BCS' Changes

[colorado_loves_football]

I have been saying this from the start. But how do you judge who is competitve? Who is to say that the MAC champ wouldn't be competitive in the BCS? That is why SOS is so important. If you win 12 games, but you don't play at least a couple of games against top competition, should you be judged ahead of a team that played 3-5 games against top competition and lost one?

With respect to 'access' I'm not convinced SOS addresses that issue fairly.
As recently as 2003, a MAC school, Miami, OH, played sufficiently well to be included in a BCS pairing. But as with TCU this year, they were overlooked in favor of a more 'traditional' team, Ohio State. Even a Liberty Bowl pairing would have been a fair 'compromise', had say Miami (OH) and Boise State both been selected.
What might work is allowing the Liberty Bowl to serve as the 'fifth' bowl, thereby giving more teams 'access' in the BCS, while honoring the BCS in it's selections.

[Spence]

I think they should give the highest ranked mid-major a spot in the BCS for five years and match them up with the highest ranked non-championship BCS team. This year that would have been Penn St. If they can prove after five years that they can be competitive, then we could change the over-all system to include more mid-major champs. That would prove one way or the other whether or not the mid-majors can compete for the big game.

[mountainman]

Hmmm ....

It certainly appears that the BCS (e.g. conference commissioners) is satisfied with the selection process as it stands with the Harris Poll, Coach's Poll and the six computer polls. There was no 'tweaking' this year and in fact the Coach's Poll has agreed to permit the BCS to use their poll for the next four years. That's the first time that has happened, usually it's a year to year deal. It was reported that the BCS was not ever a topic for discussion at the Coaches Association meeting this year, whereas in was a major top of discussion before.

Not addressing the championship game selection either by tweaking the selection process or implementing the plus 1 format where 4 teams would play in a couple of the BCS bowls and the winners meet a week later seemed to have the momentum for passage. I surmize the commissioners are satisfied with how the championship game team selection process is currently working.

Instead the commissioners decided to add another game in the double hosting format in order to give the bowls more selections, I suppose.

The new format certainly has nothing to do with the championship game. The six conference champions will still earn automatic berths and two additional at-large berths will be made available. Under the qualifying rules, this past season those teams would have been Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oregon, Miami, Auburn, Virginia Tech, and LSU. The BCS standings still determines which teams play for the national title and which teams qualify for a BCS bowl as at-large selection or automatic at-large selection based on regular season performance.

As far as the Notre Dame issue is concerned, I cannot help but wonder if that is a reaction by the BCS to NBC leveraging its TV dollars with the Gator Bowl to change its team selection method (Big East #2 and ACC #2) to include the Irish once every ..... I can't recall the frequency.

[Spence]

As far as the Notre Dame issue is concerned, I cannot help but wonder if that is a reaction by the BCS to NBC leveraging its TV dollars with the Gator Bowl to change its team selection method (Big East #2 and ACC #2) to include the Irish once every ..... I can't recall the frequency.

If they do that the Big East should pull out of the Gator Bowl. The Big East should never have let ND be part of their conference tie in. If they want the benefits of a conference they should join a conference.

[Guest]

I agree with what has been stated with respect to Notre Dame, the $1 million is $1 million more than they were getting before, so they aren't exactly losing out! Secondly, the $4.5 million is money they don't have to share with anyone, no it's not $14 million, like it was this year, but it's money they get exclusively!
It could serve to get them to join a conference, should the 'winner' receive the entire lump sum, but my understanding is the 'cut' is shared, among conference representatives. And when has Notre Dame been a conference in itself? It's not fair.

Your exactly right. It's what I said earlier...They Dont share the money they get in the bowl games like everyone else.

political favoritism.

[Derek]

I agree with what has been stated with respect to Notre Dame, the $1 million is $1 million more than they were getting before, so they aren't exactly losing out! Secondly, the $4.5 million is money they don't have to share with anyone, no it's not $14 million, like it was this year, but it's money they get exclusively!
It could serve to get them to join a conference, should the 'winner' receive the entire lump sum, but my understanding is the 'cut' is shared, among conference representatives. And when has Notre Dame been a conference in itself? It's not fair.

Your exactly right. It's what I said earlier...They Dont share the money they get in the bowl games like everyone else.

political favoritism.

Every time I check this board, I forget to login.

[Spence]

That would stop they mid majors from whinning that they need to be included. It could also shut me and others up if they managed atleast two wins out of the five trys (maybe even one win if you throw in a couple of close loses).

Exactly it would shut all of us up on this topic. Let them in, make them prove the belong. If they do give them access, if they don't kick them back out.

[mountainman]

I'm one of the "not much in between" guys. I don't like or dislike Notre Dame. To me, the Irish are just another college football team. I believe that it is too simple to just cast off issues, such as a TV network exerting influence on which team plays in a particular bowl game, that affect college football as a dislike for one team or another. That's not the case from my perspective. These things have happened and there is nothing suspect or covert about discussing them.

Being an independent as opposed to being a member of a conference makes Notre Dame, just as Army and Navy do, different. Not better and not worse, just different. Being different does not make one special or deserving of special treatment, it just makes one different.

I'm sure the BCS would not have any trouble asking Notre Dame "to go away" as you put it. I hope they don't, because I agree with you that the Irish are good for college football. There are a number of teams that are good for college football and I hope the BCS doesn't decide to ask any of them "to go away". The BCS has done a good job, in my opinion, of including all 119 D-1A schools. For sure, the standards are tough, but they should be and I am hopeful they remain tough. That's one of the beauties of the college game.

[Howdy]

I agree with what has been stated with respect to Notre Dame, the $1 million is $1 million more than they were getting before, so they aren't exactly losing out! Secondly, the $4.5 million is money they don't have to share with anyone, no it's not $14 million, like it was this year, but it's money they get exclusively!
It could serve to get them to join a conference, should the 'winner' receive the entire lump sum, but my understanding is the 'cut' is shared, among conference representatives. And when has Notre Dame been a conference in itself? It's not fair.

Your exactly right. It's what I said earlier...They Dont share the money they get in the bowl games like everyone else.

political favoritism.

Every time I check this board, I forget to login.

Derek I was doing the same thing.
Now I log in before I read any of the comments.

[colorado_loves_football]

The BCS has done a good job, in my opinion, of including all 119 D-1A schools. For sure, the standards are tough, but they should be and I am hopeful they remain tough. That's one of the beauties of the college game.

I don't think anyone can argue that the BCS is 'fair' with respect to how it selects teams. It's the 'sticking' point that prevented the BCS from adopting a 'playoff' format, for ABC.
If it could become fair, then a playoff would likely follow, of BCS teams.
Until that happens, it will likely remain a 'beauty' contest of sorts, rather than an objective 'championship' grouping of teams.
I can compare it to a fine meal, it has the meat and potatoes, but lacks the 'wine' and mint sauce, to make it palatable to the conneiseur.
Next year may worse because the dessert will be served cold, instead of flambe, as we're used to.

[Guest]

I guess I am not getting this discussion. When we talk about the BCS "including everyone" does that mean everyone would have a shot at the National Championship game? or just to get into a BCS bowl? To me if you can't get into the title game, then who cares if it is a BCS bowl? I am for letting the mid-majors have a shot at the BCS.

This discussion has diverged, somewhat from where it began. It began as a discussion of how the BCS selects teams and has become an argument for a playoff.
What I propose is that the BCS be included within a playoff 'format' thereby assuring everyone of a 'concensus' national champion.
This year, the teams selected were outstanding, overall in terms of talent level. Those not selected, by and large, showed they weren't ready for a BCS invitation, although I still would have liked to see Oregon and TCU square off for competitive reasons. This year, I don't believe there was a team outside the BCS that had a legitimate claim on national title, unlike last year.
If the BCS could 'assure' somehow that the 8 teams selected were the 'best' talent-wise there shouldn't be any debate, at all.
To assure that the best teams play for the national title, I think the format has to adapt to allow for it, somehow.
That's why I propose 'qualifying' games for at large teams.
They could even conceivably be played alongside the confernece championship games, if necessary.
Something that would 'assure' that the eight selected by the BCS, is sufficient. The 4 BCS games, followed by two semi-finals, and a championship, would in my opinion, select a 'unanimous' national champion every year, irrespectively.

[Spence]

To me if you can't get into the title game, then who cares if it is a BCS bowl? I guess the money is a factor and that the BCS bowls are the "best" bowls. To me though, there is the Championship and then the rest. I would rather be in the Fiesta bowl than the music city bowl, but if you are not playing for the title it doesn't make a huge difference. Just my 2 cents.

I mostly believe that too. Except getting to play the best team possible will and winning will help you in the next years preseason poll. It is hard to make a championship run if you are not in the top 15 preseason. Other then that they aren't realy different from the rest.

[mountainman]

I can only tell you what the BCS Rules say, and that is:

"All Division 1-A college football teams are eligible for at-large selection provided they meet both of the following requirements:

1. Have won at least nine regular season games.
2. Are among the top 12 teams in the final BCS Standings."

And yes, if two non-BCS conference members are ranked #1 and #2 in the final BCS Standings those two teams will play each other in the national title game.

In the beginning the topic was about the changes the BCS made in going to a "double hosting" format rather than a "plus 1" format and the new rules about the payout for Notre Dame.

We do tend to get 'off topic' on occasion, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Don't you think?

[Spence]

Not bad all the time. It is hard to stay on topic sometimes. We all tend to carry on the same argument from post to post. None is any worse then the other. Right now that is OK, because there are only 32 of us. If 32 runs into 320 it will be more important to follow the topic or it will get messy.

I said I was one of the worst in changing directions. This is a prime example.

[mountainman]

Well, those were the two subjects mentioned in the topic to begin with.

Spence is right in that as the site grows we'll have to be a little more diciplined in where we post.

People have something to say and have strong feelings about some issues or positions.

Notre Dame is a hot topic on occasion as well as the BCS. There are plenty of others, we're just in a little lull right now.