Some paragraphs from a Detnews article on BCS. Emphasis mine (below).[/b]

Bottom line:

Two non-automatic conference teams are ranked #6 and 7 and it is unlikely both will be selected (even though both deserve to be):

*********

TCU (.7890) is sixth, a spot ahead of Boise State (.7752).

Cincinnati was eighth, the lowest of the unbeaten teams, with LSU and Oregon rounding out the top 10.

The big swing between the undefeated Broncos and Horned Frogs came after TCU won 38-7 at Mountain West Conference rival BYU (6-2) and Boise State won 54-9 at Western Athletic Conference rival Hawaii (2-5).

Those games caused a major shift in the computer rating and that put TCU ahead of Boise State, said BCS analyst Jerry Palm. But the Horned Frogs lead over the Broncos is far from safe.

"If those two teams keep winning, it's going to go down to the wire," Palm said in a telephone interview Sunday.

Neither the WAC or MWC has an automatic BCS bid for its champion, but in each of the last three seasons a team from one of those leagues has earned automatic entry by finishing in the top 12 of the final BCS standings.

Only one team from an non-automatic qualifying league can earn an automatic bid and it's unlikely either would be taken as an at-large selection.[b]

Not bagging on you emu steve, but this story is acting like this is news to everyone. This isn't new. Boise was not ranked as high last year, but could have been picked last year.

TCU being ranked higher to me helps the cause. Based on their crowd support in Arizona in their first trip and the continued good publicity Boise receives, they could be a fairly attractive team if the at-large pool left is a Virginia Tech and a 1-loss Cincinnati (if they get upset in the Big East).

KStud, I understand the point you are making but if today was the BCS selection day, what a controversy we'd have with BSU and TCU in a virtual tie, both very highly ranked and one could be left sitting home.

BCS folks should hope one of those two falters down the stretch. Both are undefeated.

What happens if a (second) at large bid is one of these undefeated teams vs. say Penn State.

I can see controversy.

I certainly agree there will be controversy. I just do not see why the national media is acting like this is a new revelation. A certain at-large team will be the SEC runner-up and TCU or Boise.

My current contestants for other at-large BCS consideration: Va Tech if they and Ga Tech both win out; Penn State if they win out or Iowa if they and Ohio State finish tied with 1 Big Ten loss; Cincinnati if they lose to Pitt or WVU and USC if they have a close loss to Oregon.

It may not be news to those of us who pay attention, but to many people it will be. The fact that a #12 or better NAQ gets in, by rule, but not 2 of them, says that the BC$ gods figured it couldn't possibly happen, or never considered the possibility anyway. The BC$ was supposed to provide the 2 best teams as #1 and #2 to decide the national championship. Using the same system, it should also decide the #s 3 through 12 or 3 through 10. Those are the ones who should be playing in those BC$ games, regardless of conference. But that's not the real purpose of the BC$, now is it. This will attract attention if it comes to pass, and not in a good way for the BC$

(10-25-2009 11:22 PM)emu steve Wrote:  KStud, I understand the point you are making but if today was the BCS selection day, what a controversy we'd have with BSU and TCU in a virtual tie, both very highly ranked and one could be left sitting home.

BCS folks should hope one of those two falters down the stretch. Both are undefeated.

What happens if a (second) at large bid is one of these undefeated teams vs. say Penn State.

I can see controversy.

But it's not and that's the point. Everyone on every college football show plays these scenarios, and it's just too early to matter right now. It always has a way of working itself out. I don't think that Boise State AND TCU will both go undefeated. Let the season play out.

FWIW, I think Cincinnati is getting a raw deal right now. They are scary good and IMO a legitimate top 5 team.

(10-26-2009 08:32 AM)niubrad00 Wrote:  But it's not and that's the point. Everyone on every college football show plays these scenarios, and it's just too early to matter right now. It always has a way of working itself out. I don't think that Boise State AND TCU will both go undefeated. Let the season play out.

FWIW, I think Cincinnati is getting a raw deal right now. They are scary good and IMO a legitimate top 5 team.

I don't like that people start talking controversy 3 or 4 games into the season. I know, we are farther along than that but it comes up every year. There is a very good chance that one or more of BSU, TCU and Cinci will still lose at some point. Ball State looked to be a lock to win the MAC and be undefeated going into a bowl game until UB changed all that.

However, I really hope that all 3 do finish undefeated and that the remaining undefeated BCS teams suffer at least 1 loss. It really sucks that BSU and Cinci lost ground in the polls after winning. It sure would have been nice if TN and MSU held on to knock off 2 of those teams and FL looks very beatable. Anything to screw with the BCS system!

TCU is better than Boise State and deserves the BCS bid if they go undefeated. They beat two ACC teams on the road and just got done destroying BYU. Boise State has only played one good team all season in Oregon and none of their remaining opponents are as good as Utah which TCU still has left.

TCU has a great defense and they are slightly better than the team they had last year which gave Boise State their only loss.

If TCU makes it to undefeated, they will come in with a better resume than Utah did either time or Boise or Hawaii had.

(10-26-2009 08:32 AM)niubrad00 Wrote:  FWIW, I think Cincinnati is getting a raw deal right now. They are scary good and IMO a legitimate top 5 team.

Which is why the MAC is so down.

Anyway it proves the point that given BCS money and opportunity, there's enough talent in the mid-west to compete against the ZSU, and the rest of the Big 10.

Create a playoff w/ clearly defined rules as to who gets in, and the lock on the major conferences goes away.

(10-26-2009 11:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Create a playoff w/ clearly defined rules as to who gets in, and the lock on the major conferences goes away.

We have that in other sports, and while you get some that crack the top of the heap, in the end the rich six leagues remain heavily over-represented because they win. They still dominate the air waves as well.

Interestingly (at least to me) is that among the top sports, the non-rich six schools have more success in the sports where the pro leagues tend to raid more talent. In baseball the elite players never enter college, many top players opt for juco because it allows them an extra shot at the draft. In basketball top stars are often one and out, and in hockey, top players often never enter college as well. With talent more flattened out the money advantage isn't as dramatic.

A viable minor league system that takes high school seniors would probably do more to level the playing field in football than a playoff.

(10-26-2009 12:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-26-2009 11:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Create a playoff w/ clearly defined rules as to who gets in, and the lock on the major conferences goes away.

We have that in other sports, and while you get some that crack the top of the heap, in the end the rich six leagues remain heavily over-represented because they win. They still dominate the air waves as well.

Interestingly (at least to me) is that among the top sports, the non-rich six schools have more success in the sports where the pro leagues tend to raid more talent. In baseball the elite players never enter college, many top players opt for juco because it allows them an extra shot at the draft. In basketball top stars are often one and out, and in hockey, top players often never enter college as well. With talent more flattened out the money advantage isn't as dramatic.

A viable minor league system that takes high school seniors would probably do more to level the playing field in football than a playoff.

*shrug*

I disagree. The revenue generated by a football playoff would be tremendous. You don't find that in any other sport except basketball, and the accessibility is purposely kept from the non rich six.

If you make the accessibility to a football playoff open and honest, the non rich six will improve. Not every program will, you have to want to. But where there is a will, it would happen.

(10-26-2009 08:32 AM)niubrad00 Wrote:  

(10-25-2009 11:22 PM)emu steve Wrote:  KStud, I understand the point you are making but if today was the BCS selection day, what a controversy we'd have with BSU and TCU in a virtual tie, both very highly ranked and one could be left sitting home.

BCS folks should hope one of those two falters down the stretch. Both are undefeated.

What happens if a (second) at large bid is one of these undefeated teams vs. say Penn State.

I can see controversy.

But it's not and that's the point. Everyone on every college football show plays these scenarios, and it's just too early to matter right now. It always has a way of working itself out. I don't think that Boise State AND TCU will both go undefeated. Let the season play out.

FWIW, I think Cincinnati is getting a raw deal right now. They are scary good and IMO a legitimate top 5 team.

I agree on Cincinnati, I have them at 5 on my list

http://bull-run.blogspot.com/2009/10/bul...eek-8.html

No way should Iowa be higher than them...

As to TCU/BSU... Its time for everyone to realize that life is not fair even if Boise and TCU both go undefeated on will sit home (and it will be Boise)..

(10-26-2009 09:04 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  FL looks very beatable.

Not if I have anything to do with it!

or

If you want Florida to go undefeated just raise your hand...

(10-26-2009 02:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2009 08:32 AM)niubrad00 Wrote:  

(10-25-2009 11:22 PM)emu steve Wrote:  KStud, I understand the point you are making but if today was the BCS selection day, what a controversy we'd have with BSU and TCU in a virtual tie, both very highly ranked and one could be left sitting home.

BCS folks should hope one of those two falters down the stretch. Both are undefeated.

What happens if a (second) at large bid is one of these undefeated teams vs. say Penn State.

I can see controversy.

But it's not and that's the point. Everyone on every college football show plays these scenarios, and it's just too early to matter right now. It always has a way of working itself out. I don't think that Boise State AND TCU will both go undefeated. Let the season play out.

FWIW, I think Cincinnati is getting a raw deal right now. They are scary good and IMO a legitimate top 5 team.

I agree on Cincinnati, I have them at 5 on my list

http://bull-run.blogspot.com/2009/10/bul...eek-8.html

No way should Iowa be higher than them...

As to TCU/BSU... Its time for everyone to realize that life is not fair even if Boise and TCU both go undefeated on will sit home (and it will be Boise)..

Life is most certainly not fair, but this system is blatantly prejudiced against the NAQs, starves them of money and keeps them "in their place". There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to it, simply greed and pride.

(10-26-2009 08:10 AM)Karl Wrote:  It may not be news to those of us who pay attention, but to many people it will be. The fact that a #12 or better NAQ gets in, by rule, but not 2 of them, says that the BC$ gods figured it couldn't possibly happen, or never considered the possibility anyway. The BC$ was supposed to provide the 2 best teams as #1 and #2 to decide the national championship. Using the same system, it should also decide the #s 3 through 12 or 3 through 10. Those are the ones who should be playing in those BC$ games, regardless of conference. But that's not the real purpose of the BC$, now is it. This will attract attention if it comes to pass, and not in a good way for the BC$

I agree 100% with this.

One of the reasons the BCS was able to get away with setting a #6 standard for NAQ eligibility those years ago was no credible challenge to the system during the first 6-7 years of the BCS.

Top 25 runs by Utah, Miami, Marshall ect..started to add up and a case was made for lowering it to #12/#16. It was thought by the BCS powers that only occassionally will a NAQ reach that threshold by the end of the regular season.

Now the situation is there are multiple qualifers for #12/#16 and NAQ's finishing in the top 10 undefeated are being shut out of this provision. It happened last year with Boise State and this year it has become rediculous with BSU ranked #5 in the major polls after the third week in the season bumping its head on the glass ceiling. There are 2 teams ranked in the top 8 of the BCS from NAQ by the second week of the BCS poll. Then you also have schools like Houston/CMU with a loss capable of rising up to #12/#16 in the unlikely event BSU/TCU implode.

To add to the fire, the Big East has AQ status but they don't have the SOS in most situations to place a school in a National Championship game. UC is ranked and undefeated but is looking more like a BCS buster than a true National Champ contender. What if Iowa, Texas, Florida all finish undefeated? There is no way UC is playing in the championship game.

The BCS system for further improvement could do the following:

-Eliminate the whole AQ/NAQ status thing. Either you earn a BCS bid or you don't. I'm sure the AQ's would balk at that idea.

-Another alternative would be to drop the Big East as they don't even host one of the bowls. All AQ conference should be required to have at least 10 members. They all do except the Big East. The MWC would then have to add Boise St in their quest to be a BCS.

-Lower the line from #12/#16 to #16 and add another BCS bowl. Give an automatic berth to any NAQ champ ranked in the top #16. That would be pretty fair for the NAQs.

-Have a provision that any undefeated teams ranked in the top 8 are guarenteed a spot in the National Championship. If there are multiple undefeated schools take the two highest. Hence if Alabama and Boise State are the two undefeated schools but BSU is ranked only #4 let Boise have shot.

Hawaii was a situation where they were undefeated, ranked #10 and didn't really deserve a shot at the National Championship and it showed in the Sugar bowl. The number of NAQ's that have finished #8 or higher could be counted on 1 hand (Utah twice, Boise once). If you look at the case with Boise they have beaten a top 10 BCS school (Oregon), with a win like that on the resume an undefeated they deserve a shot.

This would also be protection for an undefeated Big East or ACC team when they can't get as high as #2. There could even be a situation where the Big East has a bad year but has 1 school ranked in the top 2 and the computer rankings keep them out of the championship.

I want the AQ's to put their money where their mouth is.

Eliminate the current AQ system and change it to any conference champion rated 12 or better. They are either good enough to hit that target or they aren't. A 16 shouldn't be in ahead of a 9 just because they happen to be from a formerly traditionally strong league.

I attended the Senate BCS hearing in '04 (????) and I believe Senator Hatch (?) called the BCS a cartel.

(10-26-2009 08:10 AM)Karl Wrote:  This will attract attention if it comes to pass, and not in a good way for the BC$

My fear is that the college football media controllers like ESPN etc would never give it the attention it deserves. And make no mistake that without the complete and total buy-in of the college football media, any controversy this season as to NAQ team deserving the BCS will be forgotten by the August 2011 kick-off.