BCS going away in favor of 4 team playoff

[rkwittem]

That's a good article and a fine case of offseason fodder. Good link. Here would be my counterarguments to your points:
1. Not really. It's basically a given that teams that win BCS conferences are usually better than teams that win midmajor conferences. Yes, there's always a Boise or Utah that wants to stick their craw in where it doesn't belong...but that's too bad. Someone's going to get screwed anyway and I'm nominating the little guys.

2. Yeah. Someone gets screwed. No one said life was fair. Hell, college football is only occasionally fair. If it was truly equitable, they wouldn't let Alabama schedule MAC teams and any FBS team would never schedule FCS teams. Upsets do happen, but putting a major program up against one it outclasses in every way isn't my idea of fair. And that's life. The BCS got 1 and 2 right most years. If you're #3, all I can is don't come crying to me. You should have taken care of business or done more. Sorry.

Stuart's points weren't really about BCS vs. mid-major conferences. The problem is that the level of play across conferences varies from year to year and there isn't enough inter-conference play to realistically be able to differentiate between 2 teams with the same record. In 2004, Auburn went 12-0 and was left out in favor of 12-0 USC and 12-0 Oklahoma. Were they clearly better than Auburn? In 2003, USC went 11-1 and was left out in favor of 12-1 Oklahoma and 12-1 LSU. Were they clearly better than USC? Picking the top 2 teams is subjective, even with a computer program with a pre-arranged set of logical instructions. Over the last 14 years, picking the top 4 teams for a playoff would have given better results 71.43% of the time. Picking the top 2 would have been better just 21.43% of the time.

You're right life isn't fair, I just want the best match-ups and the best championship game possible. I would have been much more interested last year if LSU had played Stanford and Alabama had played Oklahoma State (and you could have replaced Stanford with Oregon and reshuffled if you wanted).

You never answered my question about "What if a couple of bounces had gone a different way and Georgia Southern had ended up 10-1 and #2?" In a #1 vs. #2 only scenario, it would have been SHSU vs. GSU for the championship. This would have happened despite the fact that after the season it was clear that NDSU was the best team in FCS last year. That would have sucked for the Bison!

It is too difficult to accurately judge teams from different conferences with similar records to accurately pick the top 2 teams on a consistent basis. 4 teams is a good step for the BCS and I don't think it will expand as far as FCS, 8 teams is probably the max. It's different logistics when you're talking about trying to get tens of thousands of fans to travel to playoff games over multiple weekends (vs. a nice easy to plan for holiday to a bowl game)

In my haste to be an elitist snob, I missed your Georgia Southern question. Yeah, that would've sucked for NDSU, but that's what you get for laying a huge deuce at home against Youngstown State. I'm fine with how it turned out, but I'm still a believer that it's not ideal.

[UNI88]

In my haste to be an elitist snob, I missed your Georgia Southern question.

Yeah, that would've sucked for NDSU, but that's what you get for laying a huge deuce at home against Youngstown State. I'm fine with how it turned out, but I'm still a believer that it's not ideal.

I obviously disagree with you but will give you credit for being consistent in your opinion.

[JohnStOnge]

The BCS got 1 and 2 right most years.

How could you possibly know that? I guess by "right" you probably either mean two best teams or the two teams that accomplished the most. But those things are matters of opinion. Sure, we can find comparisons where we know that one team is better than another by any reasonable standard or set of criteria. Like we can say Alabama was better than Louisiana Monroe this past season. But when you get into trying to separate 2nd best from 3rd best overall it's no so clear cut.

My outlook on which team is better in a comparison is that the team that would win the majority of the games between the two if they could somehow win an infinite number of times is the better team. But even if we really knew which team would win the majority of the time in repeated games between the two it doesn't work because of matchups. Could be that team A would be better than team B by that standard but team B would be better than team C while team C would be better than team A because of the way the two match up.

All that said, to me, a championship tournament isn't about getting to the best team. It's about getting to a champion. And, to me, any championship system should be such that EVERY participant controls its own destiny. There should be no automatic exclusions because of what other people believe.

[JohnStOnge]

RK, I'm repeating myself but the big flaw in your outlook is the premise that it's possible to know who the best 2 teams are. Same with the best 3, best 4. Pick any number. As soon as you say "best N teams," you're expressing an opinion or an estimate. And there is inevitably going to be error associated with it.

Like we don't know that LSU and Alabama were the best two teams in FBS last year. We think they were and it was a reasonable opinion. But we don't know.

As I think I said earlier in this threat what's killed the basketball regular season isn't the national championship tournament. It's allowing too many at large bids and having conference tournament champions rather than regular season champions get the automatic bids.

Of course we also disagree on what a championship is about. It's not about being the best team. It's about winning the championship. To me, people should not be thinking that the purpose of a championship selection process is to end up with the best team as champion or with the best two teams playing in the championship game.

I am one who thinks that there are more rather than fewer meaningful regular season games when there is a playoff system such as there is in FCS as opposed to something like that in place historically in major college football. In the FBS under the BCS system late regular season games were meaningful with respect to the national title hunt for only a handful of teams each year. In FCS there are typically a bunch of late season regular season games that have a lot of meaning. Some teams are trying to clinch high seeds and home field advantage, some teams are trying to clinch automatic bids, and other teams are trying to keep hopes of at large bids alive. Instead of having maybe 2 or 3 "meaningful" games during the last couple of weeks, you've got 10 or 20 (sometimes more than that) To me, saying that limiting the "championship" tournament to two teams generally makes for a more meaningful regular season is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've often heard in support of the now passing BCS concept.

[SuperHornet]

If one boils things down to their essence, what RK is falsely saying is that the CAA and MVC champs are the best in the land and should face off for the title EVERY freaking year, no one else need apply. He MIGHT grudgingly admit the Big Sky and the SoCon in that argument. He fails to account for individual team variance, and tries OH, so hard to avoid a team getting "lucky". There's no place for THAT in his world. No 9-7 Raiders winning the Super Bowl, no Boise States winning the Fiesta Bowl. All of that is TRASH to RK. But that's where the drama comes in. Who wants a boring title decided by RK?!?

IMO, he is WRONG. Of course, that is my OPINION. His arguments are pure opinion, too, and (as JSO so wisely pointed out), that is the major flaw here. It comes down to WHO makes the decisions. Even a "power rating system" is essentially a poll, which comes down to the opinions of people. We're not talking about letting EVERYONE into the playoffs. In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that many. The NHL allows about half of its teams into the playoffs; the FCS playoffs aren't even close to that, even if it expands to 32.

[rkwittem]

If one boils things down to their essence, what RK is falsely saying is that the CAA and MVC champs are the best in the land and should face off for the title EVERY freaking year, no one else need apply. He MIGHT grudgingly admit the Big Sky and the SoCon in that argument. He fails to account for individual team variance, and tries OH, so hard to avoid a team getting "lucky". There's no place for THAT in his world. No 9-7 Raiders winning the Super Bowl, no Boise States winning the Fiesta Bowl. All of that is TRASH to RK. But that's where the drama comes in. Who wants a boring title decided by RK?!?

IMO, he is WRONG. Of course, that is my OPINION. His arguments are pure opinion, too, and (as JSO so wisely pointed out), that is the major flaw here. It comes down to WHO makes the decisions. Even a "power rating system" is essentially a poll, which comes down to the opinions of people. We're not talking about letting EVERYONE into the playoffs. In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that many. The NHL allows about half of its teams into the playoffs; the FCS playoffs aren't even close to that, even if it expands to 32.

No....I only want the best 2 teams (in FBS particularly). It's dependent on team talent and performance. All teams from "lesser" conferences need to do is avoid cupcakes in their non-conference schedules at all cost. Or at least get 2 decent opponents out of conference each year, ideally.

You're exactly right- I hate "luck" in postseason formats. Last year no one in their right mind thought the Giants were a better team than Green Bay, overall. My reasoning is simple: Green Bay won 15 games. The Giants won 9. I know this is a professional example, but I wanted to address your Raiders point. The fact that a team that was 6 games better than the other (and had beaten them in the regular season already) had to play them again in the playoffs was a joke.

I feel confident in saying that Green Bay-New England would have been just as dramatic as the Super Bowl we got. (And probably gotten better ratings.) But I digress.

Of course I hate the little guy. Like I said, I'm an elitist snob. I freely admit this and have no problem with doing so.

I hate underdogs. Give me four of Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, Duke, UNC, Syracuse, and Indiana in the Final Four (I realize there are plenty of other top programs who I'd be fine with- those are just my top 6-7, give or take Syracuse). Give me Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas and Oklahoma in major bowls every year (or other comparable teams). The drama will be there even without Cinderella. Did you think UGA-Hawaii was dramatic? Or that undefeated Hawaii should have been in over 10-win Boston College or 11-win Missouri?

You don't have to agree with it, but I hate seeing teams with no rightful case muddying up the major bowls. The only way teams like Boise, Hawaii, and MWC Utah should ever have gotten into BCS bowls was when they were clearly superior to the teams ranked around them who didn't make a bowl. I'm too lazy to look up specific instances right now, but I bet there were a couple of 1- or 2-loss BCS conference teams who missed out on a BCS bid because one of the little guys made it. In hindsight, Boise-OU was a great game. But going in, I had it pegged as a total snoozer.

[UNI88]

Of course we also disagree on what a championship is about. It's not about being the best team. It's about winning the championship. To me, people should not be thinking that the purpose of a championship selection process is to end up with the best team as champion or with the best two teams playing in the championship game.

+1

Definitely true for the NCAA basketball tournament.

[UNI88]

If one boils things down to their essence, what RK is falsely saying is that the CAA and MVC champs are the best in the land and should face off for the title EVERY freaking year, no one else need apply. He MIGHT grudgingly admit the Big Sky and the SoCon in that argument. He fails to account for individual team variance, and tries OH, so hard to avoid a team getting "lucky". There's no place for THAT in his world. No 9-7 Raiders winning the Super Bowl, no Boise States winning the Fiesta Bowl. All of that is TRASH to RK. But that's where the drama comes in. Who wants a boring title decided by RK?!?

IMO, he is WRONG. Of course, that is my OPINION. His arguments are pure opinion, too, and (as JSO so wisely pointed out), that is the major flaw here. It comes down to WHO makes the decisions. Even a "power rating system" is essentially a poll, which comes down to the opinions of people. We're not talking about letting EVERYONE into the playoffs. In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that many. The NHL allows about half of its teams into the playoffs; the FCS playoffs aren't even close to that, even if it expands to 32.

No....I only want the best 2 teams (in FBS particularly). It's dependent on team talent and performance. All teams from "lesser" conferences need to do is avoid cupcakes in their non-conference schedules at all cost. Or at least get 2 decent opponents out of conference each year, ideally.

You're exactly right- I hate "luck" in postseason formats. Last year no one in their right mind thought the Giants were a better team than Green Bay, overall. My reasoning is simple: Green Bay won 15 games. The Giants won 9. I know this is a professional example, but I wanted to address your Raiders point. The fact that a team that was 6 games better than the other (and had beaten them in the regular season already) had to play them again in the playoffs was a joke.

I feel confident in saying that Green Bay-New England would have been just as dramatic as the Super Bowl we got. (And probably gotten better ratings.) But I digress.

Of course I hate the little guy. Like I said, I'm an elitist snob. I freely admit this and have no problem with doing so.

I hate underdogs. Give me four of Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, Duke, UNC, Syracuse, and Indiana in the Final Four (I realize there are plenty of other top programs who I'd be fine with- those are just my top 6-7, give or take Syracuse). Give me Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas and Oklahoma in major bowls every year (or other comparable teams). The drama will be there even without Cinderella. Did you think UGA-Hawaii was dramatic? Or that undefeated Hawaii should have been in over 10-win Boston College or 11-win Missouri?

You don't have to agree with it, but I hate seeing teams with no rightful case muddying up the major bowls. The only way teams like Boise, Hawaii, and MWC Utah should ever have gotten into BCS bowls was when they were clearly superior to the teams ranked around them who didn't make a bowl. I'm too lazy to look up specific instances right now, but I bet there were a couple of 1- or 2-loss BCS conference teams who missed out on a BCS bid because one of the little guys made it. In hindsight, Boise-OU was a great game. But going in, I had it pegged as a total snoozer.

SH, I disagree with him but RKW has been pretty clear and consistent that he wants the 2 highest ranked teams playing for the Chipper. He would have been OK if Georgia Southern had finished last year with a 10-1 record ended up playing SHSU in the championship.

I disagree with him for a number of reasons:
1) While his arguments about the NFL make sense, you can't compare the NFL to college football. The homogeneity in the NFL and inter-division and inter-conference play make it a lot easier to compare teams. It can and usually is a lot more difficult to distinguish between teams from the SEC, B1G0, PAC12, Big12, ACC and BE, etc. to determine who the best 2 teams are. It's a much more subjective decision. The same is true in FCS between the CAA, SoCon, MVFC, BigSky, etc.

2) Boise, TCU and Utah have had a tough time trying to schedule the kind of competition they need to prove they belong. Most teams are afraid to play them, to many teams pad their OOC schedule with easy wins to ensure they are bowl eligible. Is that Boise, TCU or Utah's fault? Strength of schedule should be rewarded, not the opposite. I'll admit that Hawaii didn't belong in their bowl game but in the recent past they are the exception not the rule. Boise, TCU and Utah have done well in BCS bowls (4-1 with the one loss being TCU losing to Boise, add in Hawaii and they're 4-2, that's more than respectable).

[SuperHornet]

SH, I disagree with him but RKW has been pretty clear and consistent that he wants the 2 highest ranked teams playing for the Chipper. He would have been OK if Georgia Southern had finished last year with a 10-1 record ended up playing SHSU in the championship.

I disagree with him for a number of reasons:
1) While his arguments about the NFL make sense, you can't compare the NFL to college football. The homogeneity in the NFL and inter-division and inter-conference play make it a lot easier to compare teams. It can and usually is a lot more difficult to distinguish between teams from the SEC, B1G0, PAC12, Big12, ACC and BE, etc. to determine who the best 2 teams are. It's a much more subjective decision. The same is true in FCS between the CAA, SoCon, MVFC, BigSky, etc.

2) Boise, TCU and Utah have had a tough time trying to schedule the kind of competition they need to prove they belong. Most teams are afraid to play them, to many teams pad their OOC schedule with easy wins to ensure they are bowl eligible. Is that Boise, TCU or Utah's fault? Strength of schedule should be rewarded, not the opposite. I'll admit that Hawaii didn't belong in their bowl game but in the recent past they are the exception not the rule. Boise, TCU and Utah have done well in BCS bowls (4-1 with the one loss being TCU losing to Boise, add in Hawaii and they're 4-2, that's more than respectable).

[JohnStOnge]

Definitely true for the NCAA basketball tournament.

Not true in the history of FCS either. How many times have you seen a team that didn't even win its conference win the I-AA national title? In one case (1997), a team that finished third in the Gateway Conference (Youngstown State) won it. And in the championship game they beat a team (McNeese State) that beat the second place team from the Gateway (Northern Iowa) during the regular season then beat the Gateway Champion (Western Illinois) in the playoff quarterfinals.

The truth is that there may be no such thing as "two best teams." It's like I said, how teams match up with each other can be important.

To me, having people vote on who they THINK are the two best teams then having a "championship" game with no playoff games leading up to it is boring. I recognize that some people like that idea because I see them say it. But I can't relate to it.

To me, if all of the participants in whatever the realm is don't control their own destiny you don't really have a champion. If you've got a situation where a team can go undefeated...win every game it plays...and have no shot you don't have a true process for determining a champion. FCS hasn't completely accomplished the ideal. But it's a lot closer to the ideal than FBS is.

[SuperHornet]

Definitely true for the NCAA basketball tournament.

Not true in the history of FCS either. How many times have you seen a team that didn't even win its conference win the I-AA national title? In one case (1997), a team that finished third in the Gateway Conference (Youngstown State) won it. And in the championship game they beat a team (McNeese State) that beat the second place team from the Gateway (Northern Iowa) during the regular season then beat the Gateway Champion (Western Illinois) in the playoff quarterfinals.

The truth is that there may be no such thing as "two best teams." It's like I said, how teams match up with each other can be important.

To me, having people vote on who they THINK are the two best teams then having a "championship" game with no playoff games leading up to it is boring. I recognize that some people like that idea because I see them say it. But I can't relate to it.

To me, if all of the participants in whatever the realm is don't control their own destiny you don't really have a champion. If you've got a situation where a team can go undefeated...win every game it plays...and have no shot you don't have a true process for determining a champion. FCS hasn't completely accomplished the ideal. But it's a lot closer to the ideal than FBS is.

[rkwittem]

Are you really trying to tell me that the BCS has gotten 1 and 2 wrong ever? Sorry, but TCU, Boise State, and Utah had no claims to the titles they say they do because they had, at most, 4 tough games in an average year for them- one or two tough non-conference games and then 1 or 2 tough conference games. It's called body of work. We don't need a computer to tell us that a 1-loss SEC team is unequivocally better than a 2-loss Big 12 or Big 10 team that got its doors blown off.

Other than the Auburn year, I really can't say the BCS didn't fail us. (Unless you have an axe to grind with the teams that did win titles.)

[UNI88]

Are you really trying to tell me that the BCS has gotten 1 and 2 wrong ever? Sorry, but TCU, Boise State, and Utah had no claims to the titles they say they do because they had, at most, 4 tough games in an average year for them- one or two tough non-conference games and then 1 or 2 tough conference games. It's called body of work. We don't need a computer to tell us that a 1-loss SEC team is unequivocally better than a 2-loss Big 12 or Big 10 team that got its doors blown off.

Other than the Auburn year, I really can't say the BCS didn't fail us. (Unless you have an axe to grind with the teams that did win titles.)

In addition to Auburn, you have USC the year prior. USC was 11-1 (Oklahoma & LSU were both 12-1) and ranked #1 in both the AP & Coaches polls leading to a split championship when they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Other controversial selections:
- 2010, TCU did have an argument when they finished 12-0 and beat #5 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.
- 2008, #1 Oklahoma (12-1) lost to #3 Texas (11-1)
- 2001, #2 Nebraska (11-1) lost to #3 Colorado (10-2) 62-36 and #4 Oregon (10-1) was #2 in both polls.
- 2000, #2 FSU (11-1) lost to #2 Miami (11-1) who lost to #4 Washington (10-1)

You can't tell me that in 2000, with the differences between the top 4 teams being so negligible, that a playoff with the winner of Oklahoma/Washington playing the winner of FSU/Miami wouldn't have been the better approach.

The BCS pairings are controversial much more frequently than they aren't.

[SuperHornet]

88: RK's bogus response will be that TCU's 12-0 record was worthless because they "didn't play anybody," putting the blame squarely on TCU for "not stepping to the plate." The clear falacy in that argument is that the "somebodys," knowing that their own qualifications for the bowls are on the line, refuse to schedule them. So it's the Big Ten, SEC, etc., that are the pansies in this equation. The one time such a regular season game DID happen, GA lost to Boise AT HOME, no less.

So you allow these guys to maintain position by refusing to play, RK? That's the most craven argument there is for the "haves" keeping the "have nots" out, and the biggest reason why a true playoff (not this 4-team cr@p) is required.

[rkwittem]

Are you really trying to tell me that the BCS has gotten 1 and 2 wrong ever? Sorry, but TCU, Boise State, and Utah had no claims to the titles they say they do because they had, at most, 4 tough games in an average year for them- one or two tough non-conference games and then 1 or 2 tough conference games. It's called body of work. We don't need a computer to tell us that a 1-loss SEC team is unequivocally better than a 2-loss Big 12 or Big 10 team that got its doors blown off.

Other than the Auburn year, I really can't say the BCS didn't fail us. (Unless you have an axe to grind with the teams that did win titles.)

In addition to Auburn, you have USC the year prior. USC was 11-1 (Oklahoma & LSU were both 12-1) and ranked #1 in both the AP & Coaches polls leading to a split championship when they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Other controversial selections:
- 2010, TCU did have an argument when they finished 12-0 and beat #5 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.
- 2008, #1 Oklahoma (12-1) lost to #3 Texas (11-1)
- 2001, #2 Nebraska (11-1) lost to #3 Colorado (10-2) 62-36 and #4 Oregon (10-1) was #2 in both polls.
- 2000, #2 FSU (11-1) lost to #2 Miami (11-1) who lost to #4 Washington (10-1)

You can't tell me that in 2000, with the differences between the top 4 teams being so negligible, that a playoff with the winner of Oklahoma/Washington playing the winner of FSU/Miami wouldn't have been the better approach.

The BCS pairings are controversial much more frequently than they aren't.

- The TCU argument is null-and-void, and is rendered so by the fact that everyone uses the ridiculous ex post facto justification of, "They beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl." The question is not did they win, it is "were/are they truly worthy of playing in the BCS Championship game against Oregon or Auburn before the bowl selections were made?" Considering that Oregon and Auburn were both undefeated and in (for the most part), impressive fashion, I can't really say that TCU "deserved" a shot. The big boys took care of bigger business. TCU took care of lesser business. Stop playing SMU every year and give Oklahoma a call. Or LSU (both of whom have scheduled very aggressively out of conference. If TCU didn't call, that's a them problem, not a LSU/OU/big boys problem.)

- Ok, I might listen on Texas, but that's the price the Horns paid for losing at Texas Tech and watching a team tbey beat by 10 go on to drop 65 on them later. If you go by point-differential and the Texas Tech as a common opponent theory (which many supplied as a reason for OU's BCSCG inclusion), you get to a hideous rock-paper-scissors between OU, UT, and TT. Considering that Texas beat OU by 10, lost to TT by 6, and OU lost to Texas by 10, but beat Texas Tech by 40+, I would be inclined to say that Oklahoma was the more dominant team and therefore better-suited to play against Florida in the BCSCG. I still think OU was the superior team to Texas.

- 2001 is a ways back for me, so I had to go back and do a little homework. My argument for Nebraska would be that they had only 1 loss- to Colorado (who lost to Fresno State at the beginning of the year and got blistered by Texas during the season). Sure, they beat Nebraska and Texas, but again, just like 2008 Texas, don't lose to a team you shouldn't and you don't have this problem. Same thing for Oregon- don't crap the bed against a team like Stanford. Nebraska's lone loss was (badly) to Colorado- an excusable offense, as Colorado was a better team than Fresno State and Stanford combined that year. It's a simple case of bad loss + bad loss < "not as bad" loss. What muddies it up is that there were 3 teams involved, naturally. Again- the beauty of the BCS is that you have control of your destiny as long as you keep winning. That's what makes the regular season so spectacular.

- I'll readily admit that 2000 might be the lone exception for when the BCS blew it, but it was lose-lose. Someone had to get screwed. Washington crapped the bed against Oregon. (an otherwise forgivable blemish, just not in 2000). This smacks more of the 2003 Auburn situation- that is, someone had to get screwed.

Controversial or not, I still agree with their choices. The extreme degree of exclusivity present made the process extremely difficult to decide, but them's the breaks.

[rkwittem]

88: RK's bogus response will be that TCU's 12-0 record was worthless because they "didn't play anybody," putting the blame squarely on TCU for "not stepping to the plate." The clear falacy in that argument is that the "somebodys," knowing that their own qualifications for the bowls are on the line, refuse to schedule them. So it's the Big Ten, SEC, etc., that are the pansies in this equation. The one time such a regular season game DID happen, GA lost to Boise AT HOME, no less.

So you allow these guys to maintain position by refusing to play, RK? That's the most craven argument there is for the "haves" keeping the "have nots" out, and the biggest reason why a true playoff (not this 4-team cr@p) is required.

The big boys get to be pansies because they have already built up the credit to the point where they don't have to prove themselves- their own conferences will provide the litmus test for them. Georgia did not lose in Athens to Boise ever. Already forgotten this Boise State gem?

[youtube][/youtube]

Just to be clear, Atlanta is not Athens.

I don't want the have-nots hanging and gumming up the postseason. Give me powerhouses or give me the Bowl Alliance.

[UNI88]

In addition to Auburn, you have USC the year prior. USC was 11-1 (Oklahoma & LSU were both 12-1) and ranked #1 in both the AP & Coaches polls leading to a split championship when they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

You completely missed USC in 2003. That was a bigger BCS screw-up than Auburn the following year.

- The TCU argument is null-and-void, and is rendered so by the fact that everyone uses the ridiculous ex post facto justification of, "They beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl." The question is not did they win, it is "were/are they truly worthy of playing in the BCS Championship game against Oregon or Auburn before the bowl selections were made?" Considering that Oregon and Auburn were both undefeated and in (for the most part), impressive fashion, I can't really say that TCU "deserved" a shot. The big boys took care of bigger business. TCU took care of lesser business. Stop playing SMU every year and give Oklahoma a call. Or LSU (both of whom have scheduled very aggressively out of conference. If TCU didn't call, that's a them problem, not a LSU/OU/big boys problem.)

If I use that logic than Oklahoma State belonged in the 2011 Championship game as much or more so than Alabama.
- Top 25 wins: Oklahoma State: 5, Alabama: 2.
- Top 50 wins: Oklahoma State: 7, Alabama: 5.
- Wins over FBS teams with winning records: Oklahoma State: 6, Alabama: 3.
- Conference titles: Oklahoma State: 1, Alabama: 0.
Yes Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State and Alabama lost to #1 LSU but Alabama lost at home and OSU lost on the road.

TCU (and Boise and Utah) would have loved to play Oklahoma and similar competition every year. Those guys won't play them unless it's in conference play. They either want home games against teams they know they can beat or national marquee games like Florida State or Notre Dame. Playing Notre Dame regardless of whether they win or lose is good for a major team's national profile and recruiting. Losing to a team like TCU doesn't have that benefit so they can't justify the potential loss. It wasn't TCU's fault the big-boys were afraid of them and wouldn't play them. Punish the BCS teams that schedule OOC patsies not TCU.

You sound a little like Gary Williams (former basketball coach at Maryland) b!tching up a storm when Maryland didn't make the NCAA tournament and some mid-majors did. He made a bunch of comments about strength of schedule and when someone pointed out that these schools have trouble scheduling quality OOC opponents he said that Maryland would play them; all they had to do was call. I can almost guarantee you that the phones were ringing off the hook in College Station and that hypocrite sat there and ignored them.

- Ok, I might listen on Texas, but that's the price the Horns paid for losing at Texas Tech and watching a team tbey beat by 10 go on to drop 65 on them later. If you go by point-differential and the Texas Tech as a common opponent theory (which many supplied as a reason for OU's BCSCG inclusion), you get to a hideous rock-paper-scissors between OU, UT, and TT. Considering that Texas beat OU by 10, lost to TT by 6, and OU lost to Texas by 10, but beat Texas Tech by 40+, I would be inclined to say that Oklahoma was the more dominant team and therefore better-suited to play against Florida in the BCSCG. I still think OU was the superior team to Texas.

A playoff with the winner of OU/Alabama vs. the winner of Florida/Texas would have been better than OU/Florida.

- 2001 is a ways back for me, so I had to go back and do a little homework. My argument for Nebraska would be that they had only 1 loss- to Colorado (who lost to Fresno State at the beginning of the year and got blistered by Texas during the season). Sure, they beat Nebraska and Texas, but again, just like 2008 Texas, don't lose to a team you shouldn't and you don't have this problem. Same thing for Oregon- don't crap the bed against a team like Stanford. Nebraska's lone loss was (badly) to Colorado- an excusable offense, as Colorado was a better team than Fresno State and Stanford combined that year. It's a simple case of bad loss + bad loss < "not as bad" loss. What muddies it up is that there were 3 teams involved, naturally. Again- the beauty of the BCS is that you have control of your destiny as long as you keep winning. That's what makes the regular season so spectacular.

A playoff with the winner of Miami/Oregon vs. the winner of Nebraska/Colorado would have been better than Miami/Nebraska.

Expanding to the top 4 teams doesn't reduce the value of the regular season but it improves the likelihood of the best teams playing for the championship, increases fan interest and drives revenue. It's a win-win.

[SuperHornet]

Atlanta or Athens, it was still considered a home game, RK.

Sheesh!

And it was 2011....

[tampajag]

Atlanta or Athens, it was still considered a home game, RK.

Sheesh!

And it was 2011....

I really shouldn't do this but that was the Chic-Fil-a College Kickoff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil- ... ge_Kickoff

[tampajag]

88: RK's bogus response will be that TCU's 12-0 record was worthless because they "didn't play anybody," putting the blame squarely on TCU for "not stepping to the plate." The clear falacy in that argument is that the "somebodys," knowing that their own qualifications for the bowls are on the line, refuse to schedule them. So it's the Big Ten, SEC, etc., that are the pansies in this equation. The one time such a regular season game DID happen, GA lost to Boise AT HOME, no less.

So you allow these guys to maintain position by refusing to play, RK? That's the most craven argument there is for the "haves" keeping the "have nots" out, and the biggest reason why a true playoff (not this 4-team cr@p) is required.

The big boys get to be pansies because they have already built up the credit to the point where they don't have to prove themselves- their own conferences will provide the litmus test for them. Georgia did not lose in Athens to Boise ever. Already forgotten this Boise State gem?

[youtube][/youtube]

Just to be clear, Atlanta is not Athens.

I don't want the have-nots hanging and gumming up the postseason. Give me powerhouses or give me the Bowl Alliance.

You gotta admit that Boise was no where near the Boise of the last 3 years. They weren't ready for primetime at all then. They also lost to a 5-6 Oregon State team and lost to BC at home in their bowl.

[UNI88]

The big boys get to be pansies because they have already built up the credit to the point where they don't have to prove themselves- their own conferences will provide the litmus test for them. Georgia did not lose in Athens to Boise ever. Already forgotten this Boise State gem?

[youtube][/youtube]

Just to be clear, Atlanta is not Athens.

I don't want the have-nots hanging and gumming up the postseason. Give me powerhouses or give me the Bowl Alliance.

You gotta admit that Boise was no where near the Boise of the last 3 years. They weren't ready for primetime at all then. They also lost to a 5-6 Oregon State team and lost to BC at home in their bowl.

True but it's a little weak to use 2005 Boise as a justification for leaving 2010 TCU out of the national championship picture. Different schools, different years as a simple comparison of Boise 2005 to Boise 2011 shows.

[eagleskins]

People really trying to say that was Boise without their coach?

[89Hen]

How many times have you seen a team that didn't even win its conference win the I-AA national title? In one case (1997), a team that finished third in the Gateway Conference (Youngstown State) won it.

Same thing next year when a 3rd place Yankee UMass won the NC.

[rkwittem]

The big boys get to be pansies because they have already built up the credit to the point where they don't have to prove themselves- their own conferences will provide the litmus test for them. Georgia did not lose in Athens to Boise ever. Already forgotten this Boise State gem?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syu8jx_BA94[/youtube]

Just to be clear, Atlanta is not Athens.

I don't want the have-nots hanging and gumming up the postseason. Give me powerhouses or give me the Bowl Alliance.

You gotta admit that Boise was no where near the Boise of the last 3 years. They weren't ready for primetime at all then. They also lost to a 5-6 Oregon State team and lost to BC at home in their bowl.

This was the most recent game I could find of Boise playing Georgia at Georgia.

[UNI88]

You gotta admit that Boise was no where near the Boise of the last 3 years. They weren't ready for primetime at all then. They also lost to a 5-6 Oregon State team and lost to BC at home in their bowl.

This was the most recent game I could find of Boise playing Georgia at Georgia.

It's college football. You have complete roster turnover every 5 years so what Georgia did to Boise in 2005 should have no impact on how you rank Georgia, Boise or TCU in 2010 or 2011. And Atlanta is a de facto home game for Georgia just as New Orleans and even Dallas are de facto home games for LSU. The fact that Boise, Oregon and others are willing to schedule those kinds of "neutral site" games in hostile environments tells you who really has the cojones in college football.