Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[Spence]

There haven't been many mid majors that have, played a schedule and won, that should have made the BCS. I can't think of any that appeared better then the team that actually went except the year Pitt got in.

[colorado_loves_football]

There haven't been many mid majors that have, played a schedule and won, that should have made the BCS. I can't think of any that appeared better then the team that actually went except the year Pitt got in.

I'm not necessarily implying any team not represented was 'better' see that's where you miss my point entirely.
Sure, 2004, was a weird year. Boston College, looked to be the 'front-runner' for the Big East, but lost, late in the year, to Syracuse.
I never said Pittsburgh wasn't qualified, I simply stated that there were teams that were likely 'better' than Pittsburgh was, and there were.
Actually, allowing Boise St, and Louisville a 'non-BCS' bid, might have been better for either team, assuming one would have been 'ignored'.
So, it all worked out, in the end.
That being said, in 'my proposal' nearly every team represented in the BCS would still be invited, including Pittsburgh. I just would have paired them differently, and allowed 'preliminary' winners access to the 'traditional' BCS.
'Direct' representatives: ACC Champion: Virginia Tech
SEC Champion: Auburn
C-USA Champion: Louisville
Big XII Champion: Oklahoma
Big Ten Champion: Michigan
Pac Ten Champion: USC
'at large' representatives: Utah, Pittsburgh, Boise St, Texas, California

I include Pittsburgh as an 'at large' selection because their representative (Big East) wasn't ranked top-12.

I would have paired Texas & California together in the Holiday Bowl, the winner getting a BCS invitation. Pittsburgh and (Utah/Boise St.) winner would then be paired in the 'non-BCS' championship (Liberty Bowl). For argument's sake, we'll just assume Utah beats Boise St in WAC/MWC 'title' game, and the Fiesta Bowl happens 'earilier' (Liberty Bowl).

That sets up the following 'traditional' pairings of teams:
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Michigan
Fiesta Bowl: Utah vs. Lousiville
Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs. Texas
Orange Bowl:Oklahoma vs. Virgnia Tech

It's possible we get 4 'undefeated' teams, arising from this predicament, therefore making a 'playoff' necessary to select one 'champion'

Semi-final pairing: USC vs. Utah, Auburn vs. Oklahoma
National championship: USC vs. Oklahoma

Now, some might 'argue' in this case, the BCS had it 'right' all along with USC vs. Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, but that's not a 'traditional' pairing of teams, and it left us with 3 undefeateds. My proposal gives us one 'national champion'. I like it better.

[Spence]

I'm not necessarily implying any team not represented was 'better' see that's where you miss my point entirely.
Sure, 2004, was a weird year. Boston College, looked to be the 'front-runner' for the Big East, but lost, late in the year, to Syracuse.
I never said Pittsburgh wasn't qualified, I simply stated that there were teams that were likely 'better' than Pittsburgh was, and there were.
Actually, allowing Boise St, and Louisville a 'non-BCS' bid, might have been better for either team, assuming one would have been 'ignored'.
So, it all worked out, in the end.
That being said, in 'my proposal' nearly every team represented in the BCS would still be invited, including Pittsburgh. I just would have paired them differently, and allowed 'preliminary' winners access to the 'traditional' BCS.

Pittsburgh wasn't qualified that year. They made it solely on the conference tie in. Under no other conditions would they have been selected.

I'm not missing your point at all. I just disagree with it. I believe the best teams should play in the best games. I believe the regular season should determine who the best teams are and I believe that if any team thinks they are getting screwed they should blame their AD for not getting them a tough enough schedule to get national respect. I don't care about the drama of David and Goliath. I care about matching up the best teams in America. I care about finding a way to pick the to best teams to play in the championship game.

[colorado_loves_football]

Pittsburgh wasn't qualified that year. They made it solely on the conference tie in. Under no other conditions would they have been selected.

I'm not missing your point at all. I just disagree with it. I believe the best teams should play in the best games. I believe the regular season should determine who the best teams are and I believe that if any team thinks they are getting screwed they should blame their AD for not getting them a tough enough schedule to get national respect. I don't care about the drama of David and Goliath. I care about matching up the best teams in America. I care about finding a way to pick the to best teams to play in the championship game.

I think you are missing my point. I don't discriminate based upon a team's conference, other than giving Louisville Pittsburgh's 'automatic' selection to the BCS, I treated them the same.
I don't think Pittsburgh wasn't qualified, they 'won' their conference.
The best teams, in my opinion, are the teams that win their respective conference. Louisville was C-USA champions, they 'earned' a BCS 'at large' bid, irrespectively. Same argument can be applied to Boise St, Utah, and maybe even the MAC, in years their champion 'meets' the standard applied (top-12) as was the case in 2003, with Miami (OH).
I dont' make any exceptions, whatsoever. And I dont think the BCS should, either. Any 'non-BCS' team that finishes with a sufficiently high ranking (top-12) should be allowed a spot in the BCS. TCU fell short of that mark, last year, but 'earned' a spot through a provision that gives a top-16 team 'priority' in the event an 'automatic' champion finishes lower.
No, TCU wasn't selected, and no, they weren't 'better' than FSU was.
But, they were better than many of the teams that were given priority over them, in non-BCS bowl pairings. We can argue endlessly about whether or not Iowa St. was a 'comparable' team as TCU.
That's really not my point at all. I think TCU 'earned' the opportunity to play against a highly-ranked team, somewhere. The Houston Bowl tried, I believe to set up the best-possible opponent they could, allowed. Iowa St, disappointed by not winning the Big XII N. Division. Kansas was expected to lose to Iowa St, but they didn't, they won, and were rewarded with a Ft. Worth Bowl invitation, but I might have preferred seeing how TCU might have done against them, than Iowa St, personally.
And the Ft. Worth bowl was created at least in part to help TCU.
Those are facts, and they really aren't related to the BCS at all.

[Spence]

The best teams, in my opinion, are the teams that win their respective conference.

That is a flawed premise. Niether UCF or Tulsa was as good as countless other teams that didn't win their conferences. You seem to want an affirmative action type system enacted in CFB.

2005 Tulsa Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/01 Minnesota L 41-10
09/10 at #18 Oklahoma L 31-15
09/17 at N Texas W 54-2
09/24 Memphis W 37-31
10/01 Houston L 30-23
10/08 at So Miss W 34-17
10/15 at Rice W 41-21
10/22 SMU W 20-13
11/05 at UTEP L 41-38
11/12 E Carolina W 45-13
11/19 at Tulane W 38-14
12/03 at C Florida W 44-27

2005 UCF Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/01 at S Carolina L 24-15
09/17 at S Florida L 31-14
09/24 Marshall W 23-13
10/01 at La Lafayette W 24-21
10/08 Memphis W 38-17
10/15 at So Miss L 52-31
10/21 Tulane W 34-24
10/29 at E Carolina W 30-20
11/05 Houston W 31-29
11/12 at UAB W 27-21
11/19 at Rice W 31-28
12/03 Tulsa L 44-27


Now lets take a look at the schedule of a team who beat them. A direct comparison of how good these teams are.

2005 South Carolina Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/01 C Florida W 24-15
09/10 at #9 Georgia L 17-15
09/17 Alabama L 37-14
09/24 Troy W 45-20
10/01 at Auburn L 48-7
10/08 Kentucky W 44-16
10/22 Vanderbilt W 35-28
10/29 at #23 Tennessee W 16-15
11/05 at Arkansas W 14-10
11/12 #12 Florida W 30-22
11/19 Clemson L 13-9
12/30 vs Missouri L 38

2005 Minnestoa Schedule
DATE OPPONENT RESULT/TIME
09/01 at Tulsa W 41-10
09/10 Colo St W 56-24
09/17 FAU W 46-7
09/24 #11 Purdue W 42-35
10/01 at Penn State L 44-14
10/08 at #21 Michigan W 23-20
10/15 #23 Wisconsin L 38-34
10/29 #12 Ohio St L 45-31
11/05 at Indiana W 42-21
11/12 Mich St W 41-18
11/19 at Iowa L 52-28
12/30 vs Virginia L 34-31


2005 Oklahoma Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/03 TCU L 17-10
09/10 Tulsa W 31-15
09/17 at UCLA L 41-24
10/01 Kansas St W 43-21
10/08 at #2 Texas L 45-12
10/15 at Kansas W 19-3
10/22 Baylor W 37-30
10/29 at Nebraska W 31-24
11/12 Texas A&M W 36-30
11/19 at #21 Texas Tech L 23-21
11/26 Oklahoma St W 42-14

Here are 3 teams from other conferences you have a direct comparison to see how the would match up in 3 different conferences. All of these teams didn't do well in there own conferences. Compare how they all did in there conference and out of their conferences. Then tell me how those either one of those teams are better then any of these 3 teams from those 3 different(stronger conferences).

If your system was in place everyone who be fighting to get out of tougher conference instead of trying to get into them.

Minnesota would have coasted to a CUSA championship if they were in that conference. Why would they want to remain in the B-10 where the odds on them winning a conference championship would go down dramatically?

[colorado_loves_football]

The best teams, in my opinion, are the teams that win their respective conference.

That is a flawed premise. Niether UCF or Tulsa was as good as countless other teams that didn't win their conferences. You seem to want an affirmative action type system enacted in CFB.

2005 Tulsa Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/01 Minnesota L 41-10
09/10 at #18 Oklahoma L 31-15
09/17 at N Texas W 54-2
09/24 Memphis W 37-31
10/01 Houston L 30-23
10/08 at So Miss W 34-17
10/15 at Rice W 41-21
10/22 SMU W 20-13
11/05 at UTEP L 41-38
11/12 E Carolina W 45-13
11/19 at Tulane W 38-14
12/03 at C Florida W 44-27

2005 UCF Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/01 at S Carolina L 24-15
09/17 at S Florida L 31-14
09/24 Marshall W 23-13
10/01 at La Lafayette W 24-21
10/08 Memphis W 38-17
10/15 at So Miss L 52-31
10/21 Tulane W 34-24
10/29 at E Carolina W 30-20
11/05 Houston W 31-29
11/12 at UAB W 27-21
11/19 at Rice W 31-28
12/03 Tulsa L 44-27


Now lets take a look at the schedule of a team who beat them. A direct comparison of how good these teams are.

2005 South Carolina Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/01 C Florida W 24-15
09/10 at #9 Georgia L 17-15
09/17 Alabama L 37-14
09/24 Troy W 45-20
10/01 at Auburn L 48-7
10/08 Kentucky W 44-16
10/22 Vanderbilt W 35-28
10/29 at #23 Tennessee W 16-15
11/05 at Arkansas W 14-10
11/12 #12 Florida W 30-22
11/19 Clemson L 13-9
12/30 vs Missouri L 38

2005 Minnestoa Schedule
DATE OPPONENT RESULT/TIME
09/01 at Tulsa W 41-10
09/10 Colo St W 56-24
09/17 FAU W 46-7
09/24 #11 Purdue W 42-35
10/01 at Penn State L 44-14
10/08 at #21 Michigan W 23-20
10/15 #23 Wisconsin L 38-34
10/29 #12 Ohio St L 45-31
11/05 at Indiana W 42-21
11/12 Mich St W 41-18
11/19 at Iowa L 52-28
12/30 vs Virginia L 34-31


2005 Oklahoma Schedule

DATE OPPONENT RESULT

09/03 TCU L 17-10
09/10 Tulsa W 31-15
09/17 at UCLA L 41-24
10/01 Kansas St W 43-21
10/08 at #2 Texas L 45-12
10/15 at Kansas W 19-3
10/22 Baylor W 37-30
10/29 at Nebraska W 31-24
11/12 Texas A&M W 36-30
11/19 at #21 Texas Tech L 23-21
11/26 Oklahoma St W 42-14

Here are 3 teams from other conferences you have a direct comparison to see how the would match up in 3 different conferences. All of these teams didn't do well in there own conferences. Compare how they all did in there conference and out of their conferences. Then tell me how those either one of those teams are better then any of these 3 teams from those 3 different(stronger conferences).

If your system was in place everyone who be fighting to get out of tougher conference instead of trying to get into them.

Minnesota would have coasted to a CUSA championship if they were in that conference. Why would they want to remain in the B-10 where the odds on them winning a conference championship would go down dramatically?

I disagree with the argument you are making, Spence, based upon the fact that those teams, were, in fact 'quality' teams. I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with the fact they didn't win their respective conferences, they all just 'faded' toward the end of the year, while the teams I mention (Tulsa, not UCF), TCU and Boise St, all got better as the season wore on, and there is evidence to support that thesis.
I will agree Tulsa got hammered by Minnesota, but since Tulsa doesn't play in the Big Ten, it's mostly irrelevant, but might give some idea about how well they would do there. My argument, all along has been that non-conference games are mostly inconsequential, and I stand by that argument, regardless of which school you want to bring into the debate. Boise St. lost big to Georgia, but in the end, it doesn't matter all that much, since Boise St, isn't a SEC member. Doesn't mean I don't care about it, just that there are other things that are more relevant.
Does that somehow mean Boise St wasn't good? I find it interesting you overlooked that particular bit of information, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. TCU lost to SMU, another non-conference loss, and one that pretty much denied TCU a BCS bid. Sure, it matters, but it shouldn't, since TCU isn't a C-USA team anymore. Their playing Baylor, Texas Tech, and Army are all critical games for TCU but won't make any difference whatsoever on whether or not they win the MWC.
Why do you have such a problem with my proposal? It rewards teams 'fairly' based upon where they play. Minnesota isn't likely to join another conference, despite your position that they might, if given the opportunity. My proposal doesn't 'weigh' every conference the same, it actually requires that 'non-BCS' teams work harder, to be included.
An argument could be made, I suppose (one that you are making) that no 'non-BCS' team necessarily deserves an 'at large' bid to the BCS, but I think history has already shown that to be a 'false' assumption.
You impiled there was only one time (Utah, 2004) that a non-BCS team deserved consideration. The reality is that pretty much ever since the BCS existed, there was a 'non-BCS' team that deserved consideration.
I suppose I could provide you with the 'evidence' but suffice to say that in 1997 Tulane 'earned' the right to be represented. Marshall I think it was 2000 went undefeated, was deserving of a BCS bid. 2001 Brigham Young nearly went undefeated, but lost to Hawaii to ruin their BCS chances, but the irony was they weren't going to be selected anyway (the Hawaii loss had nothing to do with their either being taken, or not).
2003 Miami (OH) won their last 11 games to nearly qualify, probably should have been. 2004, 3 teams 'earned' the right to be represented, only one was, Utah (Boise St. & Louisville were paired in the Liberty Bowl).
This year, TCU pretty much 'secured' themselves of an 'at large' spot but weren't selected, irrespective of where they were ranked.
I'm not a mathematician, but that's 6 times in 9 years, unless I'm mistaken. Incidentally these aren't 'my' interpretations, they are based on information recorded from the BCS itself. Sure, they are 'opening' it up to the top-12, FINALLY, but that's really not a sufficient solution, barring a playoff. It's just a way for them to appease the vocal 'minority' while still keeping a stranglehold on their 'prize'.
Another way to analyze the information is as follows:
1997: Tulane: C-USA champions 12-0
2000: Marshall: MAC champions 12-0
2001: Brigham Young University: MWC champions 10-2
2003: Miami (OH) MAC champions: 11-1
2004: Utah, MWC champions 12-0, Louisville C-USA champions 11-1
Boise St, WAC champions 11-1
2005: TCU: MWC champions 11-1
There's a definite pattern here: my interpretation is that 6/9 or rougly 67% of the time there will likely be a 'non-BCS' team deserving of a BCS invitation. If you simply go by teams, irrespecitve of years, there's an 8/9 probability attached to it. Or, another way to look at it, is that in a 'typical' year, there will a 'non-BCS' representative to the BCS.
Throw the odds out the window, the likelilhood is high that a team, non-BCS will be ranked sufficiently high enough to be represented to the BCS.
Sure, my proposal maybe is 'slanted' toward that side of the ledger, but it's a lot more fair than what the BCS has in place, or at least had.
If nothing else, the 'new' qualifying standards will make it easier for a team to be selected, but that does little, in my opinion to address the 'greater' problem of selecting one team a 'national champions'.
My proposal does both, and does it fairly, and honors traditional bowl pairings. There's absolutely no reason why it couldn't be implemented, and thereby address both issues simultaneously.

[Spence]

I disagree with the argument you are making, Spence, based upon the fact that those teams, were, in fact 'quality' teams. I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with the fact they didn't win their respective conferences, they all just 'faded' toward the end of the year, while the teams I mention (Tulsa, not UCF), TCU and Boise St, all got better as the season wore on, and there is evidence to support that thesis.

Did you ever think that Minnesota's record got worse because their competition got better? Or that Tulsa's record got better because there competition got worse? Why should a team be rewarded because they played a weak schedule? Why should teams be punished for playing good schedules. I believe if you prove that you are good enough then you should go. I don't believe in the affirmative action type system you are proposing. There are 30 teams in D-1 that could play a schedule like Tulsa's and win every game. That is why your proposal is flawed. I have no problem with a mid major playing in the BCS if the prove, through competition, that they belong. I have a big problem with anyone going who didn't prove they should be there. I will never change my mind about this because it hits at the heart of what competition is about. You can't be the best if you don't play and beat the best. The fact that Minnesota was a quality team proves my argument regarding Tulsa.

[colorado_loves_football]

Did you ever think that Minnesota's record got worse because their competition got better? Or that Tulsa's record got better because there competition got worse? Why should a team be rewarded because they played a weak schedule? Why should teams be punished for playing good schedules. I believe if you prove that you are good enough then you should go. I don't believe in the affirmative action type system you are proposing. There are 30 teams in D-1 that could play a schedule like Tulsa's and win every game. That is why your proposal is flawed. I have no problem with a mid major playing in the BCS if the prove, through competition, that they belong. I have a big problem with anyone going who didn't prove they should be there. I will never change my mind about this because it hits at the heart of what competition is about. You can't be the best if you don't play and beat the best. The fact that Minnesota was a quality team proves my argument regarding Tulsa.

Spence, I"m going to try to be as objective as possible in my responses to your questions.
First of all do I honestly think Minnesota's competition got harder (better) as the year went on? No, I don't.
I think if you analyize it you might agree with me, it didn't. I give Minnesota credit for being an outstanding football team, early in the year. I even saw them pretty much dominate a good Wisconsin team, but they lost, anyway, and that likely took a lot of wind out from their sails, but no I don't think their competition was any harder, no offense meant to Ohio St, assuming that's who you are referring to.
Minnesota lost to Iowa, that should give you some idea what I mean.

Second question: Do I think Tulsa's competition was 'worse' than at the beginning of the year? Well, depends partly how you define it.
I think when they played UTEP, UTEP was as good as any team they faced, early in the year. Playing them in El Paso, for the division title, showed what Tulsa was made of. UTEP won, but barely. That is when I began to be a Tulsa fan. I had assumed they were 'done' long before, when they lost to Houston. I had a lot of respect for Tulsa, from that game, alone, even in a losing effort.

For Tulsa to still be 'selected' even after losing to UTEP I think says a lot about their heart. They obviously wanted it more than UTEP did. SMU beat UTEP, but it was likely because UTEP was over-confident.
Tulsa then beating UCF for the C-USA title, in my opinion 'proved' they were the 'best' team in C-USA. You suggest, UCF wasn't as good as S. Carolina, then I see that S. Carolina wasn't too bad, overall. If anything you are making more argument toward my cause. UCF lost to SC away.
They also lost to S. Mississippi, but were likely the 'favorite' when they played Tulsa for the C-USA title, in Orlando, FL. Yes, I believe Tulsa was a lot better at the end, than at the beginning. Beating Fresno St., a team they hadn't beaten 4 times previously, demonstrated that. Tulsa was something of an 'afterthought' by the Liberty Bowl officials. They wanted Virgnia, but since Virginia was so bad, at the end of the year, they were 'forced' to take Tulsa, and Tulsa didn't disappoint. They took Fresno St, early, they didn't want to 'miss out' on them. Look who won.

Finally, 30 teams would play Tulsa's schedule and win every game?
I'd be interested in learning which 30 teams. You might try to include Minnesota, but obviously they sucked at the end of the year. Didn't they lose to Virginia? That's pretty sufficient evidence they weren't too good.
Perhaps a team like Ohio St might win every game, but they don't play in C-USA so it's a moot point. But Minnesota didnt' lose by much to them, so you are left having to explain that to me, especially after Penn St dominated them. Yes, Tulsa was a lot better, much better than at the beginning. Beating Fresno St, proved that. They were taken over Virgnia, the team that beat Minnesota. That ought to seal the deal.

[Spence]

Do I think Minnesota's competition got better? Not necessarily.
I saw them lose a game to Wisconsin, that likely took the wind out of their sails, it would have if I was a player. Their competition wasn't any tougher than it was at the beginning, if at all. Minnesota was definitely a lot worse team at the end of the year, but were likely a very good football team when Tulsa played them.
Second question: Do I believe Tulsa's competition was worse? Not necessarily. Losing to Oklahoma in Norman, OK isn't such a heart-breaker as you might want it to be. I thought Tulsa did exceptionally well, as a football team, given how poorly they started out the year.
It wasn't just OOC games they lost, they lost a game to Houston that might have ruined their chances at a C-USA title, they then later lost a heart-breaker to UTEP that probably should have ended their title hopes, but SMU saved the day! See, Spence, you are missing the point.
Minnesota didn't 'lose' the Big Ten when they lost to Wisconsin, they just quit trying. They were still a good football team, but no, I don't think they were as good as they were early in the year.

I'll use Minnesota because I know more about them. Minnesota every year goes out early and plays well, then they get into the B-10 and they party is over. They win early because they play teams who don't stack up competitively with the B-10. It is a pattern that can be proven by looking at Minnesota's game history with Glenn Mason as head coach. He knows the only way to get a bowl game is to schedule fairly easy OOC games and get 4 wins. Then he has to only snag a couple in the B-10 to be bowl eligible. To think that a team can play so well early and just fall apart, without major injuries isn't logical at all. Teams are almost always better at the end of the season then they were at the start. Minnesota didn't get worse, there competition got better.

I'm not missing your point. You want to put conference champs into the BCS without regard to who they play or how good they are. You think that by giving every conference a spot in the BCS is fair representation. It isn't fair representation it is even representation. It is doing the same sorts of things for mid majors that the NCAA does for women with title 9. The best teams should go. That is fair. Everyone knows what they need to do to get where they want to get. If they don't make it, they know why.

[colorado_loves_football]

I'm not missing your point. You want to put conference champs into the BCS without regard to who they play or how good they are. You think that by giving every conference a spot in the BCS is fair representation. It isn't fair representation it is even representation. It is doing the same sorts of things for mid majors that the NCAA does for women with title 9. The best teams should go. That is fair. Everyone knows what they need to do to get where they want to get. If they don't make it, they know why.

Spence, I suppose I could apply the Minnesota 'analogy' to my argument, as well, if I wanted to, after all they dismantled two pretty good teams (in my estimation) in Tulsa and Colorado State. Colorado State's loss was even more disheartening, because it happened not long after CSU seemed to be improving, from last year. They were annhilated in Minnesota, it wasn't even a game (but, if nothing else it maybe showed Tulsa was a better team than Colorado State).

Now, whether or not Tulsa would be a good representative to the BCS is something I don't honestly know for sure. I"m admitting my ignorance in that regard, but I believe they would have been a better selection, than say Minnesota would have been. Believe it or not, I think a team can improve, dramatically, over the course of a season. I"ve seen it happen too many times, for one thing, for it to not be a viable possiblity.

I don't necessarily have to use Tulsa to validate my point. Kansas was a much better team at the end of the year, if their record is a 'true' reflection of how good they were. I might have enjoyed seeing TCU play Kansas, over Iowa St, but that's not what happened. TCU was likely a much better team, at the end of the year, than they were at the beginning. Texas A&M appeared to be a lot better, at least when the played Texas, than when they played Colorado.

So, how good was Tulsa? Well, I suppose that's something maybe nobody really knows for sure. I believe they were somewhere among the top-25 but exactly where I don't know. I dont' think Nebraska was that great, personally, despite their domination of Colorado. I thought Nebraska pretty much sucked, most of the year, as evidenced by their lop-sided loss to Kansas. They nearly lost to Iowa St, in Lincoln. But they maybe are another team, that for whatever reason, was a lot better.
Colorado is likely an example of a team that 'peaked' early in the year.

I dont' necessarily advocate dismantling the BCS simply to allow more 'at large' teams access. I woudl prefer a way that rewards teams equally, regardless of where they play, one reason I would prefer a 'playoff' be implemented, of conference champions. Barring that happening, I'm 'happy' with one 'non-BCS' team represented in the BCS, every year.
I've already given sufficient reason for that to happen, but I admit it might not happen, without restructization.

But, it's possible, and likely would address most, if not all, issues associated with the BCS. #1 vs. #2 won't assure a 'concensus' national champion. I'm not sure it ever has, but last year came pretty close.
Penn St, was still in the 'running' after the dust cleared, barely. Same argument could be applied to W. Virginia, and perhaps TCU, even Ohio St.
But that's just even more reason why a playoff is needed, a BCS playoff.

I don't support a 65 team NCAA tournament. It's un-necessary for one thing. the regular season does most, if not all of the 'dirty' work.
Conference championship games would assume the 'role' championship games do in basketball. The ten-team 'field' is sufficient to select one team 'concensus' champions. Sure, there are likely more 'deserving' teams, than Sun Belt Champion, but so what? It will all come out in the wash. If a team can't win their conference, they don't deserve a BCS bid. That simplifies it dramatically, and if you remember, 'non-BCS' teams are required to play an additional game, so it's fair. The two 'best' non-BCS teams are represented directly in the BCS.
Last year, that's likely to be TCU and Tulsa. They could 'square off' in the Liberty Bowl, the winner to receive an 'at large' invitation to the Fiesta Bowl, their likely opponent: Texas.
Other bowl pairings might appear as follows:
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Ohio State
Sugar Bowl: W. Virginia vs. Georgia
Orange Bowl: Florida State vs. Penn St.

Traditon is honored, one team 'emerges' national champions.
Show me anything that is more fair, and I'll consider it.

[Spence]

Sure, there are likely more 'deserving' teams, than Sun Belt Champion, but so what? It will all come out in the wash.

So what? Tell that to the kids who played the 6th toughest schedule in college football, just because they finished second to an undefeated team.

You say that Tulsa got better. I don't doubt that. Minnesota got better also. Barring injury almost all teams improve over the course of the season. That was my argument to start with. Minnesota got better, but they didn't do as well because they played better competition. You seem to be in denial over that because it destroys your argument.

I gave you a system that was completely fair. Playing a schedule of your peers. 2 BCS, 2 non BCS, 2 home, 2 away and you rejected it because you don't want a mid major #1 to have to play 2 major conference #1 to earn their way into the BCS. There is no more fair system then that, it puts every team on equal footing and gives you a measuring stick to judge all teams. If anything my system is tougher on the majors because they have to play a tougher conference schedule, but that is OK because they will want to prove their good enough.

That system eliminates getting lucky in a game, something the play offs can't promise. It is a system that is more likely to give you a true national champion. The only argument you can come up with is it messes with tradition. Your system does too. You want to strip teams from one conference and put them in another. You want to force a championship game on conferences who have never had them. That is messing with tradition whether you want to admit it or not.

But, it's possible, and likely would address most, if not all, issues associated with the BCS. #1 vs. #2 won't assure a 'concensus' national champion. I'm not sure it ever has, but last year came pretty close.
Penn St, was still in the 'running' after the dust cleared, barely. Same argument could be applied to W. Virginia, and perhaps TCU, even Ohio St.
But that's just even more reason why a playoff is needed, a BCS playoff.

No it is not. All the above teams had one thing in common that Texas and USC did not have. Losses. Neither Penn S., Ohio St., West Virginia, or TCU have any argument at all for the championship. None of those teams did what they had to do. Texas and USC did.

Everyone, every year knows what it takes. A couple of teams get it done, the rest do not. In 2003 USC may have been the most talented team in the country, but they lost a game to Cal and their schedule wasn't tough enough for them to overcome it. It isn't easy to win a national championship and it shouldn't be. Giving teams a chance at the title simply for winning their conference isn't fair to the teams who want to prove how good they are by playing the toughest schedule they can come up with. It promotes mediocrity. It says you need help because you can't do it on your own merits.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence, you imply, somehow my proposal isn't 'fair' but it does, at least give every confernece 'fair' representation within the BCS.
I might have preferred a way to 'secure' the best ten teams, irrespective of where they play, but there's no simple way to do that, to my knowledge. I belive my proposal encapsulates the 'best' of both, and still gives the public a 'true' national champion, in the end.

I don't see how non-confernece games apply to your proposal, personally. So what? I don't really care if Tulsa can beat Minnesota. If they can, terrific, but I am much more interested in how they do within their own confernece, same argument applied to any other team you want to mention. In fact, I mentioned to Rolltide, 'scrapping' non-conference games altogether, they aren't that relevant to any team's ranking, in my opinion. They are almost like exhibition games, filler until the conference games begin.

Now, as far as the argument that somehow a team not from a 'major' conference doesn't 'deserve' a BCS bid, I think I've already covered that sufficiently well. Give me an example where one isn't qualified, I"m interested. I don't think you can. I'm referring to the teams I listed eariler, they were all sufficiently capable of playing in the BCS, 3 in 2004.

I maybe am ambiguous in how I 'rank' teams. I don't necessarily believe Tulsa was 'deserving' of a BCS bid, but they were certainly qualified for a Liberty Bowl invitation, and that's where I would like to see a 'non-BCS' championship arrangment, the winner to receive a BCS bid. If Tulsa can beat TCU, they 'earn' the right to be represented in the BCS. Like I said, I base my 'evidence' on the fact nearly every year, a team had 'earned' the right to be represented, exceptions notwithstanding.

I would 'reward' competitive play with a BCS bid. That's my position. I do'nt base it on SOS as much as I do upon how a team fares, week-after-week. Tulsa woudn't likely be selected irrespective of how they play.
TCU might 'earn' a BCS bid, but they were'nt an 'automatic' selection, either. Only one team has been, Utah. One team in nearly ten years. I would allow 'one' non-BCS representative a 'bid' every year to the BCS.
I think that's fair, and I woudl do it within 'traditional' pairing of teams.
The Liberty Bowl champion 'deserves' a BCS bid. I invite you to review their history, maybe you'll be surprised, yourself (maybe not). But, I think in general (including this year) the Liberty bowl champion would make an excellent representative to the BCS. A similar argument could be made for the Holiday Bowl champion, most years.

[Spence]

Spence, you imply, somehow my proposal isn't 'fair' but it does, at least give every confernece 'fair' representation within the BCS.
I might have preferred a way to 'secure' the best ten teams, irrespective of where they play, but there's no simple way to do that, to my knowledge. I belive my proposal encapsulates the 'best' of both, and still gives the public a 'true' national champion, in the end.

I don't see how non-confernece games apply to your proposal, personally. So what? I don't really care if Tulsa can beat Minnesota. If they can, terrific, but I am much more interested in how they do within their own confernece, same argument applied to any other team you want to mention. In fact, I mentioned to Rolltide, 'scrapping' non-conference games altogether, they aren't that relevant to any team's ranking, in my opinion. They are almost like exhibition games, filler until the conference games begin.

I know you don't care how if Tulsa can beat Minnesota because the truth about how good a team really is hurts your argument. You don't want the best teams to play. Your only goal is to put a couple mid majors in the BCS every year regardless of how good they are in the name of "fairness". Anything that would make them prove they belong in the game, you reject as being "tired or not honoring tradition". Putting a team in based on affirmative action type principals flies in the face of what competition is all about and turns the whole system into a pointless farce.

Now, as far as the argument that somehow a team not from a 'major' conference doesn't 'deserve' a BCS bid, I think I've already covered that sufficiently well. Give me an example where one isn't qualified, I"m interested. I don't think you can. I'm referring to the teams I listed eariler, they were all sufficiently capable of playing in the BCS, 3 in 2004.

I have never aid that a mid major doesn't deserve a BCS bid as long as they are qualified. That is the diffence between me and you.

Using your examples from 2003 here is Miami's schedule.

L
08-30-2003
3
Iowa
21
Iowa City, IA


W
09-13-2003
44
Northwestern (IL)
14
Evanston, IL


W
09-20-2003
41
Colorado St.
21
Fort Collins, CO


W
09-27-2003
42
Cincinnati (OH)
37
Oxford, OH


W
10-04-2003
45
Akron (OH)
20
Oxford, OH


W
10-11-2003
59
Buffalo (NY)
3
Oxford, OH


W
10-18-2003
49
Ball St. (IN)
3
Muncie, IN


W
10-25-2003
38
Kent St. (OH)
30
Kent, OH


W
11-04-2003
33
Bowling Green (OH)
10
Oxford, OH


W
11-12-2003
45
Marshall (WV)
6
Oxford, OH


W
11-22-2003
49
Ohio
31
Athens, OH


W
11-28-2003
56
Central Florida
21
Orlando, FL


W
12-04-2003
49
Bowling Green (OH)
27
MAC Championship Game


They got embarrassed by Iowa (a legit BCS contender that year) the first game. They never beat anyone ranked. I believe that takes them out of contention.

Since they played Louisville and you will point to them as being good, I will give you there schedule also.

W
08-31-2003
40
Kentucky
24
Lexington, KY


W
09-13-2003
30
Syracuse (NY)
20
Syracuse, NY


W
09-20-2003
42
Texas-El Paso
14
Louisville, KY


W
09-27-2003
21
Temple (PA)
12
Louisville, KY


L
10-04-2003
28
South Florida
31
Tampa, FL


W
10-11-2003
34
Army (NY)
10
Louisville, KY


W
10-17-2003
47
Tulane (LA)
28
Louisville, KY


W
10-25-2003
36
East Carolina (NC)
20
Greenville, NC


L
11-05-2003
28
Texas Christian
31
Fort Worth, TX


L
11-15-2003
7
Memphis (TN)
37
Louisville, KY


W
11-22-2003
66
Houston (TX)
45
Louisville, KY


W
11-28-2003
43
Cincinnati (OH)
40
Cincinnati, OH


L
12-18-2003
28
Miami (OH)
49
GMAC Bowl

I don't believe there is a ranked team in that group either.

Your argument is based on a flawed premiss and bias. You designed you proposal with the idea that a mid major has to be in the BCS. My proposal was designed from the standpoint that any team, no matter what conference they come from, can earn their way into the BCS and even the championship game. Through competition, against their peers in other conferences as well as their own. Proving it both home and away. There is no bias in that and if you truely wanted a system that is fair to everybody you would agree. You just want a system where mid majors make it regardless. They should qualify on their merits. Everyone should qualify on their merits.

[colorado_loves_football]

First of all, Spence, I don't really remember all the specifics associated with Miami (OH) and their season, but I do recall they were pretty good. I do'nt really remember Iowa being that great, but you probably do. Wasn't that the year, that Florida State and Miami were paired together in the Orange Bowl? That's how I remember it. The year before, I believe it was, Iowa and USC were in the Orange Bowl, so Iowa was likely a pretty decent team, at any rate. I will agree that they (Miami (OH)) needed to win that game for any hope of a BCS bid, but that's pretty much always been the case. I doubt they really thought that much about it at the time, similar to TCU losing to SMU, but after it happened, it ruined their season. I simply would prefer one team get 'priority' in the BCS, when they deserve it, and yes I believe Miami (OH) 'earned' that right, after their opening loss to Iowa.
TCU was the team that 'hogged' the headlines that year, at least from a 'non-BCS' standpoint. Honestly I thought TCU was over-rated that year, as evidenced in part to their narrow win over Louisville. But they had a knack for beating better teams, when they had to, nearly accomplished that against S. Mississippi, I almost wish they had, but when K-State beat Oklahoma, that might have kept TCU out of it, regardless. See, the 'provision' only applies, when there isn't a full 'quota' of 'automatic' recipients. Utah qualified, 2004, because they were ranked top-6. TCU was at #9, and there's no guarantee they would have been ranked #6 or higher by the end of the year, and K-State gaining 'access' might have ruined whatever hope TCU had of qualifying even with a 'perfect' record. BYU, 2001 I believe it was, wasn't going to be selected, for a similar reason, they weren't ranked top-6. Now, the standard is top-12. That's why I mentioned all those teams, they were all ranked #12 or higher, Miami was #12.
So, under the new standards, they would have qualified. The old standards no longer apply, so you are correct, they weren't good enough, 2003 (I apologize for not being clear).
I'm simply making a case for selecting a team, every year from the 'non-BCS' bracket. And a case for BCS playoff. Had a playoff been in place, all those teams would have been represented.
Last year, but for the provision that gave TCU a bid in next year's BCS, again no 'non-BCS' teams would have been selected, even at 11-1.
You can make an argument for all those teams (Alabama, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Miami, Auburn). That really isn't my point, either.
Alabama lost to LSU, then lost to Auburn, they don't deserve to go.
LSU, maybe was sufficiently qualified, but they couldn't beat Georgia, and they beat Alabama by a whisker, I don't believe they 'earned' a BCS bid, myself. Virginia Tech, I think is least qualified, personally, despite their relatively high ranking, I definitely don't think they should go. Oregon, I suppose maybe 'earned' a BCS bid, but I might not have picked them, they were over-rated. Miami lost their opportunity to Georgia Tech, I don't think they should go. Auburn, I thought was pretty good, but I probably wouldn't select them either.
So, who are my picks? Well, I'd pair TCU & Oregon together but I might have preferred a TCU vs. W. Virgnia Fiesta Bowl pairing.
I would have preferred an Ohio St vs. USC pairing, Rose Bowl.
I probably would have put Texas against Georgia, Sugar Bowl.
And finally, a FSU vs. Penn St, Orange Bowl.
I know you don't like my choices, but that's how I'd have done it.
Notre Dame and Oregon would have been a good Holiday Bowl.
And Tulsa against Boise St, Liberty Bowl.
Not bad, all things considered. That's a BCS grouping of teams, and I know it doesn't allow for a national championship, yet another reason I prefer a playoff.

[Spence]

I don't have a problem with you making a legit argument for TCU to be in a BCS game. They have one. If Oklahoma would have won a couple more games they would have had a very good argument.

You may think that losing one game, out of conference at the beginning or the season, shouldn't ruin your season. In reality, though, it does. When Ryan Hamby(Ohio State) dropped that pass in the endzone near the end of the game, it destroyed the season for Ohio State. That pass would have made Texas have to score twice (10 points) in less then 3 minutes to win. Ohio State's season was over in the 2nd game of the year. That is how important it is to win out of conference games against good competition. Ohio State lost any chance of being in the national championship game that day. It isn't unfair, the Buckeye knew what was on the line and they couldn't get it done.

If your saying that no one should be guaranteed a spot in the BCS, I can buy that. The reason that they do guarantee the power conferences a spot is because they generally play better overall competition and the people who makes the rules think that winning your conference is enough. It is a double edge sword. On one hand you can see their point because West Virginia wouldn't have made the BCS if not for that rule and they were obviously good enough to be there. On the other hand, since the other conferences aren't guarenteed a spot, having some that do and some that don't isn't really far to the non BCS conference teams. That fact isn't lost on me.

Still the non BCS conference teams could make it tougher on the BCS not to include them if the all took on high profile teams and won. If they would prove they are good enough on the field, then it would force the BCS to find a way to include them. A non BCS conference team isn't guaranteed a spot even if they go undefeated if their schedule is to easy. They have it in their power to fix that. They should take the snub as a challenge and prove to the world they belong by beating highly ranked teams. If every team from any non BCS conference would schedule a very tough non conference schedule with at least two traditionally highly ranked teams, their conference strength would improve greatly if they win a lot of those games. That is the way to be included. Not simply by whining until they give them a game to keep them quiet.

By the way, Iowa was 10-3 in 2003. They lost to Iowa St., Ohio State, and I believe Purdue(not sure about this). They beat Florida in the bowl game and finished 7th in the final coaches poll.