If it's December, it must be time to hate the BCS.

[beagledave]

Gah. Who designed this fucking mess of a bowl game arrangement?

The gentle reader is invited to take a gander at the latest (http://espn.go.com/abcsports/bcs/rankings_full/2002-2003.html) BCS rankings released yesteday.

Last week my beloved Iowa Hawkeyes were ranked #4 in the BCS. This week, USC has leapfrogged over Iowa to the number 4 spot..pushing Iowa down to #5.

As a result..it is quite possible that the Big 10 co-champs, with a legitimate Heisman candidate, a legitimate coach of the year, a team that beat Michigan and Penn State on the road will not play in a BCS bowl game.While Notre Dame, a team that finishes with 2 losses including a major ass kicking by USC could end up playing in a BCS bowl game even though they are ranked #10 in the BCS (and 13th in the coaches poll).

If you look at the computer ranking of Iowa and USC..you will especially note the NY Times ranking. While the other 6 computer rankings put USC somewhere between 3rd & 5th and Iowa between 4th & 6th..the NYT genius computer puts USC at #1!! Thats right folks..according to the bit heads in NYC, USC is better than Miami and Ohio State. I don't know how much each computer poll weighs in the final tally..but the margin between USC and Iowa is quite slim...slim enough to suspect that that one poll could make the difference. (Yes I'm also aware of the strength of schedule difference..but that difference should not overwhelm the other stats).

Long story short..if UCLA beats Wash State, the Hawks will be in Pasadena playing USC. If Wash State wins...then Wash State gets the automatic bid..and several other teams duke ot out for at large consideration to any remaining BCS spots....ergo Notre Dame..a team that had trended downward as the season went on, could bump the Hawks out.

Damn. Where was I?

Oh yeah..Go Bruins and fuck you Roy Kramer and the BCS.

[John Carter of Mars]

Don't you think Iowa is in the Rose Bowl anyway? Tradition, if nothing else, should take care of that.

I don't think you can blame the BCS if Iowa does get left out. After all, the individual bowl selection committees will select the teams for their bowl, within the BCS framework. If they should pick Notre Dame over Iowa, it would be their call, as they will have an option to choose either. This would be the case if there was a BCS or not.

The main puropse of the BCS was to increase the chances of a National Championship Game. If Miami wins Saturday, this will clearly happen. Without the BCS, OSU would be playing in the Rose Bowl against the Pac-10 champ, and Miami would be who knows where. To the extent of having a championship game, the BCS has worked better than not having it over the past few years.

IMHO

[beagledave]

Originally posted by John Carter of Mars
Don't you think Iowa is in the Rose Bowl anyway? Tradition, if nothing else, should take care of that.

Well yes and no. See more analysis here (http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1004643&l=1&t=Sports+News&c=32,1004643) and here (http://www.dmregister.com/sports/stories/c6902851/19888269.html).


CollegeBCS.com publisher Jerry Palm said, however, that if Iowa fails to land a Rose Bowl invitation, frustration would grow among Rose organizers.

"The Rose Bowl did not like what they had last year, and they're really, really not going to like not getting a chance to pick Iowa," said Palm, who predicts the BCS on his Web site. "What the BCS wants to do is satisfy the most people in its partnership. That arrangement is Iowa in the Rose Bowl."




I don't think you can blame the BCS if Iowa does get left out. After all, the individual bowl selection committees will select the teams for their bowl, within the BCS framework. If they should pick Notre Dame over Iowa, it would be their call, as they will have an option to choose either. This would be the case if there was a BCS or not.

Not really. The BCS determines the "pecking order" of when a Bowl gets to pick. For example, this year the Orange Bowl gets to pick next..


Under the rules of the BCS, whatever bowl loses the top finisher in the BCS poll to the national championship game – the Fiesta Bowl this year – has the first opportunity to select a replacement from among BCS eligible teams.


and...further


If Washington State wins, overcoming an ankle injury that has starting quarterback Jason Gesser listed as questionable for the game, things become more complicated.
.
Under that scenario, the Cougars would earn the Rose Bowl berth and USC would join Iowa, Kansas State and Notre Dame in competition for two available at-large spots.
.
USC, because of its move into fourth place on Monday, would be guaranteed one of the two at-large berths under the rules of the BCS.


The rules of the BCS control who gets the AT LARGE positions.


The main puropse of the BCS was to increase the chances of a National Championship Game. If Miami wins Saturday, this will clearly happen. Without the BCS, OSU would be playing in the Rose Bowl against the Pac-10 champ, and Miami would be who knows where. To the extent of having a championship game, the BCS has worked better than not having it over the past few years.
IMHO

Well..that is the stated goal of the BCS..but of course they control more than just the title game..they control ALL 4 BCS bowl games. I'm not suggesting that Iowa should play in the Fiesta Bowl. I am suggesting that Iowa should play in the Rose Bowl..and they definately should NOT be out of the BCS picture with a team like Notre Dame replacing them.

[Sofa King]

Miami will NOT win on Saturday. You have my word on it as a rabid Hokie fan.

Seriously, Virginia Tech has a good chance of keeping the Miami offense off the field for prolonged periods of time by ramming The Untouchables at them three plays a down. Their special teams has finally begun to show its prior superlative ability, and even the defense has shown a glimmer of talent. The Big East has been nothing but upsets this year, usually at the expense of VPI. But the Hokies have a score to settle with Miami, and the stars are aligned, I tell you.

And, since my ass is hanging so far out in the breeze that I could fart a vapor trail, I'll give you one further prediction, beagledave. Feel the sulfurous mists of prophecy swirl about you....

Virginia Tech will defeat Miami, and Arkansas will upset Georgia, leaving only two contenders for the national championship:















Notre Dame and Penn State, of course. That's what all the fucking sportswriters want, anyway.

[mhendo]

I've been in the US for just over two years, and while i watch college football i don't really have a favorite team. My own university is better known for its lacrosse team, and for actually getting some academic work done :) .

I remember the first time someone tried to explain the BCS system to me. It sounded like tea leaf-reading or crystal ball-gazing back then, and it still sounds like that.

Sofa King wrote:

Notre Dame and Penn State, of course. That's what all the fucking sportswriters want, anyway.One thing that struck me as soon as i started watching college football was the media's apparent obsession with Notre Dame, despite the fact that they had been performing poorly. I know they've done better this year, but that still doesn't mean i want them on my TV every damn Saturday. What's the deal with this? Why is it that this school seems to be the darling of just about every media commentator in college football circles? As far as i can see, the only special feature this college has as a football team is its willingness to move beyond the blatant shunning of black head coaches in college football. But that only happened this season, so it can't be an explanation for ND's "favorite son" status.

[John Carter of Mars]

Thanks for the links, beagledave. I hadn't known that the top four teams, thus So. Cal, were guaranteed a BCS spot. If the Orange Bowl takes Notre Dame, and nothing else changes, everything is in a mess.

But yet: Just a few weeks ago, there was a great howling about eight unbeaten teams, and how the BCS wasn't working. Given time, it worked out. I suspect all the BCS people are going to be big UCLA fans this weekend too. If UCLA wins, all is solved, and the worst the BCS can be accused of is giving Iowa folks some unnecessary heartburn. Also, the Orange may take So. Cal anyway, leaving the Rose free to pick Iowa. The Orange Bowl's long stated policy has been to "get the two best teams available". Clearly, Notre Dame doesn't fill that bill.

[Sofa King]

Why is it that this school seems to be the darling of just about every media commentator in college football circles?

I think I can actually give you an answer for that. Back in the day, college football was far, far more popular than professional football, and Notre Dame was impressively, consistently good under the long leadership of coaches Knute Rockne and later Asa Parseghian. They were famous for the Four Horsemen (http://und.ocsn.com/trads/horse.html), for winning the Game of the Century (http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/football/college/1999/century/gameofcentury.htm) and tieing another, and of course the legend of winning one for the Gipper (http://lamb.archives.nd.edu/rockne/speech.html).

Dame was great, there's no question. And generation after generation of sportswriters began to buy into the magic of Dame as some sort of America's team. They consistently rise higher and faster in the national rankings than virtually any other team, and are regularly penalized less for their failings, even to this day.

Whether or not they're great right now is another question. I watched 'em play a couple of weeks ago and was surprised at how good they looked. But they still piss me off for the free ride they get every season.

[PhiloVance]

The main puropse of the BCS was to increase the chances of a National Championship Game.

and stupid ol' me thought it was only about money. :rolleyes:


[slight nitpick]

...under the long leadership of coaches Knute Rockne and later Asa Parseghian.
Sofa King, you forgot one of the greats: Frank Leahy (http://und.ocsn.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/leahy_frank00.html)

He came slightly after Rockne and slightly before Parseghian.

[/slight nitpick]

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Sofa King


Whether or not they're great right now is another question. I watched 'em play a couple of weeks ago and was surprised at how good they looked. But they still piss me off for the free ride they get every season.

More on the potential free ride at USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/oconnor/2002-12-02-oconnor_x.htm).

Sums it up pretty well...


Notre Dame can't be handed the final Bowl Championship Series bid, not when Iowa is more deserving. All the complex requirements and formulas for filling the Fiesta, Rose, Orange and Sugar can be reduced to this tale of the common-sense tape: Notre Dame has lost two games and Iowa has lost one. Game, set, go get 'em at the Gator Bowl, Ty.



But he could be the BCS' answer to Shoeless Joe, disappearing into an Iowa cornfield. If Miami (Fla.) beats Virginia Tech and Washington State beats UCLA, Miami and Ohio State will play for it all in the Fiesta, and Washington State, Florida State and fellow conference champs from the Southeastern Conference and Big 12 will join wild-card USC on the undercard. That leaves one opening for Notre Dame and Iowa, a game that won't be settled on the field. "Give us what we deserve," said Jordan Black, the Irish tackle who doubles as the most honest man in sports. Black wasn't campaigning for an Orange Bowl bid but for a second-tier penalty he felt the Irish earned Saturday night



So the bowl-blazered lords of college football should know the score. If they pick Notre Dame over Iowa, the BCS won't be worth the paper George O'Leary's résumé is printed on.

[mhendo]

Sofa King, thanks for the explanation. As a history grad student, i can often be heard lamenting that history has too little influence on current thinking. It appears that this might be one case when it has too much!

[photopat]

Okay, I'm not much of a sports person. I don't pay attention to team standings or anything else related to any sport. It really doesn't matter much to me who plays where and when, although, being from Iowa I will admit to a bit of bias. I'd like to see the Hawkeyes get the Rose Bowl. If they don't I won't be crushed.
The thing is, I always thought the bowls were simply arranged according to standings in the various conferences, and the Rose was played between the Big Ten and Pac Ten champions. Simple, right? Suddenly I started hearing about this "BCS" thing and it all sounds like it's being set up by a group playing Dungeons and Dragons somewhere. When did this all start, and who's idea was it?

[beagledave]

Originally posted by photopat

The thing is, I always thought the bowls were simply arranged according to standings in the various conferences, and the Rose was played between the Big Ten and Pac Ten champions. Simple, right? Suddenly I started hearing about this "BCS" thing and it all sounds like it's being set up by a group playing Dungeons and Dragons somewhere. When did this all start, and who's idea was it?

The BCS was set up in the 90s by Roy Kramer (http://www.fanaticzone.com/stories/031302/sec_03130221875.shtml) as a method to determine a "national champion". The four major bowls rotate who hosts that "championship" game..which in turn impacts who they select to be in their bowls. In the case of the Rose Bowl..they traditionally pick Big 10 and Pac 10 teams (when not hosting the championship) but they are no longer obliged to since joining the BCS. To ensure that independent teams like Notre Dame participate...they made it fairly easy (IMHO) for them to qualify for a BCS bowl game.

In theory, the BCS makes for an interesting concept. The problem is in the details.

[Mullinator]

John Carter of Mars wrote
But yet: Just a few weeks ago, there was a great howling about eight unbeaten teams, and how the BCS wasn't working. Given time, it worked out.

This, I have to disagree with. The BCS is giving us a championship game (assuming unbeaten Miami vs. OSU) that any system worth it's salt would give us. This is not validation of the BCS (especially after the screw-ups and shenanigans of previous years). Rather, it tells us that when there is a result that is completely obvious to even a casual fan, the BCS gets it right.
Where the BCS screws up this year will be in the second tier of bowls. FSU with 4 losses? A potential of being locked into a 4 loss Arkansas team? The likelihood that of Iowa and Notre Dame, Notre Dame may make it? These are the results that show the BCS has issues.

Granted, the playoff I hope for wouldn't be perfect. Consider an 8 team playoff. Picking the top 8 teams to have a shot at the title would capture more of the deserving teams than the current BCS formula does.

[minty green]

The BCS sucks. It has sucked every year. It sucks quite especially this year.

A college playoff system is too impractical to ever be implemented. Even a simple 8-team playoff would take three weeks to complete, plus you can imagine the outcry from the teams on the bubble that get left out--and there would be quite a few bubble teams getting left out. Plus, a playoff system threatens the bowl games, which are big money and big tradition.

Proposed solution: Chuck the BCS. Let the bowls select their teams the same way that they used to--conference champions, cash bribes, etc. Then on Jan. 2 (the day after the last bowl game), somebody (preferably the coaches, just like the ESPN/USA Today poll) selects the top 2 teams to play a single, separate game for the national championship one week later. Switch the location around, like the basketball Final Four and the Super Bowl. Big game, big money, big ratings, and a minimum of fuss.

[Amok]

The BCS was set up to try to produce a clear national champion while still retaining the bowls. Apparently the conference commishoners like the bowls, and are loath to give them up (persumably because they bring a lot of money to the conferences). It was clear something needed to be done after what happened in the early to mid 90s. In '90 and '91 there were split national champions (Colorado and Georgia Tech the first year, and Miami and Washington the second), and in (I think) '94 Penn State went undefeated and ended up number two to Nebraska, after they played in different bowls. Under the old bowl system a matching up of the number one and number two teams in a bowl game didn't happen very often, and when it did happen it was more accidental than anything. The BCS is an improvement on that, but it's debatable if it is good enough.

I think you're slightly wrong, beagledave, and that the Rose Bowl is obligated to take the Big Ten and Pack Ten champions, in the years when it's not hosting the national championship game, unless one (or both) of those teams happens to be in the top two in the BCS rankings, in which case that team goes to the national championship bowl, and the Rose picks an at-large team that can be from any conference. I could be wrong, but I think that's the compromise that was eventually reached to get the Rose into the BCS, as it was the hardest of the big bowls to bring into the agreement, and the BCS originally started up without the Rose (and so there was a split national championship in '97, after the BSC had begun, because Michigan was still tied into the Rose).

I have a question, and this seems like a good place for it. If I understand the rules correctly, if Miami and Washington State win on Saturday, and USC remains in the top 4, USC will be a lock for a BSC bowl, and the Orange Bowl gets to pick first. Does that mean that the Orange can pick whatever eligible team it wants, but if that team isn't USC then the Rose will have to pick USC with it's at-large position? That would make the Rose Bowl matchup USC vs Washington State, which would be very, very odd. I can't think of a case where two teams of the same conference met in a bowl game. Or would one of the champions from the ACC or SEC (who I think would otherwise meet in the Sugar Bowl) get shifted over to the Rose to avoid that, and USC would go to the Sugar Bowl?

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Amok

I think you're slightly wrong, beagledave, and that the Rose Bowl is obligated to take the Big Ten and Pack Ten champions, in the years when it's not hosting the national championship game, unless one (or both) of those teams happens to be in the top two in the BCS rankings, in which case that team goes to the national championship bowl, and the Rose picks an at-large team that can be from any conference. I could be wrong, but I think that's the compromise that was eventually reached to get the Rose into the BCS, as it was the hardest of the big bowls to bring into the agreement, and the BCS originally started up without the Rose (and so there was a split national championship in '97, after the BSC had begun, because Michigan was still tied into the Rose).

You're correct... In this case, Ohio State is the official "big 10 champ" by virtue of a no loss season (they tied with Iowa for the actual Big 10 title). Since Ohio State is in the Fiesta Bowl, the Rose Bowl is not obligated to take Iowa.

[/b]
I have a question, and this seems like a good place for it. If I understand the rules correctly, if Miami and Washington State win on Saturday, and USC remains in the top 4, USC will be a lock for a BSC bowl, and the Orange Bowl gets to pick first. Does that mean that the Orange can pick whatever eligible team it wants, but if that team isn't USC then the Rose will have to pick USC with it's at-large position? That would make the Rose Bowl matchup USC vs Washington State, which would be very, very odd. I can't think of a case where two teams of the same conference met in a bowl game. Or would one of the champions from the ACC or SEC (who I think would otherwise meet in the Sugar Bowl) get shifted over to the Rose to avoid that, and USC would go to the Sugar Bowl? [/B]

Maybe someone will correct me, but I don't think the Rose Bowl would have to take USC in that scenario..they could take Notre Dame..Kansas State etc..Since the positions are "at large" thery are not automatic, but I would assume there would be discussions to avoid a Wash State-USC Bowl game.

[Amok]

beagledave wrote:
Maybe someone will correct me, but I don't think the Rose Bowl would have to take USC in that scenario..they could take Notre Dame..Kansas State etc..Since the positions are "at large" thery are not automatic, but I would assume there would be discussions to avoid a Wash State-USC Bowl game.


Ah, but there's apparently a clause in the rules that any team that finishes in the top three is guaranteed a BCS bowl, or in the top four if the top three teams are all automatic qualifiers because they won their conferences. As long as USC holds onto that number 4 slot, and Miami and Georgia win, USC is guaranteed a BCS slot. From an article (http://espn.go.com/ncf/s/2002/1201/1469556.html) on espn.com:


The foundation for this drama is a BCS rule that automatically gives one at-large spot to any team finishing in the Top 3 of the BCS Standings without winning its conference title. If the teams ranked 1, 2 and 3 all won their respective conferences, then the team ranked No. 4 gets an at-large spot if it is not a champion.

[RTFirefly]

A college playoff system is too impractical to ever be implemented. Even a simple 8-team playoff would take three weeks to complete, plus you can imagine the outcry from the teams on the bubble that get left out--and there would be quite a few bubble teams getting left out. Plus, a playoff system threatens the bowl games, which are big money and big tradition. Much as I hate to disagree with you, minty, I have to do so here.

A simple 8-team playoff would take only 2 extra weeks to complete, if the four major bowls were the first tier of the playoff. Given the way they keep adding games to the season (which has gone from 10 games to 13 while I've been watching, not counting bowls and conference championship games), it hardly seems like a big deal anymore to keep four teams on the road an extra week, and two teams for an extra two weeks. Nobody seems to bitch when successful college hoops teams spend their entire March at tournaments, so the schoolwork argument (which you didn't make, but just in case someone does) is BS.

This system would incorporate the bowl games, so that should minimize the fuss there. And the sites of the semifinal and championship games could rotate around the four major bowl sites, which would sweeten the pot more than enough to satisfy them, I'm sure.

And the 'bubble' teams that didn't make it - sure, they'd bitch, but the point is, who should play for the national championship? Having an 8-team playoff ensures that all reasonable contenders have a shot. Maybe the #9 team should have been ranked #7, but if they wanted to play for the national championship, all they had to do was play well enough during the season to make the top 8 without argument. The reason they're not in the top 8 was that they failed to do so.


Speaking of 'bubble' teams, which of course originated with the NCAA basketball tournament, the hoops tourney has an even simpler solution available to them: make it an open tournament to all Division I teams with a .500 or better record. They could invite the top 32 teams (as they saw them), and let any of the other 100 or so eligible teams who had the urge, play in a 2-round pre-tournament for the other 32 spots. Bubble, schmubble. :)

[WSLer]

Originally posted by Sofa King
Miami will NOT win on Saturday. You have my word on it as a rabid Hokie fan.

Seriously, Virginia Tech has a good chance of keeping the Miami offense off the field for prolonged periods of time by ramming The Untouchables at them three plays a down. Their special teams has finally begun to show its prior superlative ability, and even the defense has shown a glimmer of talent. The Big East has been nothing but upsets this year, usually at the expense of VPI. But the Hokies have a score to settle with Miami, and the stars are aligned, I tell you.





Do try to remain at least partly sober when you post.

You honestly believe Virginia Tech has any chance of beating Miami, at home in the Orange Bowl?

Seriously.

Tech will be lucky to score ANY points.

Miami wins by at least 2 touchdowns, more like 3.

[Amok]

Breaking news on this subject, Iowa will get a BCS invite:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/2002/1203/1470791.html


After a conference call meeting Tuesday between league commissioners, bowl game executives and officials with the BCS, the Big Ten Conference announced that Iowa has secured a spot in a BCS bowl game.


Whatever flaws the BCS may have, I think they clearly did the right thing here.

[Pythagras]

Originally posted by WSLer
Do try to remain at least partly sober when you post.

You honestly believe Virginia Tech has any chance of beating Miami, at home in the Orange Bowl?

Seriously.

Tech will be lucky to score ANY points.

Miami wins by at least 2 touchdowns, more like 3.

Yes, because VA Tech would be undefeated if it hadnt been for a handful of plays. VA Tech has upset Miami before. And have you seen how vapid Miami's run defense is? They just need their heads removed from their asses.

[kevja]

Originally posted by Sofa King
Miami will NOT win on Saturday. You have my word on it as a rabid Hokie fan.

Seriously, Virginia Tech has a good chance of keeping the Miami offense off the field for prolonged periods of time by ramming The Untouchables at them three plays a down. Their special teams has finally begun to show its prior superlative ability, and even the defense has shown a glimmer of talent. The Big East has been nothing but upsets this year, usually at the expense of VPI. But the Hokies have a score to settle with Miami, and the stars are aligned, I tell you.

And, since my ass is hanging so far out in the breeze that I could fart a vapor trail, I'll give you one further prediction, beagledave. Feel the sulfurous mists of prophecy swirl about you....

Virginia Tech will defeat Miami, and Arkansas will upset Georgia, leaving only two contenders for the national championship:

Notre Dame and Penn State, of course. That's what all the fucking sportswriters want, anyway.

Didn't you forget about Ohio State?

And besides, I thought the sports writers wanted USC and Miami for the national championship.

[WSLer]

Originally posted by Pythagras
Yes, because VA Tech would be undefeated if it hadnt been for a handful of plays. VA Tech has upset Miami before. And have you seen how vapid Miami's run defense is? They just need their heads removed from their asses.

Miami's defense has risen to the occasion every single time it has needed to, both last year and this season.

Tech isn't going to get anywhere close to their average of 223 yards per game

[Ogre]

<Laments for his beloved Crimson Tide>

Goddamn boosters.

[John Carter of Mars]

Posted by Mullinator: "This, I have to disagree with. The BCS is giving us a championship game (assuming unbeaten Miami vs. OSU) that any system worth it's salt would give us." <snip>

Therefore, the BCS is a step in the right direction. Before the BCS, there was no system. Without the BCS, we wouldn't have the Miami-OSU game this year. All there would be is a bunch of people bitchin' because Miami and OSU weren't playing each other.
The BCS ain't perfect, but it's a big step forward from nothing, which is what we had without it.

If the link posted by Amok proves accurate, then Iowa and So. Cal are both in a BCS bowl, Notre Dame is out, God (except for the Catholic one) is in his/her heaven smiling, and all the naysayers will once again have to wait until next year to demonstrate that the BCS has failed. :p

Ogre: War Eagle! :D

[Ogre]

Yeah, yeah, John. You guys beat us fair and square. Honest. I was there, lamenting every blown coverage and utter incapacity to convert a drive. Your defense played like SEC defenses ought to play.

I don't want to divert this thread toward an anti-sanctions bitchfest, but I think UA's getting screwed. As far as I can tell, there's no evidence that any of the players or staff of the UA football team had anything to do with the Albert Means affair. It seems to have been between Logan (that rich fucking bastard) and Means's high school coach.

Were I the paranoid sort, I would think that somebody at the NCAA level took a stab at neutralizing Alabama as a national contender for the foreseeable future by imposing sanctions for something they nor the present coaching staff had anything to do with, and since it didn't seem to run off Alabama's all-star players like Croyle, Odom, etc. this time, they're re-opening the Means investigation.

Doesn't it seem like an awfully convenient time for the high school coach to start singing again, right during this season's end-game, when Coach Franchione (the best goddamn thing to happen to the UA coaching staff since Gene Stallings) was debating whether to sign an extended contract? This time, I'll bet they'll at least trot out the spectre of the Death Penalty, and then we'll see who'll stick around.

I ain't saying Alabama's innocent, but no school is, I'll guarantee. And it appears, further, to be violations no one was around for, and that may not, in fact, have directly involved the program anyway.

I'd smell a huge fucking rat...you know, were I the paranoid sort.

12 national titles. The home of the Bear. One of the proudest programs in all college football. And now they're going to talk Death Penalty. Goddamn boosters. Goddamn NCAA.

[Ogre]

Wow. Sorry for the bitterness, John. Totally not directed at you or Auburn. I actually attended Auburn, and when they're not on the same field as Bama, I root for them without fail. I'm an in-state boy. I'd love to see two undefeated teams face each other in the Iron Bowl.

And I want to see the national picture like it was when I was growing up...you know, those Midwestern passing teams getting all nervous cause they have to go to a bowl and face a nasty, physical-as-hell, blood-on-the-jersey SEC team. :)

Speaking of which, did you see the Hawaii game? The Alabama secondary punished those poor Hawaii receivers so badly at times, they had to be nervous about catching the ball. And still, I know, Chang hooked up on some really spectacular plays. Fabulous QB.

[John Carter of Mars]

Ogre:
The Logan Young affair is something that is hard to get a grip on: Was the Alabama coaching staff involved or not? Was Albert Means the only player that Young "bought"?

If $200,000 can be paid for an offensive lineman, what the hell is an all-star Quarterback worth on the open market? Are other school's boosters doing the same things? What about the money Tee Martin got at Tennessee? Is that deal simply over, with no fallout or punishments?

Auburn's last probation was for a total of $800 given to a player (Eric Ramsey) by a booster. Is inflation that rampant, going from $800 to $200,000 in ten years?

I had hoped that the Federal Court hearings in Memphis would provide some answers, but if they did, the knowledge wasn't made public.

And yes, once the NCAA gets on a school's case, they drag things out, timing events so that they do the most damage. At least that's the way it looks to me.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Amok
Breaking news on this subject, Iowa will get a BCS invite:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/2002/1203/1470791.html



Whatever flaws the BCS may have, I think they clearly did the right thing here.

beagledave gives a w00t and does the cabbage patch... ;)


The word is Fight, Fight,
Fight for IOWA
Let every loyal Iowan sing;
The word is Fight, Fight
Fight for IOWA
Until the walls and
rafters ring
(Go Hawks!)
Come on and cheer,
cheer, cheer
for IOWA
Come on and cheer until you hear
the final gun.
The word is Fight, Fight, Fight for IOWA
Until the game is won

[beagledave]

Well fuckedty fuck fuck fuck.

That beep beep beep you hear is the BCS asswipes slowly backing away from the above news.

See here (http://www.dmregister.com/sports/stories/c6902851/19897999.html)


Hawkeyes in? BCS says hold on

Big Ten announcement catches BCS by surprise
By ANDREW LOGUE
Register Staff Writer
12/04/2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest Bowl Championship Series controversy was caused by a memo - not a computer printout.


Big Ten Conference officials issued a statement Tuesday saying Iowa was headed to a BCS bowl. But John Paquette, a BCS representative, would neither confirm nor deny whether the information was correct.

"I'm saying I'm the BCS spokesman and as the BCS spokesman I'm saying bowl announcements will be made Sunday," said Paquette, the media relations director for the Big East Conference, which is administering the computer-based system this season


Buncha idiots. Heaven forbid they tell Notre Dame to fuck off with their 10-2 record.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by minty green
The BCS sucks.
The old system sucked worse.

It sucks quite especially this year.
It's putting the only 2 unbeaten teams in the title game. Anyone else's argument that they, with their loss(es), should be there instead of Miami or OSU rings a little hollow. How does that suck?

The BCS system sucked the last 2 years, when the 2 obviously-best teams weren't matched, but it sucks much less this year.

A college playoff system is too impractical to ever be implemented...
Why? There's a 16-game playoff every year in the lower divisions of football, and it apparently works quite well. There's a 66-team tournament in basketball, with even less lead time involved.

The big bowls are about tradition, sure, but they're even more about money. Integrate them into the playoff system, guarantee them air time not competing with each other, and they'll go along. Anyway, only 1 bowl game matters right now, and the others are all exhibitions. Make more of them matter and their ratings will improve.

Honorable minty-san, you know I love you like a brother, but yer fulla crap here, sorry.

[John Carter of Mars]

Originally posted by beagledave
Well fuckedty fuck fuck fuck.

That beep beep beep you hear is the BCS asswipes slowly backing away from the above news.

Chill out, beagle. I think the deal is done as outlined yesterday. They're just having a pissing contest because the BCS guys wanted to be the ones to make the announcements, on their TV show Sunday.

Penn State's offer to and acceptance of the Capital One bowl confirms yesterday's news reports, IMHO.

[Toaster52]

GO HUSKERS!!!







whoops.....................er, never mind...................

Carry on.











*grumble, grumble*

[minty green]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
The old system sucked worse.No, it just sucked in different ways. The old system was great at putting together bowl games. It just sucked at putting together a national championship game. The BCS does a pretty decent job of putting together a national championship game (though this year's NC will expose OSU as the pathetic little pretender that it is), but a shitty job of putting together bowl matchups. Florida Fucking State in one of the top 4 bowl games? Give me a fucking break.
Why? There's a 16-game playoff every year in the lower divisions of football, and it apparently works quite well.But they don't have the bowl games, do they? They just start with the playoff games in November, and four or five weeks later, you've got a winner. Try telling all the bowl games that they're gonna have to give it all up to go to a playoff system that stretches out over the better part of a month, and that most of them aren't going to get anything better than a first-round game. Better yet, explain to them how they're gonna have to sell all their $200 tickets to fans who either don't want to blow ticket and travel money on a first round game or who already blew their travel and ticket money on a first round game. Ane be sure to explain how cutting out a dozen or so teams, each with their own rabid fan base, is going to result in more money for the bowls. I dare ya.
Anyway, only 1 bowl game matters right now, and the others are all exhibitions.Bullshit. Stand in front of the Sports Column in Iowa City and tell people that the Rose Bowl doesn't matter and that it's only an exhibition. You will quickly be corrected of that misconception, and you will find that you have your choice of two nearby emergency rooms.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
The BCS system sucked the last 2 years, when the 2 obviously-best teams weren't matched, but it sucks much less this year. Either the system sucks or it doesn't. Given your description, one must assume it sucks, because even a shitty system can get it right once in a while. The fact that, according to you, it has sucked for two years out of the last three, means that, as a system, it's not doing very well.Originally posted by minty green
But they don't have the bowl games, do they? They just start with the playoff games in November, and four or five weeks later, you've got a winner. Try telling all the bowl games that they're gonna have to give it all up to go to a playoff system that stretches out over the better part of a month, and that most of them aren't going to get anything better than a first-round game. Better yet, explain to them how they're gonna have to sell all their $200 tickets to fans who either don't want to blow ticket and travel money on a first round game or who already blew their travel and ticket money on a first round game. Ane be sure to explain how cutting out a dozen or so teams, each with their own rabid fan base, is going to result in more money for the bowls. I dare ya.
...
Stand in front of the Sports Column in Iowa City and tell people that the Rose Bowl doesn't matter and that it's only an exhibition. You will quickly be corrected of that misconception, and you will find that you have your choice of two nearby emergency rooms.And therein lies the explanation. The whole BCS is designed:

a) to make money
b) to give a bunch of undeserving second-raters the chance to play in a "big" game in a "bowl" in front of a national audience.

If they were serious about doing it properly, they would either:

a) revert to a system where bowl games were simply spectacles played between the winners of certain conferences, with no official national championship game, or
b) have a true national championship, which might work along the lines of British soccer. You could have the country's top 16 (or whatever) teams play in Division 1, the next 16 play in Division 2, and so on. Each year, the bottom three from each division would drop down a level, and the top three would be promoted. And the winner of Division 1 would be declared the national champion. But of course, such a system would mean the end of all those home-state or backyard rivalries that college football fans love so much.

This all almost brings a tear to the historian's eye - the American people once again fighting over the benefits of local versus national.

[PatrickM]

mhendo, a couple of points:

- Your idea about a British soccer system is interesting but impractical. It works fine at a professional level where team roster turnover isn't so great, but at a American college level, where a quarter of the roster graduates - er, runs out of eligibility - each year it wouldn't work.

- As for Notre Dame, Sofa King got history right, however, you should know that Notre Dame football remains very popular even today. Its popularity led to NBC signing on to cover all of its home football games and continuing to do so up through the present. ND's popularity begat the NBC contract, not the other way around. Further, when ND plays on the road other networks (ABC, CBS, ESPN, etc) always broadcast the game, frequently in prime time, because they know that ND is popular. Others who don't like ND so much, such as perhaps Sofa King, may tune in just to root against the Irish.

[mhendo]

Hey, PatrickM, thanks for the info on ND.

I must take issue with you, however, regarding the practicality of a divisional system for deciding the college football national champion.

First of all, while i have no statistics on hand, it wouldn't surprise me if some college teams actually have lower turnover rates than some professional teams. At least in college, the tendency is to stay with a single team for the duration of one's college career, i.e. four years. With the salary cap in the NFL, a team that has a successful season is likely to lose many of its players due to salary cap restrictions and enticement from other clubs. Look at Baltimore - they have hardly anyone left in their starting lineup who was on the Superbowl team less than two years ago.

And even if turnover is higher in college ball, why does that negate the practicality of the system that i described? You haven't said why this should be the case - i can only assume that you are suggesting that, due to high turnover, college teams' strength changes quite dramatically from year to year and that this would mean inconsistent levels of play in each division. Again, if i am interpreting you correctly, i really don't see the trouble. Even more than in the NFL, the good college teams tend to attract the good high school players, so there is a certain amount of consistency. Most of the teams currently in the top 15 of the BCS rankings were also in the top 15 last year and the year before. College teams are certainly no more inconsistent (whether for reasons of roster changes or anything else) than NFL teams. Witness the Chicago Bears: 13-3 last year, 3-9 so far this year. Or the St. Louis Rams: Superbowl last year, lost their first five games this season, and are currently 5-7. Or San Diego: 5-11 last year, and 8-4 so far this year.

There may be some practical issue i've failed to consider, but until you let me know more clearly why you think my system is impractical, i'll have to stick with it.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by mhendo
The fact that, according to you, it has sucked for two years out of the last three, means that, as a system, it's not doing very well.
I agree with you. I was rebutting minty's assertion that it sucks more this year. It doesn't. It sucks less. But it still sucks more than a simple conference call among the conference presidents to decide who plays for the title - which would have prevented the last 2 travesties.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by minty green
Stand in front of the Sports Column in Iowa City and tell people that the Rose Bowl doesn't matter and that it's only an exhibition. You will quickly be corrected of that misconception, and you will find that you have your choice of two nearby emergency rooms. [/B]

But I'd still be right, even if it were dead right. It doesn't matter who wins the Rose Bowl this year. Nobody will remember or care.
If Iowa were that good, they'd have beaten Iowa State. But they didn't. So they aren't. So they're not going to the bowl that matters. Get over it.

[PatrickM]

Originally posted by mhendo
Hey, PatrickM, thanks for the info on ND.

I must take issue with you, however, regarding the practicality of a divisional system for deciding the college football national champion.

First of all, while i have no statistics on hand, it wouldn't surprise me if some college teams actually have lower turnover rates than some professional teams. At least in college, the tendency is to stay with a single team for the duration of one's college career, i.e. four years. With the salary cap in the NFL, a team that has a successful season is likely to lose many of its players due to salary cap restrictions and enticement from other clubs. Look at Baltimore - they have hardly anyone left in their starting lineup who was on the Superbowl team less than two years ago.

And even if turnover is higher in college ball, why does that negate the practicality of the system that i described? You haven't said why this should be the case - i can only assume that you are suggesting that, due to high turnover, college teams' strength changes quite dramatically from year to year and that this would mean inconsistent levels of play in each division. Again, if i am interpreting you correctly, i really don't see the trouble. Even more than in the NFL, the good college teams tend to attract the good high school players, so there is a certain amount of consistency. Most of the teams currently in the top 15 of the BCS rankings were also in the top 15 last year and the year before. College teams are certainly no more inconsistent (whether for reasons of roster changes or anything else) than NFL teams. Witness the Chicago Bears: 13-3 last year, 3-9 so far this year. Or the St. Louis Rams: Superbowl last year, lost their first five games this season, and are currently 5-7. Or San Diego: 5-11 last year, and 8-4 so far this year.

There may be some practical issue i've failed to consider, but until you let me know more clearly why you think my system is impractical, i'll have to stick with it.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

mhendo, we're obviously discussing something far afield from the flaws of the BCS, but what the hell. I consider the English football division system impractical for the reasons you inferred from my prior post, and also because implementing it would require admissions from the powers that be - ie, college presidents, athletic directors and coaches - that their squad doesn't have a chance to contend for the national championship this year and therefore should settle for a spot in the second division. Such persons are loathe to make such an admission - which would perhaps dishearten their fans/customers from spending oodles of money - under any circumstances, even when it is painfully obvious that their squad doesn't have a chance to contend. College sports big wigs are out to make a buck - who isn't? - and they are not ever going to allow a second class label to be affixed to their product, even when and if deserve it.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
But I'd still be right, even if it were dead right. It doesn't matter who wins the Rose Bowl this year. Nobody will remember or care.
If Iowa were that good, they'd have beaten Iowa State. But they didn't. So they aren't. So they're not going to the bowl that matters. Get over it.

What a ridiculous assertion.

One of the reasons why there is a BCS instead of a straight playoff system is that there are other post season games "that matter". Post season college football is more than just determining a national championship..it's not like the NCAA Mens Basketball Tournament...(unless they change the format to a playoff system.)

Saying that nobody cares about who goes to or wins the Rose Bowl is a silly statement that plenty of folks in Washington, South Bend, Iowa City and California would be more than happy to dispute...if for no other reason than financial payoff to the school and conference.

[Munch]

Post season college football is more than just determining a national championship..

Not in DII, DI-AA, DIII...

[Spoke]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
It doesn't matter who wins the Rose Bowl this year. Nobody will remember or care.

Not so fast, E.

If Sofa King's sulfur-scented scenario materializes, and Virginia Tech beats Miami on Saturday, then any bowl featuring Iowa is going to be big news.

The reason: A loss by Miami would likely put Georgia into the Fiesta Bowl against Ohio State. Georgia could enter that game ranked number 2 in the BCS standings, but number 3 in the polls, behind Iowa.

Which means you'd have (as far as the polls are concerned), number 1 Ohio State vs. number 3 Georgia in the Fiesta, and then number 2 Iowa playing somewhere else (presumably, the Rose Bowl).

In the interest of full disclosure:

GO DAWGS!

[mhendo]

Originally posted by PatrickM
mhendo, we're obviously discussing something far afield from the flaws of the BCS, but what the hell. I consider the English football division system impractical for the reasons you inferred from my prior post, and also because implementing it would require admissions from the powers that be - ie, college presidents, athletic directors and coaches - that their squad doesn't have a chance to contend for the national championship this year and therefore should settle for a spot in the second division. Such persons are loathe to make such an admission - which would perhaps dishearten their fans/customers from spending oodles of money - under any circumstances, even when it is painfully obvious that their squad doesn't have a chance to contend. College sports big wigs are out to make a buck - who isn't? - and they are not ever going to allow a second class label to be affixed to their product, even when and if deserve it. Ah, now i see what you're getting at, and i'm sure you're totally correct. It's not so much that my system wouldn't work to produce a national champion if implemented, but rather that the delusions and egomania and self-importance and parochialsim that are so rife in college football would never allow the system in the first place. I'll concede that my idea will never be considered, but stick with my assertion that it would be the most comprehensive and accurate way of determining the national champion, year in and year out, if that were the main consideration in college football. Nice talking to you about it. :)

Meanwhile, going back to the Notre Dame issue, while i understand now how and why they became so popular, the ubiquity of the Fighting Irish in the media has triggered a primitive impulse in me, so that i find myself forced to cheer for whichever team is playing against them. I know this is irrational, but i'm afraid i suffer the same affliction when it comes to the New York Yankees, and the St Louis Rams when Kurt Warner is QB.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by spoke-
The reason: A loss by Miami would likely put Georgia into the Fiesta Bowl against Ohio State. Georgia could enter that game ranked number 2 in the BCS standings, but number 3 in the polls, behind Iowa.

So? Why is either Iowa or Georgia more deserving than the other? They seem to have had directly comparable seasons.

But if the conclusion is that there should be a real playoff with at least 4 teams in it, I certainly agree. There should, and can, and we're getting there. But a playoff might still leave out the people who, even now, conveniently forget to mention their non-zero losses this year.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by beagledave
What a ridiculous assertion.

Saying that nobody cares about who goes to or wins the Rose Bowl is a silly statement that plenty of folks in Washington, South Bend, Iowa City and California would be more than happy to dispute...if for no other reason than financial payoff to the school and conference.

Ridiculous, you say? Without looking it up, who won last year's non-title bowls? Only die-hard fans know, and none can say why it matters now. Fans care about going, sure, but there are no consequences for winning.

We need a real playoff system, like every other frickin' team sport and every other level of football. Let's quit screwing around, m'kay?

[beagledave]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Ridiculous, you say? Without looking it up, who won last year's non-title bowls? Only die-hard fans know, and none can say why it matters now. Fans care about going, sure, but there are no consequences for winning.



I suspect that many die hard fans care about winning as well. In Iowa's case..many folks consider the Alamo Bowl (an even more "minor" bowl than this years Rose Bowl) victory last year a turning point in the Iowa program. Almost all of the televised Iowa games had the commentators saying so as well.


We need a real playoff system, like every other frickin' team sport and every other level of football. Let's quit screwing around, m'kay?

No disagreement. Of course that wasn't what this thread was about...

[Spoke]

So? Why is either Iowa or Georgia more deserving than the other? They seem to have had directly comparable seasons.

You miss the point.

You said the Rose Bowl doesn't matter. In my scenario, it would matter, because it could (in spite of the BCS) produce the number 1 team in both polls.

In my scenario, #3 Georgia plays #1 Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Meanwhile, #2 Iowa plays either USC or Washington State in the Rose.

Now, say Georgia beats Ohio State, and Iowa wins the Rose Bowl. Iowa likely moves to #1 in both polls, no?

Conclusion: In my scenario, the Rose Bowl would produce the "national chmpion" (depending on how you want to define that term).

[ElvisL1ves]

No. USC and WSU are seriously inferior opponents compared to OSU. Beating OSU would gain UGA more karma points than Iowa would gain. UGA would be the champ. Hence, the Fiesta Bowl would decide the winner.

[Munch]

Originally posted by spoke-
You miss the point.

You said the Rose Bowl doesn't matter. In my scenario, it would matter, because it could (in spite of the BCS) produce the number 1 team in both polls.

Nope. The Coachs' poll is bound by the BCS agreement to give the Sear's Trophy to the winner of the BCS national championship game. The writers can do whatever the hell they want.

[Gatopescado]

Go Trojans!

____________
My your yuletide log slip from the fire and burn your house down.

[Spoke]

Originally posted by Munch
Nope. The Coachs' poll is bound by the BCS agreement to give the Sear's Trophy to the winner of the BCS national championship game. The writers can do whatever the hell they want.

Hmm. Wasn't aware of that. (But as a Georgia fan, I must say I am glad to hear it.)

Even so, in my scenario, the Rose Bowl would still "matter," since it could produce the number 1 team in the AP poll (Iowa). And since (in the absence of a playoff system) the "National Championship" is still a mythical beast, that would be enough to give Iowa at least some claim on the title.

[Munch]

Yes, the chance is there, but it would take an incredible show of dominance from the Rose Bowl winner, and an incredible amount of ineptitude from the Fiesta Bowl winner for the AP to deviate from the Coaches on this, regardless of the scenario.

I'd love to see Iowa get a chance at it, but the odds are simply astronomical (though still finite).

[SpasticKitty]

Let's go Mountaineers!

SpasticKitty
(who's still celebrating WVU's totally bitching victories over Virginia Tech and Pitt)

WOOO!!