prove himself before being hired of the more qualified candidate?

This is all I am saying. Teams like TCU should have to prove they belong by beating good teams, either several in one year or over a period of several years. I don't mean to imply that TCU, Utah, or any other mid major doesn't deserve consideration, just that they shouldn't be given preference over someone who has proved they are good consistantly and by all accounts is still a good team.

[Yeofoot]

One of the biggest gripes about the BCS is when the losing team gets blown out, but think about how many NCAA basketball championship games have been blowouts...Any given Sunday...err, Saturday.

Texas Rules! USC Drools!