[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I absolutely love it!!! Colorado should be put into the Rose Bowl. As much as I like Miami, I would want Colorado to win just so that a team with two losses can be national champions.However, they will tweek the formulas just so that it won't happen.

Away with the dreaded BCS. Playoffs here we come.

Well, let's wait and see. The coaches and the AP could make things interesting by voting Colorado at #2 and bumping Nebraska down some....in the last BCS standings they were tied with 4.5 poll points, and a .64 edge in strength of schedule, and an impressive 1.7 lead in quality wins. Neb edges Colorado by 2.83 pts in computer rankings. While it is a complete manipulation of the polls, it would just be another part of the controversy! Now it becomes interesting. Will the polls become suspect if Colorado goes to #2 in the coaches' poll (minus 55 on Nebraska now) or just edge them.

Here's something interesting. I looked at the computer rankings and compared Nebraska, Colorado and Tennessee. I took Tennessee out of where they were and moved schools up appropriately. Right now Nebraska has a 2.67 average while Colorado has a 5.5 average. After today, and moving schools after removing Tennessee, Nebraska drops to a 2.17 (-.5) while Colorado drops to a 4.5 (-1.0). If the quality wins stay the same (they should) then...Colorado has an aggregate 7.38 and Nebraska has an aggregate 7.39. Now, I don't know how the computers will view this LSU/UT game, but I know that Colorado opponent Fresno State beat Utah State, who lost to LSU. Honestly, that could be a difference maker in the computer rankings. Colorado, simply by being ahead of Neb in both polls, could edge them by .01. And it would not be too far-fetched for them to be ahead of the Huskers in both polls.

Now...
if they take Nebraska, then:
Rose: Miami vs Nebraska
Sugar: LSU vs Illinois
Fiesta: Colorado vs Oregon
Orange: Maryland vs Florida (most likely)
The Orange doesn't have to take Tennessee, they just have to take a team that is in the top six of the BCS. Florida qualifies, and Gainesville is 3 hrs away from Miami. Tennessee might have lost a lot more than the SEC championship.

If they take Colorado, then:
Rose: Miami vs Colorado
Sugar: Illinois vs LSU
Fiesta: Oregon vs Nebraska
Orange: Maryland vs Florida
The Orange gets the #1 pick still, but even though Nebraska is in the mix, they will still go with the home school (basically). That's fine for the Fiesta, who will gladly take Nebraska out the midwest.

Any team that finishes third in its conference can't be #2 in the country. I, for one, will be boycotting the Rose Bowl this year. I'd rather watch a New Year's Day game between Oregon and Illinois at the Rose Bowl instead of this BCS sham. Either restore the bowl system, or destroy it. This current system is ruining the integrity of the game, where teams are supposed to satisfy computer programs. (BTW, did anyone else notice that the Seattle Times computer regularly ranked Washington and Washington St. higher than any other poll? Things that make you go "hmmm") Nebraska should be in the Holiday Bowl, not the Rose Bowl, and Oregon should be playing for the national title.

Ump, you called it right: our Illini are going to have their work cut out for them in the Sugar Bowl. Hell, with LSU looking as good as they have the last three weeks, they might be better off harvesting the 'Canes over in Pasadena! :eek:

talked about screwed up???? Oregon deserves the Rose Bowl, NOT Nebraska. What have they been smokin?????

After watching the UCLA/Oregon game in person, I was not impressed by either squad. A very lackluster game, IMHO.
And the TV games I watched with them didn't leave me dazzled.
I think Nebraska has as much right, or more, as anyone staking a claim to Oregon.

I said it before. Oregon has every right to be in the Rose Bowl. They are the Pac-10 Champions. Hell, Colorado or Illinois would have been a better choice than Nebraska. Bottom line, Nebraska did not win their conference or even their division. Until a playoff system is implemented, the BCS should add a rule that in order to qualify to play for the National Championship, you must be a Champion of your conference. And speaking of injustice, it totally blows that Hawaii is not in a Bowl game. They are 9-3 and opened a can of whoop a** on both Fresno State and BYU. They are an explosive team & would be very exciting to watch. The whole system needs to be revamped.

Here is something to be proud of, Husker fans. U of N is in the championship game because TCU beat Southern Miss. TCU lost the season-opener to Nebraska, but the Horned Frogs' win over the weekend improved the Cornhuskers' strength of schedule just enough to make a difference.
If there is any justice in this whole stupid mess, Miami will post 80 on Nebraska, Oregon and Colorado will play to a tie after 8 overtimes, BYU and Fresno St. will beat the crap out of their opponents, and Texas Tech will win the NCAA basketball championship with the "General" in his first year. Okay, that last one has nothing to do with the BCS but it had been building for a few days. GO DUCKS!!!

Oh yes - we ARE - PROUD, PROUD, PROUD, PROUD, PROUD, PROUD!!!!
Thanks for making this point! Seriously, because I was just gonna post this for Cyd cause I know he loved TCU LAST year due to a certain studly player.
But all along this season I have been hearing you guys whining - er...I mean discussing, SOS - Strength of Schedule and yes it DOES matter who the teams you defeat then in turn defeat. TCU got some points that helped Nebraska. TCU won their game. Get OVER IT! (to quote Cyd!)

To me, all of these teams deserve a shot at the National Championship - Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, Maryland - all of them. Four actually do have a SHOT at it - Miami, Nebraska, Colorado and Oregon. If Nebraska beats Miami, then the winner of the Fiesta Bowl will, in all liklihood, get a share of the Championship from the AP Poll.

Jack, I'm with ya - GO 'HUSKERS :eek:

If they're not going to go to a playoff system, then admit that BCS was a mistake, and go back to the conference tie-ins. Big 10 v. Pac 10 in Rose. Big 8 in Orange. SWC in Cotton. SEC in Sugar. That system was by no means worse than what we have now. Get rid of conference championship games that help the third-place team get to the "national championship game." Get rid of the Texas teams from the Big 12 and get the SEC down to a decent size.

Illinois v. Oregon in Rose. Great game.

Colorado v. Miami in Orange. National championship at stake.

LSU v. Nebraska in the Sugar Bowl. Whatever.

Texas v. Florida in the Cotton Bowl. Awesome second-tier game.

Maryland v. Tennessee in the Citrus Bowl. Could be entertaining.

Make all the games on New Year's Day, just like before. Let fans/alums plan their holidays around going to Pasadena, New Orleans, and Miami a full month in advance.

You know who ruined this system? The Fiesta Bowl! A bowl with no history (except as a way for Arizona State to play in a bowl game every year) which got lots of money, got teams like Notre Dame and Florida State to play there, and pounced at the disintigration of the old conferences and their tie-ins.

If "tradition" is the reason not to go to a playoff -- and it's the ONLY semi-rational explanation I have heard -- then let's just call the Bowl Alliance and BCS our long, national nightmare, and declare it over.

I just wish BYU would've finished undefeated to screw up the system more.

I'm suprised there isn't more outcry from Illinois and Maryland fans that *they* should be playing for the title. Granted, the Big Ten and ACC each had a down year (well, every year is a down year for the ACC in football, sans FSU), but these schools still won very tough confences with just one loss. I guess they're just happy to be playing January 1st, since they weren't picked win.

Oh well, only 5 more years of BCS!!

bridgeportjake, couldn't help thinking about "tradition" after reading your post. the Big Ten conference received so much negative pub for witholding judgement on the BCS thing and not jumping right in with the other conferences at the start. now the first year that the Big Ten champ doesn't go to the Rose Bowl, we've lost that tradition, and the BCS is in dissaray! kinda makes you wonder if we should have just left well enough alone! (this from a michigan fan who felt so gypped 4 years ago by the polls picking nebraska as co-champ after the bowls).

it seems clear now that the only way out of the mess is to go to playoffs, especially now that nebraska is in the championship game after not even playing in their conference championship game. the conference champsionship games have been rendered meaningless so let's just dump em and go to a full playoff system.

i will protest nebraska's participation in the rose bowl by not watching it. . . .and hoping that the tennessee-michigan game is as good as it looks on paper!

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Another year of this b-lls-it will force all Division 1-A football conferences into a playoff system with the bowls like they have in Division 1-AA. It will force Notre Dame into a major conference (i.e. Big 10) and will speed up realignment of major conferences (i.e. BYU and Fresno State to PAC 10 and merger of the Big lEAST and the ACC). In this whole bowl mess, Oregon got the royal screw job out of the BCS computer. The Ducks went 10-1 and lost their only game by one touchdown. They played in a tough major conference schedule and had tough out of conference opponents. Nebraska plays their cupcakes out of conference (including Notre Dame). It will be a sham if Nebraska wins the Rose and the national championship.

Alas and alack, it will be interesting to see what happens if this were ever put to a vote. Right now, the six equity conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac10, and SEC) all get a major money deal out of the bowl alignments, and even if your team is pathetic (Duke, for example) you still plan to gain from the payout to Maryland. When you consider the fact that they don't lose any money by going to a bowl like Clemson will (even though their president and AD both say it is an important investment for the school), it's a strong draw for athletic deparments at these schools to continue their support of the system. Reality is that most schools lose money in athletics--you might not think it but I know it to be the case.
So, if the bowl money as it stands now (this is important, I'll get to it later) were to be divided up among the 115 I-A schools, members of the equity conferences would LOSE money (shares would decrease dramatically). Members of the other conferences would stand to gain much.

So what's the problem? There are 65 schools in the six majors (and Notre Dame) and only 50 in the rest of I-A. Eight schools from the majors would have to bolt from the alliance to support something different. As much as I would like to believe it to be the case that coaches would want a playoff system, money speaks volumes. Remember in the 1980s that UGA and Oklahoma threatened to bolt over TV money disputes, which led to the CFA and then to the Alliance and then to the BCS.

Add to this problem that the NCAA is considering allowing schools to schedule 12 games on a regular basis. For a playoff system to work we need a 10 game regular season to shorten the seaon. But 12 games means an extra home game, which means more revenue. I think it's a short-term fix that is so against the underlying principle of competition that it's just silly at this point. But then what do I know? I'm just a lacrosse (and hockey!) player!

[Edited for a typo in my numbers]

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Chip ]

Here's an interesting column from the NY Times saying the B.C.S. works just fine. (and don't even try to tell me they're liberal in their sports reporting!)

"Cut through all the noise, and in Nebraska you'll find a team that won 11 straight by 10 points or more. Yes, Nebraska's loss was ugly and it came in the season finale, which pollsters, for some reason, have historically found abhorrent. Yet Nebraska has one fewer loss than Colorado and has faced better competition than Oregon. You may not like the B.C.S. formula, but it is fair. Whether you calculate by abacus or algorithms. Whether you argue it with barroom gusto or classroom decorum, the B.C.S. made the right game."

There were several reasons I wanted Tennessee to win and several reasons for LSU to win, most selfish resons like, Having the Volunteers win so SC could play in the Citrus bowl, or LSU winning so I could see them play in my Town of Atlanta in the Peach Bowl. Well guess what, the Tigers won and the Cocks end up playing Ohio State for a second consecutive year in the Outback bowl.
Poor UGA ended up in the Music City Bowl with an 8-3 record. I'm not sure how much, but I'm sure this was a costly loss for the SEC, in particular the SEC East.

Now I hope the result of the LSU/Tennessee game will bring about a playoff system that has long been needed. Let the winner be decided on the playing field! Why are we using computers to determine who wins a football championship? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I have never seen a computer make a tackle or even catch a single pass in a game. The BCS is as much of a joke as the Bowl series.

Apropos the flak that the NYTimes has (rightly) taken in some quarters of this board of late, heres a copy of a column from today's sports page - yes, they have one too! - defending the BCS system. Note the musings on the moralizing of the various players in the BCS; what NYT piece - even on the sports page - would be complete without it?

My WSJournal beckons ... and I answer the capitalist call!

B.C.S. Formula Works Just Fine
By JOE DRAPE

The Bowl Championship Series ranking formula was designed to give something to everybody. The human polls are counted along with computer rankings, the strength of schedule is factored in, and teams are penalized for losses and credited for victories over better teams. As it has the past three years, the system worked. Can anyone honestly say undefeated Miami versus Nebraska (11-1) is not the best matchup for the national title game?

Now Colorado Coach Gary Barnett and the Buffaloes' faithful are trying to say it is not.

Yes, Colorado (10-2) beat the Cornhuskers handily and went on to win the Big 12 championship.

The Buffaloes also lost two games, one to Fresno State, a fine team with a future pro quarterback in David Carr. But Fresno State did not even win the Western Athletic Conference title; Louisiana Tech did. The Bulldogs posted an 11-2 record by beating league teams like Tulsa, Southern Methodist, Nevada and San Jose State — a group that finished with a combined 11-34 record.

The Buffaloes are beating their chests about holding off Texas, 39-37, in the conference championship game, but the Longhorns rolled over Colorado by 41-7 earlier in the season. One loss in a season when there are not two undefeated teams is understandable; rewarding two losses would be absurd.

Colorado did not earn a trip to the Rose Bowl. If the Buffaloes beat Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl and Nebraska upends top-ranked Miami in the title game, shame on any voter in the Associated Press news media poll who decides that Colorado (11-2) is more deserving of the No. 1 ranking than Nebraska (12-1).

Oregon (10-1), on the other hand, has a right to feel slighted. The Ducks can also be heartened that a Miami-lose, Oregon-win scenario might earn them the A.P.'s top ranking.

The Ducks, who only lost to a very good 9-2 Stanford team, are ranked No. 2 in both the A.P. and USA Today/ESPN coaches polls. The strength-of-schedule and computer component of the B.C.S. formula did Oregon in. The won-lost records of opponents and opponents' opponents don't lie. For Oregon, those numbers add up to the nation's 31st-toughest schedule compared to Nebraska's 14th-ranked schedule.

Even if you dislike or don't understand the computer rankings, they account for only 25 percent of the B.C.S. formula. Oregon was ranked as high as No. 2 by one computer, and as low as No. 8 by another. Both were thrown out, as the formula requires, and the remaining six computer service rankings were averaged. Oregon's average-point total was 4.83, which means the computers rated it as the fourth- or fifth-best team in the nation.

The math is essentially the short way of telling you what an hour of reviewing Oregon's season game recaps spell out: the Ducks struggled to beat decent but hardly great opponents.

Six of their games were decided by 7 points or fewer. In four games, the margin was 3 or fewer. The Ducks had to persevere against Wisconsin (5-7), Southern California (6-5), U.C.L.A. (7-4) and Oregon State (5-6).

Without the moral authority of the No. 2 ranking in the human polls, Oregon Coach Mike Bellotti and the Ducks' fans would assume the same gracious (and silent) posture as the coaches and partisans at Illinois and Maryland, both also 10-1. They would celebrate their fine season at a high-profile bowl game, regret their single loss and admit that a down year in their respective conferences cost them a trip to the big game.

And how about that moral authority? After Tennessee lost to Louisiana State last Saturday, the coaching colleagues of Nebraska's Frank Solich changed their votes in favor of Barnett and Colorado to try to keep the Cornhuskers out of the title game.

Say what you want about computers and formulas, but doesn't it bother you that the human component of the B.C.S. formula is the only one that can willfully corrupt the integrity of the standing?

Beyond Colorado and Oregon, the loudest whining is coming from the college playoff proponents, many of whom are A.P. poll voters. Fortunately, they too account for 25 percent of the B.C.S. standing.

• • •

So far, university presidents have emphatically shot down any playoff structure. Wisely, in my opinion. Would the last three weeks with losses by Nebraska to Colorado, Oklahoma to Oklahoma State, Texas to Colorado, Florida to Tennessee, and Tennessee to L.S.U. have been as urgent or dramatic if you knew many of these teams were going to tee it up again in a week or two and commence a round-robin?

Of all the major sports, only college football offers a regular season that matters. Expanded playoffs in the pro sports and even the N.C.A.A. men's basketball tournament give fans cues when to pay attention. In college football, you pay attention from August on because the playoff is under way.

The B.C.S. standing was created to ensure that the best two teams met in a title game, which wasn't always guaranteed. Tennessee-Florida State? Virginia Tech-Florida State? Oklahoma-Florida State? The past three B.C.S. title games resulted in an undisputed national champion.

Cut through all the noise, and in Nebraska you'll find a team that won 11 straight by 10 points or more. Yes, Nebraska's loss was ugly and it came in the season finale, which pollsters, for some reason, have historically found abhorrent. Yet Nebraska has one fewer loss than Colorado and has faced better competition than Oregon.

You may not like the B.C.S. formula, but it is fair. Whether you calculate by abacus or algorithms. Whether you argue it with barroom gusto or classroom decorum, the B.C.S. made the right game.

I don't agree that the BCS made the right game over the last 3 years ... and I am a FSU alum! Last year, Miami should have been playing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. Remember the Bowl Coalition group in the mid 90's. They were going to give us the matchup for a national championship every year. This coalition lasted only four years.

If we went to a playoff system, we could establish it in the current conference playoff system that we have in the Big 12 and SEC. It will require the merger of the Big LEast and the ACC (i.e. Always Cupcake Contest) and expansion of the PAC 10 by two teams. The second level conferences (Mountain West, WAC, Conference USA, MAC) will get one or two slots compare to several slots that the major conferences will get in a football playoff system like we have in basketball.

TV networks will pony up the $$$ to see a system in place and it will assist many athletic departments to reduce their deficits. It is correct that many Division 1-A athletic departments lose money because of Title IX requirements and the operation of a major sports franchise with the support staff of marketing, sports information, athletic training, academic support services, compliance, etc.

Remember, most of these schools are engaging in an athletic arms race in financing first class, top quality athletic facilities while keeping up with the Jones (i.e. Notre Dame, Nebraska, Florida, Texas, etc).

It is one big money racket!
:cool:

I do agree that we need a playoff system. I was surprised to hear that Rick Chryst, the Commish of the MAC, is against a playoff system and is in favor of the BCS. While this might be a nod (he is a former member of the ACC staff and is buds with Swofford) it is disheartening to hear that a mid-major conference would not support a playoff system.

I've got to jump in to interject this....Schools ARE NOT losing money because of Title IX. Title IX only provides for equality in education (and thus athletics in educational institutions). Getting into compliance with Title IX has become a convenient excuse for schools when faced with deficit problems, but in no way does this reflect reality. College athletics has become a big business, and a number of quality athletic programs (Michigan, Virginia, and others) have been operating in a deficit the last couple of years.

If big-time colleges are losing money on athletics, maybe they should pay their athletes less!
:eek:

I am not against Title IX because I believe that you should provide equal opportunities to both sexes. However, it does cost money to provide equal opportunities in facilities, opportunities (i.e. using the main athletic facility during prime time hours), scholarships, coaches salaries, and travel accomodations. Three schools, LSU, Clemson, and Alabama, have been investigated and found guility of Title IX violations. Those schools have to pay more money in the proper funding of their women's athletic program and adding some "unnecessary" sports like crew.

Regarding the MAC commissioner, Swofford has many "drinking" buddies out there in college athletics so you will not see a sudden surge in a college playoff system. Right now, the major six conferences and their members schools will split the 100 million dollar jockpot between themselves. Many of these college presidents (i.e. Maryland, Illinois, Oregon) will invite the whole bandwagon (alumni, politicans, deans, etc) to go on the bowl trip at the school expense because the expenses are deducted from the school/conference bowl share.

J T, I'm afraid that I must disagree with your comment
I'm confused as to your terminology. What makes women's crew unneccessary? Or, in a relative sense, why is it any more unneccessary than any other non-revenue sport at a college/university?

Part of our responsibilty in college athletics is to provide a forum and a means for the athletic development of the student athletes. Obviously we like to win, perform well, and ultimately learn a multitude of things through participation. To be honest, it is so multi-faceted that it is difficult to describe all that we do in college athletics.

But at the heart of it is an opportunity for the student-athletes to enhance their experience at the school while keeping a balance of sports/exercise in a team setting with bonuses of team camaraderie, setting goals individually and as a team, and learning life-long lessons through the joy of sport that will last long after a collegiate career is over.

I know a number of schools that have added sports as a result of investigations that have shown that schools are not "Title IX compliant. As a result of these findings, a number of people that I know have been hired to coach these sports. To say that they are unneccessary means that the mentoring--both athletically and, more importantly, in life--that these coaches provide to the student-athletes is "unneccessary." I spend time every day talking with other schools about what they can do to ADD some of these sports and have made trips across the country to encourage, promote, and help club programs elevate to varsity status. One such program, which has not even played an intercollegiate contest yet (they start in March) has already run a free clinic for inner-city children to teach them sports, and has provided equipment--free of charge, mind you--to the local rec league.
Hardly unneccessary.

In any case, more on the BCS. Seems that the Oregon prez is also not in favor of a playoff system. Why would he be when the Ducks get a nice share of that bowl payout, and it would only be diminished if all 115 teams got a piece of the pie.

The NCAA isn't concerned with this, though. Power is located in the football management committee, but I bet there is money to be made and the Big 6 can keep their level high while still finding ways to make it all work.

The exact same scenerio could happen again in the future, particularly involving conferences with end of the season playoffs. Take the SEC for example; the same type of situation could easily arise. A strong Florida team all year long, knocked off to loose thier division late in the season. Then, all the "if's" and "whatevers" happen to occur, like they have with Nebraska. All of a sudden, a non-conference champion is playing in the so-called national title game.

Nebraska is getting some bad press and some especially bad knocking around on some other newsboards. All the Huskers did was play the football games. Then, according to some arcane BCS computation end up in the championship game. It could happen the same way next year, with a different set of teams involved. Mac