You're also several years too late because an automatic qualifying conference school has already gone undefeated and been left out of the BCS championship game. See: Auburn, 2004. USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all undefeated at the end of the season and USC played Oklahoma for the national title. Additionally, prior to the advent of the BCS, there have been plenty of undefeated teams that have not won the national championship. There's really nothing that will "destroy" the BCS. The most likely event to cause a re-evaluation of the BCS would be something like TCU v. Cinci for the national championship. Additionally, even if the BCS is "destroyed," it is more likely that we go back to the old bowl system than a playoff system. The BCS/Bowls are all about preservation of the status quo and concentration of money in the power conferences. There seems to be an extreme naivete among many people clamoring for the BCS to get "blown up." They have the false assumption that the major college football powers give a damn about a true national champion. College football is about one thing and one thing only: money. The powers that be feel that they are in a position to control the money. Under the current system, the major six conferences essentially control 90% of the payouts from the five BCS bowls. Their grasp on the top second-tier bowls is 100%. Do you really think that the major football powers are all of the sudden going to agree to split the pie with the have-nots of college football merely because an undefeated Iowa team wouldn't play for the national championship? A playoff would be fun, but it will not happen until fans stop showing up to games, stop watching games on TV, and stop buying merchandise.
I think Boise and Utah are two schools that have proven themselves over the last several years. I think both programs are just as good as Cincinnati or GA Tech who lead their respective automatic bid conferences.
Really? So a team that struggles when on the road at Ruston, Louisiana would beat TCU and Utah, and is lock to beat UH? Doubtful. Then why do computer rankings rank them low also? Look at Sagarin's rankings (the predictor - the ones that he claims are more accurate than the elo-chess that the BCS uses) Boise State clocks in at all of 10th, due to the 82nd ranked schedule in the country and unimpressive margin of victory.
Show me where in my post I said lock? Do you think Boise can't beat Houston, who lost to UTEP? Cincy is the class of the Big East, but only beat UConn by 2. Could they beat TCU/Utah/BYU? Yes, but I think that would have been the toughest of the three conferences you put forth.
i wouldn't call it naivete when fans, sportswriters, congressmen, acc/sec/mwc commissioners, and even the president all spoke out against the current BCS system. i know Auburn finished '04 undefeated, as well as Utah and Boise State in previous years, and you can't expect changes overnight. but in the meantime, any kind of chaos, controversy, and politicking will help push the BCS in the right direction. and if we're still in the same BCS system 30 years from now, someone please shoot me.
You're not just predicting that they could beat ONE of those teams, you're predicting that they would be undefeated and beat all three in succession in one season. I'd say the line on all of those games would be very close to even (depending on home&away), the chance of them running the table, statistically, is probably like 12.5%.
I'm not predicting they would, but that they could. I think 12.5% would qualify as could. I'd only favor them to go unbeaten in CUSA, where they would play Houston, and little else. Edit: I should say favor to win. Its too hard to go undefeated, especially when you include the bowl games.
Because computers can only look at the results of games played. If Boise doesn't have an opportunity to play many good teams, they can't do well in the computers because of their WAC schedule. The Sagarin algorithm rewards you primarily for being really good teams (and doesn't penalize you for losing to really good teams). If you don't have many good teams on the schedule, you automatically don't do all that well. It's the same reason that prior to playing OSU, Texas was a disaster in the computers, and why a 6-3 VaTech is #6 in that predictor despite 3 losses.
By the way, in that same Sagarin predictor, here are your ConfUSA, BigEast, and ACC leaders: Boise: #9 BigEast Leader Cinci: #11 ACC Leader GaTech: #13 ConfUSA Leader Houston: #44 So if that's your measure, Sagarin predicts that Boise would beat a pair of BCS Conference leaders along with the ConfUSA leader.
And it also predicts that they'd go 0-8 against the top 8. My point is that it's not just human bias that is holding Boise down. They're just not that good. They're good enough to give the top teams a run for their money and even beat some of them, but as long as they stay in the WAC, they are going to get punished for it - which they should, the WAC is tremendously bad.
Wait - what? They haven't claimed it's human bias, and they aren't claiming they are better than Texas or Florida. They want a BCS game. There are 10 BCS spots, and they are ranked in the top 10 by every measure, including yours. It's not exactly an unreasonable argument. And they want the opportunity to play better teams, which you seem to be saying they shouldn't do either. I'm sure if the MWC were expanding, they'd happily join - but they aren't, so getting out of the WAC isn't really an option.
You said most arguments against Boise state were circular, well the computer rankings aren't circular. I don't honestly care that much if they or TCU gets a BCS berth. TCU seems like a slightly better team to me, notwithstanding BSU's signature win vs. Oregon. I don't actually know if they want to leave the WAC - this formula actually works pretty well for them. Try to play one -or two BCS teams per season, win those games, finish out the string against the dregs of the WAC and hire a PR firm in November to try to cash in. I also don't know if they are strong enough academically or in other sports to join the MWC. I think BSU is a pretty crap university overall.
agreed...I mean, Texas scheduling UCF this late in the season is a joke...USC still being ranked that high is a f'n joke...
Is that their fault? Don't you have to be invited to a conference to join? They can't just say we want in the Pac-10, Big 12 or whatever.
Texas was suppose to play Texas Tech the past weekend, but ABC asked both teams to move the game up for broadcasting purposes. just like the common misconception that Texas schedules nobody, when both Arkansas and Utah backed out of games with us this year, and we had to scramble to set dates with teams like Wyoming and UL-M.
Who cares whose fault it is? It's their problem. But if you want to assign fault, I think you can assign it to the fact that BSU has been a pretty mediocre university both athletically and academically throughout most of its history so as to not render itself a serious candidate for any big conference to join up (as well as its bad geography) I was just looking up its graduation rates, it's like 25% overall, and the 4-year graduation rate is just 6%, that's crazy.
just like it was a huge deal when usc and nebraska scheduled each other way back when, but today it's just another game. so how can you fault UT for the inability to predict who'll be good in 5-10 years?
I don't think so. Did people boycott college football before the BCS? Congress is going to eventually force this nut to crack.
Unless you're talking about their conference schedule, which they have no control over, then every school takes the blame for its Non-Conference games and schedule...
