Ok, I know this is a bit farfectched lets just say that the BCS came to your and offered you the ability to change 3 aspects about college football. The only rule was that you could not institue a playoff system. Here are my 3. 1) You must win your conference to be eligable for the title game unless you are an independent (a.k.a. Notre Dame) I know we all love to rag on USC any chance we get, but i disagree with anyone who says that OU deserved to be in the SB over USC. Yes, OU had a better season and tougher opponents, but they lost the one game that mattered the most. A clear message should be sent. Win your confrence or forget about the NC. 2) The Big East loses it's BCS bid and an extra at large bid for the BCS bowls is added. They have zero powerhouses. At least the Pac 10 had 1 powerhouse and a few decent teams. If a Big East team is good enough to get an at large bid, moree power to them, but no automatic bid for a probably unranked/ low ranked conference champion. 3) The BCS should be given an emergency clause for the NC game I know a lot of you prob won't agree with this but here goes anyway. With so many teams and no playoff to decide these things there are many senarios that would allow for a split/contreversial NC. I think that in the event that an "emergency" occurs, meaning a spilt title may happen (like last year) or a Team that clearly does not belong in the NC is allowed to go (Nebraska in 2001), the BCS would vote to see wheather it was indeed an emergency and if that vote passed then the BCS itself (the humans not the computers) would have the abilty to make the nessecary changes. I know this would increace the possibility that some team will say they got screwed, but as i said earlier... a playoff is the only real solution and scince that is not a possibility i would rather any mistakes made concerning the NC be human rather than computer becouse if it is humnan then they can minimize the damage with options rather than have a set in stone mistake when their could be an alternitive. A one size fits all hat can't cover all the possibility for contreversy. Notice i said "emergency" and they accualy vote on it. I know that it is not every year we have a controversy (Miami and OSU 2003). Well................wish away. :geaux: :tigerhead :geaux:
1. The subjective polls must recieve NO more weight than the objective computer rankings. Media types vote on the teams they see and they see a lot more teams in markets like Los Angeles than they do in markets like Baton Rouge. Coaches vote with their own interests and those of their opponents at heart. These polls are inherently biased and rarely agree which was why the BCS was created in the first place. 2. Strength of schedule MUST be considered or strong conferences like the SEC will have teams ranked beneath teams in patsy conferences like the Mid-America or the Southland. 3. Quality wins MUST be considered to compensate teams who risk their record by playing conference championship games and major intersectional contests against top-ten teams. The whole idea of the BCS system is to create a fair, unbiased, and auditable method of selecting a champion. Not to find a formula that agrees with and justifies the subjective AP poll
I strongly disagree with point #1. The NCAA has long had the "conferences with 12 or more teams may stage a conference championship game" rule on the books, and the SEC, Big XII and now ACC took advantage of this rule. Why? Money and prestiege. If other conferences do not wish to expand and hold such a game, fine, that's their choice. However, conferences that *do* take advantage of this rule should not be punished for doing so. Oklahoma legitimately got to the Sugar Bowl last year, no question. If the "system" is flawed and allows a team to back in to the National Championship Game, that's not Oklahoma's fault, it's the system. They so dominated their opponents all year long to that point that they had built up enough of a cushion to survive a loss. There is more than risk involved in playing in a conference title game; there is plenty of reward as well. LSU would not have moved to #2 in the BCS had it not been for the SEC Championship Game. The new system, as far as I can tell, pretty much closes that "lose and get in" loophole, so this is really a moot argument, but I still think conferences that have the guts, frankly, to put their teams out there for a winner take all conference game should not be punished for doing so. It is essentially a little mini playoff, pitting the two top teams in the conference against one another. Big conferences that do not follow suit are wussies, in my book, especially the Big Ten. You can argue that nobody would give a damn about a Pac-12 title game nationwide, but a renamed, 12-team "Big Ten" would (surely they can't still be Big Ten with 12 teams). 2) I wouldn't strip the Big East of their BCS slot just yet. It's not their fault schools flew the coop. They should have the chance to try and improve their competitive level by enticing Penn State (who, once JoPa leaves, will be good again) to leave the Big Ten (long-shot, but possible). If they sit on their laurels, then pull it and give it to the MAC. The best team in the MAC can beat the best team in the Big East this year, I believe. 3) That was discussed and rejected. I would have liked to see the BCS stay as it was last year, and do what Pete Fiutak suggested: appoint a 7 person committee to closely watch games all year and serve as a NCAA Basketball Tourney-like Selection Committee if necessary.
You can't have a "win your conference" provision There are too many scenarios where the best team in the nation with one loss could be excluded. Ex. 1: Say LSU goes 10-1 this season with an early loss to Auburn, and Auburn goes undefeated in conference but loses all 3 of out of conference games. Auburn would be ranked in the low teens and would be going to the conference championship game. LSU, possibly in the top 2, would be denied a spot in the national championship game because they didn't win the conference. The same scenario could happen in the Pac 10 or Big 10 because of regular season tie-breakers for the conference championships. Ex. 2: Say LSU goes to the SEC championship undefeated and everyone else in the country has 2 or more losses. LSU has to play UGA, who has two losses and lost to LSU earlier in the year, and loses a close game. LSU would now have one loss compared to everyone else's two losses and would be denied a national championship spot because they did not when their own conference.
Computers don't make mistakes. Ever. That is why we use them. That is why we plug W/L's, Opp W/L's and Opp Opp W/L's in them to determine SOS. That is why we allow them to compute mathematical poll averages to the 1000th decimal point. I hate listening to idiots (Like that new guy who posted his editorial in the Advocate) talk about computers as if they are some magical mumbo-jumbo that nobody understands. The formulas that they use are spelled out on the sites of the various computer "polls". Strongly disagree. The Pac-10 is full of cake, The Big XII has legit teams playing for it. After the championship game, each team had ONE loss. How could you look at that game and say it carries more weight just because it comes later in the season????!
The conference champion thing was looked at long and hard and there were way too many scenario's that the bCS saw where the most deserving team could be left out because of that one rule. So I disagree. The BCS gave the Big East a reprieve as they most assuredly deserve sine it wasn't their fault that the 3 other teams flew the coup as Tejas pointed out. They have added Louisville and they are an up and coming program. W. Virginia seems to be headed back to where they once were. UConn has made remarkable strides in their young football program. Pitt has revived their fortunes, Syracuse can once again rise to be a top 25 program. I think the bCS did the right thing in a giving them a coule of years to see where they are going to go. The BCS committee similar to the basketball one would seem to be a good idea to me also but then again they have made some controversial decisions in the past when picking the tourney field. And the conference champion thing would also automatically knock out what could be at least the second best team in the country in some years. What if LSU and UGA met once in the regular season and once in the SEC CG game and swapped wins and they were the only one loss teams in the country, it would be a travesty to keep them out just because of that rule.
Easiest scenario I could think of where the conference championship thing could blow up is what if both Oregon and Southern Cal were to go undefeated? They don't have to play each other, so they could both go unbeaten. I'm not even sure what the Pac 10 does to break that tie.
there will be many a year when the top 2 teams in the country will be from the SEC or the Big 12 or the Big Ten or the ACC.. you cant exclude a team for not winning its conference.
I believe the PAC 10 use to say that the team that had not gone to the Rose Bowl most recently got the invite in the case of a tie but they were called co-champs. The other scenario along those lines would be for Oregon to lose 2 OOC games but go unbeaten in conference while USC lost one conference game and no others.
