Talk:Bowl Championship Series controversies

BCS Playoff Solution

The BCS has two main problems; Fans of college football want a playoff where every Division I team has a shot at the National Championsip atthe begining of the year. BCS supporters want to keep the college football bowl series fair for conferences and teams that bring in much of the revenue that has made college football one of the most succefully profitable franchises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.101 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the obvious. However, talk pages are for discussing improvements/questions on the article, not to discuss the topic itself. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

2002-2003

I do not see a compelling case that 2002-2003 is the lone exception to the controversial BCS selections. Group29 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• There was really nothing controversial about it. So the Orange Bowl selected Iowa and USC. Big Deal. I would also support removing 2005-06 from this list for similar reasons. NewYork483 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• I would have to agree wih NY above. There are many examples of when the Rose Bowl did not feature Big Ten-Pac 10 (2002, 05, 06) Those dont appear controversial Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, however the 02 and 06 Rose Bowls were National Championship games so there couldnt have been controversy as to B10-P10 (although there was as to the two teams selected to play in it in 02), and the 05 selection was controversial. That being said, teams going to bowls that do not fit their conference tie-ins does not seem like controversy to me. NewYork483 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• If this page is about controversies then even the small ones should be noted, such as 02-03. i do agree with the removal 05-06 because the Notre Dame clause is not controversial and I do not remember any controversy about Oregon/ND when it happened a few years ago. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • agreed on 05-06. Nobody was complaining about Notre Dame gettin' in over Oregon; and you do make a good point on the specific nature of this page, as to include both big and small ones like what happened in 02-03 Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

2008-2009

This section needs to be reworked. Utah (#6) wasn't just selected over Boise State, they got an automatic at-large slot, for being ranked in the top 8 (they were #6, I believe). Under the rules, if the conference champion from a non-BCS conference and you're ranked in the top 8 (or top 12 and ranked higher than a BCS conference champion), it's an automatic slot. However, if there is more than one team, the automatic slot goes to the highest ranked team. So, while Boise State was technically eligible, because Utah was ranked higher, they got the slot. TCU wasn't eligible, because they didn't win the Mountain West. Dunstvangeet (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's top 12 OR top 16 and higher than a BCS Conference Champion. But Yeah, you're right. Bcspro (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

09/10

Why is there no mention of why TX and AL were chosen over any of the other 3? I think to leave out their opponents records is being disingenuous and is allowing for a non-neutral point of view to affect the credibility of the article.

Opponents records: Alabama: 89-68 Texas: 84-75 TCU: 75-74 Boise: 71-88 Cincy: 72-75

76.19.168.81 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)