Just Curious..

by Hooked4Life on Nov 4, 2009 8:21 PM CST

So what happens if LSU beats Alabama. Then in the SEC title game Alabama beats Florida. Then there is Iowa who loses to Ohio St. Who does Texas play in the MNC game? TCU ? Boise St. ? Cincy ? If none of these three teams don't trip up along the way. What will the voters do?? Will they skip an undefeated Big East champ over a one loss Big Ten champ or a one loss SEC champ? Interesting..What does TCU do? What does Boise do? Lobby for a shot?

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If LSU beats Bama LSU would advance because they would each have one conference loss and LSU would have the head to head tiebreaker

by acho81 on Nov 4, 2009 8:25 PM CST reply actions

Unless 'Bama were to lose a second conference game in the meantime

by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 6:43 AM CST up reply actions

Ergh...rather, I meant that this is unless LSU were to lose a second conference game in the meantime

And if Alabama were to win all other remaining games.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 6:45 AM CST up reply actions

So, LSU plays Florida for the SEC title

and maybe for the No. 2 spot in the BCS (but perhaps No. 3, depending on Iowa).

Go Tigers. Go Hawkeyes. Lest I forget, go Longhorns. It’s been 25 years since Hay-Boy’s Iowa helped kill the Freedom Bowl by putting like 72 points on Fred’s Longhorns. Two years later, they were David McWilliams’ Longhorns.

But I digress. If two of three from Iowa, Texas and Florida/Alabama finish unbeaten, you have your MNC matchup. TCU and Boise State don’t matter. Sadly, instead of those deserving teams getting Cotton or Gator or Outback bids, they’ll play in the Liberty or Armed Forces or Poinsettia.

Lotta ‘ball to play, as the ol’ ball coach who used to know what offense was about when he coached Florida and could Florida-type talent would say.

by edsp on Nov 4, 2009 9:40 PM CST reply actions

Liberty Bowl

I remember one year when the Liberty Bowl was better than some of the BCS bowl matchups. I think it was Louisville (then still in the C-USA), whose sole loss was to Miami when Stefan LeFors went down with a late injury, vs. Boise State, who was also a breath away from undefeated at that point. I think that’s the year Utah went to the BCS and beat up…Pittsburgh? It was certainly a better matchup than Utah-Pitt, and ended up being a lot more watchable than USC-OU (unless you’re a sadist when it comes to OU, as I often am).

That was the year Vince showed he had icewater in his veins in the matchup against Michigan. I still can’t believe Texas didn’t win that game much more easily, because Michigan wasn’t actually a very good team, but it sure led to a lot of Texas lore, so I won’t complain.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 6:51 AM CST up reply actions

If we can't have a playoff...

I would really like to see the conference tie-ins end or at least be relaxed some. There is already a bowl pecking order and if you still allowed the bowls themselves to select within a certain range of teams using a rankings formula, it might be workable and would ensure better games. The problem will always be that the traditional powers will always get picked at the top of their groups even if they are the last team in line. An 8-4 Notre Dame is going to always be picked before an 11-1 Boise State or TCU, but at least you could end up with a TCU v. Boise State match-up rather than Boise State v. Central Michigan.

by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions

I think there should be a minimum floor for conference champs to get automatic bids

For example, maybe set the minimum BCS ranking at 15, so a conference champion would not get an automatic BCS bowl berth if it were not ranked in the top 15. Why? Because it’s the next best thing to removing the Big East’s automatic bid.

Further than that, I think that the at-large requirements should be modified to the top twelve. Eliminate the chance of #14 Notre Dame in the Fiesta over #5 or #6 Boise State or TCU.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 9:33 AM CST up reply actions

I would hate to lose some incentive for a potential championship game upset...

Would K State lose some incentive for beating us if they know they are still only going to the Alamo Bowl? It could ultimately be the end of conference championship games since what’s the point of holding one if an upset costs your conference its automatic BCS bowl? Perhaps it would be a good thing…

I think dropping the conference affiliations would go a long way to give better match ups. Rose Bowl traditionalists may be the worst in trying to protect the silly affiliations. I haven’t watched a Pac 10/Big 10 Rose Bowl in over 5 years. Its just not a game I have any interest in and the results have vindicated my decision to spend that time in other pursuits. In fact the best BCS games generally happen when the regular affiliations get broken by teams playing the BCS championship game. The other bowl games generally only get good matchups mostly in spite of the fact they are having to pick teams from specific conferences.

by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions

A lot of people think conference championship games are bogus anyway

Especially when the power balance is so one-sided as it is in the Big 12. If Texas, who had to beat the best teams in the Big 12, have a massive brainfart against, say, Kansas State, K-State goes to a BCS bowl despite not having a resume (that word again) meriting one. In a way, those that argue that a playoff system would devalue the regular season have a small point when it comes to conference championships.

by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 5, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions

I was hinting that the conference championship game was bogus...

I would agree that killing the conference championship game is a good idea, though I am not sure how you work with 12-team conferences without one. I am ultimately looking at them as politically and financially necessary and therefore, don’t think removing the auto-bid will ever be considered.

Removing conference bowl affiliations could work if there were a larger framework that let each bowl feel like it was given a chance to maximize its revenue based on its place in the pecking order. If you ranked teams in selection tiers it would also guarantee bowls for smaller market teams since every eligible team in all but the lowest bracket (hopefully reserved just for 6-6 teams) would get a bowl game spot.

by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 12:57 PM CST up reply actions

bowl values

Would a bowl possibly feel it had the chance to maximize it’s revenue if they were to rotate their place in a playoff system? In other words, each bowl would move one tier up in the system each year, thus providing it with more stature.

by Infield Elephant on Nov 5, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions

not that this would resolve the issue of conference champ bids

by Infield Elephant on Nov 5, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions

That would be egalitarian, but would it be realistic or even desirable?

Does the Humanitarian Bowl really deserve to host the national championship game? Perhaps I am not reading your response correctly. I am not even referring to playoffs, but just a ‘fix’ for the current system that might generate better match ups. I am suggesting the current bowls could be placed in tiers based on their payouts. So you would still have the BCS bowls and the MNC games that take conference champs and a few teams from a the top of the BCS standings (this might the chance to at least narrow the chances for ND to sneak in by tightening up the threshold for an at-large bid). The next tier would include, for instance, the Cotton, Capital One, Gator Bowl, etc. They would have to pick from the teams in, say, the Top 20 of the BCS. These bowls might pick a regional team rather than the highest ranked team, but they have to pick from that tier. The next 5 bowls would then be in the next tier and they would have to pick the eligible teams from the Top 30. And so on, until the last tier would pick from the remaining eligible teams and there would be a pool of 6-6 teams that would only be used if there aren’t enough 7-5 teams to fill out the games.

The advantage for fans would be more compelling, evenly-matched games. The advantages for the bowls would be a wider pool of selection year in and year out and the chance to sell a more memorable product that would likely generate more TV revenue. The advantages for the conferences might be variable. If you have a strong top-heavy conference you could reap a larger windfall of high revenue games, but on the flip side a mediocre conference will only get a bunch of mid-tier games with much lower revenue. I think keeping the BCS/MNC structure in place would at least guarantee all the power conferences a big payoff game regardless of their overall strength, which might be enough to keep them on board with such a revision.

by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, I may have gotten off track with the whole playoff thing, but I do understand what you’re suggesting, for the most part. It may appease those power conferences, the bowls themselves and maybe some fans, but I don’t see it fixing the issue all together.

And no, I’m not suggesting that the Humanitarian Bowl (or the like) host an NC. Keep the BCS bowls (if they must) and rotate them thru tiers in a playoff system that is seeded with the top 8 or 16 teams, where the Orange, Fiesta, Rose and Sugar each represent a semi-final in a bracket. But that’s a whole other conversation that we’ll not get carried away with.

But, you make good points about the bowls possibly being tiered by payout.

by Infield Elephant on Nov 5, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

Definitely not endorsing the current order!

I am definitely in line with your thinking about the BCS bowls rotating through a playoff. My suggestion is merely a tweak for the crappy system we have now that might make the most crappy part of it a little less crappy.

I don’t know if its that I have less time to watch football, but I remember watching a lot more bowl games growing up than I do now. I am sure a lot of them were crappy and perhaps I have finally learned that if a game looks like it might be crappy I am better off not watching it, but it just seems like the match ups keep getting crappier. Actually I think I am just tired of seeing the same conferences matched up. After awhile all Big 10 teams look alike (racist, I know) and so the Capital One bowl just seems to pit the same Big 10 and SEC teams year after year and I just glaze over.

by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions