Online Now 1754

OUInsider - Owen Field

The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports

On this Board 524
Record: 3486 (2/3/2013)

Online now 1090
Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)

Boards ▾

OUInsider - Owen Field

The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports

Basketball & Other Sports

Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Tickets Exchange

The place to buy, sell or trade tickets

Reply

BCS

  • I was just sitting here thinking about some of the changes they are talking about with the BCS. The more I think about it the more I think it might be a heck of a lot better than what we have now. They are talking about dropping the automatic qualifying conferences and adding one more BCS bowl game. They are leaning toward a four team playoff using the conference affiliated BCS bowl of the highest seated team. If I understand it right they are talking about the four top ranked teams at the end of the year playing a four team play-off. I think the way they are talking about it working would be something like the number 1 ranked team would play the number four ranked team at which ever BCS bowl is affiliated with the conference the number one ranked team. So if we were ranked number 1 at the end of the year we would play the number four ranked team in the Fiesta Bowl. Then the number two ranked team would play the number 3 ranked team in the BCS bowl affiliated with the number two ranked team.

    The winners of those two games would then meet a week or so later in the National Championship Game. There is a lot of talk about wanting to bring back the New Years Day Bowl Games again and play these games on New Years Day. I wouldn’t mind that at all but I do think that they should give the winning teams at least a week to prepare for the Championship Game. I also think that the game should be played on a Saturday which is historically the day of college football. This could be done very simply by setting the date for the Championship Game the 2nd Saturday after the playoff game.

    After that the other six teams ranked in the top ten would play in the remaining BCS Bowl games after they add one more BCS Bowl. I guess that it would mean the affiliated bowl would take a non-playoff team if available otherwise the teams would be picked up by the remaining non-playoff Bowls. Any way they do it without the auto-qualifying conferences the BCS games will be played with top 10 ranked teams. With these changes it should make all of these games worth watching.

    Being I don’t have any football games to watch and I’m a little bored I decided to look back at what the past BCS Bowls and Playoff games would look like under this scenario. I could only find the results for games played from 2000 forward so my results will only cover those 12 years. I also looked to reflect today’s conferences and not necessarily the conference a given team was playing on when they played in a BCS game. Here’s the way the conferences would have broken down under this scenario using the BCS rankings as applied at the time.

    Big-12 - had 12 teams in playoff games and 14 teams in non-playoff games. Total of 26 BCS games.

    SEC – had 12 teams in playoff games and 13 teams in non-playoff games. Total of 25 BCS games.

    Pac-12 – had 10 teams in playoff games and 13 teams in non-playoff games. Total of 23 BCS games.

    Big-10 – had 8 teams in playoff games and 13 teams in non-playoff games. Total of 21 BCS games.

    ACC – had 5 teams in playoff games and 8 teams in non-playoff games. Total of 13 BCS games.

    Big-East – had 1 team in playoff game and 2 teams in non-playoff games. Total of 3 BCS games.

    IND. – had 2 teams play in non-playoff games. Total of 2 BCS games.

    Mt. West – had 6 teams play in non-playoff games. Total of 6 BCS games.

    WAC – had 1 team play in non-playoff game. Total of 1 BCS game.

    There would have been 22 different teams play in a BCS playoff game. Of those 22 teams OU would have had the most appearances with 5 playoff game appearances. They would have been followed in order of number of appearances by USC – 4, Ohio St. – 4, LSU – 4 and Texas – 4. The next most appearances were from Miami – 3 and Alabama – 3.
    There would have been 36 different teams that played in non-playoff BCS games. The two teams to make it to a BCS game the most often would have been OU and Ohio St. each making it to a BCS Bowl Game 8 times in those 12 years, I gave OU the edge because in 5 of those games OU would have been in a playoff game. An interesting side note was that LSU made it to 4 playoff games and Alabama made it to 3 playoff games but neither team during that 12 year period of time would have made it to a non-playoff BCS game.

    All of this just points out the fact that OU has for the last 12 years had one of the best if not the best all-around programs in the country. As much fault as we can find in some of the individual games played I don’t see anybody that has done much better during that time and if we go to the new BCS system I can see us doing very well in the future.

    NevadaSooner

  • That's a lot to absorb, but very interesting. I'd be glad to see a 4 team playoff, but there are a couple of practical issues with it. With the two semi-final games being held at neutral sites, that's going to put a lot of pressure on the participants' fans who want to attend.. Just imagine being an OU fan, facing the possibility of traveling to Arizona for the first game, then having to turn around and travel, say, to Miami for the championship (I know, that would be a nice problem to have, but still difficult to do).

    I believe they have dismissed the idea of having the semi-final games at the home sites of the # 1 and 2 teams (possibility of small stadiums and lack of hotel space, etc).

    And, of course, even with the 4 team format, the 5th place team and its fans are going to squawk.

    Faultline ●

  • Nevada, heck of a post and yes, you must be bored.

    I'm not surprised at all at the outcome. Although I think some sports writers would be. I recently heard some talking heads discussing this possible format and how it would favor the power conferences like the SEC, the Pac 12 and the Big Ten.

    I'm not ususally one to think that OU or the Big XII does not get it's due, but it was clear that these ESPN types truly believed that the Big XII was a second tier conference. I'm the first to applaud the SEC and six in a row, but to suggest that the PAC 12 or the Big Ten are better conferences than the Big XII is ridiculous in my opinion.

    Looking forward to the change. It will add to the post season without damaging the regular season.

    NCJIM

  • Faultline said...

    That's a lot to absorb, but very interesting. I'd be glad to see a 4 team playoff, but there are a couple of practical issues with it. With the two semi-final games being held at neutral sites, that's going to put a lot of pressure on the participants' fans who want to attend.. Just imagine being an OU fan, facing the possibility of traveling to Arizona for the first game, then having to turn around and travel, say, to Miami for the championship (I know, that would be a nice problem to have, but still difficult to do).

    I believe they have dismissed the idea of having the semi-final games at the home sites of the # 1 and 2 teams (possibility of small stadiums and lack of hotel space, etc).

    And, of course, even with the 4 team format, the 5th place team and its fans are going to squawk.

    You’re right about the problem with travel plans for a playoff game then to turn around to make it to the championship game the following week. I think one way to make it a little easier would be to make the Playoff Game on New Years Day and the Championship Game the 2nd Saturday after the playoff game. That way it would be a week between games only when New Years Day was on a Friday. If New Years Day was on say a Monday the Championship Game would be on Saturday the 13th. That would give the team and fans alike a little more time to prepare for the game.

    As for tickets for the Championship Game they are going to have to do a little creative thinking to make that work. I don’t know how they choose which team is the home team for these games but they may have to make that decision ahead of time. That way they could give each of the four teams in the playoff game a full allotment of tickets ahead of the playoff game. If each of the four teams had an allotment of tickets the tickets could be held on a credit card and the purchase made if the team you reserved them under won the playoff game. They would be selling the same seat twice but would only charge the purchaser after their team won the playoff game. This would allow those fans that would make it to the game if their team played in a chance to reserve their tickets ahead of time. I’m sure that the vender holding the game will be willing to work with the fans in this scenario knowing that if they didn’t do something like this with only a week or so between playoff game and Championship Game ticket sales would be very slow until after the Playoff game. They could also sell non-allotted tickets which would be a sale regardless of which teams won their playoff game in another section of the stadium.

    Travel plans may be a little trickier to get done. I would think that it shouldn’t be too hard though to find an airline willing to prearrange a charter flight for the winning teams. They could sell those tickets much the same as the game tickets from the area of the winning school. Those of us coming from other areas may be able to work something out with an airline to allow a week prior cancelations without penalty to pre-book tickets to the National Championship Game.

    NevadaSooner

  • Faultline said...

    And, of course, even with the 4 team format, the 5th place team and its fans are going to squawk.

    Who cares about the 5th team. This has always been the weakest argument that pro-BCS lobbyists of the past have leveled. In effect they had said, lets not fix this HUGE problem, because it will leave this much smaller problem... In fact a 4 team playoff would have solved the primary BCS arguments over the last 15 years.

    2011- All three 1 loss teams of note (Alabama, Okie Lite, and Stanford)would have had their opportunity to play.
    2010- Undefeated TCU gets its shot, and 1 loss Stanford gets in over Wisconsin and Ohio State. There would have been arguments over the last three, but face it, the real issue was TCU getting shafted.
    2009- Unbeaten Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and TCU get to fight it out. BYU was undefeated and #6, but that again, is a ranking problem.
    2008- Oklahoma/Alabama, Florida/Texas, pretty interesting.because each of these matchups could lead to rematches
    2007- Ohio State/Oklahoma, LSU/Va Tech
    2006- Ohio State/LSU, Florida/Michigan. This season is a good one for those who think more teams should be involved. OSU undefeated, Florida, and Michigan were solid (Michigan Lost to OSU) one loss teams. number four and five were 10-2 LSU and USC (lost in last week to UCLA), but number 6 and 7 were 11-1 Louisville and Wisconsin, and eight was 12-0 BSU.
    2005- USC/Ohio State, Texas/Penn State. Controversy in the poll, 9-2 Ohio State was ranked #4 with a 9-2 record, and Oregon was ranked #5 with a 10-1 record. Controversy. This is a year where the playoff really doesnt add much to the pot.
    2004- USC/Texas, OU/Auburn. This would have solved Auburn's controversy. But of course 10-1 Cal and 11-0 Utah would have had an argument over why Texas 10-1 and not them.
    2003-What a mess, three 1 loss teams, OU, LSU, USC, and then 6 "programs" with 2 losses: Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, FSU, Tennessee, and Miami. The playoff here eliminates the split NC.
    2002- Miami, Ohio State, Undefeated, 1 loss Georgia, 2 loss USC ranked 4th. Six other 2 loss schools, including OU. This is one year where the playoff is almost unnecessary.
    2001- Miami clear undefeated. Nebraska 11-1, Colorado 10-2, and Oregon 11-1

    In most of these cases the real controversy is solved, but there were some cases where there will be some real fighting for that four spot, but in my mind, much better to fight over the four and get most of the "real" contenders in, than fight over the #2 spot and leave serious contenders out.

    MDS00NER ●

  • MDS00NER said...

    Who cares about the 5th team. This has always been the weakest argument that pro-BCS lobbyists of the past have leveled. In effect they had said, lets not fix this HUGE problem, because it will leave this much smaller problem... In fact a 4 team playoff would have solved the primary BCS arguments over the last 15 years.

    2011- All three 1 loss teams of note (Alabama, Okie Lite, and Stanford)would have had their opportunity to play. 2010- Undefeated TCU gets its shot, and 1 loss Stanford gets in over Wisconsin and Ohio State. There would have been arguments over the last three, but face it, the real issue was TCU getting shafted. 2009- Unbeaten Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and TCU get to fight it out. BYU was undefeated and #6, but that again, is a ranking problem. 2008- Oklahoma/Alabama, Florida/Texas, pretty interesting.because each of these matchups could lead to rematches 2007- Ohio State/Oklahoma, LSU/Va Tech 2006- Ohio State/LSU, Florida/Michigan. This season is a good one for those who think more teams should be involved. OSU undefeated, Florida, and Michigan were solid (Michigan Lost to OSU) one loss teams. number four and five were 10-2 LSU and USC (lost in last week to UCLA), but number 6 and 7 were 11-1 Louisville and Wisconsin, and eight was 12-0 BSU. 2005- USC/Ohio State, Texas/Penn State. Controversy in the poll, 9-2 Ohio State was ranked #4 with a 9-2 record, and Oregon was ranked #5 with a 10-1 record. Controversy. This is a year where the playoff really doesnt add much to the pot. 2004- USC/Texas, OU/Auburn. This would have solved Auburn's controversy. But of course 10-1 Cal and 11-0 Utah would have had an argument over why Texas 10-1 and not them. 2003-What a mess, three 1 loss teams, OU, LSU, USC, and then 6 "programs" with 2 losses: Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, FSU, Tennessee, and Miami. The playoff here eliminates the split NC. 2002- Miami, Ohio State, Undefeated, 1 loss Georgia, 2 loss USC ranked 4th. Six other 2 loss schools, including OU. This is one year where the playoff is almost unnecessary. 2001- Miami clear undefeated. Nebraska 11-1, Colorado 10-2, and Oregon 11-1

    In most of these cases the real controversy is solved, but there were some cases where there will be some real fighting for that four spot, but in my mind, much better to fight over the four and get most of the "real" contenders in, than fight over the #2 spot and leave serious contenders out.

    If people don't think that ESPN would pimp texas to have a higher rank over OU if they had identical records, even if OU beat texas, then they have not paid much attention to ESPN trying to control everything about BCS football the last few years.

    Yes, with the politics that ESPN has introduced, the 5th place team could very well be better then the 4th or even 3rd place team. ESPN is all about ratings, regardless of the quality of the football. A controversy is to their advantage. And yes, it will be argued about by many.

    jimnrh ●

  • jimnrh said...

    If people don't think that ESPN would pimp texas to have a higher rank over OU if they had identical records, even if OU beat texas, then they have not paid much attention to ESPN trying to control everything about BCS football the last few years.

    Yes, with the politics that ESPN has introduced, the 5th place team could very well be better then the 4th or even 3rd place team. ESPN is all about ratings, regardless of the quality of the football. A controversy is to their advantage. And yes, it will be argued about by many.

    One of the most important things they need to also do is to change the polling. I don’t think the coaches have neither time nor inclination to participate in a non-bias poll. If they want to give the schools a voice maybe it should come from the athletic director or his office instead of the head coach during the season. The other thing that needs to be done is that the votes in all the polls used must be made public. If the voters feel uncomfortable in everybody knowing how they vote then they shouldn’t be voting in this thing.
    One of the biggest changes that need to be made is the fact that there shouldn’t be any polls released until at least the middle of October. This stuff of placing the top five teams in the country before they have played a game and pretty much not changing their minds until those teams are beat is not right. Just make of polls that have a bearing on the BCS come out no earlier than the middle of October and the votes in those polls be made public, they should be a much clearer evaluation of the teams. There’s a reason that the computer polls aren’t released until about mid-season, that being they need information input to come up with a ranking and so do the human voters.
    As far as ESPN or anybody else that has a financial tie to their vote they should have no bearing on the polls for the BCS. The ESPN vote is what it is and should be taken as so. They have skin in the game and their votes show it.

    NevadaSooner

  • Are the pro teams playing on Sat by the second Sat of Jan.?

    MannaSooner

  • MannaSooner said...

    Are the pro teams playing on Sat by the second Sat of Jan.?

    I'm not sure about that but I am sure they have enough room on TV that day for another Championship college football game.

    NevadaSooner

  • I hope they Don't take the computers out of the equation, because they have been very kind to OU, because we play tough schedules. Oregon has 1 game this year and that is USC, and the pundits love them. I feel if it is a human poll and same record we will get shafted.

    sooners85 ●

  • MDS00NER said...

    Who cares about the 5th team. This has always been the weakest argument that pro-BCS lobbyists of the past have leveled. In effect they had said, lets not fix this HUGE problem, because it will leave this much smaller problem... In fact a 4 team playoff would have solved the primary BCS arguments over the last 15 years.

    2011- All three 1 loss teams of note (Alabama, Okie Lite, and Stanford)would have had their opportunity to play. 2010- Undefeated TCU gets its shot, and 1 loss Stanford gets in over Wisconsin and Ohio State. There would have been arguments over the last three, but face it, the real issue was TCU getting shafted. 2009- Unbeaten Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and TCU get to fight it out. BYU was undefeated and #6, but that again, is a ranking problem. 2008- Oklahoma/Alabama, Florida/Texas, pretty interesting.because each of these matchups could lead to rematches 2007- Ohio State/Oklahoma, LSU/Va Tech 2006- Ohio State/LSU, Florida/Michigan. This season is a good one for those who think more teams should be involved. OSU undefeated, Florida, and Michigan were solid (Michigan Lost to OSU) one loss teams. number four and five were 10-2 LSU and USC (lost in last week to UCLA), but number 6 and 7 were 11-1 Louisville and Wisconsin, and eight was 12-0 BSU. 2005- USC/Ohio State, Texas/Penn State. Controversy in the poll, 9-2 Ohio State was ranked #4 with a 9-2 record, and Oregon was ranked #5 with a 10-1 record. Controversy. This is a year where the playoff really doesnt add much to the pot. 2004- USC/Texas, OU/Auburn. This would have solved Auburn's controversy. But of course 10-1 Cal and 11-0 Utah would have had an argument over why Texas 10-1 and not them. 2003-What a mess, three 1 loss teams, OU, LSU, USC, and then 6 "programs" with 2 losses: Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, FSU, Tennessee, and Miami. The playoff here eliminates the split NC. 2002- Miami, Ohio State, Undefeated, 1 loss Georgia, 2 loss USC ranked 4th. Six other 2 loss schools, including OU. This is one year where the playoff is almost unnecessary. 2001- Miami clear undefeated. Nebraska 11-1, Colorado 10-2, and Oregon 11-1

    In most of these cases the real controversy is solved, but there were some cases where there will be some real fighting for that four spot, but in my mind, much better to fight over the four and get most of the "real" contenders in, than fight over the #2 spot and leave serious contenders out.

    So if you have a top four of unbeaten bama & usc,one loss michigan & florida with a one loss OU team ranked number five there wouldn't be a rather large up roar on this board? I do believe that folks would care about the fifth ranked team at that point.

    OUManiac

    OUManiac

  • Right. The human polls generally favor the teams with the biggest media imprints. If you want the largest number of people to like you and buy from your advertisers you support the teams with the largest number of TV sets.

    resOUnd

  • OUManiac said...

    So if you have a top four of unbeaten bama & usc,one loss michigan & florida with a one loss OU team ranked number five there wouldn't be a rather large up roar on this board? I do believe that folks would care about the fifth ranked team at that point.

    OUManiac

    Yes on THIS board, but the more reasonable folks around here will understand that OU being left out at #5 is still a far better outcome than a truly deserving #3 or 4 being left out of the race as has happened so many times over the years. For instance, last year #5 Oregon would have been left out with its 2 losses, OSU and Stanford, each with one loss would have advanced. Without any change Oregon is still left out, so I fail to see what argument Oregon fans would have over why this system should not be put in place.

    MDS00NER ●

  • MDS00NER said...

    Yes on THIS board, but the more reasonable folks around here will understand that OU being left out at #5 is still a far better outcome than a truly deserving #3 or 4 being left out of the race as has happened so many times over the years. For instance, last year #5 Oregon would have been left out with its 2 losses, OSU and Stanford, each with one loss would have advanced. Without any change Oregon is still left out, so I fail to see what argument Oregon fans would have over why this system should not be put in place.

    You are going to get people looking at a teams OOC schedule and wondering if they deserve to have the shot if they played four directional teams from LA. My point is that people love to talk about college football and while this will help it will not eliminate controversy. The year we went to play lsu after losing to ksu in the Big 12 title game there were people who were bama fans,ark fans and others who were talking about that game and if we deserved to play lsu. It's no different than people saying that Boise State should get a title shot if they go unbeaten. The schedule they play should not qualify them for a title shot.

    OUManiac

    OUManiac

Oklahoma
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports