BCS Selections

[Drive4cy]

Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, Penn State >>>> Texas A&M, Ok State, K-State, Colorado.

Those are the quality wins for both teams, which are pretty even but I'd say the edge goes to Ohio State for having slightly better wins. The point still stands and Ohio State being ranked so well early probably gives them the edge. Plus they have name recognition, which matters way too much IMO.

[ISUFan22]

Originally Posted by isufbcurt

Spring practice at ISU is on Mon, Wed, Fri, & Sat for a total of 15 practices (including the spring game) not a real big time commitment or distraction.

That was then. Now, the schedule may be the same now.

But judging from comments we heard all off-season...the spring/summer workouts were anything but a small or even moderate commitment.

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

So? Suck it up. Travel to the mainland. Even if it's just one big non-conference road game a year. You don't hear Kent State or UNI whining because ISU won't go there and they have to play two road games. You do what you have to do. Don't say "nobody will play us" when that's simply not true.

Why should teams such as Hawaii, Boise St, Utah, TCU, etc. - always have to be the ***** of the BCS teams? Because they're BCS teams and they shouldn't be required to travel? That's BS IMO. The same stupid thing happens in MBB - big schools refuse to play the little schools because there's nothing to gain and everything to lose. They then further go on to say that little school shouldn't be given the same opportunities that big school should get simply because little school didn't "play anybody." It screams hypocrisy and nobody will do anything about it because of the all-powerful dollar. Personally, I love the idea of one sports writer (I forget who it is and who he writes for) about cherry-picking Hawaii, Boise St, Fresno St, Nevada, (WAC schools) Utah, New Mexico, BYU, Colorado St, Air Force, Wyoming, TCU, and UNLV (MWC schools), and merging them into a new BCS conference that the rest of the BCS schools will have to deal with. (Why do you think that the other 5 conferences want to de-certify the Big East's standing as a BCS conference so badly? They don't want to have to deal with them, either - more money for the big boys).

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

You're comparing WAC teams to Big 10 teams. Boise and Hawaii are decent in the WAC. Fresno is tolerable, but the REST of that conference is HORRIBLE. UNLV is 2-10 this year. 2 and freaking 10. If you're resting on the fact that you crushed a 2 win team at home as justification that your schedule is "ok", you've got a pretty weak argument.

That exact statement can be said of the Big 10 just by changing the names of the schools and changing one record:

Ohio St (Boise) and Michigan (Hawaii) are decent in the Big 10. Illinois (Fresno) is tolerable, but the REST of that conference is HORRIBLE. Minnesota is 1-11 this year. 1 and freaking 11. If you're resting on the fact that you crushed a 1 win team on the road as justification that your schedule is "ok", you've got a pretty weak argument.

[wonkadog]

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

OK, let's put an 8 team playoff together. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the 6 BCS conferences get their champions in. This is probably pretty logical, since there is no way a playoff will happen without at LEAST that happening. That leaves 2 at-large bids. So far you have LSU, USC, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and Ohio State. Now, how can you NOT put Hawaii in there as the only undefeated team? This means that Georgia, Arizona State, Missouri and Kansas are all fighting for one spot. I don't see any of their resumes being any more or less impressive than the other. How do you decide there? Someone deserving of that spot will get left out. Georgia could well be the hottest team in the nation, but won't have a chance to play for the national championship.

Everyone in favor of a playoff, including me, would say, "Hey, at least we're arguing over who is the 8th best team in the country and we aren't arguing over who the National Championship should be given to." Can't you "bowls should stay forever" people see that it's waaaay better to have an argument over the last team into a tournament bracket rather than debating who the 2 teams are that should somehow get to play for the championship?

As for the teams not getting to "enjoy and relax" during their week at a bowl game, here's the solution. You keep every single bowl game and still invite teams to all the bowls as well. The final 4 teams are decided in early December and then the 4 teams that lost out in the 1st/2nd rounds of the playoffs are eligible to go to bowl games as well. It's not that complicated is it?

[ISUFan22]

Sadly, it is that "complicated" (aka tradition wins) - otherwise the system would exist.

[isufbcurt]

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

That was then. Now, the schedule may be the same now.

But judging from comments we heard all off-season...the spring/summer workouts were anything but a small or even moderate commitment.

Chances are it is the same because the NCAA limits how many practices a team is allowed to have during the spring. The NCAA also limits the off-season workout schedule.

So while the workouts may be more intense (lots of extra running to weed people out (Mac did this when he got to ISU)), they are probably not any more time consuming than before.

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

Sadly, it is that "complicated" (aka tradition wins) - otherwise the system would exist.

It's only "complicated" because the conferences haven't figured out that they could probably milk this cash cow much greater than they can the traditional system. But what some don't realize is the conferences could care less about the "tradition" of the current system - they just know how much money they can make off of it and they're to pathetic to try something that very well could be much better in the long run.

[Ficklone02]

Originally Posted by cardinal&gold

Because, lest you forget, Ohio State plays in the Big Ten, who--if I'm not mistaken--are all direct descendants of Jesus Christ.

I think it does make a difference that OSU won there conference. There is a certain stigma with voting a team in the championship game when they haven't even won there own conference. Nebraska is the only team that comes to mind that overcame this.

[isufbcurt]

Originally Posted by Ficklone02

Nebraska is the only team that comes to mind that overcame this.

And we all know what the Canes did to them, lol. Right Fick. lol

[cyclonenum1]

Originally Posted by BvK1126

How do these numbers prove that "VT is not even in the discussion for good reason"? At worst, they're pretty comparable numbers. But what they don't take into account is that Virgina Tech's losses came to two good teams, and LSU's came to two teams that finished in the second division of their conference. Why should LSU be rewarded for playing down to their competition?

The one thing I don't understand is why LSU fans put such a fine point on their two losses being in triple overtime as opposed to "regulation" losses. Check out the won-lost column. They still count as losses. This isn't the NHL. You don't get an extra point in the standings for overtime losses. And frankly, LSU should have been able to put away these two little-more-than-average teams in regulation time.

All LSU had to do to secure the BCS title game without controversy was to beat an Arkansas team with a losing conference record in Death Valley, and they couldn't get that done. Meanwhile, Virgina Tech won their last 5 games and avenged there only conference loss in the ACC title game. Why should LSU jump over Virgina Tech after an absolute choke-job of a home loss followed by an uninspired win over a Tennessee team that isn't any better than the 4th- or 5th-best team in the conference?

Comparable? LSU 48-VT 7...not too comparable in my book!

Kentucky and Arkansas are not good teams just because they struggled in the killer SEC Conference? Please! They finished 7-5 and 8-4 respectively and both are in bowl games.

I agree that LSU should have beaten both of these teams in regulation but let's not kid ourselves...both teams are above average. UK was ranked very highly when LSU played them at UK and their QB (Woodson) was being talked about as a Heisman candidate. And Arkansas has the best player in the country in McFadden and he had his best day against LSU.

On your last point...you conveniently forget that LSU still had to go play the SEC Championship game...win or lose against Arkansas...If they don't win the SEC Championship...no BCS Championship...even if they did beat Arkansas.

[jumbopackage]

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Why should teams such as Hawaii, Boise St, Utah, TCU, etc. - always have to be the ***** of the BCS teams? Because they're BCS teams and they shouldn't be required to travel? That's BS IMO. The same stupid thing happens in MBB - big schools refuse to play the little schools because there's nothing to gain and everything to lose. They then further go on to say that little school shouldn't be given the same opportunities that big school should get simply because little school didn't "play anybody." It screams hypocrisy and nobody will do anything about it because of the all-powerful dollar. Personally, I love the idea of one sports writer (I forget who it is and who he writes for) about cherry-picking Hawaii, Boise St, Fresno St, Nevada, (WAC schools) Utah, New Mexico, BYU, Colorado St, Air Force, Wyoming, TCU, and UNLV (MWC schools), and merging them into a new BCS conference that the rest of the BCS schools will have to deal with. (Why do you think that the other 5 conferences want to de-certify the Big East's standing as a BCS conference so badly? They don't want to have to deal with them, either - more money for the big boys).



That exact statement can be said of the Big 10 just by changing the names of the schools and changing one record:

Ohio St (Boise) and Michigan (Hawaii) are decent in the Big 10. Illinois (Fresno) is tolerable, but the REST of that conference is HORRIBLE. Minnesota is 1-11 this year. 1 and freaking 11. If you're resting on the fact that you crushed a 1 win team on the road as justification that your schedule is "ok", you've got a pretty weak argument.

Regardless of WHY Hawaii has to go to the big BCS schools, the reality is that they do. The NCAA doesn't dictate scheduling, nor will it ever. The reality of being the small fish in the big pond is that you are going to have to do it. It doesn't make financial sense to Texas to give up a ton of money to subsidize Hawaii, and there is absolutely no incentive for them to do it, when they can schedule a home-and-away with, say, Ohio State.

UNLV isn't even IN the WAC, firstly. That was Hawaii's second best non-conference game. Secondly,if you want to compare Nevada (6-6, Sagarin 96) to Wisconsin (9-3, Sagarin 30), Louisiana Tech (5-7, Sagarin 107) to Penn State (8-4, Sagarin 31) , San Jose St. (5-7, Sagarin 112) to Michigan State (7-5, Sagarin 40), Utah St. (2-10, Sagarin 141) to Purdue (7-5, Sagarin 51), New Mexico St. (4-9, Sagarin 153) to Indiana (7-5, Sagarin 61), and Idaho (1-11, Sagarin 168) to Iowa (6-6, Sagarin 76), feel free. The Big 10 is WAY WAY WAY better than the WAC, and it isn't even remotely close. The Big 10 is 5-4 against BCS conference teams. The WAC is 2-15 (Fresno State over K-State, and Hawaii over Washington).

Originally Posted by wonkadog

Everyone in favor of a playoff, including me, would say, "Hey, at least we're arguing over who is the 8th best team in the country and we aren't arguing over who the National Championship should be given to." Can't you "bowls should stay forever" people see that it's waaaay better to have an argument over the last team into a tournament bracket rather than debating who the 2 teams are that should somehow get to play for the championship?

As for the teams not getting to "enjoy and relax" during their week at a bowl game, here's the solution. You keep every single bowl game and still invite teams to all the bowls as well. The final 4 teams are decided in early December and then the 4 teams that lost out in the 1st/2nd rounds of the playoffs are eligible to go to bowl games as well. It's not that complicated is it?

I don't think that it is at all. Tournaments determine who the best team in the tournament is. If you don't actually have the best teams in the tournament, they are no more a legitimate champion than what we currently have.

[CYEATHAWK]

I don't think it would be a stretch to say that today the coaches, players and fans at UNI would give their eye teeth to have the BS-CS formula. At least then they would have had a chance to lose in the title game.

[IcSyU]

Originally Posted by wonkadog

Everyone in favor of a playoff, including me, would say, "Hey, at least we're arguing over who is the 8th best team in the country and we aren't arguing over who the National Championship should be given to." Can't you "bowls should stay forever" people see that it's waaaay better to have an argument over the last team into a tournament bracket rather than debating who the 2 teams are that should somehow get to play for the championship?

As for the teams not getting to "enjoy and relax" during their week at a bowl game, here's the solution. You keep every single bowl game and still invite teams to all the bowls as well. The final 4 teams are decided in early December and then the 4 teams that lost out in the 1st/2nd rounds of the playoffs are eligible to go to bowl games as well. It's not that complicated is it?

Ok, scrap 8 bowl games and make it a 16 team playoff. Give the #1 and #2 seeds a should-be cakewalk game in the first round. Give each team a week off after the season is done, so this year, they'd get this weekend off, and play the next 5 weeks. Play games on the Saturdays, so you'd have games on the 15th, 22nd, 29th, January 5th, and if you wanted to push off the title game, you could have it on January 14th. One week isn't going to kill two teams.

You could possibly even take the teams eliminated in the first round and give them a bowl tie in if a bowl game is really that important for some people, which would be more $$$$$$ for the NCAA, and that's all they care about. One thing I absolutely HATE about the bowls is the fact that they apparently need a month to practice for. During the season, getting ready in a week isn't terribly difficult, but once those bowl games roll around, we need at least a month. If the length of the season mattered to anyone involved in the NCAA, they wouldn't put a month and change between the end of the regular season and bowl season. The only legitimate excuse I can see is that they don't want kids skipping finals to go watch bowl games, but even then, they could EASILY shorten bowl season by a week.

[ISUFan22]

Originally Posted by CYEATHAWK

I don't think it would be a stretch to say that today the coaches, players and fans at UNI would give their eye teeth to have the BS-CS formula. At least then they would have had a chance to lose in the title game.

Sure, because it suits them this year. But what about when they were runner-ups and not one of the top-ranked teams?

LSU and OSU seems just fine with today's scenario. But what about say next year, if one of these two finishes 3rd and is on the outside looking in? I'll bet their views would change.

[BvK1126]

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

Comparable? LSU 48-VT 7...not too comparable in my book!

Kentucky and Arkansas are not good teams just because they struggled in the killer SEC Conference? Please! They finished 7-5 and 8-4 respectively and both are in bowl games.

I agree that LSU should have beaten both of these teams in regulation but let's not kid ourselves...both teams are above average. UK was ranked very highly when LSU played them at UK and their QB (Woodson) was being talked about as a Heisman candidate. And Arkansas has the best player in the country in McFadden and he had his best day against LSU.

On your last point...you conveniently forget that LSU still had to go play the SEC Championship game...win or lose against Arkansas...If they don't win the SEC Championship...no BCS Championship...even if they did beat Arkansas.

Try all you want to "pretty up" LSU's losses, but those are two games that a legitimate championship contender should not lose. It's not just the quality of the opponents (who may have been "good" teams by somebody's reckoning, but were hardly excellent competition), it's the timing -- especially the Arkansas game. I'm not saying a late loss should automatically disqualify a team from playing for the BCS title, but a late loss at home to a team with a losing conference record? In my opinion, that should disqualify you. And who cares if LSU got beat by "the best player in the country" (which is a debatable label to apply to McFadden). Last time I checked, football was a team game, and McFadden alone doesn't elevate Arkansas to "great team" status. Based on your justification for LSU's loss, maybe we should put Darren McFadden by himself in the national title game. Heck, he deserves it for single-handedly beating "the best team in the country" on their home field!

Yes, Virginia Tech lost to LSU, but at least Virginia Tech's two losses were against highly-ranked teams instead of conference also-rans. And they also finished strong with five straight wins.

I stand by my comment that the media, the coaches, and the pollsters wanted LSU in the championship game over several other equally-deserving (or, for that matter, undeserving) teams. There's no other explanation for a team going from #1 in the polls, to losing at home to a team with a sub-.500 conference record, to #7 in the polls, to struggling to beat the fourth- or fifth-best team in their conference in the title game, to #2 and back in contention for a national title.

How was LSU's sloppy win in the SEC title game more impressive than Oklahoma's dominant victory over #1-ranked Missouri in the Big 12 championship? Obviously, you feel that it is justified that LSU leap-frogged five teams in the polls after the unimpressive win over Tennessee. Why shouldn't Oklahoma have vaulted all the way to #2? They were much more impressive in beating the top-ranked team than LSU was in beating Tennessee. Is their a magical cut-off where jumping from #7 to #2 is acceptable, but jumping from #9 to #2 isn't?

You suggested the following formula for a team making it to the BCS title game:

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

I think the messages are clear:

1) play a tougher non-conference schedule (at least one of the games)

2) win your conference

3) if you lose...don't get blown out or lose to pathetic teams

Doesn't Oklahoma fit those criteria every bit as well as LSU does? What makes LSU a more deserving title game participant other than the media and pollster's season-long belief that LSU is the most talented team in the country, and their desire to be proven right despite LSU continually stumbling in the clutch?