BCS Armageddon

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I'll only add that playoffs do not determine "who is the best team" but only "who is the hottest team at the moment"

Thinking adding playoffs will solve who is the best team in D-1A college football is deluding themselves.

That being said, I'd love to see a playoff just because watching the #2 vs. the #7 seed would be more interesting then watching Maryland vs. Utah.

There is the old motto, "it's not about how you start, it's about how you finish".

You are making the assumption that champion=best, and that is not necessarily the case. You'd be hard pressed to say that the Patriots weren't the best team in the NFL last season. But they were not the champions. They might have been the best team, but they didn't win the championship. Because the process of selecting the teams to participate in the NFL playoffs isn't considered arbitrary or due to the popularity of a team, the legitimacy of the eventual champion isn't questioned.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by cartman

There is the old motto, "it's not about how you start, it's about how you finish".

You are making the assumption that champion=best, and that is not necessarily the case. You'd be hard pressed to say that the Patriots weren't the best team in the NFL last season. But they were not the champions. They might have been the best team, but they didn't win the championship. Because the process of selecting the teams to participate in the NFL playoffs isn't considered arbitrary or due to the popularity of a team, the legitimacy of the eventual champion isn't questioned.

See, not making that assumption at all. I'd agree that "champion" does not mean "best" and that was the point behind my statement.

To borrow from someone else, Villanova was the 1985 basketball champion, but was not the best overall team in 1985.

Similarly, a college football playoff system would eventually result in a team who was not the best the entire season, but got hot in the end and rode that momentum through the tournament being the champion.

Thus, the argument that playoffs will determine who is the best team is simply false. Further, if you want to determine who is a "champion", how exactly does a playoff system prove that better than the BCS?

[MJ4H]

We should just vote on who is the best team based on thet team photo and recruiting websites. I would hate to let any actual football gameplay cloud our judgement about who is the best.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Thus, the argument that playoffs will determine who is the best team is simply false. Further, if you want to determine who is a "champion", how exactly does a playoff system prove that better than the BCS?

The reason why a playoff will more likely prove which team is best is because it is nearly impossible to determine who the top 2 teams are at the end of the season. Because of the fact that almost all of a team's tough games are played inside their own conference makes it really really tough to gauge which team is best. No one could foresee that Ohio State would look totally outclassed in the NC game the past two years because they looked great in their conference.

And who really knows exactly how the top teams from the Big East stack up against the Big 12 or SEC?

When you only have the ability to choose 2 teams at the end of the season, sometimes the strongest team in the country will get left out. If that were to be expanded to 8 teams, at least you have a much better shot of getting the BEST team into the playoff with a chance to win it all.

Once the playoff begins, of course, you get upsets and the "best" team can lose, but that's different because at least then there's not as much of a subjective judgement. They just lost on the field.

And yes, there is still the issue of the bubble teams at #8-#9 in the rankings, but I have a lot less sympathy for a #9 ranked team missing out than I do a #3 team who misses out today because of what I said above. It is very very possible that the #3 team is actually the best team in the country, where the #9 team is much more unlikely to be so.

And I would LOVE to see those playoff games. That would be Must Watch TV for sure.

[KWhit]

Oh, and any system that lets a team go undefeated (especially one in a power conference like Auburn in the SEC) and not get a chance to play in the NC game is a joke.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Further, if you want to determine who is a "champion", how exactly does a playoff system prove that better than the BCS?

As I mentioned in my previous post, a playoff with at least 8 teams (preferably 16 teams) would go a long way towards legitimizing a champion. Currently the BCS only selects two teams to play for the championship. The current process still has many flaws, and there is almost always debate over which should be the two teams included. The process is currently very subjective, since 2/3 of the decision is left up to human voters. You almost never hear in other sports of complaints about who is included in the playoffs. About the only other sport I can think of is College Basketball, but even then there are only 2 or 3 teams that are mentioned each year as deserving of spots but not selected. Get general consensus over the teams competing for a championship, and the legitimacy is there. There is too much subjectiveness and exclusion right now in the BCS for most people to accept it as definitive.

My personal preference is to take the 11 conference champions, plus 5 at-large teams for a 16 team playoffs. This is what I suggested to Arlie to include in BBCF, and is how we have it in the fictional FOFC-BBCF. Some might argue that the Sun Belt champ isn't deserving of an automatic bid, but I say they are a Div. 1A/FBS school. Change the requirements to be in Div. 1A/FBS to send the weaker teams to Div. 1AA/FCS if that is an issue, so create it so that the top 8 conferences get automatic bids, plus 8 at large teams. Or put in some restriction that the conference champ has to be in the Top 25 or something along those lines. Yes, like in basketball there will be disagreements over who was the bubble team that got left out, but the process would be accepted.

Plus, I'd still have the bowls for teams that didn't make the playoffs. It would be like the NIT in college basketball.

[Dr. Sak]

My cousin who is a sports writer for a local paper wrote something to me on a 16 team playoff. Here's the link...and the shameless plug to my blog...

Presenting Matta’s Data NCAA Playoff | In The Bleachers College Football Blog

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Another problem with the Big East's perception is that over the past two years people have gotten really behind the newcomer that has turned into a flop. USF last year was the prime example...they went up too fast, people got behind them, then free-fall. Rutgers was a good team the past two years and people were all about them being able to captivate the NYC market and get recruits from Florida...don't look now.

The fruits of Rutgers' success in 06 hasn't really been seen yet because the players who were recruited off of that are first getting on the field now, or are coming into school next year. It takes a couple seasons for the talent to catch up. That's all not to mention that if Mike Teel wasn't a shithead against Cincy, we'd be in the BCS driver's seat this year.

As for our recent lack of success in Florida, attribute that to the Florida schools not liking how we were getting kids out of there when we weren't very successful and petitioning the NCAA to institute the so-called "Rutgers Rule" where you can only hold recruiting camps in your own state. Without the Rutgers camps in FL, it's trailed off a bit.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by digamma

Let's play name that conference:

Conference A
12 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
7 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
10 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
9 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
10 total out of conference losses
1 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference B
7 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
2 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
12 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
6 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
10 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference C
8 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
5 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
5 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
12 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference D
6 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
7 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
4 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
13 total out of conference losses
1 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference E
5 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
1 out of conference win against bowl eligible BCS teams
5 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
5 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
9 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

Conference F
5 out of conference wins against BCS Teams
2 out of conference wins against bowl eligible BCS teams
3 out of conference wins against bowl eligible teams
4 different teams with an OOC win against a BCS team
16 total out of conference losses
3 out of conference loss against a non-bowl eligible team

So, none of you who are all excited about showing your conference off in the shower want to actually take a shot at this?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The reason why a playoff will more likely prove which team is best is because it is nearly impossible to determine who the top 2 teams are at the end of the season.

Horseshit.

And who really knows exactly how the top teams from the Big East stack up against the Big 12 or SEC?

Better question: how many people actually care? It's not football country, they could win b2b national championships in the BCS system & still not be considered anywhere near the level of the traditional football power conferences.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, none of you who are all excited about showing your conference off in the shower want to actually take a shot at this?

The Big 12 is conference B. 3rd place OU waxed the Big East leader.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by sooner333

The Big 12 is conference B. 3rd place OU waxed the Big East leader.

Correct.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

My cousin who is a sports writer for a local paper wrote something to me on a 16 team playoff. Here's the link...and the shameless plug to my blog...

Presenting Matta’s Data NCAA Playoff | In The Bleachers College Football Blog

I'm kind of torn on the number of teams that should be involved in a playoff. On one hand, 16 would be optimal. You could give an automatic birth to all conference champions which would give a lot of meaning to winning it. The rest could be filled in with at-large teams.

12 would be interesting as well. Other levels of college football have bye weeks so it's not out of the question. You can give the top 7 ranked conference champions an automatic bid (this should be your BCS schools + one other conference champ). The other 4 conference champs would play a one game play-in game against each other. So now you have 9 schools in, all conference champs. You throw in 3 at-large schools then, seed them all, and play.

I'd be for an 8-team tournament too but it should require a chance for smaller conferences to play their way into the tournament.

I just want to see a system setup that allows everyone the chance to win a national championship. Even if it means winning extra games, everyone should have the chance to win it on the field. That's my issue with college football, their title isn't determined on the field.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just want to see a system setup that allows everyone the chance to win a national championship. Even if it means winning extra games, everyone should have the chance to win it on the field. That's my issue with college football, their title isn't determined on the field.

Sure it is. It's just done over the course of a season rather than a post-season.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

Sure it is. It's just done over the course of a season rather than a post-season.

So how does Boise State and Utah play their way into a national championship? Both will win every single game they play.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So how does Boise State and Utah play their way into a national championship? Both will win every single game they play.

The same way USC won a share of a national title in 2004 even though they didn't play in the BCS title game.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So how does Boise State and Utah play their way into a national championship? Both will win every single game they play.

They need to schedule some non-conference games against top ten teams, and then go undefeated. Unfortunately, Utah beat a horrible Michigan team this year, but if this had been the Michigan team of a few years ago, Utah could very well be in the national championship mix.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

The same way USC won a share of a national title in 2004 even though they didn't play in the BCS title game.

That isn't winning your way into anything. USC won the AP National Championship. That's just getting a majority of writers to vote for your team. The BCS Championship is the real championship. And like I said, those teams can't win it.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

They need to schedule some non-conference games against top ten teams, and then go undefeated. Unfortunately, Utah beat a horrible Michigan team this year, but if this had been the Michigan team of a few years ago, Utah could very well be in the national championship mix.

In Utah's defense they have a pretty good resume'. They beat Oregon State too. Plus when you look at the Mountain West Conference, they put a beat down on the Pac Ten overall this season.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

They need to schedule some non-conference games against top ten teams, and then go undefeated. Unfortunately, Utah beat a horrible Michigan team this year, but if this had been the Michigan team of a few years ago, Utah could very well be in the national championship mix.

Top ten teams aren't exactly jumping at the chance to play those schools. I guarantee you that Boise State would play any top 10 team that would play them. Unfortunately, it's a lot safer for the top 10 schools to schedule a D1-AA opponent who they can beat by 70 and still make bank at the ticket gate.

But you proved my point. These teams can't control their own destiny in winning a championship. They have to pray teams schedule them, then pray those teams are good.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The BCS Championship is the real championship.

There is no 'real' championship in NCAA Div. 1A/FBS. The NCAA doesn't officially recognize a champion for this sport and level, the only such instance out of all levels and sports they sanction where they don't recognize a 'National Champion'.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Top ten teams aren't exactly jumping at the chance to play those schools. I guarantee you that Boise State would play any top 10 team that would play them. Unfortunately, it's a lot safer for the top 10 schools to schedule a D1-AA opponent who they can beat by 70 and still make bank at the ticket gate.

USC or Oklahoma would play them, and I'm sure there are others. USC will play anybody that wants to schedule a game, and OU has a policy of working good non-BCS opponents into its non-conference schedule (home and away vs. TCU), Tulsa (home and away), Air Force (away, when they were good a few years ago) and Fresno State (home a few years ago, when "nobody wanted to play them").

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by cartman

There is no 'real' championship in NCAA Div. 1A/FBS. The NCAA doesn't officially recognize a champion for this sport and level, the only such instance out of all levels and sports they sanction where they don't recognize a 'National Champion'.

And this also supports the general point that in the end, even the NCAA is powerless to effect real change at the highest levels of college football.

The BCS schools call the shots on this one. If they can be convinced that a playoff system will result in a higher net profit for its membership than the current bowl system, then they will move to a playoff system. If not, then they wont.

[DanGarion]

How dare you mention Notre Dame winning their last two (including against USC) doesn't that then give them automatic in BCS? j/k

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Let the bookies decide.

Las Vegas Sports Consultants delivers the opening lines to the onshore and offshore sports books. They think that Florida and Oklahoma are the two best teams right now.

Wrong, they think that Florida and Texas are perceived by the public as the strongest. They try to set lines based on what they think will cause an even number of bets on either side, not who they think is better by X points on that field.

They try to accurately measure public perception of team strength, not actual team strength.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Wrong, they think that Florida and Texas are perceived by the public as the strongest. They try to set lines based on what they think will cause an even number of bets on either side, not who they think is better by X points on that field.

They try to accurately measure public perception of team strength, not actual team strength.

Yes, I understand how they set lines. A good friend of mine works for them. They have a comprehensive set of power ratings, and they adjust them slightly for public opinion, moreso for key injuries. They usually don't deviate too much from the power ratings on the opening line. According to them, Florida would be a one or two point favorite over Oklahoma, and they both would be favored over any one else at this point in time (which is obviously subject to change in the next several weeks).

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I'll only add that playoffs do not determine "who is the best team" but only "who is the hottest team at the moment"

Can't really agree with this. If you're the best team, you win...period. If you're not hot, you win ugly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Can't really agree with this. If you're the best team, you win...period. If you're not hot, you win ugly.

You don't believe in the concept of upsets?

You can take any college football season, take a great team, see who beat them, who beat that team, and so forth, and go REALLY far down the line. That doesn't make the bottom team on that line the best team.

Florida lost to Mississippi. Mississippi lost to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt lost to Mississippi State. Mississippi State lost to Louisiana Tech. Louisiana Tech lost to Army. Army lost to New Hampshire. New Hampshire lost to William & Mary.

William & Mary ain't better than Florida.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't believe in the concept of upsets?

You can take any college football season, take a great team, see who beat them, who beat that team, and so forth, and go REALLY far down the line. That doesn't make the bottom team on that line the best team.

Florida lost to Mississippi. Mississippi lost to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt lost to Mississippi State. Mississippi State lost to Louisiana Tech. Louisiana Tech lost to Army. Army lost to New Hampshire. New Hampshire lost to William & Mary.

William & Mary ain't better than Florida.

The difference being that a playoff system is determining the championship on the field. Of course upsets happen, but the team that was upset had a fair shot at winning the national championship. It is their fault they lost. This beats having a computer determine who is the best teams.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Arles

You can play that game with Ohio State. USC destroyed Ohio State and Penn State barely squeaked by. The good thing is both should make it if they win out.

What bother me about the Big Ten is they are the only conference who doesn't play all their opponents or have a conference championship game. So, you can have a team like Wisconsin a few years back who goes undefeated without ever playing the other top conference team. It bothers me that instead of getting even closer (playing 9 conf games like the Pac 10), they stay with this 8 conference + 4 nonconf schedule that gets nearly every Big 10 team bowl eligible because of their extremely weak non conference SOS.

Penn State played Ohio State in Ohio.

USC played Ohio State @ USC.

Ohio State didn't have Beenie wells against USC. Ohio State didn't have Tyrod Tyler playing yet either.

Two totally different teams when Penn State played them and USC played them.

So I believe your argument is blah at best.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

USC or Oklahoma would play them, and I'm sure there are others. USC will play anybody that wants to schedule a game, and OU has a policy of working good non-BCS opponents into its non-conference schedule (home and away vs. TCU), Tulsa (home and away), Air Force (away, when they were good a few years ago) and Fresno State (home a few years ago, when "nobody wanted to play them").

Those are the exceptions, not the rules. Ask yourself how many teams have jumped at the chance to go to Boise for a game. The average team in the WAC can't just call up Texas and say "hey, let's play a game here next year" and have it happen.

[JPhillips]

Ohio State didn't have Tyrod Tyler playing yet either.

To be fair he didn't play for OSU against Penn State either.

[RainMaker]

If Utah wins out and some other teams lose, they could have a case for playing in the NC game. They would have beaten two top 15 schools, a team with one of the best defenses in the country, and the Pac-10 champs.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The reason why a playoff will more likely prove which team is best is because it is nearly impossible to determine who the top 2 teams are at the end of the season. Because of the fact that almost all of a team's tough games are played inside their own conference makes it really really tough to gauge which team is best. No one could foresee that Ohio State would look totally outclassed in the NC game the past two years because they looked great in their conference.

And who really knows exactly how the top teams from the Big East stack up against the Big 12 or SEC?

When you only have the ability to choose 2 teams at the end of the season, sometimes the strongest team in the country will get left out. If that were to be expanded to 8 teams, at least you have a much better shot of getting the BEST team into the playoff with a chance to win it all.

Once the playoff begins, of course, you get upsets and the "best" team can lose, but that's different because at least then there's not as much of a subjective judgement. They just lost on the field.

And yes, there is still the issue of the bubble teams at #8-#9 in the rankings, but I have a lot less sympathy for a #9 ranked team missing out than I do a #3 team who misses out today because of what I said above. It is very very possible that the #3 team is actually the best team in the country, where the #9 team is much more unlikely to be so.

And I would LOVE to see those playoff games. That would be Must Watch TV for sure.

An effective and succint post. Plus one.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Those are the exceptions, not the rules. Ask yourself how many teams have jumped at the chance to go to Boise for a game. The average team in the WAC can't just call up Texas and say "hey, let's play a game here next year" and have it happen.

Mack Brown has a different philosophy than Pete Carroll and Bob Stoops on non-conference scheduling, although I give Texas major props for the Ohio State series of a few years ago. I hate USC, but I have to concede that they'll play anybody, any time, any place. They went to Hawaii and beat the crap out of Colt Brennan and the Rainbow Warriors, 63-17.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't believe in the concept of upsets?

You can take any college football season, take a great team, see who beat them, who beat that team, and so forth, and go REALLY far down the line. That doesn't make the bottom team on that line the best team.

Florida lost to Mississippi. Mississippi lost to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt lost to Mississippi State. Mississippi State lost to Louisiana Tech. Louisiana Tech lost to Army. Army lost to New Hampshire. New Hampshire lost to William & Mary.

William & Mary ain't better than Florida.

There will always be upsets, just saying when you're playing with something on the line, I'm a big believer that the last man left standing takes the ring.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

To be fair he didn't play for OSU against Penn State either.

Duh, I meant Pryor.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by KWhit

It is very very possible that the #3 team is actually the best team in the country, where the #9 team is much more unlikely to be so.

So why have an 8 team playoff if you admit the teams at the bottom really aren't the best in the country?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

There will always be upsets, just saying when you're playing with something on the line, I'm a big believer that the last man left standing takes the ring.

This is the flawed thinking that some playoff proponents have. Upsets only happen during the regular season. If the #1 seeded team were to lose to a #12 or #15 (referencing the NCAA tourney here) then they really weren't the best team because they didn't show up when "everything was on the line".

It makes zero sense that there can be upsets during the regular season when nothing is on the line (although I'm interested to see anyone point out a meaningless game in college football when you're in the national championship hunt) but in the playoffs everyone plays their best.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So why have an 8 team playoff if you admit the teams at the bottom really aren't the best in the country?

1) Because it would be fun as hell to watch. Right now, there's pretty much only one bowl game that actually matters. The rest are lame exhibition games and usually there is one team that is disappointed that they are in that bowl (instead of one more prestigious) and they don't show up for the game.

2) Because any one of the top 6-8 teams COULD be the best in the country. Certainly Auburn the year they went undefeated had a claim that maybe they were best. USC last year (maybe even UGA, though I'm biased). And who knows, Boise from a couple of years ago might have even been as good as anyone the year they beat Oklahoma. And like I said in my earlier post, #9 might even be the best, but it's much more unlikely than #3.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Right now, there's pretty much only one bowl game that actually matters.

I agree. This year, its likely the Motor City Bowl. Sigh.

[st.cronin]

Probably meaningless, but conference ratings from Football Frontier:

1. ACC
2. Big 10
3. SEC
4. Big 12
5. Big East
6. Mountain West
7. Pac 10

[KWhit]

ACC #1????

WTF?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Probably meaningless, but conference ratings from Football Frontier:

1. ACC
2. Big 10
3. SEC
4. Big 12
5. Big East
6. Mountain West
7. Pac 10

If those are their rankings then you are correct...they are meaningless.

[cartman]

Yeah, Solecismic's rankings this season seem out of whack this late into the year.

[Kodos]

Lawmaker proposing bill to end BCS system

Lawmaker proposing bill to end BCS system - College Football - Rivals.com

By HOWARD FENDRICH, AP Sports Writer

Dec 10, 2:39 pm EST

WASHINGTON (AP)—Taking aim at a BCS system he said “consistently misfires,” a member of Congress planned to introduce legislation Wednesday that would force college football to adopt a playoff to determine the national champion.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn’t specify what sort of playoff he wants—only that the BCS should go.

“In some years the sport’s national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title,” Barton said in a statement released ahead of the bill’s introduction. “Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on.”

He said the bill—being co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, and Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican—“will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a ‘national championship’ football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice.”

The BCS was created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences. Since then, the system has been tweaked to make it easier for teams from smaller conferences to qualify for the top games. The sites for the four BCS bowls—the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta—take turns hosting a championship game between the top two teams in the BCS standings, which are based on two human polls and six computer ratings.

This season, Florida (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) will meet in the BCS title game Jan. 8 in Miami.

Barton cited Southern California in 2003 and undefeated Auburn in 2004 as examples of worthy teams left out of the BCS national championship game.

“This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the ‘championship,’ while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become ‘champion,”’ he said.

When an Energy and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing about the BCS in 2005, lawmakers said they weren’t going to pursue legislation.

“The BCS method of determining who is No. 1 consistently misfires,” Barton said Wednesday. “Simply exposing the flaws and subjecting them to discussion … hasn’t led to improvement by those who run the system.”

[sooner333]

I think there's a better argument for anti-trust. You could say that we do have a playoff system right now, albiet a two-team playoff.

[Logan]

Shocking that it's a dude from Texas.

So if this passes, they have to call it the BCS World Championship instead. Good job man.