College Football - Week 13 (Thanksgiving Week)

[CubColtPacer]

If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't be in the MNC game. If you don't win your division, you shouldn't be in a BCS game at all.

 

There needs to be some risks to balance out all the benefits to these huge conferences.

 

That seems like a massive tilt towards the conferences that don't have conference championship games (and Notre Dame). Under this scenario, Alabama, Arkansas, Stanford, South Carolina, and Michigan would all be ineligible for a BCS game. After Houston automatically qualifies, that leaves 3 at-large spots. The teams fighting for those at-large spots would be Boise, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Georgia, the loser of Michigan State/Wisconsin, and Baylor. Would you rather have 3 teams from the first list or 3 teams from the second list?

 

And if Oklahoma State and Va Tech lose this week (and they both very well could), choosing between Houston and Oklahoma to go the title game to face LSU just because they would be the best 2 eligible at that point doesn't seem that appealing either.

[Tracer Bullet]

And Louisville gets to go to a BCS game. And UCLA is one fluke win away from going to a BCS game.

 

The AQ conferences get a big benefit in auto-BCS bids even when no team deserves to go (even an 8-win Cincy, WVU, etc, wouldn't deserve a BCS game). Those conference title games are an even bigger benefit to teams that don't win their conference b/c they get a 1-game playoff to get in. It only benefits ND and non-AQ conferences if they're 9 or 10 win teams.

 

Why shouldn't there be some risk?

 

MNC: LSU/Okie St (assuming LSU wins its conference title and OSU beats OU)

 

BCS (pick 8): Houston, MSU, Wisconsin, Clemson, Va Tech, Louisville (ugh), Oregon, UCLA (haha), Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St.

 

ETA: it's really: Houston, Oregon, Louisville, MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech

 

and 3 of: MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St, UCLA

 

Is that so bad?

[Guest]

Yeah, I definitely don't have a problem with a non-division winner making a BCS game.

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

Zook is gone. Let the speculation begin. The top of my list is Paul Chryst and Todd Monken. Chryst knows the Big Ten, and can bring a pro style system based on physical play which works in the Big Ten. Monken is an Illinois native and can likely bring QB Wes Lunt with him.

 

I don't want a retread head coach. I want a coordinator from an established program, who can recruit the south and Texas. I'm done with trying to lock down Illinois and Chicago in recruiting, as the best players will still continue to choose ND and Michigan over Illinois. I also want a coach who understands the importance of special teams, playing fundamentally sound football and most of all playing disciplined.

 

Edit: Sorry mods, put this in the wrong thread. Thoughts are duplicated in the coaching search thread.

Edited November 27, 2011 by NeifiIsMyHomeBoy

[UMFan83]

Well after all that excitement yesterday, its looking like the BCS won't have Michigan in the top 14 this week. Michigan is 16 in the coaches poll just released.

 

I guess they still have a shot but I think UM has to root for MSU to win the Big Ten Championship so that Wisconsin goes below UM.

 

Edit: This is what I just read:

 

8. So what needs to happen for Michigan?

 

First, Georgia must lose to LSU. If Georgia wins the SEC title and takes the third BCS bid for the SEC, there is no scenario where Michigan would get a BCS bid. Michigan can count on jumping Georgia and the Big Ten title game loser to squeeze into the top 14, but it has one more team to worry about: Baylor. If the Bears beat Texas next week, they might jump the Wolverines, keeping them out of the top 14.

[NewUserName]

I don't understand what the difference between a team not making its conference championship game not making a BCS (Alabama, Michigan, Stanford) but a team not winning its conference can (Kansas St, OK/OKST loser). It makes no sense.

[NewUserName]

Well after all that excitement yesterday, its looking like the BCS won't have Michigan in the top 14 this week. Michigan is 16 in the coaches poll just released.

 

I guess they still have a shot but I think UM has to root for MSU to win the Big Ten Championship so that Wisconsin goes below UM.

 

Edit: This is what I just read:

 

8. So what needs to happen for Michigan?

 

First, Georgia must lose to LSU. If Georgia wins the SEC title and takes the third BCS bid for the SEC, there is no scenario where Michigan would get a BCS bid. Michigan can count on jumping Georgia and the Big Ten title game loser to squeeze into the top 14, but it has one more team to worry about: Baylor. If the Bears beat Texas next week, they might jump the Wolverines, keeping them out of the top 14.

 

I thought a conference can only have 2 BCS teams...is there an exception that I don't know about or am I wrong.

[Flames24Rulz]

Well after all that excitement yesterday, its looking like the BCS won't have Michigan in the top 14 this week. Michigan is 16 in the coaches poll just released.

 

I guess they still have a shot but I think UM has to root for MSU to win the Big Ten Championship so that Wisconsin goes below UM.

 

Edit: This is what I just read:

 

8. So what needs to happen for Michigan?

 

First, Georgia must lose to LSU. If Georgia wins the SEC title and takes the third BCS bid for the SEC, there is no scenario where Michigan would get a BCS bid. Michigan can count on jumping Georgia and the Big Ten title game loser to squeeze into the top 14, but it has one more team to worry about: Baylor. If the Bears beat Texas next week, they might jump the Wolverines, keeping them out of the top 14.

 

I thought a conference can only have 2 BCS teams...is there an exception that I don't know about or am I wrong.

 

The SEC could have 3 BCS teams if Georgia beats LSU and if Alabama and LSU are both in the top 2 in the final BCS standings. That's the only way you can have three teams from a conference in BCS games.

[NewUserName]

 

 

 

The SEC could have 3 BCS teams if Georgia beats LSU and if Alabama and LSU are both in the top 2 in the final BCS standings. That's the only way you can have three teams from a conference in BCS games.

 

Wouldn't Georgia beating LSU kind of put a monkey wrench into the thought that LSU and Alabama are the best two teams though?

[Flames24Rulz]

 

 

 

The SEC could have 3 BCS teams if Georgia beats LSU and if Alabama and LSU are both in the top 2 in the final BCS standings. That's the only way you can have three teams from a conference in BCS games.

 

Wouldn't Georgia beating LSU kind of put a monkey wrench into the thought that LSU and Alabama are the best two teams though?

 

I would think so, but who knows?

[NewUserName]

 

 

 

The SEC could have 3 BCS teams if Georgia beats LSU and if Alabama and LSU are both in the top 2 in the final BCS standings. That's the only way you can have three teams from a conference in BCS games.

 

Wouldn't Georgia beating LSU kind of put a monkey wrench into the thought that LSU and Alabama are the best two teams though?

 

I would think so, but who knows?

 

So if LSU beats Georgia and Alabama finishes 2nd wouldn't Arkansas be a viable at large option or would the third team be allowed because they were an automatic qualifier?

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't understand what the difference between a team not making its conference championship game not making a BCS (Alabama, Michigan, Stanford) but a team not winning its conference can (Kansas St, OK/OKST loser). It makes no sense.

 

Sure it does. Division winners get a chance to make a BCS game. If you want the benefit of a chance for an autobid then there should be some risk.

[Guest]

I don't understand what the difference between a team not making its conference championship game not making a BCS (Alabama, Michigan, Stanford) but a team not winning its conference can (Kansas St, OK/OKST loser). It makes no sense.

 

Sure it does. Division winners get a chance to make a BCS game. If you want the benefit of a chance for an autobid then there should be some risk.

 

Everyone has the benefit of the chance of an autobid from an AQ conference, Notre Dame included. What you're saying is that it should be harder to get an at large just because you're in a conference that decides to have divisions. The Pac 12 doesn't inherently make it easier than the Big 12 to get to a BCS bowl because they choose have divisions, so why would that be a requirement?

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't understand what the difference between a team not making its conference championship game not making a BCS (Alabama, Michigan, Stanford) but a team not winning its conference can (Kansas St, OK/OKST loser). It makes no sense.

 

Sure it does. Division winners get a chance to make a BCS game. If you want the benefit of a chance for an autobid then there should be some risk.

 

Everyone has the benefit of the chance of an autobid from an AQ conference, Notre Dame included. What you're saying is that it should be harder to get an at large just because you're in a conference that decides to have divisions. The Pac 12 doesn't inherently make it easier than the Big 12 to get to a BCS bowl because they choose have divisions, so why would that be a requirement?

 

Everyone has the chance of an autobid. But not the same chance. The division winners of conferences with divisions have an extra benefit (I was also responding to a specific point; I wasn't addressing non-AQ conferences in the post you quoted).

 

and why doesn't being the best of 6 teams and playing in a 1-game playoff make it easier than being the best of 12 teams? If you don't think so, ask Georgia if they prefer divisions. Or ask Wisconson, which gets a second chance at the Rose Bowl b/c of divisions when they pissed the first chance away in EL a month ago.

[Guest]

Those circumstances hurt Michigan State as much as they can help Wisconsin. And anyways, why does the manner in which teams choose their automatic participant matter in choosing at larges? Sure Georgia or UCLA might make a BCS game, but it has the potential to hurt teams like Michigan State too. There's still a limit on how many teams from a conference can make the BCS, and that's a far more efficient means of filtering out weird conference title scenarios than arbitrarily limiting based on the format that some of the conferences use.

[hawkeyecub]

If I'm Illinois I'm calling Leach immediately and then going with Chryst and Sumlin as the next two.

[Tracer Bullet]

Those circumstances hurt Michigan State as much as they can help Wisconsin. And anyways, why does the manner in which teams choose their automatic participant matter in choosing at larges? Sure Georgia or UCLA might make a BCS game, but it has the potential to hurt teams like Michigan State too. There's still a limit on how many teams from a conference can make the BCS, and that's a far more efficient means of filtering out weird conference title scenarios than arbitrarily limiting based on the format that some of the conferences use.

 

Why is some arbitrary number limit more effective than saying 'only division winners are eligible' - it's cleaner to narrow the field by eliminating a handful of teams that had a shot and didn't take it. If your conference wants to play a title game, which gives the 2nd (or lower) place team another shot at the autobid, then there should be a risk there.

 

I know the current system could hurt MSU, Oregon, Va Tech, etc (no one really think LSU is going to lose). I think that's crap that any of them could get jumped by a team that finished behind them in the standings and gets to sit at home and climb the standings.

 

UM can't complain. They could have beaten MSU to go to the title game (or not lost to a pretty bad Iowa team). Bama can't complain. They had their shot at the #1 team (at home, no less) and lost. Stanford can't complain. They got their doors blown off in the showdown with Oregon. Are any of those teams really more deserving than Va Tech, Georgia, the loser of the big ten title game (obviously, everyone is more deserving than UCLA and Louisville, but that's the system).

[Andy]

Well done taking a 10 or 11-win team (and just as importantly, a 10 or 11-win schedule) and coaching them to 8, Mr. Kelly. Three different QBs started halves this year without any injury involved. Ugh.

[CubColtPacer]

And Louisville gets to go to a BCS game. And UCLA is one fluke win away from going to a BCS game.

 

The AQ conferences get a big benefit in auto-BCS bids even when no team deserves to go (even an 8-win Cincy, WVU, etc, wouldn't deserve a BCS game). Those conference title games are an even bigger benefit to teams that don't win their conference b/c they get a 1-game playoff to get in. It only benefits ND and non-AQ conferences if they're 9 or 10 win teams.

 

Why shouldn't there be some risk?

 

MNC: LSU/Okie St (assuming LSU wins its conference title and OSU beats OU)

 

BCS (pick 8): Houston, MSU, Wisconsin, Clemson, Va Tech, Louisville (ugh), Oregon, UCLA (haha), Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St.

 

ETA: it's really: Houston, Oregon, Louisville, MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech

 

and 3 of: MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St, UCLA

 

Is that so bad?

 

The risk to having divisions and a conference championship game is exactly what we were talking about with the Michigan State/Michigan discussion. Teams that were eligible for the conference championship game lose that game and no longer are eligible. That's the risk for a conference when they schedule a conference championship game.

 

We already exclude some of the best teams by the 2 per conference rule and also by letting the bowls choose their own at-larges (of course with some restrictions). To expand that even further by excluding teams who land in the wrong division hurts the BCS even more. Oregon lost to LSU just like Alabama did, but because they happen to play in a different inferior conference they get the big money bowl and Alabama is shut out?

 

Under your scenario, Alabama/Michigan in the Capital One Bowl and Stanford vs. Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl would both end up being better games than most of the BCS. Why would you want to put the best teams in the lower bowls?

[Tracer Bullet]

And Louisville gets to go to a BCS game. And UCLA is one fluke win away from going to a BCS game.

 

The AQ conferences get a big benefit in auto-BCS bids even when no team deserves to go (even an 8-win Cincy, WVU, etc, wouldn't deserve a BCS game). Those conference title games are an even bigger benefit to teams that don't win their conference b/c they get a 1-game playoff to get in. It only benefits ND and non-AQ conferences if they're 9 or 10 win teams.

 

Why shouldn't there be some risk?

 

MNC: LSU/Okie St (assuming LSU wins its conference title and OSU beats OU)

 

BCS (pick 8): Houston, MSU, Wisconsin, Clemson, Va Tech, Louisville (ugh), Oregon, UCLA (haha), Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St.

 

ETA: it's really: Houston, Oregon, Louisville, MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech

 

and 3 of: MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St, UCLA

 

Is that so bad?

 

The risk to having divisions and a conference championship game is exactly what we were talking about with the Michigan State/Michigan discussion. Teams that were eligible for the conference championship game lose that game and no longer are eligible. That's the risk for a conference when they schedule a conference championship game.

 

We already exclude some of the best teams by the 2 per conference rule and also by letting the bowls choose their own at-larges (of course with some restrictions). To expand that even further by excluding teams who land in the wrong division hurts the BCS even more. Oregon lost to LSU just like Alabama did, but because they happen to play in a different inferior conference they get the big money bowl and Alabama is shut out?

 

Under your scenario, Alabama/Michigan in the Capital One Bowl and Stanford vs. Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl would both end up being better games than most of the BCS. Why would you want to put the best teams in the lower bowls?

 

You really think Alabama/Michigan is a better game than Houston/Georgia? Bama would rock Michigan.

[sneakypower]

Well after all that excitement yesterday, its looking like the BCS won't have Michigan in the top 14 this week. Michigan is 16 in the coaches poll just released.

 

I guess they still have a shot but I think UM has to root for MSU to win the Big Ten Championship so that Wisconsin goes below UM.

 

Edit: This is what I just read:

 

8. So what needs to happen for Michigan?

 

First, Georgia must lose to LSU. If Georgia wins the SEC title and takes the third BCS bid for the SEC, there is no scenario where Michigan would get a BCS bid. Michigan can count on jumping Georgia and the Big Ten title game loser to squeeze into the top 14, but it has one more team to worry about: Baylor. If the Bears beat Texas next week, they might jump the Wolverines, keeping them out of the top 14.

we'll be ahead of whichever 3 loss team comes out of the BTCG and we'll jump Georgia when they lose

 

i'm not too worried

[CubColtPacer]

And Louisville gets to go to a BCS game. And UCLA is one fluke win away from going to a BCS game.

 

The AQ conferences get a big benefit in auto-BCS bids even when no team deserves to go (even an 8-win Cincy, WVU, etc, wouldn't deserve a BCS game). Those conference title games are an even bigger benefit to teams that don't win their conference b/c they get a 1-game playoff to get in. It only benefits ND and non-AQ conferences if they're 9 or 10 win teams.

 

Why shouldn't there be some risk?

 

MNC: LSU/Okie St (assuming LSU wins its conference title and OSU beats OU)

 

BCS (pick 8): Houston, MSU, Wisconsin, Clemson, Va Tech, Louisville (ugh), Oregon, UCLA (haha), Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St.

 

ETA: it's really: Houston, Oregon, Louisville, MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech

 

and 3 of: MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St, UCLA

 

Is that so bad?

 

The risk to having divisions and a conference championship game is exactly what we were talking about with the Michigan State/Michigan discussion. Teams that were eligible for the conference championship game lose that game and no longer are eligible. That's the risk for a conference when they schedule a conference championship game.

 

We already exclude some of the best teams by the 2 per conference rule and also by letting the bowls choose their own at-larges (of course with some restrictions). To expand that even further by excluding teams who land in the wrong division hurts the BCS even more. Oregon lost to LSU just like Alabama did, but because they happen to play in a different inferior conference they get the big money bowl and Alabama is shut out?

 

Under your scenario, Alabama/Michigan in the Capital One Bowl and Stanford vs. Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl would both end up being better games than most of the BCS. Why would you want to put the best teams in the lower bowls?

 

You really think Alabama/Michigan is a better game than Houston/Georgia? Bama would rock Michigan.

 

A better game? Maybe. A more interesting game? Sure. I'd rather see what happens in that game than watch a Houston team try to prove itself against the 4th or 5th best SEC team. I don't want to solve the problem of putting in teams in the BCS that aren't top 10 worthy by putting more teams in that aren't top 10 worthy just to get a more competitive game. There are better ways (such as not letting a conference winner in if they aren't in the top 18 or so of the BCS).

[NewUserName]

Mariner I have read through your statements and I still just disagree, but each their own I guess.

[UMFan83]

According to this, its likely that Michigan only has to finish in the top 18 because of some weird rule. If that's the case, unless the loser of the B1G title game doesnt drop below 14th, Michigan is eligible to be selected.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post?id=54347

 

Michigan still seems like a safe bet to grab a BCS at-large berth -- possibly an invitation to play No. 6 Houston in the Jan. 3 Allstate Sugar Bowl -- after finishing 10-2 under first-year coach Brady Hoke.

 

The No. 15 Badgers play No. 13 Michigan State in the inaugural Big Ten championship game in Indianapolis on Saturday. The losing team figures to drop out of the top 14 of the BCS standings, which would leave the winner as the only Big Ten team ranked in the top 14.

 

Under BCS rules, a team must finish in the top 14 of the final BCS standings to be considered for a BCS at-large berth -- unless there's only one team from its conference in the top 14. So if only one Big Ten team finishes in the top 14 of the final BCS standings, Michigan could still receive an at-large bid as long as it finishes in the top 18.

[Tracer Bullet]

And Louisville gets to go to a BCS game. And UCLA is one fluke win away from going to a BCS game.

 

The AQ conferences get a big benefit in auto-BCS bids even when no team deserves to go (even an 8-win Cincy, WVU, etc, wouldn't deserve a BCS game). Those conference title games are an even bigger benefit to teams that don't win their conference b/c they get a 1-game playoff to get in. It only benefits ND and non-AQ conferences if they're 9 or 10 win teams.

 

Why shouldn't there be some risk?

 

MNC: LSU/Okie St (assuming LSU wins its conference title and OSU beats OU)

 

BCS (pick 8): Houston, MSU, Wisconsin, Clemson, Va Tech, Louisville (ugh), Oregon, UCLA (haha), Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St.

 

ETA: it's really: Houston, Oregon, Louisville, MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech

 

and 3 of: MSU/Wisc, Clemson/VaTech, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Boise St, UCLA

 

Is that so bad?

 

The risk to having divisions and a conference championship game is exactly what we were talking about with the Michigan State/Michigan discussion. Teams that were eligible for the conference championship game lose that game and no longer are eligible. That's the risk for a conference when they schedule a conference championship game.

 

We already exclude some of the best teams by the 2 per conference rule and also by letting the bowls choose their own at-larges (of course with some restrictions). To expand that even further by excluding teams who land in the wrong division hurts the BCS even more. Oregon lost to LSU just like Alabama did, but because they happen to play in a different inferior conference they get the big money bowl and Alabama is shut out?

 

Under your scenario, Alabama/Michigan in the Capital One Bowl and Stanford vs. Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl would both end up being better games than most of the BCS. Why would you want to put the best teams in the lower bowls?

 

You really think Alabama/Michigan is a better game than Houston/Georgia? Bama would rock Michigan.

 

A better game? Maybe. A more interesting game? Sure. I'd rather see what happens in that game than watch a Houston team try to prove itself against the 4th or 5th best SEC team. I don't want to solve the problem of putting in teams in the BCS that aren't top 10 worthy by putting more teams in that aren't top 10 worthy just to get a more competitive game. There are better ways (such as not letting a conference winner in if they aren't in the top 18 or so of the BCS).

 

You already have not top-10 worthy teams in the BCS (unless you think UM is top 10). That happens every year. The BCS wasn't created to pit the top 10 teams against each other.