tOSU's BCS Bowl possibilities

[schwab]

so does a mid-major have to be in the top 8 or top 12 of the BCS standings to get an auto bid?

i guess it's conceivable that Utah could lose to BYU and Boise doesn't crack the top 8 if someone like okie state beats ou or missou wins the big 12 title game.

Forgive me for not looking this up, but I think top 8 gets you an automatic bid and top 12 gets you consideration.

BB73 edit - I don't forgive you. Folks, ignore this incorrect info and read the next post.

 

[BB73]

so does a mid-major have to be in the top 8 or top 12 of the BCS standings to get an auto bid?

A team from a non-BCS conference needs to be in the top-12 to get an automatic spot in the BCS. But if more that 1 of them are in the top-12, only the higher ranked team gets an automatic spot, and the other one has to hope for an at-large bid.

So the BCS bowls don't really get to choose which one they take (that was incorrectly reported on CFN.com recently). Although it's theoreticaly possible that the Fiesta Bowl could take a #9 Boise State as an at-large team, the Sugar could take a 1-loss USC, and the Orange would have to bypass tOSU and everybody else to have a Utah team ranked higher than Boise State face the ACC Champion. Utah at #7 would be an automatic qualifer and Boise at #9 would be an 'at-large' team. At large teams can be selected before automatic qualifers if there are more spots left then there are automatic qualifiers yet unselected, but not when the number of spots left equals the number of yet-unselected automatic qualifiers.

There's another rule for non-BCS teams, though. If no non-BCS conference team is in the top-12, but there is one in the top-16 and they are ranked higher than one of the BCS Conference champions (like the ACC or Big East could very well be this year), the non-BCS team gets an automatic bid. That rule shouldn't come into play this year, though. Even if Boise State loses, the winner of Utah-BYU this week will be done playing and destined for the top-12, which guarantees them an automatic spot, per the first rule I listed above.

I've never understood the logic behind the second rule. If the BCS has a bad team as a conference champion, it's forced to take a mediocre (#13-#16 non-BCS team) also. So in those years 2 of the 10 teams in the BCS Bowls are not in the BCS top-12.

The only thing in the BCS rules about the top-8 is for Ntre Ame - they get an automatic spot if they're in the top 8.

 

[schwab]

Gotcha BB.

Are these Ntre Ame's special rules I'm thinking of? If not, what are the special little circumstances that get them in? Not that this year applies...

EDIT: Nice edit job

 

[JXC]

God the BCS is so lame and everyone knows it.

Beat Michigan!

 

[schwab]

The only thing in the BCS rules about the top-8 is for Ntre Ame - they get an automatic spot if they're in the top 8.

Ntre Ame is well on their way to being a legit mid-major. This top 8 thing may have some staying power.

 

[BB73]

Ntre Ame is well on their way to being a legit mid-major. This top 8 thing may have some staying power.

The way the rules are currently structured, there's a remote possibility of 11 'automatic' bids for only 10 spots. If the automatic bids are awarded in order of the way the rules designates them, which is the normal way they do things, a top-8 Ntre Ame could shut out a #3 team from a BCS conference that didn't win its conference.

This can only happen if the top-2 teams are from the same conference, and neither one won it, in which case the BCS would take 3 teams from that conference, superseding the '2 teams max from 1 conference rule'. The 3 teams from that conference, plus the 5 other BCS Conference winners, plus a top-12 non-BCS team, plus a top-8 Ntre Ame team, would fill the 10 BCS spots.

That would leave out a #3 or #4 team from a BCS conference that didn't win its conference, even though that is considered an 'automatic' bid (only one bid is 'automatic' if both #3 and #4 fall into that category); but since it's the last 'automatic' bid to be defined in the BCS rules pecking order, that should be the team that loses out.

We'll see if the next set of BCS rules will address that for the 2010 and beyond seasons.

 

[schwab]

We'll see if the next set of BCS rules will address that for the 2010 and beyond seasons.

Or if perhaps maybe this BCS thing has run it's course? Which is what my vote would go for. I get home from work, trying to unwind my brain, and I settle in on this mess of rules and exceptions... getting to be too much!

My hopes are that THE most discombobulating scenario plays out in every situation possible, forcing the powers-that-be to have no choice but re-think the whole situation and it's yet-to-be-found solution.

 

[FWBuckeye]

There's another BCS Bowl scenario which was just recently clarified by a BCS spokesperson.

If Mizzou wins the Big 12 CCG, but two other Big 12 teams (among Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech) manage to finish 1-2 in the final BCS standings, the Big 12 would get 3 teams in the BCS.

Seriously, the taking of the top 2 teams into the title game, and giving the conference champion an automatic bid, trumps the rule that limits a conference to only having 2 teams in the BCS.

That would probably limit both the Big Ten and the Pac 10 to 1 team in the BCS, as there are only 2 bids left after the title game and the 6 champs, which would probably go to Utah/Boise and the SEC runner-up.

How could The Big 12 get the top two teams if the Big 12 South team loses to Mizzou? Here's a scenario:

Oklahoma beats both TTech and Okie State, and either Texas or Oklahoma wins the 3-way tiebreaker by being ahead in the BCS standings, but loses to Mizzou in the CCG.

Florida loses to Florida State and then beats Alabama, OR Alabama loses to Auburn and then beats Florida. So there are no undefeated teams.

Texas/Oklahoma and Texas Tech finish ahead of the SEC champion, USC, Utah, and Penn State in the BCS standings. It's possible because the computers will like the Big 12 teams. The key will be how far Texas Tech drops in the human polls after the loss to Oklahoma.

latimes

This is fucking nuts. How can anyone seriously think the BCS is a good system?

 

[schwab]

This is fucking nuts. How can anyone seriously think the BCS is a good system?

Cheer for chaos.

 

[Redhawk]

The way the rules are currently structured, there's a remote possibility of 11 'automatic' bids for only 10 spots. If the automatic bids are awarded in order of the way the rules designates them, which is the normal way they do things, a top-8 Ntre Ame could shut out a #3 team from a BCS conference that didn't win its conference.

This can only happen if the top-2 teams are from the same conference, and neither one won it, in which case the BCS would take 3 teams from that conference, superseding the '2 teams max from 1 conference rule'. The 3 teams from that conference, plus the 5 other BCS Conference winners, plus a top-12 non-BCS team, plus a top-8 Ntre Ame team, would fill the 10 BCS spots.

That would leave out a #3 or #4 team from a BCS conference that didn't win its conference, even though that is considered an 'automatic' bid (only one bid is 'automatic' if both #3 and #4 fall into that category); but since it's the last 'automatic' bid to be defined in the BCS rules pecking order, that should be the team that loses out.

We'll see if the next set of BCS rules will address that for the 2010 and beyond seasons.

All this stuff gives me a headache....

 

[Zurp]

The way the rules are currently structured, there's a remote possibility of 11 'automatic' bids for only 10 spots. If the automatic bids are awarded in order of the way the rules designates them, which is the normal way they do things, a top-8 Ntre Ame could shut out a #3 team from a BCS conference that didn't win its conference.

This can only happen if the top-2 teams are from the same conference, and neither one won it, in which case the BCS would take 3 teams from that conference, superseding the '2 teams max from 1 conference rule'. The 3 teams from that conference, plus the 5 other BCS Conference winners, plus a top-12 non-BCS team, plus a top-8 Ntre Ame team, would fill the 10 BCS spots.

That would leave out a #3 or #4 team from a BCS conference that didn't win its conference, even though that is considered an 'automatic' bid (only one bid is 'automatic' if both #3 and #4 fall into that category); but since it's the last 'automatic' bid to be defined in the BCS rules pecking order, that should be the team that loses out.

We'll see if the next set of BCS rules will address that for the 2010 and beyond seasons.

I don't really care whether you forgive me for not looking this up. I was always under the belief that the BCS goes through a specific order when picking teams. Once you get to 10 teams, you're done, and any other "automatic bids" that come after that in the sequence are lost. So you're right - a #8 Notre Dame team would go to a BCS bowl game before a #3 team from a BCS conference.

To my knowledge, this has never happened, and I get that impression that the BCS committee does not know how to think about the future. They like to change their situation to rectify how the past should have been, but to consider the future is beyond their comprehension. Wait for a #3 Florida team to be shut out because of the Notre Dame rule to actually happen before they address the situation.

 

[Taosman]

Is there a list(Bowls) of order of picks somewhere?

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

They like to change their situation to rectify how ESPN says the past should have been, but to consider the future is beyond their comprehension.

FIFY

In my opinion, they've taken out the parts of the BCS that actually made it worthwhile (SOS, quality wins). Their strategy is never to learn and adapt the system, it's to make sweeping changes to pacify the talking heads.

 

[JCOSU86]

Is there a list(Bowls) of order of picks somewhere?

A. The bowl played on the date nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2009, Fiesta Bowl) will pick first;
B. The bowl played on the date second-nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2009, Sugar Bowl) will pick second;
C. The bowl hosting the game that is played in the time slot immediately after the Rose Bowl game (for 2009, Orange Bowl) will pick third. The rotation noted in paragraphs A, B and C is as follows:
January 2007 games: Sugar, Orange, Fiesta
January 2008 games: Orange, Fiesta, Sugar
January 2009 games: Fiesta, Sugar, Orange
January 2010 games: Orange, Fiesta, Sugar

 

[BB73]

Is there a list(Bowls) of order of picks somewhere?

I've listed it multiple times within this thread.