Does the Big 12 run the BCS? Nebraska loses it's Conference title game but some how gets in the big game a couple of years ago. Oklahoma loses it's conference title game but some how gets in the title game. This year not only does Oklahoma find it's way back to the BCS title game with a weak schedule but Texas gets their way almost after choking to Kansas. Cal got screwed and Auburn fell victim to a very cr@ppy system run by Big 12 nerds. Talk about glass ceiling.
The only solution is a playoff system to end the controversy year after year. Face it the BCS is fixed.
Uh, Oklahoma is # 2 and Texas # 4 in the BCS. Given the fact that the human polls are 2/3 of the forumla, this was pretty much a given.
Incidentally, I think Utah has a bigger beef than Cal because Utah is undefeated with a good non-conference schedule.
It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-elite network.= Tavis Smiley on the diversity of the Bush Cabinet vis-à-vis NPR
You could say that the Big 12 runs the BCS, as the head of the Big 12 is also the head of the BCS. Up until 2 years ago, the SEC head Roy Kramer ran the BCS (and was basically the founder of the whole BCS). Were you complaining about the BCS bias then?
Look, it's a (multi) computer system, and unless somebody's put some weird variable into the equation, I'm pretty sure that it's not biased. Doesn't ESPN and other outlets have their own computers that use the same formulas? They've all projected the same rankings (basically). You can say that the system sucks, but it's not biased. Texas and Oklahoma are good teams. As Grimis said, look at the human polls. You can maybe argue bias there (I never understood how no matter how bad ND and PSU were, they always got votes the first few weeks of the season the past few years), but not a computer system. Unless the BCS computers have developed emotions, in which case, God help us all.
Cal & Texas both faced one bowl bound non-conference team this season and coincidentally, Southern Miss and North Texas face off next week in the New Orleans Bowl - why not let the winner of that game determine who goes to the Rose Bowl ? It makes about as much sense as the BcS does.....
Folk singers are always liberal pansies, but not me.....I sing for my fellow conservatives...care to hear "Shoot the Hippie out of the Redwood Tree" ?
Is the BCS rigged? No, I don't think so. There's a good case to be made that the coaches poll is biased, though, and as a factor in determining the BCS rankings I suppose there is a link. If you have some Big XII coaches (this I heard on the radio, I can not find a print source to reference) voting Cal out of the top eight, allegedly to help the conference get the payoff from Texas getting into the BCS, there is a problem. Hard to pin that on the BCS itself, though, since the computer can only play with the info it is given.
I don't care to hear a whole lot of crying about Cal, though. As long as you've got Auburn, a team that went unbeaten through the SEC and not having a shot at a national championship, everyone else's bellyaching can take a number and wait in line.
Why can't they just have the traditional bowl games and then have ranked 1 and 2 teams play in one added game in the end of all the bowl games... Heck it would make the other top Bowl games have more importance as there's multiple games could effect who will play in the championship game.
smark/net attack wienerville advisory holds at ORANGE alert - High (JBL is STILL WWE champion and now smarks arch enemy HHH is the World Champion. Major red threat, but the undercard seems okay. The alert holds... for now)- 9/19
Originally posted by ZeruelLet us compare non-conf games (overall, conf, non-conf)
Oklahoma beat: Bowling Green (8-3, 6-2, 2-1); MAC was (10-33) in non-conf Houston (3-8, 3-5, 0-3); CUSA was (14-21) in non-conf Oregon (5-6, 4-4, 1-2); Pac-10 was (19-11) in non-conf
Oklahoma's non-conf teams were a combined 16-17, and 3-6 in non-conf games
Texas beat: North Texas (7-4, 7-0, 0-4); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf Arkansas (5-6, 3-5, 2-1); SEC was (25-12) in non-conf Rice (3-8, 2-6, 1-2); WAC was (17-17 in non-conf)
Texas' non-conf teams were a combined 15-18, and 3-7 in non-conf games; their only loss was to Oklahoma
Cal beat: Air Force (5-6, 3-4, 2-2); MWC was (16-16) in non-conf New Mexico State (5-6, 4-3, 1-3); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf Southern Miss (6-5, 5-3, 1-2); CUSA was (14-21) in non-conf
Cal's non-conf teams were a combined 16-17, and 4-7 in non-conf games; their only loss to USC
Auburn beat: LA-Monroe (5-6, 4-3, 1-3); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf The Citadel (Div I-AA) LA Tech (6-6, 5-3, 1-3); WAC was (17-17) in non-conf
Auburn's non-conf teams were a combined 11-12, and 2-6 in non-conf games
If one compares the quality of non-conf wins, Auburn and Cal are the odd teams out.
Actually, when you take a look at these numbers, you can make the case that California should have won out over Texas, if you look at non-conf. alone.
Looking at overall records of non-conf opponents, Cal's had a winning pct. of .485, while Texas was only .455. Then looking at those teams own conference records, Cal's had a winning pct. of .545, while Texas's was only .522. Now looking at those teams own non-conference records, Cal's had a winning pct. of .364, while Texas's was only .300.
The only category in which Texas's non-conference opponents come out ahead of California's is those opponent's conference's overall non-conf record. In this case, it's only .379 for Cal's opponent's conf's non-conf. record, while Texas was .477.
Still, taken as a whole, and strictly by the numbers for non-conf. foes, I think this makes a better case for California than it does Texas.
The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
I don't believe you can judge everything by numbers. Sure Auburn had a weak non-conference schedule but they played the best conference schedule by a much wider margin. They played 3 teams that finished 9 - 2, played one of them again in the SEC Championship, beat a rival Alabama and Arkansas who ARE better than 6 - 5 and 5 - 6 teams as their record would suggest. If either of those teams plays in another conference those are two more 8 win teams. Plus Auburn just looked impressive. They played easy non-conference games but beat them badly like they should, and they beat teams badly that they shouldn't have too. They completely destroyed both Tennessee and Georgia, the two best teams in their conference while Oklahoma had trouble with both OK State and Texas A&M. Plus Oklahoma's "Conference Championship game" was a joke.
I actually thought the Packers looked the slightly better team in the first half, they moved the ball quite well apart from the turnovers. Admittedly, the Rams offence didn't have to do much and get time to click.