Have we discussed this?

[detlef]

It seems a forgone conclusion that TCU gets the nod if either Auburn or OU go down this week. What about both?

 

Not sure if you can assume Stanford gets in but it seems like a reasonably good chance. Wisconsin already leads them in the polls, so you'd think that someone would have to move OU and Auburn behind Wisconsin and TCU but not behind Stanford to give Wisconsin enough poll love to make up the rather significant computer spread Stanford enjoys.

 

After all, I wonder how much difference OU losing to OSU would have on Stanford's computer rankings. They played both, so one of their opponents gets knocked down, but another gets promoted.

 

Does the Pac 10 have the same tie-break as others, that the highest BCS team gets the conference championship? What if OU loses but Auburn doesn't? Now you've got a dicey situation where you've got two teams with the same record, one of whom beat the other by 20 pts. Both of whom have passed the "eyeball test" about as much as the other (which is the rationale used to explain Wisconsin getting votes over a MSU team that beat them). Does OU get votes over Stanford? Or do we assume that past history rules the day and OU gets penalized for the late loss and knocked at least back to the back half of the top 10.

 

It's odd. I think Stanford is essentially assured of a BCS bid if nothing happens at the top. And could either get to play for all the marbles or be entirely left out in the cold if there is shake-up.

[wildcat2334]

I saw this discussed elsewhere, IF both AUb and Oregon lose the thought was that Aub would still have a strong enough resume to stay at #2 in the BCS - therefore we scould be looking at a TCU- Aub matchup......Oregon couldn't survive a L and I think AUb is still ahead of a 1L Stanford or Wisky......

 

I don't see a scenario where Wisky jumps Stanford tho

[Rockerbraves]

I saw this discussed elsewhere, IF both AUb and Oregon lose the thought was that Aub would still have a strong enough resume to stay at #2 in the BCS - therefore we scould be looking at a TCU- Aub matchup......Oregon couldn't survive a L and I think AUb is still ahead of a 1L Stanford or Wisky......

 

I don't see a scenario where Wisky jumps Stanford tho

I know the Sooners were able to pull it off after losing the Big 12 Championship game back around 2003, but if you recall that year many so called experts had labeled Oklahoma possibly the best team this century prior to the loss in the Big 12 championship game .

 

Auburn on the other hand I beleive was like preseaon #20 plus and not until very recently (this past week) been ranked #1. So I'm not so certain Auburn will play for the BCS NC should they lose to South Carolina and Oregon losses to Oregon State.

 

If they do both lose and it's not Auburn vs TCU I think it will be Wisconsin vs TCU.

[wildcat2334]

I know the Sooners were able to pull it off after losing the Big 12 Championship game back around 2003, but if you recall that year many so called experts had labeled Oklahoma possibly the best team this century prior to the loss in the Big 12 championship game .

 

Auburn on the other hand I beleive was like preseaon #20 plus and not until very recently (this past week) been ranked #1. So I'm not so certain Auburn will play for the BCS NC should they lose to South Carolina and Oregon losses to Oregon State.

 

If they do both lose and it's not Auburn vs TCU I think it will be Wisconsin vs TCU.

 

 

it isn't gonna happen but Wisky/TCU would be a travesty - maybe it would be the final piece to getting a playoff in motion

 

how exactly would Wisky jump Stanford?

[Rockerbraves]

it isn't gonna happen but Wisky/TCU would be a travesty - maybe it would be the final piece to getting a playoff in motion

 

how exactly would Wisky jump Stanford?

Can help but to think the Big 10 in general would reap the benefits of not playing this weekend. Don't you think the voters would somehow penalize Stanford should Oregon lose to a not so good Oregon State squad? To be honest, I think Oregon might have a better shot of still playing in the BCS NC game than Stanford consider their lopsided win over the Cardinals.

 

Also keep in mind Wisconsin is more of a deserving conference co-champ than Stanford (assuming of course the Pac10 officially recognizes Stanford as co champ even though they lost to Oregon) because they have a 3 way tie where all three teams beat each other.

[detlef]

I know the Sooners were able to pull it off after losing the Big 12 Championship game back around 2003, but if you recall that year many so called experts had labeled Oklahoma possibly the best team this century prior to the loss in the Big 12 championship game .

 

Auburn on the other hand I beleive was like preseaon #20 plus and not until very recently (this past week) been ranked #1. So I'm not so certain Auburn will play for the BCS NC should they lose to South Carolina and Oregon losses to Oregon State.

 

If they do both lose and it's not Auburn vs TCU I think it will be Wisconsin vs TCU.

Not even placing any opinion or judgment on the matter, like Wildcat asks, how is this?

 

I agree, btw with the fact that Auburn may not survive like OU did. For the reasons you gave.

 

However, I don't see how the computers would change Stanford v Wisc. I can only think of the following. ASU beats AU, which pumps up Wisconsin's win over ASU and results in a net zero for Stanford who beat both AU and ASU. But I don't see anything that changes Stanford's computer rankings. Assuming, again, that they get as much love from OSU winning as they lose from OU losing.

 

Thing is, Stanford has a pretty big lead in the computers.

 

So, then there's the polls, where Wisconsin already leads, so that lead would have to increase, despite the fact that there's not much room to move up. So, again, OU or Auburn would have to move behind Wisc but ahead of Stanford, and that seems somewhat unlikely. Simply by the laws of probability.

[detlef]

Can help but to think the Big 10 in general would reap the benefits of not playing this weekend. Don't you think the voters would somehow penalize Stanford should Oregon lose to a not so good Oregon State squad? To be honest, I think Oregon might have a better shot of still playing in the BCS NC game than Stanford consider their lopsided win over the Cardinals.

 

Also keep in mind Wisconsin is more of a deserving conference co-champ than Stanford (assuming of course the Pac10 officially recognizes Stanford as co champ even though they lost to Oregon) because they have a 3 way tie where all three teams beat each other.

That's actually not true. Wisc went 1-1, MSU went 1-0, and OSU went 0-1. So, by your logic, MSU should be champ.

 

ETA: About penalizing Stanford for OU losing to OSU. And this has nothing to do with how I feel about any of the teams in question, but rather about this logic in general. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but it doesn't make any sense logically. Frankly, I'm not even making a case for why I think Stanford should be in the NC game should OU and Auburn lose. Rather, why they would be.

 

There's no question in anyone's mind that OU is a better team than OSU. Now, obviously that doesn't mean that they should not be penalized for losing to them if they do. However, and especially considering that Stanford beat that very same OSU team badly just last week, OU losing should have no reflection on the quality of team they were on the Saturday they beat Stanford. Stanford didn't all of a sudden lose to a worse team because OU stepped on their dicks over a month later. I realize it's a sticky issue because it is also important to judge a team by where it's opponents finish the season, rather than what they were when they played. But it should only be taken so far. I mean, you get too far carried away with this whole, this team beat that team who lost to that team and now, all of a sudden, Stanford is 40 pts better than OU because they beat a team that beat them by 38. And that's just silly.

Edited December 1, 2010 by detlef

[wildcat2334]

Can help but to think the Big 10 in general would reap the benefits of not playing this weekend. Don't you think the voters would somehow penalize Stanford should Oregon lose to a not so good Oregon State squad? To be honest, I think Oregon might have a better shot of still playing in the BCS NC game than Stanford consider their lopsided win over the Cardinals.

 

Also keep in mind Wisconsin is more of a deserving conference co-champ than Stanford (assuming of course the Pac10 officially recognizes Stanford as co champ even though they lost to Oregon) because they have a 3 way tie where all three teams beat each other.

 

to answer ur question, no I don't. I think Stanford is 4th due to what they have proven on the field. Wisky is already ahead of Stanford in the human polls- Stan has a pretty good lead in the computers. Maybe ORegon loses changes that? who knows.........

 

IF Oregon loses, I don't think either Stan or Oregon has a shot. Auburn has the most impressive wins, and I think is the only team that could survive losing this late

[Rockerbraves]

That's actually not true. Wisc went 1-1, MSU went 1-0, and OSU went 0-1. So, by your logic, MSU should be champ.

That's what I thought, but when I asked the question in some thread ya'll blew me off like it was a stupid question. So if the records you presented are correct it does seem abit unfair to Michigan State BCS Bowl wise.

[detlef]

That's what I thought, but when I asked the question in some thread ya'll blew me off like it was a stupid question. So if the records you presented are correct it does seem abit unfair to Michigan State BCS Bowl wise.

I actually brought this very thing up in the Big 10 thread. Mind you, that doesn't mean I have to feel that MSU is the best team of the 3 and, if the Big 10 wants to settle their tie-break that way, that's their choice. Heck, I even pointed out where a conference like theirs runs the risk of losing a BCS bid by doing so.

 

Mind you, as long as the Big East and ACC are such crappy conferences, it's nearly impossible for the big 4 to not get 2 each, because there's 10 spots to go around and nobody is allowed 3 (I think).

Edited December 1, 2010 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

I actually brought this very thing up in the Big 10 thread. Mind you, that doesn't mean I have to feel that MSU is the best team of the 3 and, if the Big 10 wants to settle their tie-break that way, that's their choice. Heck, I even pointed out where a conference like theirs runs the risk of losing a BCS bid by doing so.

Not going to pimp Michigan State either since I often think the SEC scheduling is suspect as well considering LSU gets Florida every year while Bama gets Tennessee and Auburn gets Georgia. Arkansas won the West in 2006 despite losing to LSU, because Arkansas didn't have to play UF or UGA. However the next season beating Florida probably helped LSU get to the BCS NC, so it sort of balances out I guess.

 

Here are the permanent SEC East vs West Matchups

 

LSU - UF

ALA - UT

AUB - UGA

Ole Miss - Vandy

State - Kentucky

Arky - S Carolina

[detlef]

Not going to pimp Michigan State either since I often think the SEC scheduling is suspect as well considering LSU gets Florida every year while Bama gets Tennessee and Auburn gets Georgia. Arkansas won the West in 2006 despite losing to LSU, because Arkansas didn't have to play UF or UGA. However the next season beating Florida probably helped LSU get to the BCS NC, so it sort of balances out I guess.

 

Here are the permanent SEC East vs West Matchups

 

LSU - UF

ALA - UT

AUB - UGA

Ole Miss - Vandy

State - Kentucky

Arky - S Carolina

Not to digress, but I do think it is completely lame that any conference is big enough to not allow everyone to play each other once. I mean, what's the point of being in the same conference? The NFL is different because the divisions actually serve the purpose conferences do in the college game.

[Rockerbraves]

Not to digress, but I do think it is completely lame that any conference is big enough to not allow everyone to play each other once. I mean, what's the point of being in the same conference? The NFL is different because the divisions actually serve the purpose conferences do in the college game.

Even if they did play everyone you still have the advantage or disadvantage like in the PAC10 of playing teams at home or on the road. In the NFL the divisions are small enough to play each team twice.

[detlef]

Even if they did play everyone you still have the advantage or disadvantage like in the PAC10 of playing teams at home or on the road. In the NFL the divisions are small enough to play each team twice.

Fine, it would still be better. Home field advantage is something, but it's still harder to beat Bama on your own field than it is to beat Ole Miss on the road.

[Rockerbraves]

Fine, it would still be better. Home field advantage is something, but it's still harder to beat Bama on your own field than it is to beat Ole Miss on the road.

Would be interesting to see 12 team conferences devote 10 games to divisional conference play with home and away if they decide to add more games to college football schedules.

[wildcat2334]

Would be interesting to see 12 team conferences devote 10 games to divisional conference play with home and away if they decide to add more games to college football schedules.

 

 

what is the reasoning for 11, 12 team leagues to only play 8 conference games?

 

seems to me going to 9 or 10 and skipping less teams would ALWAYS be a good thing. Of course, SEC teams may not be able to schedule Nov. homecoming matchups with Louisiana-Monroe or Georgia State....

Edited December 1, 2010 by wildcat2334

[detlef]

Would be interesting to see 12 team conferences devote 10 games to divisional conference play with home and away if they decide to add more games to college football schedules.

My point is this: The only games that matter in deciding the SEC championship are games played in the SEC. But if you don't play every team, what's the point? Now, if the SEC West was determined only by the games vs the SEC West that would be one thing.

 

Say it's a normal year and FL and Georgia are good. Bama could play the whole west plus Kentucky, Tenn, and Vandy while LSU plays the west plus GA, USC, and FL. Why is it remotely fair to let those 8 games determine who between LSU and Bama wins the west? LSU could sweep the west including Bama but lose at FL and GA while Bama beats everyone but LSU in the west and beats up on the bottom of the east. You may as well include the entire schedule once you've opened up that can of worms.

 

Now, there is some degree of schedule inequality in the pro game, but the overall level of parity mitigates that.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I still think that pending a South Carolina blow out over Auburn, Auburn is in the BCS NC regardless. I don't agree with that, but that's the way it works. If South Carolina wins the way that Kansas State destroyed Oklahoma in 2003, then that might change things though I wouldn't be shocked if Auburn is still in there. I think if Oregon wins you can pencil in Auburn vs Oregon. If Oregon loses, I think it's TCU vs Auburn. I don't think that is right, and personally speaking I think it should be Oregon that gets the benefit of the doubt and should already be penciled into the game, by virtue of winning the Pac 10 and securing the Automatic Bid from that conference win or lose by virtue of manhandling a really good Stanford team.

 

ETA: Under this scenario. the RIGHT game is Oregon vs Wisconsin, as the 2 highest Automatic Qualifying BCS Champions. But the BCS isn't about who deserves what.

Edited December 2, 2010 by GWPFFL BrianW