A team can deserve a BCS bid but get screwed out of one because the BCS has lots of rules that mandate that some teams get in even if they weren't as good as other teams. Since there are 10 BCS bowl slots, it stands to reason that you deserved one if you finished in the top 10, so:

Got screwed:

#8 Missouri
#9 South Carolina
#10 Oregon.

Why they got screwed: In Mizzou and South Carolina's case, it was because of the rule that only allows two teams from a conference to play in BCS bowl games. In Oregon's case, it was because the two Bowls with at-large slots chose to value conference ties and/or fan appeal and chose less deserving teams instead.

Who got in that didn't deserve it?

#11 Oklahoma
#12 Clemson
#15 UCF

How they got in? Oklahoma and Clemson got in because Oklahoma is a blue-chip name coming off a huge win over a top 10 opponent and because FSU making the national title game allowed the Orange Bowl to honor its tie in to the ACC. UCF got in because the rules say the AAC champion had to get in.

Of the three who got screwed, I feel the most for Oregon. Mizzou gets to play in the Cotton Bowl, which in terms of prestige and profile is basically a BCS-level bowl anyway, and SC gets the Cap One bowl, a big bowl in Disney World. Oregon gets to play Texas in San Antonio, a blue chip opponent in a nice city, but clearly a lesser bowl.

(12-08-2013 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A team can deserve a BCS bid but get screwed out of one because the BCS has lots of rules that mandate that some teams get in even if they weren't as good as other teams. Since there are 10 BCS bowl slots, it stands to reason that you deserved one if you finished in the top 10, so:

Got screwed:

#8 Missouri
#9 South Carolina
#10 Oregon.

Why they got screwed: In Mizzou and South Carolina's case, it was because of the rule that only allows two teams from a conference to play in BCS bowl games. In Oregon's case, it was because the two Bowls with at-large slots chose to value conference ties and/or fan appeal and chose less deserving teams instead.

Who got in that didn't deserve it?

#11 Oklahoma
#12 Clemson
#15 UCF

How they got in? Oklahoma and Clemson got in because Oklahoma is a blue-chip name coming off a huge win over a top 10 opponent and because FSU making the national title game allowed the Orange Bowl to honor its tie in to the ACC. UCF got in because the rules say the AAC champion had to get in.

Of the three who got screwed, I feel the most for Oregon. Mizzou gets to play in the Cotton Bowl, which in terms of prestige and profile is basically a BCS-level bowl anyway, and SC gets the Cap One bowl, a big bowl in Disney World. Oregon gets to play Texas in San Antonio, a blue chip opponent in a nice city, but clearly a lesser bowl.

Nobody got screwed...the ultimate goal of the BCS is to pit #1 vs. #2...that it...

(12-08-2013 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCF got in because the rules say the AAC champion had to get in.

UCF is actually the de facto "best of the Go5 champions pick", and the best of the Go5 champions getting into the big money bowls is surely fair, given the multiple ways Go5 schools get screwed through the whole FB season.

The argument would have been that if one of the other four Go5 schools were top 16 & better than The American champion, with two Go5 schools getting into the big money bowls because of The American dropping to de facto Go5 status the year before they drop down to pro forma Go5 status.

But as it happened, that double dipping from non-Power conferences didn't happen.

(12-08-2013 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A team can deserve a BCS bid but get screwed out of one because the BCS has lots of rules that mandate that some teams get in even if they weren't as good as other teams. Since there are 10 BCS bowl slots, it stands to reason that you deserved one if you finished in the top 10, so:

Got screwed:

#8 Missouri
#9 South Carolina
#10 Oregon.

Why they got screwed: In Mizzou and South Carolina's case, it was because of the rule that only allows two teams from a conference to play in BCS bowl games. In Oregon's case, it was because the two Bowls with at-large slots chose to value conference ties and/or fan appeal and chose less deserving teams instead.

Who got in that didn't deserve it?

#11 Oklahoma
#12 Clemson
#15 UCF

How they got in? Oklahoma and Clemson got in because Oklahoma is a blue-chip name coming off a huge win over a top 10 opponent and because FSU making the national title game allowed the Orange Bowl to honor its tie in to the ACC. UCF got in because the rules say the AAC champion had to get in.

Of the three who got screwed, I feel the most for Oregon. Mizzou gets to play in the Cotton Bowl, which in terms of prestige and profile is basically a BCS-level bowl anyway, and SC gets the Cap One bowl, a big bowl in Disney World. Oregon gets to play Texas in San Antonio, a blue chip opponent in a nice city, but clearly a lesser bowl.

Oklahoma got in over Oregon because of what you said but also because the Sugar is an SEC/Big12 bowl beginning next year. Same as Clemson in the Orange. The ACC essentially owns the Orange bowl and wasn't going to let Clemson hang in the wind hoping for another BCS at large to pick them.

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.

(12-08-2013 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A team can deserve a BCS bid but get screwed out of one because the BCS has lots of rules that mandate that some teams get in even if they weren't as good as other teams. Since there are 10 BCS bowl slots, it stands to reason that you deserved one if you finished in the top 10, so:

Got screwed:

#8 Missouri
#9 South Carolina
#10 Oregon.

Why they got screwed: In Mizzou and South Carolina's case, it was because of the rule that only allows two teams from a conference to play in BCS bowl games. In Oregon's case, it was because the two Bowls with at-large slots chose to value conference ties and/or fan appeal and chose less deserving teams instead.

Who got in that didn't deserve it?

#11 Oklahoma
#12 Clemson
#15 UCF

How they got in? Oklahoma and Clemson got in because Oklahoma is a blue-chip name coming off a huge win over a top 10 opponent and because FSU making the national title game allowed the Orange Bowl to honor its tie in to the ACC. UCF got in because the rules say the AAC champion had to get in.

Of the three who got screwed, I feel the most for Oregon. Mizzou gets to play in the Cotton Bowl, which in terms of prestige and profile is basically a BCS-level bowl anyway, and SC gets the Cap One bowl, a big bowl in Disney World. Oregon gets to play Texas in San Antonio, a blue chip opponent in a nice city, but clearly a lesser bowl.

I am sure you were pointing this out when the teams of the old BE were allowed the BCS spot, except for USF, of course. Oh wait, that did not happen.

One thing to keep in mind is that the whole concept of "BCS Bowls" would never have come into existence in the first place, if not for the special arrangements and rules designed to "equalize" the cartel of six conferences that created the BCS ~16 years ago. So to speak of teams within those conferences getting "screwed" comes with a big caveat: the "screwing" happened by prior-consent of all parties within the AAC, ACC, SEC, B1G, Big XII, and PAC-12.

Of course, the periodic bouts of cannibalism that broke out within the cartel resulted in a membership of six being reduced to a membership of five, starting next year.

I view "getting screwed" as getting knocked out for a team clearly less accomplished. With that in mind, I can't agree with Oklahoma or Clemson screwing either anyone. The ranking had Mizzou and South Carolina higher, but I think decent arguments can be made that Oklahoma or Clemson had better seasons than Mizzou/South Carolina. I don't necessarily agree with both, but as long as decent arguments and the rankings are close, it's not getting screwed (ranking themselves aren't perfect).

(12-08-2013 10:42 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I view "getting screwed" as getting knocked out for a team clearly less accomplished. With that in mind, I can't agree with Oklahoma or Clemson screwing either anyone. The ranking had Mizzou and South Carolina higher, but I think decent arguments can be made that Oklahoma or Clemson had better seasons than Mizzou/South Carolina. I don't necessarily agree with both, but as long as decent arguments and the rankings are close, it's not getting screwed (ranking themselves aren't perfect).

South Carolina beat Clemson and played a tougher schedule so hard to argue Clemson had a better season.

(12-09-2013 12:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:42 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I view "getting screwed" as getting knocked out for a team clearly less accomplished. With that in mind, I can't agree with Oklahoma or Clemson screwing either anyone. The ranking had Mizzou and South Carolina higher, but I think decent arguments can be made that Oklahoma or Clemson had better seasons than Mizzou/South Carolina. I don't necessarily agree with both, but as long as decent arguments and the rankings are close, it's not getting screwed (ranking themselves aren't perfect).

South Carolina beat Clemson and played a tougher schedule so hard to argue Clemson had a better season.

Fair enough on that count. Forgot the season ender.

(12-08-2013 10:31 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A team can deserve a BCS bid but get screwed out of one because the BCS has lots of rules that mandate that some teams get in even if they weren't as good as other teams. Since there are 10 BCS bowl slots, it stands to reason that you deserved one if you finished in the top 10, so:

Got screwed:

#8 Missouri
#9 South Carolina
#10 Oregon.

Why they got screwed: In Mizzou and South Carolina's case, it was because of the rule that only allows two teams from a conference to play in BCS bowl games. In Oregon's case, it was because the two Bowls with at-large slots chose to value conference ties and/or fan appeal and chose less deserving teams instead.

Who got in that didn't deserve it?

#11 Oklahoma
#12 Clemson
#15 UCF

How they got in? Oklahoma and Clemson got in because Oklahoma is a blue-chip name coming off a huge win over a top 10 opponent and because FSU making the national title game allowed the Orange Bowl to honor its tie in to the ACC. UCF got in because the rules say the AAC champion had to get in.

Of the three who got screwed, I feel the most for Oregon. Mizzou gets to play in the Cotton Bowl, which in terms of prestige and profile is basically a BCS-level bowl anyway, and SC gets the Cap One bowl, a big bowl in Disney World. Oregon gets to play Texas in San Antonio, a blue chip opponent in a nice city, but clearly a lesser bowl.

I am sure you were pointing this out when the teams of the old BE were allowed the BCS spot, except for USF, of course. Oh wait, that did not happen.

Actually, I frequently pointed out that Big East teams didn't belong in BCS bowl games.

UCF was ranked #15, which means you guys weren't even "BCS bowl eligible", you didn't even qualify to be selected as an at-large. Had Oklahoma finished #15, they wouldn't be in the Sugar Bowl. So UCF was really the most undeserving of the three outside the top 10 that did get in.

I don't feel sorry for any BCS team left out, that felt it was deserving. After all, it was the BCS conferences that mandated the set up. All that has to be done to rectify the situation is to expand the 4 team national playoff to preferable 16 teams.

(12-08-2013 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A team can deserve a BCS bid but get screwed out of one because the BCS has lots of rules that mandate that some teams get in even if they weren't as good as other teams. Since there are 10 BCS bowl slots, it stands to reason that you deserved one if you finished in the top 10, so:

Got screwed:

#8 Missouri
#9 South Carolina
#10 Oregon.

Why they got screwed: In Mizzou and South Carolina's case, it was because of the rule that only allows two teams from a conference to play in BCS bowl games. In Oregon's case, it was because the two Bowls with at-large slots chose to value conference ties and/or fan appeal and chose less deserving teams instead.

Who got in that didn't deserve it?

#11 Oklahoma
#12 Clemson
#15 UCF

How they got in? Oklahoma and Clemson got in because Oklahoma is a blue-chip name coming off a huge win over a top 10 opponent and because FSU making the national title game allowed the Orange Bowl to honor its tie in to the ACC. UCF got in because the rules say the AAC champion had to get in.

Of the three who got screwed, I feel the most for Oregon. Mizzou gets to play in the Cotton Bowl, which in terms of prestige and profile is basically a BCS-level bowl anyway, and SC gets the Cap One bowl, a big bowl in Disney World. Oregon gets to play Texas in San Antonio, a blue chip opponent in a nice city, but clearly a lesser bowl.

Nonsense.

I think they got it right for once.

Fiesta bowl got screwed, I would have sent Baylor to sugar & took ASU

Oregon is always hyped up and then finds a way to blow it. They don't deserve the bid, they played pitifully over the last month.

(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.

(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.

College football is a game where someone wins and someone loses. I think we have lost sight of that simple fact.

If anyone does not belong in a BCS bowl it's the ACC because they have a terrible record. From what I understand the Big East has not done bad in BCS bowls. If Louisville, Rutgers, or Cincy would have won the Big East you would not be complaining.

UCF only has a close loss to one of the best teams in the country. They also won their conference which is an AQ so no reason to say UCF did not earn it. Even if they AAC was not an AQ this year UCF finished 15th in the country which is something many programs in AQ conferences dream to accomplish.

Stop being a hater Quo

(12-09-2013 01:02 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Fiesta bowl got screwed, I would have sent Baylor to sugar & took ASU

Fiesta is obligated to take Baylor. It's the deal they practically set up and have themselves to blame.

(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.

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