College Football - Week 13 (Thanksgiving Week)

[Andy]

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.

Not that it matters because Michigan would get picked over either one of them, but that would make the loser of the B1G title game eligible too, correct? Barring some sort of blowout, anyway.

[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).

 

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.

 

Nope. It was designed to make money. And taking big money schools like Alabama and Michigan out of the equation (plus the likely Heisman trophy winner in Luck) will not make the bowls as much money.

 

I don't consider Michigan top 10 worthy, but I do consider Alabama and Stanford top 10 worthy. And out of the list above, the bowls would probably select Oklahoma and Georgia to replace those two, and neither one of those teams are top 10 worthy (both have a chance to prove otherwise this weekend but are both expected to lose).

 

I just don't see what your system improves. It puts worse teams in and makes less money. It doesn't really help minor conference schools because they won't get picked by the bowl committees anyway unless they are forced to. The only real winners are the Big XII and Notre Dame as they would have an easier time getting bids with so many teams being declared ineligible from the other strong conferences.

[Tracer Bullet]

Nope. It was designed to make money. And taking big money schools like Alabama and Michigan out of the equation (plus the likely Heisman trophy winner in Luck) will not make the bowls as much money.

 

I don't consider Michigan top 10 worthy, but I do consider Alabama and Stanford top 10 worthy. And out of the list above, the bowls would probably select Oklahoma and Georgia to replace those two, and neither one of those teams are top 10 worthy (both have a chance to prove otherwise this weekend but are both expected to lose).

 

I just don't see what your system improves. It puts worse teams in and makes less money. It doesn't really help minor conference schools because they won't get picked by the bowl committees anyway unless they are forced to. The only real winners are the Big XII and Notre Dame as they would have an easier time getting bids with so many teams being declared ineligible from the other strong conferences.

 

Just b/c the BCS was created to make money doesn't mean we have to feed into that by rewarding "name" programs that didn't perform better than their counterparts. Why does Bama deserve another shot at LSU? Why does UM deserve a bowl win - they barely escaped ND and OSU with Ws.

 

It benefits the loser of the conference title games more than anyone, actually. They don't get penalized for getting to a game that another didn't even have the opportunity to play in.

 

My idea doesn't benefit ND. If ND wins 10 games (and often 9), it's going to a BCS game. That's the current system. ND doesn't need a change in the system to get into a BCS game. If it's eligible, it's going about 95% of the time.

[Guest]

Wait, so do you actually believe UCLA should go to a BCS game before Stanford?

[Tracer Bullet]

No. And I've never even suggested that. Did you really read all my posts and draw that conclusion?

[Guest]

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.

[UMFan83]

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.

 

There has actually only been 3 teams that have gotten at large bids despite finishing below the top 10.

2001 Notre Dame (9-2, #11)

2007 Notre Dame (9-2, #11)

2008 Illinois (9-3, #13)

 

I know you are talking about BCS teams like the Big East champion as well, but its not that common for at larges to be selected outside the top 10, which makes it all the weirder that everyone is assuming that a potentially #14 Michigan is likely to be selected for an at large.

[CubColtPacer]

 

 

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.

 

There has actually only been 3 teams that have gotten at large bids despite finishing below the top 10.

2001 Notre Dame (9-2, #11)

2007 Notre Dame (9-2, #11)

2008 Illinois (9-3, #13)

 

I know you are talking about BCS teams like the Big East champion as well, but its not that common for at larges to be selected outside the top 10, which makes it all the weirder that everyone is assuming that a potentially #14 Michigan is likely to be selected for an at large.

 

The reason that Michigan is considered a pretty good bet is this. Alabama and Stanford will get automatic bids now because they are both in the top 4 (if Stanford doesn't get passed by Va Tech after this week which I doubt). So there's actually only 1 at-large bid left. But look at the rest of the teams:

 

Boise State isn't going to get picked, Arkansas is ineligible due to 2 SEC teams, Oklahoma might not be in the top 14 anymore if they lose to Oklahoma State, Kansas State likely won't be picked, South Carolina is also ineligible, and Michigan State and Georgia will either win their conference or be out of the top 14.

 

The biggest danger for Michigan at this point (besides possibly not making the top 14) is that Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State in a close game and the Sugar Bowl picks Oklahoma State, or that somehow Oklahoma remains in the top 14 and gets picked over Michigan. Michigan is just getting lucky that the only teams that are eligible in front of them do not have the best fanbases.

[CubColtPacer]

Nope. It was designed to make money. And taking big money schools like Alabama and Michigan out of the equation (plus the likely Heisman trophy winner in Luck) will not make the bowls as much money.

 

I don't consider Michigan top 10 worthy, but I do consider Alabama and Stanford top 10 worthy. And out of the list above, the bowls would probably select Oklahoma and Georgia to replace those two, and neither one of those teams are top 10 worthy (both have a chance to prove otherwise this weekend but are both expected to lose).

 

I just don't see what your system improves. It puts worse teams in and makes less money. It doesn't really help minor conference schools because they won't get picked by the bowl committees anyway unless they are forced to. The only real winners are the Big XII and Notre Dame as they would have an easier time getting bids with so many teams being declared ineligible from the other strong conferences.

 

Just b/c the BCS was created to make money doesn't mean we have to feed into that by rewarding "name" programs that didn't perform better than their counterparts. Why does Bama deserve another shot at LSU? Why does UM deserve a bowl win - they barely escaped ND and OSU with Ws.

 

It benefits the loser of the conference title games more than anyone, actually. They don't get penalized for getting to a game that another didn't even have the opportunity to play in.

 

My idea doesn't benefit ND. If ND wins 10 games (and often 9), it's going to a BCS game. That's the current system. ND doesn't need a change in the system to get into a BCS game. If it's eligible, it's going about 95% of the time.

 

Bama may deserve another shot at LSU because their total resume stacks up better than the rest of the country despite the loss to LSU. Michigan is a little more questionable. I would prefer that they don't get in, but I'd rather give their bid to someone like Boise State than someone like Michigan State or Oklahoma who are even more questionable selections (unless they win this week in which case their resumes would be better).

 

And what would be your criteria for an at-large spot? Most of the losers of the conference title games are not going to be in the top 14 of the BCS. So is the rule that you can be selected in the top 14 or you can be eligible outside the top 14 if you lose in the conference title game? That seems to favor the conferences with title games (a Michigan for example could make their conference title game with 3 losses, lose for the 4th time in the title game, and still get an-large because of their big fanbase). But if you make it just a straight top 14, there won't even be enough teams eligible left! (Boise and Kansas State would be the only ones eligible with 3 at-large spots left to fill). Which one were you thinking of doing?

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

Which does not mean: If you win your division, you should be in a BCS game.

[Tracer Bullet]

Nope. It was designed to make money. And taking big money schools like Alabama and Michigan out of the equation (plus the likely Heisman trophy winner in Luck) will not make the bowls as much money.

 

I don't consider Michigan top 10 worthy, but I do consider Alabama and Stanford top 10 worthy. And out of the list above, the bowls would probably select Oklahoma and Georgia to replace those two, and neither one of those teams are top 10 worthy (both have a chance to prove otherwise this weekend but are both expected to lose).

 

I just don't see what your system improves. It puts worse teams in and makes less money. It doesn't really help minor conference schools because they won't get picked by the bowl committees anyway unless they are forced to. The only real winners are the Big XII and Notre Dame as they would have an easier time getting bids with so many teams being declared ineligible from the other strong conferences.

 

Just b/c the BCS was created to make money doesn't mean we have to feed into that by rewarding "name" programs that didn't perform better than their counterparts. Why does Bama deserve another shot at LSU? Why does UM deserve a bowl win - they barely escaped ND and OSU with Ws.

 

It benefits the loser of the conference title games more than anyone, actually. They don't get penalized for getting to a game that another didn't even have the opportunity to play in.

 

My idea doesn't benefit ND. If ND wins 10 games (and often 9), it's going to a BCS game. That's the current system. ND doesn't need a change in the system to get into a BCS game. If it's eligible, it's going about 95% of the time.

 

Bama may deserve another shot at LSU because their total resume stacks up better than the rest of the country despite the loss to LSU. Michigan is a little more questionable. I would prefer that they don't get in, but I'd rather give their bid to someone like Boise State than someone like Michigan State or Oklahoma who are even more questionable selections (unless they win this week in which case their resumes would be better).

 

And what would be your criteria for an at-large spot? Most of the losers of the conference title games are not going to be in the top 14 of the BCS. So is the rule that you can be selected in the top 14 or you can be eligible outside the top 14 if you lose in the conference title game? That seems to favor the conferences with title games (a Michigan for example could make their conference title game with 3 losses, lose for the 4th time in the title game, and still get an-large because of their big fanbase). But if you make it just a straight top 14, there won't even be enough teams eligible left! (Boise and Kansas State would be the only ones eligible with 3 at-large spots left to fill). Which one were you thinking of doing?

 

MSU is more questionable to you than UM? That makes no sense at all. MSU beat the 2 other best teams in the conference this year (Wisconsin & UM). Come on.

[Tracer Bullet]

On the top 14 issue, what about this:

 

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.

 

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in.

[NewUserName]

 

MSU is more questionable to you than UM? That makes no sense at all. MSU beat the 2 other best teams in the conference this year (Wisconsin & UM). Come on.

 

Despite being 21-3 the last 2 regular seasons, the NSBB perception of them not being very good still sticks.

[UMFan83]

On the top 14 issue, what about this:

 

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.

 

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in.

 

Yup, posted that on the last page last night. I've only seen that from one source, ESPN, and saw someone debunk that saying the blogger misinterpreted the rule and the only way someone outside the top 14 could be picked for at large is if there were not 10 eligible teams in too 14 for an at large. I don't know if that's right either. UM should probably make sure they get into the top 14 to be safe.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

MSU is more questionable to you than UM? That makes no sense at all. MSU beat the 2 other best teams in the conference this year (Wisconsin & UM). Come on.

 

Despite being 21-3 the last 2 regular seasons, the NSBB perception of them not being very good still sticks.

 

You know as well as anyone that I have no love for Sparty. I'm throwing up between posts over here.

[Tracer Bullet]

On the top 14 issue, what about this:

 

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.

 

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in.

 

Yup, posted that on the last page last night. I've only seen that from one source, ESPN, and saw someone debunk that saying the blogger misinterpreted the rule and the only way someone outside the top 14 could be picked for at large is if there were not 10 eligible teams in too 14 for an at large. I don't know if that's right either. UM should probably make sure they get into the top 14 to be safe.

 

UM has no control over where they end up now. They only end up in the top 14 if one of the 2 teams that is better than them, but has to play the other team that is better than them, loses and falls below them. What a ridiculous system.

[CubColtPacer]

Nope. It was designed to make money. And taking big money schools like Alabama and Michigan out of the equation (plus the likely Heisman trophy winner in Luck) will not make the bowls as much money.

 

I don't consider Michigan top 10 worthy, but I do consider Alabama and Stanford top 10 worthy. And out of the list above, the bowls would probably select Oklahoma and Georgia to replace those two, and neither one of those teams are top 10 worthy (both have a chance to prove otherwise this weekend but are both expected to lose).

 

I just don't see what your system improves. It puts worse teams in and makes less money. It doesn't really help minor conference schools because they won't get picked by the bowl committees anyway unless they are forced to. The only real winners are the Big XII and Notre Dame as they would have an easier time getting bids with so many teams being declared ineligible from the other strong conferences.

 

Just b/c the BCS was created to make money doesn't mean we have to feed into that by rewarding "name" programs that didn't perform better than their counterparts. Why does Bama deserve another shot at LSU? Why does UM deserve a bowl win - they barely escaped ND and OSU with Ws.

 

It benefits the loser of the conference title games more than anyone, actually. They don't get penalized for getting to a game that another didn't even have the opportunity to play in.

 

My idea doesn't benefit ND. If ND wins 10 games (and often 9), it's going to a BCS game. That's the current system. ND doesn't need a change in the system to get into a BCS game. If it's eligible, it's going about 95% of the time.

 

Bama may deserve another shot at LSU because their total resume stacks up better than the rest of the country despite the loss to LSU. Michigan is a little more questionable. I would prefer that they don't get in, but I'd rather give their bid to someone like Boise State than someone like Michigan State or Oklahoma who are even more questionable selections (unless they win this week in which case their resumes would be better).

 

And what would be your criteria for an at-large spot? Most of the losers of the conference title games are not going to be in the top 14 of the BCS. So is the rule that you can be selected in the top 14 or you can be eligible outside the top 14 if you lose in the conference title game? That seems to favor the conferences with title games (a Michigan for example could make their conference title game with 3 losses, lose for the 4th time in the title game, and still get an-large because of their big fanbase). But if you make it just a straight top 14, there won't even be enough teams eligible left! (Boise and Kansas State would be the only ones eligible with 3 at-large spots left to fill). Which one were you thinking of doing?

 

MSU is more questionable to you than UM? That makes no sense at all. MSU beat the 2 other best teams in the conference this year (Wisconsin & UM). Come on.

 

If MSU loses the title game, absolutely. They will have played a weaker schedule and have a worse record against that schedule. Michigan State will have a fluke win over Wisconsin and a win over Michigan. Michigan has a fluke win over ND and a win over Nebraska. Both teams struggled in some of their other games (Michigan against Ohio State, MSU against Minnesota). Michigan has lost their 2 games by a combined 22 points while MSU lost their two games by 39 points combined. If MSU loses to Wisconsin, that will tip the scales in Michigan's favor. If MSU wins that game, that would tip the scales in MSU's favor (but obviously that would be irrelevant because they would have the automatic bid anyway).

[CubColtPacer]

On the top 14 issue, what about this:

 

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.

 

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in.

 

So you would cut out the top 14 rule? Well then, that's where it really helps ND and the name schools in the Big 12.

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

ND was not a 10-11 win team. Jeepers. Kelly got Jonas Gray to remember he was once a top RB recruit and a great combo of size and speed for about 10 games before his knee got destroyed. The LBs, esp OLB, are just not great (outside of Teo, who played hurt almost all year). The team lacked depth, as was evident when the starting C, both DEs, and 2nd RB went down. After Floyd, the WRs are questionable (made more so by a weak armed QB). The only reason the defense held up is bc last year Kelly landed the greatest DL recruiting class in the history of the world.

 

While I wasn't wild about the QB situation, Kelly banked on Rees improving throughout the year and either (a) becoming the clear starter in 2012, or at least (b) being a decent game manager. Turns out, his quick release couldn't overcome his physical limitations (weak arm, slow feet) and he kept turning it over. I would have preferred Crist come back after Tommy nearly gave away the Pitt game (or even after UM), but once we got beyond USC, there was no reason to play Crist again. Let him graduate and leave football or go to a school in need of a QB and try to play 1 full year. Glad Hendrix showed flashes against Stanford and hopefully he plays the entire bowl game. Rees can be a career backup.

[NewUserName]

If MSU loses the title game, absolutely. They will have played a weaker schedule and have a worse record against that schedule. Michigan State will have a fluke win over Wisconsin and a win over Michigan. Michigan has a fluke win over ND and a win over Nebraska. Both teams struggled in some of their other games (Michigan against Ohio State, MSU against Minnesota). Michigan has lost their 2 games by a combined 22 points while MSU lost their two games by 39 points combined. If MSU loses to Wisconsin, that will tip the scales in Michigan's favor. If MSU wins that game, that would tip the scales in MSU's favor (but obviously that would be irrelevant because they would have the automatic bid anyway).

 

Whoa....I wouldn't call the win against Wisconsin a fluke. Yes the last play was a fluke, but the game was tied. Its not like MSU would have lost if the play didn't happen. Wisconsin also had to rally late to just tie the game. It was a game with many ups and downs for both teams, but its not like Wisconsin was clearly better and MSU got lucky to win.

[Tracer Bullet]

On the top 14 issue, what about this:

 

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.

 

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in.

 

So you would cut out the top 14 rule? Well then, that's where it really helps ND and the name schools in the Big 12.

 

Jesus, CCP. This isn't about ND. Look about 10 posts up. ND doesn't need help getting into the BCS under the current system. If they finish with 9+ wins, they're going to go to a BCS game. If they finish with 8 or fewer, they won't.

 

And outside of UT and OU, there are no name schools in the Big 12. Not really a concern.

[CubColtPacer]

On the top 14 issue, what about this:

 

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.

 

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in.

 

So you would cut out the top 14 rule? Well then, that's where it really helps ND and the name schools in the Big 12.

 

Jesus, CCP. This isn't about ND. Look about 10 posts up. ND doesn't need help getting into the BCS under the current system. If they finish with 9+ wins, they're going to go to a BCS game. If they finish with 8 or fewer, they won't.

 

And outside of UT and OU, there are no name schools in the Big 12. Not really a concern.

 

Remember I'm an ND fan-no agenda against ND here. If you cut out the top 14 rule, what's to prevent a 7 or 8 win ND from making the BCS? or a 7 or 8 win Texas or Oklahoma? The bowls would certainly love that.

[Tracer Bullet]

MSU is more questionable to you than UM? That makes no sense at all. MSU beat the 2 other best teams in the conference this year (Wisconsin & UM). Come on.

 

If MSU loses the title game, absolutely. They will have played a weaker schedule and have a worse record against that schedule. Michigan State will have a fluke win over Wisconsin and a win over Michigan. Michigan has a fluke win over ND and a win over Nebraska. Both teams struggled in some of their other games (Michigan against Ohio State, MSU against Minnesota). Michigan has lost their 2 games by a combined 22 points while MSU lost their two games by 39 points combined. If MSU loses to Wisconsin, that will tip the scales in Michigan's favor. If MSU wins that game, that would tip the scales in MSU's favor (but obviously that would be irrelevant because they would have the automatic bid anyway).

 

Whose SOS rankings are you using and when were they updated? MSU played and beat the 2 other best teams in the Big Ten (and will play the 2nd best team in the conference twice). UM played the best team in the Big Ten and lost. UM got to play Purdue and Illinois - a classic Big Ten team that wins 6 games against cupcakes - ASU turned out to be as good as Illinois turned out to be - and then shows their true colors when they play teams that don't totally suck (UM should recognize this scenario from last year - right down to firing their coach at the end). MSU got Indiana and Wisconsin. They both played ND and 3 body bags OOC.

 

They both played at Iowa, UM got beat, MSU soundly beat the Hawkeyes. UM had to go to MSU, but the next 3 hardest games (OSU, Nebraska, and ND) were all at home. MSU had to play at OSU and at Nebraska (and at ND). The schedules are so close as to be negligible, but I'd say MSU had the harder schedule.

 

So UM has a fluke win against ND and barely beat OSU, plus a loss to a bad Iowa team. MSU got beaten by ND when Rees stopped turning the ball over and got beat by a ranked Nebraska team. The point differential in their losses is meaningless. UM isn't going to get blown out b/c they can score. They just can't play defense against good teams. MSU is willing to play a close defensive game b/c they run the ball well and play better defense.

 

There is no way that MSU playing a 13th game against the 2nd best team in the conference and losing would put UM (sitting at home) ahead of them.

[Tracer Bullet]

On the top 14 issue, what about this:

 

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.

 

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in.

 

So you would cut out the top 14 rule? Well then, that's where it really helps ND and the name schools in the Big 12.

 

Jesus, CCP. This isn't about ND. Look about 10 posts up. ND doesn't need help getting into the BCS under the current system. If they finish with 9+ wins, they're going to go to a BCS game. If they finish with 8 or fewer, they won't.

 

And outside of UT and OU, there are no name schools in the Big 12. Not really a concern.

 

Remember I'm an ND fan-no agenda against ND here. If you cut out the top 14 rule, what's to prevent a 7 or 8 win ND from making the BCS? or a 7 or 8 win Texas or Oklahoma? The bowls would certainly love that.

 

If you're an ND fan, you'd see that this doesn't benefit ND. The current system already allows the bowls to take ND when they're in or near the top 10. That's not going to change. No BCS bowl is going to take a 7-win ND team. That's ridiculous.

[jersey cubs fan]

If MSU loses the title game, absolutely. They will have played a weaker schedule and have a worse record against that schedule. Michigan State will have a fluke win over Wisconsin and a win over Michigan. Michigan has a fluke win over ND and a win over Nebraska. Both teams struggled in some of their other games (Michigan against Ohio State, MSU against Minnesota). Michigan has lost their 2 games by a combined 22 points while MSU lost their two games by 39 points combined. If MSU loses to Wisconsin, that will tip the scales in Michigan's favor. If MSU wins that game, that would tip the scales in MSU's favor (but obviously that would be irrelevant because they would have the automatic bid anyway).

 

Why are you ignoring the fact that Michigan isn't any good? Michigan is going to get housed if they get to a BCS game.