Tracer Bullet

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.

On the top 14 issue, what about this: 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.

That man loves his family so much.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

Considering Bob Stoops isn't the dumbest mf'r on the planet, I think you're right.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Once you hit 6 wins so early, what else is there to play for? Seeing as they were at 6 wins while undefeated, maybe the NC game? (i know you were being sarcastic) Right. But instead of winning, they got to 6 and then folded. That's the joke. It wouldn't have made sense if they hadn't started 6-0. Cripes.

Once you hit 6 wins so early, what else is there to play for?

I love Henrix. Boy I wish Cave (starting C) hadn't been hurt so he could have played more these last several games. Hope he plays all of the bowl game.

Please bench Tommy Rees. Please. Jimmy Clausen has another year left and he's doing nothing. Anyone. Please.

Fickell makes Les Miles look like a genius. Hope you enjoyed your 1 year as HC, you dumbass.

ND put up 500 yards on them. Sadly, that's probably the best offense they faced.

Is UCLA more prominent than the MAC?

That's so great. Hopefully other teams are pissed at the sox for trying to set a terrible precedent.

At some point, you just gotta wave the white flag.

JoePa doesn't get involved in admin matters. We've already been told that.