Pac-10 will leave BCS if plus one adopted

[CJHawkeyes]

Assuming the Big Ten shares the Pac-10's view, what makes these two conferences think they could continue to compete if they choose to isolate themselves from the rest of college football just because one more game is added? Unless you grow up a fan of a school from either conference, why would you choose a Big Ten/Pac-10 school over a school chasing a berth in a four team playoff? How many of today's recruits truly care about the Rose Bowl tradition? And how would fans of these schools react? These two conferences already "sold out" when they agreed to join the BCS. http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=245876

[aufan59]

oh no!

[Blue Hen]

If one or both dropped out of the BCS, the BCS would have two choices :

A) Shut down
B) Add two of the 5 mid-major conferences as replacements. The Bogus Cartel Syndicate needs 6 leagues to insure a voting majority in D1A NCAA matters to continue hijacking the post season.

[sc69er]

The situation would revert to Krammers pre BCS Bowl coalition. In addition to the Big 10 Duke, Vandy and UVa would likely bolt the system. Its an academic issue!

[Yoda]

This isn't about the PAC or Big 10s. It's about a break in the oligopoly. If any two of the "big six" drop out of the BCS, then the BCS loses whatever legitimacy it may have as generator of a "true" national champion. And adding one or two non-AQ conference champions will not restore that legitimacy.

However, I'm not certain that the Big 10 would follow the PAC and if they didn't, and if the BCS intimated that they would add the MWC (or at least an MWC 12) as a PAC replacement, then the Pac would back down toot sweet. It is one thing for the PAC and Big 10 to pull off a power play together but quite another for the PAC to do it on its own -- especially since such a bad (for the Pac) response exists.

Yoda out...

[CJHawkeyes]

The situation would revert to Krammers pre BCS Bowl coalition. In addition to the Big 10 Duke, Vandy and UVa would likely bolt the system. Its an academic issue!


Duke and Vanderbilt would bolt? To where? As for academics, the schedule would remain the same as it now. Besides that, these two are rarely ranked.

[GatorGrad]

This PAC 10 Commish seems to be confused about the proposed system. He seems to think that it would be playing the BCS Games and then selecting thw top two teams based on BCS Rankings after the bowl games. I agree that there would be no point to this as you could have the top four teams all play in four separate bowls and all win and then you solved nothing. Any "plus one" would need to basically be a 4-team playoff with 1v4 and 2v3 matching up in two BCS Games with the understanding that the winners of those two games would play in the BCS Title Game. The PAC 10 Commish seems to think that a plus one does not mean a 4-team playoff in these quotes:

"What's the difference between what we use now and the plus-one? Nothing," Hansen says. "You're still relying on (the BCS points system) to determine who plays in the game after all the other bowls. What if three teams are close to each other after all the bowl games? Which two play in the (plus-one) game?"

[GatorGrad]

I don't think that the BCS would have to break up just because the PAC 10 and Big Ten dropped out. It would be no different than the Bowl Coalition or Bowl Alliance (1992-1997) where the rest of the BCS Conferences rotated the title game between the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls. Of course whenever the #1 or #2 team was from the Big Ten or PAC 10, they would be forced to play in the Rose Bowl which ultimately cost Penn St '94 and AzSt '96 shots at the National Championship. The PAC 10 and Big Ten and Rose already bit the bullet when they joined the BCS in 1998 due to pressure from the powers that be involved with the schools in those conferences. I find it hard to believe that they would go back to the 1992-1997 era just because the BCS went from a 2-team playoff to a 4-team playoff. At the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be left out of the party. All it would take is an unbeaten Michigan, Ohio St, or USC team having to play a 3-loss team in the Rose Bowl instead of playing in the 4-team playoff to get them to realize what they are missing out on.

[sc69er]

The PX and BX joined the BCS when it was demonstrated that there was more $$$ to be made in the BCS than in the Rose Bowl by its self. ASU and PSU would have not won a MNC in the 80's or 90's under any circumstances and the BCS would not have helped them. The same can not be said for Michigan or USC, they win in either system and don't have to play BXII or SEC teams to win MNC's.

[GatorGrad]

ASU and PSU would have not won a MNC in the 80's or 90's under any circumstances and the BCS would not have helped them.

What are you talking about? Had the BCS been in place in the mid 90's, Penn State's 1994 team would have played Nebraska in the BCS Title Game. And Arizona State's 1996 team would have played FSU in the BCS Title Game. Here is the recap:

1994: Both Nebraska and Pennn St were unbeaten and finished #1 and #2. Nebraska won both polls after an Orange Bowl win over Miami, while Penn St was locked into the Rose Bowl vs Oregon which was not enough to impress the voters enough to win even a share. Had the BCS been in place, Penn St would have played Nebraska in the title game.

1996: Arizona St and FSU were the only unbeaten teams left and were #1 and #2. While FSU went to the Sugar Bowl MNC Game, Arizona St had to go to the Rose Bowl to play FSU. Thus, #3 Florida went to the Sugar to play #1 FSU. Had the BCS been in place, AzSt would have played FSU in the title game.

Now sc69er, please explain to me how the BCS wouldn't have helped PSU or ASU win the National Championship "under any circumstances" had in been in place in the mid 90's.

[sc69er]

[QUOTE=GatorGrad;4167]What are you talking about? Had the BCS been in place in the mid 90's, Penn State's 1994 team would have played Nebraska in the BCS Title Game. And Arizona State's 1996 team would have played FSU in the BCS Title Game. Here is the recap:

1994: Both Nebraska and Pennn St were unbeaten and finished #1 and #2. Nebraska won both polls after an Orange Bowl win over Miami, while Penn St was locked into the Rose Bowl vs Oregon which was not enough to impress the voters enough to win even a share. Had the BCS been in place, Penn St would have played Nebraska in the title game.

1996: Arizona St and FSU were the only unbeaten teams left and were #1 and #2. While FSU went to the Sugar Bowl MNC Game, Arizona St had to go to the Rose Bowl to play FSU. Thus, #3 Florida went to the Sugar to play #1 FSU. Had the BCS been in place, AzSt would have played FSU in the title game.

ASU was ranked #2 in the popular polls and but would have suffered the same fate as the 2003 Trojans when Ron Krammers BCS Algorythm was applied, they had no chance just like the 2000 Washington huskies and the 2001 Oregon Ducks. Same thing with the 1994 Penn st team the crooked BCS system would have had Miami and Nebraska. They had no chance to get in the game. However if ASU had beaten Ohio st instead of losing they might have got half of the mnc that year(they shut out a great NEB team)--they would have had no chance under BCS auspices until the big change in 2004. The point I was making is that certain teams can't do just as good as the perianel powers and expect to get a mnc.

[Blue Hen]

What we need is a 3 way split......complete chaos . The B10 and P10 go off and do their Rose Bowl thing, the 5 mid-major leagues try to have their own national championship and the 4 remaining BCS leagues continue with their 'mythical-make believe' exhibition post season. The bigger the mess the better. Then, maybe, just maybe, common sense would eventually prevail and the goofy bowl ( post season exhibition game ) system could die off and a genuine NCAA D1A championship be installed.
Before I die, I want to see at least one single , legitimate , D1A championship and champion.

[GatorGrad]

ASU was ranked #2 in the popular polls and but would have suffered the same fate as the 2003 Trojans when Ron Krammers BCS Algorythm was applied, they had no chance just like the 2000 Washington huskies and the 2001 Oregon Ducks. Same thing with the 1994 Penn st team the crooked BCS system would have had Miami and Nebraska. They had no chance to get in the game. However if ASU had beaten Ohio st instead of losing they might have got half of the mnc that year(they shut out a great NEB team)--they would have had no chance under BCS auspices until the big change in 2004. The point I was making is that certain teams can't do just as good as the perianel powers and expect to get a mnc.

You are dead wrong about this...sorry. In 1994, Penn St and Nebraska were the lone unbeaten teams and CLEAR #1 and #2 teams. Had the BCS been in place, they would have played for the MNC. Miami would not have played Nebraska over Penn St had Penn St not been locked into the Rose Bowl - Miami had a loss. In 1996, it was the same scenario with #1 FSU and #2 AzSt both being unbeaten with #3 Florida as the top ranked one-loss team. FSU would have played AzSt instead of Florida had AzSt not been locked into the Rose Bowl.

[CJHawkeyes]

[QUOTE=GatorGrad;4167]What are you talking about? Had the BCS been in place in the mid 90's, Penn State's 1994 team would have played Nebraska in the BCS Title Game. And Arizona State's 1996 team would have played FSU in the BCS Title Game. Here is the recap:

1994: Both Nebraska and Pennn St were unbeaten and finished #1 and #2. Nebraska won both polls after an Orange Bowl win over Miami, while Penn St was locked into the Rose Bowl vs Oregon which was not enough to impress the voters enough to win even a share. Had the BCS been in place, Penn St would have played Nebraska in the title game.

1996: Arizona St and FSU were the only unbeaten teams left and were #1 and #2. While FSU went to the Sugar Bowl MNC Game, Arizona St had to go to the Rose Bowl to play FSU. Thus, #3 Florida went to the Sugar to play #1 FSU. Had the BCS been in place, AzSt would have played FSU in the title game.

ASU was ranked #2 in the popular polls and but would have suffered the same fate as the 2003 Trojans when Ron Krammers BCS Algorythm was applied, they had no chance just like the 2000 Washington huskies and the 2001 Oregon Ducks. Same thing with the 1994 Penn st team the crooked BCS system would have had Miami and Nebraska. They had no chance to get in the game. However if ASU had beaten Ohio st instead of losing they might have got half of the mnc that year(they shut out a great NEB team)--they would have had no chance under BCS auspices until the big change in 2004. The point I was making is that certain teams can't do just as good as the perianel powers and expect to get a mnc.

How did you get that ASU and PSU had no chance to reach a BCS title game if one existed back then? Both were top two in the polls back then and the loss factor would have added another point to #3 Florida's and #3 Miami's BCS score. My own "computer" system placed ASU and PSU in the top 2 as well. Therefore, I doubt the computers and SOS would have allowed Florida and Miami to overcome a two point deficit based on the factors we do know about. As such, ASU and PSU would have controlled their destinies in a title game rather have to beat a calibar opponent and get help elsewhere. Their circumstances are not comparable to USC, Washington, and Oregon who shared equal losses with teams that played objectively stronger schedules. Finally, I think the BCS formula (all variations) is worthless, but it is not necessarily crooked because it produces results we might disagree with. Of course, the fact that the BCS results are arbitrary thereby allowing us to disagree with them only underscores the need for transparent objective rules. There may never be 100% agreement on which objective rules to use, but opposition to any particular rules would not allow anyone to dispute the results based on those rules. My system favored '94 PSU, '96 ASU, '00 FSU, '01 Nebraska, and '03 Oklahoma. Different rules may have favored one or more others. My system's results are internally and logically consistent and undisputable based on the rules therein, but no more right than another system that can make the same claim. You may very well oppose the rules I favor for whatever reasons but, like the BCS formula, you couldn't call it crooked because you find its results disagreeable based on your opinion of how things "should" be. There is no should.

[GatorGrad]

CJ - I think you have me and sc69er confused. I agree that PSU '94 and AzSt '96 would have played for the MNC had the Big Ten/Pac 10 not been locked into the Rose Bowl during those seasons. It is sc69er that thinks otherwise for some reason. You are right that his comparison to Oregon, USC, and Washington makes no sense considering those teams had equal losses as the team that took the #2 slot whereas the teams that played in place of '94 PSU and '96 ASU (Miami '94 and Florida '96) in the MNC Games were both ranked lower and had one loss. There is no doubt that PSU '94 and AzSt '96 would have played in the MNC Game had their conferences not been locked in to the Rose Bowl.

Similar deal with Michigan '97. Had they not been locked into a date with Wazzou in the Rose Bowl, they would have played 12-0 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl MNC Game (instead of Tennessee) and thus would have had the opportunity to claim an undisputed title instead of being forced to share with Nebraska after the Coaches Poll decided to give Tom Osborne a retirement gift by jumping #2 Nebraska over #1 Michigan (the AP Poll kept Michigan #1.)

PSU '94, AzSt '96, and Michigan '97 all got shafted and did not have the opportunity to play in the MNC Game due to their conference being locked into the Rose Bowl. Thus, they gave in and joined the BCS in 1998. I find it hard to believe that they would go back to such a scenario just because the BCS adds one more game. I think the PAC 10 Commish is bluffing.

[CJHawkeyes]

GG,

I didn't confuse you two. I was addressing sc69er. The post I quoted I lists your name but belongs to sc69er.

[sc69er]

GG,

I didn't confuse you two. I was addressing sc69er. The post I quoted I lists your name but belongs to sc69er.


If the PX and BX had not been in the BCS in 2003 LSU would not of had half the MNC as USC was first in both polls before and after the bowl games. If ASU wins the Rose Bowl they win the MNC--the poll voters always move an unbeaten #2 up to #1 after the bowls if the #1 loses. PSU is a matter of opinion, I don't think they get into a BCS mnc game as they were just an eyelash behind Maimi in the polls and they would have benifited from the BCS/ Ron Krammer algorythem b##l s##t. PSU had no chance.

[GatorGrad]

sc69er - I don't even know where to start with this gem. But I'll try...your quotes followed by my responses are below:

"If the PX and BX had not been in the BCS in 2003 LSU would not of had half the MNC as USC was first in both polls before and after the bowl games."
Ummmm....yes they would have. LSU would have still finished in the top two of the BCS and played in the BCS Championship Game and won the BCS Championship. USC did not finish first in the coaches poll after the bowl games as you just indicated.

"If ASU wins the Rose Bowl they win the MNC--the poll voters always move an unbeaten #2 up to #1 after the bowls if the #1 loses."
Of course ASU would win the MNC had they won the Rose Bowl after #3 one-loss Florida knocked off #1 FSU. Not sure what your point was there. But ASU would have played FSU for the MNC, as I stated, had the PAC 10 been involved in the BCS.

PSU is a matter of opinion, I don't think they get into a BCS mnc game as they were just an eyelash behind Maimi in the polls and they would have benifited from the BCS/ Ron Krammer algorythem b##l s##t. PSU had no chance.
HaHaHaHaHa. Are you serious? They weren't behind Miami in the polls. Penn St and Nebraska were the only unbeatens and clear #1 and #2. Miami lost by almost 20 to Washington earlier in the year and were not close to being ranked ahead of PSU. PSU would have played Nebraska had the Big Ten not been locked into the Rose Bowl. To say "PSU had no chance" is a very ignorant statement.

Have you lost your marbles?

[sc69er]

Started because someone made the point "The PX and BX benifit/would have benifited from being part of the BCS"--i.e ASU would have been in the big game, PSU would have been in the big game, etc. I pointed out that ASU didn't need the big game--AKA the BCS mnc --and that in my opinion PSU would not have got into the big game as they were just an eyelash ahead of Miami in the poles and the BCS calculation would still put Miami in(exactly how they selected Oklahoma in 2003) notwithstanding PSU being unbeaten. As an added jab at the supposed benifits of the BCS system I pointed out that USC was #1 in both pre bowl polls and #1 in the final polls as there was no vote in the coachs final poll--if you don't vote again then the previous vote stands!

[happjack]

I could see the Big Ten and PAC 10 sitting out one BCS cycle and then jumping back in if the ture plus one game equals more money than the Rose Bowl.

Four conferences would be the perfect set-up for a BCS Tourney, the four remaining BCS conferences use two of the BCS Bowls for the first round and the other as the finals. It would also give the Big East leverage in forcing Notre Dame to join for football, with Army and Navy tagging along to keep congress off the BCS's back.

C-USA, MAC, MWC and WAC, could set-up their own system and over time a true playoff system will come about because the parts would be in place.

[GatorGrad]

Started because someone made the point "The PX and BX benifit/would have benifited from being part of the BCS"--i.e ASU would have been in the big game, PSU would have been in the big game, etc. I pointed out that ASU didn't need the big game--AKA the BCS mnc --and that in my opinion PSU would not have got into the big game as they were just an eyelash ahead of Miami in the poles and the BCS calculation would still put Miami in(exactly how they selected Oklahoma in 2003) notwithstanding PSU being unbeaten. As an added jab at the supposed benifits of the BCS system I pointed out that USC was #1 in both pre bowl polls and #1 in the final polls as there was no vote in the coachs final poll--if you don't vote again then the previous vote stands!

In 1996, unbeaten #2 AzSt would have played unbeaten #1 FSU had AzSt not been locked into the Rose Bowl. The fact that #3 Florida happened to beat #1 FSU in the Sugar Bowl does not change this. Are you suggesting that AzSt was better off losing in the Rose Bowl to Ohio St than playing FSU in the MNC Game with a shot at finishing #1 in both polls? Even if AzSt would have beaten Ohio St in the Rose Bowl, they would not have finished #1 in either poll had #1 FSU won the Sugar Bowl.

The Rose Bowl game was the day before the Sugar Bowl and AzSt had no idea that FSU would lose. They didn't know at the time if they were playing for #1 or #2 at best. Had #2 AzSt and #1 FSU both won their bowl games, AzSt would have suffered the same fate that Penn St did in 1994 - an unbeaten Big Ten / PAC 10 Champ that could finish no higher than #2 since they were locked into the Rose Bowl.

In 1994, PSU and Nebraska were the CLEAR #1 and #2 teams. After that, there were several one loss teams such as Miami, Colorado, and Alabama. Miami was #3 in the polls as the highest ranked one-loss team, but they were not within an "eyelash" of PSU as you claim. They were actually 113 pts behind PSU:

http://www.soonerstats.com/football/polls/ap/seasons.cfm?APPollID=750

PSU would have played Nebraska in 1994 had the BCS been in place, no doubt about it. To compare this to 2003's selection of Oklahoma is nonsense - Oklahoma, USC, and LSU all had one loss each. Miami was #3 and had one loss while PSU was #2 and unbeaten. There is no comparison.

Bottom line: Not being part of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance from 1992-1997 cost Penn St '94, AzSt '96, and Michigan '97 spots in the MNC Game and a shot at an undisputed National Championship in both polls.

[CJHawkeyes]

Started because someone made the point "The PX and BX benifit/would have benifited from being part of the BCS"--i.e ASU would have been in the big game, PSU would have been in the big game, etc. I pointed out that ASU didn't need the big game--AKA the BCS mnc --and that in my opinion PSU would not have got into the big game as they were just an eyelash ahead of Miami in the poles and the BCS calculation would still put Miami in(exactly how they selected Oklahoma in 2003) notwithstanding PSU being unbeaten. As an added jab at the supposed benifits of the BCS system I pointed out that USC was #1 in both pre bowl polls and #1 in the final polls as there was no vote in the coachs final poll--if you don't vote again then the previous vote stands!

Where are you getting that Miami was only an eyelash behind Penn State in the polls? Penn State was actually in first in the polls for a short period until Indiana scored two meaningless touchdowns to make their game look closer than it appeared prompting pollsters to drop them to #2. I doubt Miami even received a top two vote at the end of the regular season. Nevertheless, based on polls and losses, Penn State has a two point advantage over Miami. Given that my own system rates PSU higher than Miami and rates their schedules as nearly equal, I seriously doubt Miami could have made up a two point deficit with computers and SOS. In fact, I suspect Miami fared worse in the computers than in the polls Also, ASU needed the big game to control their destiny. And the comparison to 2003 Oklahoma isn't even close. The Sooners shared the same number of losses as LSU and USC and played an objectively stronger schedule. Penn State own a better record than Miami and played a comparable schedule.

Besides that, I remember when the BCS formula was first introduced, a BCS official, possibly Kramer, said that when the formula was applied to previous years that only 1990 produced a disagreement with the polls as Texas bumped Colorado or GT.

[sc69er]

In 1996, unbeaten #2 AzSt would have played unbeaten #1 FSU had AzSt not been locked into the Rose Bowl. The fact that #3 Florida happened to beat #1 FSU in the Sugar Bowl does not change this. Are you suggesting that AzSt was better off losing in the Rose Bowl to Ohio St than playing FSU in the MNC Game with a shot at finishing #1 in both polls? Even if AzSt would have beaten Ohio St in the Rose Bowl, they would not have finished #1 in either poll had #1 FSU won the Sugar Bowl.

The Rose Bowl game was the day before the Sugar Bowl and AzSt had no idea that FSU would lose. They didn't know at the time if they were playing for #1 or #2 at best. Had #2 AzSt and #1 FSU both won their bowl games, AzSt would have suffered the same fate that Penn St did in 1994 - an unbeaten Big Ten / PAC 10 Champ that could finish no higher than #2 since they were locked into the Rose Bowl.

In 1994, PSU and Nebraska were the CLEAR #1 and #2 teams. After that, there were several one loss teams such as Miami, Colorado, and Alabama. Miami was #3 in the polls as the highest ranked one-loss team, but they were not within an "eyelash" of PSU as you claim. They were actually 113 pts behind PSU:

http://www.soonerstats.com/football/polls/ap/seasons.cfm?APPollID=750

PSU would have played Nebraska in 1994 had the BCS been in place, no doubt about it. To compare this to 2003's selection of Oklahoma is nonsense - Oklahoma, USC, and LSU all had one loss each. Miami was #3 and had one loss while PSU was #2 and unbeaten. There is no comparison.

Bottom line: Not being part of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance from 1992-1997 cost Penn St '94, AzSt '96, and Michigan '97 spots in the MNC Game and a shot at an undisputed National Championship in both polls.

ASU did not need to play in the BCS mnc game to have a shot at a mnc, they just needed to beat OSU in the Rose Bowl to win the AP mnc . Michigan did not need to be in the BCS mnc game they won a AP mnc in the rose bowl! USC did not need to be in the BCS mnc game they won an AP mnc by beating Michigan in the rose bowl! My position is that if the BCS formulae was used in 1994 PSU would not go to the BCS mnc game, Miami would! The BCS was set up to benifit the SEC/southern schools by Ron Krammer--former SEC commisioner-- and has done just that. LSU is an example of the benofit they got the phony half of the mnc in 2003 because of the no vote in the coachs poll

[CJHawkeyes]

ASU did not need to play in the BCS mnc game to have a shot at a mnc, they just needed to beat OSU in the Rose Bowl to win the AP mnc . Michigan did not need to be in the BCS mnc game they won a AP mnc in the rose bowl! USC did not need to be in the BCS mnc game they won an AP mnc by beating Michigan in the rose bowl! My position is that if the BCS formulae was used in 1994 PSU would not go to the BCS mnc game, Miami would! The BCS was set up to benifit the SEC/southern schools by Ron Krammer--former SEC commisioner-- and has done just that. LSU is an example of the benofit they got the phony half of the mnc in 2003 because of the no vote in the coachs poll

You are certifiable. ASU would not have won the AP just by beating Ohio State unless Florida State lost too. ASU needed the BCS title game to control its destiny and to win an undisputed national title. Same for Michigan. And Penn State would not have been passed in the BCS standings by Miami. Once again, based on the information we do know, PSU owns a two point lead over Miami (polls and losses) and based on my own system's results, which I understand may be taken with a grain of salt, there is no reason to suspect that Miami would have made up the difference in the computers and SOS. BCS officials already applied their formula to previous years to test it and Miami would not have played Nebraska. Besides that, why would the SEC be loyal towards Miami just becasue they are a southern school? And how did the SEC get the other conferences to agree to a formula that is allegedly tilted in their favor according to you?

As for LSU, their title is based on finishing 2nd in the BCS standings and beating #1 in the BCS title game. It is not phony just because the BCS and coaches poll unnecessarily agreed to use the latter to officially recognize the winner of the BCS title game. If there is no such agreement, LSU's title gets recognized in some manner.

[GatorGrad]

You are certifiable.

Based on sc69er's statements throughout this thread, I would have to agree with your used of this word based on definition #2 below from dictionary.com:

cer·ti·fi·a·ble –adjective
1. capable of being certified.
2. legally committable to a mental institution.

[GatorGrad]

ASU did not need to play in the BCS mnc game to have a shot at a mnc, they just needed to beat OSU in the Rose Bowl to win the AP mnc . Michigan did not need to be in the BCS mnc game they won a AP mnc in the rose bowl! USC did not need to be in the BCS mnc game they won an AP mnc by beating Michigan in the rose bowl! My position is that if the BCS formulae was used in 1994 PSU would not go to the BCS mnc game, Miami would! The BCS was set up to benifit the SEC/southern schools by Ron Krammer--former SEC commisioner-- and has done just that. LSU is an example of the benofit they got the phony half of the mnc in 2003 because of the no vote in the coachs poll

This is psycho babble. CJ and myself have already pointed out why there was no way that a team with more losses and ranked lower in the polls (Miami) would finish ahead of a team with less losses and ranked higher in the polls (Penn St.) Why do you keep saying otherwise? Saying that one-loss #3 Miami would have jumped unbeaten #2 PSU in 1994 had the BCS been in place is absolute nonsense. Period. And it doesn't matter because in 1994, the BCS was not in place anyways and it was the Bowl Alliance which I believe only used the average of the two polls in which case PSU would have been the clear #2 anyways and played #1 Nebraska.

Instead, the Big Ten Champ was forced to play Oregon in the Rose Bowl, while the Orange Bowl was forced to take the "next team in line" to play Nebraska which was #3 Miami. This is well documented. And I know a lot about the 1994 Penn St team because my brother in law played for that team. To this day, he is a huge advocate of a playoff system in college football after his experience as a senior in 1994. That team deserved a shot at the National Championship and didn't get one because the PAC 10 and Big Ten were so caught up in preserving their Rose Bowl "tradition."

[sc69er]

One last time.

ASU did not have to play in a BCS mnc game to win an AP mnc--it is what it is! FSU lost to UF.

Michigan did not have to play in a BCS mnc game to win an AP mnc!

USC did not have to play in a BCS mnc game to win an AP mnc!

LSU never won a freely voted MNC in 2003, Never finished #1 in any freely voted poll.
Are those facts disputable?

[GatorGrad]

Let me make it easier for you, sc69er:

Had the Big Ten & Pac 10 Champs not been locked into the Rose Bowl from 1992-1997, and either the BCS, Bowl Alliance, or Bowl Coalition were in place, PSU '94 (vs Nebraska), AzSt '96 (vs FSU), and Michigan '97 (vs Nebraska) all would have played in the designated MNC Bowl game and had a shot at an undisputed National Championship (finishing #1 in both polls.)

Agree or disagree?

[sc69er]

PSU in 1994.

ASU would have been undisputed MNC in 1996 if they beat OSU, the BCS does nothing for them as it turns out. The Rose bowl was the best of both worlds.

Michigan in 1997 was quite fortunate that they played in the Rose Bowl as I believe they would have got their clock cleaned by Neb--UM gets a AP mnc by going to the rose bowl!!

[CJHawkeyes]

One last time.

ASU did not have to play in a BCS mnc game to win an AP mnc--it is what it is! FSU lost to UF.

Michigan did not have to play in a BCS mnc game to win an AP mnc!

USC did not have to play in a BCS mnc game to win an AP mnc!

LSU never won a freely voted MNC in 2003, Never finished #1 in any freely voted poll.
Are those facts disputable?


Who is arguing that ASU needed a BCS title game to win the AP title? The argument is that without the BCS title game for which ASU would have qualified, ASU did not control its destiny. Even with a win versus OSU, the Sun Devils needed help from the Gators.

As for LSU, who cares if they never won a freely voted poll? They won the BCS according to rules agreed upon by the BCS. A freely voted poll afterwards isn't even necessary. The mandated vote was a stupid argeement made by ignorant people and exploited by other ignorant people to invent a phony controversy. The argument actually implies that polls are necessary to determine a champion. Hypothetically, the BCS could have chosen to rank teams by records, match the top two, and award first place to the winner in the post-bowl standings. Would the winner under this scenario be any less than the winner because a freely voted poll did not determine first place? The BCS should have released post-bowl standings with first place awarded to LSU and let the polls do as they wished. The fact that they didn't doesn't make LSU's title phony.

[GatorGrad]

PSU in 1994.

ASU would have been undisputed MNC in 1996 if they beat OSU, the BCS does nothing for them as it turns out. The Rose bowl was the best of both worlds.

Michigan in 1997 was quite fortunate that they played in the Rose Bowl as I believe they would have got their clock cleaned by Neb--UM gets a AP mnc by going to the rose bowl!!

The point is that since the Big Ten and PAC 10 Champs were locked into the Rose Bowl, none of those three deserving teams had a chance to control their own destiny to win an undisputed MNC (both polls.) And those three instances were part of the reason that the Big Ten, PAC 10, and Rose Bowl finally joined the BCS in 1998. And saying that PSU '94 wouldn't have played in the MNC Game had the Big Ten been part of the Bowl Coalition, or even the BCS had it been in place at the time, is just plain incorrect. What a crazy ole man you are.

[sc69er]

The point is that since the Big Ten and PAC 10 Champs were locked into the Rose Bowl, none of those three deserving teams had a chance to control their own destiny to win an undisputed MNC (both polls.) And those three instances were part of the reason that the Big Ten, PAC 10, and Rose Bowl finally joined the BCS in 1998. And saying that PSU '94 wouldn't have played in the MNC Game had the Big Ten been part of the Bowl Coalition, or even the BCS had it been in place at the time, is just plain incorrect. What a crazy ole man you are.

The reason the PX and BX joined the BCS was that as of 1997 the conferences could make more $$$ in the BCS than in the rose bpwl. It was close but but the BCS edged the Rose out. The BCS has nothing to do with anything but $$$, never has never will!

[CJHawkeyes]

The reason the PX and BX joined the BCS was that as of 1997 the conferences could make more $$$ in the BCS than in the rose bpwl. It was close but but the BCS edged the Rose out. The BCS has nothing to do with anything but $$$, never has never will!

Even if money was the primary motivaton for joining the BCS (when is money never behind anything to do with this sport), it does not negate the fact that PSU, ASU, and Michigan would have control their destinies for an undisputed national title if the BCS existed.

[sc69er]

Michigen won the AP mnc.

ASU wins both mnc if they can beat OSU, which they dont

PSU gets no respect from the computors either way.

[GatorGrad]

Of course money is one of the main reasons they joined the BCS. Tell us something we don't know. That doesn't mean that there were not other reasons or influences. Note that in the post you quoted, I said that PSU '94, AzSt '96, and Michigan '97 were "part of the reason" for joining the BCS.

And as CJ pointed out, nothing you have said disproves the fact that PSU '94, AzSt '96, and Michigan '97 would have controlled their own destinies for an undisputed national title if the BCS existed at the time. This is common knowledge for anyone that has followed college football with half of a pulse during the last 10-15 years.

Even more so than the AzSt and Michigan examples, your insistence that PSU '94 would not have played in the MNC Game had the Big Ten Champ not been locked into the Rose Bowl is a real head scratcher that makes it hard to take anything else that you say very seriously. Sorry.

[Blue Hen]

One thing you might not be considering. The 4 remaining BCS leagues would account for only 44(45 w/ND) of the 120 NCAA div 1A votes. Right now the BCS has a 'majority' 66 of 120 votes....thus, can perpetuate this bogus , self serving post season system and prevent an NCAA playoff.
The P10, B10, MWC, WAC, SB, MAC & CUSA would have a majority 75 votes and could vote in an NCAA D1A championship ....if they wanted, at some point. You could possibly have 7 leagues playing for an NCAA championship and the 4 old BCS leagues continuing along with their post season exhibition games and mythical championship., or choose to participate in the NCAA championship....which I think they eventually would.
Anyway, I'm not saying this would happen because the B10-P10-Rose PSEG plans are unpredictable.....but everything would be in place to kill off the BCS bowl system and go forward with a legitimate D1A championship.
You won't see a 4 league, 45 team BCS club.....at least not for very long.

[GatorGrad]

Hen - You might be right, but if it didn't happen in 1992-1997, why would it happen now? In 1992-1994 you had the Bowl Coalition with 4 conferences and 3 bowls. Same with 1995-1997 with the Bowl Alliance with the same 4 conferences and same 3 bowls. The Big Ten and PAC 10 were not involved as they stayed loyal to the Rose Bowl. But the SEC, ACC, Big East, and Big 12 still rotated their MNC Game between the Fiesta, Sugar, and Rose Bowls. The only difference between then and the current BCS System is that the Big Ten / PAC 10 / Rose Bowl weren't included. If the current BCS went forward with a 4-team playoff, and the Rose/Big Ten/Pac 10 dropped out, I doubt it would be any different than what you saw from 1992-1997 IMO.

[aufan59]

“Most of the college presidents on each side of the B.C.S. debate have said they want nothing to do with a playoff system. But the presidents with B.C.S. ties sound disingenuous when they cite as reasons the rich tradition of bowl games and the ties they have with the communities that play host to those games.
Bowl games, with their multimillion-dollar payouts, are a source or revenue, and the B.C.S. conferences want to maintain their monopoly. Because those conferences are primarily made up of large state colleges, they can deliver a larger gate of alumni and fans to local bowl organizers.”

— Joe Drape, reporter, New York Times, 9/15/03


Out dated, but it is a good counter point to hokiehen's theory that a Big 10/Pac 10-less BCS would crumble due to a swing in voter majority.

With the new game and rule added, I think that the mid majors enjoy that a huge paycheck is possible. There is no guarantee that an invite to a 16 team playoff would result in as much money as a BCS birth.

Not only that, why would the Big 10 even think of leaving the BCS? They are looking for a 12th member because they are money hungry. They sure as hell aren't going to throw away the money that is the BCS.

[CJHawkeyes]

Michigen won the AP mnc.

ASU wins both mnc if they can beat OSU, which they dont

PSU gets no respect from the computors either way.

Two of three computers used in the initial formula had Penn State finish #1 following the bowls. Therefore, Miami, Nebraska, and Penn State must have finished in that order in the regular season in the same computers only to have PSU's win over Oregon allow them to jump Nebraska who beat #1 Miami for your theory to have any chance of being true.. That makes no sense. Miami would not have finished ahead of Penn State. Penn State finishing first is more likely than third behind Miami.

[Blue Hen]

Good points (yourself and AuFan). My scenario is unlikely, I know. It just would make it, legislatively, possible. All these choices for a post season format still comes down to revenue..........which produces more - PSEGs or a championship playoff ?

[happjack]

Out dated, but it is a good counter point to hokiehen's theory that a Big 10/Pac 10-less BCS would crumble due to a swing in voter majority.

With the new game and rule added, I think that the mid majors enjoy that a huge paycheck is possible. There is no guarantee that an invite to a 16 team playoff would result in as much money as a BCS birth.

Not only that, why would the Big 10 even think of leaving the BCS? They are looking for a 12th member because they are money hungry. They sure as hell aren't going to throw away the money that is the BCS.

If the Big Ten and PAC-10 dropped out of the BCS and raided the Big East(Sryacuse or Rutgers to Big 10) and Big 12(Colorado to PAC 10) it would cause the remaining BCS conferences to feed off themselves causing the final death blow to the Big East along with weaking the ACC, Big 12 and SEC. Also the Big Ten and PAC-10 would now have a championship game with ABC putting in the prime time slots to make up for the loss of the at-large BCS bids they lost out on.

Here is how it could go down, PAC-10 adds Colorado and Colorado State(both fit the PAC-10 mold and the Big 12 can't easily replace Colorado with CSU), and the Big Ten takes Rutgers. The Big 12 then has to make a play for Arkansas(most likely giving them a great deal to jump), the SEC then goes after GTech, Clemson, Miami or VTech(any of them would switch in a heartbeat), the ACC then raids the Big East again taking Sryacuse who they wanted all along. The Big East would be dead as a football conference since it's would have only 6 teams and the catholic shcools will never let UCF, Memphis or ECU in as full members, that means WVU, Louisville, Cincy and USF end up in a new C-USA with Pitt and UConn going Independent for football but with some sorta set-up with Notre Dame, Army and Navy.

[GatorGrad]

I'm just glad that my school plays in the SEC. No reason to get so worked up over all of this nonsense. Great teams, great coaches, great fans, great tradition, fun road trips, actual standings with a real championship game on the field, one and only one undisputed champ every year, etc. Until the NCAA fixes this mess, following the SEC race is good enough for me. That said, I admit that this "mess" sure can be fun to discuss sometimes.

[Blue Hen]

Whew...what a scenario

[Don]

One last time.

ASU did not have to play in a BCS mnc game to win an AP mnc--it is what it is! FSU lost to UF.

AND ASU LOST TO OSU! It IS what it is.

LSU never won a freely voted MNC in 2003, Never finished #1 in any freely voted poll.
Are those facts disputable?

There WAS a final coaches' poll after the 2003 season AND LSU won it. From the ncaa official site:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records_book.pdf

From Massey's composite site see usa poll.
http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare2003.htm

[sc69er]

or are the coachs required to vote for the BCS mnc game winner?

[aufan59]

sc69er is awfully wishy washy when it comes to what he supports.

Computer polls are trash when it comes down to 2003 where opinion polls reign supreme, but in 2004 computer polls are the end all be all due to their support of USC.

It is best to ignore him.

[CJHawkeyes]

Why is a freely voted poll the holy grail anyway? If the BCS had only used the two major polls from the beginning, there could not be a definitive title game without a rule mandating first place be awarded to the winner of said game. Otherwise, voters that favored a third team could undermine the BCS's purpose. LSU won the BCS according to the rules and I have no doubt that sc69er would make the same argument for USC if the roles were reversed.

[EvilVodka]

Started because someone made the point "The PX and BX benifit/would have benifited from being part of the BCS"--i.e ASU would have been in the big game, PSU would have been in the big game, etc. I pointed out that ASU didn't need the big game--AKA the BCS mnc --and that in my opinion PSU would not have got into the big game as they were just an eyelash ahead of Miami in the poles and the BCS calculation would still put Miami in(exactly how they selected Oklahoma in 2003) notwithstanding PSU being unbeaten. As an added jab at the supposed benifits of the BCS system I pointed out that USC was #1 in both pre bowl polls and #1 in the final polls as there was no vote in the coachs final poll--if you don't vote again then the previous vote stands!

you need reading comprehension 101

[GatorGrad]

Serious question: Is sc69er related BuLLdawg? We've got some very smart college football fans here on NC.net, but man we sure have our share of looney toons as well.

[EvilVodka]

I think only two things would happen: the PAC 10 would be convinced and go ahead with the Plus+1, or everyone would give in and we'd stay at the status quo...I don't see the PAC 10 pulling out