The BCS Debate Thread

[Cicero]

I feel Oregon and tOSU should receive the bids. Oregon's one loss was to USC and they were up at the half. tOSU's two losses were to the #2 and #4 team in the land by a combined 10-11 points. I think though that the Bowl Committee will bypass Oregon and go w/ Notre Dame.

[Van]

As far as speculation about whether we'll look back at the BCS era as a blight on CFB, it's just that...speculation(although likely).

It's hardly "speculation" any longer. Pretty much the entire sporting press and an entire nation of fans has decreed the BCS to be an abomination, and that's even after they "fixed it".

Your entire argument is based upon your speculation, that we'll someday see the error in the BCS ways.

No speculation there either, since the BCS themselves admitted the error of their ways following the 2003 debacle when they immediately corrected the painfully stupid flaw in their system which denied USC their due.

They jumped right on it and they admitted there was a flaw in the system. For once in their history the NCAA actually fucking admitted to an error.

Claiming a championship based on what you speculate will happen in the future is just so...USC.

Looking in Heritage Hall's trophy case and seeing another national title trophy dated "2003" is just so...USC.

Having the entire nation's media declaring them co-champs for 2003 and the current two time defending champs is just so...USC.

Thanks for the acknowledgement though, belated as it may be...

Ask yourself these questions (they're yes or no, no subjectivity) -- Did USC, via the PAC 10, agree to the BCS system?

Yes.

Did LSU win UNDER THE SYSTEM USC AGREED TO?

Yes.

Now, the answer to the question "Did LSU win the undisputed title" is obviously the same answer as both of the above questions.

Not at all. One doesn't necessarily follow the other, not when half of the BCS's voting component decided to stick to their guns and vote their conscience by awarding USC their share of the national championship.

Again, USC didn't Mack Brown their way in. There was no lobbying, hand wringing or plaintive cries for help. They simply went into their bowl game ranked #1 and they retained their #1 ranking following their bowl game win, same as every other team in the history of college football who retained their #1 ranking following their bowl win.

That also was part of a system to which all teams agreed. Nobody ever contractually mandated that the AP's half of the vote had to follow suit with the UPI's...

The agreement in place merely dictated that the final UPI vote be a mandated vote and the winner of that mandated vote would receive the coach's trophy. It was never mandated that the final AP vote and accompanying trophy be discarded. It was merely assumed that the two bodies would vote the same at season's end and that's what they got for assuming instead of noodling through all the possible eventualities...

Once again, I'm sorry that USC doesn't like the deal THEY AGREED TO in retrospect, but the sour grapes change nothing now. Claiming what is now a booby-prize as a "championship" is fucking weak.

Oregon, every other team in the nation and above all else LSU sure wishes they had that "booby prize". Sure, they're happy to have their BCS title and they'll claim all the "'Bode!" they can with it but make no mistake, LSU Fan sure wishes the BCS hadn't fucked up in such a way as to deny them a shot at earning both shares of the championship. You can bet your life that LSU Fan was rooting for Michigan that day precisely so as to avoid this discussion; a discussion which sucks for all involved, but mostly for USC/LSU Fan, since under the BCS's corrected system they would've played each other and the title would've been unanimous.

Actually, if memory serves, under the corrected BCS system now in place that year's title game would've pitted USC and OU, not USC-LSU!

To gain the #2 BCS slot in the regular season ending tally LSU actually leapfrogged USC, not OU...

Yep, either way, LSU was damn fortunate that year. They can thank Boise State and Hawaii for their great fortune...

[Dinsdale]

Maybe we should award the Super Bowl to the Raiders that one year, since the got jobbed by a bad rule.

So what if we didn't actually play in the championship game...we're still the champs!"

[Van]

Nah, 'cause the Radiers actually lost the game and they didn't go on to win their bowl game while being ranked #1.

Keep reaching, dumbass.

[Dinsdale]

they didn't go on to win their bowl game while being ranked #1.

OK, one more time for the slow kids --

Since 1998, they reorganized the bowl games to make one of the Big 4 bowls the CHAMPIONSHIP game each year. A "championship game"...are you sitting down?...a "championship game" decides the "champion."

Whatever "logic" it is that leads you to believe a team that didn't even play in the championship game somehow won the championship, and furthermore that the team that DID win the championship game should have an asterisk attached to the title...well, it's not based on logic, but rather fierce homerism to the point where objectivity has left the building.

The AP championship was no longer a championship after 1997. BCS system out front should have told you...or at least the PAC 10 should have.

[Van]

All of the championships are mythical until there is a playoff system. I say this even though I proudly have an OSU 2002 National Championship hat tucked away for safe keeping somewhere. The argument is great, but you'll never settle it until the teams get to do so on the field.

Agreed.

[Dinsdale]

All of the championships are mythical until there is a playoff system. I say this even though I proudly have an OSU 2002 National Championship hat tucked away for safe keeping somewhere. The argument is great, but you'll never settle it until the teams get to do so on the field.

Agree and disagree.

A playoff would settle things, but then what would we bitch about? Double-edged sword, my friends. A playoff would reduce CFB banter around this time of year by approximately 80%, and then where would we be?

And there's nothing mythical about past champions, IMO. The system(s) they have are the systems they have. Far from perfect (closer to the other end of the "perfect" spectrum, really), but it doesn't negate what's there in place. There's no "maybe" about the Buckeye's championship -- they did what they had to do, under the sytem that was in place, which was the same system that everyone else was playing under(except ND).

But since I have no financial interest in any bowl game, I obviously am in favor of a playoff(just like every other person in the country without a finacial stake in the bowls). Still doesn't undermine past champions.

[Shoalzie]

All of the championships are mythical until there is a playoff system. I say this even though I proudly have an OSU 2002 National Championship hat tucked away for safe keeping somewhere. The argument is great, but you'll never settle it until the teams get to do so on the field.

I never bought a single piece of Michigan national title memorabilia. They didn't win THE national title and it's not really a national title when two teams can claim they won it. To me, Michigan didn't win a national title.

Also, I get irritated when I hear the Trojans are going to a third straight title. Didn't LSU win half of the title two years ago? The Trojans have 1-1/2 national titles in two years. Wasn't the BCS supposed to eliminate split titles anyways? Even last year, Auburn should've gotten half of the title.

FUBAR

[Van]

Also, I get irritated when I hear the Trojans are going to a third straight title. Didn't LSU win half of the title two years ago? The Trojans have 1-1/2 national titles in two years.

Exactly, if we're to put the finest point on it.

Wasn't the BCS supposed to eliminate split titles anyway? Even last year, Auburn should've gotten half of the title.

Different scenario. Last year not only did Auburn not play in the BCS title game but they also weren't ranked ahead of USC at any point in the season, including either final poll. Merely being undefeated isn't the only criteria or else Utah also had a claim, which they clearly didn't...

Auburn didn't deserve either share of the national title last year but they sure as fuck deserved a crack at 'em after USC beat OU and Auburn beat Va Tech. Auburn should've gotten the opportunity to win it all by playing USC in a Plus One title game....

[stuckinia]

But considering Auburn barely beat VT (In fact if Tech's kicker didn't suck and the back up FB could catch, the Hokies would have won.) , doesn't that put a crook in the argument for Auburn. The two best teams played for the title and the best team won.

[Van]

Because Auburn did beat Va Tech while not getting a crack at USC the way OU did we'll never know if the two best teams met for the title...

I'm pretty sure the best team won the title but I'm not sure USC beat the best team possible to win that title.

We'll never know, and that remains the problem. I know if I'm Auburn Fan I'm bitter as hell that we ran the table and didn't get a shot, especially in lieu of that shot going to OU two years in a row...

[Shoalzie]

Wasn't the BCS supposed to eliminate split titles anyway? Even last year, Auburn should've gotten half of the title.

Different scenario. Last year not only did Auburn not play in the BCS title game but they also weren't ranked ahead of USC at any point in the season, including either final poll. Merely being undefeated isn't the only criteria or else Utah also had a claim, which they clearly didn't...

Auburn didn't deserve either share of the national title last year but they sure as fuck deserved a crack at 'em after USC beat OU and Auburn beat Va Tech. Auburn should've gotten the opportunity to win it all by playing USC in a Plus One title game....

Say what you want about Utah but they were undefeated. Only in college football could you have three undefeated teams and only one of them had a shot at the "national title". This unwritten class system kills a team like Utah. Unless they are in one of the major conferences, they're screwed. They don't get a chance to play in major bowl games and they don't get a chance at national title when they're undefeated. What does a Utah have to play for if they can't play for a national title? This system sucks!

As for Auburn, USC won their 1/2 title without playing the actual title game so why couldn't Auburn? FUBAR

Because Auburn did beat Va Tech while not getting a crack at USC the way OU did we'll never know if the two best teams met for the title...

I'm pretty sure the best team won the title but I'm not sure USC beat the best team possible to win that title.

We'll never know, and that remains the problem. I know if I'm Auburn Fan I'm bitter as hell that we ran the table and didn't get a shot, especially in lieu of that shot going to OU two years in a row...

All the reason we need a playoff. How many sports have a championship where it is disputed? Any sport with a playoff has one champion at the end of the road. You may say the best didn't win the title but it's undisputed. This crap with USC/LSU two years ago and USC/Auburn/Utah last year should've put this system into the toilet for good but they keep retooling it until they're right. They'll never be right until they allow every team a shot at the national title and impliment a tournament.

[Shoalzie]

AHEM!

There were FOUR undefeated teams at the end of the regular season last year, and TWO of them got a shot at the national title.

Oklahoma wasn't undefeated after the season...they could've been a part of this mess if they had beaten USC.

[Shoalzie]

A playoff would settle things, but then what would we bitch about? Double-edged sword, my friends. A playoff would reduce CFB banter around this time of year by approximately 80%, and then where would we be?

I'd take a lack of 'CFB banter' over all of the headaches and frustration we've dealt with in the best few years. Fans would still be able to discuss things like coaching situations, who's returning next season, recruiting and the tournament itself. That wouldn't kill the spirit of college football, it would just ease our minds and allow us to focus on the product on the field. If you had 8 or 16 teams playing in the tournament, that would be more than what we'd have right now. I think fans of all of those schools would be chatting it up big time. Where we stand, it's USC and Texas...then everyone else. Unless one of them loses, that's what we're going to get in Pasadena.

[Van]

I'd trade the banter for some finality.

The banter could still center around those four slots in a Plus One system but at least once it was all said and done everybody would be okay with the final result.

[M2]

Some Good News Re: BCS Future

Starting next year there will be 5 BCS games - Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange and the National Championship game a week later in Phoenix. So there is a little better chance for at-large bids. Plus, ND's payoff goes down to $4.5 million if they are in a BCS bowl.


the truth

[Dinsdale]

So, why can't that 5th BCS bowl be between the top 2 BCS points a week or two after the other 4 bowls? Wouldn't the bowls still get their $$, and at least put some sort of fairness into things?

Haha, just kidding. That's not the way CFB operates. Much too simple to be practical, and more people might actually watch the "lesser" BCS games, since everyone would have a shot at the trophy that way...too simple.

And Shoalzie, haven't you been listening to Van? Utah can win the title, just like BYU did...that's right, you learned that here.

[PSUFAN]

Shoalzie, my relaxed attitude about this certainly stems from the fact that PSU has been nowhere near the BCS in recent years. 7 wins, and I was pinching myself...much less 10-1.

Moreover, PSU has basically embodied the unrewarded undefeated season in the Paterno Era. When your team goes undefeated or damn near, you have to step back and see it for what it is, a damn good season that is worth enjoying. I guess it has become a common exercise for PSU fans over the age of 30.

Of course, I'm a junkie of sorts...I commonly watch PSU tapes of games that had no "value" in the rankings scheme, just because I enjoy the game play itself. Rewards or recognition are nice, but at the end of the day as a fan you are the one who evaluates the performance of your team.

That said...I also wish to see an SEC/Pac 10 matchup after reading this thread.

[SoCalTrjn]

You have to give up a home game - which is guaranteed dollars - to travel to the other side of the country to play a team that may or may not even be ranked when you get there

SEC homer is so delusional, they don't even realize how silly they sound.

Just about every team out there has a home-field advantage to some degree. Hence, playing 8 games at home every year gives the something of an advantage, wouldn't you say?

Great fucking argument. "We win lots of games at home, therefore we shouldn't have to play road games, because we win so much at home."

Brilliant, SEC homer, just brilliant. Play 8 home games againt other teams that believe in the "run it up the middle 3 times and punt, and hope that eventually somebody falls down on defense and we can geta big play," which you somehow translate into "we have dominant defense."

Pathetic. Scheduling OOC would shatter your illusions of greatness, so it's understandable why the SEC doesn't do it. The sugar-coating the homers put on it is always good for a laugh, though.

I see you remain one of the larger dipshits on this board, Dins. Let me try and break it down to you a little slower. How does scheduling Oregon help an SEC team? You lose a home game to do so...guaranteed money. You pay out more. You have to take your team to the other side of the country to play a team you could honestly get better competition easily within a day's drive in any direction. Given that you are going to face two or three top 25 schools, at least, in conference...OOC becomes less of an issue than it might for a PAC squad who typically might play one ranked team in conference in any given year. It isn't about home advantage. It's simply dollars and cents, which is why the SEC is annually a premiere conference and the PAC is USC and everyone else.

By the way, Auburn just got done with a home and home with USC, LSU traveled to ASU this season. Tennessee has been playing the domers, Florida plays Florida State annually, Georgia plays Georgia Tech annually, Arkansas went to USC, Auburn went to Tech and will start a series with Washington State next year...and that's just some of the weak OOC scheduling going on in the SEC annually. But, continue your typically incoherent rambling. It's amusing, if nothing else.

to prove you have the guts to play any one any where, the SEC's rankings have been largely due to their collective OOC scheduling, when only 2 of 36 OOC games require the school to leave their state, thats pretty cowardly. Fine, some SEC schools (2) have a tough in state rival from another conference, what are the other schools excuses and why cant those teams play their tough in state rival and then still play someone from somewhere else.
What is Auburns record in road OOC games the last 5-10 years? I feel that will be your answer as to why they dont schedule home and homes with schools like Oregon, not that they have to save themselves for their tough conference scheule of Vandy, Kentucky, Miss State, Ole Miss and Arky.

[Shoalzie]

AHEM!

There were FOUR undefeated teams at the end of the regular season last year, and TWO of them got a shot at the national title.

Oklahoma wasn't undefeated after the season...they could've been a part of this mess if they had beaten USC.

Your point was that it was unjust that there were three undefeated teams and only one got a shot. In that context, you're talking about before the bowls were played, as it's a complaint about selection.

You're right, I just worded it wrong. The point was that we had three unbeatens after the dust settled and only USC had the actual shot at the glass football.

And Shoalzie, haven't you been listening to Van? Utah can win the title, just like BYU did...that's right, you learned that here.

I know about BYU winning...they beat Michigan in the Holiday Bowl. I didn't need a history lesson.

My whole thing is that teams like Utah and TCU from the outsider leagues don't get these guaranteed bids to play in jackpot games, let alone get to play for the national title. They've had to amend the BCS every year to cover its ass. If we somehow had two teams from non-BCS conferences finished as the only unbeatens in a given year, would they be playing for the national title? It's a hypothetical situation that probably would never happen but I'm not confident in this system that it would allow teams like that play in the title game when they deserve it.

[Shoalzie]

So, why can't that 5th BCS bowl be between the top 2 BCS points a week or two after the other 4 bowls? Wouldn't the bowls still get their $$, and at least put some sort of fairness into things?

Haha, just kidding. That's not the way CFB operates. Much too simple to be practical, and more people might actually watch the "lesser" BCS games, since everyone would have a shot at the trophy that way...too simple.

If we did the plus-one this year, let's say Texas beats USC in the Rose Bowl and Virginia Tech, LSU, Penn State and Oregon win their bowl games (a couple of these teams could play each), how do you decide who plays in the 5th game? Do you refer to formula again? What if USC ends up #2 after they lost to Texas? Would they have a rematch? What if the only other 1 loss team was left out of the BCS...would they include them in the mix? I just see so many other problems with a plus-one. There's nothing to convince me that a playoff isn't only solution.

[Dinsdale]

It's a hypothetical situation that probably would never happen but I'm not confident in this system that it would allow teams like that play in the title game when they deserve it.

I was just making fun of Van, as I'm prone to doing. He claims that Fresno has a shot at the title if they run the table one of these years. I said they didn't. He bases his logic on BYU winning. He's apparently unfamiliar with the BCS setup.

That's all I was saying, not trying to remind a Mich fan about what happened to Mich.

[Shoalzie]

It's a hypothetical situation that probably would never happen but I'm not confident in this system that it would allow teams like that play in the title game when they deserve it.

I was just making fun of Van, as I'm prone to doing. He claims that Fresno has a shot at the title if they run the table one of these years. I said they didn't. He bases his logic on BYU winning. He's apparently unfamiliar with the BCS setup.

That's all I was saying, not trying to remind a Mich fan about what happened to Mich.

I got ya...I guess I didn't catch that conversation.

[Dinsdale]

If we did the plus-one this year, let's say Texas beats USC in the Rose Bowl and Penn State and Oregon win their bowl games, how do you decide who plays in the 5th game? Do you refer to formula again? What if USC ends up #2 after they lost to Texas? Would they have a rematch. I just see so many other problems with a plus-one. There's nothing to convince me that a playoff isn't only solution.

Can't disagree with any of that. My point was that if you're going to have 5 BCS bowls anyway, with one being a week later, it would at least be a start towards fairness.

Using this year's matchups as an example, with a "final" game a week later, then there would be no reason to have Texas playing SC in the "first round," which would eliminate the "rematch" possibility. My thoughts would be that BCS teams #1-8 (SCREW automatic bids, such bullshit...I thought that's what the BCS points system was for, to eliminate stupid conference homerism and advantages) go to the first 4 bowls, seede 1-8. #1 gets #8, and so on. I'm just kicking ideas around, since if Oregon beat USC, they still probably wouldn't pass them in BCS points, but it might impress the pollsters enough to shake up the poll-rating.

With 5 BCS bowls, one being a week later, they certainly could come at least a little closer to a playoff, although there still would be flaws, but I don't think there would be as many.

[Dinsdale]

I got ya...I guess I didn't catch that conversation.

Consider yourself lucky.

[Shoalzie]

With 5 BCS bowls, one being a week later, they certainly could come at least a little closer to a playoff, although there still would be flaws, but I don't think there would be as many.

They can keep adding games until they reach an undisputed choice but the problem is they have to fix the system every year. When did we last have a static format from one year to another? These clowns change this thing after every f-up and but then another problems crops up to bite 'em in the ass. If the guys in charge didn't have dollar signs in their eyes, maybe they'd see the error of their ways.

[Dinsdale]

If the guys in charge didn't have dollar signs in their eyes, maybe they'd see the error of their ways.

We're on the same page, bro.

My point is just that things could be closer to fair with that extra delayed bowl. Flawed, but better. And if those #3-8 teams had some sort of prayer, I would think that it would increase ratings. I was trying to come up with ideas that kept the goals of the bowl fatcats in mind...the benjamins. Seems to me that with my system (OK, a refined version of it) everybody kinda sorta wins. The title becomes slightly less disputable, and the fatcats get even higher TV ratings. I just think it'd be a step in the right direction, s'all.

Of course, if we continue to follow the road in the right direction, we end up at our destination in Playoff Land.

[Van]

Shoalzie, no, there wouldn't be any rematches if USC lost to Texas.

USC is done. At that point Texas plays the winner of the game between #'s 3 and 4 (and there's everybody's fan favorite debate/controversy) and the winner of that game is your national champion.

Couldn't be simpler and nobody would have a legitimate gripe afterwards, including USC.

As for whether or not Fresno State or any other mid major could win a national title under this current BCS sytem?

Of course they could.

Just look at last year, if you don't want to go back to BYU.

Last year Utah is in the BCS title game if those few teams ahead of them all suffer losses somewhere during the season. It's hardly inconceiveable that there could be no undefeateds from a major conference (it happened just two years ago) and if Utah, Fresno State, BYU or Louisville goes undefeated while also beating a decent team or two OOC along the way then they're very likely in the title game...

They win that game, they're the champs. Dins is making it sound impossible and it's not even that difficult to envision...

[Dinsdale]

Couldn't be simpler and nobody would have a legitimate gripe afterwards

Dude, you've forgotten what this whole debate revolves around....Good Old Boys' money.

And they'd have a HUGE gripe with your setup. Better resign yourself to at least 8 teams in the playoff, or just quit dreaming right now.

[Van]

Oh, I'm not necessarily planning on ever seeing Plus One (or any other new system) actually go into effect, but I really don't see where the Good Ol' Boy money should be happy with the current system while being unhappy with the idea of the current system Plus One...

Seems to me that all you're doing there is maintaining the status quo while adding one monolith of a money making CF Super Bowl...

I don't see how even more money wouldn't be made with Plus One.

[Dinsdale]

Off topic --

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Van and everyone else for entertaining me here lately. It's been a savior. Due to health problems (which I won't get into, but I'll be fine), I've had nothing but time on my hands lately, and you tards have helped occupy some of it.

So, to all of the contributors here...a heartfelt thank you.

You may go back to sucking dicks now.

[Van]

Probably it's nothing a little Summer's Eve wouldn't cure...

Seriously, whatever ails you, hopefully it'll soon pass.

[SoCalTrjn]

A plus one bowl is as bad of an idea people expecting computers to name a national champion. Youre going to give teams 5-7 weeks to prepare for their BCS bowl which is essentially the semi finals and then 1 week to prepare for the finals?
If youre going to go with a play off, go all the way

[Van]

A plus one bowl is as bad of an idea people expecting computers to name a national champion. Youre going to give teams 5-7 weeks to prepare for their BCS bowl which is essentially the semi finals and then 1 week to prepare for the finals?
If youre going to go with a play off, go all the way

Why on earth must we give them 5-7 weeks for the first game? They only get about a month now and everybody seems fine with it.

So, so what? What's one extra week, especially when it's only for two teams?

All Plus One entails is keeping the exact same system we have now and adding one extra game for only two teams. It answers any and all controversies and how much simpler could it be? No huge system overhauls would be necessary, no thorough restructuring of the bowl games would be necessary and no new asinine playoff system involving a bunch of unworthy teams would be necessary.

There'd simply be one final game pitting USC against Auburn. Plain as the nose on your face, that's all that's needed and nothing could be easier.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A plus one bowl is as bad of an idea people expecting computers to name a national champion. Youre going to give teams 5-7 weeks to prepare for their BCS bowl which is essentially the semi finals and then 1 week to prepare for the finals?
If youre going to go with a play off, go all the way

I don't like Plus One either, but you mischaracterize the long layoff prior to bowl season. It's not for the purpose of allowing teams to prepare for that game, it's because for most schools, final exams come during that period. You say you went to USC, certainly you remember that much about your college experience, don't you?

[Terry in Crapchester]

The SEC championship game loser deserves to go before Auburn.

There are two components to qualifying for a BCS at-large bid: nine wins and a Top 12 finish in the final BCS poll.

As it is, Georgia is barely hanging on to the bottom of the Top 12 right now. A loss to LSU, even in a close game, will knock them out of the Top 12. So no at-large bid for Georgia.

LSU, by contrast, would stay in the Top 12 with a loss, and you may be right on this point at least: a narrow LSU loss to Georgia could keep LSU ahead of Auburn and thereby knock Auburn out. Having said that, if LSU loses, if they still expect to make the BCS, they had best turn into the biggest Va Tech fans in the world. As I've posted before, wins by Georgia and FSU are likely to force the BCS to take both tOSU and ND, and eliminate everyone else from BCS consideration.

Hell, why don't we just call the SEC championship the National Championship and be done with it?

[Terry in Crapchester]

ND isn't a real CFB team.

:roll:

If you can't play by the same rules as everyone else, then to hell with you. Join a conference, or remain a joke. When you quit having the rules rigged in your favor and get out of the "conference of one," then you'll be acknowledged.[/ND hating]

I've posted this before, but it's the rest of college football that changed the status quo, not ND. As recently as the early 90's, a lot of prominent college football programs, not just ND, were independent: Penn State, Miami and Florida State, just for starters.

And how exactly are the rules rigged in ND's favor, right now? As I've said before, ND has far less margin for error in terms of qualifying for the BCS than does any member of a BCS conference. ND has to be ranked in the Top Six to be assured of a BCS bid, and can't qualify for the BCS under any circumstances if not ranked in the Top 12. By contrast, a team in a BCS conference need only win its conference and it's in the BCS, regardless of final ranking. Three teams in the last three years (Florida State in '02, Michigan and Pitt in '04) qualified for BCS automatic bids under circumstances in which ND could not have qualified for a BCS at-large bid. The only "advantage" ND has is that we're guaranteed a BCS at-large bid in the Top Six, as opposed to Top Four for the BCS conference members. But you still have to have a pretty impressive team that year to finish Top Six, in any event.

Although on the flip side, it does give ND the opportunity for very creative scheduling, which I've always thought to be a big plus for ND's deal.

ND is the only school in the country that schedules on truly a national basis. At the same time, we schedule with a continuity that rivals any conference member in the country. It's the best of both worlds.

But financially, it's extremely unfair.

How so? Yes, we get a huge BCS payoff that we don't have to share if we qualify for a BCS bid, but on the other side, under the current deal we get nothing if we fail to qualify.

And fwiw, things change dramatically under the new deal. Beginning next year, we get only a $4.5 million payoff for qualifying for a BCS bid, although the advantage we have is that we don't have to share it. We also get a $1 million payoff in years where we don't qualify, but OTOH, that's less of a payoff than any team in a BCS conference gets. Even the members of the 12-team conferences wind up getting about $1.2 million apiece as a result of their automatic bid. Throw in the tie-ins to the non-BCS bowls, and the payoff increases from there.

And while we're talking finances, don't think for a moment that we could continue to remain independent, financially speaking, if we ever lost the NBC deal and were unable to replace it with a comparable deal.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Some Good News Re: BCS Future

Starting next year there will be 5 BCS games - Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange and the National Championship game a week later in Phoenix. So there is a little better chance for at-large bids. Plus, ND's payoff goes down to $4.5 million if they are in a BCS bowl.


the truth

There's a fifth BCS bowl next year, but unless things have changed recently, I don't believe it's a Plus One format. All it'll do is get two more at-large bids into the BCS.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Dins, it was the AP, not USC or its fans, who declared USC their national champion in 2003.

Help me out here -- I'm just not seeing what the hell any of that has to do with...follow along here...the deal that the PAC 10 made on behalf of USC and its other members.


SC fan is almost making me root for Texas. That would be poetic justice. Bust a deal, spin the wheel, and all that stuff.

Do they have a cirriculum for student-athletes at USC called "Renegging on your contractual agreements 101?"


Blame your choked game in 2003 for the failure to win the title, not the BCS.

Actually, the problem that year was the computers. After Oklahoma was exposed by K-State in the Big 12 championship game, the computers still kept them at #1, and they met LSU in the Sugar Bowl. The matchup that year should have been USC-LSU.

Human polls have proven themselves, at least in recent years, to be more reliable than the computers. Whoda thunk it?

[Degenerate]

what tv wants ND and tOSU

Hmm, let's ask ABC about that.




Looks like you're right!