12/21/24
November 07, 2010
Could title game be TCU vs. Boise State?: TCU may have earned the right Saturday to play in the BCS final. Boise State is looking good too. Is a non Pac-10, Big Ten, whatever-10-or-12, title game in the BCS cards?
Love to see it. I'm tired of the SEC/Big Ten/Big 12-dominated games. Give us something different.
posted by dyams at 11:22 AM on November 07, 2010
While I would love to see it, just for the sake of speeding a playoff format, TCU needs some help to get to the title game. If Oregon and Auburn win out, no way do the Horned Toads make it to the final. Just no strength of schedule. Utah will drop down considerably on the shellacking they took at home, which further deminishes TCU's schedule ranking.
Beyond that, I just see no way that the selection committee would allow a Boise State-TCU title game, where's the money in that?
posted by dviking at 12:02 PM on November 07, 2010
Utah will drop down considerably on the shellacking they took at home, which further deminishes TCU's schedule ranking.
Even though it was TCU that delivered that shellacking? Ain't that ironical.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:08 PM on November 07, 2010
No.
posted by geekyguy at 12:12 PM on November 07, 2010
I don't think both Auburn and Oregon will finish below TCU and Boise State.
Beyond that, I just see no way that the selection committee would allow a Boise State-TCU title game, where's the money in that?
There is no selection committee. It's all in the hands of the BCS rankings system.
Utah will drop down considerably on the shellacking they took at home, which further deminishes TCU's schedule ranking.
Beating a top-ranked team like No. 5 Utah helps a team far more than it would be hurt by the extra loss on their record. TCU is only helped here by the win and the margin of victory.
posted by rcade at 01:24 PM on November 07, 2010
I didn't think that the BCS "formula" took margin of victory into consideration.
posted by NoMich at 01:38 PM on November 07, 2010
My prediction (for what it's worth which is nothing at all) has always been that it will be Oregon vs. either TCU or Boise State. I don't know that Oregon really faces any competition this year. Unfortunately, if Auburn does win out it will go in ahead of both TCU and Boise State. Assuming that Oregon makes it and Auburn is somehow tripped up, I would love to see TCU or Boise State thump Oregon in the title game. Not likely, but would love to see it. Unfortunately if TCU and Boise State both made the title game and played each other, the "experts" would just say it was a down year in general for college football and these schools made it because they went undefeated due to no competition. The only way the non-BCS schools will get any respect is to play in the title game and beat a BCS school.
posted by graymatters at 02:13 PM on November 07, 2010
I didn't think that the BCS "formula" took margin of victory into consideration.
The computers which go into the "formula" must. A couple of weeks ago when OU was losing, Stoopes decided to punt instead of going for it while behind because he did not want the other team (Missouri ?; can't remember) scoring again and making their loss look worse. I think he specifically attributed the decision to the polls.
posted by graymatters at 02:16 PM on November 07, 2010
There is no selection committee. It's all in the hands of the BCS rankings system.
Which is 2/3 determined by human rankings. If we can in fact call the people compiling the coaches poll and the Harris pole humans. Right now Oregon and Auburn are 1-2 in all three rankings. No way does both (or either) Boise State and TCU move up unless Oregon and/or Auburn lose.
While I may be slightly prone to a conspiracy theory here, I just think the coaches and the various "random" people that make up the Harris poll might be swayed to go with a game that better suits the network and NCAA.
posted by dviking at 02:21 PM on November 07, 2010
I didn't think that the BCS "formula" took margin of victory into consideration.
It doesn't...
The thing I hate about all this is that teams' SOS is determined by where teams are ranked at the end of the season, not when they played. It's not TCU's fault Utah was overrated...
posted by MeatSaber at 02:30 PM on November 07, 2010
The thing I hate about all this is that teams' SOS is determined by where teams are ranked at the end of the season, not when they played. It's not TCU's fault Utah was overrated...
No offense MeatSaber, but I am having trouble making sense of this. The rankings at the time the teams play (particularly early in the season, but even later when the team in question happens to be undefeated (and therefore highly ranked) by virtue of not having played anyone good) are somewhat arbitrary in relying on the human element and when a team happened to lose. Boise should not get credit for beating a top-10 team when Virginia Tech was later exposed by James Madison and Ohio State should not get credit for beating a top-10 team when Miami is clearly not a top-10 team based on its body of work.
And the BCS formula does take margin of victory into account inasmuch as the human voters may be inclined to leapfrog a team where a lower ranked team had a more impressive victory (points wise) than the team immediately ahead of it (or a couple of spots ahead of it).
posted by holden at 03:35 PM on November 07, 2010
But if you go back through the results of this season's weeks of games, you'll see Wisconsin didn't beat #11 Ohio State, or #10 Ohio State, or even #8 Ohio State...it says they beat #1 Ohio State. They had no control over what OSU did before their game, or after...just those 60 minutes they played. Before that game, do you think the coaching staff was telling their players that beating the Buckeyes could mean they might not be ranked as high at the end of the season?
posted by MeatSaber at 04:43 PM on November 07, 2010
Not to argue holden's point for him, but you have to keep in mind that rankings are fluid, and clearly the early season rankings are fairly subjective as most of the teams haven't really played enough games to truly say who's number 1. By this time in the season being ranked number 1 means more than it did 6 weeks ago.
And, Utah being ranked 5th now shouldn't carry as much weight as whatever it is they wind up being ranked. Now, that being said, the difference between Utah at #5 and their final ranking probably won't be as big of a SOS difference as Ohio State at #1 and whatever they end up at. But, again, that's the human subjective element that I think can be used to set up a title game that suits the network and NCAA.
posted by dviking at 05:56 PM on November 07, 2010
I know how the system works (or doesn't, as the case may be), I'm just saying it's not always fair to the team that gets the win. Totally hypothetical, but let's say something catastrophic happens to Ohio State's season, and they lose out from here and drop out of the top 25 (I can hope). Why should that reflect negatively on the Badgers, when they beat a team that was, at the time, considered the best in the nation? Same goes for TCU and Utah. Going into yesterday's game, Utah was 6th. Shouldn't the voters look at it as TCU beating the #6 team, instead of the #15 ranking they have today?
posted by MeatSaber at 06:44 PM on November 07, 2010
Why should that reflect negatively on the Badgers, when they beat a team that was, at the time, considered the best in the nation?
Because they play the games. A counter-hypothetical would be if the No. 1-ranked North Texas Mean Green beat the unranked Texas Longhorns in week 1, and by week 10 North Texas is undefeated and Texas still has just one loss and is ranked No. 5. That week-one win became more valuable to North Texas.
It is good that some of the rankings reflect actual play. If they didn't, teams like TCU and Boise State would never have a chance. The longtime powers get all the hype, media attention and respect.
posted by rcade at 06:55 PM on November 07, 2010
Won't happen.
College football is about money, not about the best team being declared the champion.
posted by cixelsyd at 08:58 PM on November 07, 2010
College football is about money, not about the best team being declared the champion.
True. But a TCU vs. Oregon/Auburn game would probably bring in the cash. It would be a David and Goliath type of thing.
Like the Saints and Colts for the Super Bowl. Everybody outside of Oregon or Alabama (the Auburn side of Alabama anyway) would be rooting for the underdog small school.
posted by roberts at 07:22 AM on November 08, 2010
True. But a TCU vs. Oregon/Auburn game would probably bring in the cash. It would be a David and Goliath type of thing.
Like the Saints and Colts for the Super Bowl. Everybody outside of Oregon or Alabama (the Auburn side of Alabama anyway) would be rooting for the underdog small school.
How would TCU-Oregon/Auburn bring in the cash more than other games? People love to say that they are rooting for the underdog, but that just doesn't bear out in the ratings. The Super Bowl ratings are remarkably consistent for the last several years.) If someone is deciding who will be in the championship game with money/ratings as their objective (and I'm not intending to make a statement here on whether that is or is not happening), you would have the same 4 or 5 teams rotating through every year.
posted by bender at 03:47 PM on November 08, 2010
Hey now, the Mean Green will have a new stadium and a new coach next year...anything can happen!!
Well, okay, not that, but they should be better than they are now.
posted by dviking at 12:39 AM on November 10, 2010
If TCU can contend for a national championship playing in the Mountain West, it isn't completely impossible for UNT to play itself into a bigger conference and become a program that shows up in the top 25. But they need a bigger, better paid coach to go with that new stadium.
posted by rcade at 08:08 AM on November 10, 2010
I've been hoping for this for several weeks. I did not go to a Big-6 school, so my primary cheering interest is always chaos. How soon would a playoff be introduced if either of them are in the title game?