Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[colorado_loves_football]

It was part of the fallout of the ACC raid and your right that it was self interest that guided their decision. I would be miffed if it happened in the B-10 also. the NAG should have stepped in and at least had a plan for the transition. Instead they just watched.

The individual BCS bowls do get to choose who they want as an at-large, although there is some pressure on them to pick this or that school. The BCS ultimately has nothing to do with at-large berths, only automatic berths. The bowls take teams that travel well. Teams that bring a lot of fans into the area. They are free to take an 6-5 team if they want to, although the pressure from the media on doing so would be suffocating.

Utah was considered, briefly, for the Rose Bowl, because there wasn't any assurance that the Fiesta Bowl wanted Utah. And there was some question about which team from the Big East was most qualified.
Had Boston College beaten Syracuse, that wouldn't have been a problem.

Interestingly had a 'fifth' bowl been in place, this year, there would have been a similar dilemma, to what occurred in 2004. The Rose Bowl likely would have been the 'double' host, meaning they had an option on who was represented, but they might have followed tradition, and paired OSU and Oregon together, in that event.

The Fiesta Bowl, might have 'stuck' with Notre Dame, or they could have gambled, and taken W.Virginia, thereby hoping for a TCU vs. W. Virginia pairing of teams. I guess what makes the BCS interesting is how they arrive at their final pairings. But it would appear that tradition has a role in how they make their choices.

[Spence]

Interestingly had a 'fifth' bowl been in place, this year, there would have been a similar dilemma, to what occurred in 2004. The Rose Bowl likely would have been the 'double' host, meaning they had an option on who was represented, but they might have followed tradition, and paired OSU and Oregon together, in that event.

If there had been a fifth bowl that year, two more teams who didn't deserve to be there would have made it. Ohio State didn't have any BCS claim that year. They weren't very good at all. In 2004, they had trouble filling the 8 spots they needed to fill with good teams.

[Derek]

" have read the 'bylaws' by which the BCS selects teams. The BCS 'championship' is viewed as it's own entity, it is assured a #1 vs. #2 pairing. The remaining bowls, although allowed a representative, are left to select from a 'pool' of teams."


Exactly....That's a common point of misunderstanding that I run into. The computers select #1 and #2, and nothing more.

Too many people believe that they pick all the games. [/b]

[Derek]

The "BCS" does not select the bowl match ups. The BCS bowl members do. After the automatics are done, they get to pick in order, who they want. The last bowl to pick gets the short end of the stick. USC and Oklahoma were locked up in the Orange, Michigan was locked up in the Rose, Auburn was locked up in the Sugar. I believe the Rose got a priority pick because their other team got in the Orange, so they picked Texas, with a Texas/Michigan match-up looking far better than a Pitt or Utah/Michigan Match up. I think the Sugar had the priority and they picked VT, lefting the Fiesta with what was left over.

As the "left-over's" get rotated around depending on who had the Championship game the year before. The Fiesta got the shaft in that instance, because they had Ohio State/Miami game the year before.

[colorado_loves_football]

As the "left-over's" get rotated around depending on who had the Championship game the year before. The Fiesta got the shaft in that instance, because they had Ohio State/Miami game the year before.

That's actually not a 'fair' premise, there really aren't any 'turkeys' in the BCS, and I think that's not being fair to Utah, given how good they played over the course of the year.

Pittsburgh was a 'championship' team. No if's, and's, or but's. They were the Big East representative. We can argue how they weren't competitive but the facts would appear to show otherwise. The Big East, in general, is a very competitive conference, one reason they are assured a BCS bid, is because they are generally very competitive.

True, in 2004, there were likely several teams better suited to the BCS than Pittsburgh. But the rules are such that the Big East is awarded a spot, irrespectively of where they finish. For those with short-term memory, Boston College was still a Big East member, and likely would have represented the Big East but for the fact they lost to Syracuse, a 6-5 team that also beat Pittsburgh. Had W. Virginia not been in the 'mix' it's likely Syracuse goes, over Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh was selected, in part, because they had the best record, 8-3 overall. Pittsburgh beat W. Virginia to capture a 'share' of the Big East title. They were a competitive team.

Now, we can argue all day about how 'good' Utah was. I don't necessarily buy into the argument they played a more 'competitive' schedule than TCU did, last year. For one thing they are both MWC teams. For another, TCU scheduled competitive non-confernece teams.
They always do. TCU would likely qualify under those standards before Utah would. North Carolina was 6-6 overall, 2004. They weren't a bad ACC team. Utah pasted them, that's maybe the best evidence Utah was competitive outside the MWC. And, coincidentally, North Carolina played Boston College (another Big East 'champion') and lost.

So, Utah was likely better than any other Big East team, 2004. That's a reasonable conclusion. They were also likely a competitive team in the ACC, if North Carolina is a 'fair' barometer. So, Utah was a deserving representative to the BCS. I don't think we can argue how 'bad' the BCS was, that year. If anything there were more competitive teams, than in previous years. And I think the argument that any one of them might have been good enough to win a national title is maybe a 'fair' argument, as well.

It's one reason why I would prefer a 'competitive' BCS. Without that, there really isn't a way to know which team(s) are deserving of that distinction. I"ve heard the argument as far as a 'plus-one' goes, but that doesn't address years where several teams are qualified. A playoff is the only 'fair' way to select a deserving champion, every year.

[Spence]

That's actually not a 'fair' premise, there really aren't any 'turkeys' in the BCS, and I think that's not being fair to Utah, given how good they played over the course of the year.

If there ever was a team that absolutely did not belong in the BCS it was Pitt that year. Everyone knew it, it is why the BCS was considering removing the B-East from the major ranks.

[colorado_loves_football]

If there ever was a team that absolutely did not belong in the BCS it was Pitt that year. Everyone knew it, it is why the BCS was considering removing the B-East from the major ranks.

The reason I think this is a misrepresentation of facts,is because that Utah needed to be 'perfect' to be selected, whereas Pittsburgh simply needed to win their confernece. If there were any truth to what you are saying the game should have been a lot closer, than it was.
I am not necessarily taking a side, I just don't buy into the argument that somehow Pittsburgh was a terrible team. I can maybe ask you who you would have invited? I still think Pittsburgh was a pretty competitive team.
They lost 3 games, prior to their Fiesta Bowl pairing against Utah.
They played S. Florida, in S. Florida and beat them convincingly. S. Florida is now a Big East team. Only team they didn't play was Louisville. So, Louisville was probably a better football team, 2004.
I don't have a problem with that, but the fact remains Pittsburgh did what they needed to do to be represented.

[Spence]

I am not necessarily taking a side, I just don't buy into the argument that somehow Pittsburgh was a terrible team. I can maybe ask you who you would have invited? I still think Pittsburgh was a pretty competitive team.

Pittsburgh wasn't a terrible team, just a painfully average team. Average teams don't belong in the BCS. They were there because the of the ACC raid and the conference was still trying to pick up the pieces, but the fact remains that Pitt wasn't a BCS caliber team.

[colorado_loves_football]

Pittsburgh wasn't a terrible team, just a painfully average team. Average teams don't belong in the BCS. They were there because the of the ACC raid and the conference was still trying to pick up the pieces, but the fact remains that Pitt wasn't a BCS caliber team.

I did a little analysis with respect to Pittsburgh, came to roughly the same conclusion you did, that they were likely not as 'qualified' as say, Florida State would have been. Nevertheless, I was interested in what I discovered, when I reviewed N. Carolina's schedule.
They were a competitive team, in general, yet they were beaten, soundly by two relatively unheralded teams, in Utah and Louisville. They also scheduled Miami, FL (beating them), and Virginia Tech (losing, marginally). W. Virginia was competitive against Virginia Tech. So, W. Virginia might have been the 'best' Big East team, but they lost to Pittsburgh, that was the deal-breaker for them. Boston College, interestingly, had the conference in hand before losing to Syracuse.
So, as much as we hate to admit it, Pittsburgh likely was the best team, competitively, to the BCS, in 2004. Who would you have selected?

[Spence]

So, as much as we hate to admit it, Pittsburgh likely was the best team, competitively, to the BCS, in 2004. Who would you have selected?

The B-East probably didn't have a team that was BCS caliber that year. It is rare that happens with the top 6 conferences, but it did that year.

There is no need to defend Utah in this instance. They won and won big, just because Pitt shouldn't have been there doesn't mean that Utah didn't. Utah had a claim because they played and beat several ranked teams and won. They proved that they should be considered and they were.

[colorado_loves_football]

The B-East probably didn't have a team that was BCS caliber that year. It is rare that happens with the top 6 conferences, but it did that year.

There is no need to defend Utah in this instance. They won and won big, just because Pitt shouldn't have been there doesn't mean that Utah didn't. Utah had a claim because they played and beat several ranked teams and won. They proved that they should be considered and they were.

This is where Pittsburgh was ranked by the AP poll, which I believe is conducted following the bowls:2004
1. USC
2. Auburn
3. Oklahoma
4. Utah
5. Texas
6. Louisville
7. Georgia
8. Iowa
9. California
10. Virginia Tech
11. Miami (Fla.)
12. Boise State
13. Tennessee
14. Michigan
15. Florida State
16. LSU
17. Wisconsin
18. Texas Tech
19. Arizona State
20. Ohio State
21. Boston College
22. Fresno State
23. Virginia
24. Navy
25. Pittsburgh
This is interesting, because Boston College is ranked ahead of them.

[Spence]

Now, as far as other teams, there were likely better teams not selected to the BCS, but I for one was happy with Pittsburgh being there. They hadn't been to a BCS bowl, and needed the pubicity. I don't think it was an 'accident' Utah and Pittsburgh were paired together.
Utah likely wouldn't have beaten Auburn (I said it). I think they needed to play a team like Pittsburgh, to get credibility. I don't think the BCS 'messed' up that year at all, if anything they did a pretty good job.

If I were a B-East member, I wouldn't be happy Pitt made it. They made a terrible representation of their conference in front of the nation. That is why teams who aren't good enough shouldn't be allowed into the games.

Utah wouldn't have beaten Auburn, but they likely wouldn't have embarrassed their conference in the game. Matching them up against Pitt didn't give them credibility. Maybe kicking the crud out of them did, but just matching them up against them did not.

I have no problem with teams that prove they should be there getting a shot, but they shouldn't be allowed in if they don't belong in.

[colorado_loves_football]

If I were a B-East member, I wouldn't be happy Pitt made it. They made a terrible representation of their conference in front of the nation. That is why teams who aren't good enough shouldn't be allowed into the games.

Utah wouldn't have beaten Auburn, but they likely wouldn't have embarrassed their conference in the game. Matching them up against Pitt didn't give them credibility. Maybe kicking the crud out of them did, but just matching them up against them did not.

I have no problem with teams that prove they should be there getting a shot, but they shouldn't be allowed in if they don't belong in.

Explain how Pittsburgh wasn't a 'deserving' representative, I'm interested. They lost only one other game, to Syracuse, that could have made them ineligible, except that Syracuse was also a co-champion. In fact, had Syracuse not lost to Temple (the only game Temple won, all year long) Syracuse is the 'unanimous' Big East winner!
I, for one, am glad Temple beat Syracuse, I think Pittsburgh was a better team, and simply losing to Utah doesn't mean they weren't competitive. They lost, early, to Nebraska. Nebraska, although admittedly not very good, is still Nebraska. They also lost to Connecticut, but Connecticut surprised a few teams, as they usually do.
I think Pittsburgh was a deserving team to the BCS. They weren't necessarily the 'best' team, in terms of their overall ability, but they beat the teams that mattered.

[Spence]

Tell me how Pittsburgh wasn't a deserving representative to the BCS, I'm interested, I think you are simply modifying your position to the results.
I thought Pittsburgh was a worthy representative, especially after they beat both W. Virginia and Boston College. They needed 'help' obviously, from Syracuse, but after that happened, I don't think anyone would argue that Pittsburgh was the 'best' representative, based upon their record. I believe they were also the highest ranked team, in the Big East. Maybe they weren't 'best' in terms of overall ability, but I think they were the 'best' representative the Big East had, 2004. Which team would you have selected?

I think they were the only ranked team in the B-East that year. I believe they were 20 or 22(not sure, but that is close) They were the best representitive from their conference, but the conference wasn't very good that year. I am not modifying my position. I have never believed that teams who aren't among the best teams in the nation should go. The B-East has an automatic bid, so they got to go, but it doesn't mean they deserved to go.

[colorado_loves_football]

I posted the final AP poll, in an 'edited' post. It was the final AP poll, and Pittsburgh finished #25 overall. Boston College managed to finish ranked higher, #21 I believe, so Pittsburgh actually wasn't the highest ranked Big East team, in 2004.
I also looked at where CFP had them, I think they were #32, behind Boston College who I believe was #25 overall, so that would appear to validate the information listed, competitively-speaking.
Still, the fact remains, Boston College lost, head-to-head against Pittsburgh. So, I would still be inclined to take them over the Eagles.
Had Boston College beaten either Pittsburgh or Syracuse, they go.
Pittsburgh needed 'help' from Syracuse, after they lost to the Orangemen. Syracuse beat Boston College, and also earned themselves a share of the Big East title.
Interestingly, as much as it might be hard to swallow, the Big East actually ranked higher, competitively 2004, than in 2005, top-to-bottom.
At least that's what I gathered from this webpage:
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/2005/conf2.htm
You have to 'click' onto the year you want, to see where they fall.
Big East football, actually has been a 'consistent' #6 for a while.
That also surprised me, I had assumed they would be ranked higher.