BCS patch, not a replacement or an overhaul

[Jacie]

New rule proposal for 2008:

No team that had a bye week is allowed to move up in the BCS rankings.

I can see where this will mean some manual adjustments to idle teams throughout the season but it would prevent the situation we see happening this year with Ohio State, Georgia, and yes, Kansas. It might even prompt the two BCS conferences that don't have a CCG to reconsider implementing one if there is a chance their best team would be frozen in place, rankings-wise, if the teams ahead of them lost.

[leavingthezoo]

what if the teams ranked higher than them lose to teams ranked lower? they should just stay stagnant?

[Stitch Face]

Stagnant! STAGNANT, I TELL YOU!!!

[Jacie]

what if the teams ranked higher than them lose to teams ranked lower? they should just stay stagnant?

Reread the part about manual adjustments. Unless every team in the Top 10 except the bye team lost in a given week, then someone would be able to move up.

[royalfan5]

New rule proposal for 2008:

No team that had a bye week is allowed to move up in the BCS rankings.

I can see where this will mean some manual adjustments to idle teams throughout the season but it would prevent the situation we see happening this year with Ohio State, Georgia, and yes, Kansas. It might even prompt the two BCS conferences that don't have a CCG to reconsider implementing one if there is a chance their best team would be frozen in place, rankings-wise, if the teams ahead of them lost.
Or they could just play a cupcake at the end and call it good.

[IronSooner]

"No team that counts Michigan as a quality win shall be admitted into the national championship"

[mdklatt]

New rule proposal for 2008:

No team that had a bye week is allowed to move up in the BCS rankings.

I can see where this will mean some manual adjustments to idle teams throughout the season but it would prevent the situation we see happening this year with Ohio State, Georgia, and yes, Kansas. It might even prompt the two BCS conferences that don't have a CCG to reconsider implementing one if there is a chance their best team would be frozen in place, rankings-wise, if the teams ahead of them lost.

This is dumb. You're going to punish teams because of their scheduling--not who they play, but when they play? A win is a win is a win. A loss is a loss is a loss. Ohio State isn't backing in to anything. They have eleven wins, same as us--and fewer losses. The human voters will not let Georgia or Kansas in after all the outrage in 2003 about us getting in after losing to Kansas State. Why does every conference need a CCG? It's an NCAA rule that you have to have 12 teams to have a CCG, you can't just have one on a whim. Does the Pac-10, for example, need a CCG? They all play each other in the regular season. We had to play a team we already beat to win our CCG. What did that prove?

[leavingthezoo]

Reread the part about manual adjustments. Unless every team in the Top 10 except the bye team lost in a given week, then someone would be able to move up.

that's asking too much of me. ;)

[SoonerBBall]

"No team that counts Michigan as a quality win shall be admitted into the national championship"

This.

[Jacie]

This is dumb. You're going to punish teams because of their scheduling--not who they play, but when they play? A win is a win is a win. A loss is a loss is a loss. Ohio State isn't backing in to anything. They have eleven wins, same as us--and fewer losses. The human voters will not let Georgia or Kansas in after all the outrage in 2003 about us getting in after losing to Kansas State. Why does every conference need a CCG? It's an NCAA rule that you have to have 12 teams to have a CCG, you can't just have one on a whim. Does the Pac-10, for example, need a CCG? They all play each other in the regular season. We had to play a team we already beat to win our CCG. What did that prove?

Don't be naive. The system in place already gives more credence to the team that loses their first game of the season then reels off 11 wins, than to the team that wins the first 11 games and loses the 12th.

As for Ohio State, if they aren't backing in then you must have another name for it because they got in while watching (not playing) two other teams ahead of them lose.

As for CCG's, the Big 10 has been looking for another team ever since they added Penn State. They tried to talk Notre Dame into joining them for football but the domers refused to give up their schedule (they probably could've managed to talk the Big 11 out of the money but that's another issue). Since then there was talk of luring Missouri as recently as last year. On the West Coast, rumors about the Pac 10 trying to add Colorado, Hawaii, and/or saxet surface every year as well. One gets the feeling that, for the Big 10 at least, they'd really like to add that 12th team but cannot find a mutually agreeable fit.

[SoonerMom2]

This is dumb. You're going to punish teams because of their scheduling--not who they play, but when they play? A win is a win is a win. A loss is a loss is a loss. Ohio State isn't backing in to anything. They have eleven wins, same as us--and fewer losses. The human voters will not let Georgia or Kansas in after all the outrage in 2003 about us getting in after losing to Kansas State. Why does every conference need a CCG? It's an NCAA rule that you have to have 12 teams to have a CCG, you can't just have one on a whim. Does the Pac-10, for example, need a CCG? They all play each other in the regular season. We had to play a team we already beat to win our CCG. What did that prove?

For you that give tOSU props -- they scheduled Youngstown State, Div 1AA, Akron and Kent State. Grew up in Ohio and Akron and Kent State have never been good a football and anyone in Ohio knows that tOSU had a cupcake schedule. When they did play a ranked team, Illinois, at home, they got beat! Until the Big 10 has a playoff, they should not be in the national championship game as they do NOT play everyone in their conference. The other year they didn't play Wisconsin who had a really good team. Big 10 is a joke and has been for sometime. I am a former Buckeye and since Tressel has been at tOSU, I won't root for them. He recruits non-students. Big 10 could have had a 12th team a long time ago but why should they take the chance -- they back into the National Championship every time since they tweaked the BCS.

Bring back strength of schedule and margin of victory that everything over a 30-point win margin doesn't count and I will talk to you about tOSU deserving anything. That keeps scores from being run up intentionally but it also gives a team that scheduled an opponent far in advance that now has a bad season a chance not to lose points in the rankings. Also penalize all Div 1 schools who play Div 1AA schools.

[Stitch Face]

I'm gonna get a BCS patch for my jacket.

[mdklatt]

The system in place already gives more credence to the team that loses their first game of the season then reels off 11 wins, than to the team that wins the first 11 games and loses the 12th.


And that's the stupidty of the human polls. It shouldn't matter when you lose. College football doesn't have a preseason. I don't see how your idea solves this.



As for Ohio State, if they aren't backing in then you must have another name for it because they got in while watching (not playing) two other teams ahead of them lose.

You want to punish a team for having a bye week, but not for losing? I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. If you're saying that a team that didn't play shouldn't be able jump a team that won, then you have a point. But if you're saying that a team that didn't play can't jump a team that lost, then no.


As for CCG's, the Big 10 has been looking for another team ever since they added Penn State. They tried to talk Notre Dame into joining them for football but the domers refused to give up their schedule (they probably could've managed to talk the Big 11 out of the money but that's another issue). Since then there was talk of luring Missouri as recently as last year. On the West Coast, rumors about the Pac 10 trying to add Colorado, Hawaii, and/or saxet surface every year as well. One gets the feeling that, for the Big 10 at least, they'd really like to add that 12th team but cannot find a mutually agreeable fit.

If a conference wants a CCG, fine. If they don't, fine. If you focus on the number of wins instead of the number of losses, you can more fairly compare teams from conferences with and without a CCG. OU and USC both have two losses, but OU has more wins. Ohio State and OU have the same number of wins, but Ohio State has fewer losses. At first glance, we can't too upset if Ohio State is in instead of us. After giving up a big lead to C-freaking-U we should be jumping up and down to be where we are. This season, nobody has any business complaining about being left out. We all kind of suck.

[mdklatt]

For you that give tOSU props -- they scheduled Youngstown State, Div 1AA, Akron and Kent State.

I'm not giving them props so much as saying that they shouldn't automatically be excluded just because they had a bye week.

[r5TPsooner]

New rule proposal for 2008:

No team that had a bye week is allowed to move up in the BCS rankings.

I can see where this will mean some manual adjustments to idle teams throughout the season but it would prevent the situation we see happening this year with Ohio State, Georgia, and yes, Kansas. It might even prompt the two BCS conferences that don't have a CCG to reconsider implementing one if there is a chance their best team would be frozen in place, rankings-wise, if the teams ahead of them lost.


MY problem today is that idle Ohio State moves up the polls and idle Kansas drops like a sack of potatoes. Both played the same ****tay schedule and both lost there games against the ONE marquee opponent that they played.

Ohio State is being rewarded for its reputation in college football and KU is being punished for their's.

IMHO it should be a KU-Ohio State title game the way the BCS and voters are setting it up.

However, neither deserve to be there.

[GreenSooner]

They've been patching the BCS almost annually ever since it began in 1998. Every patch is designed to correct whatever went most obviously wrong the previous year. But the problem is that the goal of the system is essentially impossible: in most years there's simply no way to objectively select the two--and only two--teams that most deserve to play in the national championship. All the patches in the world will never solve that.

And the repeated, futile patches have a further negative effect: they destroy any consistency in the system from year to year. So tradition--which is pretty much the only argument left standing for this mess more compelling than "we're making a lot of money off of this, so STFU"--is also nonexistent. Instead we have an endless series of changing, inadequate, arbitrary methods of pretending to determine a MNC.

Eventually everyone (or at least everyone not making $$$ off the process) will tire of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[sanantoniosooner]

As for Ohio State, if they aren't backing in then you must have another name for it because they got in while watching (not playing) two other teams ahead of them lose.
I'm sorry, but whatever teams plays for the MNC backed into the game. Nobody wanted that game this year. Every team that had a shot at it puked on their shoes when they had the chance to solidify the opportunity.

[Stitch Face]

To be fair, no team should be able to play in the NC game unless they:

1. Won their conference

2. Beat their main rival on a neutral field

3. Come from a state that is at least 100 years old

4. Come from a state that is contiguous with Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, or Kansas. Bonus points should be awarded to teams from states bordering all six.