Did the BCS executive director really just say this?????

[timfsu2k]

During his interview with ESPN, he was asked about TCU not getting a chance to play for the National Championship. Here is his response:

"I think you have to be careful when setting up a playoff system where every undefeated team qualifies."

Seriously? That is his argument against a playoff? I am starting to wonder if this BCS committee lives in reality.

 

[Brad]

Not the argument against it, but a point. There have been teams that go undefeated that clearly do not deserve the chance to compete for a national title. In 2007, Hawaii wanted a shot at the NC since they were undefeated, only to get blown out by UGA in the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii only beat one top 25 team all season and that was Boise. In 1999 Marshall did not make a BCS bowl that year, and the lone ranked team they beat was #25 BYU in their bowl game.

There are two undefeated teams that many would agree would not deserve to be in whatever playoff system there would be.

 

[reljac]

The BCS jumped the shark when they removed strength of schedule from a lot of their systems a few years ago... that opened up the floodgate of small conference teams playing schedules that half of the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC, and Pac 10 could go undefeated with.

 

[timfsu2k]

Eh, I don't know. I think if you go undefeated and there is a playoff system then you should be in that playoff. I guess I just get really aggravated when that guy comes on TV saying how awesome the BCS is when everyone outside of the ones who make money from it know it is not. It is just terrible that a 2006 or 2009 Boise State or a 2010 TCU has zero shot at winning a NC.

 

[Brad]

Eh, I don't know. I think if you go undefeated and there is a playoff system then you should be in that playoff. I guess I just get really aggravated when that guy comes on TV saying how awesome the BCS is when everyone outside of the ones who make money from it know it is not. It is just terrible that a 2006 or 2009 Boise State or a 2010 TCU has zero shot at winning a NC.

Tell them to play somebody then!

One good OOC game a year does not cut it. They have at least 4 spots, so use them.

 

[timfsu2k]

Who is going to schedule them? Tell me, what top 15 or so team would dare schedule a team like Boise or TCU? The big schools can't risk losing an OOC game because that would pretty much end their hope of a NC. What's the solution? How about a post season that doesn't involve voting determining who the National Champion is. After Auburn got royally screwed in 2004 I thought for sure something would be done, but I guess money talks and the student athletes are out of luck.

 

[Brad]

Who is going to schedule them? Tell me, what top 15 or so team would dare schedule a team like Boise or TCU? The big schools can't risk losing an OOC game because that would pretty much end their hope of a NC. What's the solution? How about a post season that doesn't involve voting determining who the National Champion is. After Auburn got royally screwed in 2004 I thought for sure something would be done, but I guess money talks and the student athletes are out of luck.

They ask for too much money and make demands that are unreasonable. Nebraska would have scheduled Boise, but Boise would not budge in their demands. Their location hurts them since teams do not want to incur the cost of going to Idaho to play in a 40,000 seat stadium. It is not even worth splitting the gate for that, when they can play at home in a 80,000+ stadium (depending on BCS school). So demanding a home-and-home just is not in the interest of a bigger school. Nebraska offered a 2 for 1 it seems and that was not taken.

Teams will play them, the deal has to work for both teams though. If Boise will not budge, then they are only hurting themselves since Nebraska can schedule some no name for less and still fill their stadium. They have to try and schedule multiple BCS decent or better teams though. TCU this year played Oregon State (5-7) and Baylor (7-6). At least Utah was ranked, but they got bitch slapped by Notre Dame who was coming off an ugly defeat to Tulsa. So the second best team in their conference couldn't even beat a nothing special ND team, which plays into the argument of a weak schedule.

The thing is, week-in-and-week-out their conference schedule does not hold a candle to most of the BCS teams. They have to supplement that with a stronger OOC team. If bigger OOC teams can schedule each other (Clemson and Auburn, Texas and Ohio State, Ohio State and USC) for examples of non-rivalry OOC games, then these teams need to be getting in on it. They do not bring as much to the table and need to compensate that in other ways, which it seems Boise fails to do for one reason or another.

 

[gt2590]

Some of his statements this year just defy explanation.

But not as bad as the OSU President who called Boise and TCU "Little Sisters of the Poor" and then watched TCU beat Wisconsin, who "co-won" the Big 10.

 

[timfsu2k]

Fair enough, but even if they do all of that and go undefeated and an SEC team and say a Big Ten team go undefeated do you think the non BCS school will get the nod? That in a nutshell is the problem.

They ask for too much money and make demands that are unreasonable. Nebraska would have scheduled Boise, but Boise would not budge in their demands. Their location hurts them since teams do not want to incur the cost of going to Idaho to play in a 40,000 seat stadium. It is not even worth splitting the gate for that, when they can play at home in a 80,000+ stadium (depending on BCS school). So demanding a home-and-home just is not in the interest of a bigger school. Nebraska offered a 2 for 1 it seems and that was not taken.

Teams will play them, the deal has to work for both teams though. If Boise will not budge, then they are only hurting themselves since Nebraska can schedule some no name for less and still fill their stadium. They have to try and schedule multiple BCS decent or better teams though. TCU this year played Oregon State (5-7) and Baylor (7-6). At least Utah was ranked, but they got bitch slapped by Notre Dame who was coming off an ugly defeat to Tulsa. So the second best team in their conference couldn't even beat a nothing special ND team, which plays into the argument of a weak schedule.

The thing is, week-in-and-week-out their conference schedule does not hold a candle to most of the BCS teams. They have to supplement that with a stronger OOC team. If bigger OOC teams can schedule each other (Clemson and Auburn, Texas and Ohio State, Ohio State and USC) for examples of non-rivalry OOC games, then these teams need to be getting in on it. They do not bring as much to the table and need to compensate that in other ways, which it seems Boise fails to do for one reason or another.

 

[Ryo1549]

Not the argument against it, but a point. There have been teams that go undefeated that clearly do not deserve the chance to compete for a national title. In 2007, Hawaii wanted a shot at the NC since they were undefeated, only to get blown out by UGA in the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii only beat one top 25 team all season and that was Boise. In 1999 Marshall did not make a BCS bowl that year, and the lone ranked team they beat was #25 BYU in their bowl game.

There are two undefeated teams that many would agree would not deserve to be in whatever playoff system there would be.

How about Auburn in 2004? Utah 3 years ago? 2007 Boise St team? TCU this year?

 

[Wes]

Who is going to schedule them? Tell me, what top 15 or so team would dare schedule a team like Boise or TCU? The big schools can't risk losing an OOC game because that would pretty much end their hope of a NC. What's the solution? How about a post season that doesn't involve voting determining who the National Champion is. After Auburn got royally screwed in 2004 I thought for sure something would be done, but I guess money talks and the student athletes are out of luck.

They ask for too much money and make demands that are unreasonable. Nebraska would have scheduled Boise, but Boise would not budge in their demands. Their location hurts them since teams do not want to incur the cost of going to Idaho to play in a 40,000 seat stadium. It is not even worth splitting the gate for that, when they can play at home in a 80,000+ stadium (depending on BCS school). So demanding a home-and-home just is not in the interest of a bigger school. Nebraska offered a 2 for 1 it seems and that was not taken.

Teams will play them, the deal has to work for both teams though. If Boise will not budge, then they are only hurting themselves since Nebraska can schedule some no name for less and still fill their stadium. They have to try and schedule multiple BCS decent or better teams though. TCU this year played Oregon State (5-7) and Baylor (7-6). At least Utah was ranked, but they got bitch slapped by Notre Dame who was coming off an ugly defeat to Tulsa. So the second best team in their conference couldn't even beat a nothing special ND team, which plays into the argument of a weak schedule.

The thing is, week-in-and-week-out their conference schedule does not hold a candle to most of the BCS teams. They have to supplement that with a stronger OOC team. If bigger OOC teams can schedule each other (Clemson and Auburn, Texas and Ohio State, Ohio State and USC) for examples of non-rivalry OOC games, then these teams need to be getting in on it. They do not bring as much to the table and need to compensate that in other ways, which it seems Boise fails to do for one reason or another.

Like UConn?

 

[timfsu2k]

Like UConn?

Ha ha yea you are right, the Big East sucks in football and I say that as a Louisville fan. Unless TCU just has a down year next year they should be undefeated and really muck things up as the BE has a tie-in to the BCS games.

 

[Brad]

Fair enough, but even if they do all of that and go undefeated and an SEC team and say a Big Ten team go undefeated do you think the non BCS school will get the nod? That in a nutshell is the problem.

That will be determined when it happens. Considering they cannot even do 3 BCS teams, that is a moot argument, IMO.

Not the argument against it, but a point. There have been teams that go undefeated that clearly do not deserve the chance to compete for a national title. In 2007, Hawaii wanted a shot at the NC since they were undefeated, only to get blown out by UGA in the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii only beat one top 25 team all season and that was Boise. In 1999 Marshall did not make a BCS bowl that year, and the lone ranked team they beat was #25 BYU in their bowl game.

There are two undefeated teams that many would agree would not deserve to be in whatever playoff system there would be.

How about Auburn in 2004? Utah 3 years ago? 2007 Boise St team? TCU this year?

Auburn would be in the playoff already since they won their BCS conference. My understanding is the playoff would be 6 BCS conference + 2 others.

2008 Utah played 2 BCS teams. Michigan who sucked and Oregon State who wasn't even ranked after beating then number 1 USC. It goes back to my point that playing BCS schools is good, but they have to be decently good to be worth something. I would say the OSU win was nice, but Michigan was nothing. The whole thing of evaluating non-BCS schools is tricky since they do not play BCS schools with any regularity. Looking at Utah's schedule: BYU and TCU were the only two worth mentioning. BYU was ranked well, but their two BCS games were crappy UCLA and winless Washington. TCU played one lone BCS school that season in Oklahoma. It is hard for me to want to recognize their claim that they deserve more when they and their opponents (talking in conference) do not play or beat a decent team. So, does this mean that if it were an 8 team playoff they should get in over Bama whose body of work that season was much more impressive? Remember, this is being selected after the SEC Championship game. I would say Bama should be in before them. This was also the year that Texas, Texas Tech, and OU all tied for the Big 12 south. Texas and Texas Tech would both be screaming for the other playoff spot. Once again, I would say their body of work was more impressive than Utah's for the 2008 season.

I assume you meant 2006 Boise, who just like 1999 Marshall in that they played no ranked teams. How can anyone give them a claim when they play no one? Oregon State (notice a theme) is their lone BCS school. Yes they beat Oklahoma, but that is one game. They have no track record that season of beating anyone. So going into a playoff, who can they definitively say we deserve it more than? Michigan had a better body of work that year. Auburn and LSU had good seasons. LSU and Michigan were ranked ahead of Boise in the BCS poll. If it was an 8 team playoff, Boise would probably not make it.

One can make the argument that bowls mean little as to who the better team. It is not my argument but a local talk radio guy does it every year. The time off hurts as well as some teams feeling down for being there. Granted OU won their conference, for Utah - Alabama was playing the season for a NC, not the Sugar Bowl. Looking at this year's bowl season as an example - Nebraska and Washington. During the whole season Nebraska was better, yet they did not play with any inspiration, much like 2008 Alabama.

Like UConn?

I said most for a reason.

 

[rymflaherty]

I'd just assume have a 16 game playoff and let ALL the conference champions make it.

Then the "every regular season game is like a playoff game" argument is moot.....as it forces you to win your conference to be guaranteed a spot. As there wouldn't be that many "at-large" spots to rely on. It also gives you something to play for to attempt to get one of the top seeds....as you'd def. get a weaker opponent at least in the first round. Then there also really can't be any argument - every one is included, all the conference champions - let's see who's best.

You can keep the bowls - the big bowls rotating the championship and late round games. The mid-bowls housing the opening rounds. You can even keep you're "everybody gets a chance to feel good about themselves bowls" and play them during the middle of the week.......which is what they do already anyway, very few attend or seem to care as it is, so not sure them not being part of the "playoff" really hurts that much (and anyway not like there's not an NIT while the NCAA tourny is going on).

Just my .02

 

[notjomommasclint]

the boise state nebraska deal is pretty messed up. look at it from boises stand point. why in the name of sweet baby jesus should they not get a home and home with nebraska? 2-1 to a team they have finished higher than the last 3 years is a crap offer. plus with nebraskas schedule the last few years paying what they have for some suspect (at best)teams... why shouldnt the huskers pay a top 10 team to come to lincoln. they benefit more than boise in that situation and the negotiations were jacked in the favor of a team with less pull (set off of 2010 rankings). i dont fault bsu for turning it down. i think nebraska wanted to show hey we can sure try to get a team in here but they wont come...

i still fail to understand how the big 12 let tcu go... logistics were perfect! there needs to be a playoff and the longer the bcs keeps one out the cheaper that "title" becomes.

 

[timfsu2k]

I'd just assume have a 16 game playoff and let ALL the conference champions make it.

Then the "every regular season game is like a playoff game" argument is moot.....as it forces you to win your conference to be guaranteed a spot. As there wouldn't be that many "at-large" spots to rely on. It also gives you something to play for to attempt to get one of the top seeds....as you'd def. get a weaker opponent at least in the first round. Then there also really can't be any argument - every one is included, all the conference champions - let's see who's best.

You can keep the bowls - the big bowls rotating the championship and late round games. The mid-bowls housing the opening rounds. You can even keep you're "everybody gets a chance to feel good about themselves bowls" and play them during the middle of the week.......which is what they do already anyway, very few attend or seem to care as it is, so not sure them not being part of the "playoff" really hurts that much (and anyway not like there's not an NIT while the NCAA tourny is going on).

Just my .02

I agree with your points. The BCS screams that a playoff would kill the bowls but the opposite is true. Like you said, the lower bowls could stay in business and the playoff bowls would be insanely popular.

 

[Penno]

Not the argument against it, but a point. There have been teams that go undefeated that clearly do not deserve the chance to compete for a national title. In 2007, Hawaii wanted a shot at the NC since they were undefeated, only to get blown out by UGA in the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii only beat one top 25 team all season and that was Boise. In 1999 Marshall did not make a BCS bowl that year, and the lone ranked team they beat was #25 BYU in their bowl game.

There are two undefeated teams that many would agree would not deserve to be in whatever playoff system there would be.

How about Auburn in 2004? Utah 3 years ago? 2007 Boise St team? TCU this year?

Not gonna touch the others, but Auburn lost to USC in 2002 and 2003, so I'm not sold on the fact they got overlooked in 2004. Plus, USC and OU actually played a decent team each outside their conference, Auburn played the Citadel. Why wouldn't they get over looked?

 

[Wes]

Not the argument against it, but a point. There have been teams that go undefeated that clearly do not deserve the chance to compete for a national title. In 2007, Hawaii wanted a shot at the NC since they were undefeated, only to get blown out by UGA in the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii only beat one top 25 team all season and that was Boise. In 1999 Marshall did not make a BCS bowl that year, and the lone ranked team they beat was #25 BYU in their bowl game.

There are two undefeated teams that many would agree would not deserve to be in whatever playoff system there would be.

How about Auburn in 2004? Utah 3 years ago? 2007 Boise St team? TCU this year?

Not gonna touch the others, but Auburn lost to USC in 2002 and 2003, so I'm not sold on the fact they got overlooked in 2004. Plus, USC and OU actually played a decent team each outside their conference, Auburn played the Citadel. Why wouldn't they get over looked?

Why does 2002 or 2003 affect whether or not Auburn should have had a shot in 2004? The National Championship is a one season competition. It's the 2004 NC game. Not the 2002-2004 NC game.

 

[Penno]

Not the argument against it, but a point. There have been teams that go undefeated that clearly do not deserve the chance to compete for a national title. In 2007, Hawaii wanted a shot at the NC since they were undefeated, only to get blown out by UGA in the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii only beat one top 25 team all season and that was Boise. In 1999 Marshall did not make a BCS bowl that year, and the lone ranked team they beat was #25 BYU in their bowl game.

There are two undefeated teams that many would agree would not deserve to be in whatever playoff system there would be.

How about Auburn in 2004? Utah 3 years ago? 2007 Boise St team? TCU this year?

Not gonna touch the others, but Auburn lost to USC in 2002 and 2003, so I'm not sold on the fact they got overlooked in 2004. Plus, USC and OU actually played a decent team each outside their conference, Auburn played the Citadel. Why wouldn't they get over looked?

Why does 2002 or 2003 affect whether or not Auburn should have had a shot in 2004? The National Championship is a one season competition. It's the 2004 NC game. Not the 2002-2004 NC game.

I think it has a lot to it given the situation. They're supposed to magically be able to compete with USC a year after getting owned in their home stadium? Did they deserve a shot, sure. But their claim was no where near OU or USC.

The preceding season has an effect of your preseason ranking the following year, correct? Therefore, if they would have played better against USC the previous years, they might have got a chance. College football polls are not in a vacuum year to year. They overlap due to the system that is set up.

I guess the main point of my argument is that the two correct teams were picked to play in 2004 for the MNC. Auburn was obviously the team to leave out.

I'm a fan of the BCS, but I'm for a 4 team +1 playoff, but no using the bowls. Top seed teams have a home game the week after conference championship weekend. Then play the BCS MNC. Problem solved.

 

[reljac]

the boise state nebraska deal is pretty messed up. look at it from boises stand point. why in the name of sweet baby jesus should they not get a home and home with nebraska? 2-1 to a team they have finished higher than the last 3 years is a crap offer.

Boise needs to get off their high horse... since 2005 their record against teams from major conferences is 6-4. That makes them comparable to an average major conference team and likely not even in the top 25 if they were in a major conference. For comparison that is worse than the conference record of South Carolina, Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas this season. They'd be a victim of their schedule if they could post a decent record over some span against decent teams, but in general their poor record against major conference teams comes without them even playing many of the top teams in those conferences. In 2005 they lost to a 6-6 Oregon St. Team, in 2007 it was a 6-6 Washington team. They did beat some decent Oregon teams (which earned them most of their clout, but that occured in seasons they only played 1 good OOC team)


TCU realizes that conference is hopeless and will be out of it starting in 2012.

As others mentioned, schedule the games.... And if you want more 1-1 series, build a stadium that compares to the big conference teams. losing 40,000 - 60,000 seats worth of sales isn't worth it unless the game is going to be showcased on ESPN (which had never happened til this recent season).