I also think it would help if rankings didn't even come out until the 2nd week of October.

You've got to continue to upgrade the system; they've tried to make it more equitable by removing margin of victory and some other things, but the fact remains is that stuff still matters

The BCS COULD work, if they changed a few things.

...or they could just make everyone happy and go to a playoff.

How about let's make everybody happy. Seems to work pretty well for FCS through DIII, and the top teams usually get to the title game more often than not every year(see Mt. Union)

Texas needs to lose and Pitt needs to beat Cincy. Florida will beat Bama. We'll see Florida play TCU in the title game, if the powers that be allow it. Florida wins a tight one.

^^^

That would certainly be a most interesting scenario. Should all of that happen I think they'd be more apt to put Florida/Bama in a rematch instead of having TCU in the game.

Florida would handle TCU with ease.

Texas-Florida is the matchup that the BCS wants in the Championship Game.

Becuase that would earn them the most $$$$

enigmaax wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:

enigmaax wrote:

Azubuike24 wrote:
TCU plays in a tougher and more reputable conference than Boise State. In the last 5 years, TCU has a combined record of 53-10.

In that time, they have won the following games:

at Oklahoma
vs Iowa State
at Baylor
vs Texas Tech
vs Baylor
at Stanford
vs Stanford
vs Boise State
at Virginia
at Clemson

Their only OOC losses to BCS opponents in this time frame have come at Texas and at Oklahoma.

I'd say they have more than proven themselves worthy of playing for a national title and that they would have been possibly in contention for a BCS birth in pretty much any conference. It's just a shame that they are stuck in a year where 3 other BCS schools are going to go unbeaten and the other non-BCS darling is also in the discussion. In another year, where nobody is unbeaten, this TCU team would be playing for a title.

How does that make them worthy of playing for a national title? You listed ten wins in five years, a few of which are good wins. Baylor is/was a Big XII bottom dweller, Iowa State had a decent season here and there, Stanford has been to how many bowls recently, and Virginia lost to an FCS school this year. There are plenty of schools who go 10-2 in a given season and beat as good of a schedule as those wins you listed in that single season. Aside from that, they've also lost to schools like Wyoming and Air Force in that timeframe.

Again, this is the double-standard of college football. TCU only gets respect if they beat all the teams listed above, but if they lose one game (in or out of conference) people say "see, they aren't that good". So you have to be perfect. Whereas an SEC team can go out and schedule all 1-AA and Sunbelt/CUSA schools OOC, and still lose a game or two (ala LSU in 07) in conference and STILL get in over a TCU or Boise State. You can't say 'one team has to be perfect to even have a CHANCE, while another team can lose 1-2 games and still get into the NC game' without being completely biased. If you agree that the way the system is set up is to clearly favor BCS teams over non-BCS teams, then you are admitting the system is subjective and not objective and thus it is flawed. If you don't agree, I present you with the year of college football 2009 and ask you to explain it all away.

It IS completely biased, in favor of schools who play the highest level of competition. Playing three games against lower tier competition and losing against one opponent in the upper tier (out of nine or ten) is more impressive than playing eleven games against lower tier competition and winning one against the upper tier. It isn't a double standard, it is simply a recognized division of labor.

Except the didn't plan on having to deal with this recurring issue almost every year of a non-BCS school going undefeated. The system is actually not too bad as long as there are only a certain amount of teams left at the top at the end of the season; unfortunately there is no backup plan for the alternative. And your paragraph above would work if there werent so many unimpressive teams in BCS conferences the past two or three years. You can't really tell me a conference with Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Colorado, Kansas State, and even Kansas (dropping their last...well 7 games now it looks like) is clearly better than the competition TCU has played and beaten this season? Who's Texas's best win this year? Oklahoma State, who lost to a very down OU team, and also lost to Houston who put up like 45 points on them? It's great that Texas has beaten a few more teams who are .500 or above, but you know as well as I do (a perfect example is Ohio State in recent years) that teams are judged primarily on what they did the season before, and how they look in their biggest games, against the stiffest competition they play. I haven't seen a team that's looked as impressive in their wins this year as TCU has been. They've beaten their last 6 opponents by like 40 ppg, including Utah and BYU.

We need a playoff. I love watching college basketball because with their system, it allows smaller schools like Gonzaga as an example, to become a legit power every year by playing their way into a repuation and beating "bigger" teams on the biggest stages. College football's current system doesn't allow that because the BCS system is set up to keep those teams out of the biggest games at what seems like all costs. If one gets in, it's highly unlikely that another non-BCS gets in. In the BCS, you're matched up with one team, and instead of getting the chance to play on a national stage at the end of the season week after week and prove themselves and establish a reputation, they're kept out by powers they can't control, and then it's used against them in the future, saying they don't have the "name" as a Texas, Florida, USC, Ohio State etc does. Well duh! You don't have a playoff to allow them to play those teams, so they cant! If I was USC/Texas/Florida etc, what would my motivation be to schedule a tough midmajor like TCU or Boise State when I could just schedule a bunch of cupcakes OOC, beat the bad-decent teams in my conference, and focus on winning the 2 or 3 (at most) "big" games in conference? There is no motivation to do that with the current set-up, because you just have to win if you're those programs. You start in the top 10, and as long as you win, you'll be there at the end of the year, no matter who you play.

A playoff doesn't have to be implemented. However, like someone said, the BCS is an ancient system. It's a system that can be adjusted to work a hell of a lot better than it does now. I know it's not important to the fans, but money and bowl tie-ins are what keeps change from happening. I, for one, understand this, and am NOT asking for a radical overhaul and to change to a 8 or 16 team playoff format. That isn't feasible for many reasons, as awesome as it would be. However, as someone mentioned, there could be changes to the way the formula is calculated, how teams schedule and how automatic bids are given.

The first step is to give the Mountain West an automatic bid. I mean how many more teams do they have to have go unbeaten and finish in the top 5 in all polls before people realize they are as good as half of the BCS conferences? How many more BCS games do they have to win? Even if you disagree, imagine if the conference DID get an automatic bid. You guessed it, each member of the conference can now recruit as a BCS conference member which will upgrade their status with recruits, lead to better facilities, more money to operate the program and the gap will be narrowed even more, if not closed completely.

They should add one more BCS game.

Well you've got to even things up if you're going to give the Mountain West an automatic bid.... that leaves you with 7 leagues with an automatic bid; that leaves you with:

WAC
CUSA
MAC
Sun-Belt

to give an automatic bid

A playoff is the ONLY thing that will make D1 right.

^Exactly. The system that decides who ultimately gets to play in these prestigious bowl games is the sole selector of the teams, and it decides who is in and who is out. But every year, they try to pin it on the non-BCS team trying to get in, saying it's their fault they don't play better competition. Instead of letting it play out on the field, and do SOMETHING to even it up a little bit, someone off the field decides. My guess is that even if TCU had scheduled 3 ranked teams out of conference and beat them all, they still wouldn't be in the NC game if Fla/Bama and Texas win out, because they'd still say their conference is too weak, and that they don't have to play at a "higher" level of competition every week. There's always a reason that whatever a non-BCS school does, it isn't going to be good enough in the current format.

lol, the Big 12 may be the weakest conference in the country, outside of the MAC, C-USA, and the Sun Belt.

I think it's actually the system in place that has led to the disparity we have now.

There is no incentive for BCS conference teams to increase their level of competition, quite the opposite in fact. Non-BCS continue to upgrade their schedules (as much as they can) conference re-allignments etc. and continue to outpeform a lot of the BCS conference teams---not all of course.

The end result has been that the division that exsisted at the inception of the BCS has closed significantly. I agree that changes need made more often and more quickly than they have. As much as I would like a play-off I don't see it as was mentioned due to the tie ins.

There's a huge hold on the tie ins to uphold tradition (and $ of course).

azu - The MWC is 5-9 against BCS conference schools this season. Two of those wins were against teams with a winning record. That is why going unbeaten in that conference isn't the same as going unbeaten in a BCS conference. There are still losses to bad BCS teams like Colorado and UCLA. The problem with their argument is they want to isolate a win here and there and ask, how many times do we have to do this? Well, the answer might start with, more than 30-40% of the time from top to bottom.

Compare the records of BCS schools vs. non-BCS schools and it isn't hard to draw the line of competitive balance.

The Big XII North Division, anyways

enigmaax wrote: azu - The MWC is 5-9 against BCS conference schools this season. Two of those wins were against teams with a winning record. That is why going unbeaten in that conference isn't the same as going unbeaten in a BCS conference. There are still losses to bad BCS teams like Colorado and UCLA. The problem with their argument is they want to isolate a win here and there and ask, how many times do we have to do this? Well, the answer might start with, more than 30-40% of the time from top to bottom.

Compare the records of BCS schools vs. non-BCS schools and it isn't hard to draw the line of competitive balance.

My point is that in any given year, the Mountain West is AS GOOD as at least one of the 6 BCS conferences. Imagine what might happen if those schools are given BCS status? It will help all of the member schools, both financially and in status with recruits and the media.

Bottom line, the BCS is an outdated system. Changes must be made. The MWC deserves a bid as much as the Big East and ACC deserve their automatic bid status reviewed.

I think we all can agree on Azuibuke's last sentance

red skin - You are questioning Texas' biggest win on the fact that Ok St lost to Houston and Oklahoma. But TCU's best win is BYU, who was dismantled by 6-6 Florida State? Even Clemson, their other quality win just got manhandled by South Carolina. The fact remains that even if you do consider all teams equal, Texas has beaten more winning teams and their opponents are better overall (record wise). Texas had the one close game against Oklahoma and TCU barely beat both Clemson and Air Force.

we could play this game all day going through people's schedules about who beat who; the bottom line is you cannot admit that there is a flawed system

Azu - But the MWC doesn't win as much as the Big East or the ACC. I've already pointed out how weak the MWC is against BCS conferences. But even if you want to consider all teams equal and not look at that, the OOC records this season are BE 32-7, ACC 29-16, MWC 21-15. Still a pretty big difference there.

Well, then the best way to sort it out short of a playoff is keep 6 BCS auto bids but base the conferences chosen on the conference strength based on a week to week strength of schdule system. After all the point of the whole thing is to get the best teams in.

And yeah there's a lot of problems with it.

you better come up with an RPI for football then