"Power" conferences or not? BCS question

[hifigator]

With USC's loss last week to Oregon State the BCS Championship game took on a likely controversial tint. West Virginia's loss last night only compounded that fact. Obviously there is still a lot of football to be played and under an ideal situation, there would be two undefeated teams and no one else with less than 2 losses. That is still a possibility, but it is looking more and more like the Ohio St.-Michigan winner will be undefeated and then a handful of very qualified teams with one loss. This list could include USC, Notre Dame, Michigan/Ohio St., Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Texas, West Va. and several other teams.

From the BCS standpoint, Ohio St and Michigan held the top two spots followed by West Va. and Florida. Presumably Florida has inherited the #3 spot with the Mountaineer loss, but a case could certainly be made for unbeaten Louisville to jump Florida.

Obviously from my perspective I want first and foremost for Florida to take care of its business. But on the larger scale I would like to see Rutgers beat Louisville next Thursday night and then lose to either Pitt or West Va., leaving no other undefeated team aside from the Ohio St./Michigan winner and the irrelevant Boise St.

My question to you all is what do you think should happen under the folowing circumstances and, if different, what do you think will happen as well:


1. Florida or Auburn run the table and finish with one loss while Louisville stays perfect.

2. Florida or Auburn finish with one loss while Rutgers runs the table.

3. Florida or Auburn finish with one loss along with a group of other one loss teams including Texas, USC/Notre Dame, Ohio St./Michigan, California, Tennessee etc...

Obviously there are other possibilities, but I think these are some of the most likely scenarios.

I think it ultimately comes down to how do you decide between an undefeated team from the Big East for example and a once beaten SEC champion.

Two other questions:

What if anything would justify a rematch between Ohio St and Michigan given that they play in late November already? Does it take all of the other "major" teams suffering a second loss? Would a close loss by Michigan in Columbus bump them behind Texas for example, which lost to the same team but at home early in the year?

Supposing the SEC champion comes out with 2 losses, whether it be Arkansas, Auburn or LSU, should a once beaten Tennessee jump into the title picture without even winning their division? I know that exact thing happened with Nebraska a few years back.

What are your thoughts on this .... other than the obvious answer that we need a playoff system?

[SFHoya99]

I'd put Cal in the title game.

[hifigator]

SF, that would be hard to argue if they continue to win and run the table. They might be hurt a bit by Tennessee losing to LSU, although I'm not saying that they "should" be. It's just that their loss coming the first week of the season to a one loss team which hasn't lost since week 3 looks a lot more impressive than to a 2 loss team which staggered down the stretch. Incidentally, the Razorbacks are 5 1/2 point favorites this Saturday against the Vols.

On the BCS scale, how much of Louisville jumping Florida in the rankings was because of their victory over West Va. and how much because UF seemingly struggled against Vandy?

Lastly, Louisvilles' SOS will get a bump this week should they beat Rutgers. I don't think our game against South Carolina will change our much at all, provided we win. The real question is what happens next week when we play ugghh... Western Carolina? I just hope that it doesn't hurt us too much. The last two games against FSU and Arkansas/Auburn/LSU should be enough to push us back ahead of Louisville IF we can take care of our business.

[Deleted]

Holy Rutgers!!!

If they run the table, they certainly deserve a BCS bid. National title game? No. But a BCS game for sure, especially considering they will have also beaten West Virginia IN Morgantown by then.

That will then beg the question... assuming they are put in the "fourth" of the BCS games, should they win their bowl and remain undefeated would they deserve a shot at the BCS Championship Game in Glendale against (for instance) undefeated Ohio State?

Would they deserve that bid over (again, for instance) a one-loss Michigan, Florida, Texas, Auburn, Cal, USC or Notre Dame team? What about an undefeated Boise State? Or Wisconsin or Wake with one loss?!

This all leads me (and us) back to one simple conclusion, and I'm sorry for including it here hifi: the BCS sucks. Playoff, playoff, playoff.

[BeantownHoya]

A playoff is the only thing that makes sense. Allow the BCS computer to calculate the top 4 teams and then have those teams play a 1v4 - 2v3 tourney. Winner take all. Imagine like Buffalo says Ohio St., Rutgers, and Boise St. all run the table and win their bowl games and none of them play eachother? I fully believe that Ohio St. probably destroys both squads but for none of the 3 to play eachother is absurd.

[ichirohoya]

Its nothing short of criminal that there could be an undefeated team who knocks off 2 (maybe 3 in a bowl game) top-10 teams and doesnt even get a shot at the national title. I realize this is assuming Rutgers wins out (which i dont think will happen). But- this just adds to most peoples frustrations with the BCS. A playoff makes infiniately more sense. Choosing the "2 best teams" for a national title is a tough process-- i think picking 4 (and all undefeated teams would qualify here) teams for a playoff would be at least a little more clear cut.

[hifigator]

It's funny you should word it that way ichiro, because that is the argument in reverse that I have used many times before. The presumption of an "upset" or an "overachieving" team is almost always based on the general consensus of opinions based on how "good" this or that team is, and most of these opinions come from the "informed" journalists. Well how come your lack of skills at assessing teams outwieghs what "my" team does on the field? In other words, just because you guys (writers) were wrong in your prognostication shouldn't take away from what I do on the field. Don't get me wrong, I am not here trumpeting for Rutgers to be in the Title game, because I don't think they could sustain their level of play in an SEC, Pac 10 or even Big 10 conference. Still, the logic was that W. Va. did deserve that shot should they run the table becuase ... well ... for no reason other than the pundits "thought" they were better to start with. Then Louisville knocks them off and now Louisville is deserving of that #3 ranking because they beat W. Va. But W. Va.'s high acclaim came from the exact same sources. But in the minds of the journalists and other sports personnel, Rutgers was not at that level. Now I think they may very well lose to W. Va. in Morgantown, but should they win out, then the logic that they don't deserve the shot that the Moutaineers or Cardinals did had they run out is just plain silly.

In other words the fact thay you guys were not able to accurately prognosticate should reflect on your abilities to do so, not on our ability to play football.