the BCS needs to go, now. it's so completely biased it's not funny anymore. an SEC team loses to another SEC team and they drop 2 positions; big "10" loses to big "10" and they drop a dozen spots. explain how that makes any fair, logical sense?
22 miles of hard road
33 years of tough luck
44 skulls buried in the ground
Crawling down through the muck
Roll Tide! Richardson's Heisman.
Hate on the SEC all you want. It will change nothing. Another SEC title year. Business as usual.
UCLA Is getting man handled by USC. That's just sad, lol.
I think it helps the BCS. You can argue if you want, but it's hard to deny that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the NCAA. IF they were to play each other in the BCS title game, technically, they got it right.
Given the current snapshot, it's unlikely even with future losses or upsets that the loser of the Big Ten Conference Championship Game can finish #14 or above in the final BCS standings and thus be eligible for an at-large bid. That's why some journalists are giving U-M attention in today's headlines, but they might not even reach that position anyway.
The BCS, as retarded and broken as it is, has the primary task of determining a #1 and #2 to square off for the national championship, and then identifying automatic qualifiers. Beyond that, there is no "should", "deserve", or anything of the sort built into the system for the rest of the bowl selection process. Bowl committees book at-large teams based upon what match-up will net the highest ratings, sell the most tickets, and generate the most revenue. Eligible at-large teams get snubbed every year regardless of their merits. It's always been like that.
From your posts though, it looks more like you're more pissed off about the possibility of Michigan getting an at-large bid than anything in the BCS or bowl selection process requiring revision. Just saying.
The only exceptions that come to mind (not counting the 2003 Oklahoma BCS abomination, of course):
Then-#1 Tide lose to #2 Florida in the SEC CCG. UF goes on to beat OU and win the NC.
(12-1) 'Bama is then selected to play (AQ) Utah in the Sugar Bowl, and falls.
Similar to the above, then-#1 Gators are upset by #2 'Bama in the SEC CCG. Tide go win the NC vs. Texas.
(12-1) Gators are selected to play in the Sugar Bowl, and roflstomp Cincy.
If anyone can think of other examples from the BCS era, I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).
Long story short, it doesn't matter to bowl committees whether or not Michigan State or Wisconsin could beat Michigan now, or at any point during the regular season. Due to Sparty and Wisky being 10-2 going into it, the Big Ten CCG loser will end up with three losses, and at a time when they'll get ranked down lower than #14 in the final BCS standings, ruling out their eligibility for an at-large BCS spot. The only way either one of them could have avoided that was to either go undefeated, or only lose once during the regular season, preferably as early as possible so they could have regained maximum ground. I'm not saying it's somehow right that the system works that way -- it's just the way it is.
---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 02:34 AM ----------
Neither the human voters nor computer rankings care that Team X played an "extra game", or made it to their conference's championship game. Team X gets rewarded for winning that game, or, penalized for losing that game. With or without the BCS, that's how these things work in any sport I can think of.
U-M: 8 home, 4 away
MSU: 7 home, 5 away
UW: 7 home, 4 away, 1 neutral site
I don't think U-M's one extra home game somehow poisons them or otherwise puts them in a different class. Given the option, most schools will choose the same home-heavy schedule. That's what pays the bills these days.
As for strength of schedule, all the computer rankings I can find disagree with your assessment. Not that it matters much, you just haven't described how you've gotten that notion.
Anderson & Hester:
Again, even if you reject the BCS system in its entirety, or the computer rankings that it uses, there's really no room for CCG losers to obtain at-large invitations unless there are particularly weird circumstances (like those I described earlier). Lastly, a 10-3 record isn't attractive enough to the bowl committees to merit an at-large invitation. It's just not borne out historically. And, as much as I'd love to see it, having a 16-team playoff wouldn't guarantee solutions for these lesser issues any better than what's in place now.
The Big Ten Champ goes on to the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten CCG loser finishes 10-3 and still gets a decent non-BCS bowl date. If, somehow, the right combination of teams winning and losing sets Michigan up for an at-large bid, so be it. Everybody splits their revenue with the conference. I just don't see the big deal. Is there anything more to your argument than hating on the Wolverines?
Last edited by Sayl; 2011-11-28 at 04:16 AM.
as far as SoS goes, UofM didn't even have to play Wisconsin, who was considered a national title contender at the beginning of hte year and is considered one of the best teams (with MSU) in the big 10, how they warrant a higher SoS than MSU is beyond me, sans maybe a stronger schedule against the "weaker teams" but honestly i don't even consider those games because frankly, they are supposed to be pushovers. when i look at SoS i look at the hardest teams a team played, and frankly Michigan doesn't stack up, heck, outside of MSU, almost any team that had any sort of good record was played at home. yes, i am not a Wolverines fan at all, i will admit that, but it doesn't change the fact that both Wisconsin and MSU are clearly stronger teams, and one will have the misfortune of being knocked out of a BCS at large bid, while a decidely weaker team gets to float by on a free week and slide into an at large bid (possibly).
Little bit of news. Rick Neuheisal officially out at UCLA. Lots of casualties this weekend. Half of em coming from the Pac 12.
Marcellos, I wouldn't count on Michigan getting that at large bid so many people are talking about. A whole lot of chips have to fall the right way next week for that to even be a possibility. Michigan has to land at 14 or above which means two teams have to drop enough in the eyes of the voters for them to move up. Georgia is done for. They are at 14 now and playing LSU which should thoroughly annihilate that mediocre team. They should drop. That means that the Wisconsin/MSU loser would have to have a significant drop. Wisconsin is so far ahead of Michigan in the polls (12 in USA, 13 in Harris compared to 16 in each for Michigan). Losing to MSU wouldn't likely be enough to drop them 3-4 spots in those polls. Michigan is way, way ahead of them in the computers though (.410 to .250), as Wisconsin has played no one outside of MSU and is in the way weaker Big10 division, which could work in their advantage. If Wisconsin wins though, no way does MSU drop enough.
There just are very few things that can bounce right for Michigan to get to 14. South Carolina isn't playing, even though they are terrible and don't deserve their rank. Kansas State plays Iowa State which in theory could be tough (ask OSU) and would kill them if they lose. So Michigan needs Georgia to lose in embarrassing fashion (which will happen) and Wisconsin to lose bad enough to move them behind Michigan in the eyes of the USA Today voters. I am hesitant to believe that will happen. If it does though, Michigan vs Houston will be a fun game. That willl almost certainly be the matchup because none of the BCS bowls want Houston so they will definitely try and get Michigan in that game to try and draw the national audience which, fair to MSU/Wisconsin or not, Michigan can do better than most other teams in the NCAA.