Post-season Play-offs

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence you really aren't telling me anything I dont' already know. I'm aware there are 11 conferences in CFB. It's one reason why I would prefer the WAC and MWC 'reunite' like they did in 1998, it makes the selection process a lot simpler for everyone. Ten conferneces and ten BCS bids, is about as simple as simple gets. A fairly simple and easy 'reconfiguration' of schools, geographially would accomplish my 'goal' of ten major conferences, and do it without altering the 'traditional' format too dramatically.

Former Sun Belt members, Idaho, Utah St, and New Mexico St, are now WAC members. Sun Belt, obviously is still in the development stage.

But, they are also a lot more geographicaly 'appropriate' as is the WAC.
The MWC and WAC occupy basically the same geographical region. A 'reunion' of them, would make more sense now, than in 1998, when they 'separated', partly because of geographical differences. The C-USA wasn't established, then. Now, they occupy a geographical region.
My argument is based upon establishing geographical 'boundaries' and allowing conferences to establish an identity, that ultimately could make the BCS a lot more representative, geographically.

Why is it so hard to accept that the Sun Belt might eventually be a competitive conference? Sure, they probably aren't now, but neither was C-USA at first. And for that matter, neither was Big East, 2004.
Those things don't happen immediately, they take time. N. Texas in 2001 I think it was 'won' the Sun Belt with a 5-7 overall record. This year Arkansas St. won with a 6-5 record, unless I'm mistaken, including conference wins. I'm not saying they are competitive yet, I'm saying they will likely become competitive over time.

The WAC was 'supposed' to be terrible this year, so was C-USA as a result of the 'fallout' of the ACC and Big East 'fiasco'. The reality was, both conferences were likely better, or at least comparable to previous years, and in the case of C-USA an unheralded team won. To imply that was an 'accident' one need only refer to the Liberty Bowl, where Tulsa beat the WAC representative, Fresno St, the team that 'owned' them, as a WAC school. Maybe that doesn't convince you that teams are improving, but it convinces me. Liberty Bowl officials debated about inviting Virgnia instead of Tulsa, but they didn't, because Virginia sucked.
Minnesota losing to Virginia probably showed how much better Tulsa was at the end of the year, than at the beginning. Again, one person's opinon, but based on solid evidence, nevertheless.

The disparity between BCS and 'non-BCS' schools while relevant, isn't as significant as in previous years. The argument doesnt' stop and end on TCU's season. A similar argument can be made for Fresno St, nearly beating USC or Tulsa, beating Fresno St. Those things matter, so i agree with you somewhat that non-conference games matter, but not nearly as much as conference games do, by-and-large. One example:
W. Virgnia. Do you think they would rather have beaten Virginia Tech, and lost to Louisville? Had that happened, they'd still be 10-1, only difference being winning the Big East and not. You might argue they are still 'eligible' for a BCS bid, but it would appear with Oregon in the hunt (and not getting in), that pretty much ruins that argument. W. Virginia won the Big East, 'earned' a BCS bid, and beat Georgia, all pretty much because they beat Louisville a game they had to win to be BCS eligilble.
The Virginia Tech game, while important, from a competitive standpoint, had no bearing, whatsoever on W. Virginia (or Louisville for that matter) 'earning' a BCS bid.
TCU maybe 'earned' a BCS bid had they beaten SMU, but they didn't.
And I think they played well enough, regardless to be selected but weren't. That's how it played itself out. I don't like it, but that's why I prefer an 'alternate' format that awards every conference a representative. That's possible with a few relatively minor modifications to how teams are represented, geographically.
Then the BCS becomes a competitive arrangement, and only one team 'earns' the right to be called national champions. It worked this year, without a playoff, but it almost certainly won't in succeeding years.

Apply my argument to the NCAA's if you want. Two teams, George Mason and Wichita St, are 'guaranteed' a 'bid' to the 'elite' 8, which for all intents and purposes, is what the BCS is. I simply accomplish it, without having to schedule 64 games. My proposal works, for football beause 9 games are sufficient to 'accomplish' the goal of one national champion, a common goal, I assume, for everyone, using a 'field' of ten teams. There's no reason I can think of for not awarding every 'conference' a bid, especially when the 4 'non-BCS' representatives will be required to play an additional game to qualify. I honor BCS tradition, with my proposal. No conference is denied, but 'traditional' BCS conferences occupy the 6 'preferred' positions. Like in the NCAA's Memphis had to beat Bradley (a 'non-BCS' school) to qualify. The other 'bracket' will select one 'non-BCS' representative.
The remaining positions, will be represented by a 'traditional' BCS school, three being UCLA, LSU, and Texas. So, this year more-or-less approximates my proposal, in theory (but obvioiusly not in practice).

[Spence]

Why is it so hard to accept that the Sun Belt might eventually be a competitive conference? Sure, they probably aren't now, but neither was C-USA at first. And for that matter, neither was Big East, 2004.
Those things don't happen immediately, they take time. N. Texas in 2001 I think it was 'won' the Sun Belt with a 5-7 overall record. This year Arkansas St. won with a 6-5 record, unless I'm mistaken, including conference wins. I'm not saying they are competitive yet, I'm saying they will likely become competitive over time.

It is not and if they ever become strong enough I would welcome giving them a chance. Right now they do deserve a seat at the table.

The WAC was 'supposed' to be terrible this year, so was C-USA as a result of the 'fallout' of the ACC and Big East 'fiasco'. The reality was, both conferences were likely better, or at least comparable to previous years, and in the case of C-USA an unheralded team won. To imply that was an 'accident' one need only refer to the Liberty Bowl, where Tulsa beat the WAC representative, Fresno St, the team that 'owned' them, as a WAC school. Maybe that doesn't convince you that teams are improving, but it convinces me. Liberty Bowl officials debated about inviting Virgnia instead of Tulsa, but they didn't, because Virginia sucked.
Minnesota losing to Virginia probably showed how much better Tulsa was at the end of the year, than at the beginning. Again, one person's opinon, but based on solid evidence, nevertheless.

That would be like me saying Ohio State was better then Texas or USC at the end of the year because they got better as the season wore on. Ohio State didn't prove it when they had the chance. You have to prove it. That is why they play the games.

Apply my argument to the NCAA's if you want. Two teams, George Mason and Wichita St, are 'guaranteed' a 'bid' to the 'elite' 8, which for all intents and purposes, is what the BCS is. I simply accomplish it, without having to schedule 64 games. My proposal works, for football beause 9 games are sufficient to 'accomplish' the goal of one national champion, a common goal, I assume, for everyone, using a 'field' of ten teams. There's no reason I can think of for not awarding every 'conference' a bid, especially when the 4 'non-BCS' representatives will be required to play an additional game to qualify. I honor BCS tradition, with my proposal. No conference is denied, but 'traditional' BCS conferences occupy the 6 'preferred' positions. Like in the NCAA's Memphis had to beat Bradley (a 'non-BCS' school) to qualify. The other 'bracket' will select one 'non-BCS' representative.
The remaining positions, will be represented by a 'traditional' BCS school, three being UCLA, LSU, and Texas. So, this year more-or-less approximates my proposal, in theory (but obvioiusly not in practice).

You can't use basketball as an argument. You only have to find 3 good players and 3 decent supporting members to field a good basketball team. with all the really great players going to the NBA after high school it waters down the top tier and creates parity among all schools.

Football requires a lot of really good players to be a top tier team. No player that is NFL caliber can jump to the NL until his third year. Apples, Oranges.

Tell me how you determine the team that gets out in this scenario:

There are 11 conferences in CFB. If your proposal where in place and they picked 10 teams for a play off. The CUSA and the Sun belt had undefeated seasons and won their conferences.(the sunbelt champ beat the national champion 1-AA team) Both played four 1-AA teams out of conference. The other 3 had all lost one game. The MAC champion beat an 3-9 Indiana team, a 10-2 Michigan team and lost to 11-1 Penn St. The WAC beat a 6-6 Wasington St. team, a 8-4 Kansas St. team, and Lost to an 10-2 UCLA team. The Mountain West champ beat 11-1 Oklahoma, 9-3 Nebraska, and lost to 12-0 Florida St. Who gets left out of the play off and why?

[colorado_loves_football]

Tell me how you determine the team that gets out in this scenario:

There are 11 conferences in CFB. If your proposal where in place and they picked 10 teams for a play off. The CUSA and the Sun belt had undefeated seasons and won their conferences.(the sunbelt champ beat the national champion 1-AA team) Both played four 1-AA teams out of conference. The other 3 had all lost one game. The MAC champion beat an 3-9 Indiana team, a 10-2 Michigan team and lost to 11-1 Penn St. The WAC beat a 6-6 Wasington St. team, a 8-4 Kansas St. team, and Lost to an 10-2 UCLA team. The Mountain West champ beat 11-1 Oklahoma, 9-3 Nebraska, and lost to 12-0 Florida St. Who gets left out of the play off and why?

Spence, assuming you are referring to 2003, when N. Texas won the Sun-Belt, I would likely not include them for competitive reasons.
Similarly, I don't think the Liberty Bowl, that year, was necessarily a 'championship' pairing of teams, in Utah and S.Mississippi. So the two teams I would 'prefer' not be represented, that year, are Utah and S. Misssissippi.
That being said, I would have preferred to have given both Boise St, and Miami (OH) 'at large' bids to a 'competitive' BCS, along with Ohio St., and Oklahoma. Since neither team was a confernece 'champion' they would have to play in a 'preliminary' pairing, to select a representative to the BCS. That's the only 'fair' way I can think of that would still give the BCS the 'select' field it deserves. I did imply I would have included both a C-USA member (Memphis) and a Sun-Belt representative (N. Texas) but I later retracted that statement, maybe you missed it.
I want the best teams to be represented, every year, to the BCS. I believe, there have been competitive teams, outside the BCS nearly every year.
In 2004, there were 3 teams 'in the mix' Boise St, Utah, and Louisville, but I mentioned how a 'championship' pairing western representatives would select one team to the BCS. That's why, even this last year, I think a 'championship' pairing TCU against Boise St. was necessary for the Liberty Bowl to be a 'select' pairing of teams. We can both argue the merits (or lack thereof) associated with Tulsa, but they did what they had to do, to get there. UCF had every opportunity to go, and lost. That's how championship games work, someone gets 'shafted', but they were 'rewarded' with a 'championship' pairing with Nevada. Fair trade off.

Sounds like we agree more than we disagree on this subject. Truth be told, more times than not, Ohio St would be included in my 'hypothetical' scenario. I implied that a competitive Sun Belt team would take precendence, but like you said, they would have to show first they belong.
Same argument applies to the MAC, apparently, neither seem to be sufficiently qualifed, presently to occupy a position of 'priority' in the BCS.
Miami (OH) was an exception to that, as was Boise St, that year. Shows, that the Liberty Bowl doesn't always select a 'deserving' representative.

[Spence]

You say the Sunbelt should not be included because they aren't competitive enough. If you are going to base it on conference champions then you have to do it. If you are going to base it on strength of the teams then you have to do it. You can't pick and choose when strength matters and when it doesn't.

I don't mind taking away all automatic bids if there were systematic scheduling to be able to fair assess all teams, but if they don't use systematic scheduling then it would be impossible to tell for sure who are the best teams. That is why the traditionally strong conferences get an automatic bid. otherwise teams like West Virginia(this year) would be unfairly left out because the conference over all strength is down.

If you are setting up a system to find out who are the best teams, then you can not base it on anything other then the strength of the teams involved. You can't use it when it fits your needs and abandon it when it doesn't.

Rolltide is right that adding the 5th game takes some of the luster off the BCS bowls and turns them back into what they were before. It does however allow the schools to share in another 17 million to operate the athletic departments.

[colorado_loves_football]

I never said the Sun Belt 'shouldn't' be included, you are putting words in my mouth, I simply agree with you that for a BCS 'playoff' to work, it needs to have the 'best' teams.
I tried to apply 2003 as a model. That year, N. Texas was competitive.
They played a competitive team, Memphis, in the New Orleans Bowl, and LOST! That was the basis for my not including them, you just don't read, apparently what I write, which is ok.
No, I don't think Memphis 'earned' a BCS bid, they didn't win C-USA, otherwise I might include them, but ONLY if they win the Liberty Bowl.
I haven't 'backtracked' I am simply being honest. Utah also was competitive, but they likely weren't as good as Boise St was, so I likely wouldn't have included them BECAUSE a WAC/MWC 'championship' likely would favor Boise St.
It's possible you don't understand my proposal, and for that I apologize, I probably didn't do a good job outlining it. It includes 'provision' for MAC/Sun Belt when appropriate, but 'guarantees' MWC/WAC a BCS representative, and C-USA in the Liberty Bowl the 'non-BCS' title game.
The other game, Holiday Bowl, can include a MAC and/or Sun Belt representative but only if they are all sufficiently qualified.
It makes a provision for 'competitive' teams, thereby assuring the BCS of the 'best' possible field. If you read my proposal through, you'd understand it. I don't make 'exceptions'. But, in general, neither the Sun Belt, or MAC is generally 'qualified', 2003 being the only exception in recent memory. I might have 'paired' Miami (OH) and N. Texas together, but I thought Boise St. was a more 'qualifed' candidate. It might sound like I'm 'picking & choosing'. I'm not. The problem lies in that the WAC and MWC are still 'separated'. For my proposal to work, they need to be 'reunited', and allow one representative to the BCS.
MAC and Sun Belt need to show they 'deserve' consideration before I make a provision for them. Regardless, I would 'pair' the two best qualified teams in the Liberty Bowl, for BCS selection purposes.
The Fifth Bowl isn't going to take any 'luster' off anyone.
This year it would likely have paired TCU and Oregon together, a competitive pairing of teams. If anything it's a necessary 'addition'. But doesn't mean I like it any better.

[Spence]

Saying that N. Texas was competitive with a marginal team in Memphis proves my point that they didn't belong.

The same going for TCU. SMU is a marginal team and Iowa St. was a marginal team as well. Who was giving props to Iowa St., saying that they should get a BCS bid? No one. To beat your chest over winning against one top 25 team and saying that should make you eligible isn't logical at all.

Your system either included all conference champions without regard to how good they are or it doesn't. You can't say strength is a factor at one point and disregard it at another point. That is the problem with trying to fit a system in with a conclusion already in place. That has also been the big problem with all the changes in the BCS. They keep changing the system with a conclusion in mind to placate the cry babies. You can't start with the conclusion and work backwards. That is why your system is fatally flawed.

[colorado_loves_football]

Saying that N. Texas was competitive with a marginal team in Memphis proves my point that they didn't belong.

The same going for TCU. SMU is a marginal team and Iowa St. was a marginal team as well. Who was giving props to Iowa St., saying that they should get a BCS bid? No one. To beat your chest over winning against one top 25 team and saying that should make you eligible isn't logical at all.

Your system either included all conference champions without regard to how good they are or it doesn't. You can't say strength is a factor at one point and disregard it at another point. That is the problem with trying to fit a system in with a conclusion already in place. That has also been the big problem with all the changes in the BCS. They keep changing the system with a conclusion in mind to placate the cry babies. You can't start with the conclusion and work backwards. That is why your system is fatally flawed.

First of all I never said I thought N. Texas was necessarily a 'deserving' BCS team, I simply thought that their game against Memphis showed they had improved, similar in some respects to how Tulsa did, last year. Had they beaten Memphis, then yes, maybe I would give them some consideration to the BCS, but since I don't work for the BCS it's a moot point.

Now as far as TCU is concerned, I don't make any excuses for their losing to SMU, they lost, and for that reason 'maybe' don't deserve a BCS invitation, last year. But, they went 8-0 MWC, the same MWC that sent a representative to the BCS, in 2004, but admittedly that was an unusual year. Nevertheless, I don't 'disqualify' TCU simply because they lose one non-conference game, to an opponent that has been a thorn in their craw from day#1. TCU was denied their first national title, 1935, due ENTIRELY to SMU beating them. SMU then lost, to Stanford in the Rose Bowl (TCU beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl). SMU won the national championship, their only one to date.

So, it's not a such an unimportant game as you would like it to be, but I digress. You are adding insult to injury by bringing Iowa St into this debate, but sauce for the goose:
Iowa St, has done pretty well against Iowa in recent history. I need only refer to 2002, the year Iowa 'tied' Ohio St for the Big Ten title. That likely kept Iowa out of the Fiesta Bowl, since they never played Ohio St. Iowa St. that year, lost to Boise St, in the Humanitarian Bowl.

This year, Iowa St again showed they were 'better' than Iowa. If Iowa 'sucked' then so did Minnesota, right? Anyway, that's really not my point. Iowa St, nearly won the Big XII N. Division outright, they werent' that bad, and even if they were, they still are a fairly talented team, by most people's standards. It's not easy to beat Nebraska in Lincoln, they almost did! I'm not sure it's that easy to beat Kansas in Lawrence, either, unless you're Texas, but no excuses, Iowa St lost.
They played TCU in the Houston Bowl, rallied from an early 14-pt defiicit to take a 17-14 lead. They did'nt exactly roll-over and die. Maybe they weren't the best opponent, but they were probably the best opponent available for that particular bowl. I, for one am proud of how TCU did.

Oklahoma wasn't a top-25 team they were a top-10 team when they played. You can't quantify it, sorry. They likely were better at the end of the year (I think you implied they were). Anyway, TCU beat them when they were #7, whether or not that was a 'fair' ranking is irrelevant.
When Ohio St. and Texas played they were #2 & #3. Ohio St didn't lose to the 'national champions'. That didn't happen until late in the year.
That's why I disagree with your argument that somehow those games 'determine' who's #1, they do'nt. They have a role in determining it, to be sure. Ohio St would'nt have been national champions by beating Texas, but it would have been a critical step toward that goal. Texas didn't win the national championship until they beat USC, in Pasadena. If nothing else, it selected a 'deserving' champion.

TCU losing to SMU wasn't a 'make-or-break' proposition. SMU likely put all their effort into that one game, if their next game against Texas A&M is any reflection of how good they are. TCU doesn't do that. I'm not that surprised TCU lost, in all honesty. SMU wanted it more. And you can't use that as sufficient evidence that TCU wasn't a 'deserving' BCS representative. They never had the opportunity to show if they were qualified. That's been my argument all along. Then you imply somehow a '5th' bowl makes the BCS 'weaker'. I don't buy into that argument, either. It just doesn't add up. But I guess you have a right to your opinion, such as it is. TCU and Oregon should have been paired together, irrespecitve of the BCS. That they werent' shows how unfair it is. Oklahoma wasn't better than TCU.

[Spence]

Spence your argument has a lot of 'holes'.
Iowa St, is a 'marginal' team? Well they still nearly won the Big XII N. Divisioin, would have, but for two losses to N. Division opponents, both on the road (Nebraka, Kansas).

So what? Even if they win the north it doesn't make them a great team. Colorado proved that.

Then you are also admitting Michigan sucks because they lost to Nebraska. And you have to admit Iowa sucks because they lost to Iowa St. a 'marginal' team from the Big XII N. See, it doesnt' add up.

You may not know much about Buckeye fans, but "admitting" Michigan sucks isn't the hardest thing for us to do.

TCU was a deserving BCS team, last year, no two ways about it.
I know they lost to SMU, they've lost to them many times through their history, as you should already know. SMU won their first (and only) national championship, 1935 by beating TCU. TCU went on to beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl, and SMU lost to Stanford. See, it's not like it never happened before.

When you have to make excuses for a team to prove they belong, they don't.

Even 2003, the year TCU was 'supposed' to be in the BCS, they nearly lost to SMU, a pretty terrible team, if memory serves, but they played them in Dallas, and they have a 'history'. SMU likely puts all their effort into that game, similar I suppose to how Fresno St did against USC, and it almost worked. But then they lost the WAC, so you tell me which is more important? You make a case of OOC games, then somehow try to 'justify' it when it suits your cause.
Apply your argument to 2003. TCU loses one conference game, to S. Mississippi, not only knocking them out of the BCS, but the Liberty Bowl, simultaneously! Then they nearly lose to SMU, the following week.
I, for one think TCU is a lot better than you are admitting. In 2003, they played Boise St, and lost by a missed FG. I do'nt know if TCU 'deserved' a BCS bid. That's really not my call to make, but don't patronize me by telling me how 'great' the system is, when it isn't.

There is a difference between winning a close game and losing a close game. Again more excuses. TCU didn't "deserve" a BCS bid.

Ohio St qualifies nearly every year, regardless of whether they 'deserve' it. 2003, sure they were good, but they didn't win the Big Ten. Tell me how Ohio St goes, and TCU doesn't? Seems to me there's a double standard being applied. Same argument holds 2005.
Ohio St wasn't 'better' than TCU, they simply were ranked higher. I"m not sure they were better than Oregon, either. They showed they were better than Notre Dame, but Notre Dame maybe wasnt' as good as their ranking suggested. Losing to Michigan St, doesn't really impress me, all that much. Anyway, I've said enough. Suffice to say I'm not convinced the BCS does a 'good' job in how it selects teams.

If Ohio State doesn't deserve their BCS bid tell me why they are 4-0 in BCS games. Seems they were at least more deserving then the teams they played, huh.

Again it isn't that hard for me to say ND was over rated. I'm not the biggest ND fan. Losing to Michigan State doesn't impress me much either. Neither does losing to antother unranked team SMU. Apply the same principle and you may start to get it.

[colorado_loves_football]

I had to look up OSU's BCS record, I wasn't aware they went in 1998, but they beat Texas A&M the Big XII champions. That year, Kansas St was 'supposed' to play for the national championship, but lost to Texas A&M.
K-State lost to Purdue in the Alamo Bowl.
OSU was 'co-champions' Big Ten. K-State for all intents and purposes was 'co-champions' with Texas A&M at least until they played. Why is the Big Ten given 'priority' in the BCS? Why should K-State losing a game to Texas A&M a 'deal-breaker', when both teams lost a conference game? It doesn't make sense, unless you are 'convinced' the Big Ten is a 'better' conference than the Big XII, I'm not convinced, personally, but OSU did beat Texas A&M, and K-State lost to Purdue, in the Alamo Bowl.
Anyway, that's yesterday's news. It's likely K-State was over-rated, and that came through in the bowls. So, you win round #1.
2002, Ohio State wins a 'co-championship' along with Iowa, and is 'awarded' with a Fiesta Bowl pairing against Miami, FL. Miami is defending national champions, appears 'poised' for a 2nd title, and OSU wins, albeit in a close game, to capture a national championship. That year, TCU wins C-USA and plays in the Liberty Bowl, beating CSU 17-3.
Now, you can maybe 'argue' that OSU is a 'better' team, I can't necessarily show any differently, but TCU wasn't bad, either. That actually might be an incidence, where a 'playoff' would have selected a 'true' national champion, and might have allowed OSU and TCU a 'head-to-head' pairing. As it is, OSU 'wins' by default. So, Round #2 goes to you, simply for lack of a playoff.
2003, I think we've already covered sufficiently well. TCU needed to go undefeated, and didn't, but neither did OSU. Interesting to me, OSU seems to 'qualify' without ever having to win a conference title, at least not outright. That said, OSU beat the Big XII champion, K-State, to win their 3rd BCS game. TCU loses to Boise St, in a nail-biter, on a missed FG. By default, I 'award' that one to OSU, but if you 'include' Miami (OH), then it's a draw. Miami (OH) loses to Iowa who loses to Ohio St, but beats Michigan (who beats Ohio St.). Insufficient evidence.
Last year, in case we havent' already covered it, was probably the 'worst' example to date. OSU loses not once, but twice, nearly loses to Michigan, but wins, to 'escape' with a BCS invitation. They then play a Notre Dame team that was 'lucky' to beat Stanford. OSU wins. TCU doesn't get to play Oregon, and so, again their is insufficient evidence.
Neither one of us can 'know' if TCU or Ohio St is 'superior' simply due to the fact TCU lost to SMU. That likely 'ruined' whatever chances TCU had at a Fiesta Bowl invitation, but TCU 'earned' the right to be represented, in the Holiday Bowl, by virtue of their win over Oklahoma.
Whether or not TCU would have won, is indeterminate.
So, if I do the math correctly, you win 2/4. I win zero, but in 3/4 cases I have a legitimate 'gripe' for TCU. Not all bad, all things considered.
Given they never played, it's even possible (although highly unlikely) TCU wins all three games. Barring a playoff neither of us know with certainty who is better. You have one in your hand, 1998. 2002 by default. You are obviously in a 'preferred' situation, that's something I admit, but TCU was competitive 3/4 times OSU was. Interesting to say the least.

[Spence]

Interesting to me, OSU seems to 'qualify' without ever having to win a conference title, at least not outright. That said, OSU beat the Big XII champion, K-State, to win their 3rd BCS game. TCU loses to Boise St, in a nail-biter, on a missed FG. By default, I 'award' that one to OSU, but if you 'include' Miami (OH), then it's a draw. Miami (OH) loses to Iowa who loses to Ohio St, but beats Michigan (who beats Ohio St.). Insufficient evidence.

Your talking out of school on the MAC conference. Half the MAC schools are in my backyard. My Dad played for a MAC school and I have several friends who played for MAC schools. The MAC conference has played Ohio State 20 times they have beaten them 1 time. That was a long time ago. The MAC conference of late is a pretty good conference. They play tough competition and they play them tough. They have even come up with a few big upset wins the last few years.

Miami(Ohio) has a good program. They usually have a pretty good team. Not good enough to qualify for the BCS. Nobody thinks that, ask Jason G if he thinks that any MAC school has qualified for the BCS and not made it.

You logic absolutely astounds me. Ohio State plays in 4 BCS games and wins 4 BCS games and you want to argue whether or not they should have been there. Amazing.

Your talking about the Liberty Bowl as if it is a badge of honor. Some historically excellent bowl. If the BCS would add another venue to its bowl series it would add the Cotton Bowl. The Cotton has the history behind it. They liberty is no different from 20 other bowl games played every year.

You ask why K-State was a deal breaker in the championship game against Texas Tech. You argued that is was a deal breaker when I used the Oklahoma - K-State argument in why two teams from the same conference should go if they are good enough. You are starting to talk in circles.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence, my point all along has been that there has been a 'deserving' non-BCS not selected to the BCS, and the evidence supports that view, pretty well.

I didn't mean to imply, somehow OSU wasn't a deserving BCS team.
But they haven't won a Big Ten title that I can remember, outright, and that was the point I was making. If they are as good as you suggest, they need to show it as a Big Ten team, along with being a BCS representative. If you don't you are applying a double standard.
1998 is an example of that, K-State was ranked high enough to be selected but weren't. But either way, OSU was 'better' than the Big XII representative to the BCS, just not as Big Ten Champoins. Whether or not OSU was a better team than Iowa isnt' my point, either. I simply would prefer the Big Ten play by the same rules as everyone else, one representative to the BCS, in a calendar year, is fair.

I have already outlined my proposal, I even allowed 'concession' for deserving 'at large' teams, but I would prefer a 'modified' proposal that only recognizes conference champions, but that would only happen if conferneces were 'proactive' and did what I recommended. Barring that happening, the likelihood of it occurring is fairly small. That being said, it would allow for the BCS to function as a 'competitive' grouping of teams, and would 'award' one team as 'national champions'.

The BCS is anything but fair. You apply the argument about Utah, 2004, and somehow justify it, but Utah didn't play any harder schedule than TCU did, 2003, if at all. They beat 3 ranked teams? Wasn't one of them Pittsburgh? Who are the other two? It wasn't Arizona. If it was N. Carolina I'm surprised, but I guess it's possible. They were 6-6 overall.

Anyway, my argument isn't based upon how 'good' Utah was. I've already indicated how I would organize the BCS. The Liberty Bowl would select a representative, every year, as would the Holiday Bowl.
It honors bowl tradition, it's fair, and only one team is 'crowned' BCS champions. If you can come up with a better proposal then print it. So far all you've done is list fairly groundless reasons for why the BCS 'works' when the evidence obviously doesn't support that thesis.
At least I offer something 'better', whether or not it will ever happen, might be another matter, altogether.

[Spence]

Anyway, my argument isn't based upon how 'good' Utah was. I've already indicated how I would organize the BCS. The Liberty Bowl would select a representative, every year, as would the Holiday Bowl.
It honors bowl tradition, it's fair, and only one team is 'crowned' BCS champions. If you can come up with a better proposal then print it. So far all you've done is list fairly groundless reasons for why the BCS 'works' when the evidence obviously doesn't support that thesis.
At least I offer something 'better', whether or not it will ever happen, might be another matter, altogether.

I gave you the perfect proposal in regards to fairness. Systematic scheduling. Every team has 2 BCS and 2 Non BCS games with their peers in other conferences. 2 home and 2 away games. Compare the winners at the end of the season. It is easy, it is fair, and it would absolutely tell you who are the best teams.

You use tradition to hide behind the fact that you don't want to have this sort of system because your afraid of the results. Under this system mid majors would not only have a chance at the BCS every year, they would have the chance at the national championship every year. No guarantees, but the chance to prove they are among the best. I can't think of anything more fair then that.

[Jason G]

I have to say that I don't think any MAC school has deserved to be in a BCS game since the system came about, but I do think that a few of the teams have gotten close to that point. There were a couple years back when Marshall was still in the MAC that I thought the Thundering Herd may have a shot but then they had a regular season setback. Then, there was the last year that Rothleisberger was at Miami a couple years ago where I felt if they could have pulled off the upset of Iowa and had no more than one loss maybe they could have been considered.

I would like to note, though, that I did think each of those teams was worthy of going to a better bowl game than the Motor City or GMAC. That is one of the biggest problems I have with the bowl system at present. For non-BCS teams it is either BCS or a December bowl. I think there should be opportunities for non-BCSers to play in New Years bowls as well.

Another point... I do think the Marshall and Miami teams that I mentioned above would be deserving of a BCS berth if the system in place this upcoming season was being used those seasons.

I do agree that the Liberty Bowl is one of the better bowls traditionally. Until last year it was one of the few bowls that put two conference champions against one another and I like to see the conference champs play one another.

I completely agree with Spence that systematic scheduling consisting of two BCS and two non-BCS teams would be greatly beneficial to non-BCS schools and would create a more fair opportunity for all. We may differ a little on exactly who should play who in this type of system but agree that it would be good overall.

[Spence]

I would like to note, though, that I did think each of those teams was worthy of going to a better bowl game than the Motor City or GMAC. That is one of the biggest problems I have with the bowl system at present. For non-BCS teams it is either BCS or a December bowl. I think there should be opportunities for non-BCSers to play in New Years bowls as well.

I agree with this. The GMAC is in a decent venue, but who wants to go to Michigan in December. The idea of the bowls, for the players is to experience places they would never see other wise. Players get put up in luxury resorts, get a little spending money and in general have a good time in the context of getting ready to play the game. Except for the championship game, the game is secondary to the trip. Everyone wants to do well on a big stage, but the games are exibition games. They are played for pride.

All bowl teams should play in a good winter destination. Somewhere warm or in an area like Denver or Seattle. The players should be treated to someplace better then Detroit.

Ohio Stadium in Columbus is one of the great places to play or watch a football game. Columbus is a decent city, with a lot going on. But under no circumstances I can think of would Columbus be a good host city for a bowl game in December. Seems to me they could find a better place for that bowl.

As far as New Years bowls go, I don't have a problem with non BCS teams in playing on New Years. It would add to the fun of the day. An extra game or two on New Years would be cool. I don't like stringing out the games like they do. They shouldn't start the games until Christmas.

I have to say that I don't think any MAC school has deserved to be in a BCS game since the system came about, but I do think that a few of the teams have gotten close to that point. There were a couple years back when Marshall was still in the MAC that I thought the Thundering Herd may have a shot but then they had a regular season setback. Then, there was the last year that Rothleisberger was at Miami a couple years ago where I felt if they could have pulled off the upset of Iowa and had no more than one loss maybe they could have been considered.

I think Marshall has probably come the closest in the MAC. When they had Moss and Pennington they were a force on offense. Miami with Roethlisberger was probably not as close as Marshall, but still a very good team. That is the difference here, though. There is a difference between very good and great. Only a handful of teams get to be great. Unfortunately all the teams that get there do seem to come from the same pool of teams. That seems to be changing some, but until some more teams make the jump it won't change. It isn't the system that holds back the mid majors, it is there reputation. That is what the need to overcome.

[colorado_loves_football]

Well, I know where you two stand.
FYI, Jason G, 1999 Marshall didn't lose to anybody, that I can think of, they went 12-0 I believe they beat Brigham Young a 7-5 team, in the Motor City Bowl. They did't lose to anybody, and finished with a #4 CFP ranking.
In 2003, Miami (OH) lost their season opener, to Iowa, a team that had been co- Big Ten champions (tied with OSU) the previous year, and were a BCS representative to the Orange Bowl.
So, I disagree with both of you on principle. Both teams, in my opinion were 'qualified' to be BCS representatives. 'Great' depends on what standard you apply. Was OSU 'great' last year, 9-2? Was Notre Dame?
There's a double-standard being applied, unfortunately.
I gave evidence for a 'non-BCS' nearly every year, since the BCS has been in existence, assuming top-8 is the 'standard'. Even in 2000, TCU was likely qualified, but weren't selected (at #9).
That's according to supposedly 'reliable' information, that ranks teams objectively. No, it's not the BCS poll, but since we can all agree the BCS poll isn't objective, I think I've made a fairly reasonable case.
Jason G. you qualify your position, implying that under this year's rules, the MAC champion ought to be represented. I guess that's ok, but you should probably either be 'in favor' or 'opposed' to their being represented. I applied the 'standard' of top-8. Applying a top-10 standard really doesn't change anything, except for 2000 when TCU was #9. Actually, what it suggests is regardless of which model is applied, a 'non-BCS' team deserves representation, my point all along.
In 2003, two teams were 'eligible' Miami (OH) and Boise St. A simple pairing of those teams in a 'non-BCS' game would have selected representative. In 2004, (as I already suggested) a MWC/WAC 'championship' pairing of Boise St, and Utah would have sent one 'deserving' representative to the Liberty Bowl, against Louisville.
I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that regardless of which method is applied, a 'non-BCS' team deserves a place in the BCS.
For the 'ten-team' model, I think two are deserving, and I think the evidence supports that viewpoint. Someone needs to show me where I'm wrong.