BCS Mess

Are you assuming that Arkansas is going to lose the SEC and on what do you base that assumption? Two losses in the regular season?

Joseph Botwinick

 

You are correct.

 

The Hogs will fall so far down in the BCS standings when they come out tomorrow that even if they defeat Florida 52-0 they won't jump past Michigan if USC loses to UCLA next week.

 

I know that. But, why is there the automatic assumption they are going to lose next weekend? They will still go to a good bowl game which makes me happy enough for this year. There is also no reason to automatically assume they can't beat Florida.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I think that Jack was just dealing with the idea of Florida winning as they are still close enough to make it interesting in the BCS standings if they cream the Hogs and UCLA beats USC.

 

I think it will be Ohio State-USC.

I see Florida losing to Arkansas in the SEC game, so the point is moot...but...if they absolutely destroyed the hogs, then they might have a chance if USC loses to UCLA. Aside from a blowout, though, I don't think they could even dream of passing Michigan. And they may not have a chance even with a blowout, due to Arkansas' loss to LSU.

I really hope USC gets left out. I'm hoping for a OSU-Michigan game to destroy the integrity of the BCS. Unfortunately, ND didn't come through .

 

I would like to see Florida crush Arkansas and USC get by UCLA by the 'skin of their teeth', then Michigan play Ohio St. in the CG. I think this would produce the most lashing of the BCS. Realistically, I think Florida will beat, but not 'crush,' Arkansas and that USC will beat UCLA by about 10 points, and it will be USC/Ohio St., with still plenty of BCS flak.

 

I think as long as USC simply defeats UCLA that they will be in the BCS championship game.

At this point the most realistic chance at a playoff is the one I heard Chris Landry discuss on Fox Sports Radio last night - the top four teams in the BCS poll play in two of the BCS bowls and then the two winners play in the BCS championship game. That way only two teams play an extra game beyond what the college presidents currently allow.

 

If SC loses and UF wins then it becomes a matter of the polls. The computers should be pretty good to UF with quality wins against UT, Ark (assuming), and LSU. FSU stinking this year really hurt them.

Hopefully, the voters will either realize that a UM/OSU rematch proves absolutely nothing about who the best team in the country is and put UF in... and I'll repeat that I despise UF. More likely though, "ant think" will put UM in. Only a few talking heads have popped up to say a rematch would prove nothing other than one team or the other is the best team in the Big 10.

 

It's probably true that unless USC loses to UCLA it's going to be USC/OSU. Even if USC looks dominated and luck it out at the end. Anti-BCSsers should root for UCLA, even if (as myself) reluctantly.

Only partly in line with this thread .... at least this will be the last week of college football obsession, till that big bowl week, for those who watch all they can, as I do. Our church is putting on a Christmas pageant later this week, Wednesday through Saturday; I am only available to be in it FRI and SAT, but I still didn't sign up for it, in spite of the need for more men, basically because of my football/couch potato way of life on autumn weekends.

 

It's going to be a tough sell to limit the BCS to just conference champs:

1. You'd have to make an exception for Notre Dame. How many more exceptions will the rest of the CFB world tolerate?
2. The conferences without championship games (notably, the Big 10 and Pac 10) will cry foul. They'll argue that a team could be worthy of a slot with one loss (who didn't play their champ) since neither conf mandates everyone play each other. Or, if you have two teams (or more) who tie for the conf crown, then who is your champ? The tie-break winner? That's what we need: more "it wasn't settled on the field" nonsense.
3. The conferences WITH championship games will cry foul. They'll point to the fact that their divisonal runners-up (by a loss or by tie-break) would be automatically shut out of a title shot, while an inferior conference champ from the weak __________ conference has a shot.

 

So Tom, how in the world can anyone argue that said team is the best team in the country if they are not even the best team in their conference? It makes no sense.

Conference championships are still played by the teams taht win their respective divisions. Pac 10 and Big 10 teams can either change their conference or deal with it. Conference champions have always been decided by a tie break and this should be no exception.

Divisional runners up are just that ... runners up ... and runners up don't get to play for the championship. They already lost to the team that gets to represent their conference.

If you want an exception, perhaps make one for an undefeated team that didn't play the conference champion. But if they have a loss, they are out.

But this year is plainly obvious taht Michigan is disqualified. They didn't win their conference when they knew that winning that game was their ticket to play for a national championship.

Talking about not having it settled on the field, what do you think the polls are? Those aren't on the field. They are the concoctions of people's heads.

 

This year UT was a one-loss team until Ainge went down having lost only to UF by one point. Let's say hypothetically that UF had gone on to lose to FSU and then the championship... while UT had beaten LSU and Arkansas convincingly.

Now, would they not have at least as strong of an argument as any one loss conference winner?

Conferences without CG's should either get them or else conferences with them should be rewarded for playing an extra game against a high quality opponent.

 

Actually, Chris Landry went on to say he could see a playoff expanding to six teams with the top two teams getting a bye.

 

Scott gave one hypothetical. Another would be a team in a conference that plays an unbalanced schedule. Team A plays an easier route and goes 6-0 in conference. Team B plays a harder conference schedule and goes 5-1. The two teams didn't meet. Team A gets the nod. Fair?

Yeah, I really see the NCAA telling them that The two conferences have too much clout. They will only change when its in their best (read, fiscal) interests to do so.

Yeah, and the Big Ten has as one of its tie breakers the team that most recently one a conference title is eliminated. Say, Wisconsin won it in 98 and Ohio State won it in 2001, and Wisc + OSU are tied, then Wisc gets the tie-break. How is that fair? And in the SEC, didn't it come down to a coin toss a few years ago to decide a divisional rep in the title game?

Again, exceptions will be the backbreaker here.

I don't disagree.

I can live with this, but it's a long time from Aug/Sept to Nov, and sometimes teams improve. Sometimes teams worsen. I guess it's like in college basketball with conferences without tournaments. Should a loss in January kill you for March? No, but should it affect you? Yes, because it's on the schedule.

Agreed again.

 

I still believe a 12 team playoff is best with the top four getting byes. However, I could live with just about anything that includes at a minimum the top four teams over and against what we have now.

 

Top 12 would be great. I would like to see at least an 8 team playoff, but I would settle for 4.

 

This looks like 2004 all over again. It would be worse if Florida hadn't lost to Auburn. You could be looking at one-loss Michigan and USC still ahead of unbeaten Florida.

The SEC can't catch a break. The teams don't play a strong non-conference schedule since the conference itself is so brutal.