(12-09-2013 04:20 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  Conference - Bowl record - BCS bowl record. The BE, WAC, MWC all have (had) better bcs bowl records than B1G, Acc, B12.

Big East 46-29 (61.3%) 8-7
SEC 73-50 (59.3%) 17-8
MWC 32-24 (57.1%) 3-1
Pac-10/12 41-45 (47.5%) 13-7
Big XII 57-63 (47.5%) 9-11
ACC 49-55 (47.1%) 3-13 (One was against another ACC member)
WAC 23-28 (45.0%) 2-1
Big Ten 47-59 (44.3%) 12-14
MAC 21-28 (42.8%) 0-1

Great stuff. I'd like to see how those bowl records looked from 05 on because a lot of those Big East wins happened prior to the VT/Miami/BC defections. I'll be the first one to admit that the Big East, or even OBE didn't have many bowls against other P6 conferences, but having the best bowl record is quite impressive nonetheless. It's a pity that the Big East wasn't valued more by the networks, because w/ Louisville as the anchors with UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, and Pitt providing back up, you'd have a solid league for years to come. I think the bowl record speaks for itself, just didn't have a "sexy" name to further back it up. It is what it is.

(12-08-2013 10:27 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  So using next year's system:

Sugar (semis): #2 Auburn vs #3 Alabama
Rose (semis): #1 Florida State vs #4 Michigan State
Orange: #7 Ohio State vs #9 South Carolina
Fiesta: #5 Stanford vs #11 Oklahoma
Cotton: #6 Baylor vs #8 Missouri
Peach: #15 UCF vs #10 Oregon

The committee could be tempted to flip the #3 seed and #4 seed to avoid the rematch. Clemson at #12 would be on the outside unless if the committee is not obligated to take strictly the top-ranked teams.

No, using next year's rules, Clemson still goes to the Orange Bowl. The committee does not decide that one if Orange is not a semi-final game.

Cheers,
Neil

Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

UCF I can get because they won their conference and all. Clemson getting an at large bid is laughable.

(12-09-2013 05:34 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 04:20 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  Conference - Bowl record - BCS bowl record. The BE, WAC, MWC all have (had) better bcs bowl records than B1G, Acc, B12.

Big East 46-29 (61.3%) 8-7
SEC 73-50 (59.3%) 17-8
MWC 32-24 (57.1%) 3-1
Pac-10/12 41-45 (47.5%) 13-7
Big XII 57-63 (47.5%) 9-11
ACC 49-55 (47.1%) 3-13 (One was against another ACC member)
WAC 23-28 (45.0%) 2-1
Big Ten 47-59 (44.3%) 12-14
MAC 21-28 (42.8%) 0-1

Great stuff. I'd like to see how those bowl records looked from 05 on because a lot of those Big East wins happened prior to the VT/Miami/BC defections. I'll be the first one to admit that the Big East, or even OBE didn't have many bowls against other P6 conferences, but having the best bowl record is quite impressive nonetheless. It's a pity that the Big East wasn't valued more by the networks, because w/ Louisville as the anchors with UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, and Pitt providing back up, you'd have a solid league for years to come. I think the bowl record speaks for itself, just didn't have a "sexy" name to further back it up. It is what it is.

98- Cuse L
99- VT L
00 - Miami W
01 - Miami W
02 - Miami L
03 - Miami W
04 - Pitt L

05 - WVU W
06 - UL - W
07 - WV - W
08 - Cincy L
09 - Cincy L
10 - UConn - L
11 - WVU - W
12 - UL W

Miami, WV and UL really held strong.

(12-09-2013 03:25 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 01:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 12:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, I frequently pointed out that Big East teams didn't belong in BCS bowl games.

You may have frequently claimed it, but its an opinion rather than a fact, and its facts that people point out.

Quo, and I always disagreed with you. The Big East represented itself well and did better than the ACC and B1G. Not saying UCF will continue what schools like WVU and Louisville established in those bowls either. Big East was 5-4 after VT & Miami left and 5-3 once UL, Cincy, and USF joined. While it's not great, I have to say it's respectable. And while some may say that only UL & WVU owned those wins, I say so what other than the SEC, which other conference can say they had 3 or more winners in BCS games.

To me, the AQ concept was from a merit point of view a bad one. Nobody ever should have made a BCS bowl just because they were conference champs, whether it was the SEC or Big East.

Beyond that, just because you win a bowl doesn't mean you should have been in it. For example, what if in the NFC this year, the Seahawks go 13-3, then win two playoff games to make the Super Bowl. But, in the AFC, instead of having playoffs to determine the champ, the NFL passes over the teams with the best records and put 7-9 San Diego in the Super Bowl, a team that would not have qualified for the playoffs if the AFC had playoffs, and then San Diego beats the Seahawks in the Super Bowl. There would of course be an uproar that the Chargers should not be in that game.

Would San Diego winning the game mean the league was right and all the complainers were wrong about putting them in there, that the Chargers really did deserve to be in the SB? Of course not! Any team can win any given game. Ditto for situations like Louisville beating UF last year. Louisville was the #21 team in the BCS standings and did NOT belong in a BCS bowl, and the fact that they won it doesn't change that at all.

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

UCF I can get because they won their conference and all. Clemson getting an at large bid is laughable.

When it comes to the at large, it is all about selling tix and TV. Orange picked who they picked.

Missouri got hosed. If they beat Auburn, it would have been them in that game with FSU, and we would be saying the same thing about it "being done right." To go from the NC seat to non-BCS is just junk.

I also think Oklahoma shouldn't be in there. Yeah, yeah...Alabama and Oklahoma, blah, blah, blah, legendary programs and all that. My beef is how they skyrocketed from a win (that wasn't exactly decisive) and how far OSU dropped. If OSU dropped that far after losing a relatively close game, does that mean OU was a bad loss?

(12-09-2013 09:29 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

UCF I can get because they won their conference and all. Clemson getting an at large bid is laughable.

When it comes to the at large, it is all about selling tix and TV. Orange picked who they picked.

No, it is also about what the rules say. The Orange may have wanted to take South Carolina instead of Clemson (no reason to think SC would have sold fewer tix or drawn fewer TV viewers), but the rules said they couldn't.

(12-09-2013 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Missouri got hosed. If they beat Auburn, it would have been them in that game with FSU, and we would be saying the same thing about it "being done right." To go from the NC seat to non-BCS is just junk.

I also think Oklahoma shouldn't be in there. Yeah, yeah...Alabama and Oklahoma, blah, blah, blah, legendary programs and all that. My beef is how they skyrocketed from a win (that wasn't exactly decisive) and how far OSU dropped. If OSU dropped that far after losing a relatively close game, does that mean OU was a bad loss?

Are you kidding? The Cotton Bowl is, in terms of prestige and exposure, basically a BCS-level bowl. Jerryworld is a massive stage to play on, and the TV audience for this matchup will be big.

For two teams that came up short in their last games, games that they knew they had to win to ensure BCS bowls, Missouri and Oklahoma State did just fine for themselves.

Oklahoma got redemption. They deserved the bowl Northern Illinois got last year. This year NIU loses and OU slips into the last spot. Interesting that NIU nearly knocked the Sooners out two years in a row.

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

Blame your own conference. The system was designed by Roy Kramer and staffers in the SEC office.

(12-08-2013 09:44 PM)Maize Wrote:  Nobody got screwed...the ultimate goal of the BCS is to pit #1 vs. #2...that it...

This. In addition, none of the teams excluded from the non-championship bowls have any gripe. Oklahoma, Clemson, Oregon, OK St., SCar and Mizzou were all closely grouped with two losses. Those that did not make a BCS Bowl have all landed in high profile bowls with payouts only slightly less than they would have received as the second school from a conference in a BCS bowl.

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

Hence the elimination of the two school per conference limitation under the CFP.

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

Everybody wants to play in the big bad SEC, but no one wants the consequences when they come in 4th or 5th in said conference. If South Carolina was in the ACC or Big 12, they'd be in a bcs game this year. That's just what happens when you have all the "top ten" teams in one conference.

(12-09-2013 09:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Missouri got hosed. If they beat Auburn, it would have been them in that game with FSU, and we would be saying the same thing about it "being done right." To go from the NC seat to non-BCS is just junk.

I also think Oklahoma shouldn't be in there. Yeah, yeah...Alabama and Oklahoma, blah, blah, blah, legendary programs and all that. My beef is how they skyrocketed from a win (that wasn't exactly decisive) and how far OSU dropped. If OSU dropped that far after losing a relatively close game, does that mean OU was a bad loss?

Are you kidding? The Cotton Bowl is, in terms of prestige and exposure, basically a BCS-level bowl. Jerryworld is a massive stage to play on, and the TV audience for this matchup will be big.

For two teams that came up short in their last games, games that they knew they had to win to ensure BCS bowls, Missouri and Oklahoma State did just fine for themselves.

The Cotton Bowl is a nice consolation prize, true, but that isn't the point. The point is how a relatively close game knocked one school way down and another way up. Flipping them in the process. It's the polling that's not right with that one, and how that polling conveniently put a chaser program into the pot. The game's either a good win or a bad loss, not both, as the polling suggested.

It's kind of like Duke...weren't expected to push FSU, didn't push FSU, and got their points against the bench to pad a 45-7 embarrassment. They drop only 4 spots for that showing? To OSU's seven?!

And don't dismiss Missouri with other schools who played only twelve games. Get it through your head that a Tiger win meant a national championship game with them in it. It's not about Missouri losing. Or Auburn. Missouri lost a thirteenth game, putting them at two losses, to the team that may be the national champion. I find it too convenient to invite Alabama and reward them for, what exactly? Having one less loss than the schools who actually won part or all of the SEC? Newsflash: Missouri could have lost that game Saturday coming into the game undefeated, and 'Bama was still going to get a BCS bid.

(12-09-2013 10:14 AM)Otacon Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

Everybody wants to play in the big bad SEC, but no one wants the consequences when they come in 4th or 5th in said conference. If South Carolina was in the ACC or Big 12, they'd be in a bcs game this year. That's just what happens when you have all the "top ten" teams in one conference.

And this is why the B12 will hold.

(12-09-2013 09:34 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Missouri got hosed. If they beat Auburn, it would have been them in that game with FSU, and we would be saying the same thing about it "being done right." To go from the NC seat to non-BCS is just junk.

I also think Oklahoma shouldn't be in there. Yeah, yeah...Alabama and Oklahoma, blah, blah, blah, legendary programs and all that. My beef is how they skyrocketed from a win (that wasn't exactly decisive) and how far OSU dropped. If OSU dropped that far after losing a relatively close game, does that mean OU was a bad loss?

Well, for Oklahoma-they were #17 going in- 16/15 in the polls.
Teams ranked ahead of them that lost:
#6 Oklahoma St(by Oklahoma)
#11 Arizona St
#14 NIU

now final they are #11- 10/10 in the polls. passed all 3 teams that lost in front of them along with LSU, UCF, and Clemson. A lot of that was computers. OU went from .32 in the computers up to .56.

For OSU- 6/6 in polls, .79 in the computers
#7 Stanford
#9 Baylor
#10 Michigan St
#17 Oklahoma(who beat them)
all won.

13/13 in polls. .48 in the computers.

I have no problem at all with Oklahoma going. It's between them and Oregon and Oklahoma makes a lot of sense on the field even.

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

UCF I can get because they won their conference and all. Clemson getting an at large bid is laughable.

Forget the BCS label. South Carolina is not a victim. Your team is playing on New Year's Day in Florida in a bowl game that will probably be watched by more people than the Fiesta Bowl.

(12-09-2013 01:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 07:30 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Third year in a row this has happened to South Carolina. We are a victim of the numbers crunch.

UCF I can get because they won their conference and all. Clemson getting an at large bid is laughable.

Forget the BCS label. South Carolina is not a victim. Your team is playing on New Year's Day in Florida in a bowl game that will probably be watched by more people than the Fiesta Bowl.

But if the BCS label is forgotten, the phony grounds for grievance goes away, and ginning up phony grounds for grievance is the whole dang point.

Win your games.

Oregon should have beaten Stanford and not laid an massive egg against Arizona.
SCAR just needed to win its conference.
Missouri just needed to play a resemblance of rush defense in the SECCG.

They had their shots. They blew them.

(12-09-2013 02:05 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Missouri just needed to play a resemblance of rush defense in the SECCG.

...still waiting for a reason why a team with no part of any championship in the SEC has a BCS game and one doesn't. If you're going to put the SEC on a pedestal, then reward its victors. That conference produced three 11-1 teams. After Saturday, BOTH should have been assured they were going to be in BCS games. To **** with Alabama.