New BCS Qualifying Standards

[Spence]

WEll, I don't know about that, myself. Every team has to play whichever schedule they are dealt. I wouldn't punish a team for not playing a 'top-10' schedule, and I personally think it's secondary to how a team plays, in general. If they don't have a very tough schedule, it's likely the team is'nt very good, and so a ranking (of teams) would probably address that fairly. But remember we are talking about I-A, here, in ohter words, every team is supposed to meet a certain standard, for competitive play. But I agree, that there should be a way to assure that the BCS doesn't get a 'turkey'. And i'm not sure what the best way to address that is, myself.

I don't know the exact criteria for being division 1-A, but I don't think being able to field a competitive team is one of them. I believe it has more to do with attendence and economic issues. Other then that we are pretty close to being on the same page.

[Spence]

88, their is alot more time dedicated to 1-A then there is to AA. Also 1-AA guys are all college material to start with, some of the 1-A guys need extra help.

[mountainman]

Well, guys. We've, and others, been over this subject a number of times. I have yet to see anything that addresses the concerns of the college presidents or the inherent issues. It's their ball and they call the shots on this one.

Bottom line is the major conferences just don't want a playoff at this time.
Personally, I like the notion of the "Plus 1" format, but that idea didn't pass this time around. Instead they chose to add another game.

Playoffs have a number of impediments and the will to change the current format of college football to address those is just not there. I can see why some people would want it, but there's just no will to do it due to the practical difficulties.

[mountainman]

Yep, sometimes those top four can be pretty close while other times they are not.

Still, the "Plus 1" format does not answer Coach Bob Stoops question about, 'If Oklahoma is the only undefeated team in the country ... why should the Sooners have to play two more games against teams that are not undefeated'

[mountainman]

Well, rolltide, that's where the conflict begins. When there's a legitimate question asked and there's not a legitimate answer. They should be answered or the system is suspect and not on a good foundation. Ignoring the questions or issues is not an option if any system is going to serve well. That is a good question you posed for Coach Stoops, I wonder how he would answer?

You know as well, or possibly better than I, that in college football the best team does not always win. Maybe that is what Coach Stoops is trying to say.

I suppose it all comes down to perspective, but it is so important, in my judgement anyway, to do what is best for college football as a whole. In other words, ensure that the game is put before any individual or groups interest.

By the way, I believe this system is much, much better than what was in place before. We'll see how it progresses going forward.

[mountainman]

Yep, we're in agreement on that for sure. Seems like there's a awful lot of attention on the 'mythical national title'. Lots of hype by the media as well as chest pounding, drum beating and sabre rattling by some of the teams. I am hopeful too that that one issue doesn't lead to something that would not be in the best interests of the game or the other 117 or so teams.

I too like the notion of the 'Plus 1' format. I surmize the reason it didn't happen is the presidents are fearful that if they let the playoff genie out of the bottle it would soon spiral out of control.

[colorado_loves_football]

Yeah, I would take a plus one if I could get it. That would effectivly be a 4-team playoff. That would almost always take care of any undefeateds being left out.

Plus one would have worked in 2003, when two teams were undefeated, but who would have been paired together in this year's plus one? Similarly, who would have been the two 'players' in 2004, when 3 teams were undefeated? You might think two 'plus-ones' would be sufficient, and it would, but what if say, Boise St. had beaten Louisville? Then even two 'plus-one's wouldn't select a unanimous national champion, so the only 'fair' solution is a playoff of qualified teams, to select a 'unanimous' BCS champion, each year.

It's possible the BCS could employ a 'flexible' structure that would somehow adapt to suit the situation, but I think that's stupid, given how fairly, and simply a BCS 9-game playoff addresses the issue, directly.

BCS conference champions (2004):
ACC: Virginia Tech
SEC: Auburn
Big East: Pittsburgh
Big Ten: Michigan
Pac Ten: USC
Big XII: Oklahoma
'at large' candidates: Louisville, Boise St, Utah, Texas, California

Eleven teams are BCS 'eligible' but Pittsburgh was anything but an 'automatic' qualifier, and probably wasn't worthy of its bid. However, to honor the pairings, I'll leave them in, but I have to 'substitute' a conference 'championship' pairing Utah and Boise St. together.

Likely BCS pairings:
Holiday Bowl: California vs. Texas (Texas wins)
Liberty Bowl: Louisville vs. Boise St./Utah (Louisville or Utah wins)
Rose Bowl: Michigan vs. Texas (Texas wins)
Fiesta Bowl: Louisville/Utah vs. Pittsburgh (Louisville/Utah wins)
Sugar Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Auburn (Auburn wins)
Orange Bowl: USC vs. Oklahoma (USC wins)

Semi-final pairings: Louisville/Utah vs. Texas, USC vs. Auburn
Championship: semi-final winners paired together.

That's 9 games to select a 'concensus' national champion, or ten if you include the 'chapionship' pairing Utah and Boise St. together, a hypothetical arrangement,that can be ignored if Pittsburgh is discarded.

Applied to this year's BCS is a lot simpler, only ten teams qualify.

Preliminary BCS game #1: Ohio St. vs. Notre Dame (Ohio St. wins)
Preliminary BCS game #2: Oregon vs. TCU (indeterminate)

Rose Bowl: USC vs. Ohio St. (indeterminate)
Fiesta Bowl: Oregon/TCU vs. Texas (indeterminate)
Sugar Bowl: W. Virginia vs. Georgia (W. Virginia wins)
Orange Bowl: Penn St. vs. FSU (Penn St. wins)

Semi-final pairing#1: USC/Ohio St. vs. Oregon/TCU/Texas
Semi-final pairing#2: W. Virginia vs. Penn St.

BCS championship game: semi-final winners paired together.

Again, 9 games are required, to select a 'concensus' national champion.
This is a 'one-size fits all' solution, and wouldn't require the BCS to adapt it's format to fit the situation, as it addresses every possiblity.

[Guest]

I think that the "plus one" would be pretty good. I assume it would be
#1 v. #4 and #2 v. #3 then the winners would play. Usually that would take care of undefeateds. In Utah's case, they were #6 so they would be out of the top 4. That would suck, but if Utah had beaten some bigger names that year they would have been in the top 4 probably. I think that the plus 1 format allows just about any team in 1a to have a chance at the NC. The mid-major conferences could load up on BCS teams for out of conference games and if they go undefeated they have a chance of being in the BCS top 4. For example: if Arkansas St. could win all the sunbelt games and beat Alabama, Va Tech, ND, and Washington, I honestly think they would be in the BCS top 4. That is the only thing I can think of. I don't think there will be an 8 team playoff (or more) anytime soon, so I think this is a good compromise.

Rolltide, it's not a terrible 'solution' but it only addresses part of the problem, from a competitive standpoint. Notice, you referred to mid-majors, wheras I treated each team fairly and equally, perhaps even granting 'traditional' BCS teams 'priority' over a more impartial arrangement, that likely would have allowed for both Utah and Boise St. to compete.
Your proposal is insufficient, it doesn't address 2004 at all. It handles 2003 ok, but that's only because that year, LSU and USC were 'tied'.
I know where you are coming from, it would likely have allowed Texas and USC to meet in a 'championship' game following the bowls.
But it doesn't address the possiblity of an upset, does it?

Say USC(#1) and Ohio St.(#4) were paired in the Rose Bowl, that's a fair arrangement. And Texas (#2) and Penn St. (#3) are paired in the Fiesta. For argument's sake, we'll assume the Sugar Bowl pairs W. Virginia and Georgia (W. Virginia winning). And the Orange Bowl pairs Notre Dame and FSU (indeterminate).

Now, it's possible, however unlikely, that both Texas and USC are beaten.
We already know that W. Virginia won, in an upset over Georgia. And let's just presume that the winner of the Orange Bowl was FSU, for simplicity.

Would an OSU vs. Penn St. pairing be sufficient, if OSU wins?
That would mean at least one other team (W.Virginia) had a better record. This ties in, somewhat to what Mountainman was implying. A 'plus-one' doesn't really address the greater problem of head-to-head.
The only 'fair' solution, would be to allow the 4 'champions' to meet, competitively. That way, no team is excluded, W.Virginia in this case.
I don't necessarily object to the idea of a 'plus-one' it does work in certain situations, but doesn't give every team admitted 'fair' opportunity.
A ten-team 'championship' of 9 games, would give every team admitted (regardless of how they are selected) a chance for a national title.
That's why it's better than the plus-one, not that the plus-one might not help.

[Guest]

Glad to see you've got it all figured out in your mind, colorado. Good for you.

Now all you have to do is convince the college and university presidents to reverse their decison about not to have a playoff in D-1 college football.

[Guest]

I think that the "plus one" would be pretty good. I assume it would be
#1 v. #4 and #2 v. #3 then the winners would play. Usually that would take care of undefeateds. In Utah's case, they were #6 so they would be out of the top 4. That would suck, but if Utah had beaten some bigger names that year they would have been in the top 4 probably. I think that the plus 1 format allows just about any team in 1a to have a chance at the NC. The mid-major conferences could load up on BCS teams for out of conference games and if they go undefeated they have a chance of being in the BCS top 4. For example: if Arkansas St. could win all the sunbelt games and beat Alabama, Va Tech, ND, and Washington, I honestly think they would be in the BCS top 4. That is the only thing I can think of. I don't think there will be an 8 team playoff (or more) anytime soon, so I think this is a good compromise.

Rolltide, the 'plus-one' arrangment is ok in principle, but it is insufficient to handle the possibility of 'several' undefeated teams, as was the case in 2004. It would have addressed 2003, fairly, but that was only because there were really only two teams left as 'viable' championship teams, from the BCS field, that year.

Consider how it might have 'worked' this year, the year of the 'upset'.
Say USC(#1) and Ohio St.(#4) are paired in the Rose Bowl, according to your stipulation it's #1 and #4. Similarly, Texas (#2) and Penn St. (#3) are paired in the Fiesta. Now, let's further assume that the Sugar Bowl remains W. Virginia and Georgia. And for simplicity sake, let's assume FSU 'wins' its game against Notre Dame.

Furthermore, let's assume all games are 'upsets'. OSU beats USC, Penn St. beats Texas, W. Virginia beats Georgia, and FSU beats Notre Dame.

A 'plus-one' would have put Ohio St.and Penn St. together, two co-champions, from the Big Ten. How does that select a 'unanimous' national champion? It doesn't. It only gives us an idea which team was 'best' in the Big Ten, and since we already know how Penn St. did against FSU, if they 'win', does that really 'prove' they are national champions? Granted, this is a 'worst-case' scenario, but worth analyizing, regardless. Penn St. already beat OSU, so it's likely they beat them again. It's therfore unclear which team is better, W. Virginia or Penn St. Since Penn St. already 'beat' FSU, it's clear they are better, but not having them play, also leaves some question as to how good FSU is, assuming they win against Notre Dame.

So, as much as I think you have a right to your opinion, I think the 'plus-one' is a joke.

Would an OSU vs. Penn St. pairing be sufficient, if OSU wins?
That would mean at least one other team (W.Virginia) had a better record. This ties in, somewhat to what Mountainman was implying. A 'plus-one' doesn't really address the greater problem of head-to-head.
The only 'fair' solution, would be to allow the 4 'champions' to meet, competitively. That way, no team is excluded, W.Virginia in this case.
I don't necessarily object to the idea of a 'plus-one' it does work in certain situations, but doesn't give every team admitted 'fair' opportunity.
A ten-team 'championship' of 9 games, would give every team admitted (regardless of how they are selected) a chance for a national title.
That's why it's better than the plus-one, not that the plus-one might not help.

[mountainman]

Oops, sorry. That is my post.

The one suggesting that colorado to take his notions up with the college presidents.

[colorado_loves_football]

Glad to see you've got it all figured out in your mind, colorado. Good for you.

Now all you have to do is convince the college and university presidents to reverse their decison about not to have a playoff in D-1 college football.

Mountainman I never said I have it "all figured out", I don't but I don't think presenting a different point of view is bad.

It should be clear to everyone that a 'plus-one', while preferable to what's already in place, would be insufficient to select a 'champion' from a field of ten qualified teams. That's not even debatable at this point.
It would, however, address the problem of 'co-national' champions, which has happened infrequently, most recently 2003.

The reason my proposal is 'better' isn't simply because it address that one variant (two undefeated teams) it also addresses every other permutation, that can affect a ten-team BCS, fairly and equally.

One other advantage would be how it would honor already existing bowl's schedules, and would provide a 'concensus' national champion within a week of the 'revised' BCS, this year. The schedule can be outlined as follows:
Week #1: Preliminary games (1 & 2) (Liberty & Holiday)(December 25)
Week #2: Traditional BCS pairings (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) (Jan 1)
Week #3: Semi-final pairings (1 & 2) (Jan.
Week #4: BCS 'championship' game (Jan. 15)

This schedule, is interesting in that games already scheduled would be played, at or near the appointed time-line. Bowls wouldn't necessarily have to reschedule games to accomodate the BCS.
The two semi-finals would be played at roughly the same time as the BCS '5th' bowl, this year. What that means is that this proposal requires only one week, additional from that which is already being utilized.
Or another way to look at it, is that the bowl season would only be dragged out one more week, to provide a 'concensus' national champion.
A fair trade off, to the present model, that only assures us a #1 vs. #2 'championship'. My model assures a BCS title game pairing the two most 'deserving' teams together, all while honoring the BCS 'traditional' model of 4 championship games, together with preliminary pairings, followed by semi-final & championship games.
A reasonable alternative to simply pairing two teams together in a bowl.

[Guest]

I'll go ahead and take the 'Plus 1' format a step further, if that is O.K. with you, guest.

Lets imagine that a couple of the teams in the puls 4 mix are from one of the conferences that has divisions and a conference championship game. During the regular team A beats team B and then those same two teams meet in the conference championship game and team A wins again. Team B is highly rated and is very good so they are ranked in the top 4 and make the plus 4 "playoff". And they end up beating team A for the national title.

Think that would stir up any controversy, or would everybody just let that one slide?

[Guest]

Sorry if my postings annoy you, colorado. Have you considered not reading them ... you could chose not to read them, that might help.

Here's the thing, I don't believe for one minute that these arguments being put forth by the non-bcs conferences are about the national title. I believe they are about them getting a bigger piece of the BCS dollar pie.

You know why I say that? It's because the BCS rules say any D-1 team qualifies for the championship game provided they are ranked #1 or #2 in the final BCS standings. They have access to the title game just the same as every other D-1 school. Whether or not they can put a team on the field that qualifies is an issue pretty much in their control, just the same as every other D-1 team. So lets not go round bashing the BCS system for their failure to field a team that meets the same set of standards that everyone else plays by.

[colorado_loves_football]

I'll go ahead and take the 'Plus 1' format a step further, if that is O.K. with you, guest.

Lets imagine that a couple of the teams in the puls 4 mix are from one of the conferences that has divisions and a conference championship game. During the regular team A beats team B and then those same two teams meet in the conference championship game and team A wins again. Team B is highly rated and is very good so they are ranked in the top 4 and make the plus 4 "playoff". And they end up beating team A for the national title.

Think that would stir up any controversy, or would everybody just let that one slide?

Mountainman, your writings are hard to disguise, partly because of your penchant for using the emotions on this page!
The only reason I called you 'annoying' is because you insult me, don't do that and I wont' complain, and yes those 'guest' postings were from me, I couldn't figure out a way to 'revise' them, and I don't think I can, so I apologize for that.
Now, If I understand your question, you are presenting me with the fairly unlikely (and fairly unprecedented) possibility that two teams from the same conference meet for the BCS title, after having played against each other, twice in the same year. Would that select a 'viable' national champion? I guess my 'vote' is yes it would, in most circumstances.
If the winning team wins all three, then they are obviously better. If one team wins 2/3 they are likely better, so that covers 2/3 possiblities.
The third possiblity, that one team loses twice to the same team, then beats that team in the BCS title game is without precedent, but possible under my proposal, so I ought to address it.
For argument's sake, let's say it's Penn St. and Ohio St. They are both in the Big Ten and could conceivably meet for the national championship.
In that event, both teams would have had to jump through several 'hurdles' to get to the BCS title, winning a conference being one, for Penn St. For Ohio St. they would have had to likely beat Notre Dame, USC in Pasadena (Rose Bowl), followed by a semi-final pairing where' it's possible they played (and beat) Texas.
Now, they are playing their arch-nemesis, Penn State for all the marbles.
The stakes are higher, for one thing. Both teams know going into to it it's for the national championship. Winner-take-all. If that weren't the case, then its' simply a 2/3 scenario that Penn St. has already won.
So, I don't completely understand you hypothesis, but my opinion is the best team wins the game, regardless, how many times they played previously. Anyone remember K-State vs. Oklahoma, 2003?
Who is going to argue K-State wasn't the best team that day?
Both teams lost their BCS games, but assuming they both had won, I think a pairing of those teams, together would have been a sufficient way to select a national champion. That would have been a 2/3 scenario.
Maybe in the event one team has alreay won twice, they are awarded the trophy without having to play the title game. Sounds fair to me.
And what you propose has never happened anyway to my knowledge,and is pretty unlikely to happen in any event.
So it does pose a question as to how well a BCS 'championship' would address that one particular, and fairly unlikely possibility.
If one team wins 1/3, I don't think that team is a 'unanimous' national champion, myself, but that's just my opinion.