Missouri robbed - changes to BCS needed

[MplsBison]

The new rule should be that if a BCS conference has a championship game, then a team from that conference can NOT go to a BCS bowl game if it was not in that championship game.



Missouri BEATS Kansas and yet KS gets to go and MO doesn't?


Pure load of manure.

[brownbear]

But then Georgia doesn't make a BCS bowl.

[BlueHen86]

But then Georgia doesn't make a BCS bowl.
All the more reason to change a completely idiotic system.
Get rid of the BCS altogether and have a playoff.
8 teams minimum, 16 would be preferable.

[Lionsrking]

The new rule should be that if a BCS conference has a championship game, then a team from that conference can NOT go to a BCS bowl game if it was not in that championship game.



Missouri BEATS Kansas and yet KS gets to go and MO doesn't?


Pure load of manure.


First of all, I agree with you, but I don't think Missouri's beef should be with Kansas, it should be with Illinois. Missouri also beat them head-to-head and they have three losses, not to mention play in a very weak Big Ten.

The other thing is the BCS wasn't designed to fill out the BCS bowls with the highest ranked teams. It was designed to determine #1 and #2 and provide a pool of teams for the non-championship bowls to choose from. Apparently the Orange Bowl didn't feel Missouri would travel as well as Kansas and the Rose wanted a Big Ten team to preserve tradition.

[UMass922]

First of all, I agree with you, but I don't think Missouri's beef should be with Kansas, it should be with Illinois. Missouri also beat them head-to-head and they have three losses, not to mention play in a very weak Big Ten.

The other thing is the BCS wasn't designed to fill out the BCS bowls with the highest ranked teams. It was designed to determine #1 and #2 and provide a pool of teams for the non-championship bowls to choose from. Apparently the Orange Bowl didn't feel Missouri would travel as well as Kansas and the Rose wanted a Big Ten team to preserve tradition.

The BCS doesn't allow three teams from one conference--that's why Illinois got in. Either Missouri or Kansas had to be left out. Clearly Missouri should have been taken over Kansas, and I think the Rose Bowl would have taken Missouri if it could have.

But really . . . so what? All it means is that instead of playing in a consolation game that happens to be called a "BCS" bowl, Missouri will be playing in a consolation game that happens not to be called a "BCS" bowl. Well, okay, it means a lot less money for the school as well . . . but purely from a football perspective, it doesn't amount to much, IMHO (although I do understand why Missouri and its fans would be disappointed by not getting to play in a more [supposedly] prestigious game).

FWIW, I still don't understand why it's called the Bowl Championship Series. In what sense do these games constitute a "series"? They're all stand-alone games, unconnected to each other except in name--and only one of them decides a "championship."

[MplsBison]

But then Georgia doesn't make a BCS bowl.

Not enough a good enough reason to justify what happened to Missouri.


If Georgia hadn't lost to S Carolina, they would've been in the SEC title game to begin with. So it would've been squarely on their own shoulders.

[MplsBison]

First of all, I agree with you, but I don't think Missouri's beef should be with Kansas, it should be with Illinois. Missouri also beat them head-to-head and they have three losses, not to mention play in a very weak Big Ten.


I hear you.


Making the BCS championship game a +1 rather than just another BCS bowl and adding the rule that only the two teams in the conference championship game, if one is played, are allowed to be selected to a BCS bowl would solve the problems.




Then you'd have

USC - Ohio State in the Rose Bowl
VT - Missouri in the Orange Bowl
Oklahoma - West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl
LSU - Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl

(My rationale on these selections is this: Pac10 and Big10 champions are contractually obligated to the Rose Bowl, then for the 2008 year the selection order is Orange, Fiesta, Sugar. The Orange bowl would be able to select any team that was ranked 14 or higher, wasn't contractually obligated to play in another bowl and was in their conference's championship game if that conference has one, meaning they could choose from: Missouri, West Virginia, Hawaii, Arizona State, Florida, Illinois or Boston College. Assuming they went with the highest ranked team, they'd pick Missouri. Then, the Fiesta and Sugar would have to choose between West Virginia and Hawaii, because those teams auto qualified, so I assumed the Fiesta would go for WV leaving Hawaii for the Sugar)

After these games a new BCS ranking would be made and the #1 and #2 teams would play a week later in the BCS national championship game.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

The problem with a +1 system is that is still remains unfair. If you maintain the current tie-in like Pac10 vs Big Ten in the Rose you might have years when a #1 and #2 are playing in the Rose Bowl. Say the other matchups are legit #3 but they get stuck playing an team that upset someone in their conference championship. In that scenario, you're in a better spot being the #3 BCS team because you have an easier route to the +1 than #1 or #2.

JUST GET TO A PLAYOFF ALREADY!!! Fine, keep the 'Old Boys system and have a 16 team playoff WITH ONLY the 6 BCS conferences getting auto-bids with 10 at-large. It would still be a more legit system than we have now.

[brownbear]

The Rose Bowl had first pick because Ohio State was taken by the BCS game. If they wanted Missouri, they could have taken them, but they wanted a Big Ten team, which is not a requirement of them to pick. In 2004, the Rose Bowl picked to have Texas play Michigan when they could have picked Cal, who was #4.

[MplsBison]

The Rose Bowl had first pick because Ohio State was taken by the BCS game. If they wanted Missouri, they could have taken them, but they wanted a Big Ten team, which is not a requirement of them to pick.

I know this.

My scenario was for a +1 system, not the current 5 bowl system.

[MplsBison]

The problem with a +1 system is that is still remains unfair. If you maintain the current tie-in like Pac10 vs Big Ten in the Rose you might have years when a #1 and #2 are playing in the Rose Bowl. Say the other matchups are legit #3 but they get stuck playing an team that upset someone in their conference championship. In that scenario, you're in a better spot being the #3 BCS team because you have an easier route to the +1 than #1 or #2.


But if #1 or #2 blows the other out in the Rose bowl, it proves that someone else deserves a shot in the +1 bowl.


The worst case is the Rose bowl is a close game and then #3 doesn't play great vs. the lower ranked team.

Then you're looking at a rematch, which would be a bad thing.



Perhaps they could have a rule such that if #1 and #2 play in the Rose Bowl and the BCS rankings still have those same teams ranked #1 and #2 after the BCS bowls then there would be no championship game played and the winner of the Rose bowl would be the champion.

[bkrownd]

First of all, I agree with you, but I don't think Missouri's beef should be with Kansas, it should be with Illinois. Missouri also beat them head-to-head and they have three losses, not to mention play in a very weak Big Ten.


What about Hawai'i swiping a spot with a powderpuff schedule?

[brownbear]

I know this.

My scenario was for a +1 system, not the current 5 bowl system.

Sorry, I was referring to someone else saying that the Rose Bowl would have taken Missouri if they had the chance, and I was saying that they had the opportunity and turned it down.

[bkrownd]

Missouri BEATS Kansas and yet KS gets to go and MO doesn't?


What parts of bowls being a money-making business that get to invite who they want do you not understand?

[brownbear]

What parts of bowls being a money-making business that get to invite who they want do you not understand?

Which school has a bigger fanbase/would attract more viewers, Kansas or Missouri? Clearly the Orange Bowl thought Kansas would.

[mcveyrl]

What about Hawai'i swiping a spot with a powderpuff schedule?

I think they are guaranteed an at-large by finishing in the Top 12.

[BearsCountry]

The best way would be have the BCS go down their rankings list and take the teams that way. The 2 team per conference is a good rule IMO but go down the list and put the teams in that way.

[Marcus Garvey]

While Mizzou may have been ranked ahead of KU in the BCS, they had 2 losses to KU's 1 loss. There were only 2 teams with 1 loss and 1 with 0 losses and all 3 have been included in the BCS. I'm cool with that.

Since you can't have more than 2 teams in the BCS from one conference, that left Mizzou out. Tough luck guys.

The team who got robbed was actually Arizona St. They were ranked ahead of Illinois and had 2 losses to the Illini's 3. Obviously the Rose Bowl wasn't going to take Arizona St. and setup an intra-conference rematch. But once they took Illinois, that left the Sun Devils f#@!ed.
The Fiesta had to take OU. The Rose could have grabed WVU or KU or Hawaii, both of whom were guarenteed a spot somewhere. Instead, they chose Illinois because they're a Big 10 team. When the Fiesta had to choose their 2nd team, it was down to WVU and Hawaii. I don't blame them for choosing the Mountaineers. They travel very well to bowl games.

[813Jag]

Not enough a good enough reason to justify what happened to Missouri.


If Georgia hadn't lost to S Carolina, they would've been in the SEC title game to begin with. So it would've been squarely on their own shoulders.
All they had to do was beat Tennessee.

[lizrdgizrd]

FWIW, I still don't understand why it's called the Bowl Championship Series. In what sense do these games constitute a "series"? They're all stand-alone games, unconnected to each other except in name--and only one of them decides a "championship."
I think they call it that because they're not all played at the same time. Therefore, they're in series chronologically. xcoffeex

[bkrownd]

I think they are guaranteed an at-large by finishing in the Top 12.

That's what I mean - the powderpuff schedule worked its magic. Not that I care either way.

But hey...it's almost time for lacrosse season!

[walliver]

Maybe they should go to a 16-team play-off like FCS - no-one ever complains about being left out or woofed.:D

Unfortunately if the NCAA went to a 16 team playoff, 15 of the 16 teams would come from the BCS conferences.xnodx

It would be too hard to create a 16-team play-off and keep the bowls (to which almost half of FBS gets to go every year). More realistically, I suspect we would have to settle for a "+1" format. Eventually it might expand to an eight team field with the first round played in mid-December, and the four first-round losers allowed to play in holiday bowl games. The second round would take place among the current BCS bowls, with a championship game in mid-January.

[Marcus Garvey]

Maybe they should go to a 16-team play-off like FCS - no-one ever complains about being left out or woofed.:D

Unfortunately if the NCAA went to a 16 team playoff, 15 of the 16 teams would come from the BCS conferences.xnodx

It would be too hard to create a 16-team play-off and keep the bowls (to which almost half of FBS gets to go every year). More realistically, I suspect we would have to settle for a "+1" format. Eventually it might expand to an eight team field with the first round played in mid-December, and the four first-round losers allowed to play in holiday bowl games. The second round would take place among the current BCS bowls, with a championship game in mid-January.

Actually, i disagree with that statement. An 8 team playoff, yes. But 16 teams would be open to conference champs from the MWC, C-USA, MAC, etc...
Plus, a playoff would be under the control of the NCAA, who only sanctions bowls, but does not oversee them. The money from a playoff would be split among all conferences. There are some unanswered questions regarding a playoff:
1) Will it generate more money than the BCS?
2) Even if it does, will that money, when split among the conferences, be more or less than the cut the current BCS leagues take now?

People will try to argue that a playoff will make more money for the BCS schools, but the reality is that anybody who claims that is simply pulling numbers out of his a$$. There is not enough data out there to make any sort of estimate that would be reliable.
The BCS is a known cash cow for the major conferences. There are too many unknowns with playoff scenarios. Hence why the administrations are in absolutely no hurry.

Also, the major bowl committees themselves don't want to change things either for the exact same reasons listed above. In fact, they have more to lose because nobody knows if a playoff that incorporates the bowls would work.

[MplsBison]

Actually, i disagree with that statement. An 8 team playoff, yes. But 16 teams would be open to conference champs from the MWC, C-USA, MAC, etc...


It isn't worth arguing about because a 16 team playoff will never happen, but if it did for some weird reason the non BCS conferences would never get AQs.

[brownbear]

It isn't worth arguing about because a 16 team playoff will never happen, but if it did for some weird reason the non BCS conferences would never get AQs.

You're right. Obviously, the first step is an 8 team playoff with six conference champs and two at-large teams. Then, like the NCAA Tournament in basketball, it will expand as time goes on and more schools join the FBS (Although I guess it won't be called FBS anymore).

[MplsBison]

Yeah but if you're including the rest of the 32 bowls, that's still like half the FBS going to the post season.

Unless the FBS doubles in size, I doubt you'd ever see a real pressing need for 16 teams.



The thing that the presidents hate the most is the prospect that the post season causes the teams to play more the 1 extra game.


Oh sure, they'll increase the regular season to 12 games and have conference title games to bump that up to 13. That puts money directly in their pockets.


But the post season? No, the fewer games the better.

[appfan2008]

a simple 8 team field would be best IMO