Login Name (?)		Password (?)		Email (?)
Display Name (?)		Confirm Password (?)		Confirm Email (?)
I have read, understood and agree to these rules and conditions  (View Terms)

Welcome to The Gridiron Palace! The Gridiron Palace (TGP) was created on 12-8-06 with the intent of creating a unique and enjoyable forum for football fans around the world. We ask you become acquainted with the following information/rules below.

All information on this site is the opinion of the poster it originated from and does not necessarily reflect the views of "The Gridiron Palace", or the NFL. The Gridiron Palace is in no way affiliated or endorsed by the NFL or any of its partners.

By registering to this forum you agree to all of the terms below. Please note that while the staff will do its best to review as many posts as possible, it is not possible for us to review every post. If a post violates the terms of service, please report it via the report button as this will get the quickest response.

The following is a general listing of the rules we ask you follow. The terms are not listed in any order of significance, and all will be enforced by the staff.

Harassment: Under no circumstances will harassment of other members be tolerated. Hurtful/Insulting remarks against a poster or poster's family, race or religion or similar entity is prohibited. Continuously posting with the intent to instigate arguments with other members will equally not be tolerated. Additionally, threats against other members may be grounds for having your account disabled.

Advertising: Advertising other websites or services via post, signature, avatar, PM, board email function, or any other communication function available on TGP is prohibited. Doing so will result in a loss of privileges.

Spamming/Flooding: Making useless/random posts with the intention to increase post count will result in your account being disabled. We have the ability to delete all posts and disable an account with one click, so please don't waste your time.

Word Filter: Profane and offensive words are filtered by an automatic word censor which replaces said words with asterisks. Attempting to thwart the censor in anyway will be referred to as bypassing the censor. The offending post will be edited, and the offending poster will be issued a warning.

Multiple Accounts: The creation of multiple accounts is strictly prohibited. Anyone found creating more than one account will have all but one of their accounts deleted at random. Once an account is deleted, it cannot be recovered from the database.

Smack Forum: The smack forum has been added to the forum to allow fans of different teams to trash talk each other. If you are easily offended, we recommend you do not use this forum, and simply discuss football in one of our other forums.

Inappropriate Content: We ask you keep your posts free of racial/religious/ethnic slurs, discussion supporting piracy, discussion of illegal drugs, or jeering over a players injury. Ultimately, the staff reserves the right to determine if a posts content is inappropriate.

Signature and Avatar Images: Signatures as a whole may not be greater than 500 pixels in width and 400 pixels in height. This includes signature images, userbars, text, quotes, etc. Signatures over the limit will be removed and not saved.

Avatars will be 100 X 100 KB as resized by our automatic image scaler.

Signatures and avatars promoting pornography, racial prejudice, strong political view points, or any similar entity for the purpose of controversy is prohibited.

Questioning the Staff/Administration: While we do encourage you to make suggestions to our board, calling out the staff publicly is absolutely prohibited. This includes any posts questioning any aspect of a staff member's ability to perform their expected duties. Offending posts will be taken the same way whether stated directly or inferred. Making such posts or topics will lead to a possible suspension or ban from the board. If you have an issue with a staff member please PM an administrator or global moderator and the issue will be dealt with according to our best judgment. All staff members are of equal authority so please give all of them equal respect and cooperation.

Image Rights: Use of The Gridiron Palace's logos and graphics is absolutely prohibited without prior permission from our administration, or its creator.

In all cases, the administration team will determine if a violation of the terms of service has occurred. You agree that the administration has the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic/post at any time should they see fit. Please be respectful to the staff as all run the site on a voluntary basis. Public MOD bashing as defined in the "Questioning the Staff/Administration" paragraph will not be tolerated.

The administration reserves the right to change the terms of service at any time. Please look back every once in a while to check for ToS updates.

Terms of Service © 2010

Introduction
Well, this is about the time of year when the National Championship picture comes into view in college football, and discussions will inevitably arise based on the BCS and its role in selecting the bowl matchups for all four major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and the National Championship Game. Maybe some of you know all about the BCS, maybe some of you know a little but not the details, and maybe some of you don't have any idea. Hopefully this article will help you out if you are on the latter end of that statement. The goal is to educate you on what the BCS is, where it came from, and how it works. By the time you finish reading this article, you should be able to look at the BCS standings, look at the bowl games (when they are set), and understand all of it.

Part One of this article provides historical information, giving you the background on the BCS and why it was created. We’ll also give you a detailed look at how a team obtains its actual BCS score, and how this score has changed over time. Part Two will take a more general approach and analyze how the BCS assigns teams to BCS bowl games, as well as look at why many are opposed to the system and its outlook in the future.

Creation of the BCS
Originally, the BCS was created with the purpose of determining two teams to play for the national championship. No system was in place to determine much of anything prior to 1992, when the Bowl Coalition was formed. This system's main flaw was that it eliminated modern day non-BCS schools from national title contention. This and other problems eventually led to the Bowl Coalition being restructured into the Bowl Alliance in 1995. But after Michigan and Nebraska had a split championship in the 1997-98 season, the BCS was created for the ’98-99 season.

So, what is the BCS? The BCS is a selection system designed to allow the top two teams in the country to play for the national championship, as well as provide favorable bowl matchups.

Note that during the remainder of this article, we will be using the phrases “BCS� and “non-BCS.� A “BCS conference� refers to the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC, the six conferences directly associated with the BCS. A “non-BCS conference� refers to the Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and WAC, the five conferences not directly associated with the BCS. A “BCS bowl game� refers to the Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and the BCS National Championship Game.

Between the 1998-99 and 2003-04 season, the BCS had a formula slightly more complicated than its current format. The original formula consisted of four components:
- Poll Average: a team's average poll position between the AP Poll and ESPN/USA Today coaches' poll.
- Computer Average: a team's average position between several computer polls.*
- Strength of Schedule: a team's rank in schedule strength divided by 25.
- Losses: a team received one point for each of their losses.

* The amount of computers involved, as well as the method for obtaining the average (adjusted deviation factors, dropping the lowest ranking, etc.), changed during this time several times.

These components all add up to a team's total BCS score; the lower score, the better. So in order for teams to get a high BCS ranking, they had to be recognized by the human voters and computers, win as many games as possible, and have a tough schedule. The strength of schedule component was one of the more hotly debated factors of the BCS for several years. It remained, however, part of the BCS until the system's restructure in 2004.

Evolution of the System
In 2001, a fifth component was added: quality wins. It rewarded teams a subtraction off their BCS subtotal for beating a team in the top 15 of the BCS standings. A team would receive a 1.5-point subtraction for beating the no. 1 team, 1.4 for no. 2, and so on. This was modified in 2002 to reward beating top 10 teams only, with a maximum subtraction of one whole point.

In 2003, the BCS foundation was shaken by its biggest controversy yet. At the end of the regular season, three one-loss BCS teams remained: LSU, Oklahoma, and USC. While LSU and USC had lost conference games in October, Oklahoma lost the Big 12 Championship to Kansas State. Because of their timely loss, Oklahoma dropped and LSU and USC claimed the top two spots on both human polls, but after the computers weighed in, the BCS pitted LSU against Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl for the national championship. USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and LSU beat Oklahoma. The result was a split national championship full of debate.

Following such a controversial season, the BCS was given an overhaul. The central argument against the system was that computer polls were weighed greater than human polls. So, the system was restructured to a more simplified format to take effect the 2004-05 season. The newer layout consists of only three components:

- AP Poll: the percentage of possible votes a team received in the poll.
- Coaches' Poll: the same calculation as the AP poll for a team.
- Computer Average: a team's calculated score based on six computer rankings.*

* For each team, the highest and lowest of the six computer rankings are dropped. From the remaining four, a team receives 25 points for each 1st place ranking, 24 for 2nd, and so on.

Each score has a maximum of 100, and the three are averaged to yield a team's BCS total. So, the newer system is much easier to understand. A team's BCS score depends heavily on human voting, but the computers can provide either a boost or a deterrent.

Before the 2005-06 season, the AP Poll removed itself from the BCS, and the Harris Poll replaced it, with no actual changes in the system's process. The Harris Poll is voted on by a mix of former players, coaches, and media members both current and former.

This is the BCS system that is currently operating. For more information on how the BCS selects which teams go to the BCS bowl games, see Part Two.

Part Two of this article explains how the BCS assigns teams to BCS bowl games, considers opposition to the system, and looks at the future for the BCS. Part One consists of historical information, giving you the background on the BCS, a detailed look at a team’s BCS score, and how this score has changed over time.

Bowl Qualifications
When the regular season ends, the BCS standings become final, and teams are assigned to the BCS bowls based on a set of pre-established rules. This process occurs in two parts: automatic qualification and at-large eligibility. We’ll define the term “at-large� in detail later. For now, just know that an at-large team is one ranked in the BCS that did not win its conference.

First, certain teams earn automatic BCS berths based on various criterion:
1. The top two teams earn berths to the BCS National Championship Game.
2. The six champions of BCS conferences earn BCS berths.
3. A champion of a non-BCS conference earns a BCS berth if it is either a) ranked in the top 12, or b) ranked in the top 16 and ahead of a BCS conference champion.*
4. Notre Dame earns a BCS berth if it finishes in the top eight.
* This is an expanded version of the original rule, which made it more difficult for non-BCS teams to earn BCS berths. Under the old rule, Utah was the only team to do so in 2004-05. Since the rule change in 2006, Boise State (2006-07) and Hawaii (2007-08) have accomplished BCS berths, with Utah and Boise State expected to do so this season.

Beyond these qualifiers, there are two extra provisions regarding teams ranked third and fourth. Provided there is an open bowl slot, if the team ranked third is an at-large team from a BCS conference, it receives a BCS berth as long as no other at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the BCS National Championship Game. If the third ranked team does not quality for this provision, the same rule applies to the fourth place team with the same provisions.

This is just a way to make sure that a BCS conference team who doesn’t win their conference but still finishes in the top four in the BCS is ensured a BCS bowl game. Kansas State is to thank for this rule, and we’ll explain further in Part Two.

So, after this long first step, at least six BCS berths have been locked up by the conference champions. In contemporary perspective, this is likely to be seven or eight, since there is usually at least one non-BCS team going undefeated, and Notre Dame hasn’t been competitive in awhile. Note that it is possible to fill all ten spots on automatic qualification alone. But usually at least a few spots remain, and the process of at-large eligibility begins.

So, what is an at-large team? The BCS defines it as any bowl-eligible FBS team that both a) wins at least nine regular season games and b) finishes in the top 14 in the final BCS standings.

The rules get very complicated from here on, so try to go slow and take it one step at a time. In order to fill the remaining bowl slots, the BCS selects teams that satisfy the at-large requirements.

Note that there is one restriction: no more than two teams from a conference may be selected to BCS bowls by any means, unless two non-champions from the same conferences are ranked first and second in the BCS�but this is extremely unlikely. This is the reason that Texas Tech will not get a BCS berth this year: they are in the top 14 of the BCS and have won over nine games, but are ranked below Oklahoma and Texas.

If, at this point, all 10 bowl games are not filled, at-large teams may be chosen from the top 18 in the BCS standings. Bowls may now select from these teams, with the two team per conference restriction still applying. If this still does not fill the 10 bowl slots, the pool is expanded by blocks of four teams at a time until they are filled. However, two added restrictions apply when the pool of teams is expanded to fill bowl slots: a) if any conference has at least two teams in the top 14, two of those teams must be selected, and b) any teams selected ranked 15th or lower must be from a conference with fewer than two teams in the top 14.

Bowl Layout
All the rules, restrictions, and expansions listed above finally apply when teams are selected for the BCS bowls. It is important to note that computers do not select teams; bowls select teams based on the pre-established regulations. We’ll get into this a bit more later. For now, here is a step-by-step explanation of how the ten bowl openings are actually filled. Keep in mind that when bowls select teams, they must select an automatic qualifier first; at-large teams are only selected after all automatic qualifiers have been assigned a bowl game. We’ll annotate the rules with how the 2007-08 bowl season worked out, so you’re not totally lost.

First, the top two teams in the final BCS standings are placed in the NCG.

LSU and Ohio State were ranked first and second, respectively. They were placed in the NCG.

Then, champions of BCS conferences are bound, by contract, to host certain bowl games, unless they are playing in the NCG. The ACC champion hosts the Orange Bowl, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions host the Rose Bowl, the Big 12 champion hosts the Fiesta Bowl, and the SEC champion hosts the Sugar Bowl. The Big East champion is not contractually bound to host any bowl, and acts as an at-large team, participating in whichever bowl selects it.

ACC Champion Virginia Tech hosted the Orange Bowl, Pac-10 Champion USC hosted the Rose Bowl, and Big 12 Champion Oklahoma hosted the Fiesta Bowl. Big Ten Champion Ohio State and SEC Champion LSU did not host the Rose or Sugar Bowl because they were selected for the NCG.

Bowls that lose teams to the NCG get top priority for selecting replacements. The bowl losing the no. 1 team selects first, the bowl losing no. 2 second. If the Rose Bowl loses both its teams, it makes two selections.

Because the Sugar Bowl lost first ranked LSU, they had first selection, and chose Georgia. The Rose Bowl has the next selection, and picked Illinois.

At this point, all bowls with unfilled slots select teams to fill them. Note that by now, the NCG and Rose Bowl are both filled, leaving only the Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar Bowls to be filled. Whichever bowl is scheduled closest to the NCG gets to select first, the bowl scheduled before it selects second, and the bowl scheduled closest to the Rose Bowl selects third.

The Orange Bowl was scheduled closest to the NCG, the Fiesta Bowl before it, and the Sugar Bowl after the Rose Bowl. The Orange Bowl selected Kansas, the Fiesta Bowl selected Big East champion West Virginia, and the Sugar Bowl selected Hawaii.

Finally, all bowl games should be filled. The only remaining step is to adjust the team pairings based on several factors, including whether or not two teams are playing each other in consecutive years, whether alternate pairings will have greater of appeal to fans, etc.

Opposition to the System
The BCS has faced criticism and controversy virtually since its creation. The system itself has been criticized because it determines which football teams should play for the national championship based on human and computer polls that may not fully determine the merit of all teams. Other critics have vested their complaints in the computer polls making sense of the season. This criticism, in particular, led to the BCS’ renovation in 2004, but still exists today.

Many of the minor nuances and rules of the BCS were created in response to controversy. The rule that ensures the third and/or fourth ranked teams a BCS bowl was added in 1999 after third ranked Kansas State ended up playing in the Alamo Bowl. The “quality win� component that was added to the BCS in 2001 was in response to the 2000-01 season. Behind undefeated Oklahoma, three one-loss teams had legitimate cases for being ranked no. 2: Florida State, Miami, and Washington. Florida State was chosen and lost to Oklahoma, 13-2; Miami and Washington, meanwhile, won their bowl games easily.

We have already discussed the 2003 controversy involving LSU, USC, and Oklahoma, but there was a similar controversy the following season, even after the BCS was completely restructured. At the end of the 2004 regular season, USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State were all undefeated. Many felt that Utah and Boise State lacked the strength of schedule to get national title consideration, though Utah did make a BCS bowl. Auburn, meanwhile, was the center of controversy. Despite going undefeated in the SEC, they were the odd team out of the National Championship. The main argument of critics was that Auburn’s strength of schedule was not taken into consideration. Interestingly enough, both human polls and the computers had Auburn ranked third. USC consequently dominated Oklahoma, 55-19, while Auburn defeated Virginia Tech, 16-13, in the Sugar Bowl.

This season, a BCS controversy is brewing as you read this paragraph. At the end of the regular season, there was a three-way tie atop the Big 12 South between Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech. Oklahoma defeated Texas Tech, who defeated Texas, who defeated Oklahoma. The deciding tiebreaker for such a tie in the Big 12 came down to BCS ranking, which ranked Oklahoma just ahead of Texas. At this point, it is still unclear how this controversial situation will end, with conference championships looming.

Possible Alternatives
With all the controversy surrounding the BCS, many critics/fans have proposed completely new methods of determining a national champion. Some involve scrapping the BCS completely; others involve simply modifying it.

The most popular solution among fans is creating a playoff bracket, consisting of eight or sixteen teams. The argument is that this type of playoff system would almost always crown a deserving national champion without controversy. This would also allow non-BCS teams an opportunity to truly prove themselves worthy of a championship. Of the two options, the more fair seems to be the sixteen-team bracket, which would presumably consist of all 11 conference champions and five at-large teams. An eight-team bracket could be set up several ways.

Playoff brackets also have many drawbacks. Besides the obvious financial predicaments, the biggest factor to consider is tradition. Bowl games have been a longstanding part of college football for over 100 years, and a tournament-style playoff would make bowl games much less significant. Another feature to consider is academics: playoff games in December and January would pose a giant conflict to student athletes and final exams.

There are other proposed changes, however, that would not abolish the BCS. These have been called “plus-one� or “plus-two� systems, which propose adding playoff games to the end of the bowl schedule. There are various forms of these proposed systems, depending on which fans you ask. Most versions of the plus-two system involve creating an unofficial bracket from the BCS that pits no. 1 against no. 4 and no. 2 against no. 3, with the winners of each playing in the National Championship. The plus-one argument has many versions also, but we’ll discuss the one that I happen to like. It proposes keeping the same bowl schedule, playing all bowl games just as they would be played, and then having the BCS determine the two best teams after bowl games have ended, having them play in the National Championship. This would give all high-ranked teams an opportunity to prove themselves on a national stage and make their case for national title considerations.

So, what will happen to the BCS in the future? It is still a little unclear, though we know what the next few years will look like. FOX is currently under contract to broadcast all BCS bowl games (except the Rose Bowl, which is broadcasted by ABC) through the 2009-10 season. ESPN is scheduled to take over for FOX for the 2010-11 season.

What are the odds of another big BCS change, or even the establishment of a playoff system? Not good, considering that the aforementioned contract details were finalized after the 2007-08 season, which yielded the biggest cry for justice from fans the BCS has ever seen. It seems like controversy will follow the BCS no matter what happens, but hopefully you will now be able to understand why the system does what it does, and you can make your own decision on what the future holds for college football.

DISCLAIMER: All factual information in this article is either from Wikipedia.com, the BCS’ official website at FOXSports, or knowledge I already had from various sources. The purpose of this article is to educate fans on the BCS, not encourage a playoff system or the abolishment of the BCS altogether.

This sub-forum was created to alleviate the main NCAA forum from filling up with BCS and Playoff threads. It will be a convenient place to hang out and bash the current BCS (which we all hate) or pitch your playoff ideas. Enjoy.

BRING ON THE PLAYOFFS!!! If everything goes right Obama could actually earn that NPP he got for nothing.

Are you offended or happy by the two 'underdogs' playing eachother?

I am a little offended, they just killed two birds with one stone by making them play eachother. Stop side-stepping the future BCS! Your choices are outdated, and satisfying alum is living in the past. I think TCU/ALABAMA was the logical choice this season for the BCS.

The lesser conferences deserve some love, especially when they dominate the tough games on their schedules as TCU and BOISE both did this year. Texas, this year however, does not deserve their BCS bid. Their defense is improved but they barely squeaked by too many 'bad' games and while they won, they did not win with any conviction or do anything this season to impress or justify to me their BCS championship bid. After a lot of thinking TCU Vs. 'BAMA is the logical choice. The underdog conferences and the PAC-10 deserve some more love in the future.

As some of you already know, I'm writing an English paper on the BCS, and part of the paper will include my proposal for how to arrive at a national champion.

My proposal is as follows.

• Sixteen team playoff system
• All eleven conference champions make the playoffs
• Five at large bids
• Sixteen teams are all seeded 1-16 based on BCS formula
• Playoffs operate like NFL. 1 Plays 16. Assuming the #2 and #16 teams win, #2 would play 16

Two flaws with this system:

• Four games added to the season
• Controversy will still exist amongst the 15-20 ranked teams

Pros of the system:

• Every team has a chance at the beginning of the season to win a national championship.
• The argument that teams would be at an advantage to play in weak conferences doesn't exist because #16 seeds stand little to no chance at winning.
• A number 2 or 3 loss 16th ranked team getting snubbed is way better than an undefeated #3 team getting snubbed.

There you have it. My proposal for how a playoff system should work. Thoughts?

Like many of you, I presume, I rushed right out and started collecting some of the National media magazines as they hit the news stands to see their analysis and predictions. Below are the BCS Predictions for the upcoming season. If you have another media source, shoot it to me and I will edit them in. Opinions on these predictions are welcome.

PHIL STEELE:
BCS NCG = Texas vs Florida
Rose = Southern Cal vs Penn State
Orange = Virginia Tech vs Rutgers
Fiesta = Oklahoma vs Boise State
Sugar = Mississippi vs Ohio State

LINDY:
BCS NCG = Texas vs Florida
Rose = Southern Cal vs Ohio State
Orange = Virginia Tech vs West Virginia
Fiesta = Oklahoma vs Boise State
Sugar = Louisiana State vs Penn State

ATHLON:
No Predictions Noted

http://www.hokiesports.com/football/orangebowl09/

Thought I would post it for anyone interested.
GO HOKIES!!!!!!!!!

Florida, Texas, Alabama, Virginia Tech, USC

BCS IN 3D
Posted by Mike Florio on December 16, 2008, 9:50 p.m.

Earlier this month, the NFL experimented with 3ality Digital’s groundbreaking 3D technology for broadcasting sporting events, with the Raiders-Chargers game beamed to theaters in San Diego, Los Angeles, New York, and Foxborough.

Apparently, the experiment was a success.

3ality now plans to take the project to the next level, with a live broadcast of the BCS national championship game between Florida and Oklahoma.

In an agreement reached among FOX, Sony, and Cinedigm, the January 8 title game will be available in 80 theaters, covering 35 states.

“We think the time for live 3D broadcast is now,� said Sandy Climan, CEO of 3ality Digital. “The December 4th NFL event was a highly successful test of that premise, and we look forward to moving the ball even further along with this innovative broadcast, which will be the first national live 3D sports event viewable by thousands of fans across the country. We’re delighted to be working with best-in-class partners to make this possible.�

The Cinedigm web site advertises that the 2009 NBA all-star game will be available in 3D as well.

Okay, so the selection show is on, and as they announce the bowl games, I'll post them here. Stay tuned.

BCS National Championship: #1 Oklahoma vs. #2 Florida

Fiesta Bowl: #3 Texas vs. #10 Ohio State

Sugar Bowl: #4 Alabama vs. #6 Utah

Orange Bowl: #12 Cincinnati vs. #19 Virginia Tech

Rose Bowl: #5 USC vs. #8 Penn State

crazy, crazy thing to look at, and you can see which coaches like other coaches....

Final Coaches Ballot

Reading this article, yikes. The BCS officials would have to hide. How you don't take a team from the SEC is a joke to me. This reminds me of a couple years ago, when Michigan and Ohio State could have rematched for the title game and I thought that was a horrible idea.

Gator fans, settle down. But now that I have your attention, put down that phone and wait a few days before making travel plans to Miami.

You might end up in New Orleans - even if Florida beats Alabama.

Just as the BCS gets past the first huge controversy of the year, with the standings ordaining a Big 12 title game berth for Oklahoma over Texas, the second, and potentially the mother of all BCS controversies is looming: The possibility of an all-Big 12 BCS championship game, leaving the SEC champion in the dust (or on Bourbon Street, come to think of it, there are worse consolation prizes).

If Alabama wins the SEC title game, the Tide will be in the BCS championship game. No doubt there. It's a slam dunk. If Oklahoma blows the Big 12 title game, it'll be Texas vs. the SEC winner in Miami - also a no-brainer.

It gets tricky if Florida and Oklahoma both win. On the surface, it should set up a Gators-Sooners BCS title showdown. But as Lee Corso would say: "Not so fast, my friend!"

There is a remote chance, let's put it at less than 5 percent, that Oklahoma could be jumped by Texas even if it wins the Big 12 title game. If there's more voter movement in the polls in Texas' favor and at the expense of Oklahoma, the Sooners could end up winning the Big 12 title and get shipped to the Fiesta Bowl. Especially if OU registers a lackluster win, as juxtaposed against Texas' 56-31 rout of Missouri back in October.

But that's nothing should Florida get left out of the BCS title game even after beating Alabama.

At this point, the Gators are not guaranteed anything - other than a BCS bowl berth - if they win the SEC title game. If they finish No. 1 in both the coaches and Harris polls AND receive the majority of the first-place votes, then they can breath easy. But if Florida finishes second or even third both polls, it's dead.

A win over the Tide will help the Gators' computer rankings, but it's unlikely to put them ahead of either UT or OU in the computer scores. So if the voters split their votes three ways among Texas, Oklahoma and Florida, then the Gators will be the odd team out.

Further, while Florida still has a shot at the AP title - currently it's No. 2, ahead of both OU and UT, the way the bowls are set up it might make winning a split title a bit trickier. Say the Gators beat 'Bama and ascend to No. 1 in the AP poll (fair assumption) but get left out of the BCS title game, their Sugar Bowl opponent would be, gulp, No. 13 Cincinnati?

How would that happen?

If the BCS title game becomes an All-Big 12 affair, then the Fiesta Bowl may very well pit unbeaten Utah against unbeaten Boise State, leaving the Sugar with either Alabama for a rematch or Cincinnati, the Big East champion. Depending on the outcome of the SEC title game, the Sugar may opt for Florida-Alabama II, but it could go with the Bearcats as well. There is no scenario for the Sugar to grab USC since the Trojans - assuming they defeat UCLA - are obligated to play in the Rose Bowl.

AP Poll
1. Florida
2. Oklahoma
3. Texas
4. Alabama
5. USC

Coaches Poll
1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Alabama
5. USC

This would seem to lead to a UF-OU National Championship, but who knows what the computers are up to..we'll find out tonight.

breaking down whether Oklahoma or Texas would be the Big 12 winner....but ultimately, we just have to wait to see what the voters do on Sunday to find out. Interesting read though.

This is probably the most difficult projection the Guru has ever had to do. But here goes ...

No. 2 SHOULD BE Oklahoma.

But will it be? That's entirely up to the voters.

Logically, Oklahoma should be No. 2. But if the BCS is about logic, then it wouldn't even exist. And with all these voters - 175 in all, if they all vote - having foisted upon them a responsibility that they neither desired nor deserved, there really is no telling where they're going to go.

Nevertheless, they're asked to decide on the Big 12 tiebreaker, as the winner of the South Division will be determined by the BCS standings, among Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech. Whoever gets into the Big 12 title game will be the prohibitive favorite to beat Missouri and have the inside track to the BCS title game, against the SEC title game winner between Florida and Alabama.

Well, let's examine those three Big 12 South contenders, side-by-side:

1. Against Big 12 South teams: Oklahoma beat Baylor, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M - all on the road - by a +90 margin. Texas won all three at home by +68. Texas Tech won two at home and at A&M by +61. Advantage: Oklahoma.

2. Against Big 12 North common opponent: Only Kansas played all three and Tech won, 63-21, OU won (at home), 45-31, Texas won, 35-7. Advantage: Texas Tech.

3. None-conference opponents: Texas played Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice and Arkansas, teams with records of 25-23 and only Rice bowl-bound; OU played I-AA Chattanooga, Cincinnati (Big East champ), TCU and Washington, 20-15 (only count I-A teams) with two 10-win teams and a winless team; Tech played two I-AA teams and the other two, Nevada and SMU, are 8-16. Advantage: Oklahoma.

4. Head-to-head: Texas wants to talk about beating OU, 45-35, true, but this is not a pure head-to-head situation, it's a three-way tie and a circular argument. And just for logic's sake, the fact that Texas beat OU on a neutral field is a classic non-sequitur. You may deduce that Texas would've beaten OU in Austin, but nothing more - so essentially each team WOULD'VE won at home. The following is how these three teams did against each other, the research courtesy of our friends at Saurian Sagacity:

Oklahoma

Points Scored: 100
Points Against: 66
Net Points: 34
Total Yards: 1060
Total Yards Against: 844
Net Yards: 216

Texas

Points Scored: 78
Points Against: 74
Net Points: 4
Total Yards: 812
Total Yards Against: 1014
Net Yards: -202


Texas Tech

Points Scored: 60
Points Against: 98
Net Points: -38
Total Yards: 985
Total Yards Against: 999
Net Yards: -14

Taken in its totality, it's rather obvious that Oklahoma is the most impressive in the head-to-head results. Advantage: Oklahoma.

If last week's poll results stay relatively stable - given that every team in the top 10 either won or was idle - this is how the computer rankings should break down:

1. Alabama (.970), 2. Texas (.960), 3. Oklahoma (.940), 4. Florida (.880), 5. Utah (.830).

And the BCS standings would look like this:

1. Alabama (.987), 2. Oklahoma (.926), 3. Texas (.921), 4. Florida (.909), 5. USC (.797).

The biggest loser this weekend, without a doubt, is USC. The Trojans not only don't have a shot at the BCS title game, their AP title hopes also evaporated with Oregon State's loss to Oregon. By being forced to play in the Rose Bowl against Penn State, there is little chance for USC to claim the AP title, as opposed to a Fiesta Bowl matchup against either Oklahoma or Texas.

So, assuming the voters actually do their homework and not go nuts or conspiracy-happy, here's the Guru's projection of the penultimate BCS standings:

1. Alabama, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Texas, 4. Florida, 5. USC, 6. Utah, 7. Penn State, 8. Texas Tech, 9. Boise State, 10. Ohio State, 11. TCU, 12. Ball State, 13. Cincinnati, 14. Oklahoma State, 15. Oregon.

Here are some of the Possible BCS National Championship Game Match-Up's. Which one would you prefer to see and why.

For me the way things have gone so far I would have to say Florida-Oklahoma. You have two Dynamic Offenses. It would be very interesting to see if either defense could stop the others offense and would be a very fun game to watch. It would also probably end up being who ever has the ball last would win.

Here is the current BCS top 5

1 Alabama .9713 1 1 2815 .9965 1 1521 .9974 3 25 25 23 21 22 22 .920
2 Oklahoma .9351 3 4 2569 .9094 2 1397 .9161 1 22 24 24 25 25 25 .980
3 Texas .9223 2 3 2575 .9115 3 1396 .9154 2 23 22 25 23 24 24 .940
4 Florida .8851 4 2 2619 .9271 4 1385 .9082 6 20 23 22 20 20 19 .820
5 USC .8076 5 5 2378 .8418 5 1298 .8511 8 17 21 19 19 18 17 .730

It seems as if the Big12 is the only conference that can have a non champion, go on to the BCS championship game. Nebraska and Oklahoma have done it. Will Texas get in despite not winning the Big12? Would the voters leapfrog USC over Texas like they did with LSU and Georgia last season?

Linkage

“The voters are 10 for 10,” Palm said, referring to the past five years. “They’ve never put a nonchampion in the top two of the polls.”
“If voters decide they want a conference champion, then Texas is in trouble,”.

It's going to be interesting. Because as history shows, the voters wont vote a non champion into the BCS Championship game. The last two times it has happened, were because of the computers. And since the last time it happened(Oklahoma over USC in 2003-2004), the system has been changed to give the voters more power. I'm thinking whoever the voters vote in the #2 position, will end up #2 in the BCS.


I'm a strong believer in that if you can't win your conference, then you have no business being in the BCS Championship game.

This situation could be different, because Texas should be #2 in the BCS and should be playing Missouri in the Big12 Championship game. Voters may feel bad for wrongfully voting Oklahoma ahead of Texas, if Oklahoma ends up losing to Missouri. We'll just have to wait and see. You know Mack Brown likes to 'make phone calls', he's quite persuasive, evident by his campaign to get the at-large bid into the 05 Rose Bowl over Cal. So you know he's going to be pretty active. And it may just be enough.

With all that being said....Go Missouri!

All of this is moot unless they can pull off an upset. Impossible right? USC was in the same situation a couple of years ago, and lost to UCLA. Anything can happen. Thoughts? Discuss...

BCS Declares Germany winner of World War II
USA Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

Interesting

Interesting to see how this all turns out...

Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech! All three have one loss. Texas beat Oklahoma, Tech beat Texas, Oklahoma beat Tech! Oklahoma is ranked 2nd, Texas 3rd, Tech 7th! How can you figure that to be fair! The top two teams in the nation will play for the National Championship with no relevant basis other than the "BCS Standings!" I don't know where exactly they should be in the standings, but there was a playoff then we would know for sure. Also, shame on the conferences that don't have a conference championship! #1 Alabama has to play one more game against #4 Florida. If they lose, there goes any hope for a national title! If a Big Ten team went undefeated during the season and was ranked #1 at the end, then they would more than likely remain #1 because they would not have to play a conference championship that would allow them the chance to fall in the standings. I posted this in the Big XII forum because I feel your pain. This year in college football has been way to close to determine the true standings based on the current system. Does anyone disagree?

interesting match ups if you did it this way, like the NCAA basketball tournament

What if there was some sort of playoff system in place? And forget the "plus one" compromise NCAA coaches and officials have tossed around in recent years. That's like being given a nickel when you need a dollar. What if college football had a full blown December-January 16-team tournament? Winter Madness! A selection show, brackets, office pools, "bracketologists" coming out of the woodwork, "One Shining Moment", the whole shebang.

How would it be set up?

Well, I've been tinkering with a hypothetical system that could work and satisfy all possible parties for a few years now, and here's what I've come up with:

# Like the NCAA's college basketball tournament, you'd reward each of the 11 Division 1-A conference winners with automatic bids, based on however each conference determines its conference champion. Ball State goes undefeated and doesn't get a sniff of BCS love? Well, now they'd be rewarded with a ticket to the Big Dance. Same with the Sun Belt's champion, Conference USA's, and the rest of the mid-major champions currently on the outside looking in.

# Five at-large bids determined by the top five non-conference winners with the highest BCS rankings at the end of the season after all conference championships have been decided. This would not limit the amount of teams per conference in the tournament. In 2008's case, Texas Tech would not be on the "outside looking in," whereas in the current BCS system, they are.

# The eight higher-seeded teams host first-round games, while all subsequent rounds are played at neutral sites (a rotation of the four current BCS bowl sites, and a yearly rotation of three other non-current BCS bowl sites)

Sure, there is a short list of potential "cons" to such an ambitious proposal. Some that I could imagine an old curmudgeon sportswriter somewhere listing off in a deep baritone voice (I'm thinking Robert Duvall plays this role in the Hallmark movie):

# The season would go on too long. You can't expect college kids to play up to 15 games.

# Travel. You can't ask the kids and fans to travel to up to four different sites in back-back-to-back-to-back weeks.

# Grades, final exams, academics.

# Lots of stuff involving sponsors, money and hands in various pockets and cookie jars that the average fan just "wouldn't understand."

# A playoff would "minimize" the regular season.

# Tradition

In truth, most of it involves money. Some of it involves the kids. And that ugly T word � tradition � is a nice safety net to fall upon when those first two arguments don't suffice.

Ignore all those potential negatives for now, though. And for the simple fun of it all � let's just SEE how a 16-team tournament would look if Sunday, Dec. 7 was some sort of snazzy selection show.

For argument's sake, let's ASSUME the current higher-ranked teams win each of the upcoming conference championship games. How would a 16-team bracket look using this week's BCS standings? Something like this ...

Left side of bracket

1 � Alabama (SEC Champion)
16 � Troy (Sun Belt Champion)
8 � Penn State (Big 10 Champion)
9 � Boise State (WAC Champion)
4 � Florida (At Large #2)
13 � Cincinnati (Big East Champion)
5 � USC (Pac-10 Champion)
12 � Ball State (MAC Champion)

Right side of bracket

2 � Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion)
15 � Tulsa (Conference USA Champion)
7 � Texas Tech (At Large #3)
10 � Ohio State (At Large #4)
3 � Texas (At Large #1)
14 � Boston College (ACC Champion)
6 � Utah (Mountain West Champion)
11 � TCU (At Large #5)

Take some time to absorb all those first-round matchups. Umm, are you kidding me? Downright amazing games left and right. How about the intra-state battles between the big boys and the little guys in those Alabama-Troy and Oklahoma-Tulsa matchups? Or a Utah-TCU � arguably the best game no one saw this year � rematch out in Salt Lake City? Texas Tech-Ohio State? Tremendous. Whitlock's Ball State Cardinals trekking out to the LA Coliseum? That's pretty cool. Penn State-Boise in Happy Valley is loaded with intrigue, too.

As you'll see, whereas the ACC, Pac-10, and Big East only got one bid apiece, the Mountain West scored two. The little guy has a fighting chance.

Go round-by-round with those brackets and it only gets better as you go. A potential Texas Tech-Oklahoma rematch in the second round? USC-Florida at a neutral site? An Alabama-Florida national semifinals? An Oklahoma-Texas national semifinals? It's almost too much to take in at once. Sensory overload.

Yes, it sure is fun to imagine.

If Missouri beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship...What would that do to the rankings/BCS bowls?

Interesting number. I also think the NCAA should do away with preseason rankings.


A record 39 different schools have appeared in the 2008 BCS standings with two standings remaining.
Numbers of teams gracing BCS standings annually from 1998- 2008 (Top 15 from 1998-Oct. 18, 2003 - Top 25 starting on Oct. 25, 2003) include: 1998 - 26; 1999 - 19; 2000 - 23; 2001 - 23; 2002 - 21; 2003 - 32; 2004 - 34; 2005 - 32; 2006 - 35; 2007 - 34; and 2008 - 39.

No way should Texas be Number 2.

This is BS!

Year after year, they say only 2 teams from one conference can be in the BCS...and then this situation pops up, we love the Big 12, lets allow 3 teams. Why not 3 SEC teams then? Such a joke.


Big 12 could get three BCS bids

Bowl Championship Series commissioners recently had to mediate a conflict in their own rule book that could affect USC's bowl plans.

BCS rules stipulate that no more than two schools from one conference can receive BCS bowl bids, yet rules also state that conference champions must receive an automatic bid and that No. 1 and No. 2 in the BCS standings must meet in the title game.

There is a remote chance this year that Missouri could win the Big 12 title and two one-loss schools from the Big 12 South could end up No. 1 and No. 2 in the BCS standings.

So what gives?

"There would be three [Big 12] teams in that case," BCS spokesman Bill Hancock confirmed Wednesday.

In this scenario, one-loss USC could get knocked all the way to the Holiday Bowl if Oregon State earns the Rose Bowl bid.

USC, at 11-1, figured to be a lock for an at-large berth, which would earn an additional $4.5 million for the Pacific 10 Conference. But those plans could change if the Big 12 ended up with three of the 10 BCS slots.

The Big 12 would then have two of the four available at-large bids, and a non-BCS school figures to earn another with a top-12 finish. That would leave only one at-large spot left.

If Florida suffers a second loss, to Florida State, but then hands a first loss to Alabama in the SEC title game, and the Crimson Tide fell to only No. 3 in the BCS standings, USC would get locked out of a BCS bid.

The chances of all this happening are remote, but the possibility of three teams from the Big 12 being in BCS games forced commissioners to make a preemptive decision.

lol

President Obama said College Football needs the Championship playoff system,should'nt the NCAA oblige by that?

Make it happen President!

So, above are some questions regarding the BCS standings and what could happen over the next several weeks. Take a moment to think about each question, answer it, and then discuss.

If you're feeling really bold, post what you think the system should be for determining the National Championship. Keep the system the way it is? Establish a plus-one game? Eight team playoff bracket?