Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[colorado_loves_football]

If you want to see who the top teams are here is a link on the top teams in ranking order by CFP. Since they have predicted the winners in these games 75% of the time they have a pretty grasp on who the best teams are in college football.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/historical_composite_rank.html

Notice that the first doesn't pop up until right around 25. Better then I thought, but not good enough to be considered for an automatic bid. This might put some things in prospective for you.

Spence, I appreciate you supplying me with this information, and I think we can maybe agree that in general, there have been some pretty competitive 'non-BCS' teams, according to this poll.

First of all, Marshall wasn't a C-USA team until last year, meaning that a MAC team is ranked top-25! Not bad, if I do say so myself.

Secondly, many of the teams represented have improved generally, over time. Two examples of that are Boise St, and Louisville. Another is TCU, but they have sort of 'ebbed' from being competitive and back.

Another thing you should probably consider is how high some of these teams are ranked in general.
Marshall was ranked as high as #4 likely the highest ranking by a 'non-BCS' team. Tulane, 1998 was #7, good enough, I think to be considered for a BCS 'at large' bid, if top-8 is the standard being applied.
Texas Christian was #9, just shy, 2000, and #6, last year, so that would imply they were likely 'qualified' for a BCS 'at large' bid, 2005 (but not 2000, 2002, 2003)
Boise St, 2002, 2003, 2004 ranked top-8 three consecutive years! Not bad, likely means they are better than you are giving them credit for.
(notice how much they improved from when they were first ranked, 1996.
Louisville was ranked, top-8, 2001, and again in 2004. That year (2001) Louisville beat Brigham Young in the Liberty Bowl. Brigham Young had been a BCS 'contender' until they lost to Hawaii. In effect, the Liberty Bowl 'selected' a deserving candidate in 2001. (as in 1998, 2004). Brigham Young, 1996, was a top-8 team. That year they won the Cotton Bowl, against K-State. In case I forgot to mention it, Miami (OH) finished ranked #5 in 2003, one better than TCU, last year.
So, that means that in nearly every year, except for 2000 (TCU #9) there was a 'non-BCS' team ranked sufficiently high enough to be selected to the BCS, according to the CCP, if top-8 is the qualifying standard. That's an impressive statistic, I believe.
Obviously, Louisville is now a BCS team, but they weren't, so I'm including them. In many of of those cases, but not all, the likely representative also was the Liberty Bowl champion.
Tulsa got as high as #26, obviously not high enough to be considered.

[Spence]

The reason I included this is to give some perspective. I know that year by year every team is better or worse then average. You ask me why it is a deal breaker if a team like Miami(OH) loses to Iowa, but it isn't a deal breaker for Michigan. The answer is that Michigan plays more then one ranked team. They get the chance to redeem themselves because they play a tougher schedule. When you only schedule one ranked team and lose it is hard to redeem yourself. Teams can lose early and comeback. They just have to have a difficult enough schedule to over come the loss. Unless, as was the case with Ohio State last year, the teams that beat them keep winning. Then there is nothing you can do. You just have to take what is given you.

[colorado_loves_football]

Apply that argument to Miami, OH if it works, but don't apply it to TCU.
That being said, I thought Miami, OH played a competitive schedule, in general. Because you disagree isn't sufficient reason for them to not be represented, especially when they obviously are a 'deserving' team.

Marshall ranked #25 overall says something about competitiveness. That's top-25 of 119 teams. I'm not that good at math, but I think that means they are in the 80th percentile, which means they are likely better than 80% of the teams, according to your 'information'. I haven't even mentioned any other team yet, because this is from a computer ranking that obviously has a better idea, than either you or I do as to the relative strength of a team.

That being said, it's still an 'average'. Marshall was #4 overall 1999.
That's evidence for them being BCS 'material'. In fact, that's why I referred to those other teams, all ranked #8 or higher, assuming that's the standard being applied. What standard would you apply? It's a rhetorical question I don't really want to know.

I think we've reached an impasse. Even when the evidence you provide supports my argument you deny it, even when I use the 'accepted' standard of top-8, you imply it's not a 'valid' point of comparison. That's not being objective, so you probably never should have included this information at all, regardless of your position, unless you are open-minded enough to recognize how it applies.

Miami (OH) was good enough 2003, to be represented, regardless of how you think. The computer supports that thesis. Similarly, Tulane, 1998 was sufficiently good enough, as was Marshall, 1999.
Boise St. 2002, 2003, 2004 was sufficiently good enough. Louisville 2001, 2004 was sufficiently good enough. TCU 2000, and 2005 was sufficiently good enough. That's a 'non-BCS' team EVERY year since the BCS was organized. That's more than a 'pattern'.

As far as the Liberty Bowl goes, the 'winner' would likely have been the representative in 1998 (Tulane), Louisville (2001 & 2004). TCU, 2002 wasn't ranked sufficiently high enough, unfortunately, and neither was Tulsa, 2005. So I'm only partly right in that regard. However, nearly every year a team was sufficiently ranked to be a 'representative' to the BCS, had a playoff been in place. That's with top-9 being applied.

[Spence]

Apply that argument to Miami, OH if it works, but don't apply it to TCU.
That being said, I thought Miami, OH played a competitive schedule, in general. Because you disagree isn't sufficient reason for them to not be represented, especially when they obviously are a 'deserving' team.

Marshall ranked #25 overall says something about competitiveness. That's top-25 of 119 teams. I'm not that good at math, but I think that means they are in the 80th percentile, which means they are likely better than 80% of the teams, according to your 'information'. I haven't even mentioned any other team yet, because this is from a computer ranking that obviously has a better idea, than either you or I do as to the relative strength of a team.

79th percentile is good, but we are talking 93rd percentile to make it to the BCS. The argument works for TCU because after the loss to SMU they didn't play anyone ranked and Oklahoma losing several times hurt them. If Oklahoma would have won a couple more games it would have helped TCU alot. TCU had a great season they just didn't have a BCS type season.

That being said, it's still an 'average'. Marshall was #4 overall 1999.
That's evidence for them being BCS 'material'. In fact, that's why I referred to those other teams, all ranked #8 or higher, assuming that's the standard being applied. What standard would you apply? It's a rhetorical question I don't really want to know.

They weren't a consensus #4, that is the difference. If the BCS only used on poll, and it was this one, you would have a good argument.

What standard would I apply? I would take the top 8 teams no matter what conference they happen to belong. I don't get to do that, though, so the automatic bids are there and you can't deny them even if we would like to deny it.

I understand the reason behind the automatic bids and I am torn between letting them stay or letting them go. In a perfect world, though, I would can the automatic bids.

I think we've reached an impasse. Even when the evidence you provide supports my argument you deny it, even when I use the 'accepted' standard of top-8, you imply it's not a 'valid' point of comparison. That's not being objective, so you probably never should have included this information at all, regardless of your position, unless you are open-minded enough to recognize how it applies.

We have been at an impasse for several months. I'm not being objective and I know that. It isn't possible to be objective about your own argument. The difference is that I actually realize that I'm not objective.

When you have made a good point I didn't try to argue it. That is why I only use the relevant quote instead of quoting your whole post. I do see both sides of the argument and I agree that as far as your conference is concerned you can only do so much schedule wise, but teams have full control on the OOC schedule. If they don't use it to full advantage to prove their worth, then they can't blame anyone when they don't get national respect.

If a team plays the 50th best schedule in the country and a team plays the 8th best schedule in the country, don't be surprised if the team that plays the 8 schedule gets more respect.

Even in your own conference, if everyone would play a really good OOC, it would raise your conference strength a lot. Mid majors have to be bold if they want into the BCS. They have to play anyone, anywhere. They have to do it as a conference. When they do that and win, then they will get acknowledged in the BCS.

Even though we have strayed on and off the subject since we have began this, the schedule strength has always been at the heart of the argument. It is something that any team can do a pretty good job in controlling. It is a sure fire way of proving what you say is true. Why are you against that?

[Derek]

EXACTLY, for the NCAA to work, it HAS to include the best teams, or in other words, George Mason needs to be represented somewhere. Now apply that to the BCS.
In 2003, Miami (OH) would need to be represented in some fashion.
In 2004, Boise St, Utah, and Louisville all need to be represented.
In 2005, TCU needs to be represented. See, it works.

Wrong, in 2003 Miami got their butts kicked by Iowa 21-3. Proving that they DID NOT belong.

Boise St beat zero ranked teams in 2004 and lost to Louisville in the bowl game.

Louisville beat zero ranked teams in 2004. A case could be made for them by hanging tight with Miami, but they still lost the game.

Utah did beat 3 ranked teams and did get included, proving the system works.

TCU beat two ranked team and lost to a team that wasn't ranked proving that they didn't belong once again. You can lose to unranked teams.

And then Boise State promptly got stomped by GA at the season opener.

[Spence]

Exactly. There is an obvious difference in these programs. There may be a mid major come along that is good enough, but you can't expect people to rave over them until they prove they can beat some ranked teams.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence I appreciate your perspective, believe it or not, but I don't agree that teams traditionally not part of the BCS haven't shown they are 'deserving', year-in, year-out.
As far as Boise St is concerned I already know they lost, badly to Georgia, in the season opener. But how many teams beat Georgia? NOt too many, including LSU.
I don't agree that OOC games are so 'critical' toward a team's success.
Apply TCU if you must, but I think Boise St doesn't deserve the critcism you are applying. For the record, Boise St wasn't a 'BCS eligible' team last year, but there maybe is some basis for not giving them a 'spot' based on last year's results, if that's your argument.
I think I said I would likely have paired TCU and Tulsa together in the Liberty Bowl, but it's possible I stated Boise St. & Tulsa. Either one is a 'traditional' pairing of teams. I simply want the Liberty Bowl to be utilized as a 'non-BCS' championship game, regardless of how it's done.
I wouldn't have selected Boise St as a representative to the Liberty Bowl had it been my decision. But I would have preferred a more competitive 'pairing' than was offered. That being said, I think Tulsa showed they were a 'competitive' non-BCS team by beating Frenso St.
Fresno St, by the way, also beat Boise St, soundly, so it's possible Boise St wasn't as good as in past years.
Anyway, my argument isn't grounded in Boise St. It's that there has been 'minimally' one deserving 'non-BCS' team nearly every year, since the BCS has been in place. The evidence supports that. Only 'exception' if you can call it that, was 2000 when TCU was 10-2, losing to S. Mississippi in their bowl pairing. But TCU wasn't represented, so it's still another example of how a 'non-BCS' team is overlooked when they are sufficiently qualified. Another example of that was 2003, when TCU played Boise St (and lost). But, if nothing else it 'proved' TCU had the 'goods'. Boise St, played Louisville (C-USA Champions) in the Liberty Bowl, and lost 2004. Notice a trend? The most 'deserving' team often disappoints, yet another reason why I prefer a competitive arrangement of teams to select a representative to the BCS.
Tulane won the Liberty Bowl 1998, 'earning' BCS consideration. I'll admit, it's not until 'after' the bowls are played, it becomes clear who's qualified. That's why I support a 'competitive' arrangement, allowing one team 'direct' BCS 'access'. The fifth bowl likely won't settle anything.
It might even create more problems than it solves, at least as far as 'access' is concerned.
Top-12 isn't going to 'assure' a team a BCS invitation. Why? Well, there aren't 12 teams being selected there are ten. Two 'deserving' teams are going to be 'denied' every year. That's not a solution.
My proposal, on the other hand, preserves the 'traditional' arrangement of BCS teams (8), but 'awards' then through competitive seeding, similar to how the NCAA selects the 'elite 8'. Only differnce is 6/8 are given 'direct' access, the remaining two 'at large' must 'earn' their bid.
Tha's possible because the Liberty Bowl and Holiday Bowl traditionally have competitive 'pairing's of teams.

[Spence]

Spence I appreciate your perspective, believe it or not, but I don't agree that teams traditionally not part of the BCS haven't shown they are 'deserving', year-in, year-out.
As far as Boise St is concerned I already know they lost, badly to Georgia, in the season opener. But how many teams beat Georgia? NOt too many, including LSU.
I don't agree that OOC games are so 'critical' toward a team's success.
Apply TCU if you must, but I think Boise St doesn't deserve the critcism you are applying. For the record, Boise St wasn't a 'BCS eligible' team last year, but there maybe is some basis for not giving them a 'spot' based on last year's results, if that's your argument.

Some of the teams choosen have not shown that they are deserving. that is the problem with automatic bids. Adding more automatic bids doesn't fix the problem, it compounds it.

OOC games are critical for a team who doesn't have an automatic bid. It is their only way in.

[colorado_loves_football]

Some of the teams choosen have not shown that they are deserving. that is the problem with automatic bids. Adding more automatic bids doesn't fix the problem, it compounds it.

OOC games are critical for a team who doesn't have an automatic bid. It is their only way in.

Spence, we actually agree at least in part, with respect to how teams should be represented in the BCS.
I have proposed that a team 'earn' their place in the BCS through a competitive bracket. So, that's something we 'share' at least with respect to the BCS.
Now, as far as having tougher scheduling, that's something I can't control, and frankly neither can you. Teams likely schedule as best they can, then play the schedules they are dealt. It's not that I necessarily have a problem with your ideas, I just wonder how likely they are to be applied, to the BCS as its' presently arranged.
There are always options. TCU, obviously will try to arrange a more competitive schedule in the future, as will other teams, so whether or not we agree on that particular matter, is irrelevant. It might happen anyway, is my point.
I would still like to see greater 'representation' applied to the BCS. In my opinion that means allowing more teams direct access to the BCS through competition. That would require that conferneces do whatever necessary to become more competitive. That would likely result in more competitive games, so its' a win - win proposition.
I guess my point, in all of this, is simply to suggest that regardless of what we think, there might be movement in the direction both of us are 'pointing'. As teams become more competitive, they will likely schedule 'harder' teams. Competion will likely select the BCS, in the future. That's one person's opinon, but I think it maybe has some validity.
For example: the Big East, while better than in 2004, still needs to meet a 'standard' otherwise they lose their 'spot' in the BCS. In 2007 I think it is, all conferences will be 'ranked' similar to what you propose, thereby making it 'tougher' for a team to qualify simply because they are 12-0.
Their confernece needs to be sufficiently good, is my point. And, conferneces will likely do whatever is necessary to assure themselves a 'spot' if one is available in the BCS. With ten 'openings' it's very possible that my 'hypothetical' proposal happens, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, I think it's fair to say that there is probably a higher 'probability' attached to a confernece 'adding' teams than the opposite, for competitive reasons. BCS is the motivating force.
Competition will likely select the ten best teams, in the future.

[Spence]

Spence, we actually agree at least in part, with respect to how teams should be represented in the BCS.
I have proposed that a team 'earn' their place in the BCS through a competitive bracket. So, that's something we 'share' at least with respect to the BCS.
Now, as far as having tougher scheduling, that's something I can't control, and frankly neither can you. Teams likely schedule as best they can, then play the schedules they are dealt. It's not that I necessarily have a problem with your ideas, I just wonder how likely they are to be applied, to the BCS as its' presently arranged.

WE can't control anything in regard to CFB, unless you are a college president, AD, or league commissioner. I'm not any of those.

CFB isn't going to adopt either of these ideas. There is too much money at stake and the people who control the money are only going to give enough to the have nots to keep them from whining to congress every year.

At least my system is fair to ALL teams no matter where they play. There isn't much left to chance in that system. It is the closest thing to playing a round robin schedule that you can realistically have.

[colorado_loves_football]

WE can't control anything in regard to CFB, unless you are a college president, AD, or league commissioner. I'm not any of those.

CFB isn't going to adopt either of these ideas. There is too much money at stake and the people who control the money are only going to give enough to the have nots to keep them from whining to congress every year.

At least my system is fair to ALL teams no matter where they play. There isn't much left to chance in that system. It is the closest thing to playing a round robin schedule that you can realistically have.

Spence, the beauty of my proposal is in the details. What it does, ideally, is allow ANY team regardless of where they play, an opportunity to play in a BCS game. By that, I dont' necessarily mean they are 'assured' a spot. Quite contrarily, I propose that they necessarily 'earn' a place through competitive play, but not necessarily in the way you suggest.
Apply my argument to 1999. That year, Marshall won the MAC outright. You can argue their 'pre-qualifying' merits if you want, but the fact remains, they were sufficiently qualified to be represented in a ten-team BCS, which is what I am in favor of.
Similarly, that year, several 'non-BCS' teams were likely deserving of consideration by the BCS, had a ten-team format been in place then.
There's no easy way around it, unless you simply believe that no team, outside the 'traditional' BCS contingent 'deserves' a spot in the BCS. I heartily disagree with that opinion, assuming that's where you stand.
Nevertheless I will concede to you on one point. Marshall likely wasn't 'tested' in the regular season, at least not to the degree they would be in a BCS arrangement. That being said, I think it's a moot point, personally. They 'earn' their spot based on their consistently good play. Whether it's W. Michigan they are beating or Michigan St, really isn't the bottom line. The fact is they were MAC champions, and I"M all about allowing a team a 'fair' opportunity to participate in a BCS arrangement, regardless of where they play. Yes, I'm standing behind that statement.
That means, 1999 not only would Marshall have qualified, but I would have supported allowing an 'at large' invitation to C-USA champion S. Mississippi. The other two bids I have some leniency. I'm not convinced Louisiana Tech was necessarily 'qualified' due in no small part to their season-ending loss at the hands of the USC Trojans. If they win that game, I let them in. As it is, they are likely not qualified, so you and I agree on that point. Now, as far as the remaining contingent, it wasn't clear until after all the bowls were played, which, if any, were 'deserving' of an invitation, but in all sincerity, I would likely have 'allowed' either Utah or TCU an 'at large' invitation. Utah was co-champion of the MWC but also beat Fresno St in their bowl game.
TCU beat E. Carolina, a competitive team from C-USA. Hindsight is 20/20, but because I favor 'championship' games, it shouldnt' have been too difficult to arrange one between those two teams. TCU would be my first choice, obviously, but I'm open to suggestion where appropriate.
Now, let you think I'm being discriminatory, I'm more than willing to grant the Big Ten two 'automatic' bids, in Wisconsin and Michigan.
But, it's yet another example of how they don't play by the same rules as everyone else. Wisconsin even lost to Cincinnati, a team that was 3-8 for the year, and winless in C-USA. You need to explain how that happened. Might be a 'disqualifier' if I took your approach, which I don't. They were Big Ten Champions, outright, but since they lost to Michigan, I would consider allowing both, similar to how the Big Ten had two representatives, last year.
And, I believe both were likely good enough to be represented, so it shouldn't be a problem, that way, either.
I heard someone on ESPN talk about how in general there is less disparity in talent between 'mid-majors' and 'powerhouses'. It was in reference to the NCAA tournament, but I think the same argument can be applied to the BCS. He said it's really not such a 'new' development, it's been going on for a while, but it's only been recently, that it's become obvious. In effect, he stated George Mason is no Cinderella, the odds simply caught up with the rest of the NCAA.
And he said, the future will likely also have similar 'results'.
Anyway, I think it's time the BCS recognized that there are teams sufficiently qualifed, that arent' being represented, and allowing for a 'competitive' BCS is one way to address it. End of story.

[Spence]

Spence, the beauty of my proposal is in the details. What it does, ideally, is allow ANY team regardless of where they play, an opportunity to play in a BCS game. By that, I dont' necessarily mean they are 'assured' a spot. Quite contrarily, I propose that they necessarily 'earn' a place through competitive play, but not necessarily in the way you suggest.

You use and definition of the word competitive speaks volumes.

Apply my argument to 1999. That year, Marshall won the MAC outright. You can argue their 'pre-qualifying' merits if you want, but the fact remains, they were sufficiently qualified to be represented in a ten-team BCS, which is what I am in favor of.
Similarly, that year, several 'non-BCS' teams were likely deserving of consideration by the BCS, had a ten-team format been in place then.
There's no easy way around it, unless you simply believe that no team, outside the 'traditional' BCS contingent 'deserves' a spot in the BCS. I heartily disagree with that opinion, assuming that's where you stand.

maybe they were. I would have to go back and look at the season as a whole and decide, but just because they won their conference doesn't pre qualify them. I don't believe that anyone "deserves" a spot in the BCS unless they earn there way in by playing a schedule worthy of inclusion. I believe that is is possible for a non BCS team to make it, I just don't believe that they have a guaranteed right to be in it.

If their were to be a play off, then I believe that the top 10 teams regardless of conference should be in it. I don't believe in free rides.

Nevertheless I will concede to you on one point. Marshall likely wasn't 'tested' in the regular season, at least not to the degree they would be in a BCS arrangement. That being said, I think it's a moot point, personally. They 'earn' their spot based on their consistently good play.

This is at the heart of the argument. It isn't moot, why should 6 conferences have to go through tougher schedules to be rewarded then the other 5? It is against everything that competitive sports is about to hand out special privileges. That is what you are, in effect, asking for in your proposal.

Whether it's W. Michigan they are beating or Michigan St, really isn't the bottom line. The fact is they were MAC champions, and I"M all about allowing a team a 'fair' opportunity to participate in a BCS arrangement, regardless of where they play. Yes, I'm standing behind that statement.

Your not asking for fair. Your saying it shouldn't matter as long as you win, even if you play a bad schedule. That isn't fair at all and you know it.

That means, 1999 not only would Marshall have qualified, but I would have supported allowing an 'at large' invitation to C-USA champion S. Mississippi. The other two bids I have some leniency. I'm not convinced Louisiana Tech was necessarily 'qualified' due in no small part to their season-ending loss at the hands of the USC Trojans.

Why not. How can you say on one hand strength matters and on the other it doesn't? Do you understand the hypocrasy in that?

But, it's yet another example of how they don't play by the same rules as everyone else. Wisconsin even lost to Cincinnati, a team that was 3-8 for the year, and winless in C-USA. You need to explain how that happened. Might be a 'disqualifier' if I took your approach, which I don't.

It depends. How tough was the rest of their schedule. Was the loss a fluke or was it because they weren't good enough? At least Wisconsin had the schedule to prove it was a fluke. If they didn't play a good enough schedule then that loss would stick out.

I heard someone on ESPN talk about how in general there is less disparity in talent between 'mid-majors' and 'powerhouses'. It was in reference to the NCAA tournament, but I think the same argument can be applied to the BCS. He said it's really not such a 'new' development, it's been going on for a while, but it's only been recently, that it's become obvious. In effect, he stated George Mason is no Cinderella, the odds simply caught up with the rest of the NCAA.
And he said, the future will likely also have similar 'results'.
Anyway, I think it's time the BCS recognized that there are teams sufficiently qualifed, that arent' being represented, and allowing for a 'competitive' BCS is one way to address it. End of story

Again, Basketball and football are different. The really talented B-Ball players in college can leave after 1 year. That means the "upper level" basketball teams are young and very talented. The George Masons of the world have veteran players who are not as talented, but have been playing as a team for 3 or 4 years. Take a team like Florida and let then have equal experience as the players from George Mason and they win hands down because they have more talented players.

In football players must stay three years. That means all teams can put together teams with veteran players. They talent level between the mid majors and the average teams in the major conferences is comparable, but their is a wide difference in the talent level of the "powerhouse" teams and the mid majors. You only need to count how many players in the NFL come from the "powerhouse" schools to understand that. Compare they players that are in the NFL from the top 4 ranked teams last year to the players in from all members of all non BCS conference teams. I bet those teams have more players in the NFL, currently or all time, then all those teams put together.

[Derek]

Spence I appreciate your perspective, believe it or not, but I don't agree that teams traditionally not part of the BCS haven't shown they are 'deserving', year-in, year-out.
As far as Boise St is concerned I already know they lost, badly to Georgia, in the season opener. But how many teams beat Georgia? NOt too many, including LSU.
I don't agree that OOC games are so 'critical' toward a team's success.
Apply TCU if you must, but I think Boise St doesn't deserve the critcism you are applying. For the record, Boise St wasn't a 'BCS eligible' team last year, but there maybe is some basis for not giving them a 'spot' based on last year's results, if that's your argument.

Some of the teams choosen have not shown that they are deserving. that is the problem with automatic bids. Adding more automatic bids doesn't fix the problem, it compounds it.

OOC games are critical for a team who doesn't have an automatic bid. It is their only way in.

Exactly. Automatic bids only make it more convoluted and meaningless to win your conference.

[Derek]

"You need to understand the difference between good teams and great teams. The BCS bowl games are about finding the best match ups between great teams. Just being pretty good doesn't cut it."



Well said. IMO, most of those schools that feel left out, suffer from a serious disadvantage in recruiting and do NOT match up with schools that have a big name.

And some of the players on these teams are players from teams that had them 2nd, 3rd, or 4th on the depth chart, and never or rarely got to play. And they changed schools only to be able to start. I have a friend that did that.

IMO, giving "crumbs" to someone every time they cry, is NEVER going to solve the problems that face college football's bowl system.

So you get a BCS bid from the new "automatic" rules, and show up at your BCS bowl game and get STOMPED by a team that has better recruiting and more money than you. What's so good about that? Except for the access to the money. Oh...That's what this is about.

Could you make an arguement that "automatic" bids for these teams is like the NFL's salary cap, designed to level the playing field???

That's the scenario thats going to end up playing out, and I only HOPE that it doesnt turn the bowl games into boring halftime shows no one wants to watch.

[Spence]

IMO, most of those schools that feel left out, suffer from a serious disadvantage in recruiting and do NOT match up with schools that have a big name.

Recruiting is the difference. No mid-major champion to date has ever been good enough to beat a top ten team in a best of three series. If there is no chance that the could win a best of 3 series they have no business in the BCS.

If they want to get to the point where they have a chance they need to schedule big time teams and beat them, lots of them. All you get is excuses. "they lost big to florida, but it was in gainsvile". Big deal. Texas came into Columbus last year and proved they had the stuff champions are made of. They wanted to prove they were the best team. Teams that have what it takes to be champion don't hide behind weak schedules and then cry because people don't give them respect. You have to earn respect. They don't hand it out for free.

Ohio State lost to Penn State in happy Valley. They didn't lose because it was in Happy Valley, they lost because Penn St. played better ball. Home field advantage is a factor, but not the factor that some makee it out to be. Good teams win, it doesn't matter where the game is played.