Talk:Bowl Championship Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bowl Championship Series article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Bowl Championship Series is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 More detail needed: when a BCS Conference champion is in the title game 2 Southern Cal-->USC 3 Computer Rankings 4 Source for Statement 5 2004-05 formula as applied to 2003-04 pre-bowl standings 6 "also 11-1" 7 New logo 8 Unoffical? 9 FSU would still be qualified 10 BCS-sucks.com external link 11 Cite needed 12 "AP National Championship Game" 13 BIG EAST NEED RESPECT 14 "BCS Buster" Question 15 Michigan Fans 16 Math Typo 17 Potential College Playoff System 18 Section on BCS Controversies 19 Update Bowl Chart 20 BCS Controversies Section 21 Bowl Schedule until 2010 22 Length of page 23 2006-2007 Controversies

[edit] 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..

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] "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.

[edit] New logo

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] BCS-sucks.com external link

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)

• No problem. Just thought it was relevant as a leading anti-BCS website. Is there any Wikipedia page where the link should go? TexasDawg 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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?

[edit] BIG EAST NEED RESPECT

• I was reading the schedule for 2006-07 and where the hell does the Big East champion fit in this? --Kevmicester2000 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sorry my bad I thought they were under an atomatic BCS berth --Kevmicester2000 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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).

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

-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.

[edit] Potential College Playoff System

This section is hidden to save space. Click the [show] button to display it

THE REGULAR SEASON All conferences must have a championship game or a valid champion (one who has played all of its conference opponents). There a couple ways this could happen within a 12-game regular season: 1. All BCS conferences must have 12 teams: the Big Ten could pick up a twelfth team (Notre Dame, or possibly a strong MAC or C-USA team), the PAC-10 opens up its doors for a couple strong WAC or Mountain West teams, and the Big East finds four teams from the C-USA, MAC or Independents (Marshall, Ball State, Navy, Army, and etc.). In this case, all teams would play 8 regular season conference games, 3 non-conf. games and four teams per conference would play a ninth (the conference championship game and “battle for third” game—I’ll explain later). Or… 2. Big 12, SEC, ACC would play 8 conference games (with four teams per conference playing a ninth conference game), the PAC-10 would play nine conference games, the Big East (needing to pick up only two teams) would play nine conference games, and the Big Ten would play 10 conference games and everyone would still play three non-conference games (except for the Big 10, which would only play two non-conf. games). Now, in either event, there will be a number of teams that only play eleven games since only two teams per 12-team conference play in the conference championship. I would suggest that along with a conference championship, a “battle for third” game would be played between each division’s second-place teams. This would allow four teams per BCS conference to qualify for the playoffs, and if you aren’t in the top 4 of a BCS conference you should not be worried about trying to get into the playoffs (sorry Tennessee). A stipulation would be that each team’s “regular” season starts on the Saturday before Labor Day and end on the Saturday before Thanksgiving (which would allow for one bye week). Championships for all conferences are held on the Saturday after Thanksgiving (which, I think, would become a hugely popular tradition). The six BCS conference champs would be granted automatic entry into the playoffs. Regarding non-conference games: out of the three non-conference games at least two must be against teams that finished in the top 40 of the BCS on average over the last five years. One of the two Top-40 games must be against a team from a BCS conference. In the Big Ten’s case, if they didn’t pick up a 12th team or drop a team (it would be best if Penn State jumped ship and joined the Big East, which would instantly increase the credibility of that conference), they would have to play 10 conference games to determine a valid champion and therefore would only have two non-conf. games, but would still have to adhere to the non-conf. game scheduling parameters. Don’t feel too bad though, they still get to play Northwestern, Illinois and Indiana every year. This schedule would leave less room for cupcake games (really, only one per year, which would allow some “tradition” games to be played, like ND vs. Army) and would help voters see how teams truly stack up against other conferences while also allowing non-BCS conference teams the chance to beef up their resumes. And remember, the opponents need only to average a Top 40 BCS ranking from the immediate five preceding seasons, which means more than 40 teams will meet this criteria (probably 45-48). THE BCS RANKINGS Currently, the BCS only ranks the top 25. Obviously the BCS formula would have to be adjusted to rank the top 50 or 60 teams so that teams could get into the “Top 40.” Computer polls already rank all Div. I teams and the human polls would be adjusted as follows: Since it is too hard for coaches (who are legitimately biased, anyway) to figure out a top 25, the coaches’ poll would be replaced by a 25-person committee that would rank the Top 50. This committee would be composed of venerable sportswriters, ex-players, ex-coaches, ex-refs and etc.. Each committee member would be paid a stipend-salary. The playoffs will make a TON of money, so paying 25 people $20,000 to rank teams for 3 months a year seems feasible, especially because it will be the committee’s JOB to rank the Top 50. Since the top 50-60 BCS teams are the only ones that need to be analyzed, this means that only 25-35 games must be watched thoroughly (considering that some top 50-60 teams will be playing non-top 50-60 teams). Each committee member would be required to watch and thoroughly evaluate four games; these games would be randomly picked according to schedule (i.e. all 1 pm EST games are split amongst the members, and etc.) and assigned to each member. This would create an overlap of 3-4 committee members per game. Not all games are televised (but MOST are) and so thoroughly analyzing all 35 meaningful (Top 50 BCS) games might not be feasible every week. But, each committee member will have their “games to watch” schedule weeks before the beginning of the season and could speak with local media, scout the conference that teams are from, or even arrange to have trusted sources scout the game for them. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, they are unavoidable, but this committee would produce a much more educated, credible and equitable ranking system than the Coaches’ Poll. I would recommend the committee get into the same room on Monday afternoon to hammer out the rankings and educate fellow members about the games they missed. The actual rankings would be a poll from among all 25 members (to be published each week) and would not come out until Wednesday of each week in order to allow the most time for deliberation from the committee. Harris Poll voters would have to rank their Top 50 as well, though the Harris Poll should get less weight in the BCS formula, as their rankings will not be as concise or informed as the committee poll. Neither human poll is to start until after the fourth week of the season (hint: don’t schedule a bye or a cupcake in the first four weeks of the season), so the first BCS Top 50 poll would not be published until the Wednesday after the fourth week of the season (invariably, the last Wednesday of September). The breakdown of the BCS formula will be 40% BCS Committee Ranking, 30% Harris Poll, and 30% Computer Poll Average (top and bottom computer scores dropped, all computer polls must factor margin-of-victory up to 21 points). Regarding a team’s five-year average: if a team received absolutely no votes of confidence from either human poll then their final regular season computer poll average would still be used to calculate their BCS ranking for that year. The final BCS poll would actually rank every single Div. I-A team since the computer poll average would always create SOME kind of BCS ranking. Also, this would allow us to retroactively figure out each teams’ five-year average for scheduling purposes. NOTRE DAME I know you thought I was going to neglect the Notre Dame situation, but I’m not. If you look at past BCS rankings, it becomes clear that the current BCS conferences usually have 3-4 Top 25 teams in the final standings (further supporting the automatic entry rule for BCS conference). Even the ACC finished with three Top 25 BCS teams this year. If that field were pushed out to 50, it would show that the BCS conferences field at least five Top 40 BCS teams (over a five-year average), which means BCS conference teams are, on average, playing four BCS Top 40 teams per year. And since each team is required to play at least two other non-conf. Top 40 BCS teams in order to qualify for the playoffs that brings the magic number to six. If Notre Dame (or any other independent) declined to join a BCS conference they would have to schedule at least six teams which were ranked in the Top 40 BCS (over a five-year average), two of which must average in the Top 20 BCS (over a five-year average) in order to be eligible for the post-season. Notre Dame’s current schedule holds two Top 20 teams (UM, USC), one Top 25 team (UCLA) and three teams that might have averaged Top 40 over the past five years (Penn St., Purdue, Georgia Tech). Looks like Charlie might need to start scheduling some tougher teams, huh? Well, that’s been the argument against them all season, so guess what? This year Notre Dame might not be eligible for the playoffs. Of course, according to the rules, hardly anyone would qualify for the playoffs, as no one scheduled two non-conf. games against BCS Top 40 teams (except USC). Who knows what might have happened had Notre Dame scheduled Tennessee instead of North Carolina? At any rate, the bowls wouldn’t need all the revenue that a Notre Dame game would bring since EVERYONE would watch the playoffs, no matter who was playing. You know why? Because it would be the PLAYOFFS! THE PLAYOFFS After the 12-game regular season six automatic entries would be granted to the BCS Conference Champions into the 12-team NCAA DIV. 1A Football Playoffs. The other six slots would be filled by at-large teams who would earn a spot in the playoffs according to the final BCS rankings. Now, in some cases, one (or possibly two) BCS conference champions would not be in the top 12 of the final BCS standings and in that case, the team ranked 12th (or 11th) in the final BCS would be left out. This system also provides a smooth transition to a 16-game format (without adding any weeks to the schedule) should “bubble” teams like WVU, Virginia Tech, Rutgers and Tennessee feel left out. But, I would take issue with the argument that some team is always going to feel left out. Here’s the thing, if you go out and schedule good non-conf. games, you can afford to lose one or two conference games. But WVU, Va. Tech and Rutgers had horrible non-conf. schedules, and Tennessee lost three conference games (too many!) can they really make a solid argument that they should be in the playoffs? The playoffs would be structured similar to the NFL Playoffs, teams being seeded by the BCS rankings and with the top four in the final BCS standings being given a bye in the first round. The first round (Seed 12 vs. 5, 8 vs. 9, 7 vs. 10, 6 vs. 11) would be played on the second Saturday of December, which is anywhere from Dec. 9th to 15th (would play on third Saturday in one particular instance when Thanksgiving falls on the 29th, the latest possible date for Thanksgiving). This is a solid 6-10 days before most college exam weeks fall so this would allow the “student-athletes” ample time to study and read up on Voltaire. The second round of the playoffs would be one week later (a range of December 16th through 22nd); currently there are seven bowls scheduled to be played between Dec. 19th and 24th. The third round (or Final Four) would be the week after Christmas (at least 10 days after the 2nd round), always rotating around New Year’s Day in a range of the 30th thru the 4th. The Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and Orange would rotate these two Final Four games and the NC game. When not hosting a playoff game the BCS bowl left out hosts a New Year’s Day game between the two highest BCS-ranked teams that did not make the playoffs. This year it would’ve been Notre Dame versus WVU; are you gonna tell me you wouldn’t rather see a close, high scoring game between these to offenses than the slaughtering LSU is gonna give the Domers? Then the National Championship Game (not the BCS Championship Game!) would be held on a Monday night game over a week later, which would be Jan. 7th thru 13th to avoid conflicting with the NFL playoffs. After all of this scheduling, there is still room for lower-tier bowls for teams that finish outside of the playoff bracket, especially if they want to fill in gaps over the New Year’s week, which will only have 3 bowls scheduled (I’ll get to specifics later). Under this scenario the following teams would be playing on December 9th in the first round of the playoffs: Boise St. vs. Auburn, Wisconsin vs. Oklahoma, Louisville vs. Arkansas, and USC vs. Wake Forest. Who wouldn’t want to see if BSU actually has what it takes against a seemingly superior SEC middle-of-the-packer? Or watch Wisconsin try to prove that they can beat a “quality” opponent while Oklahoma tries to lay to rest all of the whining over the Oregon game? Or how about two high-octane offenses like Arkansas and UL exchanging TDs like Christmas presents? And if UCLA can beat SC so could Wake. Also, within this bracket there exists no possible outcome where there are more than four rematches out of the 11 contests (although, because of the new stipulation that teams play Top-40 non-conf. games more rematches are likely to result in the post-season). If you look at who would make the playoffs there is only one three-loss team (Arkansas) and they might not have made it had WVU, Rutgers or Va. Tech (2-loss teams) scheduled better non-conf. games and boosted their strength of schedule. I contend that this playoff system would not de-value the regular season because you still need to win at least 10 games just to get into the playoff conversation. You really think anyone will be taking a Saturday for granted if they feel like 10 wins might not be enough? THE FINANCES One of the major hurdles to overcome is the college presidents of the BCS conferences who would not want to lose precious bowl dollars. Here’s what needs to happen to appease them: All the college presidents and bowl chairmen from each bowl will negotiate for the eight opening round playoff games. 16 bowls would rotate hosting a playoff game two out of the four years, moving from first round, off, to second round, then off again (wash, rinse, and repeat). 11 of the 32 bowls that are played each year would host a playoff game. The 20 remaining bowls (eight of which will host a playoff game the next year) will select 40 non-playoff teams to play in their bowls. The remaining bowl is the BCS bowl left out for that particular year between the two highest-ranked playoff teams. Now, I am no socialist, so I do not propose splitting all of the bowl money equally over the 119 Div. I teams. I simply propose that all TV money generated for ALL bowls be put into a pot and split equally among ALL bowl teams’ conferences. To elaborate: A total of 54 teams will play (40 non-playoff teams, 12 playoff teams, plus the 2 highest-ranked non-playoff teams) so if the SEC has seven bowl teams they would receive 7/54 (13%) of the total TV money for all Bowls. If the WAC has two bowl teams, they would receive 3.7%. This also means that Notre Dame no longer gets such a disproportionate amount of bowl money (1.85%, which is a whole lot better than the 9.17% they’re getting this year). Bowls would still make money on ticket, sponsorship and ancillary sales (MORE money, in fact). In this scenario there would be at LEAST 12 meaningful bowl games. How many meaningful bowls are there this year? Six? Seven at most? The bowls wouldn’t worry as much about how well teams “travel,” because fans will travel for a legitimate playoff game, not for the Sun Bowl presented by Minute Maid. Plus, playoff bowl games (16 bowls that currently don’t cause much of a stir) would surely get higher-profile sponsors: I’m sure Pepsi would jump at the chance to host a playoff game every other year that was GUARANTEED to sell-out and be a legitimate television event.

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

• Please note, this is a talk page for discussing the article in question, in this case, Bowl Championship Series. It is not a message board for generally discussing the topic. BigDT 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• (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)

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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).

forgot to sign it the first time, sorry

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

Yes, you can see my changes here. Perhaps you need to refresh/reload the page? --MECU≈talk 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)