BCS' Changes

[Spence]

think you assume too much when you conclude a playoff would work against teams not presently part of the BCS, in fact I think that's a ridiculous statement. A playoff would necessarily include them, or else it wouldn't be a fair selection of teams. You are making the assumption, incorrectly, that it would have to be done by rank, only.
I propose a number of criteria be utilized that would assure a non-BCS school would be represented. And I"ve already outlined how that could happen

The only way the "big six" would opt for a play off would be if it was done by rank. No way they would enter into an agreement that would allow the #5 team in the country to stay home while the #21 team goes for winning their conference. the "big six" controls the money because they are the ones who make the money.

A number of criteria could be used to assure a non-BCS school would be represented, but it wouldn't happen. The "big six" will always protect their money. If they think they aren't getting their cut, they will change the system. Like it or not those conferences control CFB. If they decide to take their ball and go home, the rest of the conferences are in trouble.

[colorado_loves_football]

The only way the "big six" would opt for a play off would be if it was done by rank. No way they would enter into an agreement that would allow the #5 team in the country to stay home while the #21 team goes for winning their conference. the "big six" controls the money because they are the ones who make the money.

I think a playoff of teams selected in the BCS would not only give the BCS the leverage it needs, but would also serve to make the BCS better, in every respect. With ten teams, they already have a 'field' however small, and all are supposedly the 'elite', competitively, so pairing the winners together, wouldnt really be that hard to do.
I already gave an example of how it could be applied this year, so let's apply it to last year to see if it works:
Automatic qualifiers:
ACC Champion: Va. Tech
SEC Champion: Auburn
Big East Champion: Pittsburgh
Big Ten Champion: Michigan
Pac Ten Champion: USC
Big XII Champion: Oklahoma
4 'at large' representatives: Utah, Texas, Louisville, Boise St.

I would have paired Utah and Boise St. in a 'championship' game, similar to how the Big XII does, giving one team BCS 'at large' bid, outright.
I would have also paired Louisville and Pittsburgh together, allowing Louisville the Fiesta Bowl bid. The 'championship' pairings are as follows:

Rose Bowl: Texas vs. Michigan
Fiesta Bowl: Utah/Boise St. vs. Louisville
Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs. Va. Tech
Orange Bowl: USC vs. Oklahoma

Competition selects the 'Final Four':

Texas vs. Utah/Louisville
Auburn vs. USC

The reason this works, is simple. Competition determines which teams ultimately play in the BCS, and ultimately the BCS determines which teams advance.
Without a 'playoff' we are left with 4, or even 5 teams (like this year) who are legitimate national championship 'contenders'.
A playoff of BCS 'champions' would end all debate who is #1, every year.

[Spence]

All I ask, Spence, is that weigh it fairly. You have a right to your opinion, but do you honestly believe that every year we will have 'concensus' with respect to who is crowned national champion, without a playoff?

No. Without a playoff there will be no consensus champion every year.

I am not being objective or subjective. I am being realistic. The "big six" have the clout in CFB. They set up the BCS to their advantage. If there were to ever be a playoff why do you think it would be set up differently? I am not saying this is fair or not fair. I could argue both ways, but it is a fact.

If a playoff were to ever come about, it would hurt the mid-majors. As it stands now the system is weighted against a mid major playing in the championship game, but it is possible that a mid major can play in a BCS bowl. A playoff wouldn't change that because the commissioners for the "big six" wouldn't let it happen.

The reason a playoff would be bad for CFB has nothing to do with how the champion is determined. You would take a system that allows 56 teams to play a post season game and reduce it to 10. Nobody would care about any games, but the playoff game and if nobody cares, no one will put up the money to sponsor them. The sponsors will be trying to get involved with the playoff games.

There is nothing wrong with your model or the fairness of it. It just will never happen because the conferences with the power will never let it happen.

No system will ever be fair unless you cut down the number of teams that play in division 1, because you can't accurately gauge the strength of all those teams. That is why the gauge strength based on what these teams have done in the past.

The mid majors aren't the only ones that get held back by this. Iowa was as good as anyone in the nation from 2002 to 2004. They got no respect from the polls until the 2005 season. This system was designed to put #1 and #2 together on the same field for one game. Something that had never happened in the 100 or so years before it. the rest of the BCS games were set up to spotlight the best teams in the country and make a lot of money for the conferences. Nothing more. Like the BCS or not they have pretty much achieved what the set out to do.

[colorado_loves_football]

This is how I understand the BCS to be, competitively.
They are obviously slanted toward the 'major' conferences, which is their right, after all, but this year ought to be the 'breakthrough' year, as it would have been for TCU.
A team needs to finish ranked top-12 for 'automatic' selection purposes.
Mountainman seems to believe a bowl can select or reject a team, but that's not how I see it, if a team finishes top-12, they go, it's guaranteed, just like how the major 6 conferences are selected. If two or more 'non-BCS' schools finish top-12 then I think the bowls have a choice, between them. There is also a provision for Notre Dame. Last year, they had to finish ranked top-ten. They were #6 so they were an 'automatic' pick.
It would appear to me that they likely need to be top-15, this time.
Any team selected has to meet certain qualifying standards. 9 wins is seen as the 'standard' but it's obviously not set in stone, as FSU went with 8, as did Pittsburgh the year before.
Any team finishing ranked in the top-12 will obviously be considered, but I don't think the bowls can select whoever they want. Just like this year, when Oregon was excluded there are exceptions.
But there is in fact a 'pool' of teams to select from, something I hadn't been aware of previously. And the bowls themselves are prioritized.
That may explain how the Fiesta Bowl was able to pair Notre Dame and OSU together. They took Notre Dame, then waited, and OSU was left from the 'pool' of teams, after the Orange Bowl selected Penn St.
Had the Orange Bowl taken OSU, then they would have had a Notre Dame vs. Penn St. pairing (something they preferred, since OSU has been there several times).

[Spence]

The BCS is making a spot for a mid major. I have no problem with that.

Finally, we agree that the 'heart' of the BCS is the 6 conferences that occupy a place of 'priority'. That should remain in effect, but limit the number of teams from a BCS confernece to one.
That would be 'fair', but likely won't happen, so we agree on that, also.

My point has never been whether the big six should have priority, it is that they always will have priority. The only thing that will change that is if one of the smaller conferences recruit their tails off and beat the top schools in the country consistently. Then they would join or replace some of the teams in the big six at present. The priority given to the top six is about winning on a consistent basis. If a conference starts getting beat nationally and badly for a period of time, they will no longer be a top conference. It has nothing to do with entitlement.

[colorado_loves_football]

My point has never been whether the big six should have priority, it is that they always will have priority. The only thing that will change that is if one of the smaller conferences recruit their tails off and beat the top schools in the country consistently. Then they would join or replace some of the teams in the big six at present. The priority given to the top six is about winning on a consistent basis. If a conference starts getting beat nationally and badly for a period of time, they will no longer be a top conference. It has nothing to do with entitlement.

The BCS was obviously set up to benefit the major conferences, along with Notre Dame. How do I know this, look at the evidence.
First of all a team necessarily has to finish #1 or #2 BCS poll to go to the championship game, and they have written out how if one (or both) of those are occupied by 'non-BCS' schools they still get an 'at large' bid if one finishes in the top-6. Nice guys! Does anyone appreciate the significance of that number? 6 is also the number of 'automatic' selections to the BCS awarded. Someone tell me how likely it is any team outside the BCS finish ranked higher, than one of the major confernece champions. Not likely, although it happened this year, with TCU. That's incidentally how TCU gets their 'at large' bid, in next year's BCS, since they weren't ranked top-12, nationally until after their bowl.
Someone tell me how that's fair? But it worked, so I guess I can't complain too much about it, TCU gets in on a technicality.
But in general, the probability a team 'outside' the BCS finishes ranked higher than a major conference champion is slim, at best. Utah accomplished that last year, in no small part due to the fact the Big East was lousy, in general, but even so they broke the proverbial chain, keeping the BCS 'closed'.
This is going to be a long and hard fought battle, obviously for everyone.
TCU would have had to have gone and maybe won, in a BCS game to have earned respect nationally, so maybe it's best they weren't selected, this year. As it was, they beat Iowa State, not bad, but not exactly what I might have preferred, had it been say Ohio State.
Even so, TCU showed they were competitive, and would have likely done ok in a BCS pairing against Oregon, had that been arranged.
So, let's all give credit where it's due. That's all I'm asking.

[Spence]

Once again, Spence, you are correct, this isn't about entitlement at all, it's about fairness in competition, which is why I will still argue that teams outside the BCS are misrepresented, by-and-large. I argue that for several reasons, but primarily due to the fact that TCU wasn't paired against a comparable opponent, talent-wise.

Teams that are good for one year do get misrepresented. It is because they aren't consitantly good. with 119 teams the only way to make comparisons are to judge the schedule. TCU - Iowa State was a fair pairing. The game was competitive and either team could have one the game. that is what the bowl system tries to do with their pairings. Set up the best possible match-ups. Nothing more. This year all of the bowls did a pretty good job of this. Sometimes they don't, but that is why they play the games.

[mountainman]

As far as I know or have been able to find out, the standards for selection to a BCS bowl have not changed.

The six BCS regular season conference champions will received an automatic bowl berth. Any other division-1 school will be granted BCS bowl pool eligibility based on their team ranking in the top twelve of the final BCS Standings Poll.

There are other considerations, such as the national title game and the 3 & 4 ranks and Notre Dame, based on the ranking in the poll, but as far as I know a team must be in the top twelve to be eligible for selection by a BCS bowl.

In other words, even though a team meets the top twelve ranking criteria for eligibility, that does not necessarily mean that team will be selected to participate. That decision, in those cases, will be made by the individual bowl selection committees.

Adding another game to the BCS bowls with the new 'double-hosting' format does not lower the standards for selection, but rather it just simply creates an additional game.

[Spence]

Adding another game to the BCS bowls with the new 'double-hosting' format does not lower the standards for selection, but rather it just simply creates an additional game.

That is right. However adding an extra game will give an opportunity to a high ranking mid major that might have otherwise been shut out. More times then not, though, it will give the big six a chance to make a little more money.

[mountainman]

Sometimes I don't follow all the posts as closely as I could and sometimes posts are changed through the editing feature and I'm not aware of it.

I did read a post that suggested that things might get easier, if you will, and like I said I do not believe that is the case. There are just two more opportunities now for teams that meet the standards that remain unchanged.

[Spence]

There are just two more opportunities now for teams that meet the standards that remain unchanged.

that is the way I read it also. I believe that this will cause even more controversy then before. Going ten teams deep blurs the line even more then eight teams when determining who should go. The bowls are always going to pick the most advantageous pairing for them. Being fair isn't a consideration, never has been.

[Guest]

TCU - Iowa State was a fair pairing. The game was competitive and either team could have one the game. that is what the bowl system tries to do with their pairings. Set up the best possible match-ups. Nothing more. This year all of the bowls did a pretty good job of this. Sometimes they don't, but that is why they play the games.

Spece I think even you know in your heart the TCU-Iowa State paring wasn't a 'fair' pairing, or else you wouldn't have included that last sentence. Yes it was a close game, but TCU was obviously not that excited about playing a 7-5 team, who would? That it was close is irrelevant, TCU won, that's all that matters, but give Iowa State credit for making it close.
Incidentally, the fifth bowl wasadded to give greater opportunity for non-BCS schools, it's the 'compromise' that necessitated ABC leaving and Fox taking over. Mountainman I think you are wrong when you suggest a top-12 team (non-BCS) isn't assured a bid, I think they are, only exception being if multiple teams are represented. Double check your information, if you don't believe me, the fifth bowl was created specifically for non-BCS teams, provided they meet the standards. Top 12 was implemented partly because several teams (top 12) weren't selected in the past, Miami OH, 2003, comes to mind, although they likely weren't top-12 until after the bowls were played.
You are both correct each bowl can select it's own 'pairing' but the BCS bowls are limited in their options. They can't take Notre Dame, for example if Notre Dame isn't BCS 'eligible'. And they couldnt' take Virginia Tech this year, over TCU even if they wanted to, under next years rules. The field of 'ten' is set in concrete, every year.

[mountainman]

Hey Guest,

To begin with I don't have any idea what would lead you to believe Spence even has a heart. (just kidding).

The source of my information is the BCS website. If things have changed the site has not been updated to reflect the changes. Check it out, if you like @:

http://www.bcsfootball.org

By the way, Virginia Tech was a member of the 'Poll of Eligible Teams' at the end of the regular season as the Hokies won 9 regular season games and were among the top 12 teams in the final BCS Standings.

[colorado_loves_football]

Mountainman you are incorrect in your assessement that a team necessarily has to be ranked top-12 to be selected for the BCS.
There is already enough evidence to the contrary.
For example FSU qualified, and I think they were #23 overall, but were 'automatic' due to their ACC selection.
Secondly, there are provisions for other teams, Notre Dame for one, if they finish ranked top-15, I believe, they go autmatically. It was top-ten but I think they lowered the standard somewhat, to accomodate them.
There are provisons where an 'at large' team goes, if they meet the necessary criteria. Those are available to allow a bowl some freedom with respect to 'traditonal' pairings.
For example, should say the ACC go to the championship game, next year, then the Orange Bowl would have the option to select an ACC team, provided they are top-12. Similarly, the Fiesta Bowl would have had the option to select Oklahoma, had they been ranked where Oregon was. (top-6). In effect they want the bowls to be 'happy' with their picks.
But since the ACC wasn't represented in the BCS title game, that meant FSU was an 'automatic' representative to the Orange Bowl. Similarly, had the SEC been represented, it's possible that the Sugar Bowl might have had the option to take LSU, but only if they were top-6, which they weren't. Under next year's guidelines, top-12 is the standard, so there is more flexibility, and likely more options as well, for bowls.
But again that's only if their representative is taken, the rankings actually favor 'non-BCS' schools for at large bids, in fact they are assured one, provided they finish top-12.

[mountainman]

I anxiously await the opportunity to read "next year's rules". Haven't seen them as of yet.