720 replies to this topic

[Domer]

I dunno, ESPN claims to be in 100 million households. I see broadcast vs cable really only mattering for casual sports fans, and I can't really see people with just a casual interest in sports, let alone college football, choosing to watch Louisville/Wake on a Tuesday night. As such comparing these ratings is reasonable.

Nielsen ratings for the five BCS games on ESPN dropped 11.7% from the year before, so it's definitely a factor, especially if you're comparing two games than with less than a 4% change in rating.

[ethangl]

Nielsen ratings for the five BCS games on ESPN dropped 11.7% from the year before, so it's definitely a factor, especially if you're comparing two games than with less than a 4% change in rating.

So take 2011's 6.75 (or 2010's 6.8) and make it a 7.5 -- there's just not enough of a difference between that and matchup between two basketball schools, or any other evidence, to show that Big East teams are toxic to TV ratings.

[Domer]

So take 2011's 6.75 (or 2010's 6.8) and make it a 7.5 -- there's just not enough of a difference between that and matchup between two basketball schools, or any other evidence, to show that Big East teams are toxic to TV ratings.

I don't really disagree with your main point, but I would add that bad Big East champions are toxic to TV ratings, and recently there have been some terrible Big East champions.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

Pfft, the fiasco that year was Michigan's defense. Cal lost some votes because they didn't blow out a CUSA team. That's hardly unprecedented.

That's what led to Carr's retirement and the hiring of he who cannot be named - Michigan had trouble with quarterbacks like VY, and overreacted in the opposite direction.

Cal and Texas didn't flip 4/5 until the last week of the BCS rankings. Neither team played that week.

[ethangl]

That's what led to Carr's retirement and the hiring of he who cannot be named - Michigan had trouble with quarterbacks like VY, and overreacted in the opposite direction.

Cal and Texas didn't flip 4/5 until the last week of the BCS rankings. Neither team played that week.

There is a post here that explains what actually happened with the human polls. Texas lost ground to Cal in those polls after beating a ranked A&M team by two scores. That's what actually happened. Cal had one victory over an above-average team that year. One.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

There is a post here that explains what actually happened with the human polls. Texas lost ground to Cal in those polls after beating a ranked A&M team by two scores. That's what actually happened. Cal had one victory over an above-average team that year. One.

Why are you changing the subject? We're not arguing the merits of Texas and California.

1) California was #4 and Texas #5 the week before the final BCS poll.

2) Neither team played that week, but they switched positions in the poll.

3) Under the BCS rules, Texas went to the Rose Bowl and California did not receive a BCS bid.

The claim that the Rose Bowl could have picked a Pac Ten or Big Ten team for that slot is invalid. They had to choose Texas under the system in place at that time. And voters, however justified, made switches that week that made the bid possible.

[ethangl]

Why are you changing the subject? We're not arguing the merits of Texas and California.

1) California was #4 and Texas #5 the week before the final BCS poll.

2) Neither team played that week, but they switched positions in the poll.

3) Under the BCS rules, Texas went to the Rose Bowl and California did not receive a BCS bid.

The claim that the Rose Bowl could have picked a Pac Ten or Big Ten team for that slot is invalid. They had to choose Texas under the system in place at that time. And voters, however justified, made switches that week that made the bid possible.

Am I claiming that the Rose Bowl could have picked a Pac 10 team?

In any case, according to Wikipedia, the final BCS standings were released after the games on December 4th, and Cal did play that week. It was the week of the conference championship games. Their game against USM was pushed back from its original date because of a Hurricane.

[Infield Infidel]

Conferences are limited to two participants in the BCS. Then-#9 Oklahoma upset #1 Missouri in the Big Twelve championship game, knocking them down to #6. Oklahoma rose to #4 and earned the automatic berth. #8 Kansas received a second berth for the conference ahead of #6 Missouri. At that point, Missouri was off the table.

Look, I know your a smart guy, but the obtuseness of your argument belies your intelligence. The Rose had the first pick. Oklahoma got and auto-bid and was locked into the Fiesta because they won the conference; their ranking is irrelevant. The Rose could have taken anyone besides #1, #2, ACC or Big-12 champion.

Here's the list of schools they could of picked (auto-bids bolded)
#5 Georgia 10-2
#6 Missouri 11-2
#8 Kansas 11-1
#9 West Virginia 10-2
#10 Hawaii 12-0
#11 Arizona St 10-2(which would have been weird with USC in the Rose but whatever)
#12 Florida 9-3 (which would obviate Georgia getting picked for a BCS bowl)
#13 Illinois 9-3
#14 Boston College 10-3

The Rose took #13 Illinois, skipping seven teams ahead of them, five of them at-large, including #6 Missouri. They likely discussed skipping Georgia because of the SEC/Sugar tie, but shooting down seven more spots to pick a not-so-great Big-10 team was a big jump.

Sugar had the next pick, and took #5 Georgia.

The Orange had the next pick and took #8 Kansas, skipping Missouri again.

So, like I said in the post you replied too, both #13 Illinois and #8 Kansas were selected over an eligible and higher ranked Mizzou team. I don't know how you don't understand that considering I've explained it now a third time. There's no way Illinois gets picked by another bowl. If the Rose had taken #8 Kansas (or Mizzou), do you think the Orange would have taken Illinois over West Virginia? or the Fiesta then taking Illinois over Arizona St? (Hawaii was always going to be the last pick)

edit- there's a reason they put that clause in the current BCS wherein the Rose has to take a non-AQ team at least once during the contract

Edited by Infield Infidel, 30 November 2011 - 10:08 PM.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

Look, I know your a smart guy, but the obtuseness of your argument belies your intelligence. The Rose had the first pick. Oklahoma got and auto-bid and was locked into the Fiesta because they won the conference; their ranking is irrelevant. The Rose could have taken anyone besides #1, #2, ACC or Big-12 champion.

Here's the list of schools they could of picked (auto-bids bolded)
#5 Georgia 10-2
#6 Missouri 11-2
#8 Kansas 11-1
#9 West Virginia 10-2
#10 Hawaii 12-0
#11 Arizona St 10-2(which would have been weird with USC in the Rose but whatever)
#12 Florida 9-3 (which would obviate Georgia getting picked for a BCS bowl)
#13 Illinois 9-3
#14 Boston College 10-3

The Rose took #13 Illinois, skipping seven teams ahead of them, five of them at-large, including #6 Missouri. They likely discussed skipping Georgia because of the SEC/Sugar tie, but shooting down seven more spots to pick a not-so-great Big-10 team was a big jump.

Sugar had the next pick, and took #5 Georgia.

The Orange had the next pick and took #8 Kansas, skipping Missouri again.

So, like I said in the post you replied too, both #13 Illinois and #8 Kansas were selected over an eligible and higher ranked Mizzou team. I don't know how you don't understand that considering I've explained it now a third time. There's no way Illinois gets picked by another bowl. If the Rose had taken #8 Kansas (or Mizzou), do you think the Orange would have taken Illinois over West Virginia? or the Fiesta then taking Illinois over Arizona St? (Hawaii was always going to be the last pick)

edit- there's a reason they put that clause in the current BCS wherein the Rose has to take a non-AQ team at least once during the contract

The bowls committees discuss these things together, as the rules outline. They discuss the conference limits. They discuss the automatic berths and the historic tie-ins. That's the concept you're missing. A team that will otherwise certainly be picked later in the order is not necessarily skipped.

As you said, Hawai'i was going to be the last pick and West Virginia the second-to-last pick. By rule, they couldn't be left out. The Rose had an early pick because it had to replace Ohio State (off to the title game). Georgia was going to be picked by the Sugar Bowl as the replacement for LSU. That's an encouraged part of the discussion - if the Sugar wanted Georgia, which it undoubtedly did, it would get Georgia.

So they're picking between the second Big Twelve team, Arizona State (which had lost by 20 to USC two weeks earlier, and the bowls are encouraged to avoid rematches, and have never had an in-conference battle before), Illinois and Boston College.

Yes, they could have chosen Kansas or Missouri, but there was no risk of that second Big Twelve team being left out. The Orange would undoubtedly take that team. The rules, again, allow the committees to make this kind of selection together. If the Rose took Missouri, then the Orange would still be making the same decision - Arizona State, Illinois or Boston College (in this case definitely not the ACC team since Virginia Tech was already there).

That's what the committee did together - either pair Illinois and USC in the Rose and Virginia Tech and the second Big Twelve team in the Orange - or the second Big Twelve team and USC in the Rose, and Virginia Tech and Arizona State or Illinois in the Orange. After discussion, both bowl committees decided the former plan was better.

So you can certainly argue that #13 went ahead of #11 because of historic conference ties and selection order. And #8 did go ahead of #6, which was controversial, but not the choice made because of Illinois. But you can't argue that #13 went ahead of #6, except as a technicality. Since you seem to understand why Hawai'i was picked last, and don't find that suspect, then you should also understand why Illinois would not have been included at Missouri's expense.

Am I claiming that the Rose Bowl could have picked a Pac 10 team?

In any case, according to Wikipedia, the final BCS standings were released after the games on December 4th, and Cal did play that week. It was the week of the conference championship games. Their game against USM was pushed back from its original date because of a Hurricane.

You're right. The Wiki entry on the BCS standings has a typo indicating neither team played that week. But you can see elsewhere that Cal won at Southern Miss (not a terrible team, it had been ranked a month earlier), 26-16, leading 14-7 at the half, during that final week. So the voters did use that to justify the switch.

My initial response there was to infield infidel, who said the Rose had taken a Big Twelve team before. Yes, it did, but it was forced to take Texas in this instance because Texas earned an automatic berth by moving ahead of Cal. Sticking with the historic conference tie-in was not an option available to the Rose, by rule. There were only 4 BCS games back then.

[axx]

The trend that I'm seeing is that the BCS Bowls are getting more and more say as to who plays in the games, not less. So picking Michigan over higher ranked eligible teams won't be such a surprise. Referring to what happened in the past isn't relevant anymore.

It's been suggested that there may not be any rules in the next BCS contract, except for 1v2, and that the AQ status may simply go away.

[bowiac]

That's what led to Carr's retirement and the hiring of he who cannot be named - Michigan had trouble with quarterbacks like VY, and overreacted in the opposite direction.

Michigan hired Richard A. Rodriguez not because of an overreaction in the opposite direction, but because they couldn't land their top two picks (Les Miles and Greg Schiano). It's not like Bill Martin was operating under some directive to go get someone to bring in a mobile QB.

[WayBackVazquez]

Michigan hired Richard A. Rodriguez not because of an overreaction in the opposite direction, but because they couldn't land their top two picks (Les Miles and Greg Schiano). It's not like Bill Martin was operating under some directive to go get someone to bring in a mobile QB.

And I for one cannot wait for the Shane Morris era to begin.

[Infield Infidel]

As you said, Hawai'i was going to be the last pick and West Virginia the second-to-last pick. By rule, they couldn't be left out. The Rose had an early pick because it had to replace Ohio State (off to the title game). Georgia was going to be picked by the Sugar Bowl as the replacement for LSU. That's an encouraged part of the discussion - if the Sugar wanted Georgia, which it undoubtedly did, it would get Georgia.

So they're picking between the second Big Twelve team, Arizona State (which had lost by 20 to USC two weeks earlier, and the bowls are encouraged to avoid rematches, and have never had an in-conference battle before), Illinois and Boston College.

Yes, they could have chosen Kansas or Missouri, but there was no risk of that second Big Twelve team being left out. The Orange would undoubtedly take that team. The rules, again, allow the committees to make this kind of selection together. If the Rose took Missouri, then the Orange would still be making the same decision - Arizona State, Illinois or Boston College (in this case definitely not the ACC team since Virginia Tech was already there).

That's what the committee did together - either pair Illinois and USC in the Rose and Virginia Tech and the second Big Twelve team in the Orange - or the second Big Twelve team and USC in the Rose, and Virginia Tech and Arizona State or Illinois in the Orange. After discussion, both bowl committees decided the former plan was better.

So you can certainly argue that #13 went ahead of #11 because of historic conference ties and selection order. And #8 did go ahead of #6, which was controversial, but not the choice made because of Illinois. But you can't argue that #13 went ahead of #6, except as a technicality. Since you seem to understand why Hawai'i was picked last, and don't find that suspect, then you should also understand why Illinois would not have been included at Missouri's expense.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. The Rose could have certainly take Missouri, which would have likely left Illinois out.

While I said Hawaii was certain to be last, I think the bolded is a big assumption. If the Rose takes Missouri, the Orange could have certainly selected West Virginia instead of ASU, Illinois and BC, since WVU has a solid traveling history and was in the top 10 the whole season and in the top 2 until the last week (as was Missouri). Which would have left the Fiesta with ASU more likely than Illinois. Maybe while the discussed things, the Fiesta found a way to not pick ASU without not picking them

[WayBackVazquez]

I think Michigan is now in. UGA got whipped and will drop out of the top 14. Loser of MSU/Wiscy is out. Mathwise I think it would take voters deciding that a 3-loss Baylor should jump TCU (off a dominating win) and Michigan to get past us. Even if that happens, I think there's a good chance Houston drops behind us. I think if Oklahoma gets beaten by a sound margin, it will as well. And if VaTech loses, I'm predicting them behind us, too.

[twibnotes]

I think Michigan is now in. UGA got whipped and will drop out of the top 14. Loser of MSU/Wiscy is out. Mathwise I think it would take voters deciding that a 3-loss Baylor should jump TCU (off a dominating win) and Michigan to get past us. Even if that happens, I think there's a good chance Houston drops behind us. I think if Oklahoma gets beaten by a sound margin, it will as well. And if VaTech loses, I'm predicting them behind us, too.

I'm all for mich making it (went there for grad school), but it would be kind of ridiculous if Mich went to a bcs and mich st did not. Mich state will have one more loss but only bc they earned another game in no small part bc they beat mich head to head. Of course, you can't spell BCS without BS

[Infield Infidel]

Baylor did beat TCU, so that's another thing to consider. I think Michigan is in the clear though

Edited by Infield Infidel, 03 December 2011 - 08:54 PM.

[axx]

At this point it looks like the Sugar's going to be Michigan-K-State.

[WayBackVazquez]

I'm all for mich making it (went there for grad school), but it would be kind of ridiculous if Mich went to a bcs and mich st did not. Mich state will have one more loss but only bc they earned another game in no small part bc they beat mich head to head. Of course, you can't spell BCS without BS

But those are the rules. They could have beaten Notre Dame or Nebraska like we did, and then they wouldn't have to worry about being eligible if they lost. Or they could have scheduled real teams instead of Youngstown State and FAU. Then they could cry because we got selected even though Michigan was ranked lower. The world doesn't turn on a head-to-head match-up, especially when that game is played in East Lansing. They won. They get bragging rights, and they get the opportunity to win the conference and play in the Rose Bowl. If they don't get a BCS bid, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

[WayBackVazquez]

At this point it looks like the Sugar's going to be Michigan-K-State.

Maybe. Is K-State more attractive than Baylor (which could make the top 14 even if they're behind us)? If TCU slips into the top 16, then I think it's WVU.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't completely rule out Boise.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 03 December 2011 - 09:03 PM.

[Infield Infidel]

I was thinking about this earlier, but if the Big-Ten CG is an epic stalemate, they might both stay ahead of Michigan in the polls

[twibnotes]

Is there ANY way Oke St can get past Alabama? They are absolutely dominating the Sooners

[axx]

Is there ANY way Oke St can get past Alabama? They are absolutely dominating the Sooners

Go back in time and defeat Iowa State?

[twibnotes]

Go back in time and defeat Iowa State?

T Boone Pickens is assembling a dream team of scientists as we speak

[Hendu's Gait]

Here's what we know:

AQ's:
LSU - BCS CG (#1 BCS)
Wiscy - Rose Bowl (B1G Champ)
Oregon - Rose Bowl (Pac12 Champ)
Clemson - Orange Bowl (ACC Champ)
WV (Big East Champ)
Alabama (#2 or #3 BCS)
Stanford (#4 BCS)
Ok State (Big 12-2 Champ)

If TCU is t-16, becomes AQ

Possible at large (must be T-14)
Michigan
Boise State
Kansas State
VA Tech
Baylor
Houston likely out
Oklahoma likely out
Michigan State likely out



So:

Rose : Wisconsin (B1G champ) v. Oregon (Pac-12 Champ)
BCS CG: LSU #1 v. Alabama or OK St (whoever ends up #2)
Fiesta: Ok State (if #3, as Big 12-2 Champ) v. At-large or AQ, or At-large v. AQ
Sugar: Alabama (if #3, since LSU is #1) v. At-Large or At Large v. AQ
Orange: Clemson (as ACC Champ) v. At-large or AQ

Would be funny if sugar gets VTech v. WV (rivalry game), but unlikely, as Michigan is better draw

If TCU doesn't qualify, I look for Michigan and either Boise or Va Tech to be selected as at-large

No one wants Stanford, but not sure anyone would pick WV over them. Both have been part of poorly sold Orange Bowls IIRC

Still too early to tell

Edited by Hendu's Gait, 04 December 2011 - 12:10 AM.

[Infield Infidel]

First BCS bowls for Clemson and OkSU.

[RedSoxFan]

I think the Fiesta will take Stanford. That would put the Cardinal against Oklahoma St. #3 vs. #4 match-up, which would be pretty attractive for television. Also, there's probably a better chance Stanford fans would travel to Glendale vs. going all the way across the country.

I do think the Sugar Bowl will take Michigan with the first pick. Will come down to K-State and Boise St. for the final slot.

[E5 Yaz]

I do think the Sugar Bowl will take Michigan with the first pick. Will come down to K-State and Boise St. for the final slot.

Well, unless TCU qualifies

[Hendu's Gait]

Well, unless TCU qualifies

even then. (If Michigan qualifies, it will be the lone At-large selection, too much demand from their fanbase, who are both dispersed and wealthy)

[axx]

I don't think TCU will make it. They have to gain two spots, and Clemson will get ahead of them. Houston could drop past them, but I don't think Oklahoma or VT will.

NCG: LSU - Alabama
Rose: Oregon - Wisconsin
Fiesta: OkSt - Stanford
Sugar: Michigan - K-State
Orange: Clemson - West Virginia

[bowiac]

I don't think TCU makes it, and I don't think we see a rematch. I suspect just enough voters switch from Alabama to OSU to make the difference. Alabama might remain #2 in the polls, but by a slim enough margin that OSU's computer lead (even though it will be only 1/3 the total weight) will pull them ahead:

NCG: LSU-Oklahoma State
Rose: Oregon-Wisconsin
Fiesta: Stanford-Michigan
Sugar: Alabama-Kansas State
Orange: West Virginia-Clemson

[RedOctober3829]

This makes my K-State BCS prediction come true.
NCG: LSU-Alabama
Rose: Oregon-Wisconsin
Fiesta: OSU-Stanford
Sugar-Michigan-Kansas State
Orange: Clemson-West Virginia

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

But how do you exclude Boise State if it's #5 or #6? Especially if no mid-major gets the auto-bid.

To review past BCS bowl at-large decisions that weren't strictly according to the standings:

1998: Ohio State (4) and Florida (8) chosen; Kansas State (3) and Arizona (7) not chosen (the following year, the Kansas State rule was created, giving an automatic berth to the #3 or #4 team if it doesn't otherwise qualify).
1999: Tennessee (5) and Michigan (9) chosen; Kansas State (6) and Michigan State (10) not chosen (I guess they really don't like Kansas State).
2000: Oregon State (6) and Notre Dame (11) chosen; Virginia Tech (5), Nebraska (8), Kansas State (9) not chosen.
2007: Georgia (5), Kansas (8) and Illinois (13) chosen; Missouri (6), Arizona State (11) not chosen (precedent for Michigan State being penalized for losing a championship game despite beating Michigan head-to-head).
2008: Alabama (4), Ohio State (10) chosen; Boise State (9), TCU (11) not chosen.
2009: Florida (5), Boise State (6) and Iowa (10) chosen, Virginia Tech (11) not chosen (this was according to the standings, but it's interesting to note that Boise State was taken when TCU already had the mid-major auto-bid).

My guesses, looking at the results:

1) TCU does not earn an automatic bid, falling just short of the top 16.
2) Michigan is #13, despite falling behind Baylor.
3) Michigan State falls short of the top 14.
4) Virginia Tech drops to #11.
5) Oklahoma State overtakes Alabama, having given the voters something to hang a hat on.
6) Boise State fans scream bloody murder, as no ranking "injustice" this great has been perpetrated since 2000, when there were only four BCS bowls.

NCG: Louisiana State (1, SEC) vs. Oklahoma State (2, B12)
Rose: Wisconsin (9, B10) vs. Oregon (5, P12)
Orange: Clemson (15, ACC) vs. West Virginia (21, BE)
Sugar: Alabama (3, KSU Rule) vs. Kansas State (8, AL)
Fiesta: Stanford (4, AL) vs. Michigan (13, AL)

Eligible teams left out: Boise State (6), Virginia Tech (11), Baylor (12),

Looks like I agree with bowiac.

[Hendu's Gait]

If it ends up Clemson 16, TCU 17, S. Miss, 18, it will be funny. Love the ESPN scroll on what needs to happen for S. Miss to get a BCS spot.

[Zososoxfan]

I don't think TCU makes it, and I don't think we see a rematch. I suspect just enough voters switch from Alabama to OSU to make the difference. Alabama might remain #2 in the polls, but by a slim enough margin that OSU's computer lead (even though it will be only 1/3 the total weight) will pull them ahead:

NCG: LSU-Oklahoma State
Rose: Oregon-Wisconsin
Fiesta: Stanford-Michigan
Sugar: Alabama-Kansas State
Orange: West Virginia-Clemson

But how do you exclude Boise State if it's #5 or #6? Especially if no mid-major gets the auto-bid.

To review past BCS bowl at-large decisions that weren't strictly according to the standings:

1998: Ohio State (4) and Florida (8) chosen; Kansas State (3) and Arizona (7) not chosen (the following year, the Kansas State rule was created, giving an automatic berth to the #3 or #4 team if it doesn't otherwise qualify).
1999: Tennessee (5) and Michigan (9) chosen; Kansas State (6) and Michigan State (10) not chosen (I guess they really don't like Kansas State).
2000: Oregon State (6) and Notre Dame (11) chosen; Virginia Tech (5), Nebraska (8), Kansas State (9) not chosen.
2007: Georgia (5), Kansas (8) and Illinois (13) chosen; Missouri (6), Arizona State (11) not chosen (precedent for Michigan State being penalized for losing a championship game despite beating Michigan head-to-head).
2008: Alabama (4), Ohio State (10) chosen; Boise State (9), TCU (11) not chosen.
2009: Florida (5), Boise State (6) and Iowa (10) chosen, Virginia Tech (11) not chosen (this was according to the standings, but it's interesting to note that Boise State was taken when TCU already had the mid-major auto-bid).

My guesses, looking at the results:

1) TCU does not earn an automatic bid, falling just short of the top 16.
2) Michigan is #13, despite falling behind Baylor.
3) Michigan State falls short of the top 14.
4) Virginia Tech drops to #11.
5) Oklahoma State overtakes Alabama, having given the voters something to hang a hat on.
6) Boise State fans scream bloody murder, as no ranking "injustice" this great has been perpetrated since 2000, when there were only four BCS bowls.

NCG: Louisiana State (1, SEC) vs. Oklahoma State (2, B12)
Rose: Wisconsin (9, B10) vs. Oregon (5, P12)
Orange: Clemson (15, ACC) vs. West Virginia (21, BE)
Sugar: Alabama (3, KSU Rule) vs. Kansas State (8, AL)
Fiesta: Stanford (4, AL) vs. Michigan (13, AL)

Eligible teams left out: Boise State (6), Virginia Tech (11), Baylor (12),

Looks like I agree with bowiac.

Put me in this boat as well, both in terms of expectations and hope. Bama had their chance, at home no less. It looks pretty awful to give them another shot at the NC with a legitimate conference champ in OK St. waiting in the wings. There are parallels to the '07 season ('08 bowl games) when a few people, myself not included, thought that a Michigan-OSU rematch was in order. There are obviously differences as well, but the right call was made then and I hope the right call is made tonight.

In addition, I read an article this morning that pointed out that the Cowboys' loss to ISU was in double OT and on the road, but more importantly was played pretty soon after the plane crash news had been reported. I'm not saying whether it's legit or not to take that into account, but I think there's more than enough to justify OK St. making the NC game.

[gopats84]

If Alabama drops to #3 and out of the NC Game, how motivated will their fans be to travel to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl? In a normal situation with a big-name school a short distance away, I could see the Sugar rolling the dice with a team like Boise State that wouldn't travel as well counting on the local team to pick up any unsold tickets. But have to wonder what the mindset will be of the Tide fans if they do indeed lose out on playing for the NC. The Sugar is a great consolation prize, but I'm not sure Alabama will see it that way.

I think Boise-Alabama would be a great opportunity for the Sugar Bowl. By the rankings it would be the highest match-up of any BCS bowl excluding the championship and could be billed as Boise finally getting its shot against a top tier SEC team.

Edited by gopats84, 04 December 2011 - 10:52 AM.

[axx]

I ran some numbers and OkSt's chances of passing Alabama are a lot better than I thought. The Cowboys would need to sweep the computers or do a lot better in the polls than I expect. Remember that OkSt was 5th in both polls last week; so a fair amount of voters would have to move them ahead of both Stanford and Alabama (and Boise?).

[RedOctober3829]

If Alabama drops to #3 and out of the NC Game, how motivated will their fans be to travel to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl? In a normal situation with a big-name school a short distance away, I could see the Sugar rolling the dice with a team like Boise State that wouldn't travel as well counting on the local team to pick up any unsold tickets. But have to wonder what the mindset will be of the Tide fans if they do indeed lose out on playing for the NC. The Sugar is a great consolation prize, but I'm not sure Alabama will see it that way.

I think Boise-Alabama would be a great opportunity for the Sugar Bowl. By the rankings it would be the highest match-up of any BCS bowl excluding the championship and could be billed as Boise finally getting its shot against a top tier SEC team.

We saw this type of game before with Utah and Alabama. Alabama showed up not wanting to be there at all and they got smoked.

[sachmoney]

So after dogging our BCS chances all day, this mother fucker:

ChantelJennings Chantel Jennings
ESPN's @BradEdwards_BCS predicts that Mich will go to Tostitos Fiesta Bowl in AZ or the All-State Sugar Bowl in NOLA

Says we're BCS bowling.

[axx]

Edwards also says that Bama is #2 in one of the computers and the rumor is they are in a second one. Which would mean the Cowboys would need 40% of the second place votes instead of 25%.

[WayBackVazquez]

Coaches Poll is out. Michigan is #12

#winning

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 04 December 2011 - 12:48 PM.

[sachmoney]

The best part is that we're 1 spot ahead of Michigan State. Sorry little bruh.

[axx]

Coaches poll is very bad news for OkSt, esp since it looks like they won't sweep the computers.

[canderson]

Hearing 9-3 PSU very well could fall to the TicketCity bowl vs.Houston, since Insight and Meineke have given signals they won't select PSU.

[WayBackVazquez]

You are overthinking this. There is no 3-loss team that will be higher in the human polls than a 2-loss Michigan.

Voters really, really don't like to put a 3-loss team above a 2-loss team from a power conference. It almost never happens at the end of a season.

Do you really believe this? You really think beating a 5-6 TT and a 6-5 UT is going to make this team jump over Michigan? Baylor currently has 616 points to Michigan's 1164 in the Harris and 302 to Michigan's 618 in the Coaches. This is like insane 2003 Red Sox-level paranoia you have going here.

[WayBackVazquez]

Looks like it's going to be close for TCU getting into the top 16 of the BCS. Up to 15 in the coaches, but they should actually lose some computer points.

[WayBackVazquez]

Coaches poll is very bad news for OkSt, esp since it looks like they won't sweep the computers.

I don't know. Shakes out as .948 to .927. From what I've heard the Harris is more likely to be anti-rematch. I think if the Harris has OSU by even a slim margin, the computer edge for OSU gets it done.

[axx]

I don't know. Shakes out as .948 to .927. From what I've heard the Harris is more likely to be anti-rematch. I think if the Harris has OSU by even a slim margin, the computer edge for OSU gets it done.

If two computers keep Bama at #2 OkSt's computer margin would only be 0.02. Which essentially means OkSt would have to be ahead in the Harris poll.

[WayBackVazquez]

If two computers keep Bama at #2 OkSt's computer margin would only be 0.02. Which essentially means OkSt would have to be ahead in the Harris poll.

Yeah, that's what I said.

[Royal Reader]

In addition, I read an article this morning that pointed out that the Cowboys' loss to ISU was in double OT and on the road, but more importantly was played pretty soon after the plane crash news had been reported. I'm not saying whether it's legit or not to take that into account, but I think there's more than enough to justify OK St. making the NC game.

It was. Of course, it was also as a 25-point favorite. It's still a pretty bad loss, but in any rematch discussion, the potential rematch team is going to have the less bad loss, and yeah, road and double OT mitigate it.

More importantly, I don't think OkSU had really shown any evidence of having a defense before this weekend. They'd allowed 34 to LA-Lafayette and 33 to Tulsa, and had one conference game where they allowed fewer than 20. Kind of felt all along they were going to lose to the Sooners and it was going to be a rematch or a complete paper tiger of a VTech team that hadn't beaten anyone good, and in that case the rematch was preferable. Pokes have shown themselves worthy here, though. OkSt isn't 2006 Florida, but it's close enough. They deserve a shot, and the contrast of styles will be interesting.

[axx]

Twitter says Bama is second in Harris; is in.