Post-season Play-offs

[colorado_loves_football]

I think maybe we are getting closer to delving into the 'heart' of the matter with respect to the BCS and playoffs. There are arguments both in favor and against the idea of a playoff, and that's why I still believe a 'competitive' BCS is the most appropriate solution. I've already mentioned my personal attitude concerning it, but suffice to say it's a better arrangement than either the 'traditional' BCS which doesn't address competition outside of the championship game, and the 16-team model, which would be a 'playoff' in the truest sense, but doesn't honor bowl tradition much, if at all.

I've already mentioned how a ten-team BCS would, if adopted, honor tradition. There's too much evidence to refute it. Two preliminary games would be required pairing 'at large' teams together. They would likely play each other, regardless in a BCS bowl, so it's simply a modification, whereby one team, each game, advances into the 'traditonal' 4 BCS bracket. Nothing is lost, in the process, and if anything, something is gained, more teams are allowed 'access' into the BCS, and each team has a legitimate chance to be a national champion.

As far as the number of games played, that would depend on the results of the 4 BCS games, but typically, a 64% probability would apply toward having two 'automatic' qualifiers play in the championship game. 3/8 probability or a 36% probability would apply toward having an 'at large'.
Compare that to the 16-team model, where there's a 100% probability that two teams would play 4 games. Mine's more efficient.

Another advantage to my proposal is that the games played would be competitive pairings with the winners being assured a 'spot' in either a BCS game, (if they are 'at large' winners) or a semi-final (if they are 'automatic' qualifiers). Or, an 'incentive' to win your bowl, either as an 'at large' or an 'automatic' qualifier.

The winning team isn't simply 'done' with their year, they advance.
Sure, it would require an 'at large' to win 4 games, but that's a good thing, they would also win a national championship in the process.
Similarly, any 'automatic' qualifier would be assured a national championship by winning their 3 game 'allotment'.

So, I suppose it's a matter of opinion, as to whether the BCS really does honor 'tradition' in it's pairings. Some might claim it does, I believe it does to a degree, but not in general. The two 'at large' games would allow the BCS some flexibility in how it pairs teams together. Traditional pairings could be honored, something I have already shown to be possible, but for 'evidence' simply look at this year's games.

6 'automatic' qualifiers: FSU (ACC champion), Georgia (SEC champion),
W. Virginia (Big East champion), Big XII champion (Texas), Big Ten champion (Penn St.) and Pac Ten Champion (USC).

'at large' qualifiers: Ohio St., Notre Dame, Oregon, TCU

'preliminary' pairings: Ohio St. vs. Notre Dame, Oregon vs. TCU

Likely BCS 'traditional' pairings:
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Ohio St.
Fiesta Bowl: W. Virginia vs. TCU
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs. Texas
Orange Bowl: FSU vs. Penn St.

I make those 'assumptions' partly based on tradition, and partly based on how the bowls were represented. The Big East enjoys a strong and happy relationship with the Fiesta Bowl, and it's one reason why Notre Dame was taken by them (for all intents and purposes ND is a Big East)
They were upset by Ohio St, so W. Virginia would likely be substituted.

Texas, would in my opinion be selected by the Sugar Bowl, because the BCS likely would want a Texas vs. USC 'championship' and that's one way to 'secure' it, regionally. And those pairings would be competitive, and fairly representative of the BCS, in general, if history is any kind of a guide. A 'Final Four' consisting of the following teams would likely result:

USC vs. W. Virginia, Texas vs. Penn St.

Those would also be attractive pairings, and could either be regionalilzed, or played at 'neutral' sites, in existing bowls. The national championship game, most likely pairing Texas and USC together would then be a good 'cap' on the year, and likely would have given us the same result.

And two teams, USC & Texas would have played 3 games. W. Virginia, Penn St, & TCU , 2. The remainder only one, so it validates, in practice, what I 'predicted' in theory. Had TCU and Ohio State advanced, then both of them would have been 3 game participants, and one would have played in 4. That's the 36% scenario played out. But only one team would have played in 4 games, as opposed to the 100% probability 2 teams play in a 16-team format.

[Spence]

Those would also be attractive pairings, and could either be regionalilzed, or played at 'neutral' sites, in existing bowls. The national championship game, most likely pairing Texas and USC together would then be a good 'cap' on the year, and likely would have given us the same result.

Being regionalized would be the only way it would work. If the presidents would somehow do an about face a playoff done in that manner would work. Even though it would work and assuming these would be the games choosen, there would still be controversy. Why not LSU, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Alabama, or Akron? So after all of that what would you really have gained?

People would still say the system isn't fair. They would still say the polls are biased. The final result of one of the other polls would still vote someone else the winner or a computer poll would say another team is better. So again what would you gain that we don't have now with this system already or the new BCS with an extra bowl game? Maybe alittle more travel and less access to post season for the 109 other teams in the nation.

[Spence]

Dodd said it better then I did, but I have pretty much been saying this from the beginning. I have no problem with mid majors getting in as long as they win with a good schedule.

The MAC as a general rule plays the toughest OOC games. They will play anyone, anywhere. If one of those teams would win a few of those games, they would be a shoe in.

[mountainman]

Yep, I saw that, rolltide.

Hey Spence, did you see what else Dodd had to say?

[Spence]

I read the whole article. I read a lot of Dodd. I think he is pretty tuned in to whats going on. I disagree with him on Ohio State. He thinks the Ohio State defense won't bve a lot different then last year. Mike D' Andrea needs to prove he can stay healthy. He thinks John Kerr and Larry Grant will fill the other two spots, but I think Marcus Freeman will be a starter.

As much as we lost at LB, I can see thinking that Ohio State's problem will be a Lb, but I think we will be OK at LB. The backfield is what worries me the most. I don't think Ohio State should be in the top 5 preseason.

Now your boys are a different story. I know WVU has some O-lineman to replace, but they had a pretty young team last year and those backs are amazing. I think WVU should be and will be top 5 to start the season, with an excellent chance to make a run at the championship.

Is that what you meant?

[colorado_loves_football]

Being regionalized would be the only way it would work. If the presidents would somehow do an about face a playoff done in that manner would work. Even though it would work and assuming these would be the games choosen, there would still be controversy. Why not LSU, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Alabama, or Akron? So after all of that what would you really have gained?

People would still say the system isn't fair. They would still say the polls are biased. The final result of one of the other polls would still vote someone else the winner or a computer poll would say another team is better. So again what would you gain that we don't have now with this system already or the new BCS with an extra bowl game? Maybe alittle more travel and less access to post season for the 109 other teams in the nation.

Spence, I think we've already covered some, if not all of these incidentals in previous postings. I still don't understand your view that somehow existing bowl games couldn't be utilized, I think that would not only give the BCS greater 'access', but would also help the bowls remain integral to the process.

I have no control how people might view it. Sure, there would be people wishing their team had been selected. You mention Akron, interestingly, but for whatever reason neglected to include Tulsa, a team I personally deserved some consideration, having won the Liberty Bowl, over a favored opponent, in Fresno State. If you remember, I would 'prefer' the BCS be 'restricted' to confernece champions, and that's possible through a reconfiguration of teams, something I also believe would help keep the BCS 'fair', yet allow for competition to decide which teams 'advace' to the 'championship' bracket, which is what I consider the 4 BCS games to be.

Under that scenario, Virginia Tech, LSU, Alabama, Oregon and any other team would be 'restricted'. Even TCU would necessarily have to beat Tulsa, to 'gain' access to the BCS. But that's only if conference champions are the selected grouping, outside of that, a BCS ranking would apply. So, it's no different than what's already in place, believe it or not. I simply want for each team to have a legitimate opportunity to 'win' a BCS title. Maybe you can think of a better way to do that, through 'traditonal' pairings, but if you can I'd be interested in hearing what that proposal is.

You can maybe argue that the BCS as presently arranged, is a 'fair' way to select a national champion, but it will likely never allow an 'at large' team that opportunity. 'At large' meaning all traditionally 'non-BCS' schools, along with any and all conference runners-up. So, even if you're 'happy' with how teams are paired, competitively, there isn't really one fair way to allow for a 'unified' national champion, and that's disappointing to me, personally.

I've already presented sufficient evidence for how this might work. Regional pairings are un-necessary. Two semi-final games could be played almost anywhere, and likely sell-out. The title game will likely be the biggest draw, even if two 'at large' teams are playing. 9 games are required, 4 more than traditonally the BCS has utilized, but in general they would be 'high-profile' games, pairing two teams of comparable ability, something I assume the BCS does anyway. I simply have arranged them such that each game carries a little more 'prestige' than the previous one, leading up to a 'championship'. For all intents and purposes, it's the 'traditional' BCS, modified to allow each team 'fair' opportunity to win a NC. There's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't 'ruin' the BCS, or the bowls, either.

If say, it should be a huge success, there's a possibility, I suppose, someone might might want to 'expand' it to allow for even greater participation, perhaps the 16-team model would come into play.
And if that should happen, it's possible I suppose bowls might become less important, but that's making a huge assumption, since we don't really know for sure that the ten-team format might not please everybody.

That article mentioned about how a team necessarily needs to finish ranked #12 or higher to be BCS eligible that's the new standard. It hasnt' happened all that often, to my memory, Marshall did it, but they were undefeated, as was Tulane. Miami (OH) if memory serves, was 12-1, their only loss coming early in the year , to Iowa. TCU didn't make it, with a similar record, so it shows how 'restrictive' that standard will be.
Louisville, Utah and Boise St. all made it, but 2/3 were undefeated, and Louisville lost to Miami, FL, by a small margin.

So, the 'standard' would appear to be 'undefeated' for 'non-BCS' teams.
So, if a team has to be undefeated, should they be denied an opportunity to win a national championship? That's what you are saying if you don't agree with me that the ten teams, also deserve the same opportunity that every other 'BCS' team has, or in other words, an opportunity to win a national championship. Only way to accomplish that is through competition. Only way that happens is for the BCS to utililze a playoff within it's format. It works, and it wouldn't 'ruin' bowl tradition, but those games would likely become less 'traditional' in design, but more 'profitable' as a result, a fair 'trade-off' in my opinion.

[mountainman]

We'll know more about the Mountaineers after spring practice. I want to see the offensive tackles and backups as well as some spots lost to graduation on defense. If WV developes a passing game for this coming season they should be tough, but maybe a year away. Lots of underclassmen on that team. If my memory (questionable) serves me correctly they lose 14 to graduation from last season and will graduate 14-15 from this year's team. All this youth needs game experience.

What I wanted you to see was Dodd's pre-season picks:

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball

[Spence]

Yeah, I saw that a while back. I just don't think it is realistic to rank Ohio State and Oklahoma that high. They really need to prove something before moving up. I agree with WVU and LSU. LSU was actually who I had in mind for my preseason #1.

I didn't know WVU lost 14 this year. How many were starters?

[mountainman]

Three on offense and five on defense.

That's to high for the Mountaineers too ... top 10 before we see what we got this spring.

[Spence]

5 on defense is tough. You can win in CFB with an average offense and a good defense, but without a good defense you have to hope the O holds the ball for 40 minutes a game.

[mountainman]

Could not agree more, Spence.

If fact a team better be solid in all three phases (offense, defense, special teams) if they want to compete and win at the levels we're talk about here. If not, someone will put the team or they will find themselves in a game winning situation and end up on the wrong side of the scoreboard.

In other words, if a team has a weakness, opponents, if they are worth a hoot, will put together a game plan to exploit the dickens out of it.

[Spence]

So, the 'standard' would appear to be 'undefeated' for 'non-BCS' teams.
So, if a team has to be undefeated, should they be denied an opportunity to win a national championship? That's what you are saying if you don't agree with me that the ten teams, also deserve the same opportunity that every other 'BCS' team has, or in other words, an opportunity to win a national championship. Only way to accomplish that is through competition. Only way that happens is for the BCS to utililze a playoff within it's format. It works, and it wouldn't 'ruin' bowl tradition, but those games would likely become less 'traditional' in design, but more 'profitable' as a result, a fair 'trade-off' in my opinion.

The standard would be "undefeated" for non BCS teams if they play only one or two ranked teams a year. If they played 4 ranked teams a year and if other members of their conference played several ranked teams and won a non BCS team could easily get to play in a championship game.

Should a team from a non BCS conference be able to play for a championship? Yes. If they play a similar schedule to a BCS conference undefeated. This is the point you have missed in all this, undefeated isn't as important as proving on a national level your strength. The BCS has no power in picking the 2 teams that play for the championship. The polls do that. If you are talking about the championship game, anyone who finishes in the top 2 gets to play. It doesn't matter whether they belong to the BCS or not. The other BCS bowl games have conference tie ins and guarantees, but the championship game does not.

The BCS conference teams got to be BCS conference teams because they have proven, over time, to be the strongest conferences. They just didn't get picked randomly. If say the MWC wants to get more consideration they will have to, as a group, play and win several games against the nations best teams. That gets them automatic respect nationally in the polls. Winning a national championship isn't easy for anyone and to let someone into the game without playing a top notch schedule is as unfair as anything else you are talking about.

[colorado_loves_football]

The standard would be "undefeated" for non BCS teams if they play only one or two ranked teams a year. If they played 4 ranked teams a year and if other members of their conference played several ranked teams and won a non BCS team could easily get to play in a championship game.

Should a team from a non BCS conference be able to play for a championship? Yes. If they play a similar schedule to a BCS conference undefeated. This is the point you have missed in all this, undefeated isn't as important as proving on a national level your strength. The BCS has no power in picking the 2 teams that play for the championship. The polls do that. If you are talking about the championship game, anyone who finishes in the top 2 gets to play. It doesn't matter whether they belong to the BCS or not. The other BCS bowl games have conference tie ins and guarantees, but the championship game does not.

The BCS conference teams got to be BCS conference teams because they have proven, over time, to be the strongest conferences. They just didn't get picked randomly. If say the MWC wants to get more consideration they will have to, as a group, play and win several games against the nations best teams. That gets them automatic respect nationally in the polls. Winning a national championship isn't easy for anyone and to let someone into the game without playing a top notch schedule is as unfair as anything else you are talking about.

Spence, with respect to how the BCS selects teams are are somewhat in agreement, that a team 'earn' it's way through competitive play, but SOS surely isn't the only way to accomplish that, one reason I prefer a conference 'championship' arrangement of teams. That would have given a team like Akron an 'advantage' over teams such as Alabama, LSU, Virginia Tech, and even Oregon who were'nt conference champions, and I think that's fair, myself. But, for competitiveness, maybe a team with a 10-1 record (Oregon) might get the 'edge' over a 7-5 team (Akron). So, obviously, there needs to be some kind of standard applied that address both, fairly.

You refer to SOS, but I maintain at the I-A level it's irrelevant, unless a team is an independent, and scheduling 'cupcake' opponents, and there are only 4 independent teams. I maintain you can't penalize a team for playing in a 'weaker' conference. So, Akron, by that standard, should be judged 'equally' with those other teams, and maybe even be given the 'edge' since they were MAC champions, if they meet BCS standards.

Since 9 wins appears to be the standard being applied, unilaterally, Akron is exempt. So, for that matter, is Tulsa. So it's a 'fair' standard.
That would allow a team like TCU and Boise St. to qualify, in years they win their respective conferences. But, in the case of Oregon, there's a team with 10 wins, which ought to 'trump' a 9-win conference champion (Boise St.). So, that's one way to 'pare' down the field to ten teams!

The article written about 'non-BCS' qualifying standards implied 'perfection' as the only way to assure a team of a bid. I think that's a little too restrictive, myself, but at least it gives a team some idea what they need to do to be admitted. Even TCU, this year, at #14 wouldn't have been selected, but for the provision that allowed for a 'non-BCS' team entry, the "Big East" 2004 provision, when Pittsburgh got in.
FYI the 'Big 6' are supposed to meet the criteria themselves, finishing in the top-12, so that's probably why that was included as the 'standard' whereby any team could be admitted. And in some ways, it's maybe more 'fair' as it would have allowed a 'non-BCS' team in previous years, Tulane, Marshall, Miami (OH), Boise St., Louisville, and Utah. Of those, only one team (Utah) was issued a BCS invitation. They were the only team to finish in the top-6, overall, a VERY high standard for any team.

Now, with the top-12 standard in place, it's safe to 'assume' that means a team necessarily needs to be undefeated to be 'assured' a place in the BCS, a nearly impossible standard to my way of thinking. Sure, Utah accomplished it, but then again, so did nearly every other team mentioned, yet Utah was the only one selected. That tells me the BCS is far from 'fair'. Miami (OH) finished their year 12-1, only loss to Iowa, first game of the year. Louisville lost to Miami, FL, an undefeated team, and they weren't BCS 'worthy', neither was Boise St, their opponent.

So, as much as I agree that there needs to be a 'standard' applied, it shouldn't be 'undefeated', unless you think that is a 'fair' standard. But if nothing else it gives a team some idea what they need to do, to be admitted. To suggest that those teams also need to schedule 'tougher' opponents I think is ridiculous, stupid even, if they already have to be undefeated to be admitted. To do that would roughly equate to 'suicide', since we already know that they will need to be undefeated to be admitted. TCU likely would have been admitted, this year, but only because FSU won the ACC. If Virgnia Tech wins, as they probably deserved to, then TCU doesn't have a prayer, and it has nothing to do with their OOC schedule. And I'm not sure it matters, anyway, they had already beaten Oklahoma, in Norman, OK. Not many games get harder.

Sure, TCU needed to be undefeated to be assured a BCS bid. They probably understood that, and probably understood they likely wouldn't be admitted after losing to SMU. But, they beat the remainder of their opponents, anyway. Beating Utah, BYU, San Diego St, New Mexico, and Colorado State, maybe doesn't impress you but that's all they needed to do to win their first outright conference title since being a SWC member. And those titles happened mostly in the 1950s. So, it was a HUGE accomplishement, and shouldn't be 'tainted' by you or anyone else. TCU wasn't the 'favorite' to win the MWC. But they did.
And I think they 'earned' the right to play against Oregon, but weren't.

Next year's BCS would have addressed that, one year too late, and only because FSU 'tanked' and then decided the ACC was worth winning, after all. That's not exactly what I would call 'fair' and 'impartiality' applied to the BCS. In fact, I might want to call it, completely unfair, but it would have worked, at least with TCU and Oregon. But 'close' isn't the standard I use to guage the efficiency of a procedure. I try to apply mathematics, because that's the only 'fair' way I know. And that 'tells' me that barring a 'competitive' pairing of BCS eligible teams, we'll never have a 'concensus' national champion. That's a fact, not a suppostion.

Sure, ten teams maybe aren't a 'represenative' field of teams, but it's a lot better than two. I'm surprised you stand by the BCS so vehemently.
It is SO restrictive, in terms of the title game, no 'non-BCS' team will likely ever be represented. In 2004, even if somehow USC and Oklahoma had 'stumbled' it's unlikely Utah would have finished higher than Auburn, and with Texas and Cal already ranked higher, next to impossible. So, you can't use that as a 'fair' point of debate. Louisville might have finished higher than Auburn had they not lost, to Miami, so it's possible, a 'non-BCS' team might have finished top-4. My point is 'undefeated' likely won't assure any team a BCS 'title' bid.
Another reason I prefer a 'playoff' of all BCS-eligible teams.

[Spence]

If it is all about conference championships why would you qualify it by saying weaker(your word) conferences should have to win 9 games. That means you put a value on SOS. Non BCS teams have it with in their power to prove they belong in the BCS by scheduling tough games(as a conference). Why is it not fair that they select the teams that have proven themselves to be good by playing ranked teams?

ACC
1. Florida St.
2. Virginia Tech

B-12
1. Texas
2. Texas Tech

Big East
1. West Virginia
2. Louisville

Pac-10
1. USC
2. Oregon

SEC
1. Georgia
2. LSU

WAC
1. Boise St.
2. Nevada

C-USA
1. Tulsa
2. Central Fla.

MAC
1. Akron
2. Northern Illinois

MWC
1. TCU
2. BYU

Sun Belt
1. Arkansas St.
2. La. Lafayette

Take the #1 team from each BCS conference and tell me who in the non BCS conferences would be favored in a game between the two teams

Take the # 2 team in each BCS conference and tell me who in the non BCS conferences would be favored in a game between the two teams.

I have no Idea why Alabama, LSU, Virginia Tech, or Oregon should take a back seat to Akron, Arkansas, St., Boise St., or Central Florida just because they won their conference. Especially due to the fact that any of those teams likely would have won the championship in any of those conferences.

If Virginia Tech gets tired of having to compete with Miami and Florida St. why wouldn't they just jump into C-USA and win every year? Teams that win against the best teams in the country should be rewarded. I don't think that is an unfair situation at all.

[colorado_loves_football]

If it is all about conference championships why would you qualify it by saying weaker(your word) conferences should have to win 9 games. That means you put a value on SOS. Non BCS teams have it with in their power to prove they belong in the BCS by scheduling tough games(as a conference). Why is it not fair that they select the teams that have proven themselves to be good by playing ranked teams?

ACC
1. Florida St.
2. Virginia Tech

B-12
1. Texas
2. Texas Tech

Big East
1. West Virginia
2. Louisville

Pac-10
1. USC
2. Oregon

SEC
1. Georgia
2. LSU

WAC
1. Boise St.
2. Nevada

C-USA
1. Tulsa
2. Central Fla.

MAC
1. Akron
2. Northern Illinois

MWC
1. TCU
2. BYU

Sun Belt
1. Arkansas St.
2. La. Lafayette

Take the #1 team from each BCS conference and tell me who in the non BCS conferences would be favored in a game between the two teams

Take the # 2 team in each BCS conference and tell me who in the non BCS conferences would be favored in a game between the two teams.

I have no Idea why Alabama, LSU, Virginia Tech, or Oregon should take a back seat to Akron, Arkansas, St., Boise St., or Central Florida just because they won their conference. Especially due to the fact that any of those teams likely would have won the championship in any of those conferences.

If Virginia Tech gets tired of having to compete with Miami and Florida St. why wouldn't they just jump into C-USA and win every year? Teams that win against the best teams in the country should be rewarded. I don't think that is an unfair situation at all.

Spence I don't want to argue the merits of what appears to be a 20-team playoff with you. Obviously, those conferences would be at an advantage, and with the conference championship game, it already 'whittles' the field down to ten, so why make it harder than it needs to be? Sure, you could let two teams go from every conference, but that's redundant, and totally contrary to what I would like to see happen, at any rate.

But, if your point was that there might be BCS-worthy teams left out, then that's something that would need to be addressed by someone.
The Big XII has had difficultly, as of late, putting quality teams together in their 'championship' and it was even suggested the two best play, even if they are divisional rivals.

Now, if you think I"m somehow 'preventing' team from qualifying for the BCS, that's where you are wrong. Those teams already know what they need to do, win their division, then win their conference. I'm simply applying it throughout the entire I-A, making no distinction between conferences, as one shouldn't at least not until the BCS pairings.

Why should any team sit out? Well, why shouldn't they, if they can't win their conference? Why should Virginia Tech get a third chance, after they lose to Miami, then lose to FSU? They didn't deserve a bid, and I for one am glad they didn't get one. You didn't mention Miami, probably because they were pounded by LSU, but why should either team go? LSU beat Alabama, but then managed to lose the SEC to Georgia. Win that game, they 'earn' a spot in the BCS. Lose it, and I think they belong in the Peach Bowl, myself.

Oregon, Ohio St, and Notre Dame are another story. Each one 'qualified' according to BCS 'rules' and therefore don't need to be subject to the same kind of criticism. But, if you remember, my proposal likely would have 'required' Ohio St. to play Wisconsin in the Big Ten 'championship'.
Penn St., in my proposal, would have been in the Big East, and likely would have played W. Virginia for the Big East title.

Notre Dame, as an independent, qualifies by the 9-game provision, but I would prefer they also align themselves to a conference, thereby eliminating the need to make an 'exception. But barring that, we have to accomodate them, somehow. Oregon, I would have liked to have seen in a conference title game, but barring that, they also qualify, as does TCU. And so do those other teams, if they meet the standard being applied.

I would prefer that every conference be represented in some fashion. But that's not the only way a 'legitimate' BCS field could be selected. This year, I would likely have only allowed TCU 'direct' access to the BCS.
Fresno St. had an opportunity, but blew it, late in the year. Tulsa, never quite got to where they were BCS material, either, but they were good when it mattered, as was Akron. So, maybe Tulsa and Akron should have been paired together, competitively. I"m all for competitive pairings of teams, in case you couldn't tell.

No, the Sun Belt isn't ready for a BCS invitation, but over time they might be. Louisiana Tech was 7-4 this year, and would be a 'perfect' addition to the Sun-Belt, regionally-speaking. They didn't even get an invitation to any bowl, despite being the only team to beat Fresno St, in Bulldog stadium (I guess it was their home stadium, too!) Both are bulldogs.

Anyway, my point is there are ways to make the process more 'fair' while still allowing for traditional pairings. If neither Tulsa, or Fresno are sufficiently good, they play 'apart' from the BCS just like they did, this year. In years, they are better, they are represented within the BCS.
I would prefer they be included every year, but you have a valid point about 'quality' of play, in general. There's no way to assure it would be a 'quality' pairing of teams, although in general I think it probably was.

TCU and Oregon would have been my other pairing. You already know that, and I think it ought to have happened anyway. But it didn't which is one reason I favor a 9-game BCS where teams are allowed to play teams of comparable talent-level, in 'traditional' BCS pairiings.

That, I believe, would be a reasonable solution to making the BCS more inclusive while also making it competitive, and fair. And, it really would'nt require an excessive amount of money and/or time to organize.