This is Probably the Worst I Can Remember . . .

[T_Won]

Just be patient. One day, the BCS will hack off the wrong team in the wrong conference, and the whole corrupted system will collapse like a house of cards. If I were a betting man, I'd say it will be the year when the undefeated SEC champion and undefeated Notre Dame get simultaneously screwed out of the title game. But I don't know if it will happen exactly like that. I could be way off.

You ARE way off. Who do you think the BCS is? Didn't Roy Kramer start all this stuff? Wasn't he the SEC commissioner? The BCS are the "power conferences and Notre Dame." The only teams that will ever have a complaint are the teams that are not allowed into the BCS system (Tulane in 1999, TCU in 2000, BYU in 2001, Bowling Green in 2002......). Believe me, they are not worried about hacking off the likes of Tech and Bowling Green---until one of the non-BCS schools can bring a successful lawsuit that shuts the whole mess down and forces a playoff. Why are we doing this if even the power conferences don't like it?

[inudesu]

I think his point is that it will take a BCS school getting screwed before this system is replaced. Like you said, they don't care about screwing over somebody like Tech or BG (or BYU, Fresno, Tulane, etc). But if a school from the SEC went undefeated and got passed over (even for two other undefeated teams), then things would start to happen. There is enough subjectivity in that thing to leave room for lots of arguements (for example, the way they solved the problem of counting Alabama as a quality win for OU and Georgia was to assume that the coaches would put them at the same ranking as the AP poll - if they were allowed to vote for teams on probation, if this sort of thing makes any difference at all you know fans from the team left out would go crazy). I think Jetstream is trying to say that there is plenty of chance that the BCS will anger a school (and therefore conference) with a lot of clout, and THAT is the only way it go away.

[GrassyNoleHitman]

Did anyone think Louisville could beat Florida State?

yes. going into the season that game scared the **** out of me. i know that FSU's secondary was VERY suspect. i knew that we can't buy a pass rush to save our lives. i knew that Ragone is a very good QB. now after Ky, beat them i became pretty confident, but my off season fears were justified.

that, and the game was a Thursday night. the football gods are pretty cruel to FSU on thursday nights.

[TulsaDawg]

I have no problem with Bowling Green being ranked, but I think Boise State is better. Their only loss was to Arkansas early in the season when Dinwiddie was injured early in the game. And we all know how difficult it can be to win at Arkansas. :wink:

[hisaw]

the Ohio head coach said Bowling Green was better than Florida and the other BCS team they played.

2. The problem with the BCS is the HUMAN element, especially the coaches poll. a. the coaches either don't vote (that's what the sid/ad is for) or just keep things the same if teams win. also coaches/ad's/sid's just might skew the vote to favor their conferences and such.

the biggest change that needs to happen is to eliminate the preseason poll. That is the main problem, @ 10 teams have a legitimate shot at winning the NC at the start of the season. would any of the 3 loss teams still be ranked if polls were not released until the 6th week of the season? That should be enough time for voters to come up with who they think are the 25 best teams in the country.

a question for anyone: how is Alabama figured into OU's strength of schedule. They are # 12 in one poll, ineligible for the other. If they get into the top 10 in the AP does it count as a quality win for OU?

[inudesu]

I think I read that the solution to this was to assume that a team on probation would be ranked the same in both polls. I'm not sure where I saw this, probably collegefootballnews.com (they have been harping on this for a while). I don't think this is a good solution, but I don't know what else you could do.

[inudesu]

yep. here it is.

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2...FN/Ask_CFN.htm

Also, what happens with Alabama? If the Tide keeps on winning, surely it would be one of the top ten teams in the country according to the BCS, except for one big problem: It’s on probation meaning it doesn’t get ranked in the ESPN/USA Today poll. There go the quality win points for Oklahoma and Georgia, right? Not necessarily. The BCS formula will simply take Bama's ranking in the AP poll and include it as the Coach's Poll ranking in the formula. It’s ridiculous to rely on a mathematical formula, yet not consider all the factors.

and more, from espn.com

6. Mea Culpa
OK, our bad on an earlier interpretation of BCS rules.

We (meaning, me) incorrectly said that even if Alabama finishes in the top 10 of the final BCS Standings, Oklahoma -- a team very much in the national championship mix -- wouldn't receive quality bonus points for beating the Crimson Tide earlier this year. (Georgia also beat Bama.)

Upon further review, teams with victories against programs on NCAA probation that finish in the top 10 of the BCS final standings will receive quality win points. Confused? It happens -- we know.

This quality win thing is important because, who knows, it could be the deciding Fiesta Bowl factor. Where it gets squirrelly though, is how the BCS is going to figure out Bama's numbers.

Here's the deal: Bama is eligible for the media poll, but not the coaches' poll. So in calculating the final BCS Standings, the folks who brought you this wonderful system of determining a national championship matchup will take Bama's AP ranking and pretend the coaches voted them in the exact same spot. Then they'll crunch the rest of the numbers and see where the Tide finishes.

Let's say Bama finishes 10th in the final BCS Standings. OU would receive the appropriate bonus-point bump.

The BCS is doing the right thing by making sure no one gets cheated out of quality-win points. But the BCS also opens itself up for more potential controversy if the quality-win bonus is the deciding Fiesta Bowl component.

Think about it: The AP and coaches' poll differ all the time. There were five differences in the top 10, and 17 in the top 25, between the two polls last week. But the BCS takes a leap of faith, and says -- and we're using Bama as the example again -- that there wouldn't be a difference between where the AP voters and the coaches had the Tide in the poll.

Dangerous stuff.

The solution? If we were the BCS organizers, we'd ask the coaches to reconsider their stance against not ranking teams on probation. First of all, the BCS is the coaches' championship, not the AP's. Second, what's the real harm of ranking a probation team? The NCAA has already levied its penalties, right? And finally, it would prevent a possible season-ending controversy.

[Champ967]

BEHOLD!!! Flaw # 327 with the bc$ !!!!

For any other team to even receive be tracked by the bcs, you must be "nominated" by BOTH polls. But not Bama! By being on probation, the bcs has actually REWARDED them by even considering them in the formula.

This means that if the AP were to rank a probation team high enough, then that team could possibly make it to NC game. But then -- OOPS! -- not be allowed to go because of probation sanctions!

The answer here (short of a playoff, of course) is not to eliminate the Coaches Poll, but the AP. Isnt the bcs supposed to be the "coaches' championship" anyway? At least the voters in the coaches poll have a hair of credibility. Any fool with a press pass can eventually slime his way onto the AP poll.

Wanna make it even better? Dont let the coaches vote for anyone in their conference, nor any of their opponents.

[hisaw]

no, the problem IS the coaches poll. They are biased observers of the game. Say Ohio State, Miami and Georgia all finish the season with one loss and everyone else finishes with two. OU is undefeated and clearly in the fiesta bowl. Would not the Big 10, Big East and SEC voters in the coaches poll vote the team in their conference #2. How about the Big XII coaches having their vote skewed for the team they though OU would kill in the Fiesta bowl.
Get rid of the coaches poll.

[Champ967]

Would not the Big 10, Big East and SEC voters in the coaches poll vote the team in their conference #2

Dont let coaches vote for anyone in their conference nor any of their own opponents. Problem solved.

[inudesu]

They could still mess up the system to help themselves. You'd just have to NOT vote or vote low for the teams you are competing with. For example, in the above situation, the Big East coaches aren't allowed to vote for Miami, but instead of voting for Georgia or Ohio State second, they all vote for Bowling Green or someone. Even with the help, Bowling Green won't be getting high votes from anyone outside the Big East (unless the other coaches are trying a similar tactic) and would still finish outside the top ten. Meanwhile, most of the votes are split among Ohio State, Georgia, and Miami - but with the odds in favor of Miami (again, unless the SEC and Big Ten guys are doing the same thing). I think the more neutral voters would still at least have those three teams ranked 2-4, but you can see that in an extreme situation one or more of them could drop below that. I know this is all conjecture, and pretty far-fetched, but I guess I'm just trying to say that new restrictions on voting wouldn't automatically solve the problem. One thing that might help would be making the votes public. The AP poll has problems, but at least you can see who is blatantly supporting their hometown team.