Post-season Play-offs

[Spence]

Spence, we agree on this thing, on principle, but I still have the opinion that a 'post-season' BCS which allows for competition, would be a better alternative, than making teams play more competitive schedules.
And, if you think about it, many of the 'non-BCS' teams are already doing that, as much, if not more-so than many of the 'major' schools.
I still think that a 'better' solution would be to grant every major I-A conference a 'bid' to the BCS. That way, there would be 'fairness' in representation, and competition would select a deserving champion.
Limiting it to the ten best teams would also be a compromise that would give every team an opportunity, something that hasn't been in place so far.
I know you disagree that teams outside the BCS aren't sufficiently qualified, but I think they are, and in general some might even 'challenge' those who have traditionally been represented in the BCS, every year.

I don't think teams outside the BCS aren't qualified. I believe the best possible teams should be in the BCS Bowls. Any team can be the among the best. Where we disagree is that I believe that you should win playing a strong schedule, not just by winning a conference championship. There have been years where the BCS has taken teams from BCS conferences who shouldn't have been there. Just because that has happened doesn't make it right.

There have been teams from non BSC conferences that would have done as well as teams included in the BCS. None that I believe that could have won the championship, but that could be said of a lot of teams both in and out of BCS conferences.

The difference between what I believe and what you believe is that I think you should be one of the best teams in the country, and you mostly believe that just winning a conference championship with a mid level SOS is good enough.

While I believe the gap between the best BCS teams and the best non BCS teams has closed considerately in the last ten years, the non BCS teams schedules aren't the same quality overall as most of the majors.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't think teams outside the BCS aren't qualified. I believe the best possible teams should be in the BCS Bowls. Any team can be the among the best. Where we disagree is that I believe that you should win playing a strong schedule, not just by winning a conference championship. There have been years where the BCS has taken teams from BCS conferences who shouldn't have been there. Just because that has happened doesn't make it right.

There have been teams from non BSC conferences that would have done as well as teams included in the BCS. None that I believe that could have won the championship, but that could be said of a lot of teams both in and out of BCS conferences.

The difference between what I believe and what you believe is that I think you should be one of the best teams in the country, and you mostly believe that just winning a conference championship with a mid level SOS is good enough.

While I believe the gap between the best BCS teams and the best non BCS teams has closed considerately in the last ten years, the non BCS teams schedules aren't the same quality overall as most of the majors.

Spence, we've already discussed sheduling, and I still wonder if what you say holds up to scrutiny. S. Mississippi obviously has a veyr competitive schedule, no matter how you 'slice' it. But you may be correct that in general those schools 'outside' the BCS probably don't have to play as good a schedule, in general, but that's not really their fault, either. You play the schedule you're dealt, which likely includes those teams you face year-in, year-out. That's called 'tradition' where I come from. And, more typically, than not, those are the games that have the most significance attached to them, over those games played 'outside' a team's jurisdiction.
So, let's get something straight, for a team to become BCS 'eligible' it's likely they need to win all their games, conference, and OOC. For that to happen, requires more than a little bit of luck. S. Mississippi couldn't get it done last year, even after beating UCF, they stumbled. Most teams lose a game or two along the way. Actually, that's healthy, if you lose you need to reassess what you did, hopefully improve the next time around. If you never lose, you will likely be upset when it does matter.
Maybe that's where your reference to Oklahoma applies. They might have won the Sugar Bowl, but lost, to LSU, even after being beaten by K-State in the Big XII Championship game, 35-7.
I'm not necesssarily suggesting every C-USA champion be given 'direct' access to the BCS. In fact, I'm not sure I ever did suggest that. But, I would prefer the BCS apply some kind of standard whereby any team can legitimately qualify itself, regardless of how it's done.
It's like pairing the #1 and #2 team together in a bowl, it works, on paper, but it leaves most of us wanting something more. Even if it works 100% of the time, it's still a pretty lame way to select a national champion, when typically several teams are capable of it, every year.
Playing the games is what works best. We wouldn't even be arguing this if it worked to perfection. But, I will grant you that by implementing it around the bowls themselves, it makes for interesting commentary.
I would much rather see competition utilized in some fashion.

[Jason G]

Just to let you guys where I've been coming from on this thread. I just double checked the 2006 non-league schedule for Akron and it looks like we may be forced to schedule a 1-AA opponent.

As it stands now we have games at Penn State, at NC State, and at Cincinnati. The school doesn't want to add a fourth away non-conference game. There were rumors that negotiations were going on with both Boston College and Tennessee for games in Akron this year. It appears, though, that both teams have broken off these talks in the interest of pursuing a tougher opponent and thus have a better SOS.
This is pretty much the norm for all schools in the MAC. That is where I have the biggest problem with poll voters and critics that argue schools in non-BCS leagues don't play tough enough schedules. In many cases, they really do try to get those games but it is also not fair to always have to play these games on the road.

Well, I guess that gives you guys an example of why I have been talking so much in favor of some type of schedule reform. No matter how championships and/or bowl pairings are determined I would like to see everyone has an equal chance (which it could be argued they do now) and an equal opportunity (this isn't always the case currently).

[Spence]

So, if I were S. Mississippi I think maybe I'd scedule a few less Virginia Techs, and maybe a few more Iowa State's if they hope to be in the BCS.

You don't get a lot of points for playing middle of the road teams. You need to play they best teams and beat them. That is how to become the best.

If you try out for a ball club and get cut, it isn't because it is an unfair system, it is because you weren't good enough. You need to work harder, get better, and try again.

[colorado_loves_football]

You don't get a lot of points for playing middle of the road teams. You need to play they best teams and beat them. That is how to become the best.

If you try out for a ball club and get cut, it isn't because it is an unfair system, it is because you weren't good enough. You need to work harder, get better, and try again.

Spence, I agree with you that if you don't demonstrate that you are 'qualified' then you likely don't belong, but I also think that there needs to be a 'fair' way to either select or reject a team, other than through a fairly arbitrary BCS ranking.
2004 for example had 3 teams legitimately qualified for a BCS game, outside the BCS, yet only one team was selected, Utah. The other two (Boise St. & Louisville) were paired together in the Liberty Bowl.
That might be 'fair' in your book, but I think it's very discriminating.
I'ts possible I suppose, neither team (Boise St or Louisville) would have won their BCS game, had they been selected, but its impossible to know for sure, if they aren't given the opportunity.
Louisville had a competitive schedule that year, losing to Miami, FL. But that was probably what kept them out of the BCS, so if anything, that would appear to support my viewpoint over yours. But if your point is that they needed to win, then maybe it has some validity, as Miami wasn't represented that year, either.
But, in 'fairness' probably all three 'earned' the right to be included, and that's my position, with respect to the BCS. You imply that competition somehow 'weeds' out teams that aren't good enough, but as applied to those teams, it doesn't add up. At least a ten-team 'competitive' BCS would have allowed both to be represented. It's not even about Pittsburgh, they 'earned' their bid, as much as Florida State did, this year.
It's about making sure that when a team 'qualifies' they are represented.
Maybe under the new qualifying standards, all three teams would have been selected. That's progress, but none would have been eligible for a 'championship' pairing. And that ideally ought to be what intercollegiate athletics are about. What other sport do they simply select two teams, without first having them play against each other, for competitive reasons? None I can think of.
Maybe in your opinion it reinforces traditon, at least as applied to the BCS. But in my opinion it doesn't address the 'greater' issue of whether or not a team 'outside' the BCS can maybe win it all. That's a valid question one that requires some investigation, and ought to be addressed.

[Spence]

Spence, I agree with you in principle, and that's one reason why I believe giving every confernece an opportunity is a better solution than simply awarding one to every team that has a good BCS rating. I never suggested every conference be weighed equally, in fact I would prefer that those given priority maintain their positions within the BCS. What I would like, however is for every conference to have the same 'opportunity' shared by the 'select' conferences, or in other words, be allowed to 'earn' a BCS bid.

I don't neccessarily agree that any conference should be given a priority position in the BCS. I would have no problem with them judging the strength of each team and conference each year as the season progresses. I just believe that the body of work, who you beat, who you lose to, should matter more then any other factor.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't neccessarily agree that any conference should be given a priority position in the BCS. I would have no problem with them judging the strength of each team and conference each year as the season progresses. I just believe that the body of work, who you beat, who you lose to, should matter more then any other factor.

I actually agree with you on this matter, that it does matter who you play, its just that I can't accept the idea that a team located 'outside' the 6 conferences already admitted are somehow 'inferior', at least in terms of it's representative. Top-to-bottom they likely fall short of where they should be, but with respect to having a team play within the BCS, that's where we differ.
Suppose S. Mississippi loses all 3 games, OOC. Then suppose they win the C-USA with a 'perfect' record. Suppose they then play a legitimate team in the Liberty Bowl, and win. At that point those OOC games don't really matter that much, if at all. We can debate if that makes them 'ineligible' for the BCS, but we probably couldn't debate if S. Mississippi was capable of playing in the BCS. So, as much as I respect your opinion, I disagree with it on principle. Those games, have little bearing on which team ought to be represented in the BCS. Not to suggest they dont' matter, they do, but not nearly as much as conference games, and that applies to any team, anywhere, BCS or otherwise.
Don't win your conference, dont' deserve to go to the 'dance'.

[Spence]

its just that I can't accept the idea that a team located 'outside' the 6 conferences already admitted are somehow 'inferior', at least in terms of it's representative.

I never said they were inferior. Just because they come from a non BCS conference doesn't make them unworthy to play in the BCS. If you thought that was what I implied then I never made myself clear enough. What I have said is because their over all schedule isn't as good as some of the larger conferences they must play stronger OOC schedules to prove their strength. Every team no matter what conference they play in has got to play enough ranked teams to get the voters attention.

Texas could have had the exact same players they had this year, but if they played the 60th best schedule in the country, they wouldn't have went to the title game. It would have been Penn St. - USC.

That is why I suggested the system I did. No one is guaranteed anything. The teams that win against the best competition go, no matter what conference they are from.

If a team can beat 3 or 4 ranked teams over the course of a season, I don't care what cconference they play in, they should be in the BCS.

[colorado_loves_football]

I never said they were inferior. Just because they come from a non BCS conference doesn't make them unworthy to play in the BCS. If you thought that was what I implied then I never made myself clear enough. What I have said is because their over all schedule isn't as good as some of the larger conferences they must play stronger OOC schedules to prove their strength. Every team no matter what conference they play in has got to play enough ranked teams to get the voters attention.

Texas could have had the exact same players they had this year, but if they played the 60th best schedule in the country, they wouldn't have went to the title game. It would have been Penn St. - USC.

That is why I suggested the system I did. No one is guaranteed anything. The teams that win against the best competition go, no matter what conference they are from.

If a team can beat 3 or 4 ranked teams over the course of a season, I don't care what cconference they play in, they should be in the BCS.

Your premise is that a 'non-BCS' team isn't sufficiently qualified to play in the BCS, and I object to that on principle.

Tulsa, for example, was a team which likely wouldn't have gone to a 'major' bowl but for the fact they won C-USA outright. They accomplished that mostly through competitive conference games, but they did schedule Minnesota and Oklahoma, losing both games. So, if your argument, is they necessarily needed to beat both teams, I object to that for the following reason: They don't play in the Big Ten. Their game against Oklahoma is more 'appropriate' from a traditionalist's perspective, as they share a fairly long history with them.
Minnesota really has no bearing whatsover on Tulsa's history, that I can think of. So, for all intents and purposes, it's just a sidelight. If they win, great guns, but the likely result is a loss, which it was, so how does that help Tulsa in any respect? I think you already know the answer to that question, that's why you want these teams to play teams that they likely never would, otherwise, since it favors them.
Minnesota was a good Big Ten team. They were maybe even in the hunt for a Big Ten title before they lost to Wisconsin. Wisconsin was maybe as good as Ohio State, but since they didn't play we'll never know for sure. Actually that's more of an argument for a Big Ten Championship than it is about whether or not Tulsa 'deserves' a BCS bid.

Suffice to say that a 'pairing' of those teams in the Liberty Bowl, would have settled the debate about which of the two were 'most' deserving of an 'at large' bid to the BCS. The 'beauty' of the Liberty Bowl, in my opinion, is that it's not 'tied down' to the BCS. That would likely change, if the BCS were to include them, but maybe if they were still allowed to choose their teams, that would be one way to make the BCS more 'fair'.

We've already debated the merits of TCU to death. They beat Iowa St, in the Houston Bowl. A game that probably lived up to the 'hype' as much as any other bowl. TCU came out strong, faded, then found a way to win when it mattered, sort of typified how they played all season long.
Iowa State found a way to lose a game they had in hand, not that surprising, really, if you think about it, so maybe it was a 'fair' pairing of teams after all.

Next year will be the real test for TCU. They will have to beat Baylor in Waco, and Baylor was likely a better team than SMU was, so it will be comparable to playing that game over. It might even be the 'deal-breaker' for TCU, if they should happen to lose. Beat them, then they still need to beat Texas Tech, a team that played in the Cotton Bowl.
Playing them in Ft. Worth will help, but depending on how TCU plays, it could turn ugly. That being said, I think TCU will likely be the 'best' non-BCS team, this year. Hopefully they will keep their sights set high, and might even secure themselves a spot in the Fiesta Bowl, their likely opponent: Big East Champion. That's my prediction.

[Spence]

Your premise is that a 'non-BCS' team isn't sufficiently qualified to play in the BCS, and I object to that on principle.

Tulsa, for example, was a team which likely wouldn't have gone to a 'major' bowl but for the fact they won C-USA outright. They accomplished that mostly through competitive conference games, but they did schedule Minnesota and Oklahoma, losing both games. So, if your argument, is they necessarily needed to beat both teams, I object to that for the following reason: They don't play in the Big Ten. Their game against Oklahoma is more 'appropriate' from a traditionalist's perspective, as they share a fairly long history with them.

That isn't my premise at all. My premise is that teams who play a high level of competition should be favored over teams that play at a lower level of competition. Being competitive in you conference has nothing to do with being competitive nationally. Teams need to prove they are good enough BEFORE the bowl games. Most people get paid for work completed.

[colorado_loves_football]

That isn't my premise at all. My premise is that teams who play a high level of competition should be favored over teams that play at a lower level of competition. Being competitive in you conference has nothing to do with being competitive nationally. Teams need to prove they are good enough BEFORE the bowl games. Most people get paid for work completed.

Spence, in order for this discussion to go anywhere I think you need to explain what you mean by 'high level of competition'. And you probably need to do it in a way that doesn't discriminate BCS from 'non-BCS'.
For example, I might even acknowledge that a Big Ten team, on average is better than say a Mountain West team, but if the two teams in question are TCU and Northwestern, then it would be an invalid premise.
If your claim, is that by being in the Big Ten a team is 'assured' a competitive schedule, you are again maybe correct, that works in their favor, but it doesn't sufficiently address how TCU and LSU are 'paired', unless TCU is necessarily looking to strengthen their SOS (unlikely).
More likely is they have mutual respect for each other.
I'm surmising a lot, obviouisly, but if they didn't they likely wouldn't play.
Maybe LSU wants a 'cupcake' team outside the SEC, but I seriously doubt it.
Teams schedule each other because by-and-large they have some regard for each other. There are surely exceptions. I doubt FSU scheduled Rice for that reason, or Troy St, either for that matter. They are likely looking for an easier 'non-conference' schedule. Colorado got tired of playing USC and getting hammered, at home, so they scheduled NM St. But I think when you are talking about consistently good teams, which I consider TCU to be, they are scheduled because they are good.

[Spence]

Spence, in order for this discussion to go anywhere I think you need to explain what you mean by 'high level of competition'. And you probably need to do it in a way that doesn't discriminate BCS from 'non-BCS'.

Top 20-25 is what I consider high level.

No team is guaranteed to play a high level of competition. That is why Ohio State(for example) scheduled Texas. The more highly ranked the teams, the higher level the competition.

[colorado_loves_football]

Top 20-25 is what I consider high level.

No team is guaranteed to play a high level of competition. That is why Ohio State(for example) scheduled Texas. The more highly ranked the teams, the higher level the competition.

I suppose that's a 'fair' way to analyze a team, by-and-large, but there are probably other ways, that maybe aren't so subjective, since a ranking is necessarily a subjective measure. I would prefer a team be 'measured' by how well they play within their own conference since those games are likely the most relevant from a competitive standpoint.
That's 'fair' because it doesn't make a distinction. The Ohio St vs. Michigan game likely would be a lot less significant if both teams weren't Big Ten members. But that's not the only reason I use that as a viable point of debate.
Consider how TCU lost to SMU last year. They have a 'tradition' that maybe even rivals Michigan vs. Ohio State in terms of its longevity. But the ramifications of the game were assuredly less, given they don't play in the same conference. It didn't hurt TCU as much as it likely would have had TCU still been a C-USA member. Same argument can be applied to W. Virginia and Virginia Tech. TCU and W. Virginia are similar, both went through conference play without a scracth, but a few 'hiccups'.
Neiter likely had national championship aspirations last year, but both will likely be improved, this year.
In short, you can't base your entire argument on SOS. It maybe has applicablity in terms of how two teams compare, statistically, but competitively I'm not convinced, it matters. What matters to me is what happens on the field, and what matters most is what the final score is after all the dust has settled.
W. Virginia, 7-0 Big East. TCU, 8-0 MWC. One OOC loss, to a 'cross-town' rival. I, for one, might have enjoyed seeing them play, in a competitive pairing, BCS, one likely scenario for a Fiesta Bowl, next year.

[Spence]

I suppose that's a 'fair' way to analyze a team, by-and-large, but there are probably other ways, that maybe aren't so subjective, since a ranking is necessarily a subjective measure. I would prefer a team be 'measured' by how well they play within their own conference since those games are likely the most relevant from a competitive standpoint.
That's 'fair' because it doesn't make a distinction. The Ohio St vs. Michigan game likely would be a lot less significant if both teams weren't Big Ten members. But that's not the only reason I use that as a viable point of debate.

You say the rankings are subjective and they are to a point, but measuring teams by how well they do in the conference they play in without considering the other OOC teams is more subjective. I could take any 1-AA or 1-AAA team and they would be competitive in their conference. It doesn't mean they should be considered among the best in the country. If you want to compare teams nationally, then how they do regionally can't be the major factor in the comparison. With 119 teams in the country you have to have a better way to compare them then "they won every game in their conference." If a team wins every game in their conference, but loses to all the ranked teams they play, how can you say they should take their place among the best teams in the country? There is good reason to believe that they are not among they best in the country. The fact that they lost to other teams that are among the best in their conference would be good evidence of that. Judging them by how well they do in their conference is a lot more subjective then judging them by how well they do against other top teams around the country.

[colorado_loves_football]

You say the rankings are subjective and they are to a point, but measuring teams by how well they do in the conference they play in without considering the other OOC teams is more subjective. I could take any 1-AA or 1-AAA team and they would be competitive in their conference. It doesn't mean they should be considered among the best in the country. If you want to compare teams nationally, then how they do regionally can't be the major factor in the comparison. With 119 teams in the country you have to have a better way to compare them then "they won every game in their conference." If a team wins every game in their conference, but loses to all the ranked teams they play, how can you say they should take their place among the best teams in the country? There is good reason to believe that they are not among they best in the country. The fact that they lost to other teams that are among the best in their conference would be good evidence of that. Judging them by how well they do in their conference is a lot more subjective then judging them by how well they do against other top teams around the country.

Spence I think that's a fairly unsubstantiated claim, at best. I think how you do in your conferece is the 'best' way to size your team up, competitively-speaking.
First of all, those teams play each other every year, so there is less 'doubt' as far as how good they are. Secondly, how often do teams play against 'non-conference' teams. There are the occasional 'regulars, I think Miami, OH and Cincinnati play every year. W. Virgnia and Virginia Tech likely square off every year, so it's possible, but not altogether likely. And you are devoting as many as 4 games to teams that likely won't play each other twice in the same decade! Sorry to have to tell you, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. So, whether or not you 'like' how teams schedule, is irrelevant.
Personally, I like how teams can make their own agreements. They have 'flexibility' with respect to who they play, and when. Your proposal might work on paper, but its probably not a good idea in practice.
If a team wants to schedule 'heavyweight's they can, S. Mississippi did.
But that's a catch-22 if there ever was one. For one thing, S. Mississippi didn't win C-USA, so they maybe ought to make that their priority, most teams would. If you can't win your conference you don't deserve a BCS bid, remember TCU 2003? Knocking on the BCS door until they lost to S. Mississippi, and any hope they might have had for a C-USA title. That wasn't a conference 'championship' but for all intents and purposes it amounted to one. TCU lost. S. Mississippi won, 'earned' the right to represent C-USA in the Liberty Bowl.
The 'beauty' of my proposal, is in the details. If a team (TCU say) wins their 'division' they necessarily have to play in a conference championship to 'advance' to the BCS. And I'm applying that to every team, anywhere. Win, you're in. Lose, you're out. It works a lot better than you're admitting. What was TCU's SOS in 2003? I'd be interested.
If they beat S. Mississippi they likely play in a BCS game. But they didn't. It's fair, Spence, whether or not you agree with me, it works.
This year, you argue, somehow that Virginia Tech was 'more deserving'.
Their ranking was pretty good, but they lost, twice, to teams they were favored to beat, both times they knew it likely would determine their fate. You want to give a team a 3rd chance? May I ask why?
As it was, they played Louisville, a team one year removed from being C-USA champions, and barely won. I think Virginia Tech wasn't nearly as good as their ranking implied. A similar argument can be made for Miami, FL. FSU 'won' the ACC. They did it the hard way, but they did it.
Boston College had a chance, lost.
Actually any team you want to mention had a chance. Even Virginia had a chance, since they beat FSU, but they also lost to a lot of teams.
They even blew a chance to go to the Liberty Bowl. The BCS worked, by-and-large, in terms of which teams went, and which teams didn't.
I give it an 'A' in terms of getting the right teams where they needed to be. I might have preferred TCU play Oregon, but was a year too early.
Iowa St, was a 'quality' opponent, and TCU had to play their best to win.
OSU beat Notre Dame, in a good paring of teams, talent wise.
It all came out in the wash.