Congrats Big 12 on making the BCS look bad

[jbooma]

The Big 12 has now told all of their teams it doesn't matter who you beat, just make sure the computers like you better then the teams that beat you :doh: The Big 12 looks completely stupid right now by having Ok go to the title game in the other conferences with two divisions there rules would have put Texas in the title game.

Even though I am not a fan of the BCS you can do an 8 team playoff with the top 8 teams of the BCS rankings. Maybe this year will prove once and for all to have a good playoff for college football you don't need a member from each big conference.

Time to get rid of the conference title games and just go with the final top 8 of the BCS. Right now you would have playing:

Alabama vs Penn St
OK vs Texas Tech
Texas vs Utah
Florida vs USC

That my friends is the way it needs to be :)

[SC_RedskinsFan]

You need to drop one and put in an unbeated Boise State. Texas Tech would get the ax i think.

The BCS and chaos fo hand in hand.

[jbooma]

You need to drop one and put in an unbeated Boise State. Texas Tech would get the ax i think.

The BCS and chaos fo hand in hand.

excellent point, this playoff will not allow more then 2 teams from any conference :) or one that loses by 100 points in a big game lolol

[StillUnknown]

i was reading something on yahoo that said it was possible (not likely, but possible) for Florida to beat Alabama and still not make the National Title game meaning the National Title would be a rematch of OU/Texas.

i'm rooting for the scenario that causes the most controversy possible

[jbooma]

i was reading something on yahoo that said it was possible (not likely, but possible) for Florida to beat Alabama and still not make the National Title game meaning the National Title would be a rematch of OU/Texas.

i'm rooting for the scenario that causes the most controversy possible

the sad thing is even if texas makes the title game which is possible if OK and Florida both lose, then the team playing in the title game would not have won their own conference, the bcs just killed the thought about every game in the season is a playoff :(

[Park City Skins]

The BCS doesn't need any help in looking bad. Kind of fun to watch though.

[SC_RedskinsFan]

i'm rooting for the scenario that causes the most controversy possible

I think most people are pulling for this. I know i am, a playoff system is the way to go. Maybe one day the NCAA will wake up and smell the roses.

[Larry]

Why does this discussion remind me of the debate about the 2000 election?

-----

As to the idea of having playoffs: I'm in favor. Of a four team playoff.

But not because I'm filled with moral outrage that the world does not agree with me that the game between OU and Texas clearly and unalterably established the supremacy of one team over the other, but that the game between Texas and Tech isn't important.

I want a playoff because I can look at a calendar.

Folks, next weekend there's going to be a lot of conference championship games played. (And a lot of other really big games.)

And then, the college football season will take the rest of December off. And nothing much will happen until New Years Day.

Folks, there's money to be made, here. (And I want to be entertained.) Lots of slots for really big TV contracts that are just going to sit idle.

Seriously, folks. Play the conference Championship games on Dec 6th. Then take two weeks off for rest, recovery, and hype. And play two games on the 20th. The winners get two more weeks to get ready to face each other.

And us yahoos out here on the receiving end of the video tube won't have to wait a month between games.

Seriously, who came up with this idea of having such a long break without anything new? Battlestar Galactica?!?!?!

[jbooma]

Folks, next weekend there's going to be a lot of conference championship games played. (And a lot of other really big games.)



i know i wasn't a math major at MIT but when does a lot = 3???? :silly:

[Larry]

i know i wasn't a math major at MIT but when does a lot = 3???? :silly:

Frankly, I'll likely only watch one, if any. I was being generous.

[Heidenreich]

I'm so sick of the complaining about this.

WAH, WAH, WAH, Texas beat Oklahoma they should be in, not Oklahoma.

What happened if Texas won this tiebreaker? Couldn't Texas Tech make the same claim? Or does that not matter because they're ranked #7? Just like in the NFL, head to head is MEANINGLESS in a three team tiebreaker unless you beat both teams. Everybody knew that going in, yet they're going to whine about it now.

It's a three team tiebreaker, and the BCS Standings is the FIFTH scenario.

1)- record (All have one loss)
2)- Division record (All have one loss)
3)- Record vs other teams in division (All have zero losses)
4)- All common opponents (All have zero losses)
5)- BCS Standing

If the BCS Standings were tied, scenario #6 was overall winning percentage, which all three were tied.

That would leave it to scenario #7.

7)- A draw.

Yep, they'd pull a team out of a hat. So it definitely could have been worse.....

[jbooma]

If the BCS Standings were tied, scenario #6 was overall winning percentage, which all three were tied.

That would leave it to scenario #7.

7)- A draw.

Yep, they'd pull a team out of a hat. So it definitely could have been worse.....


i like that option the best :silly:

the sad thing is in the other leagues Texas would be playing, it is just the Big 12 that could not think of this possiblity :doh:

[Toe Jam]

It's funny that we have this same discussion every year yet we don't realize it's falling on deaf ears.

Money talks louder than you.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Just make January the best football month ever.

64 team playoff. No practices and you play the next opponent in three days after the previous one. But not on Sundays because that's NFL playoff time.

[jbooma]

Just make January the best football month ever.

64 team playoff. No practices and you play the next opponent in three days after the previous one. But not on Sundays because that's NFL playoff time.


and then you ruin the talent pipeline of players trying to get into the nfl :silly:

[Mephisto]

yep TX deserves the higher spot - but it's good that they got shafted. Any controversy is bad for this clearly awful system.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I'll poke fun at my own school to demonstrate how terrible the BCS is.

If VT had scheduled say JMU instead of LSU last year, we would have been in the national championship.

I love my Hokies and all but...

The BCS sucks, period.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Seriously though, I like the 8 team playoff. But then what about the 9th place team? The strength of schedule talk will be a mess to decide who really is 8/9.

[jbooma]

Seriously though, I like the 8 team playoff. But then what about the 9th place team? The strength of schedule talk will be a mess to decide who really is 8/9.

i would be thrilled to even get to the point of having that discussion :)

if you look at the past years when you get to #8 you are pretty much out of the 1 and 0 loss teams, so honestly any team that has 2 or more losses then they can't complain :)

[rebornempowered]

I'm so sick of the complaining about this.

WAH, WAH, WAH, Texas beat Oklahoma they should be in, not Oklahoma.

What happened if Texas won this tiebreaker? Couldn't Texas Tech make the same claim? Or does that not matter because they're ranked #7? Just like in the NFL, head to head is MEANINGLESS in a three team tiebreaker unless you beat both teams. Everybody knew that going in, yet they're going to whine about it now.

It's a three team tiebreaker, and the BCS Standings is the FIFTH scenario.

1)- record (All have one loss)
2)- Division record (All have one loss)
3)- Record vs other teams in division (All have zero losses)
4)- All common opponents (All have zero losses)
5)- BCS Standing

If the BCS Standings were tied, scenario #6 was overall winning percentage, which all three were tied.

That would leave it to scenario #7.

7)- A draw.

Yep, they'd pull a team out of a hat. So it definitely could have been worse.....

Wow, somebody who gets this. If Texas was chosen Texas Tech would be the ones to complain.

How exactly would those complaining break this THREE WAY tie in a fair way?

[DCSaints_fan]

The Big 12 rules make the most sense in terms of the Big 12 fielding a potential national title contender. This year, ir probably wouldn't matter because Oklahoma and Texas are 2/3. But let's say that instead Oklahoma was #3, USC was #4, and Texas was say, #5, with Alabama/Florida as #1/#2, who will play each other in the SEC title game. If you send Texas to the Big 12 title game in lieu of Oklahoma, you have to hope that they could leapfrog USC when one of Florida/Alabama gets knocked out, otherwise there is the chance that USC could overtake Oklahoma, and go to the title game in lieu of both Texas and Oklahoma.

[jbooma]

Wow, somebody who gets this. If Texas was chosen Texas Tech would be the ones to complain.

How exactly would those complaining break this THREE WAY tie in a fair way?


the way the other conferences handle it, throw out the lowest seeded team in the BCS and then go to the head-to-head for the remaining :)

it is not rocket science, then again we are talking about teams in the midwest so that might explain everything......................... :silly::dallasuck

[JMac]

I see no problem with it this year. :D



Boomer Soooner!!!

[Kilmer17]

Arent there 4 undefeated teams right now?

Bama, Boise St, Ball St, and Utah.

All 3 should have the ability to win games to become Natl Champ.

It's suprisingly simple.

16 teams start Xmas week in 8 playoff games at minor bowl sites. Other bowls are free to choose other teams to play if they are not part of the playoff.

8 winning teams play new years eve/day/weekend in the current BCS bowls.

4 teams play the next weekend at new sites that change every year.

Then the winners play the Natl title game the weekend before the superbowl at a new site that changes.

It really is simple.

Im hoping FLA beats AL, and MISS beats OK but the computers then put Texas and USC in the Title game.

2 teams playing for the Natl title that couldnt win their own Conference would be awesome.

[The Evil Genius]

The BCS rankings were not invented so conferences could use them to put their top ranked teams into their conference championships.

[daveakl]

The BCS rankings were not invented so conferences could use them to put their top ranked teams into their conference championships.

DING DING DING

The BCS has nothing to do with any mess as of today. The point if the BCS is to take the top 2 ranked teams at THE END OF THE SEASON and match them in a title game.

The fact that the Big 12 used the BCS rankings as their tie breaker is just the same as them using the AP poll or the Harris poll. Nothing more, nothing less.

However the Big 12 decided their championship game we were going to end up with the winner of the SEC against the winner of the Big 12 (provided it comes from the South).

The only way the BCS fails this year is if the Big 12 South loses in the championship game and Florida beats Alabama. Then you have USC, Penn St., Alabama, Texas (who didnt get to play in the title game), and even Utah in the mix for the shot to play Florida.

[Kilmer17]

Why Florida over the others?

[Ford]

The BCS rankings were not invented so conferences could use them to put their top ranked teams into their conference championships.

True, but what is the solution? It was the fifth tie-breaker, a number of other tests were run before coming down to the BCS. If it is some sort of margin of victory measure, OU would have advanced as well (even if the MOV measure was capped at 21 so as to not encourage poor sportsmanship, as has been suggested by some .. namely Kirk Bohls of the Austin-American Statesman).

My feeling is that conference championship games are stupid in the first place. They are motivated by money and little else. They can really only serve to hurt the conference in a national championship picture. Had the Big XII been set up like the Big East, Pac 10, or Big 10, there would have been no conference championship controversy and OU would have still been ahead in the BCS and on its way to Miami.

[Thiebear]

NO team should be playing for the National Championship that didn't even win their own division...

[The Evil Genius]

True, but what is the solution? It was the fifth tie-breaker, a number of other tests were run before coming down to the BCS. If it is some sort of margin of victory measure, OU would have advanced as well (even if the MOV measure was capped at 21 so as to not encourage poor sportsmanship, as has been suggested by some .. namely Kirk Bohls of the Austin-American Statesman).

My feeling is that conference championship games are stupid in the first place. They are motivated by money and little else. They can really only serve to hurt the conference in a national championship picture. Had the Big XII been set up like the Big East, Pac 10, or Big 10, there would have been no conference championship controversy and OU would have still been ahead in the BCS and on its way to Miami.

If I remember correctly, a poster listed all the other BCS conferences tiebreaker rules and they all would have chosen Texas. Obviously, the other 5 conferences have a way without using the BCS rankings as a determiner.

[China]

All the controversy in the world isn't going to get a playoff system implemented. With the BCS it's all about the money. Oh, and you can blame ESPN too; looks like their deal with the BCS has no incentives to implement any kind of playoff system.

ESPN-BCS Marriage Might End Up Hurting Football
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112501413.html)


"Whether or not we agree on the legitimacy of college football's national championship process," he began, "no longer can we simply point the finger at the university presidents and the six conference commissioners who broker deals as the only culprits in this unique cartel known as the Bowl Championship Series.

CBS sportscaster Tim Brando, the host of his network's college football gameday show and rarely known as being particularly outspoken, put on a Bill O'Reilly-like game face this past Saturday in commenting on the new ESPN deal, and why it bodes badly for a playoff system. To his credit, he pointed the finger not so much at the BCS as he did the networks bidding for the broadcast rights to the games.

"Earlier this week, a new four-year contract worth over half a billion dollars was consummated moving the property from Fox to ESPN. One has to wonder despite a 40 percent increase in rights fees, if during the negotiation, any pressure was brought upon the BCS to improve its product with, at worst, a "plus-one" model. This was the moment that all college football fans looked to as a chance for improvements to be made to enhance the sport for the greater good.

"Despite the criticisms of the BCS...it seems that, in the end, the executives in our (television) business are now just as responsible as the university presidents and the conference commissioners for where we are, and where we'll stay in college football's postseason. All of us in TV should look in the mirror and say we found an additional obstacle, and it is us."

[Ford]

If I remember correctly, a poster listed all the other BCS conferences tiebreaker rules and they all would have chosen Texas. Obviously, the other 5 conferences have a way without using the BCS rankings as a determiner.

I don't recall all of the tie-breaking rules, but the two that Mack Brown mentioned during the OU game (SEC and... maybe ACC?) use the BCS to throw out the bottom ranked team and then use a head to head between the top two. So, you are still using the BCS standings as your first means of elimination.

[The Evil Genius]

You are correct, its the last tiebreaker in the SEC.

However, I don't think it would have come to that if the B12 used these rules.


B. THREE (OR MORE) TEAM TIE

1. (Once the tie has been reduced to two teams, go to the two-team tie-breaker format.)

2. Combined head-to-head record among the tied teams.

3. Record of the tied teams within the division.

4. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last.

5. Overall record vs. non-division teams.

6. Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams.

7. Record vs. common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division.

8. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

So, in case of a 3 team tie, then once one team is dropped - it resorts to these rules,


1. Head-to-head competition between the two tied teams.

2. Records of the tied teams within the division.

3. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall record (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last.

4. Overall record vs. all common non-divisional opponents.

5. Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams.

6. Record vs. common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division.

7. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game.

[jbooma]

NO team should be playing for the National Championship that didn't even win their own division...

I thought that to this year, but honestly the ACC and Big East do not even deserve to be in the mix :)

Get rid of the conference title games, make that week the first week of the 8 team playoff, then have the winners play on Jan 1 and then the official championship a week after

that my friend would be great :)

then the excuse of taking away from student time would not be the case

[daveakl]

I thought that to this year, but honestly the ACC and Big East do not even deserve to be in the mix :)

Get rid of the conference title games, make that week the first week of the 8 team playoff, then have the winners play on Jan 1 and then the official championship a week after

that my friend would be great :)

then the excuse of taking away from student time would not be the case

Conferences will not get rid of their title game. Too much money for teams like Temple, Baylor, UVA, Duke to lose that revenue stream.

Remember, the conference as a whole splits the cash.

[jbooma]

Conferences will not get rid of their title game. Too much money for teams like Temple, Baylor, UVA, Duke to lose that revenue stream.

Remember, the conference as a whole splits the cash.

Thats the problem the presidents want $$ while the fans want a true champion. Until you solve that puzzle we will never have a playoff.

I think the BCS +1 may eventually be the closest thing we ever have in a couple of years.

[terrifNick21]

I see no problem with it this year. :D



Boomer Soooner!!!


DEFINITELY agree. :cheers:

[daveakl]

Thats the problem the presidents want $$ while the fans want a true champion. Until you solve that puzzle we will never have a playoff.

I think the BCS +1 may eventually be the closest thing we ever have in a couple of years.

But why does it matter to have a true champion?

[GibbsFactor]

So what's the problem here?

You have 32 bowl games meaning 64 teams get payouts.

Here's my proposal:

Top 8 teams according to the BCS get the games (or go by the current format with conference champs). 7 games in total.

1 vs 8
4 vs 5
3 vs 6
2 vs 7

Here's the problem, you have 4 first round games, 2 semi final games and one championship games. You currently have 4 BCS games leaving 3 game names needed. You could just come up with 3 more names, like the Championship and the Semi's (needs a catchier name).

But here's the problem. Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio State, etc... are going to be there every year and thus taking the money for themselves and their conference every year. Is that fair? They will get the potential for 2 more money games each year. Rich get richer, etc...

So do we keep the same bowl format including names, money etc... in a new playoff format? Yes, for the first round.

The last two weeks will have to be different. The championship game and the semi final weekend will play out just as it does now with their own names. The money will need to be worked out for each conference.

The Big 12 south mess is what it is, a big 12 south mess. Leave it up to the Big 12 to figure out. Same thing can happen in the SEC and ACC.

[Clarkin09]

Playoff would be best.

Its sad that a team like Utah, who played TCU, BYU and Orgean St. (all are either top 25 or had been top 25) plus teams like Air Force Colorado St. wont even get mentioned for a national champinship, but teams like Florida, Penn St., USC have a shot. Heck at this point Ohio St. has a better shot then Utah.


Now each of the big 3 in the Big 12 have a ligit gripe.

But when Florida loses to Mississippi

USC to ORST

Penn St. to Iowa

And all remain in the top 10 there is a huge problem with the system.

[rincewind]

Hey, I got 3/4 of a page out of this debacle on the statistics paper I wrote last night. :)

[The Evil Genius]

True, but what is the solution? It was the fifth tie-breaker, a number of other tests were run before coming down to the BCS. If it is some sort of margin of victory measure, OU would have advanced as well (even if the MOV measure was capped at 21 so as to not encourage poor sportsmanship, as has been suggested by some .. namely Kirk Bohls of the Austin-American Statesman).

My feeling is that conference championship games are stupid in the first place. They are motivated by money and little else. They can really only serve to hurt the conference in a national championship picture. Had the Big XII been set up like the Big East, Pac 10, or Big 10, there would have been no conference championship controversy and OU would have still been ahead in the BCS and on its way to Miami.

Ford,

Found some support for my comment about the other conference tie-breakers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3739466


Using the various tiebreakers of the ACC, Conference USA, MAC and SEC -- other conferences with two divisions -- Texas would have advanced to the Big 12 title game.

[Ford]

Ford,

Found some support for my comment about the other conference tie-breakers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3739466

I don't disagree that Texas would have come out of those tiebreaker systems as the Big 12 South champ. My only point was that if we are saying the BCS is irrelevant to conference tiebreakers and should play no role ... those systems still use the BCS as the initial determinant of the first team eliminated before reverting back to a head to head tie-breaker ... if I understand those systems correctly.

[The Evil Genius]

I don't disagree that Texas would have come out of those tiebreaker systems as the Big 12 South champ. My only point was that if we are saying the BCS is irrelevant to conference tiebreakers and should play no role ... those systems still use the BCS as the initial determinant of the first team eliminated before reverting back to a head to head tie-breaker ... if I understand those systems correctly.

SEC does not (I posted the SEC rules at near the top of the page). Its the 7th and last determinant of 3 or more teams tied.

[Ford]

SEC does not (I posted the SEC rules at near the top of the page). Its the 7th and last determinant of 3 or more teams tied.

Hmm .. okay, I'll take your word on it .. it's a bit much for me to keep track of with the brain already fried in finals week mode. I got the impression that it was from the list of tiebreakers Armchair posted in the other thread. It said ..



SEC: Texas (sixth tiebreaker)
Head to head
Record vs. division
Head to head vs. team within division with best overall record and proceeding through division (all beat Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas A&M)
Record vs. non-division teams (all 3-0)
Record vs. common non-divisional teams with best conference record (all beat Kansas)
Team with highest BCS, unless second tied team is ranked within five or fewer places of highest ranked team. In this case, head to head of winner of top two is the representative. (Oklahoma is No. 2, Texas is No. 3, Texas Tech is No. 7; Texas beat Oklahoma)

[Sticksboi05]

LOL, it doesn't take the Big 12 to make the abomination of the BCS look bad.

[jrockster21]

the way the other conferences handle it, throw out the lowest seeded team in the BCS and then go to the head-to-head for the remaining :)

it is not rocket science, then again we are talking about teams in the midwest so that might explain everything......................... :silly::dallasuck


Yeah, but Texas Tech beat Texas, so there goes that argument.

[The Evil Genius]

Muhahahahahahaha,

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/longhorns/12/02/1202bcs.html

BCS' lone employee watched polls tip from Horns to OU with mixed emotions

By Kevin Robbins
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Bill Hancock woke before dawn Sunday. There was snow on the ground and doom in the air.

He glanced at a computer screen in his home office in a suburb of Kansas City, Mo. The first of six computer rankings in the BCS composite had arrived overnight.

Oklahoma was No. 1. Texas was No. 2.

Hancock, the 58-year-old administrator of the Bowl Championship Series, went for a run in the first snowfall of the season. He attended church, then went to his daughter-in-law's birthday party, where he took calls on his mobile phone from other data checkers for the BCS.

"My stomach was in a knot all day," Hancock said, noting that a varied career in college athletics has given him good friends and scrambled allegiances in many college towns, including Austin.

"Usually, you don't have that knot until the last weekend" of the season, Hancock went on.

"The knot came a week early."

It was a hollow, familiar sensation. While he has no vote or influence in the BCS poll as the organization's only full-time employee, Hancock appreciates the implications of the rankings. It's a lot like his previous career as the director of the Final Four for the NCAA, he said.

There's euphoria. There's indignation.

"My heart just goes out to people at an emotional time like this. I went through 16 'Selection Sundays' in basketball, and it always hurt" to leave out teams, he said Monday.

On Sunday, the four remaining computer polls trickled in before the deadline for the ballots in the Harris and coaches' polls. As morning became afternoon, neither Hancock nor the other checkers for the BCS poll knew how it would end.

Until it did.

The Harris poll arrived last. Hancock ran the numbers in his Excel program.

"I quintuple-checked," he said.

He consulted other checkers. Their results matched his.

"My first reaction was: This is not over," Hancock recalled. "Neither team is out of this. There's still a lot of football to be played. That's the first thing I thought."

The results were broadcast on Fox Sports. Hancock watched.

He felt "sadder for the sad" in Austin, he explained, than he was "happy for the happy" in Norman.

"People accuse me of being a Longhorn fanatic," insisted Hancock, a proud graduate of the University of Oklahoma.

krobbins@statesman.com; 445-3602

[jbooma]

Yeah, but Texas Tech beat Texas, so there goes that argument.


that eliminates texas tech from the equation :) which is the way it should be when you lose by 100 to OK and then hold on to dear life against baylor you don't get a say :)