College Football: BCS results are in

[G4scott]

Orange Bowl: USC vs OU
Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs Virginia Tech
Fiesta Bowl: Utah vs Pittsburgh
Rose Bowl: Michigan vs Texas

Obviously some disappointments with Auburn being undefeated and out of the national title race, and also with Cal taking 5th in the BCS, giving Texas the at large bid.

I personally am glad Texas is finally going to a BCS bowl. While it's upsetting for Cal, Texas has been left out for 3 years now, and it's time credit is given where credit is due. I'm glad both coaches showed class and respect for each other and their teams, and I can only hope their fans can do the same.

What are your feelings?

 

[roadapple]

This should be a great match up, first time Texas and Michigan have played. I was looking forward to a traditional Pac 10 game with Cal, can't stand the BCS and it's "national" championship, but that's a different post. Texas is a great school with a great football program this should be a great game...go blue! (did i say great?)

 

[Timelessblur]

Sweet with Texas going to a BCS bowl that means Tech gets to go to the holiday bowl. (The only reason I wanted Texas to go to a BCS bowl was so Texas Tech could go to the Holiday bowl

 

[kilpajr]

Well, since this is my senior year at Auburn, I think it sucks! If a team goes undefeated with a schedule as difficult as ours was, they deserve a shot at the national championship. The only reason we're not in the national championship game is because we started out so low in the polls.

 

[wdlove]

This should be a great match up, first time Texas and Michigan have played. I was looking forward to a traditional Pac 10 game with Cal, can't stand the BCS and it's "national" championship, but that's a different post. Texas is a great school with a great football program this should be a great game...go blue! (did i say great?)

I will hope that Michigan will win since it's a big rivalry of my farther-in-law's al mater Ohio State. It would still be a Big 10 school winning.

 

[jxyama]

it's too bad we missed out on a pretty darn good traditional rose bowl. cal goes from playing in the rose on jan. 1st to holiday bowl on dec. 30th...

match up wise, michigan stacks better against texas than cal. spread offense really gives michigan problems. so it might be a better game. i still would like to have seen cal vs. michigan, but texas/michigan is a good matchup of two solid programs.

i still don't understand the fuss about BCS. even with polls, there's always trouble when you have three teams with identical records. personally, if playoff isn't feasible for whatever the reason, i'd say forget about the stupid national championship and go back to traditional bowls. if you are a michigan fan, who cares if you win the "national" championship - being the rose bowl champion is what it's all about.

 

[meta-ghost]

does texas have class?

aaron rodgers summed it up:
"I thought it was a little classless how Coach Brown was begging for votes after the (Texas A&M) game," Rodgers said. "I think a team's record and the way you play should speak for itself, and you shouldn't have to complain about the BCS system. Coach Tedford isn't going to, although he's frustrated just like we are. I think we're a bigger team, classier than that."

 

[Jovian9]

Yet again College Football ends with contraversy at the end of the year. There will probably be another split national championship. Way to go BCS....you sure have solved the problem that you were supposed to solve. This is exactly why I cannot watch College Football.
Go NFL.......you are the leader of all sports!

 

[Lancetx]

aaron rodgers summed it up:
"I thought it was a little classless how Coach Brown was begging for votes after the (Texas A&M) game," Rodgers said. "I think a team's record and the way you play should speak for itself, and you shouldn't have to complain about the BCS system. Coach Tedford isn't going to, although he's frustrated just like we are. I think we're a bigger team, classier than that."

Well, Cal hasn't been totally screwed by the system twice in the last three years like Texas had been, so I can understand why Brown was complaining previously. As Mack Brown rightly said tonight, the system is flawed and it needs to be overhauled. Either way though, it isn't right that Cal and Auburn got the short end this year, just as it wasn't right that USC and Texas got the short end of things last year. The BCS is a joke and until there is a real playoff system in college football, there will always be one or two schools getting screwed over every year.

 

[leftbanke7]

I'm just glad my Utes made it. Now let's wait until this next off season to see how the BCS conferences "tweak" the system in an attempt to make it even more impossible for a "mid-major" to make it in but not making it so obvious that the Senate Judiciary Committee throws a fit.

I say get rid of Pitt and let the Utes take on Cal.

Thanks to Fox Sports, the BCS isn't going anywhere until at least 2011. I'd like to see a FAIR playoff system. Take the champion of every conference (11 teams), the highest ranked Independant (to appease Navy and ND) assuming they are bowl eligible and the four highest ranked teams that do not fall into that category, put them into a 16 team playoff with seeding based on ranking. This is what that would look like this year (using the AP rankings):

#16 No. Texas (Sun Belt Champ) at #1 USC (Pac 10 Champ)
#9 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ) at #8 Georgia (At Large)
#12 Michigan (Big 10 Champ) at #5 Utah (Mtn. West Champ)
#13 Pittsburgh (Big East Champ) at #4 Cal (At Large)

#11 Iowa (At Large) at #6 Texas (At Large)
#14 Toledo (MAC Champ) at #3 Auburn (SEC Champ)
#10 Boise State (WAC Champ) at #7 Louisville (Conference USA Champ)
#15 Navy (Highest Ranked Independant) at #2 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)

This way, there could be no arguing about fairness on either side. The mid-majors are represented but the Big 6 conferences have 10 of the 16 playoff spots. Plus it still gives teams a chance to make it even if they don't win their conference.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Well, since this is my senior year at Auburn, I think it sucks! If a team goes undefeated with a schedule as difficult as ours was, they deserve a shot at the national championship. The only reason we're not in the national championship game is because we started out so low in the polls.

I agree. Winning the SEC is more difficult than winning in the PAC-10.

But, unfortunately, your last game as a Tiger will be a loss. Beamerball will be alive and well in New Orleans as our defense dominates. So, my friend, I will have a victory for my last game as a Hokie.

 

[jxyama]

i suggest the following mini-playoff...

first, get rid of all the stupid conference championship games and end the season for every team by late Nov.

1) rep of the weakest big-conference (which should be easier and less controvercial to determine than which two of three undefeated teams are worthy of the national championship game) plays the best non-big conference team as a play-in.
2) take the winner of game #1 and 5 of the remaining big conference reps.
3) 6 team playoff with the top two seeds receiving byes.
4) three of the four biggest bowls (rose, fiesta, sugar and orange) host the semi-finals and the final, taking turns. the one out of turn bowl matches traditional conference runner-ups.
5) all other teams play regular bowls.

schedule should be something like: play-in game #1 in the first weekend in dec. the first round playoff games the second week of dec. semi-finals on new years day, followed by the final a week later. all other bowls maintain the current schedule.

this will add, at most, two games to the current system for the champion, while maintaining the bowl system.

 

[wordmunger]

I'm just glad my Utes made it. Now let's wait until this next off season to see how the BCS conferences "tweak" the system in an attempt to make it even more impossible for a "mid-major" to make it in but not making it so obvious that the Senate Judiciary Committee throws a fit.

I say get rid of Pitt and let the Utes take on Cal.

Thanks to Fox Sports, the BCS isn't going anywhere until at least 2011. I'd like to see a FAIR playoff system. Take the champion of every conference (11 teams), the highest ranked Independant (to appease Navy and ND) assuming they are bowl eligible and the four highest ranked teams that do not fall into that category, put them into a 16 team playoff with seeding based on ranking. This is what that would look like this year (using the AP rankings):

#16 No. Texas (Sun Belt Champ) at #1 USC (Pac 10 Champ)
#9 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ) at #8 Georgia (At Large)
#12 Michigan (Big 10 Champ) at #5 Utah (Mtn. West Champ)
#13 Pittsburgh (Big East Champ) at #4 Cal (At Large)

#11 Iowa (At Large) at #6 Texas (At Large)
#14 Toledo (MAC Champ) at #3 Auburn (SEC Champ)
#10 Boise State (WAC Champ) at #7 Louisville (Conference USA Champ)
#15 Navy (Highest Ranked Independant) at #2 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)

This way, there could be no arguing about fairness on either side. The mid-majors are represented but the Big 6 conferences have 10 of the 16 playoff spots. Plus it still gives teams a chance to make it even if they don't win their conference.

That makes a lot of sense, except the top rated independent should NOT get an automatic bid -- replace that one with another at large bid, probably LSU this year. If you're independent, you're independent. That means you don't have a conference, and you can't win it.

 

[FelixDerKater]

That makes a lot of sense, except the top rated independent should NOT get an automatic bid -- replace that one with another at large bid, probably LSU this year. If you're independent, you're independent. That means you don't have a conference, and you can't win it.

Go with the old rule of an independent in the top six getting a bid.

 

[aloofman]

Well, since this is my senior year at Auburn, I think it sucks! If a team goes undefeated with a schedule as difficult as ours was, they deserve a shot at the national championship. The only reason we're not in the national championship game is because we started out so low in the polls.

I think they'd be in if they didn't have such a long tradition of scheduling cupcake teams for their non-conference schedule. Wins against teams like Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech don't get you respect. Granted, the overall opponents' winning percentage is more comparable to other teams, but non-conference games are the ones that a team can schedule freely. And Auburn:

- chooses crappy teams that will take cash in exchange for being pummeled.

- only picks home games. They hardly ever play a non-conference game on the road.

- has a poor record on the rare occasions when they've scheduled a ranked non-conference opponent over the last 20 years.

While I think the BCS is a scam and Cal got shafted out of the Rose Bowl, unlike last year it really did choose the top two teams for the championship game. Why the NCAA trolls won't create a playoff system is beyond me.

 

[leftbanke7]

Here's an odd thought:

With Navy going to a bowl game this year, does the Gov't use their bowl payout to help pay for the war in Iraq?

 

[leftbanke7]

Why the NCAA trolls won't create a playoff system is beyond me.

Money, plain and simple my friend.

 

[jxyama]

- chooses crappy teams that will take cash in exchange for being pummeled.

- only picks home games. They hardly ever play a non-conference game on the road.

- has a poor record on the rare occasions when they've scheduled a ranked non-conference opponent over the last 20 years.

sorry, but these apply to pretty much every big time program. no big time school will schedule an away non-conference games, except for ones which involve much "tradition" (like notre dame against michigan/usc, etc.) or schools of "comparable" caliber, where it's alternating home and away.

michigan plays eastern michigan once in a while and it's always home for michigan. if eastern refuses to play michigan unless michigan went over to their stadium, then michigan will simply find some other small school that's willing to take the beating for money. this applies to pretty much every big program.

also, schedules are set years in advance - it's not like auburn admins took a look at the results last year and decided to schedule cupcakes. if non-conference schedule against smaller schools turned out to be respectable, then it's by coincidence, not by the choice at the time of scheduling.

the only fault of auburn is the stupid polling system. since pre-season #1 & 2 went undeafeated, those two were set no matter what anyone else did. the fact BCS casted even a little doubt speaks volumes about the positive aspect of BCS. that pre-season bias, which is based solely on paper information, may be altered if a team plays well enough during the season.

 

[G4scott]

aaron rodgers summed it up:
"I thought it was a little classless how Coach Brown was begging for votes after the (Texas A&M) game," Rodgers said. "I think a team's record and the way you play should speak for itself, and you shouldn't have to complain about the BCS system. Coach Tedford isn't going to, although he's frustrated just like we are. I think we're a bigger team, classier than that."

Does that also mean that Pete Carroll doesn't have class after he did the same thing for his team last year? Besides, Texas actually lost some votes after Brown said that. What changed the voters minds was Cal's less than amazing performance against Southern Miss.

Of course, maybe Rodgers just conveniently forgot about Pete Carroll last year. Many coaches in the past have lobbied for their teams, so what makes it so bad this time around? While I will agree that it's not the best idea, Brown did what he thought would be best for his team, and as you could see by the polls after his comments, it backfired, so the comments shouldn't even be considered as a factor in Texas' BCS bid.

I will say Cal deserves to play in a BCS bowl, but they didn't get screwed by Texas. They got screwed by the BCS. This is the Longhorns' 4th (I think) 10 win season. They were screwed out of BCS bowls in 2 of the last 4 seasons. To put it bluntly, sh*t happens. Just ask Texas fans. We know what it's like to be screwed out of the BCS.

So to blame Texas for Cal not getting into a BCS bowl is pretty classless in itself. You would probably be better off blaming Southern Mississippi for putting up a fight, or the BCS for it's screwed up system. You can be upset all you want, but demonizing the team that got the bid, to make yourselves feel "classier" shows no sign of class at all. Cal was a great team with a great coach and great players, and even Mack Brown has said this. So before you go spouting off about the evils of the team that took the bid your team was expecting, look for reasons that explain the situation and actually hold water, unlike the "Mack Brown begged" theory.

Both Texas and Cal are schools with class, and outstanding football programs. It's sad to see either program resort to name-calling just to justify its position. Perhaps a Cal vs Texas game would solve the problem...

 

[aloofman]

also, schedules are set years in advance - it's not like auburn admins took a look at the results last year and decided to schedule cupcakes. if non-conference schedule against smaller schools turned out to be respectable, then it's by coincidence, not by the choice at the time of scheduling.

the only fault of auburn is the stupid polling system. since pre-season #1 & 2 went undeafeated, those two were set no matter what anyone else did. the fact BCS casted even a little doubt speaks volumes about the positive aspect of BCS. that pre-season bias, which is based solely on paper information, may be altered if a team plays well enough during the season.

No, Auburn didn't schedule wimpy non-conference teams based on the previous year. They schedule wimpy non-conference teams every year. Look up their schedule for the last 15 years. They played Louisiana Monroe several times. The last time Auburn scheduled a non-conference game against a real Div. I-A team, it was last year's season opener, at home. And USC spanked them hard. And the last ranked non-conference opponent before that was also USC and Auburn also lost. Their strategy (like so many college football factories, as you mentioned) is to hope to win out the conference schedule and hope that they're conference has a good year as a whole. It worked for Auburn on the former, but not on the latter.

I agree with you about the preseason rankings though. I don't think there should be any rankings until about the fourth week, when the voters have at least had a chance to see some of the teams play. But that's not going to happen because without a preseason #1, the sports media won't have as much to jabber about. I don't believe that Auburn has a better team than Oklahoma or USC, but the preseason rankings give fuel to that argument nonetheless. And of course, all of these arguments would be moot if there were a chance for the teams to settle it on the field.

 

[Inspector Lee]

Perhaps a Cal vs Texas game would solve the problem...

It most certainly would. If you take away those BS BCS automatic conference bids (see #12 Michigan and #20 Pitt) Cal would be in and Brown wouldn't have had to lobby. It can get real sticky when you consider the fact that the Pac-10 and Big Ten don't have conference championship games. These can hurt more often then help.

The BCS is run by a bunch of fossils, the same fossils who won't vote for an underclassman for Heisman.

 

[aloofman]

It most certainly would. If you take away those BS BCS automatic conference bids (see #12 Michigan and #20 Pitt) Cal would be in and Brown wouldn't have had to lobby. It can get real sticky when you consider the fact that the Pac-10 and Big Ten don't have conference championship games. These can hurt more often then help.

The BCS is run by a bunch of fossils, the same fossils who won't vote for an underclassman for Heisman.

Cal was left out of the BCS by the odd combination of Texas AND Utah's high rankings. Should they have a three-way tiebreaker?

I don't see how the lack of a conference championship games hurts the Pac-10 and Big Ten. They decide their conference title through regular season games instead of a final game, those rules apply to all of their teams, and everyone knows what games they have to win as the season goes on. If anything, it means that a one-loss conference champ will be LESS likely to cause problems for the BCS.

I agree about the BCS and Heisman. The Heisman is decided kind of like baseball's MVP awards: top consideration goes to the best player on the best teams, rather than the best player in the whole league. Only the Heisman is even more so. I think the voting would be better if it were restricted to former winners, with coaches being allowed to go thumbs up or down on players they've coached against. As it stands now, most of the voters can't even see most of the games, even among the leading candidates. It makes for an echo chamber where PR campaigns and media coverage for the football factories create an air of inevitability. Remember Gino Torretta? No one outside Miami or the Heisman arguments does.

 

[jxyama]

The Heisman is decided kind of like baseball's MVP awards: top consideration goes to the best player on the best teams, rather than the best player in the whole league.

sorry to nitpick, but the award is for the most valuable player in MLB. it's not for the best player.

and similarly, heisman is for the best college football player. it's not for the best college football player with the best pro prospect. what players do after they are done in college shouldn't be the reason to dispute the choice of the award.

and everyone bashing BCS... i don't get it. anything short of playoffs can not resolve the mess that is college football. this year, BCS or old poll system, the same problem would have happened. (though even playoffs will have problems because seeding, etc. will surely cause controvercy. we need to remember that playoff doesn't result in identifying the best team, it selects the best team in the playoffs. i imagine there'll be disputes if an undefeated team gets upset in the first round of playoffs while a 3 loss conference champion gets through and wins the whole thing - people will complain that the 3 loss team can't possibly be the national champion.)

i think it's time BCS not bother trying to solve a question it's not made to solve. we should just go back to the old system. it's too much of a mess. of course, there's too much money at stakes and that can't be let go...

 

[applebum]

I'm just glad my Utes made it. Now let's wait until this next off season to see how the BCS conferences "tweak" the system in an attempt to make it even more impossible for a "mid-major" to make it in but not making it so obvious that the Senate Judiciary Committee throws a fit.

I say get rid of Pitt and let the Utes take on Cal.

Thanks to Fox Sports, the BCS isn't going anywhere until at least 2011. I'd like to see a FAIR playoff system. Take the champion of every conference (11 teams), the highest ranked Independant (to appease Navy and ND) assuming they are bowl eligible and the four highest ranked teams that do not fall into that category, put them into a 16 team playoff with seeding based on ranking. This is what that would look like this year (using the AP rankings):

#16 No. Texas (Sun Belt Champ) at #1 USC (Pac 10 Champ)
#9 Virginia Tech (ACC Champ) at #8 Georgia (At Large)
#12 Michigan (Big 10 Champ) at #5 Utah (Mtn. West Champ)
#13 Pittsburgh (Big East Champ) at #4 Cal (At Large)

#11 Iowa (At Large) at #6 Texas (At Large)
#14 Toledo (MAC Champ) at #3 Auburn (SEC Champ)
#10 Boise State (WAC Champ) at #7 Louisville (Conference USA Champ)
#15 Navy (Highest Ranked Independant) at #2 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)

This way, there could be no arguing about fairness on either side. The mid-majors are represented but the Big 6 conferences have 10 of the 16 playoff spots. Plus it still gives teams a chance to make it even if they don't win their conference.

It doesn't even have to be this difficult. If they would stop looking at just 1 and 2 and made sure they got all the undefeated schools in, they could keep the BCS, the tradition of the Bowls and have an "if needed" playoff. This year it would go like this:

Utah vs Oklahoma
Auburn vs Texas or Cal
USC vs Boise State

All other Bowl games remain the same. You would have to go to the rankings to see if Texas or Cal would play Auburn. After those games, you have - at most - 3 undefeated teams. Thus you have 2 more games. The top ranked team gets a bye and the other 2 play the first game. The winner plays the team that had the bye. You are left with one undefeated National Champion. In years where there is only 1 undefeated team at the end of the season, you go to the old traditional bowls. If you wind up with a bunch of 1 loss teams and noone undefeated, then you let the polls decide - just like they used to. You can keep the tradition and use the playoff when needed.

 

[Timelessblur]

Personly I do not think that UNT (Sun belt champion) even would belong in a play off like that. I am sorry but the sun belt just can not stand up to a lot of schools from the Big 12. UT creamed them when they played them this year. It pretty safe to assume that all the way down to 5th place in the Big 12 would of creamed them.

There is a reason that UNT is the only school from the Sun belt to even get a bowl game this year. A lot of the weaker devision really are pretty weak and would be really out of place comparied to the stronger ones. Now if schools like UNT would play more from the big 12 you would get a better idea. There is a reaon that the big 12 or the big 10 have so many bowl games. The schools them self foot ball programs are planly just stronger