It's complete crap that a 2-loss team like Iowa/Penn State/Okie State will automatically get into those games over undefeated teams like TCU/Boise/Cincy.
I don't think you could design a worse system if you tried.
Printable View
It's complete crap that a 2-loss team like Iowa/Penn State/Okie State will automatically get into those games over undefeated teams like TCU/Boise/Cincy.
I don't think you could design a worse system if you tried.
That's OkSt damnit! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyMac
Quote:
Originally Posted by IcSyU
Hey I'm just going with what they give me. :wink:
http://blog.newsok.com/thepetshow/files/2009/08/osu.jpg
None of those teams will get in over Cincy if Cincy is undefeated. As it stands today, none of those teams will get in over one of TCU or Boise if they're undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by bawbie
I don't really like the only 1 non-AQ team rule, but it makes sense when a team like Hawaii is the best non-AQ and gets absolutely plastered by Georgia.
This system is much better than what they used to do to determine a National Champ, still sucks, but certainly better because you at least get 1 v 2 at the end of the year.
I love the bowl games as they are, but situations like this are indeed unfair. But until someone else pays the bills for the bowl games, I can't blame them for favoring teams with the huge fan followings and, in Penn State's case, high TV ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by bawbie
If I had to meet expenses and please all of my sponsors as a bowl director, I'd do the same thing.
All 3 of those teams will Automatically get in above any of those 2 loss teams. However once you make it into the BCS pool, that doesn't mean you get chosen first by the bowls themselves. Which is why the Fiesta, since it will most likely lose Texas will be the likely destination for a big school with a large national following. Leaving the other bowls to use their At-Large spots on Cinci or Pitt (which is in the Big East and gets and auto-bid) and TCU and Boise St. who get in because the meet the new requirement of being above a certain BCS rank (I believe it is #8 but don't quote me on that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by bawbie
Ah, I wasn't aware of that new rule. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Clones33
You have to be #16 or higher to even be considered (see Illinois' Rose Bowl...) and only 1 non-AQ team a year can play in a BCS bowlQuote:
Originally Posted by Clones33
Personally if it were up to me, I absolutely love having the best two teams play eachother every year. I just think that half the time we don't have a concrete answer as to who the best two teams are. I would go back to the old bowl system, and then have a +1 bowl, you could still even call it the BCS Bowl and have the teams that make it past their bowls play eachother 2 weeks after Jan 1, which used to be the best sports day of the year.
You get to keep the meaningless money making bowls, and its sort of like a mini-playoff system that will knock out most of the problems that the existing system has. It is still entirely possible that there would be 3 or 4 undefeated teams after the bowls, but not nearly as likely.
Actually I think they only have to take one Non-AQ per year. They could take both if they wanted to and leave other at large big boys out. Not sure if they will want to though. TCU and BSU don't have large fan bases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bader
TCU deserves a shot in my opinion.
You are correct about the 1 non-AQ. Which means, there is a very strong possibility of Boise playing at home against a BigXII team come December.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bader
That won't matter when it comes to whomever gets picked between the two, and even that scenario won't happen unless Ok. State loses to Oklahoma.Quote:
Originally Posted by IcSyU
I did find it interesting to hear him compare having to pick a team from the Big East to having to pick some non-major. Nobody wants a Big East team in their bowl game.
I find it hard to believe there is now a rule that states something along the lines ofQuote:
Originally Posted by cyhiphopp
"The BCS must include one Non-AQ team per year".
They may well have removed the only one Non-AQ per year stipulation, but I do not believe the reverse is true. Not only would that eliminate the idea of a Non Automatic Qualifier, but it sets up for some possibly horrible bowl games.
I sure wouldn't want them if I was a bowl director - they've averaged just 37,500 fans at home this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by LindenCy