Boise State vs. San Jose State

[Eric]

It won't come out if you do not play a challenging team.

And, unfortunately, there is not a team left on Boise's schedule who would not be a underdog to most of the SEC...

San Jose State (1-6) was fodder...La Tech, Idaho, and Fresno State are fodder. Hawaii has lost it's two games with BCS conference teams by an average of over two touchdowns. Utah State is 2-4, and finally Nevada. Nevada has no win over a + .500 IA team...

Nevada has beaten IA teams with the following records...2-5, 3-3, 2-5, 1-6, 1-6....lost to Hawaii, the only team they have played who are above .500.

Of course the .500 record means something in this context. But by your own admission it would seem that Cal is clearly better than Hawaii when you look at a weighted record.

[Eric]

It won't come out if you do not play a challenging team.

And, unfortunately, there is not a team left on Boise's schedule who would not be a underdog to most of the SEC...

San Jose State (1-6) was fodder...La Tech, Idaho, and Fresno State are fodder. Hawaii has lost it's two games with BCS conference teams by an average of over two touchdowns. Utah State is 2-4, and finally Nevada. Nevada has no win over a + .500 IA team...

Nevada has beaten IA teams with the following records...2-5, 3-3, 2-5, 1-6, 1-6....lost to Hawaii, the only team they have played who are above .500.

Of course the .500 record means something in this context. But by your own admission it would seem that Cal is clearly better than Hawaii when you look at a weighted record.

First of all San Jose St. has a very, very weak team -- call it 'fodder', whatever -- yes, they are horrible. CCR ranked 113.

Nevada, on the other hand has played well, and has had a weak schedule, like most FBS teams through week 6-7. But, as soon as they lost to Hawai'i, they lost a lot of credibility. Virginia Tech lost to James Madison, though, and some pollsters have them ranked in the top 25 -- also ridiculous.

The remaining three teams listed, are probably somewhere in between. But, overall, yes, the WAC is a weak conference (not BCS AQ), and imploding after this season (trying to be salvaged, though).

One team, undefeated, can emerge from a non-AQ conference, and with some help vie for a BCS at-large.

So, that leaves 2 areas of debate: non-AQ undefeated going to the BCS NC, and teams with losses going to other BCS games. Seems like a case-by-case scenario, but probably shouldn't happen unless there is a 'major' exception.

Here is the real problem, however; non-AQ schools looking for a 'major' exception should NOT play/schedule FCS schools. That includes an un-defeated going to the BCS NC. Following that reasoning, un-defeated Boise St. and TCU probably should be #3 and #4 maximum this season.

The BCS was never created to reward weak conferences. Look at the history. It was designed to bring big money to big programs. Look at how Notre Dame, out of 120 schools, has a 'special vote' and 'special rules'. Idaho, Boise St. and Idaho St. (FCS who could go FBS) were never part of the plan, sorry. Now, despite computer polls, etc., the system will find any way to continue to exclude them -- because they were never meant to be a part of it to begin with, aside from throwing a few bread crumbs divided a 100 ways.

One BCS game has a pay-out of 18 million...

The WAC winner has a bowl tie-in with the Kraft Bowl, with Payouts: $900,000 [Pacific-10], $750,000 [WAC].

So, a WAC champion is worth about 0.75 million, whereas an SEC champion (Sugar Bowl) is worth 9 million. So, on the open market, the SEC is about 12 times better than the WAC.

So, some 'exception' (about 12 times normal) would need to occur, just to go to a BCS game (BCS buster), let alone a 'major exception' to go to the BCS NC game (although, technically it is valued equally to the other BCS bowls, in reality it is worth a lot more from all of the intangible benefits). That's the black and white.

Good way of putting it. Call it the schedule, call it whatever, but the BCS was not made with the non-BCS guys involved. Hence, Notre Dame getting special treatment but other teams not in BCS conferences don't? I had always wondered if an undefeated Navy team would have the same treatment as Notre Dame, since they're both independents. I wonder if BYU will also get this preferential treatment, but I assume BYU and Navy will fall under the same rules as the non-BCS schools.

The point of the matter is that the BCS is the cash cow and the schools like the situation. They would prefer not to have a playoff. If Boise State got into the national title and imploded against Alabama and lost by 20+ points, the cries for playoffs will be even louder since Boise got in with a bunch of question marks and, they assume, would not make it past more deserving teams if there were a playoff in tact. The BCSers are not going to allow it to happen unless you have a 2007 situation where there are no other feasible choices.

[silverfox]

LOL, in the end there has to be a solution, right?

This is America. This is what the Antitrust Laws were written for when it comes to following the money.

US regulating or opposing trusts, monopolies, cartels, or similar organizations, esp in order to prevent unfair competition

My point is the controversy of the entire BCS system is about to change it all. If all the money that was generated by the BCS went to and was distributed to the benefit of all colleges and Universities it would maybe make a difference. But because the stated purpose of the BCS in the first place is largely based on the consideration of financial reward if one belongs to this select AQ group - regardless of talent, then it hinges on the possibility of antitrust charges being brought to "bust" it up. That is why every step has to be "micro-managed" to avoid even the appearance of unfair trade (revenues) advantages to this select group (BCS members) Cartel.

This is also why more and more bowls are being added because the BCS keeps trying to fog the situation by pointing out that anyone can have a bowl. But now, more than ever ebefore, parity of talent is starting to creep into the occasion and ruining everything for everbody (who supports the cartel). Unfortunately the party is over and the talent comes from everywhere -- not just the confines of the sweaty locker rooms of the BCS.

In the end, I suspect some form of playoff system will emerge as well as a different distribution system of financial booty to the victors.

"Show Me The Money" has been replaced by "Follow The Money".

[WoVeU]

We live in a world of self delusion, always have as it is part of human nature...but it is part evolving ridiculously fast!

I try to stay as middle of the road as possible, my dad and several friends would tell you the SEC walks into the season posting about a +8 bonus in rankings. They wold say the Big 10 is right there with them and then probably 60 to 70% of that bonus applies to the Big 12. I only hear a chirp here and there on the PAC 10 or ACC.

I try to assure them the bias is there but not that bad. I do think the SEC gets a bonus, but it is probably 3 to 4 ranking spots going in. That is the SEC bonus...then you have general darlingism, and what they did last year bonus (which you have to have some to seed) and I think in the end you get a Bama, Florida, and LSU that may get 7 to even 9 or 10 plus-ups.

But hey, the big East likely enjoyed a plus 3 or 4 bonus a couple of years. WVU, Rutgers, Louisville all up there with UConn and Pitt getting some notice too...so it just takes a few years of several teams gettig attention to create that chili. But year-upon-year, the ACC, Big East, and the PAC-10 hover around the flat line for a bonus with some oscillations into the -2 to plus 3 or 4 here and there. The ACC probably got a plus 3 or 4 last year from some synergies and teams returning to form. (Voters often get acceleration confused with velocity.) I don't have the time or the deep care to look it up, but I wonder how well the "Loved 3" have stacked up against the "Other 3" in bowls over the last 4 to 6 years???

Now this is all fine, and I could not be convinced it is not true as I have pondered far too long, and evidence is not going bubble up new exhibits any time soon. BUT, lets all calm down a little bit before we as CFB loving crowd put ourselves through some pigskin, fall passion! Boise State and TCU can not cry foul very loudly. Temple could schedule a WVU and ECU next year to go with their normal schedule and go undefeated in conference play and I'd bet you a pile of money they wold be ranked no higher than 7th or 8th. Braking through the Top 5 ceiling is an achievement all by itself and that is not lost on me! Boise State and TCU are by no means without their due...is it full, probably not but we are down to what is now a spot or 2...not bad. I'd say they have equaled the WVUs, Pitts, UCLAs, Missouris, and Clemsons on this long vaunted grid iron of due. Not bad my friends, not bad at all!

If you really wanted to see clarity, get the opening schedules changed. Start conference play week 2 and move many of those OOC games to week 6 through 8. This would go along way. Right now people like to excuse away the first 2 to 3 weeks by week 7 to 10. (But some of this is deserving, as things do change...but humans are given to hyperbole and great extrapolation.)

[Vileborg]

Computers only do what we tell them to do. So a computer poll is an estimation of someones opinion of what should define a top team. Also computers are incapable of seeing the circumstances of the human element. They are incapable of seeing that Florida State usually plays physical football and that another team doesn't fair well in physical games. They are incapable of knowing that Steve Spurrier is one heck of a game caller and schemer. They can't compensate for an injured player or a coach leaving or having a heart attack. They can't look into the past and say this team is more powerful than their schedule dictates, and they will never replace the prime director, the human element, the people.

Computers are a tool and should be treated as such. They can keep us grounded but if we base our ideas and opinions solely on their data then we are only emulating the person who programmed them. We are only advocating their estimation of the best team, and not being of our own mind and having our own opinion.

As far as the BCS is concerned. Failure to enable a team to play for the National Championship or to have an avenue to play for the national championship is a monopoly. Boise St. has been asked to prove they belong and they've done it. They've played by rules that didn't benefit them and from everything I've seen they've been gracious and patient with a system that is not made to be accommodating.

It is time to deliver the goods. It is time to pay out for the lottery thats been offered. Boise St. has had to do more than any other program in the country for longer than any other program in the country. They've done more than we have asked of anybody and they've done it graciously. It is time for all the naysayers out there to put the bias behind them. To be gracious in acceptance and to join the party in welcoming Boise St. to the national table.

There is still football to play and they still have to take care of business. Even if they make the title game they still have to play the best of the best for the title. Getting there does not guarantee victory but it's time for them to have a chance.

[Spence]

If a computer poll had the exact formula to compare and rank teams, it couldn't do it because they don't have enough information to use it. That is the problem as I see it. Not that human polling isn't as bad, they don't have enough info either.

[billybud]

As far as the BCS is concerned. Failure to enable a team to play for the National Championship or to have an avenue to play for the national championship is a monopoly. Boise St. has been asked to prove they belong and they've done it. They've played by rules that didn't benefit them and from everything I've seen they've been gracious and patient with a system that is not made to be accommodating

What has Boise done this year to have them ranked ahead of Auburn?

or ahead of LSU?

or ahead of Oklahoma?

Boise did beat VT by three points in the waning minutes of the first game of the season...beat up on a bunch of pansies...and beat Oregon State (now 3-3) who might end up to be not bowl eligible (although I suspect they will be 6-6).

Sympathy is one thing...but other teams, right now, are as deserving, and maybe more so.

[donovan]

As if deserving was ever a consideration in College Football.....

Boise is in the wrong Division...along with 60 some odd other teams. We need an Elitist Division. One that is above all others, one that exudes honesty, integrity and forthrightness. Programs like the SEC, PAC 10, ACC and the Big Ten, Twelve, Twenty-eight, whatever number they decide upon. These are the programs I am talking about, the ones that define opposition as better than the fodder of the lower echelons. Programs that have athletes of superior strength, speed and power, that excel in the academics in the institutions that are a cut above all others in racial equality, opportunity, providing great educational opportunities for the schools of their states in the elementary and secondary institutions. Conferences that are not of faint heart, but noble spirits, ones that in the heat of battle never choose neutrality. Ones that when they finally achieve their exalted status of grandeur,they can be seen by the unfortunate mutants of nature wishing they were not creatures of lesser gods. Those that when their status of apotheosis is achieved, they can proclaim, "Free at last, free at last, thank god, we are free at last."

[billybud]

I believe that you are right.

We have teams that are tested week in and out...and others who are not. And that leads to inequity.

But...you did not answer my question...what has Boise done this year to warrant being ranked over LSU or Auburn?

Not that I don't buy it for now...the computers have Boise #1...so why shouldn't we?

[donovan]

I believe that you are right.

We have teams that are tested week in and out...and others who are not. And that leads to inequity.

But...you did not answer my question...what has Boise done this year to warrant being ranked over LSU or Auburn?

Not that I don't buy it for now...the computers have Boise #1...so why shouldn't we?

They should not be ranked over LSU or Auburn. Their schedule does not present the same challenge as those teams.

But to answer your question....they have won all their games...which everyone knew they would play before the start of this season and still allowed them to be in the fray.....That would be my only justification...do I think they are the best team in the country...I am not giving away all my inner thoughts...

PS..I will have my list to you this evening...I have an invitation for lunch and well...as screwed up as I might be...I have that priority right.

[billybud]

I'll agree with it, of course...as long as you have FSU at #19...Oregon in the top 3, and Boise in the top 3....and no wild stuff like Nevada in the top 5.

[Cane from the Bend]

LOL, in the end there has to be a solution, right?

This is America. This is what the Antitrust Laws were written for when it comes to following the money.

US regulating or opposing trusts, monopolies, cartels, or similar organizations, esp in order to prevent unfair competition

My point is the controversy of the entire BCS system is about to change it all. If all the money that was generated by the BCS went to and was distributed to the benefit of all colleges and Universities it would maybe make a difference. But because the stated purpose of the BCS in the first place is largely based on the consideration of financial reward if one belongs to this select AQ group - regardless of talent, then it hinges on the possibility of antitrust charges being brought to "bust" it up. That is why every step has to be "micro-managed" to avoid even the appearance of unfair trade (revenues) advantages to this select group (BCS members) Cartel.

This is also why more and more bowls are being added because the BCS keeps trying to fog the situation by pointing out that anyone can have a bowl. But now, more than ever ebefore, parity of talent is starting to creep into the occasion and ruining everything for everbody (who supports the cartel). Unfortunately the party is over and the talent comes from everywhere -- not just the confines of the sweaty locker rooms of the BCS.

In the end, I suspect some form of playoff system will emerge as well as a different distribution system of financial booty to the victors.

"Show Me The Money" has been replaced by "Follow The Money".

The problem with that argument, is the assumption that the monopoly is centered around the national championship game, itself.

But it isn't.

The BCS pays out to anyone who accomplishes a bid into one of the BCS games. A 50/50 split, regardless of the conference. The program will pull $9 million.

Boise St has accomplished this feat. More than once to, boot.

Antitrust assumes you are not given that chance to accomplish a goal of $$$ generated means. And yet that has not been the case, as other programs outside of the BCS conferences can claim said achievement along side of Boise St ( e.g. Utah & TCU ).

As such, the BCS to separate itself financially is the only way to show this is the case... whereas having an Automatic Qualifying field may show considerable bias, it does in fact offer a solution for those schools who are not, which is, win your way in.

The National Championship itself does not fall into this monopoly, as, it is not outside of the BCS financial system.

The money is there, for those who qualify to get their share.

Boise State, TCU, and Utah all have gotten their share. What they do with that share is upto the programs who achieve it, and the rules of consignment as agreed to by their conference contract.

This does not show any sort of Fairtrade breach. It would only be so; if the National Championship entitlement, were a separate entity free from the BCS trade market value. Which it is not.

.

.

.

[donovan]

I'll agree with it, of course...as long as you have FSU at #19...Oregon in the top 3, and Boise in the top 3....and no wild stuff like Nevada in the top 5.

Well... I am not putting Florida State at 19... you and Spence....want to lay low in the bushes and then pounce.....You get into the melee...Be in the spotlight...stand up and be counted.....

[Spence]

I believe that you are right.

We have teams that are tested week in and out...and others who are not. And that leads to inequity.

But...you did not answer my question...what has Boise done this year to warrant being ranked over LSU or Auburn?

Not that I don't buy it for now...the computers have Boise #1...so why shouldn't we?

I don't believe we need another division. Even if we did half of those teams would move into the " fodder" category. There will always be teams better than the others. Most will be the same teams, some won't. People would still say those teams aren't good enough.

I guess, though, we could kick out Duke, Indiana, Vandy, Baylor, Arizona, ------ fodder like that--- and let all the big boys beat each other. Probably wouldn't be much money in it. Because when it comes right down to it, most of the elite teams in CFB play 3 or 4 teams a year that can beat them. The second tier teams play about five that can beat them. All the rest from all the teams are the teams those guys beat. College football isn't anything like the NFL, that is parity.

[billybud]

It isn't just having a fodder team in the conference...it's having a whole schedule full of it that makes for an inequity. For having Vandy in conference, you also have games against Bama, Arkansas, Auburn, Ole Miss, etc...for Duke, you also have games against Virginia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, etc.

For Indiana, you have Ohio state, iowa..etc, etc.

Using Massey's current power index...Top 50...The SEC has three teams in the current Top 8, all having a round robin with each other. And seven teams in the Top 50.

The ACC has seven teams in the Top 50...the Big Ten has six...the Wac has two. That is the difference.