Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[colorado_loves_football]

I'm not sure how Ohio State losing to Texas 'ruined' their season. They played in the Fiesta Bowl, after all, in fact that validates my argument that conference games are more important, in the end. They were co-champions Big Ten, deserving of a BCS bid, but why should they be held to a different standard? Why should TCU necessarily be denied a BCS bid, being 'unanimous' Mountain West Conference champions? SMU is a non-conference opponent, they lost, in Dallas. It's not about ranking, even if it was, SMU was nearly bowl-eligible, but for a season opening loss to Baylor they go to a bowl. West Virginia wasn't perfect, either losing to a traditional rival, Virginia Tech, might have 'ruined' their BCS opportunity, but it didn't. One reason I might have paired them together in a BCS bowl. You suggest there were 'more deserving' teams, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Other teams weren't as good in their own confernece.
Notre Dame qualified, independently. I think W. Virgnia and TCU both 'earned' their place through competition, the argument I've had all along, irrespective of their OOC games. Was Virginia Tech better than SMU? Probably so. Not sure that matters, really, unless you are trying to make a statement about the Big East being better than the MWC.
Wasn't the case in 2005, probably wasn't the case in 2006, either.
I take nothing away from the Mountaineers, they earned my respect when they beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. I simply might have preferred a 'competitive' pairing in the Fiesta Bowl.
Notre Dame, in my estimation wasn't necessarily a 'lock' in the BCS. I know they were competitive, nearly beat USC. I know the Fiesta Bowl wanted them, over any other team, including Ohio State. I just don't think they belonged there, but give them credit for qualifying, I suppose.
Didn't they lose to Michigan State? I know they almost lost to Stanford.
Anyway, they went, lost, and life goes on.
I like competitive pairings of teams. Notre Dame might have been a good 'Big East' representative to the Fiesta Bowl if they were in the Big East. I don't discriminate, I just wish all teams would 'fall in line'. Basically, the Big East was over-represented (Notre Dame, W. Virginia), so was the Big Ten (Penn St, Ohio St). I don't see how that helps make the BCS better, if at all. I think TCU deserved to be there. They were'nt fairly represented, end of story.

[colorado_loves_football]

Thanks, Rolltide, for including the Sun-Belt Conference, I had forgotten that they were competitive that year (2003), and I should modify my proposal to reflect that fact.
That year, the two 'best' non-BCS teams were likely Miami (OH) and Boise St. Both teams finished the year strong, and were likely the two best 'non-BCS' teams remaining, especially after the bowls A simple 'pairing' of those teams in a 'non-BCS' game would likely have sent a deserving representative to the BCS.

Memphis, that year, wasn't C-USA champions, S. Mississippi was, but Memphis was probably as good as they've been, recent history.
They won their New Orleans Bowl game against N. Texas, and I feel that gaem, more than any other, was a 'competitive' pairing of 'non-BCS' opponents, and interestingly, included the Sun Belt Champion.

Those two teams (Boise St/Miami(OH) winner, and Memphis) would have been a 'great' non-BCS 'championship game. That could have been the 'fifth' BCS bowl, yet another reason why I would prefer one bowl be 'set aside' for that purpose.
As it was, it's impossible to know for sure, which of those teams were the best, including Utah (Liberty Bowl champions). Conference championships, together with competitive BCS pairings would allow the BCS a fairly 'simple' yet competitve way to select one team, 'concensus' champions.
Assuming my proposal were to be implemented, N. Texas is 'out' (loss to Memphis). S. Mississippi is 'out' (loss to Utah). TCU is 'out' (loss to Boise St). Louisville is 'out' (loss to Miami (OH)).
Boise St vs. Miami (OH) sends one team to the BCS. Memphis vs. Utah sends another. They meet in a BCS pairing. The remaining teams are as follows:
Michigan: Big Ten Champions
USC: Pac Ten Champions
Miami: Big East Champions
FSU: ACC Champions
LSU: SEC Champions
K-State: Big XII Champions

One way to 'arrange' teams would be as follows:
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Michigan
Fiesta Bowl: Boise St/Miami(OH) vs. Utah/Memphis
Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. K-State
Orange Bowl: FSU vs. Miami

Since we already 'know' the likely results of three of those games it becomes a 'fairly' simple matter of having two 'semi-final' and one NC.

Semi-final: USC vs. (Boise St/Miami(OH)/Utah/Memphis)
Semi-Final: LSU vs. Miami

Likely national championship: USC vs. LSU

Thanks again, Rolltide, for getting me 'back on track'. This, probably more than any other year, 'proves' my proposal is fair, and works.

[colorado_loves_football]

Ok, I apologize for dragging N. Texas into it, but they were the most competitive Sun Belt team, and they 'fit' point you were making so I used them for comparison reasons. Neither team, Memphis or N. Texas were sufficiently qualified, obviously for the BCS, but I thought in general they were better, than in previous years.
As far as the WAC is concerned, their 'traditional' home bowl is the Holiday Bowl, but that changed, after the WAC split, into two parts.
In fact, the last year the WAC was one conference, the 'champion' wasn't selected to the Holiday Bowl, but traditionally that was the case.
I wouldn't mind a 'reunion' of the WAC and the Holiday Bowl. Last time it happened was 1997, Colorado was the WAC representative, beating a Big 8 representative in Missouri. (CSU also qualified in 1994, against Michigan). Since then, I think the Holiday Bowl has paired a Pac Ten and Big XII opponent together. The WAC is sort of a conference without a 'home' but recently has been selected in the Liberty Bowl. Now, it's the MWC that can't seem to find a 'home'. But up until last year, they were the Liberty Bowl representative, along with the C-USA champion.

TCU has been in several conferences since SWC disbanded. They were a traditional WAC member, until 1999, when they joined C-USA. C-USA went through an upheaval, last year, so TCU likely used it as an opportunity to become more 'attractive' in the eyes of BCS voters. MWC needed a representative, and the rest is history.

I have stated I would prefer a 'reunion' of sorts of the old SWC, in the Big XII Conference. The S. Division could add TCU, along with Arkansas, to be exclusively SWC. The N. Division could add Oklahoma & Oklahoma St, giving it more of a 'regional' feel. Iowa St. and Missouri would then be 'free' to join the Big Ten, assuming they were welcome.

Why I keep 'pressing' this is simple: It allows for competitive conference pairings of teams. The conference games are what matter, more than anything else. C-USA is evidence of that. Sun Belt would likely need to add teams to make itself more competitive, but Louisiana Tech, and maybe even Tulane might be available for that end. Even S. Florida from the Big East might complement the Sun Belt better than the Big East. Imagine if all that were to happen! Suddenly the Sun Belt is a contender! Not a bystander. C-USA might consider taking N. Texas since they are regionally 'appropriate' to their conference. The Big East would likely include Marshall, a West Virginia school, and so C-USA would be 'short' two teams, but with Army and Temple 'free', they can maintain their 12-team configuration. Big East likely asks Penn St, and maybe even Notre Dame to join, two additional 'high profile' schools to keep their BCS bid.
The Pac Ten, short two teams likely 'robs' the WAC and MWC of San Diego St, and San Jose St.
The MWC and WAC, now equally 'short' of members reunites for the sake of tradition and competitiveness. Now, we are talking about 10 major conferences, more-or-less equally represented, at least proportionally.
It should become apparent at this point how conference championship games work, as far as the BCS is concerned. Without them, it is hard, if not impossible for the BCS to select a ten-team field, fairly. But, with them, its a relatively simple matter of 'awarding' the winners with a BCS invitation. No conference would be ignored, ideally. They would play in 'traditional' pairings, the Holiday Bowl would likely serve as one venue, as would the Liberty Bowl.
The winning teams, would then also be 'rewarded' with 'at large' invitations to the BCS, filling the 8-team bracket.
The BCS winners would then be paired together competitively, in semi-final, and one 'championship' game. Now, any team, in I-A has a reasonable chance to win a national title. It does it in a way, that honors tradition, and doesn't unfairly 'discriminate' the way the present model does.
All that without losing the bowls, and without losing the NC game, only major difference are the two semi-final games, which I presume would be sell-outs. Ranking becomes inconsequential, only thing that matters, is how a team plays, beginning to end, within their conference.
Nothing could be more fair, in my opinion.

[Spence]

I'm not sure how Ohio State losing to Texas 'ruined' their season. They played in the Fiesta Bowl, after all, in fact that validates my argument that conference games are more important, in the end. They were co-champions Big Ten, deserving of a BCS bid, but why should they be held to a different standard? Why should TCU necessarily be denied a BCS bid, being 'unanimous' Mountain West Conference champions?

Ohio State's goal is not to make the BCS, it is to make the championship game. Last year they had the team to do it and blew it. Our season was over by the 2nd game. All you can do after that is try for the second best prize a BCS game.

TCU was denied because quite frankly Ohio State was a better team then TCU. You know it and I know it.

You never addressed Rolltides question about North Texas and TCU. How about it?

If Ohio State had not made it TCU wouldn't have made it in anyway. Oregon would have. If neither Ohio State or Notre Dame got in TCU still would not have made it. They didn't have a hard enough schedule to be pick of several teams. TCU was never in the running for a BCS berth this year. Could they have been as good as anyone in front of them? Sure, but they didn't prove it and the loss to SMU killed them. It ruined their season much like losing to Texas ruined Ohio State's season.

Why I keep 'pressing' this is simple: It allows for competitive conference pairings of teams. The conference games are what matter, more than anything else. C-USA is evidence of that. Sun Belt would likely need to add teams to make itself more competitive, but Louisiana Tech, and maybe even Tulane might be available for that end. Even S. Florida from the Big East might complement the Sun Belt better than the Big East. Imagine if all that were to happen! Suddenly the Sun Belt is a contender! Not a bystander.

Pressing this is an exercise in futility because no one is ever going to promote a system that doesn't try to put in the best teams overall.

Scheduling tough teams wouldn't be so important to non BCS teams if they got an automatic bid, but they don't have an automatic bid. I would be more in favor of stripping all automatic bids and making everyone play very tough schedules. Why do you not want to see the best teams?

I would be in favor of the mountain west play the highest ranked (non championship game) team in the BCS for three years straight to let them see if they can compete. This year that would have been Penn St. If they do well against that competition after 3 years then I would have no problem letting them have an automatic bid. Same goes for any BCS conference. When I say do well, I mean play them with in 3 to 7 points. If they can hang, I have know problem with them joining the BCS. They would have to do well in all three games and win at least one.

[colorado_loves_football]

First of all, Spence, you imply that somehow Ohio State was 'ruined' by their loss to Texas and I still argue that's not a sufficient argument. I saw that game, as I'm sure so did millions of other people. OSU lost, but not by a wide margin, and I, for one think that OSU still had their destiny in their own hands. Texas, likely needed that game a lot more than OSU did. It wasn't for the national championship, in fact it was a #2 vs. #3 matchup that someone had to lose, just happened to be OSU.

Then, you suggest that OSU only 'cares' about winning a national championship. That's fine, I guess, but what about the other 118 teams?
You don't think that's important to them, also? I already answered Rolltide's question, but it wasn't about N. Texas, it was about Troy St.
I simply 'used' N. Texas because traditionally they've been the 'marquee' team in the Sun Belt Confernece, and in 2003, they were better than in previous years, playing a competitive C-USA team, Memphis, and losing, but not badly. The previous year, they beat Cincinnati, but Memphis was a lot better team, I thought, than Cincinnati was, so that's why I went with that game, over 2002.

If the question is, do I include a Sun Belt team, that is exceptionally good? Yes, I do. I don't make exceptions. How do I determine whether or not a team is sufficiently good? I outlined that in the previous post, and you said it was 'stupid' or something to that effect. I disagree.
Geographically, S. Florida is a lot 'closer' to Louisiana than it is to Massachusetts. I'm not sure why the Big East selected them,but they did. I simply 'place' them in a conference where they are 'regionally' more appropriate, whether or not you 'like' it is irrelevant. Similarly, Tulane (LA) and Louisiana Tech, both seem a lot more geographically 'closer' to the Sun Belt, than to their own conferences.
N. Texas, would be 'better' suited to C-USA geographically. I forgot to include S. Mississippi as an SEC member (to replace Arkansas). I don't really care if you think my ideas are 'stupid'. I think they make sense.

Now, we are talking about a Sun Belt Conference, with 3 (or more) potential BCS candidates. Scott Cowen (Tulane) might even consider such a move, if it gave his school 'greater' opportunity to play in the BCS. That's what the whole argument is about, BCS hasn't given 'equal' access to 'non-BCS' schools, including Tulane. Putting them in a regionally appropriate confernece, and allowing every conference a 'bid' to the BCS would be a reasonable, and 'fair' solution. Plus, there would appear to be more movement toward that happening, rather than less.
Don't rule out the MWC and WAC 'reuniting' it might even be on the table. Both conferences are likely hoping to 'earn' a BCS bid. Reuniting would be one way to accomplish that, without having to do a major overhaul. I simply postulate it as one possibilty, but it hinges upon the Big XII and Big Ten (and Pac Ten) all cooperating, in the name of 'fairness'.

As far as last year is concerned, it's over. I would have preferred TCU be selected as an 'at large' and likely would have, this year. But that doesnt' explain why TCU and Oregon weren't paired together. I don't know if either team was necessarily any better than any other team, already represented. Without a 'playoff' I'm not sure anyone knows, for sure. Ten teams, isn't a 'huge' field, only requires 9 games, beginning to end. In fact, it's really only a 'playoff' from the standpoint one team is left standing at the end. It still honors bowl tradition, by-and-large.

Compared to the 'accepted' model of 5 BCS games, 4 more are needed, to 'finish' it, but closer examination shows, that assuming two 'existing' bowls are incorporated (Liberty & Holiday) then only two additional games, the semi-final pairings. Two games, between having a 'concensus' champion and having a 'paper' champion. I think two games are worth whatever cost is associated with it, for the end-result.

[Spence]

Compared to the 'accepted' model of 5 BCS games, 4 more are needed, to 'finish' it, but closer examination shows, that assuming two 'existing' bowls are incorporated (Liberty & Holiday) then only two additional games, the semi-final pairings. Two games, between having a 'concensus' champion and having a 'paper' champion. I think two games are worth whatever cost is associated with it, for the end-result.

If I were for a play-off it would likely be a 10 team field. That isn't what I disagree with. What I disagree with is putting in 10 conference winners without regard to the strength of the teams.

[colorado_loves_football]

For a playoff to be 'fair' it would need to include all the major conferences, in some fashion, so, for comparison purposes, let's see how the NCAA bracket 'sizes-up'

ACC: N/A (Boston College, Duke lost)
Big Ten: N/A
Big East: Connecticut, Villanova
SEC: LSU, Florida
Big XII: Texas
Pac Ten: UCLA
C-USA: Memphis
other 'non-BCS': George Mason

Now, let's apply a 'model' that includes one representative:
ACC Champion: Duke
SEC Champion: LSU
Big East Champion: Connecticut
Big XII Champion: Texas
Pac Ten Champion: UCLA
Big Ten Champion: Iowa, Ohio St.
C-USA Champion: Memphis

Interesting (to me, anyway) is how similar those two arrangments are, in general. One major difference, is George Mason, obviously not a 'major' representative. Other than that, there is a close approximation, to what's 'there'. But it shows, that it's next to impossible to know in advance which teams will ultimately be selected.

[Spence]

No it isn't because it is not representative of the best teams. Unless you try to represent the best teams the system is flawed. How can you hope to find the true national champion without representing the best ten teams?

[colorado_loves_football]

No it isn't because it is not representative of the best teams. Unless you try to represent the best teams the system is flawed. How can you hope to find the true national champion without representing the best ten teams?

EXACTLY, for the NCAA to work, it HAS to include the best teams, or in other words, George Mason needs to be represented somewhere. Now apply that to the BCS.
In 2003, Miami (OH) would need to be represented in some fashion.
In 2004, Boise St, Utah, and Louisville all need to be represented.
In 2005, TCU needs to be represented. See, it works.

[Spence]

EXACTLY, for the NCAA to work, it HAS to include the best teams, or in other words, George Mason needs to be represented somewhere. Now apply that to the BCS.
In 2003, Miami (OH) would need to be represented in some fashion.
In 2004, Boise St, Utah, and Louisville all need to be represented.
In 2005, TCU needs to be represented. See, it works.

Wrong, in 2003 Miami got their butts kicked by Iowa 21-3. Proving that they DID NOT belong.

Boise St beat zero ranked teams in 2004 and lost to Louisville in the bowl game.

Louisville beat zero ranked teams in 2004. A case could be made for them by hanging tight with Miami, but they still lost the game.

Utah did beat 3 ranked teams and did get included, proving the system works.

TCU beat two ranked team and lost to a team that wasn't ranked proving that they didn't belong once again. You can lose to unranked teams.

[colorado_loves_football]

Wrong, in 2003 Miami got their butts kicked by Iowa 21-3. Proving that they DID NOT belong.

Boise St beat zero ranked teams in 2004 and lost to Louisville in the bowl game.

Louisville beat zero ranked teams in 2004. A case could be made for them by hanging tight with Miami, but they still lost the game.

Utah did beat 3 ranked teams and did get included, proving the system works.

TCU beat two ranked team and lost to a team that wasn't ranked proving that they didn't belong once again. You can lose to unranked teams.

Spence, let's use your 'standard' for BCS selection, but instead of Miami (OH) let's use Michigan. That year (2003) they beat Ohio State, the defending national champions to 'win' a Big Ten bid to the Rose Bowl. Ohio State beat Iowa 19-10 in Columbus, OH (makes me wonder how they would have done if the game had been in Iowa).
Iowa was also defending Big Ten Co-Champions, along with Ohio St.
So, losing to Iowa, for all intents and purposes, by Miami (OH) was almost like losing to the defending national champions, since Iowa and Ohio State never played, and shared Big Ten honors. USC won the national championship, 2003, so Iowa losing to them in the Orange Bowl was like them losing a national championship game, one year early.
So, that game (Miami (OH) and Iowa) was for all intents and purposes an Ohio St. vs. Texas pairing of teams.
21-3 = Butts kicked? I'm not sure I agree, especially if you consider how they played in Ohio, the previous year (when Iowa went to the Orange Bowl)
Iowa W 29 Miami (OH) 24 Oxford, OH 09-07-2002.
Not so one-sided, is it? And some might argue Iowa was a better team in 2003, they beat Michigan, the Big Ten Champions, outright. Sure, Miami (OH) lost. It matters, but it wasn't a deal-breaker for them, unless it was for Michigan? Seems to me Michigan still played USC for 1/2 the national championship, and lost. Miami (OH) never had that opportunity. Iowa, on the other hand, didn't 'earn' a BCS bid. Ohio St likely 'earned' their BCS bid by beating Iowa, in Columbus 19-10.
And if that wasn't sufficient evidence, Miami (OH) demolished Northwestern, in Illiniois, a team that was bowl-eligible. 21-3 isn't such a 'rout' as you would like to make it. But you are correct Iowa won, and was likely the better team, that day. So what? Miami (OH) doesn't play in the Big Ten, that's been my argument all along. Iowa should'nt lose to Miami (OH) at home, or away either, like they nearly did, in 2002, the year they won the Big Ten outright (along with Ohio St.).
So, if Miami (OH) doesn't go simply because they lost to Iowa, in IA, then Michigan shouldn't, either. And for that matter, neither should Ohio St, since they lost to Michigan. I'm being facetious, but if Miami (OH) can't go because they lose to a Big Ten team, then neither should any other team that lost to Iowa. A case could be made for Ohio St qualifiying on those grounds, perhaps, but Michigan since Michigan beat them, that likely doesn't hold up.
Please show me where I'm wrong, I'm interested. Iowa didn't lose to anyone at home, that year, might have even been a better team than 2002, if Iowa St, is a fair 'measure' of how they stack up. And, if I apply your argument to Iowa, 2002, then they don't deserve to go to the Orange Bowl, because they lose to Iowa St., a non-conference team.
See how illogical your argument is? 21-3 to a Big Ten co-champion, and nearly national co-champion (along with Ohio St) makes no sense whatsoever.
Miami (OH) was probably the MOST qualified team of any mentioned so far, including Louisville, 2004, who I happen to believe was the 'best' non-BCS team, including Utah and Boise St. Boise St. took Louisville to the 'wire' might have won but for a botched 2-pt attempt, necessitating a touchdown when a field goal might have 'secured' a tie. They lost on coaching, more than ability, unfortunately.
Utah's schedule didn't impress me that much. They beat N.Carolina a 6-5 team away, they were ranked? I doubt it. Texas A&M wasn't ranked when they played, perhaps at the end of the year, but its' when you play that matters, Spence. Don't twist the facts around, but Texas A&M improved, 'earning' a Cotton Bowl bid where they were beaten, soundly by Tennessee, pretty much showing they weren't that good. N. Carolina lost, too, so they likely weren't that good. I don't know how good Arizona was, but TCU played them in 2003, and won, in Tuscon, so they likely weren't that much better, so your argument should apply to TCU, too, if the BCS were fair.
Unless I'm mistaken, TCU needed to finish in the top-6 to be 'assured' a bid. They might have been seleted as an 'at large' representative, but when K-State beat Oklahoma, I'm guessing that option went out the window. A simple case of too many teams, and not enough spaces. I don't know for sure that TCU isn't selected in 2003, but I have my suspicions they maybe aren't. But I will grant you that Utah won all their games, albeit most 'critical' games were at home. Louisville was a better team, than Utah, not sure Boise St wasn't as well.
The BCS didn't 'work' it sucked, that year! Unless you think Pittsburgh was a 'good' team. I even thought they might be, until they lost, badly to Utah.

[Spence]

Wrong, in 2003 Miami got their butts kicked by Iowa 21-3. Proving that they DID NOT belong.

Boise St beat zero ranked teams in 2004 and lost to Louisville in the bowl game.

Louisville beat zero ranked teams in 2004. A case could be made for them by hanging tight with Miami, but they still lost the game.

Utah did beat 3 ranked teams and did get included, proving the system works.

TCU beat two ranked team and lost to a team that wasn't ranked proving that they didn't belong once again. You can lose to unranked teams.

Spence, let's use your 'standard' for BCS selection, but instead of Miami (OH) let's use Michigan. That year (2003) they beat Ohio State, the defending national champions to 'win' a Big Ten bid to the Rose Bowl. Ohio State beat Iowa 19-10 in Columbus, OH (makes me wonder how they would have done if the game had been in Iowa).
Iowa was also defending Big Ten Co-Champions, along with Ohio St.
So, losing to Iowa, for all intents and purposes, by Miami (OH) was almost like losing to the defending national champions, since Iowa and Ohio State never played, and shared Big Ten honors. USC won the national championship, 2003, so Iowa losing to them in the Orange Bowl was like them losing a national championship game, one year early.
So, that game (Miami (OH) and Iowa) was for all intents and purposes an Ohio St. vs. Texas pairing of teams.
21-3 = Butts kicked? I'm not sure I agree, especially if you consider how they played in Ohio, the previous year (when Iowa went to the Orange Bowl)
Iowa W 29 Miami (OH) 24 Oxford, OH 09-07-2002.
Not so one-sided, is it? And some might argue Iowa was a better team in 2003, they beat Michigan, the Big Ten Champions, outright. Sure, Miami (OH) lost. It matters, but it wasn't a deal-breaker for them, unless it was for Michigan? Seems to me Michigan still played USC for 1/2 the national championship, and lost. Miami (OH) never had that opportunity. Iowa, on the other hand, didn't 'earn' a BCS bid. Ohio St likely 'earned' their BCS bid by beating Iowa, in Columbus 19-10.
And if that wasn't sufficient evidence, Miami (OH) demolished Northwestern, in Illiniois, a team that was bowl-eligible. 21-3 isn't such a 'rout' as you would like to make it. But you are correct Iowa won, and was likely the better team, that day. So what? Miami (OH) doesn't play in the Big Ten, that's been my argument all along. Iowa should'nt lose to Miami (OH) at home, or away either, like they nearly did, in 2002, the year they won the Big Ten outright (along with Ohio St.).
So, if Miami (OH) doesn't go simply because they lost to Iowa, in IA, then Michigan shouldn't, either. And for that matter, neither should Ohio St, since they lost to Michigan. I'm being facetious, but if Miami (OH) can't go because they lose to a Big Ten team, then neither should any other team that lost to Iowa. A case could be made for Ohio St qualifiying on those grounds, perhaps, but Michigan since Michigan beat them, that likely doesn't hold up.
Please show me where I'm wrong, I'm interested. Iowa didn't lose to anyone at home, that year, might have even been a better team than 2002, if Iowa St, is a fair 'measure' of how they stack up. And, if I apply your argument to Iowa, 2002, then they don't deserve to go to the Orange Bowl, because they lose to Iowa St., a non-conference team.
See how illogical your argument is? 21-3 to a Big Ten co-champion, and nearly national co-champion (along with Ohio St) makes no sense whatsoever.
Miami (OH) was probably the MOST qualified team of any mentioned so far, including Louisville, 2004, who I happen to believe was the 'best' non-BCS team, including Utah and Boise St. Boise St. took Louisville to the 'wire' might have won but for a botched 2-pt attempt, necessitating a touchdown when a field goal might have 'secured' a tie. They lost on coaching, more than ability, unfortunately.
Utah's schedule didn't impress me that much. They beat N.Carolina a 6-5 team away, they were ranked? I doubt it. Texas A&M wasn't ranked when they played, perhaps at the end of the year, but its' when you play that matters, Spence. Don't twist the facts around, but Texas A&M improved, 'earning' a Cotton Bowl bid where they were beaten, soundly by Tennessee, pretty much showing they weren't that good. N. Carolina lost, too, so they likely weren't that good. I don't know how good Arizona was, but TCU played them in 2003, and won, in Tuscon, so they likely weren't that much better, so your argument should apply to TCU, too, if the BCS were fair.
Unless I'm mistaken, TCU needed to finish in the top-6 to be 'assured' a bid. They might have been seleted as an 'at large' representative, but when K-State beat Oklahoma, I'm guessing that option went out the window. A simple case of too many teams, and not enough spaces. I don't know for sure that TCU isn't selected in 2003, but I have my suspicions they maybe aren't. But I will grant you that Utah won all their games, albeit most 'critical' games were at home. Louisville was a better team, than Utah, not sure Boise St wasn't as well.
The BCS didn't 'work' it sucked, that year! Unless you think Pittsburgh was a 'good' team. I even thought they might be, until they lost, badly to Utah.

First my brain is not fried, maybe a little soaked, but not fried. I don't eat do-nuts.

Second, we are not talking about Iowa 2002 or 2004. We are talking about Iowa 2003 and they weren't in the BCS. They did have a good team, but not a great team. If Miami was the most qualified team of the bunch, in you opinion, then the argument is over because Miami definitely didn't belong.

Third, rankings evolve and where you are ranked at the end of the regular season is more representitive of the skill level of all the teams.

Texas A&M wasn't ranked when they played, perhaps at the end of the year, but its' when you play that matters, Spence. Don't twist the facts around, but Texas A&M improved, 'earning' a Cotton Bowl bid where they were beaten, soundly by Tennessee, pretty much showing they weren't that good.

Another reason Boise St. didn't belong.

Pittsburgh? I don't know anyone that thought that Pitt belonged in the BCS. If that is the best you can do then your really reaching. A number of teams were more deserving then Pitt and while the teams you mention probably were I could give you more deserving teams then those also. Try again.

The BCS didn't 'work' it sucked, that year! Unless you think Pittsburgh was a 'good' team. I even thought they might be, until they lost, badly to Utah.

Which proves my point about your logic. How could anyone(besides a Pitt fan) think that Pitt had a chance. THey were a terrible football team. The BCS didn't work that year because the B-East got destroyed with Va. Tech and Miami leaving. They hadn't even begun picking up the pieces yet. That is a lousy argument to try and prove your point. It proves what happens to teams that make it, but really shouldn't be there. That proves what I have been saying since we started this argument.

You need to understand the difference between good teams and great teams. The BCS bowl games are about finding the best match ups between great teams. Just being pretty good doesn't cut it.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence, how on earth can you 'justify' the BCS being about the 'best' teams if even you admit that wasn't the case in the Fiesta Bowl?
You argue on behalf of Utah, strangely, because I'm not convinced they were any better, than Boise St, or Louisville. I'm not saying they weren't I don't know, they never played.
I thought Pittsburgh was a respectable team. The Big East lost 'exactly' two teams, Miami, FL and Virginia Tech, to the ACC. Boston College was still there, so your argument doesn't really hold up, if the Big East 'sucked' then Boston College 'sucked' too. They beat a decent ACC team (NC St?) in their bowl. Pittsburgh likely was the best Big East team, that year. So, Im not sure what your point is. W. Virginia was still around, they LOST to Pittsburgh, in fact that determined who went to the Fiesta Bowl.
What does Texas A&M losing to Tennessee have to do with Boise St?
I don't follow your reasoning at all. Boise St, was UNDEFEATED, going into their game against Louisville. Means they didn't lose to anyone.
They lost to Louisville by 4 points. Sure, Louisville was 'ranked' but so was Boise St. Apples and Oranges.
I'm not arguing on behalf of the Big East. But, I am arguing on behalf of the teams not being represented fairly when they are qualified.
Michigan was Big Ten Champions, 2003, they lost to Iowa.
It's relevant. Iowa won their bowl game, that's relevant too.
Explain how Iowa beating Michigan isn't relevant but their beating Miami (OH) is? I'd like to know what your rationale is on that particular item.
Seems to me it's the same argumet, only difference being it means absolutely NOTHING to whether or not Miami (OH) is MAC champions.
If Miami (OH) was a Big Ten team, then it 'counts'. They aren't so it isn't important.
Ok, so Iowa was good 2002, well Miami (OH) nearly beat them that year.
You can't say it 'matters' one year, and not the other.
Great according to who? I'm interested in hearing that as well.
Why is OSU 'great' at 9-2? I'm not convinced they are, personally.
Especially when you have two teams sitting at 10-1 looking on.
By the way, Ohio St, didn't win the Big Ten, outright in 2002. They were 'co-champions' along with Iowa. TCU either gets it done or they do'nt. No excuses on my end.

[Spence]

Spence, how on earth can you 'justify' the BCS being about the 'best' teams if even you admit that wasn't the case in the Fiesta Bowl?
You argue on behalf of Utah, strangely, because I'm not convinced they were any better, than Boise St, or Louisville. I'm not saying they weren't I don't know, they never played.

I never said that the BCS was always right and I never agrued on behalf of Utah. My personal opinion was that if Utah would have played a "real" BCS team such as Auburn, Va Tech, Texas, or Michigan that year, they would have got their butts handed to them. The BCs gets the best teams in given their constraints of automatic bids. If you want to say no one should be given automatic bids, I would be for that as long as they use systematic scheduling to be able to evaluate teams.

It is all about the scheduling. If a mid-major wants respect they have to earn it. That is how it works. If they earn their way in there will be no controversy because people will believe they deserve it. Most people don't believe they deserve it right now.

[Spence]

If you want to see who the top teams are here is a link on the top teams in ranking order by CFP. Since they have predicted the winners in these games 75% of the time they have a pretty grasp on who the best teams are in college football.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/historical_composite_rank.html

Notice that the first doesn't pop up until right around 25. Better then I thought, but not good enough to be considered for an automatic bid. This might put some things in prospective for you.