Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[Spence]

5. Spence, I don't understand what you mean with the "3 game series" thing. I'm sure Utah, Louisville, or Boise State of 2004 could do such a thing.

Eric, I meant in a best of three series. Utah would have beaten Pitt in a best of three series, but wouldn't have beaten anyone else in the BCS that year. Pitt wasn't good enough to be in the BCS. They made it there due to Va. Tech and Miami putting the B-East in a bad position. It was not a normal circumstance.

If you ask your self who would win a best of 3 series between two teams it usually gives you a clear picture of who is the best team.

[Eric]

Spence, I think you are overlooking the Utah Utes. They did whip up on Texas A&M, North Carolina, and the Mountain West; a pretty good one at that. That was the year a lot of people said that the MWC was as good or better than the Big East. They could score on anyone, and it would be possible that they beat Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Texas, and certainly Michigan, and certainly Pitt.

Most likely Pitt and Michigan, but the other 4 teams I listed wouldn't be out of the question for a team like Utah to upset. No way they could be USC though.......

[colorado_loves_football]

5. Spence, I don't understand what you mean with the "3 game series" thing. I'm sure Utah, Louisville, or Boise State of 2004 could do such a thing.

Eric, I meant in a best of three series. Utah would have beaten Pitt in a best of three series, but wouldn't have beaten anyone else in the BCS that year. Pitt wasn't good enough to be in the BCS. They made it there due to Va. Tech and Miami putting the B-East in a bad position. It was not a normal circumstance.

If you ask your self who would win a best of 3 series between two teams it usually gives you a clear picture of who is the best team.

I'm not sure I understand the 'best of 3' argument, either. Teams typically only play each other once, although there are exceptions. More typically than not, the best team wins, the first game, anyway.

Now, as far as the BCS is concerned, I think there maybe should have been a way to select 'one' team from the 3 in contention, or in other words, a 'playoff' to select a representative to the Fiesta Bowl, from Utah, Boise St, and Louisville.

I might have preferred Boise St, and Utah 'square-off' in a championship arrangment, similar to how other conference representatives are selected. The winner maybe should have been 'granted' direct access to the Fiesta Bowl, since both teams were undefeated at the time.

Now, as far as Louisville is concerned, they were still a C-USA member, but I seem to recall that the BCS used Louisville for 'prospective' analyis, as applied to the Big East, so they 'could' have made a 'provision' whereby they were selected to the Fiesta Bowl, over Pittsburgh. I think the idea was to 'help' the Big East as much as possible since Miami & Virgnia Tech were gone, but that mostly backfired, although I enjoyed the game, myself.

Anyway, that would have given the BCS a 'better' pairing than it had. As it was the Liberty Bowl was likely more a 'championship' pairing of teams, than the Fiesta Bowl was. I don't know how good Utah was. They were competitive to be sure, but it's still something of a ? how good Pittsburgh was. Utah beating them, maybe wasn't the best 'test'.

Nevertheless, I agree it might have been 'fun' to see how well Utah might have done had they played another game, yet another reason I support a 'playoff' of BCS teams. We all remember Utah for some reason, but forget about the TCU's and Boise St's of the world. Generally, they are comparable, talent-wise to Utah. Utah didn't schedule either one.

Anyway, I'm all for competitive scheduling provided it's done geographically. I don't think TCU playing W. Virginia is going to 'prove' anything, unless it's in the Fiesta Bowl. As with Boise St, and Utah, 2004, TCU and Boise St. 2003 were comparable, and their Ft. Worth Bowl reflected that. Having teams play 'competitively' within conferences would address that problem directly.

[Spence]

Spence, I think you are overlooking the Utah Utes. They did whip up on Texas A&M, North Carolina, and the Mountain West; a pretty good one at that. That was the year a lot of people said that the MWC was as good or better than the Big East. They could score on anyone, and it would be possible that they beat Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Texas, and certainly Michigan, and certainly Pitt.

Most likely Pitt and Michigan, but the other 4 teams I listed wouldn't be out of the question for a team like Utah to upset. No way they could be USC though...

I dont think I am overlooking Utah at all. Utah wasn't better then Auburn, Oklahoma, Va. tech, Texas, or Michigan. They may have been able to score on Michigan, because of that slow as crap defense, but Michigan would have controlled the lines in that game and slowed the game down.

The MWC was likely better then the B-East that year, but when you take in consideration what the B-East had done to it, it is understandable. Still after that showing the B-East was put on notice that they had to get better or they would not be included in the BCS. If Utah would have been paired with Auburn we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The BCS wanted to make Utah look good to prove that they are "fair".

[Eric]

They probably weren't better, but they could sure as heck play with them. I don't know if they did it to be fair, Auburn vs. Virginia Tech and Michigan vs. Texas were much more attractive matchups. They wouldn't stick Utah or Pitt in one of those games or else suffer 2 games with lower ratings. I know a lot of people tune into the BCS, but Pitt really wasn't on the map and Utah is a mid-major football team.

[Spence]

They probably weren't better, but they could sure as heck play with them. I don't know if they did it to be fair, Auburn vs. Virginia Tech and Michigan vs. Texas were much more attractive matchups. They wouldn't stick Utah or Pitt in one of those games or else suffer 2 games with lower ratings. I know a lot of people tune into the BCS, but Pitt really wasn't on the map and Utah is a mid-major football team.

Your right, it was more about money, then being fair. They new that the other match ups would be better.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't think the BCS would intentionally put a 'lemon' in the Fiesta Bowl. I do believe, however, a Utah vs. Louisville would have been a better game, as evidenced by how the Liberty Bowl went.

My argument, has been that in general, there has been, minimally, one team from outside the BCS, qualified to be represented in the BCS. 2004 is maybe an exception to that, there were 3, reasonably qualified.

Interestingly, had my proposal been in place, one team would likely have been represented in the BCS, the best of the three. That would have been possible, because my proposal relies heavily on conference championship games. Boise St and Utah likely would have been paired together in a WAC/MWC 'championship' game, the winner to receive a bid to the Liberty Bowl, to play C-USA champion Louisville.

The winner of that game would then be awarded a BCS invitation. That year, Texas & California were the two 'most qualified' teams that were looking for a BCS invitation, but only one was selected. My proposal likely would have paired those teams together, and the winner would have been awarded a BCS invitation.

Then, my proposal would have utilized a 'playoff' thereby assuring the BCS of a 'concensus' national champion. There wouldn't have been any debate which team was #1 after all the games were played. That's the advantage to my proposal, there aren't any 'ifs, ands, or buts'. There is just one team (at the end) being recognized for being the best, overall.

[ktffan]

The "BCS" does not select the bowl match ups. The BCS bowl members do. After the automatics are done, they get to pick in order, who they want. The last bowl to pick gets the short end of the stick. USC and Oklahoma were locked up in the Orange, Michigan was locked up in the Rose, Auburn was locked up in the Sugar. I believe the Rose got a priority pick because their other team got in the Orange, so they picked Texas, with a Texas/Michigan match-up looking far better than a Pitt or Utah/Michigan Match up. I think the Sugar had the priority and they picked VT, lefting the Fiesta with what was left over.

[colorado_loves_football]

The "BCS" does not select the bowl match ups. The BCS bowl members do. After the automatics are done, they get to pick in order, who they want. The last bowl to pick gets the short end of the stick. USC and Oklahoma were locked up in the Orange, Michigan was locked up in the Rose, Auburn was locked up in the Sugar. I believe the Rose got a priority pick because their other team got in the Orange, so they picked Texas, with a Texas/Michigan match-up looking far better than a Pitt or Utah/Michigan Match up. I think the Sugar had the priority and they picked VT, lefting the Fiesta with what was left over.

Excellent point!
Each bowl is 'awarded' a representative, but when the Orange Bowl put USC and Oklahoma together, that created 'vacancies' in the Rose and Fiesta Bowls, and those bowls had 'priority' over the Sugar Bowl, in terms of which teams were represented.
I think Fiesta Bowl had first 'crack' since they didn't have a representative, which likely means Utah was the first team 'out of the box'. And I'm guessing they knew, in advance, what kind of pairing they were creating, by doing that. Fiesta Bowl likely was also last to take Pittsburgh. So, as hard as it might be to swallow, Utah vs. Pittsburgh was likely one of the more 'thought-out' games, that year, in terms of representation. The Fiesta Bowl officials likely knew what they were getting, when they selected Utah.
The Sugar Bowl, was rewarded with a Virginia Tech vs. Auburn pairing, but might have preferred a Utah vs. Auburn pairing. Had the Fiesta Bowl taken Virginia Tech, over Utah, then that would likely have happened. So, Spence's argument does have some applicability.
Texas was taken by the Rose Bowl, but they probably would have taken Utah if they were available. So, we should maybe all thank the Fiesta Bowl for putting together the 'lemonade' pairing of teams. In the end, it was probably the 'best' pairing possible, given the circumstances.

[ktffan]

The "BCS" does not select the bowl match ups. The BCS bowl members do. After the automatics are done, they get to pick in order, who they want. The last bowl to pick gets the short end of the stick. USC and Oklahoma were locked up in the Orange, Michigan was locked up in the Rose, Auburn was locked up in the Sugar. I believe the Rose got a priority pick because their other team got in the Orange, so they picked Texas, with a Texas/Michigan match-up looking far better than a Pitt or Utah/Michigan Match up. I think the Sugar had the priority and they picked VT, lefting the Fiesta with what was left over.

Excellent point!
Each bowl is 'awarded' a representative, but when the Orange Bowl put USC and Oklahoma together, that created 'vacancies' in the Rose and Fiesta Bowls, and those bowls had 'priority' over the Sugar Bowl, in terms of which teams were represented.
I think Fiesta Bowl had first 'crack' since they didn't have a representative, which likely means Utah was the first team 'out of the box'. And I'm guessing they knew, in advance, what kind of pairing they were creating, by doing that. Fiesta Bowl likely was also last to take Pittsburgh. So, as hard as it might be to swallow, Utah vs. Pittsburgh was likely one of the more 'thought-out' games, that year, in terms of representation. The Fiesta Bowl officials likely knew what they were getting, when they selected Utah.
The Sugar Bowl, was rewarded with a Virginia Tech vs. Auburn pairing, but might have preferred a Utah vs. Auburn pairing. Had the Fiesta Bowl taken Virginia Tech, over Utah, then that would likely have happened. So, Spence's argument does have some applicability.
Texas was taken by the Rose Bowl, but they probably would have taken Utah if they were available. So, we should maybe all thank the Fiesta Bowl for putting together the 'lemonade' pairing of teams. In the end, it was probably the 'best' pairing possible, given the circumstances.

I'm not really up on this stuff, but I believe that since both the Rose and Fiesta lost a team to the Orange, the top seeded team's bowl gets the first choice, and that would be the Rose. I doubt they would have wanted Utah over Texas given the choice.

[colorado_loves_football]

I'm not really up on this stuff, but I believe that since both the Rose and Fiesta lost a team to the Orange, the top seeded team's bowl gets the first choice, and that would be the Rose. I doubt they would have wanted Utah over Texas given the choice.

I have read the 'bylaws' by which the BCS selects teams. The BCS 'championship' is viewed as it's own entity, it is assured a #1 vs. #2 pairing. The remaining bowls, although allowed a representative, are left to select from a 'pool' of teams.
In 2004, both the Rose and Fiesta Bowls were 'denied' a representative.
Unless I'm mistaken, both bowls are 'allowed' to select an 'alternate' and I had assumed the Fiesta Bowl was the first bowl given that opportunity.
They could have selected from the following teams: Utah, Texas, Virginia Tech & Pittsburgh. I had 'assumed' they selected Utah, but if they had taken Texas (a Big XII representative), then it's very possible, maybe even likely the Rose Bowl selects Utah. So, it's not as 'far-fetched' as you might want to believe.
I believe the Fiesta Bowl made the 'best' decision when they took Utah, they probably 'knew' they would be pairing Utah and Pittsburgh together.
It's also possible even though these bowls operate independently, they work together to assure themselves of the best possible pairings.
A Utah vs. Pittsburgh pairing is actually a lot more 'traditional' to the Fiesta Bowl, than say a Texas vs. Pittsburgh would be. And, by selecting Utah, Texas was then free for a Rose Bowl invitation.
The Sugar Bowl, was likely the least 'planned'. They likely would have welcomed a Texas vs. Auburn or Utah vs. Auburn, but the Fiesta Bowl 'saved' them from that arrangement.
The Utah vs. Pittsburgh was likely a 'planned' pairing. The Fiesta Bowl 'knew' that whichever team they selected would be paired against Pittsburgh. Utah was their first choice.

[ktffan]

I'm not really up on this stuff, but I believe that since both the Rose and Fiesta lost a team to the Orange, the top seeded team's bowl gets the first choice, and that would be the Rose. I doubt they would have wanted Utah over Texas given the choice.

I have read the 'bylaws' by which the BCS selects teams. The BCS 'championship' is viewed as it's own entity, it is assured a #1 vs. #2 pairing. The remaining bowls, although allowed a representative, are left to select from a 'pool' of teams.
In 2004, both the Rose and Fiesta Bowls were 'denied' a representative.
Unless I'm mistaken, both bowls are 'allowed' to select an 'alternate' and I had assumed the Fiesta Bowl was the first bowl given that opportunity.
They could have selected from the following teams: Utah, Texas, Virginia Tech & Pittsburgh. I had 'assumed' they selected Utah, but if they had taken Texas (a Big XII representative), then it's very possible, maybe even likely the Rose Bowl selects Utah. So, it's not as 'far-fetched' as you might want to believe.
I believe the Fiesta Bowl made the 'best' decision when they took Utah, they probably 'knew' they would be pairing Utah and Pittsburgh together.
It's also possible even though these bowls operate independently, they work together to assure themselves of the best possible pairings.
A Utah vs. Pittsburgh pairing is actually a lot more 'traditional' to the Fiesta Bowl, than say a Texas vs. Pittsburgh would be. And, by selecting Utah, Texas was then free for a Rose Bowl invitation.
The Sugar Bowl, was likely the least 'planned'. They likely would have welcomed a Texas vs. Auburn or Utah vs. Auburn, but the Fiesta Bowl 'saved' them from that arrangement.
The Utah vs. Pittsburgh was likely a 'planned' pairing. The Fiesta Bowl 'knew' that whichever team they selected would be paired against Pittsburgh. Utah was their first choice.

I looked it up. The Rose had first choice and selected Texas. I don't know that the Fiesta would have done likewise, but given Texas' fan support, I suspect the would have. I agree with you that if you take Texas out of the mix, the Rose would have likely selected Utah. Their only other options would have been Pitt and VT and nobody wanted Pitt. Utah is an out west school and would have fit in.

The Fiesta 'knew' their match-up because they knew they were stuck with Pitt. Their only options were whether they wanted VT or Utah to play them. Given that choice they selected Utah, an undefeated team not far from Arizona. I guarentee you they weren't happy with Pitt.

[mountainman]

To my way of thinking, that was just another example of the fallout created by the way the ACC went about their business.

It certainly appears to me that self-interest was their top priority along with little concern about the impact to others or the game.

Sorry about that, sometimes I slip and just feel compelled to get some things off my chest. It's past the time to move on and I know it's nothing but a distraction from the things one should be thinking about, but I don't think I will ever get over the 'how it was done' part of it.

[Spence]

To my way of thinking, that was just another example of the fallout created by the way the ACC went about their business.

It certainly appears to me that self-interest was their top priority along with little concern about the impact to others or the game.

It was part of the fallout of the ACC raid and your right that it was self interest that guided their decision. I would be miffed if it happened in the B-10 also. the NAG should have stepped in and at least had a plan for the transition. Instead they just watched.

The individual BCS bowls do get to choose who they want as an at-large, although there is some pressure on them to pick this or that school. The BCS ultimately has nothing to do with at-large berths, only automatic berths. The bowls take teams that travel well. Teams that bring a lot of fans into the area. They are free to take an 6-5 team if they want to, although the pressure from the media on doing so would be suffocating.

[mountainman]

That's right, Spence. The BCS is simply a ranking system that determines which teams are eligible for selection after the conference champions and the national title participants have been determined.

At the 17 million dollar payout rate for each team that participates I believe it's appropriate for the various Bowl Selection Committees to have a choice of teams that have qualified.