Crappy BCS analysis / prediction thread

[Gary Gorski]

Frankly I'm hoping for one of two scenarios. Either 1) Florida gets waxed in the NC game proving that they didn't belong there over Michigan in the first place or 2) Florida and UM win and end up splitting the title. Either way its another blow against the BcS. I think 1 has a far greater chance of happening than 2.

Politics are deciding who gets to play for the championship and that's wrong. It should be the two best teams who play for it. There's a month before the championship game - I would love to see this settled on the field rather than by politics but obviously that won't happen. You know the system is wrong when the team that loses the championship doesn't finish #2 in the polls.

Here's what I don't get - if USC would have beaten a mediocre team then Florida's win over Arkansas wouldn't have jumped them ahead of USC so should teams in the Big Ten just schedule a game for championship week against some mediocre team. The argument is Michigan played nobody this week so they couldn't lose. Well what if they played some 6-5 school this week like USC was doing? Would Florida beating Arkansas jump them over UM but not USC? If that is the case then shouldn't Florida have been ahead of UM to start with? The one opponent UM and Florida shared (Vandy) UM beat by 20 and Florida beat by 6.

UM is #3 because the voters did not want a rematch. UM is the better team and was ranked as such for two weeks after their loss to the #1 team - This will be the only time in my life I root for OSU but I hope they demolish Florida, which I think they have a good chance of doing, and prove yet again what a joke this format is.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Frankly I'm hoping for one of two scenarios. Either 1) Florida gets waxed in the NC game proving that they didn't belong there over Michigan in the first place or 2) Florida and UM win and end up splitting the title. Either way its another blow against the BcS. I think 1 has a far greater chance of happening than 2.

Politics are deciding who gets to play for the championship and that's wrong. It should be the two best teams who play for it. There's a month before the championship game - I would love to see this settled on the field rather than by politics but obviously that won't happen. You know the system is wrong when the team that loses the championship doesn't finish #2 in the polls.

Here's what I don't get - if USC would have beaten a mediocre team then Florida's win over Arkansas wouldn't have jumped them ahead of USC so should teams in the Big Ten just schedule a game for championship week against some mediocre team. The argument is Michigan played nobody this week so they couldn't lose. Well what if they played some 6-5 school this week like USC was doing? Would Florida beating Arkansas jump them over UM but not USC? If that is the case then shouldn't Florida have been ahead of UM to start with? The one opponent UM and Florida shared (Vandy) UM beat by 20 and Florida beat by 6.

UM is #3 because the voters did not want a rematch. UM is the better team and was ranked as such for two weeks after their loss to the #1 team - This will be the only time in my life I root for OSU but I hope they demolish Florida, which I think they have a good chance of doing, and prove yet again what a joke this format is.

Michigan was only ahead of both teams because they played their games sooner then Florida and USC. As well, their big loss didnt come until their final game. Read this post, it makes sense:

Originally Posted by Celeval

This is the argument I'm sick of. How does this make any sense? Seriously? UF had an off week on 10/21 while Michigan played and beat (now-unranked) Iowa. Here, let's move that game to this week. Know what? Same records. Want a better team? Okay, move the Notre Dame win to this week, that does look impressive. But, oh, wait, Michigan jumped from #11/#13 to #6/#6 with that win. Maybe they wouldn't BE in front of Florida if they hadn't already played their games.

Even better. Directional North and South are both ranked #4 (tie). Directional North plays and beats #20, #21 and #22 while Directional South is idle. Directional North is now ranked #4, Directional South #5. Meanwhile, DN now takes three weeks off and Directional South beats #1, #2, and #3. Ooooops, can't drop North while they don't play. Now North is #1 and South is #2. That makes a ton of sense.

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So would most, but we all know that won't happen for a long while (until the "Notre Dame mystique" wears off a bit more).

scrapping the "rule" Would go a long way to pushing them into a conference

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Frankly I'm hoping for one of two scenarios. Either 1) Florida gets waxed in the NC game proving that they didn't belong there over Michigan in the first place

I'm actually hoping Michigan gets waxed in the Rose Bowl so we all know they shouldn't have gotten the nod for the national championship game ahead of USC (had they beat UCLA) or Florida.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Michigan was only ahead of both teams because they played their games sooner then Florida and USC. As well, their big loss didnt come until their final game. Read this post, it makes sense:

Yep.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Here's what I don't get - if USC would have beaten a mediocre team then Florida's win over Arkansas wouldn't have jumped them ahead of USC so should teams in the Big Ten just schedule a game for championship week against some mediocre team. The argument is Michigan played nobody this week so they couldn't lose. Well what if they played some 6-5 school this week like USC was doing? Would Florida beating Arkansas jump them over UM but not USC? If that is the case then shouldn't Florida have been ahead of UM to start with? The one opponent UM and Florida shared (Vandy) UM beat by 20 and Florida beat by 6.

This is what I can't get my head around either. Does anyone think that had USC beaten UCLA, that the polls would have had 1. OSU 2. USC 3. Florida 4. Michigan? USC's loss to Oregon State was worse than Florida's to Auburn, yet USC was a shoo-in if they beat UCLA.

Frankly, there are many legitimate arguements to put Florida in the National Championship game. They won their conference, they played a tough schedule, they are a very good team. If I were a Florida fan, I'd be insulted with the "No rematch" angle. Either they played their way in or they didn't.

As a Michigan fan, I'm really not that upset. I was in favor of any scenerio that didn't put Michigan against Notre Dame again. I think the Michigan/USC game is going to be a great Rose Bowl. I just can't figure out how USC losing makes Florida more deserving than Michigan. That's really what the "No rematch" arguement boils down to.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Honestly, i'd like to see the notre dame rule for the bcs be scrapped.. force them to go to a conference or be treated like a mid-major

No, you wouldn't. Mid-majors actually have a more generous qualification deal than ND; Boise State would not be automatically qualified under the ND rules.

Edit: Er, that's not right, Boise State would be qualified under the ND rules because they finished up 8th, but if they'd finished up 9th, they would have autoqualified under the mid-major rules but not under the ND rules.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Here's the gory details: Boise State could have automatically qualified this season by finishing as low as 13th (Wake Forest finished 14th), whereas Notre Dame would have had to finish 8th to automatically qualify.

3. One team from among the champions of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference automatically qualify for a BCS game if either: A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or, B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.
4. Notre Dame will automatically qualify for a BCS bowl if it is in the top eight of the final BCS Standings.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Michigan was only ahead of both teams because they played their games sooner then Florida and USC. As well, their big loss didnt come until their final game. Read this post, it makes sense:

Wrong. When each had only 1 loss, and immediately following the OSU game, Michigan was ranked ahead of both teams despite losing its last game. That means voters acknowledged they were the better team. IMO, neither USC's victory over a lesser-ranked ND nor UF's victory over a lesser-ranked Arkansas should have been sufficient to move them above Michigan.

It doesn't matter when the games were played, because a team's losses are supposed to knock them down. When Michigan lost and didn't move a spot, that was all the justification they needed to remaining #2 for the rest of the year. Apart from USC or UF beating Michigan or OSU in the final 2 weeks of the season (immpossible, I know, but the only way I would justify it), Michigan shouldn't have been dropped; or more correctly, they should have been dropped to #4 or 5 after the OSU loss, if that's where they were ultimately going to be voted.

[Brian Swartz]

IF (and this is the big IF) you vote Michigan number 2, you are stating that Michigan's loss to Ohio State meant nothing AND Florida's win over Arkansas meant nothing when it comes to the championship.

No I'm not. I'm stating that those two games are not strong enough to unbalance the body of work over the whole season. They are NOT meaningless, but not meaningful enough to overturn the rest of the year. The rest of the country agreed when Michigan was still #2 after the Ohio State game, two spots ahead of Florida.

the best non-subjective manner to judge these teams is how they did against BCS opponents. And, Florida has one more win than Michigan when that is measure.

I don't see how it is fairer or more objective to throw out the majority of both team's games. Really, I think that's just silly.

[Arles]

For those stating human bias against a rematch is the reason for the swap, I'd say look at the computer averages:

11/26:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. USC .940
3. Michigan .930
4. Florida .890

12/3:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. Florida .9405
3. Michigan .940
4. USC .860

So, Florida's win over Arkansas was enough to bump the computer averages from 4 to 2. Why, then, is it unfair that some humans agreed with the computers? Is there some kind of formula against rematches in the computers?

[Ksyrup]

Quote:

IF (and this is the big IF) you vote Michigan number 2, you are stating that Michigan's loss to Ohio State meant nothing AND Florida's win over Arkansas meant nothing when it comes to the championship.

The BCS fully took into account the biggest game of the year (or century, if we recall the hype) and ranked Michigan #2 AFTER they lost that game. Case closed. You either penalize them then and there, or you decide, as the voters/computers apparently did, that a 3-point loss on the road to the #1 team merited remaining #2.

Florida's win over Arkansas...seeing as though Michigan should have still been #2 after USC's win over ND, even if USC had beaten UCLA, Florida's win should have been enough to move them ahead of USC for #3, but no higher. I'm at a loss to understand how Michigan gets screwed here, given the vote/rankings after the OSU game. USC's and UF's end of season wins received entirely too much weight.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

USC's and UF's end of season wins received entirely too much weight.

Just one main thought... I personally think that winning your conference title should hold pretty big weight. After the OSU/UM game, UF had not won their conference title yet.

Then they did, and that is part of what bumped them up. I think the idea that at the end you're comparing UM who did not win their conference to UF that did win their conference (but had not before the last poll) and that seems logical to me.

[KWhit]

I love how so many people are arguing that "Michigan is the better team." We don't know that. Nobody knows that. With only 12 games (and only a handful of those being a real test to the elite teams), there is no way to know which team is better.

We don't even know which conference is tougher, becuase so few out of conference games between upper-tier teams are played. I think the SEC is tougher top-to-bottom than the Big Ten, but I have no idea if that is truly the case.

And you can look at margin of victory or how a team "looks" during its wins and losses, but that doesn't tell you anything either - not really. Some teams win "ugly," but they still win. Wins should be all that count.

So, there is NO WAY to know who should be playing for the title, not under this system. The current system of the human polls is worse than freaking figure skating which at least has some written guidelines for their judging. Here it's pretty much "Vote for the team you think is better - no matter if you have seen the games or not."

That is ridiculous! And I cannot believe that the fans put up with it. Not to mention the coaches.

I'll repeat the real problem with the system. There is no way to accurately distinguish which team is better or more worthy of a title shot between 1-loss teams (or multiple undefeated teams). There is just flat out NO WAY to do it.

The current system is a joke.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Florida's win should have been enough to move them ahead of USC for #3, but no higher. I'm at a loss to understand how Michigan gets screwed here, given the vote/rankings after the OSU game. USC's and UF's end of season wins received entirely too much weight.

Just ask the computers. They are supposedly unbiased and moved Florida from 4 to 2 based solely on the Arkansas win.

I think it comes down to the fact that both had a similar SOS, similar margin of victory, 2 good BCS wins and a top 10 loss. So, the difference "appears" to be Florida's 3rd win over a BCs team in defeating top 10 Arkansas in a neutral site. That was enough for the computers to switch, so I think an argument can be made that it's enough to move a human.

[Butter]

If you're a BCS anarchist, like myself, then the best scenario for you is an Ohio State HUGE win over Florida, and a Michigan blowout of USC. I don't get how Florida winning and splitting the national title would be an argument against the BCS. It would definitely create talk that they got the matchup right after all.

I wanted a OSU-UM rematch, if only to show that Ohio State would win by 21 on a neutral field. But anything that causes pain to Wolverine fans is OK by me.

Also, for those snickering about Ohio State's "gift" title in 2002, I'd be more than happy to show you a replay (if I had one) of Chris Gamble's late 4th quarter 3rd and 6-ish catch for a first down that was ruled out of bounds... which had it been ruled a catch would've allowed Ohio State to run out the clock. Had there even been replay then, it would've been overturned without question. He caught the ball, got a knee down and rolled out of bounds.

That said, Florida does remind me in many respects of the Ohio State 2002 title team... always under pressure, never looking impressive, but with a solid defense, a solid offense, and a will to win. It should be a good game.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by KWhit

We don't even know which conference is tougher, becuase so few out of conference games between upper-tier teams are played. I think the SEC is tougher top-to-bottom than the Big Ten, but I have no idea if that is truly the case.

Total BCS wins in conference:

Big 10: 4 by 2 teams

SEC: 11 by 6 teams

Outside of Michigan and Ohio State, no one in the Big 10 beat a BCS opponent. Heck, USC has as many BCS wins (4) as the entire Big 10. The main out of conference foe for the Big 10 was Notre Dame, and they were 1-3 against them. The only other BCS non-conference win was against No. 19 Texas by Ohio State. So, I think a real case can be made that we really don't know how good the Big 10 is.

All that said, we do need a playoff. There's no reason we can't go back to a 11-game schedule and have a 8-game playoff.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Arles

Just ask the computers. They are supposedly unbiased and moved Florida from 4 to 2 based solely on the Arkansas win.

I think it comes down to the fact that both had a similar SOS, similar margin of victory, 2 good BCS wins and a top 10 loss. So, the difference "appears" to be Florida's 3rd win over a BCs team in defeating top 10 Arkansas in a neutral site. That was enough for the computers to switch, so I think an argument can be made that it's enough to move a human.

In a way, I'd almost rather the ranking be 100% computer-generated. I think it would sit better with me.

I think what should happen, since a playoff likely will not, is that each BCS conference should be required to play a championship game the first week of December. If Michigan played a championship game Saturday, even if their opponent wasn't as good as Arkansas, and they won decisively and the UFgame came out like it did, would the voters have moved Michigan down? I would hope not, and I think not.

It's up to the conferences, or the BCS powers that be to pressure the conferences, to have championship games. Then you get a last look at each contender at the same time, against fairly good-to-great competition. The urge to move one winning team over another would be lessened, even if those teams' opponents were not quite the same caliber. As it was, on Sunday morning there was only an argument to be made FOR UF, and nothing FOR Michigan, and that seems to be the difference.

[Arles]

dola, how about just a 4-team playoff?

Ohio State - LSU
Florida - Michigan

Wow, those would be some great games.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

In a way, I'd almost rather the ranking be 100% computer-generated. I think it would sit better with me.

I think what should happen, since a playoff likely will not, is that each BCS conference should be required to play a championship game the first week of December. If Michigan played a championship game Saturday, even if their opponent wasn't as good as Arkansas, and they won decisively and the UFgame came out like it did, would the voters have moved Michigan down? I would hope not, and I think not.

It's up to the conferences, or the BCS powers that be to pressure the conferences, to have championship games. Then you get a last look at each contender at the same time, against fairly good-to-great competition. The urge to move one winning team over another would be lessened, even if those teams' opponents were not quite the same caliber. As it was, on Sunday morning there was only an argument to be made FOR UF, and nothing FOR Michigan, and that seems to be the difference.

You seem to be utterly ignoring the fact part of the reason they were ahead of UF and USC to begin with is that they played and won when the other teams werent playing...your argument of why michigan got shafted doesnt account for the opposite. Michigan got that high above the other teams by playing when USC and UF didnt. While i certainly understand if you think they are the number 2 team in the country, but i dont understand why people think they were soo screwed.

[KWhit]

Ksyrup,

I think what you're seeing this year is a bit of an abaration. Generally, teams have more to lose by playing in a Conference Championship game than they have to gain.

The thing that was different this year was the rematch factor. Most voters don't want to see a rematch. UM had their chance against OSU - Florida hasn't. When USC fell, voters looked at 2 teams with very similar resumes when looking at the total picture and decided that Florida should have a shot.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If you're a BCS anarchist, like myself, then the best scenario for you is an Ohio State HUGE win over Florida, and a Michigan blowout of USC. I don't get how Florida winning and splitting the national title would be an argument against the BCS. It would definitely create talk that they got the matchup right after all.

I wanted a OSU-UM rematch, if only to show that Ohio State would win by 21 on a neutral field. But anything that causes pain to Wolverine fans is OK by me.

Also, for those snickering about Ohio State's "gift" title in 2002, I'd be more than happy to show you a replay (if I had one) of Chris Gamble's late 4th quarter 3rd and 6-ish catch for a first down that was ruled out of bounds... which had it been ruled a catch would've allowed Ohio State to run out the clock. Had there even been replay then, it would've been overturned without question. He caught the ball, got a knee down and rolled out of bounds.

That said, Florida does remind me in many respects of the Ohio State 2002 title team... always under pressure, never looking impressive, but with a solid defense, a solid offense, and a will to win. It should be a good game.

What do you mean, splitting the national title?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

That said, Florida does remind me in many respects of the Ohio State 2002 title team... always under pressure, never looking impressive, but with a solid defense, a solid offense, and a will to win. It should be a good game.

Blowouts aside, the game will likely be decided in the 3rd quarter. UF has consistently been very bad in the 3rd quarter. Had it not been for the muffed punt/TD Arkansas gave them that completely turned the game around, we might not be having this whole UF or UM discussion. And against FSU, FSU came from 55 yards of total offense in the 1st half to tie UF, despite throwing 3 INTs in the 3rd quarter alone!

Having said that, one big plus for UF's offense is that they seem to turn it on when it matters the most. Right after FSU scored to tie the game, they drove right down the field and put up the winning TD. And against Arkansas, they again rose to the challenge and scored when Arkansas threatened to come back. I think it will be a matter of whether the hole the create for themselves in the 3rd quarter will be too bif to overcome, or whether they are in control when it happens and can maintain the lead thereafter. Because from what I've seen, it'll only be a matter of when, not if, they suddenly look like a non-bowl team for 10 minutes of game time or so.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's up to the conferences, or the BCS powers that be to pressure the conferences, to have championship games.

The Big Ten did have a de facto championship game this year... Ohio State won it. But if Notre Dame would just cave in and join the Big Ten, then the Big Ten could get in on it too.

I have to think this is a main reason why the Big Ten will expand sometime in the next few years. That extra championship game is just too lucrative to pass up. TV rights, ticket sales, potential extra BCS teams... you can't just leave all that on the table. At least it'll give something for the Big Ten Network to talk about for a while.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Ksyrup,

I think what you're seeing this year is a bit of an abaration. Generally, teams have more to lose by playing in a Conference Championship game than they have to gain.

The thing that was different this year was the rematch factor. Most voters don't want to see a rematch. UM had their chance against OSU - Florida hasn't. When USC fell, voters looked at 2 teams with very similar resumes when looking at the total picture and decided that Florida should have a shot.

Which makes no sense to me, since - again - the voters decided right after the OSU game that Michigan was still #2. If you don't want a rematch, then you have to decide that the loss dropped them out of contention unless everyone else you were considering lost and they should get it only by default. The fact that most teams usually don't gain anything from winning makes this an even worse decision, IMO.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Blowouts aside, the game will likely be decided in the 3rd quarter. UF has consistently been very bad in the 3rd quarter. Had it not been for the muffed punt/TD Arkansas gave them that completely turned the game around, we might not be having this whole UF or UM discussion. And against FSU, FSU came from 55 yards of total offense in the 1st half to tie UF, despite throwing 3 INTs in the 3rd quarter alone!

Did you, who favores Michigan in this debate, even watch the Wolverines after the Notre Dame game back on Sept. 16? Or did they conveniently forget how they struggled with 6-6 Iowa, 4-8 Northwestern and 5-7 Ball frickin’ State in successive weeks? Yet somehow michigan almost beat OSU. To assume florida doesnt stand a chance is just stupid. But ill be fair and view both sides

Case for Michigan
1. Michigan is generally acknowledged by almost everyone as the nation's second best team. Even when USC was ranked number two, that was more of a function of the voters preventing a rematch than it was a confirmation of the Trojans.
2. The first game in Columbus didn't settle the issue in the minds of many. If you're a believer that home field advantage means three points, then Michigan and Ohio State are dead even. Now, many want to see what would happen on a neutral field.
3. Going into this last weekend, Michigan played the nation's third toughest schedule behind Cincinnati and one other team which will go nameless for a moment.
4. It's not like Florida showed great pizzazz getting to 12-1. There's a reason no one's been pushing the Gators for the national title; it has been a bit zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (Percy Harvin excluded). While style points shouldn't matter, Florida got sacked by Auburn in a 27-17 loss; the offense was shut down in the second half (but the defense was impressive). Michigan's one loss, of course, was as forgivable as it gets.
5. The offense should be every bit as good in a rematch with Ohio Stat, if not better. Mario Manningham was just getting back in the swing of things. One of the nation's best receivers, Michigan's offense is far more potent when he's 100% and rolling. Those 39 points and close to 400 yards of total offense weren't a fluke.

Case for Florida
1. Schedule, schedule, schedule. Going into the final weekend of the season, the Gators played the nation's toughest schedule, and it wasn't even close. The cumulative opposition winning percentage was 0.643. Number two Cincinnati was 0.622. That might not seem like much, but it is.
2. The SEC deserves a break. Auburn got hosed in 2003 when USC and Oklahoma squared off for the national title. If you believe the SEC is the nation's toughest conference, then its champion should go in.
3. Michigan didn't win it's own conference title. If you're the number two in your league, how is it possible, theoretically or practically, that you should be named the best team in the country?
4. Michigan beat an overrated Notre Dame team that had one win over a team with a pulse (Georgia Tech) and got by Wisconsin before the Badger offense, primarily the receivers, began to jell. Ohio State and Michigan basically fattened up their records against a horrible Big Ten while Florida ended up beating nine bowl teams and lost to one.
5. The defense is the real deal. The secondary might be a bit suspect, but the front seven, despite injuries, is rock-solid. Throw in a veteran quarterback like Chris Leak, and a head coach in Urban Meyer who doesn't lose when he gets more than two weeks to prepare, and you have a team more than good enough to not just challenge the Buckeyes, but beat them. Michigan had its chance, and lost.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

What do you mean, splitting the national title?

There was talk earlier in the thread about how a split national title would be a BCS-implosion type event. Not that I think it would happen, but it could.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

But ill be fair and copy this analysis from foxsports.com

Fix'd.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Ksyrup,

I think what you're seeing this year is a bit of an abaration. Generally, teams have more to lose by playing in a Conference Championship game than they have to gain.

Not to mention the fact that UM would have played OSU if there was a championship game, so then what would you do if UM wins? UM vs. OSU? I mean, a Big Ten championship game would not have helped anything unless OSU won, again.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Which makes no sense to me, since - again - the voters decided right after the OSU game that Michigan was still #2. If you don't want a rematch, then you have to decide that the loss dropped them out of contention unless everyone else you were considering lost and they should get it only by default. The fact that most teams usually don't gain anything from winning makes this an even worse decision, IMO.

UF was not SEC Champion when UM was #2. They had a similar resume to Arkansas at that point.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Fix'd.

actually its collegefootballnews.com, who foxsports bought a few years back. I dont claim to write it, i dont have that much respect for michigan in this debate.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

There was talk earlier in the thread about how a split national title would be a BCS-implosion type event. Not that I think it would happen, but it could.

Yeah, I read back and saw a little bit of that. Man, college football is screwy.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

The Big Ten did have a de facto championship game this year... Ohio State won it. But if Notre Dame would just cave in and join the Big Ten, then the Big Ten could get in on it too.

I have to think this is a main reason why the Big Ten will expand sometime in the next few years. That extra championship game is just too lucrative to pass up. TV rights, ticket sales, potential extra BCS teams... you can't just leave all that on the table. At least it'll give something for the Big Ten Network to talk about for a while.

Except that it wasn't. It was played too early and was one of their regular-season games. I'm not necessarily arguing for Michigan here, but in the abstract. What if we flip the UM/Wisconsin score and UW and OSU remain undefeated this year but don't play? Then you penalize the other conferences who do play conference championships and UF gets screwed. In this hypothetical situation, UW would likely have been ranked #2 and no margin of victory by UF over even a 1-loss Arkansas would have been enough to elevate them past UW (one would hope, at least given my beliefs on how voting should be handled).

Either way, the system doesn't work, but the bottom line is, it works far worse without conference championship games. We'll never have uniformity of schedules or conference strength, but we at least have the power to force all conferences to play a championship game.

[Butter]

More devil's advocate:

Let's say the BCS went to a plus-one type format.... we retain the current bowl matchups, then have a one-game playoff afterwards. If Ohio State loses, Michigan squeaks out a win, and Boise State blows out Oklahoma, who are the 2 plus-one teams?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by wade moore

UF was not SEC Champion when UM was #2. They had a similar resume to Arkansas at that point.

Without all conferences playing a championship game, one team having the conference championship and another not is close to irrelevant to me. And it isn't a prerequisite for being in the BCS Bowl.

And also, UF and Arkansas did not have the same resume. Arkansas had 2 losses.

[bronconick]

Just a minor point.

Michigan was #3 in both polls behind USC after their loss to Ohio State. The computer numbers still had them sufficiently ahead of USC that they remained #2 in the BCS. USC beating and adding Notre Dame to their resume is what propelled them past Michigan in the computers, and thus, the BCS.

[st.cronin]

There is a common sense rule that if the BCS enacted none of you would protest, and if it were in play which would make this whole thread moot.

YOU MUST WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO PLAY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Michigan finished second in the Big 10. Florida, Wake Forest, Louisville, Oklahoma, and Boise State all won their conferences. The contender should be chosen from that list, and of those teams really only Louisville has a comparable resume to Florida.

[Passacaglia]

Man, this whole thing is such a waste. Before all this BCS crap, you just played to win your conference. Ohio State won the Big 10. Florida won the SEC. Just end it there and be done with it! Then everyone except Notre Dame fans are happy.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If Michigan played a championship game Saturday, even if their opponent wasn't as good as Arkansas, and they won decisively and the UFgame came out like it did, would the voters have moved Michigan down? I would hope not, and I think not.

What this argument seems to be lacking is if Michigan couldn't play a championship game against an opponent as good as Arkansas this weekend. Either they're in different divisions then OSU (and would have to play OSU for the title, which would be an entirely different question because there's your rematch), or they're in the same division as OSU in which case they wouldn't be in the conference championship game because, well, they didn't win their conference.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Without all conferences playing a championship game, one team having the conference championship and another not is close to irrelevant to me. And it isn't a prerequisite for being in the BCS Bowl.

And also, UF and Arkansas did not have the same resume. Arkansas had 2 losses.

I was thinking Arkansas had the 2nd lost the weekend after the UM/OSU game, if I'm wrong, my apologies.

But, even without the conference championship game, UM didn't even win their regular season title. If we were talking about a scenario where USC was undefeated and a 1 loss OSU/UM who won the Big-10 regular season title vs. UF who won the SEC Title game I'd seen an argument.

But UM didn't win their regular season title. So, they won no title in any way shape or form.

[Butter]

Would Michigan and Ohio State be in the same division of a 2-division, 12 team Big Ten? I would think they'd have to be to keep up the rivalry. But that would be difficult in what has been such a top heavy conference of late.

[SelzShoes]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There is a common sense rule that if the BCS enacted none of you would protest, and if it were in play which would make this whole thread moot.

YOU MUST WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO PLAY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Michigan finished second in the Big 10. Florida, Wake Forest, Louisville, Oklahoma, and Boise State all won their conferences. The contender should be chosen from that list, and of those teams really only Louisville has a comparable resume to Florida.

I might be, and probably am, wrong about this (I just started paying attention to college football this season) but wasn't there a big stink a few years ago because a team--I want to say Nebraska--that made the BCS Title game despite not winning their conference? If winning the conference was so important to the pundits that season, why is there so much Michigan love this season?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Would Michigan and Ohio State be in the same division of a 2-division, 12 team Big Ten? I would think they'd have to be to keep up the rivalry. But that would be difficult in what has been such a top heavy conference of late.

Just based on geography they should be, but I don't think they have to be. They can still play a regular season game and not be in the same division.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There is a common sense rule that if the BCS enacted none of you would protest, and if it were in play which would make this whole thread moot.

YOU MUST WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO PLAY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Michigan finished second in the Big 10. Florida, Wake Forest, Louisville, Oklahoma, and Boise State all won their conferences. The contender should be chosen from that list, and of those teams really only Louisville has a comparable resume to Florida.

You mean to tell me that conference winners Wake and Boise State are more deserving of playing in the national championship than a team that is far superior to them but finished 2nd in their conference? What if teams split their conference? Enacting such a written rule (apparently it is an unwritten one) would make the BCS even more of a waste than it already is. I would think it should be the two best teams in the country at the end of the season who should play for the championship. If you can argue that Florida would beat Michigan or has a superior team to Michigan, fine. But the fact that Michigan a) did not win their conference and b) lost to OSU should have no bearing on whether or not they are the 2nd best team in the nation.

This is what makes college basketball far superior - it ends up with the team that is the best team at the end of the season as the champions. You are rewarded for winning your conference or having a tough schedule by getting a potentially easier road to the championship. Everyone plays every team in their conference at least once (in all but the Big East) and all but the Ivy League have a conference tournament and most importantly the games are played out and the champions are decided by the kids - not by pollsters with agendas. Yes, inevitably some teams get "screwed" but they're the 66th or so best team in the country - not arguably one of the top two.

Seriously, how can you have two teams both be the "national champion"?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SelzShoes

I might be, and probably am, wrong about this (I just started paying attention to college football this season) but wasn't there a big stink a few years ago because a team--I want to say Nebraska--that made the BCS Title game despite not winning their conference? If winning the conference was so important to the pundits that season, why is there so much Michigan love this season?

I think two or three years Oklahoma lost their championship game (to Kansas State, maybe) and still played in the BCS title. Really, people like to just piss and moan. I'm pretty sure that there's just as much bitching about the NCAA basketball tournament selections. If the BCS had a rule that you had to be a conference champion, then this thread would be asking why not Louisville, or Boise State, or Notre Dame, instead of Michigan.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

You mean to tell me that conference winners Wake and Boise State are more deserving of playing in the national championship than a team that is far superior to them but finished 2nd in their conference?

Absolutely. Michigan has proven they are not equal to Ohio State - the other conference champions have not.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think two or three years Oklahoma lost their championship game (to Kansas State, maybe) and still played in the BCS title. Really, people like to just piss and moan. I'm pretty sure that there's just as much bitching about the NCAA basketball tournament selections. If the BCS had a rule that you had to be a conference champion, then this thread would be asking why not Louisville, or Boise State, or Notre Dame, instead of Michigan.

As I said above, being a conference champ is pretty much irrelevant to me, but I'd almost favor the rule now if it helped sort through the mess.

The March Madness tournament selections aren't as big a deal because (a) for the teams that clearly deserve to be there, you're just arguing over seeding, not whether they get the chance to compete; and (b) you can argue over not being a top 65 team, but that argument isn't quite as powerful as arguing you are a top 2 football team. Once there are 40-60 teams ahead of you no question, your argument gets a little weak.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

More devil's advocate:

Let's say the BCS went to a plus-one type format.... we retain the current bowl matchups, then have a one-game playoff afterwards. If Ohio State loses, Michigan squeaks out a win, and Boise State blows out Oklahoma, who are the 2 plus-one teams?

If this is the best playoff system we could ever get to, then I think what you would have to do is match up the top 4 teams against each other (1 v. 4, 2 v. 3) and stipulate beforehand that the winners of those games play each other in the final bowl game. Let everyone argue who should be in the top 4, but once it is decided, there can be no team other than 2 of those 4 that make it to the BCS Bowl, regardless of how those games or the remaining BCS games play out.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by SelzShoes

I might be, and probably am, wrong about this (I just started paying attention to college football this season) but wasn't there a big stink a few years ago because a team--I want to say Nebraska--that made the BCS Title game despite not winning their conference? If winning the conference was so important to the pundits that season, why is there so much Michigan love this season?

I believe that was 2001. It was probably a bigger issue then because the conference champ, Colorado, was the team that got the shaft at #3. At least in this case, the conference champion is #1, so you can see why the #2 team might not win their conference.

[st.cronin]

I must be the only person in the world who likes the BCS system and is looking forward to some very intriguing bowl matchups.