<p>The BCS was too scared of TCU and Boise State to put them up against a “power conference” team… so they made them play eachother. They are delighted that we will never know if they can beat the so-called “powers”.</p>
<p>Most teams play consistent schedules. For many in the SEC, that’s one FCS, and three minor conference teams. For others, it’s one FCS, two minor conference, one BCS team. Most teams in the Pac-10 though play a BCS team, plus a couple MWC or WAC teams. USC has Notre Dame built in, so they only play one MWC/WAC team. From there, the difficulty is just luck. For example, UCLA played two BCS teams this year, neither of which were especially good. Next year, though, they’ll face both Texas and Houston, which is much tougher.</p>
<p>One reason why I like Nick Saban is that he has said that Alabama will play at least one marquee game every year he is there. Last year, we played Clemson. This year, we played Virginia Tech. Next year, we will play Penn State. He has gone on record of saying he wants to play Notre Dame. He wants to play tough opponents from other conferences to show that Alabama is a great program.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but most MWC and Wac teams really are not that good. The ones that are good (Air Force, Boise State, BYU, TCU, and Utah) are rarely being scheduled. Oregon was the only team to schedule any of these teams from the Pac-10. </p>
<p>I’m not trying to excuse the scheduling of the SEC because they have consistently scheduled weak opponents.</p>
<p>^pramirez184,</p>
<p>Last year, UCLA, Washington, Stanford, Oregon State, & Oregon played Utah, TCU, Boise State, & BYU. This year, this schedule is a little softer but even this “soft” Pac-10 OOC schedule is still unarguably tougher than the OOC schedule of any other conferences. That’s how pathetic and calculating other conferences are. I went to a Big 10 school so I am not really trying to promote Pac-10 here. I just have respect for them because of their scheduling and I am giving my honest opinion. I despise those so-called big boys that tell people they are so good but at the same time have no courage to schedule good games.</p>
<p>They should just ban football. It’s a very violent sport. It teaches kids that it’s ok to hit people and that’s just wrong. If there was no football there would be not war in Iraq because Bush learned from football that violence was ok. Think about the children!!!</p>
<p>
Yeah, that’s pretty obvious. There was no reason for the Fiesta Bowl to pick Boise over Cincinnati. The game will still be good, but I would rather have seen TCU/Cincinnati and Boise/Florida.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to take away from that (because it’s good that 'bama is scheduling like that) but there’s a couple things that make it more attractive to the athletic director - having a big, neutral site game with prime TV coverage like the Chick-fil-a kickoff means huge exposure for the team and also a pretty payday, even moreso than a typical home-and-home.</p>
<p>Also, it takes the place of a road game - 'Bama only played 4 true road games this year, 7 at home, and 2 neutral site.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This year, maybe, but the Pac-10 schedules those teams regularly. Since 2006, Oregon has played Boise (x2), Utah; Oregon State played Boise, Utah (x2); UCLA played Utah (x2), BYU (x2); Arizona, BYU (x2); Washington, BYU; Stanford, TCU (x2).</p>
<p>Has anyone ever considered reading this great proposal article?</p>
<p>[Wetzel’s</a> playoff plan: Money talks - College Football - Rivals.com](<a href=“http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns]Wetzel’s”>http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there is a rule that half of the spots in playoffs are for “at large” teams… hence the numbers for the basketball tournament (32 D1 conferences + 32/33 at large). The FCS playoffs currently have 8 conference champions, and 8 at large spots, which next year will change to 10 conference champions, and 10 at large spots.</p>
<p>The only reason why the Pac-10 schedules more games with MWC or WAC is because of the location. The Pac-10 is the closest conference to those 2 in term of location. It wouldn’t make sense for Big East or SEC or ACC teams to schedule home and home with MWC or WAC. It doesn’t do any good for both sides. You can always find teams similar to the top MWC or WAC from within the ACC / Big East / SEC.</p>
<p>People who are saying that Texas doesn’t deserve to be in the championship game have to remember how they were cheated out of it last year. If they were cheated out of it two years in a row, then Mac Brown would have murdered the voters and destroyed the system. </p>
<p>Everyone agrees that Texas had an easy schedule, but its not their fault that the Big 12 was a bad conference this year. For example, they played OU who was ranked #1 last year when they played, Missouri who was #11 last year, OK State who was #6, & Texas Tech who was #7. </p>
<p>Texas actually scheduled a pretty hard schedule (four teams in the top 11 last year), it’s just that the teams weren’t anywhere near as good as last year. And this is basically the same core team as last year who also beat #10 OSU.</p>
<p>So in the last 2 years Texas has beaten 7 teams in the top 25 (5 in the top 11). In the last 2 years Florida has played 8 teams in the top 25 and lost one. Also, Alabama has played 10 teams in the top 25, but lost 2. THIS PROVES THAT THERE IS AN SEC BIAS AND LACK OF RESPECT FOR TEXAS!</p>
<p>And yes last year matters because the BCS uses historical performance to consider a teams standing (AKA reputation). It kinda makes sense because like I said before, it’s basically the same core group of players from last years squad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you mean human polls right?</p>
<p>because computers can’t consider previous years or margin of victory or anything like that, just wins and losses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of sports have 4 team tournaments with a single at-large berth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They weren’t cheated out of it last year. They were the 2nd best team in the Big XII, and nobody wants to see two teams from the same conference play for the National Championship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s TCU/Boise St’s fault that their conferences weren’t very good? That’s a good one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, if you think reputation or previous years should count, then you’re hopeless.</p>
<p>P.S. Does Texas deserve to get cheated because of what happened to Cal in 2004?</p>
<p>Texas was the best Big 12 team last year. They had an equal record with OU and beat OU. Yes they were cheated.</p>
<p>I’m not putting the fault on TCU/Boise for being in a weak conference. I’m defending how Texas’ schedule at the beginning of the season looked much more difficult than both teams, and proving that their schedule looked tough. TCU and Boise know that its gonna be difficult to go to the national championship game so they should’ve scheduled harder OOC games. </p>
<p>And yes reputation should & does count under this system. Especially when you have equal records, you have to base positioning on reputation. That how it works and unless they change the system then thats how it’ll be.</p>
<p>Simple EX: Lets say OSU is 12-0 with an average schedule playing alright, while Florida International is 12-0 with an easier schedule and dominating. Of course OSU should get the higher ranking! The majority of people would rather see OSU, that’s how it works. Is it Florida Internationals fault, no. But that’s how it is and how it should be under the current system.</p>
<p>As for Texas being cheated last year, you can’t really say that. Had Texas gone to the NC, then Texas Tech would have the same exact argument Texas is using: they had an equal record with Texas and had Texas gone to the NC they would have been cheated since they beat Texas. It’s just the Big 12’s way of determining their champion and that’s their league their in, they have to deal with their rules.</p>
<p>And as for the historical data, that’s really not the best indicator. I mean I go to USC and seriously, look at us. Last year we looked like we should have played in the NC (with a decent chance to have won), yet this year we were complete crap (well compared to last year anyways, we still did beat OSU, ND, and Cal on the road which isn’t anything to laugh at).</p>
<p>It was a 3 way tie last year. So they gotta use tiebreakers. Texas wasn’t cheated last year. You can’t count head-to-head because it’s a 3 way tie. If it was a 2 way tie then texas was cheated, but it wasn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Scheduling goes both ways. If BCS schools won’t schedule a team, how can that team be faulted? And the TCUs and Boise States of the world shouldn’t have to travel everytime they want to play one of the big schools. The SEC can travel and SHOULD travel. They’re the ones with the budgets in the first place!</p>
<p>I actually think that the Boise’s and TCU’s should have to travel around to play bigger schools because since they are in such weak conferences, they need to prove that they can consistently handle the big schools.</p>
<p>Like I said before, I think reputation is a factor when teams are tied. So In my opinion, even though Texas, OU, and Tech were tied I think Tech should have been left out because of lack of reputation and the tie breaker should have gone between OU and Texas. It might not sound fair, but seriously not many people would have wanted a small school like Texas Tech to go to the championship game. But whatever I’m not gonna talk about last year anymore. And if you think I’m a homer, I’m not. I think Alabama will destroy Texas.</p>