Jump to content

Talk:Bowl Championship Series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dpiranha (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 3 November 2008 (At large vs automatic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCollege football B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

More detail needed: when a BCS Conference champion is in the title game

In the "BCS bowl games" section, it says, "Unless their champion is involved in the BCS National Championship game, the conference tie-ins are as follows...." But it doesn't explicitly say what happens when a BCS conference champion is involved in the national championship. I'm assuming that the spot left by the BCS conference champ is replaced with an at-large bid. E.g., this year, if USC--the pac10 champ--were to make it to the title game, then the pac10 champ slot would be replaced with an at-large bid, and not, say, the pac10 runner up Cal..

Southern Cal-->USC

I changed all the references to "Southern Cal" to instead say USC, as the last section in the USC Trojans football page notes, under the heading "Correct terminology." --Impaciente 12:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Rankings

Does someone want to tackle how the computer ratings are being handled? It seems to be an interesting focus of controversy right now. And I'm a California student :) Goodralph 02:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Source for Statement

I'm wondering about this statement from the article: "There was also an incident in which two AP voters from Texas were reprimanded by their newspapers for putting Auburn ahead of Texas." I never heard anything about this at the time. I've done a Google search but turned up no evidence. Does anyone have a source for this, please? Johntex\talk 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2004-05 formula as applied to 2003-04 pre-bowl standings

In the section about the new 2004-05 formula, the article has listed LSU's AP and coaches poll numbers but attributed them to USC (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?pollId=null&weekNumber=17&seasonYear=2003). According to the ESPN archive, those figures were LSU's totals.

The computer rankings they cite do belong to USC. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/stewart_mandel/07/15/bcs.explainer/

Also, in the 2003-04 season controversy section, the article had that USC would have been an "indisputable" number one and there may have been controversy over the number two spot. It was LSU that was number one and USC narrowly over OU (http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=40). 

Boogieone711

"also 11-1"

I modified a statement which claims that USC was "also 11-1", implying that OU and LSU were 11-1. Those teams were 12-1, so I made note of that fact.

I recently saw during the Seahawks-Panthers telecast that Fox (in addition to getting the TV rights for the next few years) had designed a new BCS logo with their logo in it. As soon as it comes up on Google Images could someone (and this does include me) put it up?--ChicosBailBonds 02:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unoffical?

Isn't the BCS championship game the offical NCAA Football D-1 championship game? I thought that the Crystal Football was the Trophy given to the National Champion, and that's given to the BCS Championchip game. False Prophet 19:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not official. As we say at NCAA Division I-A national football championship, "The NCAA Division I-A national football championship is the only Division I-A NCAA-sponsored sport without an organized tournament to determine its champion.". If you look at the NCAA page on football championships, they don't mention I-A.[1] If you look at the history tab for past championships[2] they list BCS as a "selecting organization", and they give them the top billing, but they continue to list other "selecting organizations" as well. You will see that they list 2 champions for 2003 based upon their being no consensus for either USC or LSU. So, the crytal football is the BCS trophy, given by the BCS. It is a "mythical national championship" in the sense that it is not officially endorsed as the definitive champion by the NCAA. This situation will likely persist until such time as a reasonable playoff system is introduced. Johntex\talk 19:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up Johntex, I'll use that info to keep that true on other pages. False Prophet 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether or not the NCAA recognizes anything. The BCS contract that binds each member institution to its results was signed by all BCS conferences and schools, including the two "adversaries" in the 2003 conflict. Obviously the voters in the AP poll are going to insist on its continued relevance, but after each BCS National Championship game, that relevance extends only to their opinions as to the Nos. 2-25 teams. One of the main reasons the BCS emerged was the historical absurdities that often occurred in the human polls now so revered by the BCS critics. Its purpose is to correct the recurring problems in the human polls. Since the advent of this admittedly imperfect BCS system, the AP poll has been relegated to the status of the Davey O'Brien award for the best college QB. If the Heisman Trophy goes to a QB and the O'Brien goes to a different QB that same year, the latter cannot claim the Heisman. Similarly, the team that wins on the field the crystal football is, by contract, the only true National Champion. Other "O'Brien trophy winners" can claim such status, but that does not make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.21 (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that unlike the O'Brien Award, you have regular media (who are admittedly biased since they're the voters :-) ) who claim, as above, that the AP is just as official as the other, and that 2003 saw a split national championship. LSU and USC both are given credit.
I would agree that the BCS champion is the true national champion, as far as they are concerned - more so now with the AP not part of it. However, the AP champ is still the "mythical national champion, just as it has always been. it's just that the "mythical" part of the AP is more noticeable now than ever before.63.3.19.1 22:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people who vote on the O'Brien Award are just as convinced they have recognized the best CFB QB as the AP pollsters think they have recognized the best team. Their views (both O'Brien and AP voters) are irrelevant to the agree-upon processes at hand. Everybody agrees that the Heisman is the top individual award. Period. And every CFB team and conference agrees (by signing the contract) that the BCS NCG decides the sole NC. You see, in August 2003, an AP reporter (of all people) asked Pete Carroll what his team's goal was for the season. Carroll responded as expected: "We want to go to the Sugar Bowl and win the National Championship." He said nothing about the O'Brien-like certificate of approval by the AP. Why? Because he knew (and all CFB coaches, ADs and administrators know) that the BCS contract they all signed is top dog. Period. Some people say perception is reality, but if you follow that path, you end up in the Davey O'Brien wing of CF. They all signed the contract, they fight for those two NCG berths, and the winner of that game is the NC. By contract. The AP voters have been demoted ... by CFB itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.21 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to mention is that the Associated Press never agreed to be part of the BCS and threatened legal action to get out of its computation. The AP championship has been awarded for many more years, and will be awarded long after the BCS bites the dust. Z1perlster (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FSU would still be qualified

the BCS official website(which you have linked up) states that

A)a champion from the non-auto bid conferences(IE, the MWC, CUSA, WAC, MAC, Sunbelt) gains a bid automatically by finishing in the top12 of the BCS standings or

B) gains a bid automatically by finishing in the top 16 of the BCS if a BCS conference champion finishes lower than said team.

however it is never stated nor implied in any language that the lower ranked BCS conference Champ is to relinquish its automatic bid in place the non-auto Champion. Therefore, if those rules were applied to the 2005-2006 season, TCU would have qualified but Florida State would have remained in the BCS also.

After another edit of someone to try and suggest that someone would be selected instead of another conference champion, I believe quoting the BCS website on how this works is the best explanation. I have added this and replaced all previous info on the subject. If someone wants to rewrite it so it's not a direct quote, but as long as it says the same thing, please do. [3] --MECU≈talk 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article needs the link to BCS-sucks.com. I have removed the link twice. If you believe this link needs to exist, please provide justification here. --MECU≈talk 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think so. I looked at the website and don't see any value of it. It doesn't present any well formed argument and just reposts news with some off-hand comments. And how can you back up the claim that it is the leading anti-BCS website? If you wanted to expand or create a section on opponents to the BCS or alternatives to the BCS, I think it would work quite well in the article as long as it remains NPOV and cites sources for the claims. Then, this website might belong in there. --MECU≈talk 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe at least one or two anti-BCS pages should be listed. BCS-sucks.com is a fine one as far as I'm concerned, though I don't mind if someone finds a different one or two they think are more informative. Regardless, we should link to some BCS criticism in the name of balance. Criticism of the BCS is a significant viewpoint that should be represented in the external links. Johntex\talk 07:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to connect to www.bcs-sucks.com and couldn't. I'm fine with criticism of the BCS, but if I recall when I looked at it back in August, it didn't have much value and mostly had advertisements. Perhaps it has changed, if I could connect to it, I'd be willing to look at it again. --MECU≈talk 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem to be working for me either, which is a bad sign for using them. Let's see if we can find a better site. Johntex\talk 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This addition that was added [4] but then reverted as linkspam I think is actually decent. The site looks new and doesn't have much information, but it's clean and presents a counter argument (though with not many words) and a proposal. I'd be for including it in Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite needed

I don't think this revert was needed: [5], the before we add that information, we need to cite a source to provide that information, otherwise it would be original research. If you can provide the source, add it in and cite it please. --MECU≈talk 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"AP National Championship Game"

This term has no meaning. The AP awards a championship, but unlike the BCS, it does not purport to have a "championship game." What is it you are trying to do here?

BIG EAST NEED RESPECT

The Big East Champion is clearly listed under "at large teams". This is because (unlike the champions from conferences like the Pac-10, Big-10 or Big-12) the Big East Champion is not tied to a certain bowl by contract. If you don't like that, I suggest you take it up with the Big East and tell them you want them to negotiate a bowl-tie-in contract for their conference champion. Johntex\talk 07:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my bad I thought they were under an atomatic BCS berth --Kevmicester2000 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. They do have an automatic berth - it just isn't specifically tied to a particular bowl. They are guaranteed to play in a BCS bowl, just not guaranteed which one it will be. I hope that helps - sorry if my first reply was harsh. Johntex\talk 06:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"BCS Buster" Question

I'm wondering if either the definition in the article needs to be expanded upon, of if Notre Dame should be mentioned in that section. The article just says it "refers to any team not from a BCS conference that manages to earn a spot in a BCS bowl game." ND isn't in a conference, but they have been to BCS bowl games, or are they not counted as a BCS Buster because of their special contracts or whatever? TBIRallySport 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting question. Since "BCS Buster" is a colloquial term, it is hard to define the term precisely. I think the answer is "yes" because Notre Dame is not from any BCS conference and therefore is somewhat "outside" the system of BCS bowls and conference tie-ins. Johntex\talk 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Since ND has it's own tie-in to the BCS, I would say they're in their own conference, per se. I would say BCS Buster would be "Any team that doesn't have an automatic chance to earn a BCS spot." ND Does, all the BCS conferences do too. Boise State (MWC) does not, they are a BCS Buster. --MECU≈talk 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the rule that allows Notre Dame into the BCS bowls is technically not specific for Notre Dame. While I'm sure they had Notre Dame in mind, the rule covers any independent. Therefore, if Navy or Army met the criteria, they would come in under the rule and be a BCS Buster - same as Notre Dame. Johntex\talk 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bcsfootball.org states otherwise -- "4. Notre Dame will have an automatic berth if it is in the top eight of the final BCS Standings." Majin Izlude talk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did think that ND had their own written rule... they have their own contract with the BCS. Army and Navy don't and would have to go under the higher-than conference championship ranking (greater then #16) or top 12 to get in, which is what I believe BCS Buster rules applies to. --MECU≈talk 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does ND have a special rule, but their Athletic Director, Kevin White, has equal standing with the Conference commissioners as a BCS board representative. See here AUTiger ʃ talk/work 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. They do have a rule just for themselves. In that case then, they should be considered part of the BCS, and not a BCS Buster, I think. Johntex\talk 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if saying that Boise State is a BCS Buster due to the new rules. Boise State ended with a rank high enough to make it into the BCS even with the old rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.51.39 (talk • contribs)
Returning to this issue: above Johntex mentions it is a colloquial term which is a key issue - the whole section strikes me as Original Research (at worst) and is certainly unreferenced (at best). In addition to the ND Rule and the new automatic qualifier rules for the mid-major conferences, the mid-majors also have representation in BCS governance now (see my link above) so no mid-major that makes it in can technically be described as a "BCS Buster" now. I'm inclined to urge deletion of the section altogether especially if additional (well-sourced) info is added to the 2006 Changes section about the issues that drove the change to include automatic qualication of a midmajor rep. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be kept, if sourced. I would say Boise State is a BCS Buster since it's not from a BCS conference and they're playing in a bowl game. A BCS Buster is one that busts into the BCS despite the heavy odds (and system setup designed to prevent it). But until it's sourced.... --MECU≈talk 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this year? Unfortunately, I think you're operating under the old concept of what is a BCS conference. The original BCS conferences are now the "Automatic Qualifier Conferences". According to the official BCS site, The BCS is managed by the commissioners of the 11 NCAA Division I-A conferences... and It is also not an exclusive system that rewards only a few. The University of Utah demonstrated in 2005 that a team from a conference without an annual automatic berth can have access to a BCS bowl game. Also, this page lists the WAC (and all the others) as a "BCS Conference". Finally, there is now a formal qualifying system for determining those "automatic qualifying conferences": Mathematical standards of performance will be applied to determine the number of conferences whose champions will automatically qualify for a BCS game after the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons. The champions of no fewer than five conferences and no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths in the BCS bowl games. [6] AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can say all the marketing they want, but when 9 of the 10 BCS game spots go to "BCS Conference" Teams, and it required a non-BCS Conference team to go undefeated whereas several BCS conference teams have two losses... then there is a systematic exclusionary process. But, that's my opinion. --MECU≈talk 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mecu. The term is in common usage and still has a valid meaning even with the changes to the BCS. We should keep the section and work on references. Johntex\talk 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Fans

  • Sigh* Let the mass of Michigan fans editing this page begin. Already there has been at least one. Hopefully they can get over it....

02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.58.6 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Math Typo

In the section 2004-05 Formula, LSU's number in the coaches poll should be 99.4, not 96.3 (1516/1525)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry Wright, III (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Change made. --MECU≈talk 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


-Also, it states at the bottom that the independent record is 0-2 in bcs bowls when in fact it is actually 0-3. Notre dame also lost the 2000 fiesta bowl to Oregon State.

Potential College Playoff System

Flaws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.J.Grewe (talk • contribs)

  • (edit conflict)Aside from the fact I like the BCS, er, at least I like the value of the regular season being the playoffs, this isn't really what Wikipedia is about. We're an encyclopedia, and there is actually a policy against original research. So unless your can provide some sources about the above, we couldn't include it in any article. Further, I don't think talking about possible playoff systems is very encyclopedic. If you simply wanted a forum to post your ideas that will get seen (do talk pages get looked at by search bots?), you have accomplished that. I doubt it will have much impact, as any determination for a playoff system by the BCS/NCAA folks would be most likely made up by them. For better or worse. But, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope an obvious college football fan like yourself will stick around and help us improve Wikipedia's coverage of college football! --MECU≈talk 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes regarding my original essay on college football playoffs. I will remove if it is unuseful. I figured if I put it on a talk page, people may read it, comment, get a dialogue going. If this is the wrong place to do this, then please, remove it.Brian.J.Grewe 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would not Wikinfo (http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) be an approriate place for the above essay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.63.123 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on BCS Controversies

The last part of paragraph two should include a statement to the effect that even though Ohio State and Boise State were the only two undeated teams in 2006, under the BCS system they did not play for the national championship.

Dsanders60 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Doug Sanders[reply]

I tried to fix this. Please let me know if y'all think this is OK.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that no mention of the controversial nature of the BCS system is mentioned in the introduction to the main page. This is not POV, it is simply citing a large body of the article that specifically deals with the on-going problems of this system. I will make a small edit to balance the intro. Happysomeone 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Bowl Chart

There is a bunch of changes to the number of bcs bowl game wins and loses.

Right now all the appearance numbers should be correct and already include the games that are still yet to be played. The record for each school only shows the games that have already been played. I updated the results of the Rose Bowl for both USC and Michigan. After the Fiesta Bowl tonight I will update the table if I'm still awake. Otherwise I'm sure someone else will take the initiative.

BCS Controversies Section

The 2003/04 section should include the fact that LSU is the only BCS champion to not receive a unanimous #1 vote in the Coaches Poll. The BCS contract required that all coaches vote the BCS champion #1, but 3 coaches broke rank and voted USC #1 anyway. Dude202 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference or source for this? IF not, please find one. If so, add it in. --MECU≈talk 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found 5 online sources. I would also assume that the final Coaches Poll from the 2003-04 season is in the ESPN encyclopedia of college football. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
I am putting the first reference in the actual article. The rest are here so that if any of the links go bad, someone might have an easier time finding the sources than I just had. Dude202 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th paragraph, 2nd sentence:

"...are not given automatic births to BCS bowls..." should actually be "...are not given automatic berths in BCS bowls"

I believe berths in would be the correct usage. Since a berth is similar to position in meaning, I would use in as opposed to to. Usually when one is given a position, it is usually in something instead of on something.

I would change it myself, rather than bug everyone about a simple homonym/grammar issue, but I am a newly registered user.

Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flosofl (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

forgot to sign it the first time, sorry

Flosofl 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Flosofl (told you I was new)[reply]

I've made the change, except I left it "berths to", because I believe they get a berth to a bowl game and not in a bowl game. Only a few more days before you can edit it yourself. (We had to do that because of vandalism, nothing personal) Welcome to Wikipedia! --MECU≈talk 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a fact that, in 2003/04, LSU was the only BCS champion to not receive a unanimous #1 vote in the Coaches Poll. But this is a false controversy. The winner of the BCS NCG is awarded the NC Trophy, the crystal football. THAT is the sole true NC award. Why? Because all of the teams, conferences and administrators AGREED, by contract, that it goes to the true NC. The two polls, which during the season provide opinions about relative team strength, become irrelevant with respect to the NC after the two BCS title game participants are chosen. After the NCG, the polls do provide a useful function: determining Nos. 2-25. But with respect to the NC, whether some coaches stuck to their contract carries no weight (it was a meaningless gesture even though somebody hopefully explained to those coaches later on the concept of a contract). I know some people still believe the polls carry some gravitas after the NCG, but the participants (the teams and coaches) should graciously decline such "awards." They signed the contract, they should stick to it. So OK, you can mention that "LSU was the only BCS champion to not receive a unanimous #1 vote in the Coaches Poll," but you must follow that up with the clause: "... but it meant nothing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.21 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh SEC homers, it does matter! Its true, LSU was the BCS champion. The controversy was that the AP poll picked someone else for champion, and three coaches broke their contract to vote for someone else for national champion. It was this controversy that led to the changes in the formula to pick the #1 and #2 overall for the championship game. Jklharris 09:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl Schedule until 2010

The Future Schedules section should probably be the same as this.

I made the few changes, it was just a few dates. I also added this url as a reference. Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~. --MECU≈talk 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was me; my apologies. But did you make changes? Because I don't see them. The 2009 Fiesta Bowl is still listed as January 3, 2009. The 2010 Fiesta Bowl is still listed as January 2, 2010. The 2010 Orange Bowl is also incorrect. Just to be sure, the dates listed in the first link are also listed on the Orange Bowl site.72.140.103.37 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can see my changes here. Perhaps you need to refresh/reload the page? --MECU≈talk 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length of page

This page is getting really long (and, yes, I'm part of the problem). We may want to consider splitting one or two of the sections, (formula and controversies, which could truly be their own articles). I've tagged them. However, I want to hear what the consensus thinks. Kermitmorningstar 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think the listy sections (near the bottom) could be removed to their own pages first and that would help tremendously. I'm hesitant to remove the BCS Controversies, but if after removing the formula and listy sections it's still long, then we can remove it as well using {{Main}}. --MECU≈talk 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. This page should discuss the evolution of the BCS, how it works, and arguments for and against it. All other information should be either simply be deleted, moved to another page, or used to create new pages.--SMP0328 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2007 Controversies

Although there was plenty of controversy, I don't believe the 2006-2007 season was the most controversial season for the BCS. However, the section describing controversies season has 2-4 times the amount of text/information as any of the other seasons. The 2006-2007 controversies section should be edited/shortened to only the most important points, in my opinion. Do others concur? Does anyone want to do it? -Milkncookie 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extremely biased

This entire topic is extremely biased against the BCS system. This article should really focus on the factual events and leave the reader to decide how they feel about the BCS, or cite additional sources to show that opinions are in fact wide spread. Snobrdjimmyjam 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, six sources under "BCS Controversies" aren't enough. Shouldn't be that hard to find more.Happysomeone 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.236.56 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Controversies

I added a small section under "BCS Controversies" outlining a future problem that the BCS system might run into. It involves the BCS not having enough eligible teams to fill its 10 at-large spots. I give an example from the 2001-02 season.

I also added TCU's 2000 and 2005 teams as additional non-BCS teams who would have recieved automatic berths under the current format in the "Changes for 2006-07" section. Both teams finished in the top 16 and ahead of a BCS conference champion (Purdue in 2000 and Florida State in 2005). Bmf 51 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was deemed original research by someone else and I agree. Unless you can provide a source for the information, we can not accept it. MECU≈talk 12:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section about the controversy that I created a few months back has been rendered moot, as the BCS has added a rule that covers the situation I mentioned (which was added to this article in November). Interestingly, they added this rule shortly to the BCS's website after I e-mailed them asking about it. Perhaps, because of me, the BCS has averted another controversy. In the case of the 2001-02 season, Syracuse (ranked #17) would have received the other at-large berth. So, the following teams would have qualified:
ACC Champions - Maryland
Big East Champions - Miami-FL
Big Ten Champions - Illinois
Big 12 Champions - Colorado
Pac-10 Champions - Oregon
SEC Champions - Louisiana State
Big 12 At-large - Nebraska
SEC At-large - Either Florida or Tennessee
Pac-10 At-large - Either Stanford or Washington State
Big East At-large - Syracuse

Bmf 51

Please read our policy on original research. MECU≈talk 12:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying anything about changing the article in my last response. I was pointing out that, even if it weren't original research, it wouldn't be necessary to add it now, anyway, because the BCS has added a rule to prevent such a situation. I understand the reason my original edit was removed. My last response on this talk page wasn't disputing that. Perhaps reading that response again, more carefully, would help you understand. Bmf 51

Incredibly, even after adding the "18 or 22" rule, it is still possible that less than 10 teams would qualify for BCS bowls, because at-large teams still must have at least 9 wins. Z1perlster (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCS School Map

The map of BCS Schools featured in this article is outdated. It is supposed to show all the teams from BCS conferences, plus each independent school. However, Temple is no longer an independent. They will begin playing in the MAC this season. Bmf 51 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of BCS Revenue Sharing

A section regarding criticism of the BCS on the subject of revenue sharing was added, yet deleted without any discussion here. I have reverted the deletion, added a further citation regarding Congressional inquiry, and moved the section under "BCS Controversies." Should deletion be necessary, please discuss the reasons for doing so beforehand. 141.213.222.173 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete it, but I thought it seemed very out-of-place when I read this article. This article already seems biased against the BCS because the "controversy" section is so long. This presents considerable POV issues when you consider that the BCS is a system virtually everyone in a leadership role in college football has agreed to. I have heard more criticism claiming that non-BCS schools recieve more than they should from the system than too little. I don't understand the relevance of the highly theoretical "per-team" distrubution of funds. There are good reasons why second-tier conferences do not distribute their share equally among schools. It is because they recognize that some of the teams in their conferences are on the verge of being unable to field a D-1AA team at all, and are in no way BCS-relavant. Schools like Hawaii, BYU, Utah and Boise State would never agree to an arrangement like that accordingly. --76.17.236.56 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCS Support Section

This section includes the prospect that if there were indeed a playoff, teams would inevitably pull out their starters at the end of the season to either give them rest or as a way of tanking a game so they get a better opponent. There is no basis for this, and not an argument commonly made about college sports in general. The reasoning on the page is that this happens in the NFL, yet often teams in college have to win to maintain a high enough ranking for what the common cutoff suggestions are, especially with the conference championship game that some of those teams would have to win.

Bah, that looks like I'm trying to discuss it, but honestly, I feel like the part of the article I'm responding to does not have an expert opinion to back it up, and the logic within the article can be refuted by what I said. Jklharris 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spot about NFL teams sitting starters at the end of a season lacks a NPOV from it's tone. It is stated as fact and should either have an attribution to an external source (espn blog, newspaper, whatever) or should be reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.215.233 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing this article would benefit from is if anything comparing the BCS to a to a theoretical NCAA playoff sytem was deleted. The system has supporters because it has greatly increased the liklihood of #1 and #2 meeting in a bowl game. Prior to 1992 this almost never happened. I don't have any source, of course. The benefits are just self-evident.--76.17.236.56 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in rules

In the rules used to determine which teams compete in the BCS bowl games, I think there is a mistake.

There is the bullet that says

"The third-ranked team will receive an automatic berth, if it has not already received one."

but on the bcs website, it says

"If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 4, and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 3 in the final BCS Standings, that team will become an automatic qualifier, provided that no at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the national championship game."


Now, I think that means the third-ranked team will only receive an automatic berth if it a) Is from one of the bcs conferences b) Does not have another team in the conference that is in the bcs championship game.

It seems weird because that would virtually never happen. It would imply that it is only applicable if the third ranked team is ranked above the champion of its conference. 18.232.1.131 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made a good point... the explanation was unclear. I added an example to try to clarify it. It's possible to have 3 teams (one #1/#2, one #3/#4, and the conference champion). In that case, the #3/#4 rule wouldn't apply, since it would violate the rule about 3 teams from a conference. Yes, virtually impossible, but this is the BCS, right? =P Kermitmorningstar (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is another scenerio that is not quite clear, and while this is also virtually impossible, it can happen. Bullet Point 1 says that #1 and #2 in the BCS will play for the National Championship. Bullet #2 says Champions of the BCS Conferences are also guaranteed spots. What happens under this scenerio, and I will use 2006 as an example. Ohio State finished 1st in the BCS, and Michigan 3rd. What would have happened if Michigan had of finished 2nd -- But the conference champion was NOT Ohio State OR Michigan, rather was Wisconsin. That could have happened. Now, in this instance, which team would be excluded? #2 in the BCS or the Automatic Qualifier? -Pparazorback (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a response email from the BCS checking the scenerio I outlined above, and my assumptions were correct. Lets say Ohio State and Michigan both finish the season with 1 loss, Ohio State loses to Wisconsin, and Michigan loses to Ohio State. Wisconsin does not play Michigan and finishes the season undefeated in the Big-10, but they lose 2 or 3 games out of conference. In this case, Wisconsin would be the Big-10 champion, but would get bumped out of the BCS bid because Ohio State and Michigan finished 1st-2nd which trumps the conference champion berth. --Pparazorback 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well the point was that "The third-ranked team will receive an automatic berth, if it has not already received one" as it currently says is wrong. That statement is feasible, but the actual rule is only if no other team from the conference is in the championship game, which is infeasible.

I think we should have two sets of rules: one that is nearly verbatim from the BCS website, and another that simplifies it by going over the rules that are feasible and ignores the rules that will never occur. Opinions? If there aren't any, then I'll write it up in a little bit. 18.232.1.131

BCS Controversies

I think the BCS Controversies section should be moved to a new article. This would reduce the content in this page which is becoming extremely long, and it would also allow for more elaborate coverage on both major and minor controversies. I would be bold and do it myself, but I would like to see if any other people have suggestionsFrank Anchor (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page is getting long. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work folks.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii v. Hawai`i

Both spellings are used on this page. We should pick one and stick to it. Agnamus (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

two bowl tables will grow without limits

This article is long enough (some will say too long) as it is. Placing the result of each bowl game twice in both tables causes them to grow "downward" substantially after each season. Since each BCS bowl game already has its own article with game results, the individual results here are redundant. Alternatively, only W-L records of a team in a particular bowl could be listed in this article, by adding columns to the existing tables. Z1perlster (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:20041129 phpF8eiVe.gif

Image:20041129 phpF8eiVe.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"BCS support" section should be removed

The "BCS support" section should be removed; its arguments in favor of the BCS are already summarized in the "BCS Controversy" section, and the section helps make the overall BCS article too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.53.226 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more "support" in the "controversy" section. "Support" should remain with its own section. Bcspro (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"BCS support" section contains bad and irrelevant arguments; should be removed

There should be no separate "BCS support" section. There is already a "BCS controversies" section. The word "controversy" means that a system has both proponents and opponents. Therefore, supporting arguments and criticisms should both be there.

Only the first argument raised in the "BCS support" section is really a relevant one. The second paragraph argues that the BCS system sometimes gets lucky because there are two clear-cut top teams at the end of the season, though the text admits that this happens "rarely." That a system rarely gets lucky is hardly a good argument in support.

The "BCS controversies" section used to have more relevant and analytically valid arguments in favor of the BCS system. Those should be restored. It looks like "Bcspro" cut them out. That was a mistake.

The last four paragraphs under "BCS support" contain information that is irrelevant to the question whether the BCS system is a good one. The article is too long as it is, and these only make it longer. This is another reason that the "BCS support" section should be eliminated, and the original "BCS controversies" section restored.

I removed that statement because "controversy" is aganist the BCS and "support" is for the BCS. What the statement says is then summed up in the "support" section which should still remain. Bcspro (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the "support" section is removed, what I cut out should be placed back in. However, I believe that there should be two sections instead of just one. Bcspro (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Controversies Section is Contradictory

While it seems nicely done. The following statement:

"Moreover, the composition of human polls is controversial: for example, the Associated Press has prohibited the BCS from using its rankings in the BCS formula, and ESPN has removed itself from the USA Today coaches poll."

Without some explanation as to why the above organiziations (the AP and ESPN) have removed themselves from the BCS formula and Coaches poll, the article as written seems to imply that each organization recognizes that human polls are inherently flawed. As mentioned earlier in the article "In particular, human polls are unavoidably subjective". If the AP for example does not want the BCS to use their poll, then why does the AP continue to conduct the polls at all, and continue to publish them on a weekly basis without any disclaimer to it's readers that they are "unavoidably subjective."

Perhaps a citation regarding the AP and ESPN positions' would bring some clarty and credibilty to the section as it is currently written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.5.203.131 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah 2004 - "At-Large?"

Regarding this sentence:

"Despite the possibility of an "at-large" berth being granted to a non-BCS conference team, this didn't happen until the 2004-05 season, when Utah received a BCS bid to play in the Fiesta Bowl...."

Is this accurate in the context of "automatic" vs. "at-large" bids? The selection rules listed in the article indicate that the Utes received an automatic bid - they were a champion of a non-BCS conference and they finished in the Top 12 of the final standings. Wouldn't this mean their berth was as assured as those of any other conference champion? By my reading, an "at-large" team is one who met the qualifications for a BCS bowl but who wasn't guaranteed a spot; they had to be selected by a bowl committee. If my interpretation isn't correct, then perhaps the definitions of "automatic" and "at-large" should be better fleshed out. Dpiranha (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowl_Championship_Series&oldid=249323110"