Checking in on the BCS

[Bruce Carriker]

Boston College does their part for Hawaii and loses, which means they'll drop below the Rainbow Warriors. LSU beats Tennessee, ensuring the Vols don't move up any.

It's pretty simple right now. If Hawaii beats Washington, they're in a BCS bowl game.

[Ryan Scott]

West Virginia has dropped the Backyard Brawl against Pittsburgh so it looks like an entirely undeserving Ohio State team will be in the National Championship game. There's at least five teams out there better than OSU, but whatever. Anyone up for an entire slate of boring games?

USC-Illinois
LSU-VaTech
WV-Oklahoma
Kansas-Hawaii

And Ohio State - Georgia


Actually, that Kansas - Hawaii matchup could be pretty nice if it actually happens.

[Ryan Scott]

You know what? I don't care anymore. If I'm a bowl committee, I'd scrap my agreements and invite Florida at this point. No one deserves to win the national title.

I honestly think Georgia and LSU could be the best teams left. Whoever it is, I'm fairly confident they're not going to make the national championship game.

This stinks.

[Greg Farra]

Undeserving? And what are you smoking?

[Jim Franklin]

Do I not remember that some years back there was a dual national championship of two teams?

[Greg Farra]

Do I not remember that some years back there was a dual national championship of two teams?

I think it was a few years back when LSU and Oklahoma played for the BCS and an undefeated SoCal team won their bowl and was number one in another poll. It would be interesting if OSU loses in the tiltle game, although I'd prefer that didn't happen. But if it does, that more than likely means that we'll have a 2 loss champion, unless Kansas can get in and win.

Since LSU lost both of their games in OT, and won their division and league, they may be the best team to consider. Ansd Oklahoma is pretty good as well. They may be just as deserving.

I'd like to see Illinois sneak into a BCS bowl, but that probably won't happen. They're one of the most underrated teams this year, although if you'd seen them the second half of last season you'd have known they were an upcoming team. I think we have to play them next year in Champaign.

[Jim Poteet]

It looks as if the Rainbow Warriors have bitten off more than they can chew. The WAC have no business even thinking about BCS games this year. The conference was woefully weak this year.

[Ryan Scott]

Have faith. Hawaii is doing alright. They're making progress.

[Steven Kochersperger]

The only people in the nation who thinks that Ohio St is deserviing are Ohio St fans. They won a bad Big Ten Conference and really didn't have a quality win all year long.

[Jim Poteet]

Have faith. Hawaii is doing alright. They're making progress.

Yes, they are making progress against one of the bottom feeders of the Pac-10.

[Bruce Carriker]

Undeserving? And what are you smoking?

I guess he could ask you the same question, Greg. Who did OSU beat this year? Their two best wins were against teams ranked in the 20's when they played, who finished the season unranked.

It's easy to make an argument for a bunch of teams this year. That's why their should be a playoff, but that's another topic. But if you put OSU on the field with Oklahoma or Southern Cal or LSU, you're very likely to see a repeat of last year's debacle.

It's not OSU's fault, necessarily...just a fact of life...that they didn't have to be dominant to win the Big 10. The Big 10 right now is probably 5th among the 6 BCS conferences...better only than the Big Least.

[Bruce Carriker]

Best assessment I've seen of Ohio State's "claim" to a BCS Championship berth:

Ohio State (11-1) entered the weekend at No. 3 and looks like it's in, essentially because it only lost once. Sure it only played 12 games (to most team's 13), took on a weak non-conference slate, beat no really good teams, lost three weeks ago at home to Illinois and didn't play anyone in two weeks, but in this season … hey, step on up you're a winner, please try to play better than last year. Dan Wetzel, Yahoo Sports

[Bruce Carriker]

BC will drop out of top 14 teams. Tennessee will drop out. The top 14 teams (the BCS bowl pool) will probably look something like this:

1. Ohio State (will move up to #1 as reward for sitting home this weekend)
2. LSU (should rightfully move ahead of Georgia, which DID NOT win the SEC conference championship)
3. Virginia Tech (will get passed by LSU, because voters will not forget the absolute DRUBBING the Hokies took earlier in the season at the hands of LSU)
4. Georgia. (will stay the same in the polls as a result of sitting home...go figure. Must be wondering how this worked for Ohio State, but not for them)
5 USC (may be playing the best football in the country right now. Could move past Georgia to #4)
6. Oklahoma (very impressive win against Missouri...no question which was the better team...better athletes, better coached, just better)
7. Kansas (will DROP as a result of sitting home...bet they have some questions for the Buckeyes, too)
8. Missouri (a 7-spot drop is probably about right, even though they were and still are better than Kansas, by a fair margin)
9. West Virginia (will get punished for playing in a lame conference and losing to a terrible Pitt team - at least MU got beat by another Top 10 school)
10. Florida - sits right where they're at, and it doesn't matter. They're ineligible for BCS play.
11. Hawaii - come from behind win v. Washington virtually assures they'll stay in the Top 12, which guarantees a BCS berth.
12. Arizona State - moves up a spot as a result of BC loss.
13. Illinois - moves up to replace BC in Top 14
14. Clemson - moves up to replace Tennessee in Top 14

Florida is ineligible because of 2-team per conference rule (GA, LSU); one of KU/MU drops out of BCS consideration for the same reason. Hawaii is an automatic qualifier. Logically, at least, that moves Arizona State into the top ten BCS teams, and leaves the bowls looking something like this:

BCS Championship: LSU v. Ohio State

Rose Bowl: Georgia v. USC (Rose Bowl gets #1 pick of at large teams since they lose the highest ranked participant in championship game)

Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. Missouri or Kansas (if that's the choice, why would you take the loser of the head to head game?)

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. Arizona State

Sugar Bowl: West Virginia v Hawaii (the Sugar Bowl will get the 2nd pick of at-large teams to replace LSU...a choice that likely comes down to MU, KU, or West Virginia) WV loss to Pitt may hurt a lot, but as Big East champs, they're guaranteed a spot.

Possible complications in this scenario: Rose Bowl ignores a bunch of good teams and grabs a mediocre (by BCS standards) Illinois team for the Rose Bowl, just to keep Big 10-Pac 10 rivalry intact. Seems to me that passing on Georgia in the scenario would just be stupid, but it's been a stupid year in college football.

If that were to happen, I think it shakes out like this:

BCS Championship: LSU v. Ohio State

Rose Bowl: Illinois v. USC (Rose Bowl wastes #1 pick of at large teams on Illini)

Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. MU or KU

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. West Virginia

Sugar Bowl: Georgia v Hawaii (the Sugar Bowl will get the 2nd pick of at-large teams to replace LSU and laughs at their good fortune, and Rose Bowl's stupidity)

[Ryan Scott]

I don't think the Rose Bowl will go to Illinois. They learned their lesson a few years ago when they took Vince Young and Texas to replace USC, who went to the championship game and got the best possible match-up.

[Greg Farra]

Well, talk is cheap. The fact is that every other team had at least two losses other than Kantsas. That hardly makes them superior teams. The year OSU won it all they won several games by less than seven points. We may see that again. In the loss last year, we went to the 'I' and ran it down Florida's throat for a series. We promptly abandoned that strategy and went back to what didn't work. Yes, the Big Ten may not have several dominant teams, but I'd put Illinois against anyone right now. And Michigan, despite it's record, had a lot of stars coming back. They just had a terrible-coached team.

In any event, you can keep crying. We're going to the big game. We may or may not win, but we'll be there.

[Bruce Carriker]

Well, talk is cheap. The fact is that every other team had at least two losses other than Kantsas.

Talk is cheap, but sitting at home is probably even cheaper. Most of those two-loss teams played thirteen games, while OSU ate nachos, drank beer, and waited for the teams ahead of them to lose games the Buckeyes were not required to play.

That hardly makes the Buckeyes a superior teams.

Yes, the Big Ten may not have several dominant teams, but I'd put Illinois against anyone right now.

Not only do they not have "several", they don't have any. And Illinois would get destroyed by USC, OU, LSU, Georgia.

And Michigan, despite it's record, had a lot of stars coming back. They just had a terrible-coached team. That's the same coach that had them #2 in the nation last year. Michigan was very pedestrian this year.

In any event, you can keep crying. We're going to the big game. We may or may not win, but we'll be there.

You're right. Backing in is better than not going at all. Please don't embarrass yourselves like you did last year.

[Bruce Carriker]

BCS Championship: LSU v. Ohio State

Rose Bowl: Illinois v. USC (Rose Bowl wastes #1 pick of at large teams on Illini)

Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. MU or KU

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. West Virginia

Sugar Bowl: Georgia v Hawaii (the Sugar Bowl will get the 2nd pick of at-large teams to replace LSU and laughs at their good fortune, and Rose Bowl's stupidity)

I guessed pretty well on this one.

[Bruce Carriker]

I don't think the Rose Bowl will go to Illinois. They learned their lesson a few years ago when they took Vince Young and Texas to replace USC, who went to the championship game and got the best possible match-up.


Apparently that lesson didn't sink in.

[Alisa Stoll]

I guess he could ask you the same question, Greg. Who did OSU beat this year? Their two best wins were against teams ranked in the 20's when they played, who finished the season unranked.

It's easy to make an argument for a bunch of teams this year. That's why their should be a playoff, but that's another topic. But if you put OSU on the field with Oklahoma or Southern Cal or LSU, you're very likely to see a repeat of last year's debacle.

It's not OSU's fault, necessarily...just a fact of life...that they didn't have to be dominant to win the Big 10. The Big 10 right now is probably 5th among the 6 BCS conferences...better only than the Big Least.


What about Wisconsin? OSU beat them and they ended up ranked.

[Billie Goodson]

Bruce, you got the lottery numbers? Your picks were pretty good!

The bowl season is going to be as interesting as the regular season. Some overtimes, and a bunch of games that you can turn off at halftime.

[Greg Farra]

Bruce,

Just how sour are those grapes you have been eating? It really doesn't matter if you or I think OSU is deserving. The people that matter when it comes to picking the teams decided that they and LSU are the two most deserving teams. I thought the Michigan fans cried a lot. You do realize this is only a game? BTW, guess what sorry league puy two teams in?
Like I said, most people don't know how good Illinois really is. At least the people who do know were smart enough to put them in the Rose Bowl.

And Ohio State did not get rewarded for sitting home. The Big Ten has almost always finished the weekend before Thanksgiving. They would do better to extend their season later, as they have too long a layoff. This actually hurt Michigan last year in the polls.

As far as who would destroy who, well, we'll let them decide that on the field. I don't think you or I have any control over that, unless you plan on strapping on some pads and lining up.

[Billie Goodson]

Frankly, I like the OSU/LSU matchup. Another national champion from the SEC is almost assured with this selection! Then again, being a fan of another team in the SEC makes the prospects of LSU being the national champion a bit disconcerting.

[Ryan Scott]

Apparently that lesson didn't sink in.

Looking at the final stats, the lesson didn't matter. Illinois and Boston College were the only options for the Rose Bowl. BC is the only eligible team from the top 14 who didn't get in.

[Bruce Carriker]

Bruce,

Just how sour are those grapes you have been eating? It really doesn't matter if you or I think OSU is deserving. The people that matter when it comes to picking the teams decided that they and LSU are the two most deserving teams. I thought the Michigan fans cried a lot. You do realize this is only a game? BTW, guess what sorry league puy two teams in?
Like I said, most people don't know how good Illinois really is. At least the people who do know were smart enough to put them in the Rose Bowl.

No sour grapes about the championship game. Missouri had the chance to go and they didn't get the job done. They don't deserve to go. And if you go back and look, you'll see that I was picking OSU to back in all week.

As for Illinois, I know how good Illinois is...good enough to beat Ohio State; but not good enough to beat Missouri. And the Rose Bowl didn't put them in because the bowl committee is smart. You don't SERIOUSLY believe Illinois is better than Georgia, do you?

And Ohio State did not get rewarded for sitting home.
Yes, they did. They did not play their way into the title game...Missouri and West Virginia lost their way out. Ohio State plays in a conference that does not have a championship game. Not their fault; but doesn't change the fact that they were rewarded for being idle yesterday. At least LSU WON their way into the championship game.

[Alisa Stoll]

No sour grapes about the championship game. Missouri had the chance to go and they didn't get the job done. They don't deserve to go. And if you go back and look, you'll see that I was picking OSU to back in all week.

As for Illinois, I know how good Illinois is...good enough to beat Ohio State; but not good enough to beat Missouri. And the Rose Bowl didn't put them in because the bowl committee is smart. You don't SERIOUSLY believe Illinois is better than Georgia, do you?


They could only pick Georgia if the Sugar agreed - I seriously can't see them doing that knowing they would also be stuck with Hawaii given they had last pick. Look at the rules:

C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents.

[Alisa Stoll]

Looking at the final stats, the lesson didn't matter. Illinois and Boston College were the only options for the Rose Bowl. BC is the only eligible team from the top 14 who didn't get in.

Umm - Arizona State is ranked 11th and last I checked USC is the only other Pac-10 team in the BCS bowls.

Certainly the Rose would not have wanted them but as 1st choice their only options were not merely Illinois and Boston College. They could have chosen Georgia (if the Sugar agreed - yeah like that would happen), Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, or Hawii (another yea right) in addition to Illinois and Boston College.

Certainly Missouri has a legitimate argument that they are a better choice as they did beat Illinois 40 - 34. Course the counter to that is that OSU probably would have beaten them on the 1st of Sept. also as the Illinois that will play in the rose bowl is not the team that Missouri beat.

Alisa

[Bruce Carriker]

Looking at the final stats, the lesson didn't matter. Illinois and Boston College were the only options for the Rose Bowl. BC is the only eligible team from the top 14 who didn't get in.

This is incorrect. The Rose Bowl had the #1 pick of at-large teams because one of their conference tie-ins, Ohio State, is ranked #1. They had their choice of ALL the at-large teams and took Illinois ahead of everyone else.

[Alisa Stoll]

This is incorrect. The Rose Bowl had the #1 pick of at-large teams because one of their conference tie-ins, Ohio State, is ranked #1. They had their choice of ALL the at-large teams and took Illinois ahead of everyone else.

From the www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/elegibility:

A bowl choosing a replacement team may not select any of the following:

A. A team in the NCG;
B. The host team for another BCS Bowl;
C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents.

So they did not have their choice of ALL the at-large teams based on C. They could only pick Georgia or Florida if the Sugar Bowl agreed.

I don't understand why the folks here and the folks at ESPN don't understand that.

Alisa

[Billie Goodson]

From the www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/elegibility:



Link is incorrect

Should be http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

[Billie Goodson]

In my opinion, the only bowl game that will be watched in the second half may be the Fiesta Bowl where Oklahoma and WVU will match-up pretty well. The rest:

NCG -- LSU vs. Ohio State --

Should OSU be forced to play App. State next year to prove their bona fides?

Orange Bowl -- Va. Tech vs Kansas

Kansas lost to Mizzou who lost to OU.... this game could be ugly in the first quarter.

Sugar Bowl -- Hawaii vs. Georgia

Sorry, Georgia is battle tested. This is a case of the JV playing the Varsity. Colt Brennan needs to make sure his insurance is paid up. UGA will bring the type of intensity for four quarters that Washington only showed for 1.

Rose Bowl -- USC vs Illinois

As much as I would love to see Ron Zook's boys win, I think the USC machine is going to mow them down.

[Ryan Scott]

This is incorrect. The Rose Bowl had the #1 pick of at-large teams because one of their conference tie-ins, Ohio State, is ranked #1. They had their choice of ALL the at-large teams and took Illinois ahead of everyone else.


Right, but didn't the Rose Bowl make a gentlemen's agreement with the two conferences to keep it Big 10/Pac 10 if at all possible? I'm guessing that relationship is more important than one game this year. After all, in ten years no one will remember the BCS, but there Rose bowl will still be featuring USC-Michigan on New Year's Day.

[Bruce Carriker]

Yes, there is an under-the-table agreement to subvert the rankings.

[Bruce Carriker]

In my opinion, the only bowl game that will be watched in the second half may be the Fiesta Bowl where Oklahoma and WVU will match-up pretty well. The rest:

NCG -- LSU vs. Ohio State --

Should OSU be forced to play App. State next year to prove their bona fides?

Orange Bowl -- Va. Tech vs Kansas

Kansas lost to Mizzou who lost to OU.... this game could be ugly in the first quarter.

Sugar Bowl -- Hawaii vs. Georgia

Sorry, Georgia is battle tested. This is a case of the JV playing the Varsity. Colt Brennan needs to make sure his insurance is paid up. UGA will bring the type of intensity for four quarters that Washington only showed for 1.

Rose Bowl -- USC vs Illinois

As much as I would love to see Ron Zook's boys win, I think the USC machine is going to mow them down.

Pretty much in agreement with you, Billie. Here's my take:

BCS Championship: Ohio State v. LSU. This game is pretty much out of Ohio State's hands. It's all a factor of which LSU team shows up. If Les Miles brings his team that just destroyed Virginia Tech, LSU wins. If the Tigers who struggled against Kentucky show up, OSU has a chance. Even if LSU doesn't play their best game, I think their speed will expose Ohio State much the same way Florida did last year.

Off topic: Does it strike anyone else as strange that Nebraska hired Bo Pellini, when LSU has won IN SPITE of it's defense all season long? Not counting LA-Monroe, the Tigers gave up over 30 points a game their last six games.

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. West Virginia. I think you underestimate the team speed of OU, especially on defense. West Virginia's strength on offense has been the speed of White and Slaton stretching defenses in a very weak conference, until they finally broke. That's not going to happen against the Sooners. Oklahoma IS NOT UConn or Syracuse or Cincinnati.

Plus, Pat White has been fragile and when he gets knocked out, West Virginia struggles. If he gets hurt early in the game, OU will run away and hide. I think this game has as much potential as any of the others to be a blowout.

Orange Bowl: Va Tech v. Kansas. I think you misjudge the Jayhawks. Yes, KU lost to MU which lost to OU...so what? That's three Top Ten teams you're talking about. Yes, they played a creampuff schedule. Yes, they lost their only game against a ranked opponent. No, they clearly don't deserve to be in a BCS game ahead of Missouri. However, they are a solid football team with no glaring weaknesses. And Va Tech is nothing special, just a survivor from the ACC. It's not like they are a dominant team. I think this will be a decent game, and I have no clue who will win.

Sugar Bowl -- Hawaii vs. Georgia

Georgia will have a huge home-field advantage, not to mention that they're just a clearly superior football team. The Rainbow Warriors have about as much chance against the Dawgs as Appalachian State would have going up against a Big Ten team...oh, wait...never mind.

Rose Bowl -- USC vs Illinois Absolute rout. Illinois is as outclassed as any team in a BCS bowl this year, and that includes Hawaii. This one is over at half-time, which will give everyone a chance to rest and clean up a little bit before the Orange Bowl.

[Bruce Carriker]

From the www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/elegibility:

A bowl choosing a replacement team may not select any of the following:

A. A team in the NCG;
B. The host team for another BCS Bowl;
C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents.

So they did not have their choice of ALL the at-large teams based on C. They could only pick Georgia or Florida if the Sugar Bowl agreed.

I don't understand why the folks here and the folks at ESPN don't understand that.

Alisa

I completely understand, Alisa. But give rule C, Georgia was not an at-large team any longer, they were the SEC rep in the Sugar Bowl. As for ESPN, I'm guessing they know more than we do, regardless of what the rules say.

[Alisa Stoll]

I completely understand, Alisa. But give rule C, Georgia was not an at-large team any longer, they were the SEC rep in the Sugar Bowl. As for ESPN, I'm guessing they know more than we do, regardless of what the rules say.


If you completely understand, why did you ask in a previous post if another poster seriously thought Illinois is better than Georgia - thereby implying that the Rose should have picked Georgia.

And I disagree with your trying to get out of the ALL at-large statement because if what your interpretation of the rules is true - SEC rep instead of at-large, the rule would read something like: C. If a conference has a team playing in the title game and another team eligible to play in a BCS game, that team becomes the host team for the associated bowl unless that bowl releases them.

I say Georgia is still considered an at-large team with contingency - that contingency being the bowl associated with their conference has to release them.

As to ESPN, I think this may be a new tweak that they over-looked as opposed to they knowing more than us. Believe me, it took me a while to a) find it and b) read it enough to understand. Course that could be because I am merely a "girl" - we'll just forget about the BSEE I earned.

Alisa

[Ryan Scott]

The Rose Bowl could have taken Georgia, but they didn't. You can credit that with keeping the Pac10/Big10 matchup intact, which makes sense. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to say that the Rose Bowl is just trying to help USC's reputation.

USC is looking pretty good right now, but Georgia may be the only team looking better. Bringing Georgia in and then having USC getting blown out is an awful worst-case scenario for the home team. Bringing Illinois in and losing, worst case scenario: the media focuses on the underdog, giant-killer and USC comes off as the team that didn't get up for a game they were supposed to win. USC's got a lot of connections with the Rose Bowl, don't think they didn't make their opinion known.

[Bruce Carriker]

If you completely understand, why did you ask in a previous post if another poster seriously thought Illinois is better than Georgia - thereby implying that the Rose should have picked Georgia.

And I disagree with your trying to get out of the ALL at-large statement because if what your interpretation of the rules is true - SEC rep instead of at-large, the rule would read something like: C. If a conference has a team playing in the title game and another team eligible to play in a BCS game, that team becomes the host team for the associated bowl unless that bowl releases them.

You can disagree all you want. That just makes you wrong. You're conflating two of my posts and assuming I'm too stupid to read and process information as it's posted. Here's the post you are responding to:

This is incorrect. The Rose Bowl had the #1 pick of at-large teams because one of their conference tie-ins, Ohio State, is ranked #1. They had their choice of ALL the at-large teams and took Illinois ahead of everyone else.

That post was being made SUBSEQUENT to my original post about Georgia, AND SUBSEQUENT to your posting of Rule C. Please, don't assume people are too stupid to assimilate information posted during the course of a discussion here, just because such an assumption serves your purposes.


As to ESPN, I think this may be a new tweak that they over-looked as opposed to they knowing more than us. Believe me, it took me a while to a) find it and b) read it enough to understand. Course that could be because I am merely a "girl" - we'll just forget about the BSEE I earned.

Please, leave THAT alone. This is not directed at you, but I know a TON of educated idiots. Most of them hide behind a bunch of letters behind their name.

[Bruce Carriker]

The Rose Bowl could have taken Georgia, but they didn't. You can credit that with keeping the Pac10/Big10 matchup intact, which makes sense. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to say that the Rose Bowl is just trying to help USC's reputation.

USC is looking pretty good right now, but Georgia may be the only team looking better. Bringing Georgia in and then having USC getting blown out is an awful worst-case scenario for the home team. Bringing Illinois in and losing, worst case scenario: the media focuses on the underdog, giant-killer and USC comes off as the team that didn't get up for a game they were supposed to win. USC's got a lot of connections with the Rose Bowl, don't think they didn't make their opinion known.

I don't doubt at all that one of the reasons for the Illinois selection was to provide the weakest possible opponent for USC to pound on.

[Alisa Stoll]

You can disagree all you want. That just makes you wrong. You're conflating two of my posts and assuming I'm too stupid to read and process information as it's posted. Here's the post you are responding to:

This is incorrect. The Rose Bowl had the #1 pick of at-large teams because one of their conference tie-ins, Ohio State, is ranked #1. They had their choice of ALL the at-large teams and took Illinois ahead of everyone else.

That post was being made SUBSEQUENT to my original post about Georgia, AND SUBSEQUENT to your posting of Rule C. Please, don't assume people are too stupid to assimilate information posted during the course of a discussion here, just because such an assumption serves your purposes.




Please, leave THAT alone. This is not directed at you, but I know a TON of educated idiots. Most of them hide behind a bunch of letters behind their name.


Well some folks on this discussion haven't processed rule C and are still insisting that the Rose could have taken Georgia. Nor did I see anyone admitting that golly ghee I might know what I'm talking about.

As to a bunch of letters behind my name - a simple BS even in electrical engineering alas doesn't qualify me for any :cool:

Alisa

[Billie Goodson]

...I know a TON of educated idiots. Most of them hide behind a bunch of letters behind their name.

All the idiots I know use letters in their names. :basic05


I'm just glad there is no playoff system. As dumb as the BCS is, imagine how stupid they could make a playoff system. No doubt in my mind, they create a playoff system, it will make us remember fondly the days of the BCS and even the non-BCS days....

[Alisa Stoll]

All the idiots I know use letters in their names. :basic05


I'm just glad there is no playoff system. As dumb as the BCS is, imagine how stupid they could make a playoff system. No doubt in my mind, they create a playoff system, it will make us remember fondly the days of the BCS and even the non-BCS days....

I expect we are more likely to see the BCS + 1 format - they are already setting us up for that with a 5th BCS game that is a week later than the other bowls. My only question about that would be are they only going to include the 4 original BCS games in the voting for who plays in the title game or are they going to be smart and add another 4 or so to include the other worthy teams like Missouri and Florida (how it pains me to say that) who are playing in non-BCS games due to the rules but are ranked in the top 10 as it stands today.

Alisa

[Jim Poteet]

I expect we are more likely to see the BCS + 1 format - they are already setting us up for that with a 5th BCS game that is a week later than the other bowls. My only question about that would be are they only going to include the 4 original BCS games in the voting for who plays in the title game or are they going to be smart and add another 4 or so to include the other worthy teams like Missouri and Florida (how it pains me to say that) who are playing in non-BCS games due to the rules but are ranked in the top 10 as it stands today.

Alisa

Folks,

There is not going to be a playoff system under the current format. Remember, a playoff system makes all teams losers except for the champion. 30 bowl games equals 30 winners at the end of the season. This gives 1/4 of the BCS college presidents bragging rights until the next season.

A playoff will only come if the top 64 teams decide to bail out on the NCAA and then negotiate their own multi-billion dollar deal for football and basketball with the networks and all revenue stays within the little 64 team group. It is all about money and ego.

[Alisa Stoll]

Folks,

There is not going to be a playoff system under the current format. Remember, a playoff system makes all teams losers except for the champion. 30 bowl games equals 30 winners at the end of the season. This gives 1/4 of the BCS college presidents bragging rights until the next season.

A playoff will only come if the top 64 teams decide to bail out on the NCAA and then negotiate their own multi-billion dollar deal for football and basketball with the networks and all revenue stays within the little 64 team group. It is all about money and ego.

I would imagine that if they did go to a playoff, it would be a limited one - not a 64 team - one that would leave most of the bowls as is. I think that is why they keep throwing up polls with an 8 team so that they use the existing 4 bowls as the first round. Then use two of them for the next round and a 3rd for a title game. But tradition makes it easier to simply use the bowls + 1 method.

Alisa

[Billie Goodson]

I think you are right with the bowl +1 Alisa. So, the question is -- how do we make it stupid enough that they would approve it? Without an element of stupidity, they will not be able to figure it out.

[Ryan Scott]

Here is a lengthy, yet well informed rundown of the BCS scenario.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071204

[Jim Poteet]

I would imagine that if they did go to a playoff, it would be a limited one - not a 64 team - one that would leave most of the bowls as is. I think that is why they keep throwing up polls with an 8 team so that they use the existing 4 bowls as the first round. Then use two of them for the next round and a 3rd for a title game. But tradition makes it easier to simply use the bowls + 1 method.

Alisa

You aren't understanding what I am saying. There would never be a 64 team playoff in football. There will never be a playoff that determines a champion as long as the current BCS conference schools plus Notre Dame stay in the NCAA. Those schools do not want the NCAA or the the non-BCS conference to share in the revenue. There is talk behind the scenes about the BCS conference doing their own thing in football and basketball. The TV payoff yearly would be in the 3 Billion dollar range. Each school would share in approximately 45 million per year on the national contract and probably another 10 million per year on a conference contract.

These schools make the rules and they live by the Golden Rule that Bruce talked about last week. "Those that can get the gold make the rules."

You are going to see a tremendous upheaval in college sports in the next few years. I've lived in the athletic world for many years and I hear what is going on in the back rooms. There is too much going on behind the scenes that even the media people do not know about.

With 64 schools in a "super athletic association," the bowls would still probably exist and the playoff would probably be an eight team affair. The rest of the 64 teams would play in the "so called" minor bowls and teams like Arkansas State, North Texas, Boise State, Hawaii would never have any opportunity to play at the top level.

Let me throw out a couple of thoughts. In the not to distant future, I see Texas and Texas A&M in the Pac 10. Missouri could very well be in the the Big 10. If Texas and Texas A&M go to the Pac 10, Colorado & Nebraska won't be far behind. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State would probably end up in the SEC. What I'm sharing here is that we will probably have 4 "super conferences" with 16 teams in each conference. There will be 2 divisions in each conference and the divisional winners (8 of them) will qualify for the national football playoff. The playoff teams qualify on the the field and you don't need polls and computers to muddy the waters. All 64 teams would qualify in basketball.

Money talks and that is sad for the other schools such as Baylor, Northwestern & Wake Forest to name a few. Bit it is probably reality for them in the future. The big 64 will be almost like a farm system for the pros and I can see the day when the students representing those "super conference" schools are only part-time students taking maybe, 6 credits each semester.

Enough said for now. React and lets talk.

[Jim Poteet]

Here is a lengthy, yet well informed rundown of the BCS scenario.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071204

It is a good article, Ryan, and he alludes to the fact that the big 64 don't want their money going elsewhere such as in the NCAA's pocket

[Greg Farra]

As far as OSU backing in, well, the other teams had their chances and blew it, so for this one time a late season loss did not hurt them as usual. I've seen some pretty good OSU teams lose in a late big game and have no chance to redeem themselves, unlike if they'd have stumbled early.

In regards to not having a chance to beat LSU, remember the 2002 Bucks came into the championship game to play the defending champ and undefeated Miami Hurricanes and beat them, despite being underdogs.

Last year's fiasco against Florida was not typical of a Tressel coached team. Other than that game, he has won 3 other BCS bowls (Fiesta), and also won four titles at 1-AA Youngstown State.

[Cindi Hammons]

I can see the day when the students representing those "super conference" schools are only part-time students taking maybe, 6 credits each semester.

Of all that you just said, this is what bothers me the most.

[Billie Goodson]

Thanks for the article Ryan. I think the key takeaway -- it is about money to the schools and not the product on the field. The key point about how many schools end their season's as winners is very important.

Anyway you look at it -- the system is what it is. And, no matter what your definition of "is" is -- we are all going to turn on the bowl games and talk about them. Then complain about them, then talk about how next year our teams will get a chance to prove on the field what they were not capable of proving this year. And, we will love those games when our teams schedule the annual cup cakes and they look like the best team ever assembled. Because we are that gullible. Hope springs eternal in the heart of a Bowl Championship Division-team fan.

[Billie Goodson]

In my opinion, the only bowl game that will be watched in the second half may be the Fiesta Bowl where Oklahoma and WVU will match-up pretty well. The rest:

NCG -- LSU vs. Ohio State --

Should OSU be forced to play App. State next year to prove their bona fides?

Orange Bowl -- Va. Tech vs Kansas

Kansas lost to Mizzou who lost to OU.... this game could be ugly in the first quarter.

Sugar Bowl -- Hawaii vs. Georgia

Sorry, Georgia is battle tested. This is a case of the JV playing the Varsity. Colt Brennan needs to make sure his insurance is paid up. UGA will bring the type of intensity for four quarters that Washington only showed for 1.

Rose Bowl -- USC vs Illinois

As much as I would love to see Ron Zook's boys win, I think the USC machine is going to mow them down.

Well, my Rose and Sugar predictions held to form -- then again, was not like I was going out on a limb. Georgia absolutely bombarded Hawaii and did it with only 3 linemen rushing much of the game. The emotion of the Hawaii fans was great to see though. This game showed the results of what happens when speed and size comes in the same package. That being said, if Brennan gets drafted by a team that can improve his mechanics (and block) he will be a Sunday player.

[Mike Wooldridge]

Kansas Beats Va Tech In Orange Bowl

[Billie Goodson]

Kansas Beats Va Tech In Orange Bowl

This was a major upset in my opinion -- and I liked watching it. Actually, I don't really like Va Tech and thought their arrogance showed and they got beaten because of it. Some may argue that Va Tech mistakes cost them the game -- well Duh! But, Kansas proved to be opportunistic and played within themselves -- and thrashed VT on special teams!!

[Billie Goodson]

Well, 3-1 this Bowl season -- and happy to have missed the VaTech/Kansas call.

On the game last night (OSU vs LSU)

Why did OSU abandon the run in the second quarter. When a nice, strong, consistent drive was what I thought was needed, OSU tries to go for broke and an LSU defender levels Boeckman and another intercepts his pass (on the same play). OSU seemed to have hit the panic button -- and frustration set in with all the penalties.

I did watch the game at our Pastor's house -- a huge Buckeye fan! It was great to torture him and he took it in stride -- have to see if I get invited back next year though to know for sure. He made a statement about the Buckeye speed. My feelings are that no one really means that Ohio State is not fast, the issue is they are not so accustomed to playing team speed that you see in the SEC. It is not the speed of the players individually, but, of the game collectively that seems to befuddle the Buckeyes. Interesting to see what happens in a few years when Michigan under RR begins to play a "faster" game.

[Greg Farra]

Well, 3-1 this Bowl season -- and happy to have missed the VaTech/Kansas call.

On the game last night (OSU vs LSU)

Why did OSU abandon the run in the second quarter. When a nice, strong, consistent drive was what I thought was needed, OSU tries to go for broke and an LSU defender levels Boeckman and another intercepts his pass (on the same play). OSU seemed to have hit the panic button -- and frustration set in with all the penalties.

I did watch the game at our Pastor's house -- a huge Buckeye fan! It was great to torture him and he took it in stride -- have to see if I get invited back next year though to know for sure. He made a statement about the Buckeye speed. My feelings are that no one really means that Ohio State is not fast, the issue is they are not so accustomed to playing team speed that you see in the SEC. It is not the speed of the players individually, but, of the game collectively that seems to befuddle the Buckeyes. Interesting to see what happens in a few years when Michigan under RR begins to play a "faster" game.


Back in 2002 we were told how much faster Miami was than OSU, and we beat the. The keys, as always, are to control both sides of the line of scrimmage, commit less turnovers, make less mistakes and get fewer penalties. LSU won all of these. I agree that OSU should have run more in the second quarter. I hope I'm not seeing chinks in The Vest's armor. He's got outcoached and his players have got outplayed the last two bowl games.
They've also been sloppy and a bit out of control with their personal fouls.