Post-season Play-offs

[Spence]

Marshall may have had the team to win a BCS game when they went undefeated. They had a great quarterback and the best receiver in the nation that year. What they didn't have was the schedule to prove they belong. You must play someone in order to be highly ranked. That is where you are wrong and that is why teams get "snubbed". Auburn didn't make it to the championship game because they played a 1-AA team. It doesn't mean that Auburn wasn't good enough, just that other teams played better schedules and in turn were ranked higher. You expect too much from the rankings of 119 teams, that everyone should be able to tell how good a team is simply because they win. You have to make judgments based on schedule strength or their would be no way to compare one team to another. Simply comparing wins and losses is nuts. Is Georgia beating LSU a better win, then say, Akron's win over Northern Illinois? It doesn't mean that Akron isn't as good as Georgia(no one knows that for sure), it just means that based on schedule strength one could assume that Georgia would be favored if the two would play each other and probably win. There has to be a standard applied. Other wise teams would be falling over themselve to schedule weak teams. That was the system we had before the BCS.

If they were to impliment systematic scheduling then in would be more fair then the current system, but your system isn't fair at all. It doesn't allow for two great teams to be in one conference.

Do I think Ohio State had a great team this year at 9-2? Yes. I believe they were one of the 6 best teams in the game this year.

[Jason G]

I don't know why but I was thinking that Marshall had one loss back in 1999. If they were undefeated I think they had a great case for BCS inclusion.

The Miami team that lost to Iowa was one that I thought should at least have been in the argument for a BCS spot. I seem to remember thinking at the time though that there were two other teams that were equally qualified for the at-large selections. I don't remember the particulars of who the teams were.

My understanding of the rules for this upcoming season is that the top-ranked school from a non-BCS conference will be represented if they are ranked in the #12 nationally or better, this does not necessarily mean the MAC champion. If this would have been the system in place since 1999 I believe the Marshall and Miami teams mentioned above would have been in the BCS.

For the record, I am in favor of schools from outside the big six conferences that have extraordinary seasons being included in the BCS. Even more than that though I am in favor of them getting more national attention and the respect that many of them deserve. I think all conference champs should be given a chance at the national spotlight in the postseason whether it be the BCS or another top-tier bowl game. The added exposure would help the non-BCS schools football programs in numerous ways plus the added recognition and opportunity would be a great aid to recruiting. This, in turn, could (and I believe would) bring up the level of play in current non-BCS schools.
That's not to say that the level of play hasn't already improved vastly in the last decade or so. To me the two things that will help non-BCS teams and conferences get more equal footing nationally are reputation and visibility. These factors along with the knowledge that a team could have a marquee game and something to play for in the postseason will be the biggest aids to landing bigger name recruits and potentially better teams on the field.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't know why but I was thinking that Marshall had one loss back in 1999. If they were undefeated I think they had a great case for BCS inclusion.

The Miami team that lost to Iowa was one that I thought should at least have been in the argument for a BCS spot. I seem to remember thinking at the time though that there were two other teams that were equally qualified for the at-large selections. I don't remember the particulars of who the teams were.

My understanding of the rules for this upcoming season is that the top-ranked school from a non-BCS conference will be represented if they are ranked in the #12 nationally or better, this does not necessarily mean the MAC champion. If this would have been the system in place since 1999 I believe the Marshall and Miami teams mentioned above would have been in the BCS.

Jason G, you weren't incorrect, Marshall did suffer a loss, but it wasn't in 1999, it was in 1998, at the hands of Bowling Green.
So, it's possible that's what you were thinking of, and that year, Marshall and Tulane would have made 'excellent' representatives to a 'hypothetical' pairing of teams in the Liberty Bowl (or GMAC Bowl).

As far as 1999 is concerned, I'm not sure which teams were 'most qualified', but Marshall at 12-0 was one of them. They beat Brigham Young, in the Motor City Bowl, to earn that 'perfect' record, and a claim on the national championship.

2003, if I'm not mistaken, Miami (OH) and Boise St were likely the two most deserving representatives not taken by the BCS. But you are correct there were several more 'in contention'. TCU had they not lost to S. Mississippi would have been undefeated, and probably would have had an 'edge' over either team. They played, and lost to Boise St, 31-34 in the Ft. Worth Bowl. Miami (OH) beat Louisville in the GMAC Bowl. They were likely the two best teams 'left standing' after all was said and done.

2004, as we already know, 3 teams were 'eligible' for the BCS, only one was taken, Utah. The other two Boise St, and Louisville were paired in the Liberty Bowl. For all intents and purposes, the Liberty Bowl was the '5th' bowl. In 2005, a '5th' bowl likely would have paired TCU and Oregon, so we can maybe postulate as to which teams likely would be respresented in that arrangement.

It would appear, on the surface a 'non-BCS' team will likely qualify. But if past years are a 'true' reflection, its possible, maybe even likely BOTH teams will be traditionally 'non-BCS' teams. But, the BCS will likely only select one, in my opinion. I would prefer the Liberty Bowl simply be 'added' as a BCS bowl. That way it's more likely both teams are 'non-BCS' teams. And that would preserve tradition, as well as keeping the BCS a competitive arrangement.

[Spence]

Here is the problem with Marshall in 1999.

W
09-04-1999
13
Clemson (SC)
10


W
09-11-1999
63
Liberty (VA)
3



W
09-18-1999
35
Bowling Green (OH)
16



W
09-25-1999
34
Temple (PA)
0



W
10-02-1999
32
Miami (OH)
14



W
10-14-1999
38
Toledo (OH)
13



W
10-23-1999
59
Buffalo (NY)
3



W
10-30-1999
41
Northern Illinois
9



W
11-06-1999
28
Kent St. (OH)
16


W
11-13-1999
31
Western Michigan
17



W
11-26-1999
34
Ohio
3



W
12-03-1999
34
Western Michigan
30
MAC Championship Game


W
12-27-1999
21
Brigham Young (UT)
3
Motor City Bowl

Where does their strength come from?

Clemson was 6-6

Liberty isn't D-1

Bowling Green was 5-6

Temple was 1-10

Miami was 8-2-1
(Miami's toughest game was with Michigan, they lost 38-19)

Toledo was 6-5

Buffalo was 0-11

Northern Illinois was 5-6

Kent St. was 2-9

Western Michigan was 7-5 (Marshall beat them twice)
(They lost to Florida 55-26 and Missouri 48-34)

Ohio U was 5-6
(including losses to Minnesota 33-7 and Ohio St. 40-16)

Brigham Young was 8-4
(Brigham Young was their most impressive opponent with wins over Cal, Washington, and Virginia)
Virginia got beat by Illinois 63-21 in the bowl game. Cal was terrible that year. Washington was the best team of the bunch at 7-5

When you actually breakdown the games like that 13-0 doesn't really seem all that impressive now does it? Do you see why you can't go by wins and losses or conference championships alone? Can you at least see why I won't except that reasoning?

Marshall had a very good team those years with Moss and Pennington. They may have been able to hang with a BCS team, but they played a very bad schedule. So bad that you can not even compare them to the BCS teams fairly.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence I did a little 'research' and came to the conclusion that W. Michigan was likely a fairly competitive team, in general, 1999.
It boils down to the fact that Florida was a competitive team in the SEC, losing the SEC to Alabama, then losing to Michigan St. in the Florida Citrus Bowl. And they did beat W. Michigan fairly handily, but the game was played in Gainesville, so you have to factor that into it, to be fair.
Another team that was competitive against the SEC, anyway, was Louisiana Tech, they beat Alabama, in Tuscaloosa unless I'm mistaken.
For whatever reason they weren't selected by a bowl, and might have made a 'competitive' game for Marshall.
Several other teams (besides Brigham Young) also might have proven 'better' in terms of their 'market' value.
For example, Hawaii was a competitive team that year, in the WAC. A competitive pairing of those teams might have given better insight as to how good Marshall was. A similar argument could be made for Texas Christian as they were also co-champions Western Athletic Conference, along with Fresno St. Any one of those team might have been a 'better' arrangement, or if applied to the Liberty Bowl, S. Mississippi.
All these things would suggest that if a conference championship arrangement were in place it would be a relatively simple matter of pairing teams together competitively, in bowl games.
The two winning 'representatives' would therefore likely be more 'qualified', or at least would be allowed 'equal' representation, in the BCS. Barring that happening, we have to rely on the 'ranking', which would have given Marshall a spot, in a ten-team BCS.

[Spence]

Spence I did a little 'research' and came to the conclusion that W. Michigan was likely a fairly competitive team, in general, 1999.
It boils down to the fact that Florida was a competitive team in the SEC, losing the SEC to Alabama, then losing to Michigan St. in the Florida Citrus Bowl. And they did beat W. Michigan fairly handily, but the game was played in Gainesville, so you have to factor that into it, to be fair.

You see that is my point. They were competitive with their schedule, but they couldn't hang with a good team in the SEC. The game was in Gainsville, but the handicappers say the difference between home and away is 3 points not 29. 29 points is a pretty significant number, your not saying that had the played Florida in Michigan that they would have beat Florida are you?

I consider competitive games being within 10 points. 29 isn't competitve, 29 likely means that Florida got a lot of players in that game in the forth quarter. Usually when you get beat that bad the score could have been a lot worse.

[colorado_loves_football]

noooooo!!! CLF you brought up the game that haunts me. Alabama giving up a 4th and 29 touchdown bomb to Louisiana Tech on the last play of the game. If Alabama had just batted the ball down, there is a strong chance they play FSU for the NC. Oh well, they went to the Orange bowl instead and kept getting up by 14 then letting Michigan right back in it until they lost in OT by missing a PAT. The next year they were picked #3 in the country and went 3-8. I can't explain it.

Thanks, Rolltide, for mentioning that, I wasn't aware of the specifics surrounding that game, and interestingly enough Louisiana Tech also played Florida St., losing to the eventual national champions 41-7 the season opener for both teams, that year.

Interestingly, Louisiana Tech, played a Sun-Belt schedule that year, and would have been one 'possiblity' for a 'hypothetical' BCS 'championship' arrangement, had a playoff been in place. They were likely the 'best' team not selected to play in a bowl, similar to how they were overlooked, last year, so by joining the Sun Belt they would maybe give themselves a competitive 'edge' in the BCS, my point all along.

You see that is my point. They were competitive with their schedule, but they couldn't hang with a good team in the SEC. The game was in Gainsville, but the handicappers say the difference between home and away is 3 points not 29. 29 points is a pretty significant number, your not saying that had the played Florida in Michigan that they would have beat Florida are you?

I consider competitive games being within 10 points. 29 isn't competitve, 29 likely means that Florida got a lot of players in that game in the forth quarter. Usually when you get beat that bad the score could have been a lot worse.

Spence, as far as 'competitive' pairings go, I think Marshall did better than you are giving them credit for. For one thing, Clemson (an ACC school) was on Marshall's schedule, away, and Marshall won, 13-10. Clemson was a pretty competitive team, as evidenced by close losses to Florida St. (17-14), and Georgia Tech (45-42). Clemson did lose their bowl game, against Mississippi St. 17-7. Mississippi St. lost two games, the entire year, to Alabama (SEC Champion) 7-19, and to Arkansas 9-14. Arkansas beat Texas in the Cotton Bowl, so it's fair to say Clemson was a competitive team, in general. Anyway, the point being that Marshall, likely was a 'deserving' team as far as the BCS is concerned.

I tried to apply my 'model' to the BCS, 1999, and came to the following conclusion: The 'traditional' teams would still be represented, through confernece 'tie-ins'. Or, a better way to say it, is that conference champions would likely hold precendence in that sort of arrangement.

If a 'playoff' were to be applied, one possible way to organize it is as follows:

Likely BCS representatives, 1999:
ACC Champions: Florida St.
SEC Champions: Alabama
Big East Champions: Virginia Tech
Big Ten 'co-champions': Michigan & Wisconsin
Pac Ten Champions: Stanford
Big XII Champions: Nebraska
MAC Champions: Marshall
C-USA Champions: S. Mississippi

There are still three conferneces not represented, namely, the WAC, MWC, and Sun-Belt, with the 'likely' representatives being: TCU, Utah, and Louisiana Tech. Louisana Tech was an independent, but for all intents and purposes, played a Sun Belt Confernece schedule, that year.

A 'hypothetical' championship pairing Utah and TCU would select one representative, and I give the 'edge' to TCU, for personal reasons.
And I would like Louisiana Tech to be represented, somehow, so I 'propose' that a Big Ten 'championship' also take place, between Michigan and Wisconsin, thereby allowing a representative from every conference, which is what I have supported.

This would result in the following 'competitive' pairings of teams.


Liberty Bowl: S. Mississippi vs. TCU
GMAC Bowl: Marshall vs. Louisiana Tech

Rose Bowl: Wisconsin/Michigan vs. Stanford
Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska vs. 'at large' (TCU/S. Mississippi)
Sugar Bowl: Florida St. vs. Virgnia Tech
Orange Bowl:Alabama vs. 'at large' (Marshall/Louisiana Tech)

The obvious 'advantage' to this proposal is that one team is selected 'concensus' national champions. The pairings are hypothetical, but assuming games went as scheduled, it's reasonable to assume the following teams advance:

Wisconsin, Nebraska, Florida St, Marshall

Now, what we have is a select group of teams, that wouldn't have 'existed' had a playoff not been in place. It brings to mind the 'Final Four' arrangement, this year, but applied to the BCS.

At this point, anyone could win a national championship, and thats' why I support a representative (conference-wise) and competitive BCS. It works, and it's fair, and one team wins.

[Spence]

Spence, as far as 'competitive' pairings go, I think Marshall did better than you are giving them credit for. For one thing, Clemson (an ACC school) was on Marshall's schedule, away, and Marshall won, 13-10. Clemson was a pretty competitive team, as evidenced by close losses to Florida St. (17-14), and Georgia Tech (45-42). Clemson did lose their bowl game, against Mississippi St. 17-7. Mississippi St. lost two games, the entire year, to Alabama (SEC Champion) 7-19, and to Arkansas 9-14. Arkansas beat Texas in the Cotton Bowl, so it's fair to say Clemson was a competitive team, in general. Anyway, the point being that Marshall, likely was a 'deserving' team as far as the BCS is concerned.

You and Tommy Bowden's mom would be the only ones that would call Clemson competitive that year.

The difference between you and I is that you support mediocrity and I don't. Every argument you use to defend your position has to except sub par performance to make it work. This is just one of many examples.

[colorado_loves_football]

You and Tommy Bowden's mom would be the only ones that would call Clemson competitive that year.

The difference between you and I is that you support mediocrity and I don't. Every argument you use to defend your position has to except sub par proformance to make it work. This is just one of many examples.

If you remember, my verbage was that Clemson was 'competitive' I never said they were 'good'.
Regardless, that doesn't change anything from my perspective.
Clemson lost to Florida st, and to Marshall by a combined 6 points.
That means they were competitive, by nearly anyone's standard.
They lost to a team, Mississippi St. that had only lost two games. Clemson's final record was 6-6 but it was a 'competitive' 6-6.
I'll stand by that statement. You can try to argue otherwise, but I think there's sufficient evidence to refute your position.

[Spence]

what would you call a poor season? 6-6 is a recoed that gets most coaches fired.

[colorado_loves_football]

what would you call a poor season? 6-6 is a recoed that gets most coaches fired.

For the record I don't necessarily believe 6-6 is a 'good' season, but I do believe that it is likely a 'fair' representation of their being competitive, within the context of who they played. Consider, they lost to Marshall, a team that went 12-0 on the year. They also played Florida State, the eventual national champions, and lost by a field goal, 17-14. They also played Big East Champion Virginia Tech, losing to them by 20 points 31-11, but a game played in Blacksburg, VA.
The other three games, they lost were competitive games. Losing to NC State, while disappointing, doesn't mean Clemson was 'bad'. NC State was 6-6 on the year, and likely were better than their record suggested.
They lost to Georgia Tech, a team that was 9-3 overall. finally, they lost to Mississippi St, a team that wound up 10-2 overall, only losses coming at the hands of Alabama, and Arkansas, two competitive teams.
That they lost, is disappointing, but you have to consider the circumstances. Who would you likely favor in a pairing of 9-2 vs. a 6-5 team? They lost by 10.
Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't necessarily share your opinion that a 6-5 team is necessarily non-competitive. Had they won, that likely would have 'solidified' my argument. As it is, we have to agree to disagree on this particular point. BTW, the following year, Clemson was 9-3 overall. However, they lost, badly to Florida St. in Tallahassee. They also lost to Georgia Tech, but this time in Clemson!
Finally, they lost their 'rematch' with Virginia Tech, in the Gator Bowl by 21 points. I think all things considered, the 1999 Clemson football team was competitive, and the results would appear to support that position

[Spence]

By you definition every team in CFB is competitive.

In terms of judging the best teams in football competitive means a team that would do well against the best teams in football. Not for just a game, but in a season of games. If a team couldn't go into any of the power confences and do well, they shouldn't be able to get a BCS bid. After all the power conferences have to do well against that type of competition.

The reason you frame your arguments the way you do is because you likely know that most mid majors wouldn't finish at or near the top of any of those conferences. Quit hiding behind semantics. Name a mid major that could finish at the top of any of the power conferences. That is the question you have been dodging for months. You do it by using your word "competitive" and applying it in the most general terms.

[colorado_loves_football]

By you definition every team in CFB is competitive.

In terms of judging the best teams in football competitive means a team that would do well against the best teams in football. Not for just a game, but in a season of games. If a team couldn't go into any of the power confences and do well, they shouldn't be able to get a BCS bid. After all the power conferences have to do well against that type of competition.

The reason you frame your arguments the way you do is because you likely know that most mid majors wouldn't finish at or near the top of any of those conferences. Quit hiding behind semantics. Name a mid major that could finish at the top of any of the power conferences. That is the question you have been dodging for months. You do it by using your word "competitive" and applying it in the most general terms.

Spence, first of all I wasn't making an argument for Clemson being in the BCS. I simply stated that they played a 'competitive' schedule, and they did, in 1999, perhaps the MOST competitive schedule of any team. Finishing 6-6 under those circumstances, really isn't that bad, in my opinion.
Now, as far as a team that would likely finish #1 in a 'power' conference I would again like to refer to 1999, for obvious reasons. I think it's possible, maybe even likely Marshall wins the Big Ten Conference. You might wonder how I come to that conclusion. Well it's based a number of factors, but primarily the fact that Wisconsin (Big Ten Champion) lost to Cincinnati, a C-USA team that was 3-8 overall, 0-6 C-USA.
Cincinnati wasn't that bad, just couldn't win, but beat Wisconsin. Since Marshall didn't schedule Cincinnati we can't do a side-by-side comparsion.
However, I believe, the evidence supports it, since Marshall didn't lose a game all year long, and Wisconsin did.
That's one reason why I think a 'competitive' BCS would remedy many, if not all of the 'ills' that plague it. Marshall was likely the best 'non-BCS' team, in 1999. I guess I could 'settle' for having one 'non-BCS' team in the BCS, every year, but I would prefer having two.

[Spence]

Keep dreaming.

[Jason G]

One thing I know about Marshall....At least when they were in the MAC they tried to schedule the toughest schedule they could most seasons. Sometimes the teams they play turn out not be as strong as was thought at the time of scheduling and more often than that BCS schools refuse to play them, especially in Huntington.
The only thing more they could do is schedule all their non-conf games away from home but that wouldn't be fair to the team, season ticket holders, concessionaies, etc...