The BCS's worst nightmare

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan · Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:57 am

First of all, let me qualify this by saying that I have no illusions of the scenario I'm about to lay out coming to fruition. I'm only using my favorite team as an example because they got off to such a shitty start.

That being said, what would happen in the highly unlikely scenario that Colorado (or any BCS conference team, for that matter) finishes the regular season with a 5-7 record (or even worse, 4-8), but still qualifies for their CCG with a 5-3 (or 4-4) conference record. Let's say they pull the upset of the century and knock off Texas. Now, all of a sudden you have a 6-7 (or 5-8) Colorado team that's not even bowl eligible, but guaranteed a spot in one of the 4 BCS bowl games.

Let me reiterate, I'm in no way predicting that this will actually happen. I'm just curious what would happen if this actually played out. Are there escape clauses in the BCS contract that would prevent this? Does not being eligible for any bowl game trump the conference championship? Or do the individual conferences have rules in place that would prevent such a team from even playing in the CCG?

I'm just curious to know how such a situation would shake out. Any BCS experts in here have any answers for me?

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:06 am

I seem to recall a recent stipulation in the BCS that prohibits something like this from occuring.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:15 am

They wouldn't be eligible for the BCS, or any other bowl game/post season play, under the rules of the NCAA.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:19 am

Unless there has been an update I'm not aware of, this is an NCAA bylaw. The BCS has no say, in this regard. You must have more wins than losses to be bowl eligible.

And nobody's saying CU can't win their conference, just that they can't compete for a bowl game, being under .500

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:34 am

I think the idea is that you could have a team that blows (relatively) win a conference championship, and despite having a 7-5 record or something get into a BCS game, ahead of a 1- or 2-loss team. Possible under this system, though improbable.

But give it time, the longer this farce goes on -- a lack of a playoff that is -- the greater the chances of bullshit scenarios like this happening one of these years.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:42 am

Mgo hit it on the head. The NCAA trumps the BCS and that team is not bowl eligible with a losing record.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:42 am

RadioFan wrote:I think the idea is that you could have a team that blows (relatively) win a conference championship, and despite having a 7-5 record or something get into a BCS game, ahead of a 1- or 2-loss team. Possible under this system, though improbable.

Well no, the "idea," under Mike's scenario, is that a team wins their conference championship with a sub .500 record, and appears in a BCS bowl. My claim is that this isn't possible.

A 7-5 team getting there isn't all that improbable considering an 8-4 team has done it (twice, I think).

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:58 am

No, the rule is you have to have a combination of a minimum of six wins, AND more wins than losses.

NCAA Bylaws wrote:A deserving winning team is defined as one that wins a minimum of six games against Division 1-A competition and has a record that includes more wins than losses.

Plus, your rule is based on 1997 revisions (according to your own quote).

Mine is based on 2005 revisions, which is the last year any revisions were made.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:16 am

Conceded. Good find.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:01 am

^^^^^^^^

Rack you guys for the finds...very interesting...

can you imagine if a combo of Trix/Babs/Jon/m2OOL were discussing this...THE HORRAH

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:34 pm

I don't mind being wrong, just as long as I learn something out of it. I didn't know this waiver existed, and probably would never have known if I didn't enter such a debate.

This is just more BODE, aka, knowledge I'll have on my real life buddies when we get into an argument about CF.

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:07 pm

How about this for a BCS nightmare situation?

Everybody, except tOSU and Michigan get a loss between now and the end of November.

Michigan upsets OSU, but the polsters and computers still are enough to keep them at #2.

Michigan/OSU rematch for BCS title, playing back to back games against each other.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:25 pm

I thought there was something in the BCS sthat says to teams from the same conference can't play each other in the BCS. Maybe "unless it is #1 vs. #2"?

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:34 pm

I'm pretty sure BCS #1 and BCS #2 play each other no matter what.

I also think that, if Michigan runs the table, that there's a very good chance that's what we get.

USC's going to lose and I bet a 1 loss OSU stays ahead of undefeated West Virginia, or Louisville and all of the other 1 loss teams.

OSU, Michigan and USC have a huge lead over the rest of the field right now, in BCS points. An OSU loss to Michigan isn't going to drop them out of the Top 2. In fact, I'm not sure that it won't be Michigan/OSU as #1/#2 no matter which way the Michigan/OSU game goes. Michigan could very well stay ahead of the field with a loss too.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:39 pm

JayDuck wrote:Michigan upsets OSU, but the polsters keep them at #2.

Makes sense to me.

Sin,
Van

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:11 pm

Nearly the same thing happened with OU in '03, so why not?

Dins, have you amended your rankings yet? Got Arkansas ranked above Auburn yet? Arkansas beat Auburn, ya' know, so ya' gotta rank 'em higher than Auburn, ya' know...

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:19 pm

B-t-H, if it were up to me I wouldn't include such a rule...

Cases in point:

-The Big XII, last year. No matter what might've happened in Houston last year, I don't care, Texas was so obviously the champion of that conference. Had Texas sleep walked through some desultory loss to woebegone Colorado in that game would anybody have really felt that Colorado was the true Big XII champ? Texas had already crushed Colorado that season.

In that example and with all other things being equal I'd still let Texas in. There, the CCG was just a farce anyway. It never should've been played and it shouldn't have been allowed to determine the Big XII champ.

-The Big Ten, this year. Let's say that by the time Michigan-OSU rolls around they've completely separated themselves from the rest of CF. USC has lost twice, Texas lost to Nebraska, Nebraska lost to S. W. Gynocological A&M Tech, the two players in the Big East each found a loss and all the main players in the SEC found themselves at season's end with two losses.

Undefeated Michigan and OSU are clearly the class of CF, no argument from anybody.

They play each other. It's a barn burner of an O.T. game. Both teams look good. It's decided in O.T., by another stupid blown call by the refs.

So...

Fuck yeah, in such a scenario I'd have no problem with the title game being a rematch involving two teams from the same conference who'd just played each other.

What happened in '03 didn't follow either path. OU got destroyed in their final regular season game (the CCG) and there were at least two other equally worthy one loss aspirants for the title game. In that instance, yeah, as a tie breaker among teams with equal arguments, OU deserved to be the odd man out there since they didn't win their conference.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:30 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:(b) All contractual affiliations per Bylaw 30.9.2.1-(a) have been fulfilled and all institutions with winning records have received bowl invitations (either through a contractual affiliation or as an at-large selection).

Not that this impacts the BCS, but I would read this provision as meaning that a bowl with an at-large selection would have to select, for example, an 8-4 (or even 7-5) team from the MAC before they could select a 6-6 team out of the Big Ten. Is that correct?

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:57 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Believe the Heupel wrote:(b) All contractual affiliations per Bylaw 30.9.2.1-(a) have been fulfilled and all institutions with winning records have received bowl invitations (either through a contractual affiliation or as an at-large selection).
Not that this impacts the BCS, but I would read this provision as meaning that a bowl with an at-large selection would have to select, for example, an 8-4 (or even 7-5) team from the MAC before they could select a 6-6 team out of the Big Ten. Is that correct?
Hey, you're the ambulance chaser. ;)

Yeah, that's how I read that as well. Though I imagine there's an exception for a 6-6 Notre Dame team that's written in ink you can only see after rubbing it with lemon juice or something. :D

Say what you want about ND, but the one thing they're definitely not is a bowl game pig.

Remember, this is the school that had the no bowl games policy until 1970. Even more recently, ND turned down bowl offers after going 8-3 in '96 and being passed over by the Bowl Alliance. Hell, as late as '04 there were some ND fans that wanted ND to turn down the Insight Bowl.

There's a contingent of ND fans (pretty much exclusively the real old-timers) who would prefer to go back to the no bowl games policy even today. Even outside of that group, most ND fans don't want ND in a bowl at 6-6, although I'm realistic enough to admit that the changes in today's game, in particular, the multiplicity of bowl games and ND's tie-in with the Big East for non-BCS bowls, make that scenario unrealistic.