ytownfootball wrote:

dtdtim wrote: If they were willing to take 2-loss OSU over an undefeated Boise last year (a year in which nothing impressive of note happened for the Bucks), they would do it this year.

You act like Boise is all of a sudden legitimate because of this season. Last year they were also undefeated and did it in more impressive fashion than this year and still managed to get passed over by a 2-loss OSU squad that was underwhelming at best even at the end of last year. This was also the OSU team that was pasted 35-3 in LA and, without a doubt, was hardly any better at the end of the season than they were when they took that beating.

If OSU were 10-2 right now and NOT the Big 10's outright rep to the Rose Bowl they would be picked in a second over Boise for the Fiesta. There are certain schools you don't turn down when available, and Ohio State is one of those schools, undefeated Boise or not.

You're missing my point entirely. Boise has mothing to do with what I'm saying, TCU either for that matter. My point is more in regards to the heat the BCS system is and will get for "not getting it right" in light of so many zero loss teams.

I just think for them to keep their gig rolling they would pick one of the others, that's all I'm saying.

I just don't think it matters to them at this point. Yes, it should. But it hasn't before so why would they start a precedent now?

The powers that be have gone with the precedent since 1998 that, outside of the championship, a program that can bring big bucks and a respectable record is all that matters for the rest of the BCS games and at-large bids. Even with the number of undefeated teams this year they would be out of their minds to change said precedent because A) they're admitting they're wrong and B) they're insulting the intelligence of fans of those programs being left out by thinking that a nice trip to the Fiesta Bowl will make up for the fact that their undefeated teams weren't deemed good enough to be given a shot at the Championship Trophy.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't at this point because this system of determining a champion is so bad that nothing is going to appease the nay-sayers because it is such a colossal mess. The only thing that will make it a little better is having an undefeated Texas play the SEC champion because it is pretty much consensus that these are the Top 3 schools. But even then it doesn't help much.

ytownfootball wrote:

dtdtim wrote: If they were willing to take 2-loss OSU over an undefeated Boise last year (a year in which nothing impressive of note happened for the Bucks), they would do it this year.

You act like Boise is all of a sudden legitimate because of this season. Last year they were also undefeated and did it in more impressive fashion than this year and still managed to get passed over by a 2-loss OSU squad that was underwhelming at best even at the end of last year. This was also the OSU team that was pasted 35-3 in LA and, without a doubt, was hardly any better at the end of the season than they were when they took that beating.

If OSU were 10-2 right now and NOT the Big 10's outright rep to the Rose Bowl they would be picked in a second over Boise for the Fiesta. There are certain schools you don't turn down when available, and Ohio State is one of those schools, undefeated Boise or not.

You're missing my point entirely. Boise has mothing to do with what I'm saying, TCU either for that matter. My point is more in regards to the heat the BCS system is and will get for "not getting it right" in light of so many zero loss teams.

I just think for them to keep their gig rolling they would pick one of the others, that's all I'm saying.

You're still missing it.

The BCS cares about money. Not fan perspective. They don't care about making fans, because right now their system is the only logical system out there.

It's about making money. They don't care if they hurt people's feelings, they just care about making money.

I ain't missing shit, if you can't follow what I'm saying logically in this mythical scenario then I don't what else to say.

I get what you're saying ytown and agree that what you are saying 'should' be how at-large bids are determined. It's just not the way it works with the BCS, nor will it ever be.

ytownfootball wrote: I ain't missing shit, if you can't follow what I'm saying logically in this mythical scenario then I don't what else to say.

All you need to realize is that the BCS is all about money. Plain and simple.

You seem to think the BCS is a live person that gets his feelings hurt by a few thousand people who criticize him. The BCS doesn't need to prove anything to anybody. It just needs to make money.

You're being naive if you think that the BCS doesn't consider making money to being their top priority.

Geesh.. I'm not even saying HOW they should be picked...

I fucking know it's about money

Go re-read what you're missing

ytownfootball wrote: I fucking know it's about money

Go re-read what you're missing

I'm not missing anything. You're telling me that they wouldn't pick OSU simply because they want to set a precedent and disprove the fallacy, and blah blah blah.

I'm telling you that strictly because of financial decisions, they would pick OSU.

End of story.

Nobody is missing anything. You just refuse to listen.

And I'm saying that given the scenario posed, they would pass over OSU, not Penn State, not Iowa, nor anyone else...just Ohio State because it would safley bolster their stance that they get it right.

Do I feel 100% they would be passed over? Hell no I don't. But the way things are this season with so many no loss teams there would be a much higher chance of it happening were OSU in the bounce spot. That is all I'm saying.

The Purdue loss was the best thing to happen to OSU. Looking back on the last month and a half, had the Buckeyes beat Purdue, I don't see them making the Rowe Bowl with wins over Iowa and PSU. I think they lose one of those.

Purdue was a reality check and they have played better since then.

It has no effect. We're outright Big 10 champs and Rose Bowl bound!

ytownfootball wrote: And I'm saying that given the scenario posed, they would pass over OSU, not Penn State, not Iowa, nor anyone else...just Ohio State because it would safley bolster their stance that they get it right.

Do I feel 100% they would be passed over? Hell no I don't. But the way things are this season with so many no loss teams there would be a much higher chance of it happening were OSU in the bounce spot. That is all I'm saying.

No. They wouldn't pass over Ohio State. Ohio State = Dollars.

Dollars > Heartwarming mid-major story.

Simple equation.

I don't care who the mid major is or what they accomplished. Ohio State will never be voluntarily passed over for a bowl for a mid major.

darbypitcher22 wrote: Somehow I don't see the voters putting us with 1 loss because of our style of play head of undefeated Boise, TCU, or Cincy.

You insult every knowledgeable football devotee, let alone those whose input is used in the BCS rankings, to say they consider the "style" a football team plays when judging the quality of their body of work.

DaBrowns41 wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: I ain't missing shit, if you can't follow what I'm saying logically in this mythical scenario then I don't what else to say.

All you need to realize is that the BCS is all about money. Plain and simple.

You seem to think the BCS is a live person that gets his feelings hurt by a few thousand people who criticize him. The BCS doesn't need to prove anything to anybody. It just needs to make money.

You're being naive if you think that the BCS doesn't consider making money to being their top priority.

The BCS is nothing more than a "selection system" created by the 11 Bowl Subdivision Conferences and Notre Dame, to crown a National Champion. It is managed by the commissioners from the 11 conferences and the Notre Dame AD. The BCS makes ZERO money. Money is made by the Conferences, ND, West Point and the Naval Academy(the 3 independents) and the cities that sponsor the Bowl Games.

Big Gain wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: I ain't missing shit, if you can't follow what I'm saying logically in this mythical scenario then I don't what else to say.

All you need to realize is that the BCS is all about money. Plain and simple.

You seem to think the BCS is a live person that gets his feelings hurt by a few thousand people who criticize him. The BCS doesn't need to prove anything to anybody. It just needs to make money.

You're being naive if you think that the BCS doesn't consider making money to being their top priority.

The BCS is nothing more than a "selection system" created by the 11 Bowl Subdivision Conferences and Notre Dame, to crown a National Champion. It is managed by the commissioners from the 11 conferences and the Notre Dame AD. The BCS makes ZERO money. Money is made by the Conferences, ND, West Point and the Naval Academy(the 3 independents) and the cities that sponsor the Bowl Games.

But the people that run the BCS do gain and profit from the BCS, so in a sense the BCS does profit; considering who is heading the BCS.

The "people that run the BCS" are the commissioners of the 11 Bowl Subdivision Conferences and the Notre Dame AD. We don't have access to their Tax Returns, but I doubt seriously those people "gain and profit from the BCS".

While beating Purdue would not have made a difference in regards to OSU's position in the BCS standings, it still was a very bad loss. No team or coach likes to lose a game, but losing to a team like USC is much easier to take than a loss to a team like Purdue this season.

USC is having a "down year", but they are still 8-3, and #18 in the BCS Standings. Purdue finished the season 5-7, and they were 1-5 with a 5 game losing streak when they beat OSU. Purdue led 9-7 at halftime, and 23-7 at the end of the 3rd quarter. OSU was out of sync that entire game, and this was not a game where they got beat buy a solid team driving 86 yards late in the 4th quarter for the game winning TD.

Big Gain.

I would agree that the commissioners of the 11 FBS Conferences and the AD at Notre Dame do not gain personally from the BCS, but the conferences they represent gain large sums of money by having teams in BCS Bowls. And, the commissioners of said conferences along with the AD at Notre Dame may well have incentive/bonus clauses in their contracts that enable these individuals to earn more money based on the overall profitability of the conference each season.

So, it is in the best interest of the "BCS Conferences" to keep teams from "non BCS" conferences out of BCS Bowls if possible. If 2-3 teams from non BCS Conferences make it to BCS Bowls, that is less money for the BCS Conferences, and more money for the non BCS Conferences. With the addede money, teams in these non Bcs Conferences can lessen the financial disadvantage they have, and it also makes those schools more attractive to recruits, which furthers the chances of 2-3 teams from non BCS Conferences being worthy of playing in a BCS bowl on a consistent basis.

Also, I'm quite sure that when it comes to the BCS Championship Game, the powers that be within the BCS want to see what they believe is the most attractive match-up to the ENTIRE country, and are not above doing some tweaking of the system to make that match-up a reality. It's all about M-O-N-E-Y for the BCS, and certain schools are known to have fans that travel in large numbers, and which also bring high tv ratings for the games in which they play. And, this does have an impact on how the system is "tweaked" in order to get the teams for the BCS Title Game, and also the other BCS Bowls.

It's not like Purdue was some awful team. They lost by 2 at Oregon. They were inconsistent and had a bad record, but were definitely capable of beating almost anyone if that team played poorly, which Ohio State did. New Mexico State was an awful football team, and Ohio State allowed them 55 yards of offense and the starters didn't play in the second half. Purdue wasn't a good team, but they were dangerous, obviously. I agree with dwc. The Purdue game woke them up and reminded them that you can't half ass your way through the Big Ten schedule. The Big Ten isn't as strong as the SEC, or this year's Pac-10, but it is still a top 2 or 3 conference just about every year.

Cleveland Buck,

Any way you slice it, the loss to Purdue was a bad loss. They were not even close to OSU in terms of talent, and that was a game in which the OSU players as a TEAM were never mentally into the game from the beginning. It would be one thing if the game had been close, but with OSU managing to beat a 1-5 team in a game where OSU played porrly. But, that is not what happened.

In the end, OSU still won the Big Ten, and most likely would be sitting in the same position in the BCS standings had they beat Purdue. But, it was a bad loss. I mean, even Notre Dame(6-6), Michigan State(6-6) and Minnesota(6-6) all beat Purdue. And, Purdue lost to Northern Illinois, which plays in the MAC and finished 7-5.

Here are the teams Purdue beat, in order by the date played, along with the teams record. Based on the records, which one of these teams doesn't quite look right being on this list??? :huh: :dodgy: :s

***Ranking is BCS Ranking***
Toledo (5-7)
#8 Ohio State (10-2)
Illinois(3-8)
@ Michigan (5-7)
@ Indiana (4-8)

Big Gain wrote: The "people that run the BCS" are the commissioners of the 11 Bowl Subdivision Conferences and the Notre Dame AD. We don't have access to their Tax Returns, but I doubt seriously those people "gain and profit from the BCS".

No they don't gain personally or directly from the BCS, but their schools do for sure and that in turn effects their paychecks and bonuses.

So they do gain from the BCS indirectly. Their schools do 100%.

unique_67 wrote: Big Gain.

I would agree that the commissioners of the 11 FBS Conferences and the AD at Notre Dame do not gain personally from the BCS, but the conferences they represent gain large sums of money by having teams in BCS Bowls. And, the commissioners of said conferences along with the AD at Notre Dame may well have incentive/bonus clauses in their contracts that enable these individuals to earn more money based on the overall profitability of the conference each season.

So, it is in the best interest of the "BCS Conferences" to keep teams from "non BCS" conferences out of BCS Bowls if possible. If 2-3 teams from non BCS Conferences make it to BCS Bowls, that is less money for the BCS Conferences, and more money for the non BCS Conferences. With the addede money, teams in these non Bcs Conferences can lessen the financial disadvantage they have, and it also makes those schools more attractive to recruits, which furthers the chances of 2-3 teams from non BCS Conferences being worthy of playing in a BCS bowl on a consistent basis.

Also, I'm quite sure that when it comes to the BCS Championship Game, the powers that be within the BCS want to see what they believe is the most attractive match-up to the ENTIRE country, and are not above doing some tweaking of the system to make that match-up a reality. It's all about M-O-N-E-Y for the BCS, and certain schools are known to have fans that travel in large numbers, and which also bring high tv ratings for the games in which they play. And, this does have an impact on how the system is "tweaked" in order to get the teams for the BCS Title Game, and also the other BCS Bowls.

You still aren't paying attention. The non-BCS Conferences are also represented on the BCS Committee. Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West, Sun Belt and Western Athletic Conference all are represent by their commissioners, just like the BCS Conferencers. The BCS conferences have 6 representatives, the Non-BCS Conferences have 5 representatives. BCS conferences get approximately the same amount of money even if a non-BCS school makes a BCS Bowl. NON-BCS conferences get paid even if none of their schools play in a BCS Bowl. To date they've received $91 million from the BCS, most of it received when they didn't have a school make a BCS bowl.

dwccrew wrote:

Big Gain wrote: The "people that run the BCS" are the commissioners of the 11 Bowl Subdivision Conferences and the Notre Dame AD. We don't have access to their Tax Returns, but I doubt seriously those people "gain and profit from the BCS".

No they don't gain personally or directly from the BCS, but their schools do for sure and that in turn effects their paychecks and bonuses.

So they do gain from the BCS indirectly. Their schools do 100%.

The coaches get bonuses based on what is negotiated in their contracts, for getting their team into a BCS Bowl. The conference commissioners don't get bonuses. Did you know that since the BCS was implemented, non-BCS conferences have received $91 Million? They get money even if they don't have a team play in a BCS Bowl Game. Schools getting money for appearing in a Bowl game is nothing new. Participants got big checks from bowl games LONG before the BCS was created.,

OSU wants no part of any good SEC team, could they even score an offensive ouchdown against Florida or Alabama ?

had OSU went 12-0 they would be ranked 3rd and be playing the SEC winner depending on how Texas plays against Nebraska