I am arguing with my roommate that TCU would have finished higher then Cincy had Texas lost. What you guys think?

Cincinnati did finish 3rd.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/poll?poll=BCS

UC would have played Alabama if Texas had lost.

?? probably Cincinnati... seeing as how they finished 3rd

Yeah, even had Cincy and Texas lost, TCU wasn't going to finish second, the BCS would make sure of that. Texas would have just stayed number two.

Cincinnati

You mean Florida wouldn't have automatically qualified for the championship game if Texas would have lost?

Jughead wrote: You mean Florida wouldn't have automatically qualified for the championship game if Texas would have lost?

I was assuming Florida would have stayed at number 1 and an undefeated bama would be on the outside looking in haha.

Yes, theoretically Cinci would have finished third. However, voters didn't really have a decision to make with Alabama and Texas winning. Every voter knew that they were going to play, so who they voted 3rd, 4th, and 5th wasn't very important. Who they put higher, Cinci or TCU didn't affect anything. If Texas had lost and the voters had to choose between Cinci and TCU to play Alabama they would have had to make a decision and I think that some voters who had Cinci higher than TCU may have moved TCU higher (the inverse is also possible). Cinci does play in a BCS conference and does have a better resume so I still believe that they would have gotten in over TCU, but just because they finished ahead of TCU doesn't necessarily mean that would have been the case had Texas lost.

krambman wrote: Yes, theoretically Cinci would have finished third. However, voters didn't really have a decision to make with Alabama and Texas winning. Every voter knew that they were going to play, so who they voted 3rd, 4th, and 5th wasn't very important. Who they put higher, Cinci or TCU didn't affect anything. If Texas had lost and the voters had to choose between Cinci and TCU to play Alabama they would have had to make a decision and I think that some voters who had Cinci higher than TCU may have moved TCU higher (the inverse is also possible). Cinci does play in a BCS conference and does have a better resume so I still believe that they would have gotten in over TCU, but just because they finished ahead of TCU doesn't necessarily mean that would have been the case had Texas lost.

This is exactly my thinking. The human votes did have TCU pretty far ahead of Cincy. I think that margin would have been even larger had Texas gotten beat. Also TCU would have probably been 3rd in the computers while Cincy would have still been 2nd making that closer in points as well.

Perfectly logical to think TCU would be in the title game.

With that said it really doesnt matter haha

I think I read something about Cincy being in 3rd. Not sure where I got that from though.

Cincy was third but that doesn't mean the voting would of been the same had Texas lost

trep14 wrote: Yeah, even had Cincy and Texas lost, TCU wasn't going to finish second, the BCS would make sure of that. Texas would have just stayed number two.

I think Florida would have fell to #2. No way they would let TCU or BSU get in the title game. This is if both Cincy and Texas lost, as you stated. Had Texas lost, Cincy was in.

buckeyes_woowee wrote: Cincy was third but that doesn't mean the voting would of been the same had Texas lost

Very true.

dwccrew wrote:

trep14 wrote: Yeah, even had Cincy and Texas lost, TCU wasn't going to finish second, the BCS would make sure of that. Texas would have just stayed number two.

I think Florida would have fell to #2. No way they would let TCU or BSU get in the title game. This is if both Cincy and Texas lost, as you stated. Had Texas lost, Cincy was in.

buckeyes_woowee wrote: Cincy was third but that doesn't mean the voting would of been the same had Texas lost

Very true.

Haha a rematch of the SEC championship game for the NC with no mid-majors crashing the party. ESPN would be besides themselves with joy. I'm actually surprised they didn't slip the bowl selection committee an undisclosed amount of money under the table to make it a reality.

^^^^LOL, they probably did and the BCS just took the money and ran. They probably wanted USC in there somehow as well.

dwccrew wrote: ^^^^LOL, they probably did and the BCS just took the money and ran. They probably wanted USC in there somehow as well.

LOL why stop at a four loss USC when you could have a six loss Notre Dame? I'm sure they are re-working Notre Dame's special clauses in the BCS right now so that a six loss Notre Dame will be eligible for BCS bowl participation starting next year so that way they don't have to have two of those pesky mid-majors in BCS bowls anymore.

It'd of been Cinci because if Boise can't make it after going undefeated in 2006, then no mid major is going to make it over a BCS school.

ironman02 wrote: Cincinnati did finish 3rd.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/poll?poll=BCS

This poll shows that the Big 10 has 4 teams in the top 25 and only 3 SEC teams. More proof that the Big 10 is far deeper than the SEC conference.

buckeyes_woowee wrote: Cincy was third but that doesn't mean the voting would of been the same had Texas lost

This^

TCU would have gained more ground in the computers on Cincinnati with a Texas loss (Cincinnati would have stayed put since they were already in front of Texas, TCU gaining points by jumping Texas), and who knows what voters would have done with the agendas they have. It's more complicated than just saying Cincinnati was third, so they would have got in.

any gain in the computers that TCU would have gotten on UC would have been made up by the Bearcats in the human polls