College football 2009

[Eja117]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

I think you meant the WAC...and if they played in that conference, they obviously wouldn't have the same players because they would be in a Non-BCS conference, so its really a pointless argument to even get into. 

Yes, the WAC.  You missed my point, though.  If the argument is "Georgia or Tennessee or Mississippi isn't that good", you need to judge that team in relative terms.  If you dropped that exact same team into TCU's or Boise State's conference, nobody in this thread would be talking about what a "weak" team they are, because they'd look dominant. 

No matter what anybody says, Florida and Alabama have played a tougher schedule than the non-BCS teams, just by virtue of coming out of a very good conference.  I don't care if they each have a couple of non-conference cream puffs on their schedule; those non-conference weaklings are the competition that TCU and Boise play every weak.

Kudos to TCU and Boise for winning the games on their schedule, and for each beating potential BCS conference champions.  It's impressive.  I hope they both play in a BCS bowl, and in all likelihood, I'll be rooting for them.  However, I don't think either team is better than Florida, Alabama, or Texas, and in general, I think that any team that makes it out of those two conferences undefeated should play for the national championship.

I think we would be talking about what weak teams they are. They'd lose to Boise St. They'd lose to Oregon if they scheduled them. And they'd probably lose to someone else. I guess that's not weak, but it's not dominant or anything either.

Also these teams haven't beaten teams like Bama and Oklahoma on the biggest stages the way the non-BCS teams do.

Oregon is a BCS team. And again, Hawaii won Boise's conference and went undefeated and the proceeded to get the tar kicked out of them by Georgia.

Yes. That's true. When Hawaii flew 6000 miles to Georgia's back yard they got killed. Just like when Utah flew across the country to beat the crud out of Bama.

So that's one snot beating for each.

I agree with Roy that schedule is important, but this is the thing. If a non-BCS team like Oregon only schedules one good non-BCS team a year but always beats them for about 10 years in a row, don't we have to come to the conclusion that they are basically just as good as a BCS team?

To put it differently in a more extreme example, if every single year for a bunch of years an Appalachian St/Mich game happened after a while wouldn't we have to come to the conclusion that there isn't much difference between the top D1A teams and D1AA teams?

Let me give some examples from the last two years and I'll stick in the Mountain West.

BYU over Oklahoma on the road this year (in Texas)

TCU over UVA by more than two TDs this year on the road this year

TCU over ACC Atlantic champ Clemson on the road this year

Utah this year over Louisville by more than 2 TDs

Utah last year over Bama by a lot when they crossed the country to do it

Utah last year over Mich at Mich

Utah over Oregon St last year (the same OSU that beat USC at USC and Pitt in the Sun Bowl)

BYU over Washington last year on the road

BYU over UCLA 59-0

TCU last year over Stanford by more than 2 TDs

and for what it's worth TCU over Boise St (who beat Oregon) last year


going against the MTW teams is a bad loss by TCU last year against the Sooners and a bad loss by BYU this year to bowl eligible FSU. Also a BYU loss to Arizona by 10 points last year. Also a Utah loss this year to Oregon by a TD on the road.

So essentially more than the majority of the time when MTW teams play BCS teams, including good ones they win. Sometimes big.  Then they play each other. When an SEC team like Florida beats an SEC team like Bama everyone points to them as major legit. So when a top 10 MTW team beats a top MTW team it should be the same thing, right? Only it's not.

At what point do we recognize that a top MTW team is as good, if not better than a top team from any other conference?

I'm not saying Cincy in a good year with a good record gets into the BCS championship game. I'm saying a top MTW team in a conference with a history of beating good teams in BCS conferences.

If the SEC had a habit of playing MTW teams and beating them routinely we'd say they have shown they're better than the teams in the MTW. So why aren't we saying it's clear the top third of the MTW is better than the top teams of pretty much any major conference, especially in a down year?

How many more times do they have to embarrass excellent teams in excellent conferences? I get the whole concept that David and Goliath can happen randomly by a random stone, but if David goes out and beats up Hector and Muhammed Ali, and his kid sister beats up Achilles and Samson, and then their little brother beats up Stone Cold Steve Austin, and then they beat up the samurai Musashi, and then they beat up Darth Vader and Yoda, at some point aren't they the best fighters in the world and not these other guys?

[Roy Hobbs]

Here's the thing:  nobody is arguing that BSU and TCU aren't excellent football teams.  They are.  However, when you have to differentiate between various undefeated teams, I'd trend toward giving the teams from power conferences extra credit.

I'd agree with your argument if teams with one loss were getting chosen over TCU and BSU.  However, that's not the case.  I'd love to see at least a four team playoff, but with the system we have I think the two correct teams will be playing for a championship.

[Eja117]

Here's the thing:  nobody is arguing that BSU and TCU aren't excellent football teams.  They are.  However, when you have to differentiate between various undefeated teams, I'd trend toward giving the teams from power conferences extra credit.

I'd agree with your argument if teams with one loss were getting chosen over TCU and BSU.  However, that's not the case.  I'd love to see at least a four team playoff, but with the system we have I think the two correct teams will be playing for a championship.

Ah, but it is the case, such as last year. Both teams in the championship game had a loss and I think it'll probably happen this year too.

Yes I am seeing a massive conspiracy involving death threats, and Congress, but probably not the CIA

I agree with your premise Roy that the BSUs and TCUs need to schedule better and to that end I guess the only thing they can try to do is schedule against each other and the MAC and Sun Belt and CUSA champs, but I really don't think it would help.

I totally get when people say "they need to play an SEC type schedule, but what I don't get is if a TCU beat like a ranked Houston it counts less than if Bama just squeaks by an unranked Tennessee with a losing record, as though somehow just the fact they are Tennessee and in the SEC means that in football terms they take dumps of marbles or something.

I think if a team like TCU plays a tough in and out of  conference schedule and a FL plays a weak in and out of conference schedule with one or two ranked wins against two loss LSU and squeaking it out against UT undefeated Bama, then TCU is playing an equally tough, if not tougher schedule.

Hence my conspiracy theories. I've ruled out the Somali pirates as co-conspirators, but not the mafia

[KCattheStripe]

I'd love to see what the record of teams like Tennessee, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., were if they played in the Mountain West or Big Sky conferences.  Somehow, I don't think people would be calling them "weak" if they were going 11-1 or 12-0 every year, due to being able to coast through 85% of their schedule every year.

I think you meant the WAC...and if they played in that conference, they obviously wouldn't have the same players because they would be in a Non-BCS conference, so its really a pointless argument to even get into. 

Yes, the WAC.  You missed my point, though.  If the argument is "Georgia or Tennessee or Mississippi isn't that good", you need to judge that team in relative terms.  If you dropped that exact same team into TCU's or Boise State's conference, nobody in this thread would be talking about what a "weak" team they are, because they'd look dominant. 

No matter what anybody says, Florida and Alabama have played a tougher schedule than the non-BCS teams, just by virtue of coming out of a very good conference.  I don't care if they each have a couple of non-conference cream puffs on their schedule; those non-conference weaklings are the competition that TCU and Boise play every weak.

Kudos to TCU and Boise for winning the games on their schedule, and for each beating potential BCS conference champions.  It's impressive.  I hope they both play in a BCS bowl, and in all likelihood, I'll be rooting for them.  However, I don't think either team is better than Florida, Alabama, or Texas, and in general, I think that any team that makes it out of those two conferences undefeated should play for the national championship.

I think we would be talking about what weak teams they are. They'd lose to Boise St. They'd lose to Oregon if they scheduled them. And they'd probably lose to someone else. I guess that's not weak, but it's not dominant or anything either.

Also these teams haven't beaten teams like Bama and Oklahoma on the biggest stages the way the non-BCS teams do.

Oregon is a BCS team. And again, Hawaii won Boise's conference and went undefeated and the proceeded to get the tar kicked out of them by Georgia.

Yes. That's true. When Hawaii flew 6000 miles to Georgia's back yard they got killed. Just like when Utah flew across the country to beat the crud out of Bama.

So that's one snot beating for each.

I agree with Roy that schedule is important, but this is the thing. If a non-BCS team like Oregon only schedules one good non-BCS team a year but always beats them for about 10 years in a row, don't we have to come to the conclusion that they are basically just as good as a BCS team?

To put it differently in a more extreme example, if every single year for a bunch of years an Appalachian St/Mich game happened after a while wouldn't we have to come to the conclusion that there isn't much difference between the top D1A teams and D1AA teams?

Let me give some examples from the last two years and I'll stick in the Mountain West.

BYU over Oklahoma on the road this year (in Texas)

TCU over UVA by more than two TDs this year on the road this year

TCU over ACC Atlantic champ Clemson on the road this year

Utah this year over Louisville by more than 2 TDs

Utah last year over Bama by a lot when they crossed the country to do it

Utah last year over Mich at Mich

Utah over Oregon St last year (the same OSU that beat USC at USC and Pitt in the Sun Bowl)

BYU over Washington last year on the road

BYU over UCLA 59-0

TCU last year over Stanford by more than 2 TDs

and for what it's worth TCU over Boise St (who beat Oregon) last year


going against the MTW teams is a bad loss by TCU last year against the Sooners and a bad loss by BYU this year to bowl eligible FSU. Also a BYU loss to Arizona by 10 points last year. Also a Utah loss this year to Oregon by a TD on the road.

So essentially more than the majority of the time when MTW teams play BCS teams, including good ones they win. Sometimes big.  Then they play each other. When an SEC team like Florida beats an SEC team like Bama everyone points to them as major legit. So when a top 10 MTW team beats a top MTW team it should be the same thing, right? Only it's not.

At what point do we recognize that a top MTW team is as good, if not better than a top team from any other conference?

I'm not saying Cincy in a good year with a good record gets into the BCS championship game. I'm saying a top MTW team in a conference with a history of beating good teams in BCS conferences.

If the SEC had a habit of playing MTW teams and beating them routinely we'd say they have shown they're better than the teams in the MTW. So why aren't we saying it's clear the top third of the MTW is better than the top teams of pretty much any major conference, especially in a down year?

How many more times do they have to embarrass excellent teams in excellent conferences? I get the whole concept that David and Goliath can happen randomly by a random stone, but if David goes out and beats up Hector and Muhammed Ali, and his kid sister beats up Achilles and Samson, and then their little brother beats up Stone Cold Steve Austin, and then they beat up the samurai Musashi, and then they beat up Darth Vader and Yoda, at some point aren't they the best fighters in the world and not these other guys?

A few things:

1) its not as though these teams just showed up to the bowl the day before, they get there a good week before.

2) Yes, the non BCS teams can gear up for a big game against a BCS team. Where as the BCS teams have to gear up for every team in their league.

3) If you wanna argue that the ACC/ Big East and the Mountain West should switch their bowl eligibility status, I won't object.

4) I don't like the BCS, but if you have it and the defending national champs go undefeated in a power conference that has the #1 and #2 teams in the country, there is no way you can keep them out.

[Roy Hobbs]

I totally get when people say "they need to play an SEC type schedule, but what I don't get is if a TCU beat like a ranked Houston it counts less than if Bama just squeaks by an unranked Tennessee with a losing record, as though somehow just the fact they are Tennessee and in the SEC means that in football terms they take dumps of marbles or something.

I don't think a hypothetical TCU win over Houston counts less than Alabama's win over Tennessee.  However, here are the ranks of teams that Alabama has beaten, at the time of the game: #7 Virginia Tech, #20 Mississippi, #22 South Carolonia, #9 LSU.  If they beat #1 Florida, they certainly deserve to play for the national championship.

Boise St. has beaten exactly one team that was ranked at the time, a two-loss Oregon team in the first weak of the season.  Oregon is a good win, but it shouldn't be enough to elevate a team to a national championship.

TCU has beaten two teams that were ranked at the time, Utah and BYU.  They also beat a decent Clemson team.  These are all quality wins, but are not of the caliber of beating a Florida, Alabama, or LSU.

Texas isn't as strong as the SEC schools, but they've got as many quality wins (over OK State and Oklahoma), and have played a tougher schedule overall.  I'll be rooting for A&M and Nebraska the next two weeks, but I think Texas will cap a strong season.

If TCU, BSU, Cincy, and Texas all have the same number of quality wins, but Texas plays the toughest schedule, why shouldn't they get the nod?

[Atzar]

I'll bite. 

In 2009, this was the breakdown for number of players drafted from each conference:

SEC 36
ACC 33
Pac-10 32
Big 12 29
Big Ten 28
Big East 27

Mountain West 16

Of 256 players picked, 185 (72.3%) came from one of these conferences.

In 2008, the breakdown is as follows:

SEC 35
Pac-10 34
ACC 33
Big 12 29
Big Ten 28
Big East 19

178 of 252 (70.1%) players were taken from a BCS conference.  I couldn't even find the data for the better non-BCS conferences. 

2007 now.

SEC 41
ACC 32
Big Ten 32
Big 12 28
Pac-10 28
WAC 17
Big East 16

A non-BCS conference actually slipped into the top 6 this year.  Still, 177 of 255 - 69.4% - were taken from BCS conferences. 

I think I've made my point - and this is taken from the entire draft.  I feel confident in saying that the percentage would be even greater if you just looked through, say, the top 3 rounds.  Occasionally, good players will come from the other conferences - your Alex Smith and David Carr are examples of this, and the presence of players of that caliber frequently coincides with periods of dominant football from their teams.  They are, however, exceptions rather than the rule.

Yes, in general, scouts know what they are doing - if they didn't, they wouldn't have their jobs.  The Tom Bradys (superstars taken late) are much rarer overall than the Peyton Mannings (superstars taken early).  I'm not even really sure why you pointed this out, since it didn't help your argument - it's not like Brady went to a non-BCS school.

To conclude this unreasonably long post at an unreasonably late hour when I have an unreasonably large amount of homework to do before I go to sleep, the talent level is higher in BCS conferences than in non-BCS conferences.  I'd also assume that there are many more players from BCS colleges in the NFL than players from non-BCS conferences.  That's really all the evidence you need that BCS schools, in general, are superior to non-BCS schools on the football field.  While the occasional Utah '09 or Boise State '07 slips through the cracks, they are analogous to Alex Smith and David Carr in that they are exceptions rather than the rule.

[Eja117]

I'll bite. 

In 2009, this was the breakdown for number of players drafted from each conference:

SEC 36
ACC 33
Pac-10 32
Big 12 29
Big Ten 28
Big East 27

Mountain West 16

Of 256 players picked, 185 (72.3%) came from one of these conferences.

In 2008, the breakdown is as follows:

SEC 35
Pac-10 34
ACC 33
Big 12 29
Big Ten 28
Big East 19

178 of 252 (70.1%) players were taken from a BCS conference.  I couldn't even find the data for the better non-BCS conferences. 

2007 now.

SEC 41
ACC 32
Big Ten 32
Big 12 28
Pac-10 28
WAC 17
Big East 16

A non-BCS conference actually slipped into the top 6 this year.  Still, 177 of 255 - 69.4% - were taken from BCS conferences. 

I think I've made my point - and this is taken from the entire draft.  I feel confident in saying that the percentage would be even greater if you just looked through, say, the top 3 rounds.  Occasionally, good players will come from the other conferences - your Alex Smith and David Carr are examples of this, and the presence of players of that caliber frequently coincides with periods of dominant football from their teams.  They are, however, exceptions rather than the rule.

Yes, in general, scouts know what they are doing - if they didn't, they wouldn't have their jobs.  The Tom Bradys (superstars taken late) are much rarer overall than the Peyton Mannings (superstars taken early).  I'm not even really sure why you pointed this out, since it didn't help your argument - it's not like Brady went to a non-BCS school.

To conclude this unreasonably long post at an unreasonably late hour when I have an unreasonably large amount of homework to do before I go to sleep, the talent level is higher in BCS conferences than in non-BCS conferences.  I'd also assume that there are many more players from BCS colleges in the NFL than players from non-BCS conferences.  That's really all the evidence you need that BCS schools, in general, are superior to non-BCS schools on the football field.  While the occasional Utah '09 or Boise State '07 slips through the cracks, they are analogous to Alex Smith and David Carr in that they are exceptions rather than the rule.

I don't blame anybody for thinking that the talent is higher in the BCS schools.

However a couple things to point out. One is that I am curious as to what the percentage of players actually in the NFL is. There seem to be a lot of undrafted guys that make it and a lot of drafted guys that don't. Look at the Heisman curse for example. So many guys that were supposed to be the best in college that got beat out by Tavaris Jacksons.

Also if the talent level is higher why do they keep getting beat? It would mean maybe the coaching is better in the nonBCS schools. I mean Oregon will probably have more drafted players than Boise St this year and I assume last year too. But BSU beat them two years in a row. i'm not sure I equate draft success with more talent.

Perhaps in the nonBCS conferences the talent is at the top and it's way more spread out in the other leagues. That goes to my point that the top BCS teams are as good as the other schools.

[Eja117]

I totally get when people say "they need to play an SEC type schedule, but what I don't get is if a TCU beat like a ranked Houston it counts less than if Bama just squeaks by an unranked Tennessee with a losing record, as though somehow just the fact they are Tennessee and in the SEC means that in football terms they take dumps of marbles or something.

I don't think a hypothetical TCU win over Houston counts less than Alabama's win over Tennessee.  However, here are the ranks of teams that Alabama has beaten, at the time of the game: #7 Virginia Tech, #20 Mississippi, #22 South Carolonia, #9 LSU.  If they beat #1 Florida, they certainly deserve to play for the national championship.

Boise St. has beaten exactly one team that was ranked at the time, a two-loss Oregon team in the first weak of the season.  Oregon is a good win, but it shouldn't be enough to elevate a team to a national championship.

TCU has beaten two teams that were ranked at the time, Utah and BYU.  They also beat a decent Clemson team.  These are all quality wins, but are not of the caliber of beating a Florida, Alabama, or LSU.

Texas isn't as strong as the SEC schools, but they've got as many quality wins (over OK State and Oklahoma), and have played a tougher schedule overall.  I'll be rooting for A&M and Nebraska the next two weeks, but I think Texas will cap a strong season.

If TCU, BSU, Cincy, and Texas all have the same number of quality wins, but Texas plays the toughest schedule, why shouldn't they get the nod?

This was really good discussions last week.

I agree with you Roy that if Texas and Florida are undefeated they certainly deserve to be in. I'm not sure they deserve it more than TCU.  I think TCU picked a cruddy year to be undefeated. It would have been a lot better last year. I think Utah had a better claim last year than TCU this year.

That said what do you think happens if Texas is upset by Nebraska next week?

Then presumably Bama (sorry racker) and Texas have losses. Does Cincy jump TCU? I doubt it. I don't think the BCS wants that. Boise St is next. They sure don't go. #7 is Georgia Tech and they got beat this week. I think #8 is Oregon. They got beat by BSU. I think the BCS would go with Texas as a make up call for last year. Next choice would be Bama even though that would cause headaches. They didn't send Ohio St and Mich a few years back when OSU was #1 and Mich was #2 and just barely lost at OSU. So I'd think they'd rather not send Bama in that scenario. But I just think there's a list of schools allowed in the championship game and a list of schools not allowed under any scenario.  TCU is on the 2nd list. I think 6 loss Notre Dame is more likely in the championship game this year than BSU or TCU any year. I really want to see Nebraska beat Texas because I want to see how they'd resolve that

[Eja117]

One other thing I don't like about the SEC and therefore the "winner of SEC should automatically be in the big game" theory is that after Bama and Florida, at least in terms of record, there is a huge drop off to 9-3 LSU. In the SEC east it goes from 12-0 UF to 7-5 Tennessee and Georgia. It just makes it seem like Florida and Bama aren't really the winners of a great conference (especially with their close calls). They're really just winners of one tough game against each other. The FL/FSU game used to be tough but it's not now

[nickagneta]

I totally get when people say "they need to play an SEC type schedule, but what I don't get is if a TCU beat like a ranked Houston it counts less than if Bama just squeaks by an unranked Tennessee with a losing record, as though somehow just the fact they are Tennessee and in the SEC means that in football terms they take dumps of marbles or something.

I don't think a hypothetical TCU win over Houston counts less than Alabama's win over Tennessee.  However, here are the ranks of teams that Alabama has beaten, at the time of the game: #7 Virginia Tech, #20 Mississippi, #22 South Carolonia, #9 LSU.  If they beat #1 Florida, they certainly deserve to play for the national championship.

Boise St. has beaten exactly one team that was ranked at the time, a two-loss Oregon team in the first weak of the season.  Oregon is a good win, but it shouldn't be enough to elevate a team to a national championship.

TCU has beaten two teams that were ranked at the time, Utah and BYU.  They also beat a decent Clemson team.  These are all quality wins, but are not of the caliber of beating a Florida, Alabama, or LSU.

Texas isn't as strong as the SEC schools, but they've got as many quality wins (over OK State and Oklahoma), and have played a tougher schedule overall.  I'll be rooting for A&M and Nebraska the next two weeks, but I think Texas will cap a strong season.

If TCU, BSU, Cincy, and Texas all have the same number of quality wins, but Texas plays the toughest schedule, why shouldn't they get the nod?

This was really good discussions last week.

I agree with you Roy that if Texas and Florida are undefeated they certainly deserve to be in. I'm not sure they deserve it more than TCU.  I think TCU picked a cruddy year to be undefeated. It would have been a lot better last year. I think Utah had a better claim last year than TCU this year.

That said what do you think happens if Texas is upset by Nebraska next week?

Then presumably Bama (sorry racker) and Texas have losses. Does Cincy jump TCU? I doubt it. I don't think the BCS wants that. Boise St is next. They sure don't go. #7 is Georgia Tech and they got beat this week. I think #8 is Oregon. They got beat by BSU. I think the BCS would go with Texas as a make up call for last year. Next choice would be Bama even though that would cause headaches. They didn't send Ohio St and Mich a few years back when OSU was #1 and Mich was #2 and just barely lost at OSU. So I'd think they'd rather not send Bama in that scenario. But I just think there's a list of schools allowed in the championship game and a list of schools not allowed under any scenario.  TCU is on the 2nd list. I think 6 loss Notre Dame is more likely in the championship game this year than BSU or TCU any year. I really want to see Nebraska beat Texas because I want to see how they'd resolve that

I think the BCS Championship is going to come down to Florida and TCU. Alabama will lose to Florida in the SEC championship game and Texas will go down to Nebraska in the Big-12 Championship. And, once again, the BCS will have a couple teams that will be undefeated playing for second place even though they have perfect records.

College football needs a playoff system badly. Don't know if anyone caught Dan Patrick's little blurb he does every week in Sports Illustrated(the magazine not the web site) but he had a quick Q&A with a the BCS chairman or president and question him why there couldn't be a playoff and the man just constantly avoided the question before coming up with a ton of bad reasons why. It was pure political answers and it was tough to read without thinking "Just say it's because it's all about the money and too many people are making too much money the way it is to risk changing it."

[Eja117]

I totally get when people say "they need to play an SEC type schedule, but what I don't get is if a TCU beat like a ranked Houston it counts less than if Bama just squeaks by an unranked Tennessee with a losing record, as though somehow just the fact they are Tennessee and in the SEC means that in football terms they take dumps of marbles or something.

I don't think a hypothetical TCU win over Houston counts less than Alabama's win over Tennessee.  However, here are the ranks of teams that Alabama has beaten, at the time of the game: #7 Virginia Tech, #20 Mississippi, #22 South Carolonia, #9 LSU.  If they beat #1 Florida, they certainly deserve to play for the national championship.

Boise St. has beaten exactly one team that was ranked at the time, a two-loss Oregon team in the first weak of the season.  Oregon is a good win, but it shouldn't be enough to elevate a team to a national championship.

TCU has beaten two teams that were ranked at the time, Utah and BYU.  They also beat a decent Clemson team.  These are all quality wins, but are not of the caliber of beating a Florida, Alabama, or LSU.

Texas isn't as strong as the SEC schools, but they've got as many quality wins (over OK State and Oklahoma), and have played a tougher schedule overall.  I'll be rooting for A&M and Nebraska the next two weeks, but I think Texas will cap a strong season.

If TCU, BSU, Cincy, and Texas all have the same number of quality wins, but Texas plays the toughest schedule, why shouldn't they get the nod?

This was really good discussions last week.

I agree with you Roy that if Texas and Florida are undefeated they certainly deserve to be in. I'm not sure they deserve it more than TCU.  I think TCU picked a cruddy year to be undefeated. It would have been a lot better last year. I think Utah had a better claim last year than TCU this year.

That said what do you think happens if Texas is upset by Nebraska next week?

Then presumably Bama (sorry racker) and Texas have losses. Does Cincy jump TCU? I doubt it. I don't think the BCS wants that. Boise St is next. They sure don't go. #7 is Georgia Tech and they got beat this week. I think #8 is Oregon. They got beat by BSU. I think the BCS would go with Texas as a make up call for last year. Next choice would be Bama even though that would cause headaches. They didn't send Ohio St and Mich a few years back when OSU was #1 and Mich was #2 and just barely lost at OSU. So I'd think they'd rather not send Bama in that scenario. But I just think there's a list of schools allowed in the championship game and a list of schools not allowed under any scenario.  TCU is on the 2nd list. I think 6 loss Notre Dame is more likely in the championship game this year than BSU or TCU any year. I really want to see Nebraska beat Texas because I want to see how they'd resolve that

I think the BCS Championship is going to come down to Florida and TCU. Alabama will lose to Florida in the SEC championship game and Texas will go down to Nebraska in the Big-12 Championship. And, once again, the BCS will have a couple teams that will be undefeated playing for second place even though they have perfect records.

College football needs a playoff system badly. Don't know if anyone caught Dan Patrick's little blurb he does every week in Sports Illustrated(the magazine not the web site) but he had a quick Q&A with a the BCS chairman or president and question him why there couldn't be a playoff and the man just constantly avoided the question before coming up with a ton of bad reasons why. It was pure political answers and it was tough to read without thinking "Just say it's because it's all about the money and too many people are making too much money the way it is to risk changing it."

See that would be an answer I could almost respect. Almost. I guess it would open him up to various lawsuits the next day though.

What will be interesting to me is to see if two undefeated teams will play in a BCS bowl game. I don't think we'll see a Cincy/BSU matchup even thought it might be great. I wonder if the BCS would want to reduce the number of teams that are undefeated at the end of the season. But then you get an undefeated team that beat another undefeated team. I totally think the BCS wants BSU and TCU to lose badly. I think they may give them the toughest matchup possible but it may result in them winning like they have in the past adding fuel to the fire.

I admit money may be causing the problem and may solve it somewhat. There might be more money to be made by a Florida/TCU game than a Florida/one loss team game

[hardlyyardley]

let TCU and BS play eachother....would be a great game.....60-57

if not let one play the Fla/Ala loser and the other Cinci

[Eja117]

let TCU and BS play eachother....would be a great game.....60-57

if not let one play the Fla/Ala loser and the other Cinci

It would be awesome if the BSU/TCU game had a bigger audience than the championship game

I was going to say a couple weeks ago that I'm not sure BSU will  be in a BCS game because of TCU. But so many teams have lost now they're in.  There are 4 BCS games and the championship game. That's 10 spots. Hard to keep them out now

[Eja117]

So who are in the BCS games now

Florida vs Texas

TCU vs Bama

BSU vs Cincy

Oregon vs Clemson

Ohio St vs Nebraska, Georgia Tech, PSU, Oregon St, Iowa, Houston, I don't know?

[nickagneta]

Okay let's say that what I said is correct and Nebraska beats Texas and Florida beats Alabama. Texas losing sets up a wave of controversy for the BCS. That probably sets up the BCS bowls as being this:

Citi National Championship Bowl: Florida versus _______
 
Orange Bowl: ACC Winner versus _________

Rose Bowl: Oregon versus Ohio State

Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska versus _________

Sugar Bowl: __________ versus _________


Now you have to play fill in the blanks. With teams getting in being Cincinnati, Alabama, TCU, Texas and Boise State.

Who gets the National Championship game? Boise State, Cincy or TCU? One will. The Sugar bowl will probably want to keep tradition and invite an SEC team which would mean Alabama. That, as far as I am concerned means the two other undefeated teams not chosen by the National Championship game probably won't play each other. To me I see it this way:


Citi National Championship Bowl: Florida versus TCU
 
Orange Bowl: ACC Winner versus Cincy

Rose Bowl: Oregon versus Ohio State

Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska versus Boise State

Sugar Bowl: Alabama versus Texas