T1B

1. Win all of your games
2. Win your CCG, if you have one (and all BCS conferences SHOULD have one)
3. Win your Bowl Game

If you fail at any of the above, go to the back of the line, shuffle your feet, shoegaze, etc.

I agree.

Very few teams will accomplish all that, so then we have to start picking and choosing, based on merit.

Hopefully.

Also, depending on circumstances, it's much easier for some teams to do all that than others, so again merit must come into play.

Sure, accomplishing all that is the most anybody can ask of you. Nonetheless, accomplishing all those things isn't the only yardstick by which you may be judged against others.

PSUFAN wrote:2. Win your CCG, if you have one (and all BCS conferences SHOULD have one)

Minor point, but under current NCAA rules, you don't get a conference championship game unless you have at least 12 members.

Three BCS conferences do not. If any of those three conferences were to expand to twelve games (short of either the Big 10 or Big East landing Notre Dame, and ND isn't interested in a conference), in all likelihood they would be diluting the overall level of play in the conference by expanding.

CCG games are a total joke, as often as not.

A CCG should only be played when it's necessary to break a tie in the conference. Rarely is that necessary but yeah, there should be mechanism in place to break ties and that's where a CCG has validity.

So often it's nothing but a pure money grab and a complete farce that accomplishes nothing but to diminish the importance of the regular season and even put at risk the true conference champion who earned it on the field all season long.

So often a CCG doesn't help its conference, but it sure can hurt it...

4 team playoff. hell, there's ALREADY almost a week between New Years and the BCS championship game.

i realize attendence would suffer.....but nobody gives a flip about that for the Final Four. the easiest ticket to get in sports is the Monday final hoops because half the fans travelling had a team who lost. you can pick them up outside the arena day of the game for less than face. AND, attendance revenue is virtually meaningless compared to TV/ad revenue.

i'd also like to see conference limited at 8-10 members....so a conference schedule means you play everyone. but, that ain't happening....no way.

edit: my assumption is that working with the current BCS criteria.....go 4 team playoff. i know it's dreaming.

I'd like to see BCS conferences get 12 teams, and stage a CCG. I think it's unfair for some conferences to have to face a tough CCG, while others do not.

Van, I think the reason why the NCAA allows CCG's is that once you get to twelve teams, you can't realistically have every team play every other team in the conference. It's a mathematical possibility with a 12-game season, sure, but any conference that tried it would become entirely too insular. I don't think the Pac-10 would have gone to a full conference schedule if the NCAA had stayed with an 11-game regular season.

If you're arguing that twelve teams in a conference is too many, I could agree with you on that. But that's probably a topic for another thread.

PSUFAN wrote:I'd like to see BCS conferences get 12 teams, and stage a CCG. I think it's unfair for some conferences to have to face a tough CCG, while others do not.

Two of the three BCS conferences that do not have a CCG already have each team facing every other team in conference. None of the conferences with CCG's do that.

Plus there's the practical issue. Who does the Big Ten add to get to 12 teams? The Big East? The Pac-10?

King Crimson wrote:4 team playoff.

Would only get approved in a post-bowl setting. Far too many turf protection issues involved if you want to replace the current BCS with a four-team playoff.

i never said it was realistic....but as far as "turf" OU and Nebraska both played Miami in their home stadium more than once and Texas beat USC in the Rose bowl....just off the top of my head, i'm sure there are more examples.

and i meant 4 team playoff to augment the existing bowl framework....and BCS criteria. rotate the sites as they are now and hosting a semifinal has to be *at least* as pretigious as hosting, say, Utah-Pitt from a few years ago. live with that, if you want to be part of the rotation if you are a bowl committee.

but, i'm getting OT.

Plus One is our four team playoffs.

Done.

Terry, again, I don't mind a CCG, provided it's used correctly.

Texas playing Colorado last year for the conference championship was a farce. OU playing (and losing to) K State in '03 was a farce. Nebraska, in '01...

The CCG only offered the potential (and, in the cases of '01 and '03, the reality) of hurting the conference.

The Pac 10 doesn't need it. The Big 10 doesn't need it.

Teams with 12 teams ONLY need it to break a conference tie. They DON'T need it as rote procedure.

Maybe they should make the bowl match-ups prior to CCG week. Of course, that would inject even more controversy into the BCS should a team selected for the NC game lose in their CCG.

Indy, it already happened, in '03.

Sucked, didn't it?

King Crimson wrote:i never said it was realistic....but as far as "turf" OU and Nebraska both played Miami in their home stadium more than once and Texas beat USC in the Rose bowl....just off the top of my head, i'm sure there are more examples.

Actually, my use of the phrase "turf protection" was figurative. By that, I meant there's no way the current BCS conferences approve a scrapping of the status quo in favor of a new system that does not guarantee their involvement, and resultant huge paycheck, on an annual basis. But you answered that concern in the rest of your post.

Van wrote:Teams with 12 teams ONLY need it to break a conference tie. They DON'T need it as rote procedure.

Perhaps, but there's a huge financial payoff for those who do have it. And they justify it by the fact that it's impossible for each team in their conference to play every other team in the conference.

I disagree, however, with your take that the CCG only has potential to hurt a conference. Yes, there are examples where it has done precisely that. But what if you get Florida-Auburn in the SEC CCG this season? That game could vault the winner into the BCS championship game ahead of Louisville (which, no doubt, would make you very happy). How would that hurt the conference?

Of course, for that to happen, Arkansas needs to lose a game between now and then.

Van,

I don't remember that. Been a few beers ago, but wasn't OU still #2 in the BCS AFTER the CCG loss?

Van wrote:Plus One is our four team playoffs.

Done.

Terry, again, I don't mind a CCG, provided it's used correctly.

Texas playing Colorado last year for the conference championship was a farce. OU playing (and losing to) K State in '03 was a farce. Nebraska, in '01...

The CCG only offered the potential (and, in the cases of '01 and '03, the reality) of hurting the conference.

The Pac 10 doesn't need it. The Big 10 doesn't need it.

Teams with 12 teams ONLY need it to break a conference tie. They DON'T need it as rote procedure.

Plus One is increased home revenue against a patsie--an AD's wetdream (unless your the AD at Colorado).

by your own "merit" criteria above your final point is a bit nonsensical--for instance, using the Big XII as an example, in a year where there is no head to head matchup a north team and a south team could both finish with one loss in conference---but given the imbalance of strength in each division as it exists now one would clearly have more "merit" than the other, no? jus sayin'--and therein lies the problem, as in basketball, Billy Packer gets on his stump every year and delivers the same tired soliloquoy about appointing some committee of (his chosen) gurus to pick the tournament field and toss the rpi--and politics and favortism and network influence would saturate the process even more than it already does.

so, you have the "social science" approach and the "human element" at the sides of two polar ways of determining criteria for selection. both stink on their own, so essentially until there's a major clusterfuck the people who profit from the game will "tinker" with some "happy medium" and choose two teams and then after the fact declare "the system works".

Believe the Heupel wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Van,

I don't remember that. Been a few beers ago, but wasn't OU still #2 in the BCS AFTER the CCG loss?

IIRC, OU was still #1 in fact. Overwhelming computer lead and a quality win bonus that neither USC nor LSU had.

That's right. I remember now.

In any case, wasn't the CCG held before the slections were made for bowl games?

King Crimson, when I referred to Plus One I wasn't referring to it at the conference level ,as in a CCG replacement. I was referring to it at the national level, in terms of what we need in lieu of a four team playoffs.

Terry, I never said a CCG offers no possibility in any conference for helping the conference.

Referring to all conferences, what I said was,

So often a CCG doesn't help its conference, but it sure can hurt it...

Yes, there are instances where a CCG could help. Breaking ties in the standings, yep, that helps. I'm all for 'em in those instances.

It can even help in the SEC, that is, when it's not huritng 'em. Yeah, it can give a team one extra quality win. Still though, it can also take down a clear cut conference champ and in the SEC that's at least equally likely to happen so why put that curse on your conference every year, whether it's needed or not? Why not use them only when they're needed and they can actually benefit your conference champion?

You already answered that question: money. Like I said, CCGs are a pure money grab, and little else.

Indy, I was referring to the fact of what happened in '03, not the procedural timing.

In '03 OU was obviously already selected to the BCS title game even before they played their CCG. Obviously. They got destroyed in the CCG and it mattered not at all.

That was just patently stupid, that CCG/BCS title game scenario. At LEAST the BCS went ahead and fixed that goof during the following offseason when they changed their rules to forbid entry into the title game to a team who isn't their own conference champion...

PSUFAN wrote:gaze, etc.

etc.???

- IL II

IL II is always near, looking on...

B-t-H, my error then.

So, what was the rule change that was enacted by the BCS following the '03 debacle? I coulda swore that it had to do with a team not being allowed entry into the title game if they didn't win their conference?

Maybe...there was a stip or something saying it could happen, provided that the OTHER team in the title game is the team who won the same conference? That'd allow for OSU-Michigan this year.

Dunno. I remember there was a big rules change in the offseason in response to the '03 debacle.

In any case, OU in '03 was a perfect example of when we absolutely shouldn't play a CCG.

I remember talk of it, Van. I don't think anything ever came of it.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

In '03 OU was obviously already selected to the BCS title game even before they played their CCG. Obviously. They got destroyed in the CCG and it mattered not at all

Just pointing out again how patently stupid this is.

Selection to the BCS title game is made based on the final BCS rankings. There is no possible way to pre-select a participant. OU simply had played so well through the rest of the season that a one-loss OU and a one-loss LSU were deemed by the standard everyone had agreed to to be better than a one-loss USC.

Don't like it? Tough. Don't lose to Cal.

Huh??

I'm saying the BCS points system had already selected OU to play in the title game, regardless of what was going to happen in the Big XII CCG.

That was obviously a fact. That's what Indy asked about, and I gave him an example of a year in which the BCS points system had selected one of its title game teams even before that team had played its CCG. There was obviously NO WAY that OU's CCG was ever going to have any bearing on their BCS title game aspirations.

They were in, regardless. They could've forfeited that CCG and they were still in. That's what Indy asked about...

IndyFrisco wrote:I remember talk of it, Van. I don't think anything ever came of it.

I'd bet my house that there was a BCS title game/conference champion rules change enacted during the '03 offseason. Clear as day, I remember all of us here talking about it and I remember the media all talking about it being a day late and a dollar short since USC still got hosed...

Check that. I just went 3-7 in this week's Pick 'EM. I ain't betting shit.

Fuggit. Terry will know the exact specifics!

Van wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:I remember talk of it, Van. I don't think anything ever came of it.

I'd bet my house that there was a BCS title game/conference champion rules change enacted during the '03 offseason. Clear as day, I remember all of us here talking about it and I remember the media all talking about it being a day late and a dollar short since USC still got hosed...

Check that. I just went 3-7 in this week's Pick 'EM. I ain't betting shit.

Fuggit. Terry will know the exact specifics!

After the '03 season, IIRC, losses and SOS were eliminated as BCS criteria (except to the extent that they already figured in to the human polls and computers). But I don't recall any changes made to exclude a team that did not win its conference from playing in the championship game.

Hmmm, yeah, I do remember that, Terry. USC got hosed out of the #3 spot by a fraction of a point due to a last game of the season loss by Hawaii or Boise St or something stupid like that...

Well, hell, if CCG losers and conference runners up can just keep losing and still going to the BCS title game then by all means, lose away! LOL!!

So when do I get your house, Van?

Van wrote:Check that. I just went 3-7 in this week's Pick 'EM. I ain't betting shit.

Whew.

A man's got to know his limitations.

B-t-H, you're trying to make this into an argument I'm not attempting to make.

I'm not talking about USC here. I'm merely saying that the BCS system had already selected OU to be one of its title game participants following the regular season, but before they played their CCG.

I'm not arguing whether or not OU had already done enough to merit this. I'm simply stating an example to Indy of a year in which the the BCS system had already selected a team before they played their CCG.

Of course the BCS didn't select them mid season, or anything like that. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, or anything of the sort. I'm simply stating a simple fact: Following the '03 regular season, but before the CCG was played, OU was already in.

OU got hammered in their CCG about as hard as a good team can get hammered and still they finished not just #2 or worse; they remained at #1. So, there was no way the BCS points system hadn't already tabbed OU for the title game, even before they played their CCG.

The CCG was an utter waste of time.

Van,.

Actually, my question was about timing. I thought you had inferred that the actual BCS matchup was determined prior to the CCG. Yeah, OU had dominated so much that year that they were far above everyone else and it would have taken the AP and coaches polls of moving them out of the top 5 or 10 for them to not be in the top 2 in the final standings.

Yes, it was a foregone conclusion...but it wasn;t OFFICIAL until after the CCG. That's what I had thought. I thought you were saying differently.

Turns out though that it was official. Not both teams, obviously, just OU.

OU couldn't have done more in the CCG to get themselves booted from the title game and still they made it in with plenty of room to spare. So, even before their CCG, they were a fait accompli...

Short of an actual announcement by the BCS that was as official as it could get.