A Sea Of Red

Announcements to come...

Oregon and OSU in the Rose... no shocker there.

Ole Miss in the Cotton. Go Rebs!

Boise in the Fiesta against TCU.

why?? That is dumb, i would've much rather seen this two teams against BCS teams to see how good they really are

thepostman wrote:why?? That is dumb, i would've much rather seen this two teams against BCS teams to see how good they really are

I agree... but such is the life of the BCS. The fewer undefeateds, the better.

thepostman wrote:why?? That is dumb, i would've much rather seen this two teams against BCS teams to see how good they really are

Which is exactly why they're playing each other.

TCU is playing Boise so that there can't be an upset like last year with Utah and Alabama. The BCS folks are tired of hearing crap about it not being fair so they make it so no one will know if they could beat the "big boys." I hate the BCS, but hey, I hate FCS too. I am an equal opportunity hater...

Cincy vs. Florida in the Sugar.

SuperJon wrote:

thepostman wrote:why?? That is dumb, i would've much rather seen this two teams against BCS teams to see how good they really are

Which is exactly why they're playing each other.

i know...and this will be the 4th year in a row I will refuse to watch any BcS game...because the whole system is ridiculous...

The only game that I think will be fun to watch it the Cinci-Florida game. I really hate the BCS, and i'm super ticked that they have TCU-Boise playing each other. I really think both Cinci and TCU are better than Texas, and would much rather have seen one of them playing in the national title game.

TheLouder wrote:TCU is playing Boise so that there can't be an upset like last year with Utah and Alabama. The BCS folks are tired of hearing crap about it not being fair so they make it so no one will know if they could beat the "big boys." I hate the BCS, but hey, I hate FCS too. I am an equal opportunity hater...

I have to disagree... The reason they are playing each other is because it was the most intriguing matchup available, and with the Tie-ins for other bowls the only other viable option on the table was Iowa. You want to see one of those teams play a multi-loss iowa team? It has nothing to do with avoiding an upset. The Sugar bowl was able to snap up Florida because since the SEC is contractual tied to the Sugar bowl and Bama went to the NCG, they got to pick Florida out of order (the Order this year was Orange, Fiesta, Sugar). The fiesta also got to replace a team since their tie-in was with Big 12. Then it reverts to the order above...

Georgia Tech was going to the orange because of the ACC tie in, and Ohio State and Oregon both had tie ins to The Rose Bowl... So what exactly did you want the Fiesta Bowl to do? Select Iowa? I mean, that was the only other option. Well and cincy of course... Plus the travel makes sense, more people are going to come from Texas and Idaho to AZ, then from, Cincinatti or Iowa.

If you read the selection order and 'selection rules' the matchup makes perfect sense for the fiesta bowl, and its going to get them a ton of media coverage as well with people talking about it being a "second national championship"

Can somebody provide a link to all the BCS bowl matchups?

Cider Jim wrote:Can somebody provide a link to all the BCS bowl matchups?

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfootball


On the left side a couple clicks down...Complete bowl listing with BCS bowls at bottom.

Just for some trolling fun, what would a good playoff look like with the top 8 teams?

01LUGrad wrote:Just for some trolling fun, what would a good playoff look like with the top 8 teams?

Traditional matchups with #1 seed 'meeting' #4, 2 meeting 3 etc would be like this:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 Ohio State
#4 TCU vs. #5 Florida


#3 Cincinnati vs. #6 Boise St.
#2 Texas vs. #7 Oregon

And of course you could also flip flop those so that winner of TCU/UF game would play winner of Texas/Oregon... Ohio State matches up pretty darn well with Alabama (great d-line/defense) in that situation. But not sure they'd score enough.

If first round is at home sites, no way Oregon beats texas... My personal prediction would be Texas vs. Bama. Gotta go with bama at home I think. Neutral sites I might give Oregon a shot there, though, they can obviously score...just don't see how they are going to stop a team that can run a good offense. USC certainly showed that they were anything but a high powered offense -- making that Oregon win a bit less impressive.

But this is a year where a plus one would be attractive -- although not perfect. You still end up leaving one team out but the winner of bama/texas, and TCU/Boise St. playoff. Cincy would obviously have an argument if they convincingly beat UF.

TheLouder wrote:The BCS folks

Alright, know-it-all, answer me this: who are the BCS folks? Who are the BCS people that you and so many others say are out to destroy college football? Is there a BCS committee? Whose on it?

Everyone says "BCS people", and decry "them" for ruining college football, and doing what "they" want for themselves. Who is "they"?!

I'll be impressed if you can answer this one, smarty. And I'll expect you to hit up Google fast.

JK37 wrote:

TheLouder wrote:The BCS folks

Alright, know-it-all, answer me this: who are the BCS folks? Who are the BCS people that you and so many others say are out to destroy college football? Is there a BCS committee? Whose on it?

Everyone says "BCS people", and decry "them" for ruining college football, and doing what "they" want for themselves. Who is "they"?!

I'll be impressed if you can answer this one, smarty. And I'll expect you to hit up Google fast.

I'm not even going to pretend like I knew anything about who they were. I was just saying that on the thought the someone had to choose which game which teams would play in? Or is there some sort of formula besides the obvious teams that get auto births to their games?

I was speaking out of frustration about the fact that we will never know how good boise or TCU really is compared to the SEC teams and such... Maybe Im wrong but matching TCU with Florida and Boise with Cincy would have been much more intriguing match ups than TCU Boise.

uncafan wrote:

TheLouder wrote:TCU is playing Boise so that there can't be an upset like last year with Utah and Alabama. The BCS folks are tired of hearing crap about it not being fair so they make it so no one will know if they could beat the "big boys." I hate the BCS, but hey, I hate FCS too. I am an equal opportunity hater...

I have to disagree... The reason they are playing each other is because it was the most intriguing matchup available, and with the Tie-ins for other bowls the only other viable option on the table was Iowa. You want to see one of those teams play a multi-loss iowa team? It has nothing to do with avoiding an upset. The Sugar bowl was able to snap up Florida because since the SEC is contractual tied to the Sugar bowl and Bama went to the NCG, they got to pick Florida out of order (the Order this year was Orange, Fiesta, Sugar). The fiesta also got to replace a team since their tie-in was with Big 12. Then it reverts to the order above...

Georgia Tech was going to the orange because of the ACC tie in, and Ohio State and Oregon both had tie ins to The Rose Bowl... So what exactly did you want the Fiesta Bowl to do? Select Iowa? I mean, that was the only other option. Well and cincy of course... Plus the travel makes sense, more people are going to come from Texas and Idaho to AZ, then from, Cincinatti or Iowa.

If you read the selection order and 'selection rules' the matchup makes perfect sense for the fiesta bowl, and its going to get them a ton of media coverage as well with people talking about it being a "second national championship"

I understand all that, but my personal opinion is that matching TCU and Boise with someone from the SEC or Big East would've been much more intriguing match ups. Thats probably just me though.

If it were up to me, there'd be a 16 team playoff. 8 conference champs from the 8 relevant conferences (BCS + MWC and WAC), and then 8 at larges. Take out the 12th game, the most any team plays is 15, and you could have it 3/4 of the way done by the middle of December, give a bye week for finals and such, and have the championship the first week of January.

I'm also in favor of a 32 team playoff, but I know they'd never do that. Imagine the March Madness type matchups you'd get there. UGA and Texas as a potential first round game? Yes, please.

The BCS sucks. Another reason why I'd rather watch the FCS playoffs over a stupid bowl game any day of the week.

actually, without googling...

the BCS executive committe is made up of the chairpersons/presidents of the conferences which comprise it. (no conflict of interest there, eh?) playoffs in 1-A football? not gonna happen as long as the conference presidents get to keep funnelling millions of dollars into their conferences pockets.

the actual committee that chooses the teams I believe is made up of representatives of the various bowls that comprise it. (i mean, it's really not that hard to figure out, bowl X has contractual obligations with Conference Y... who are they going to pick? *bites nails* oh, the conference champ from Conference Y!!!!)

pretty cut and dried until you get to the at-large teams they can choose.

ToTheLeft wrote:If it were up to me, there'd be a 16 team playoff. 8 conference champs from the 8 relevant conferences (BCS + MWC and WAC), and then 8 at larges. Take out the 12th game, the most any team plays is 15, and you could have it 3/4 of the way done by the middle of December, give a bye week for finals and such, and have the championship the first week of January.

I'm also in favor of a 32 team playoff, but I know they'd never do that. Imagine the March Madness type matchups you'd get there. UGA and Texas as a potential first round game? Yes, please.

Your right it would never happen... And neither will a 16 team. An 8 team or a plus one is theoretically possible because it could be done in a way that allows the bowls to continue -- and that's the key, the current TV contracts and Bows have to be kept in place for any change to be made.

A lot of people don't realize the difference between FCS and BCS is that the NCAA actually runs the FCS. Part of that was a court decision that gave Conferences the right to negotiate TV contracts and also contracts with Bowls etc. Its a lot more detailed but that's the over-view... So in order to get a playoff every single conference would have to cede those rights back to the NCAA and since they are legally recognized rights its not just as simple as "sure lets do a playoff." Also, you'd have to tear up all the current TV deals for all the bowls and conferences regular seasons because the NCAA would be in control. And there's a LOT of money there... You'd basically be going to the Big Ten and saying 'hey guys give up that 2.5 billion dollar deal you signed' (yes 2.5 billion over 25 years is the Big Ten Contract right now with News corp plus a side contract with ESPN).

Finally the NCAA would have to figure out a way to keep everyone happy because as it stands right now, BCS teams are raking in -- what about $12-15 million for making a BCS appearance? All that money is from TV/the Bowls and in a playoff system that money is gone. Sure you'd have a big TV deal -- but what is ESPN going to bid more on, a single game at the end of the year they know everyone is going to watch? Or 12 games at 12 different locations that require crews, production, scheduling, regional time-slotting, etc. etc.

Honestly, the other issue that is going to be brought up is academics. Whether or not its bravado (and in some cases it is, some cases its not) the majority of Big Ten and Pac-10 school presidents aren't going to OK a system where their kids are missing finals or mid-terms for a playoff system. Sure maybe half the kids don't go to class....But the Standfords, Northwesterns, Michigans etc. aren't going to allow it.