There were some people that were upset that U-Conn was able to make a BCS bowl. This should only make common sense. If your conference can not have a team in the top 15, then your conference will lose it's seat at the table for that season.
If there justification for this logic? Yes. In BCS History, the record of teams that do not finish in the top 15 is dismal. Teams below the top 15 are only 1-5 in BCS bowl history. That record includes:
2000 Rose Bowl: #7 Wisconsin (9-2, Big Ten champion) 17, #22 Stanford (8-3, Pac-10 champion) 9
2001 Rose Bowl: #4 Washington (10-1, Pac-10 champion) 34, #17 Purdue (8-3, Big Ten champion) 24
2005 Fiesta Bowl: #6 Utah[18] (11-0, MWC champion, Automatic non-AQ) 35, #21 Pittsburgh (8-3, Big East champion) 7
2006 Orange Bowl: #3 Penn State (10-1, Big Ten champion) 26, #22 Florida State (8-4, ACC champion) 23 (3 OT)
2009 Orange Bowl: #19 Virginia Tech (9-4, ACC champion) 20, #12 Cincinnati (11-2, Big East champion) 7
2011 Fiesta Bowl: #7 Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12 Champion) 48 vs. Connecticut (8-4, Big East Champion) 20
In fact, there is good argument for excluding anyone with three or more losses. In addition to these games, those with three or more losses in the top 15 have been:
1999 Orange Bowl: #8 Florida (9-2, At-large) 31, #15 Syracuse (8-3, Big East champion) 10
2004 Fiesta Bowl: #5 Ohio State (10-2, At-large) 35, #10 Kansas State (11-3, Big 12 champion) 28
2008 Rose Bowl: #7 Southern California (10-2, Pac-10 champion) 49, #13 Illinois (9-3, At-large) 17
2008 Season, example of the consequences:
Overall, teams in the BCS with 3 or more losses prior to the bowl season are in BCS games are 1-8. Only once has a team with 3 or more losses has been extended an at-large bid. This was after the 2007 season where Hawaii was invited to the Sugar Bowl. There were three options that the BCS could have considered instead of a three-loss Illinios. Arizona State is the first obvious choice. Of course that would have meant putting ASU in the Orange Bowl and moving Kansas to the Rose Bowl...which would have meant no PAC-10 vs Big 10 Rose Bowl. Other options would have been BYU which would have put 2 non-AQs in the BCS or Missouri which would have meant 3 teams from the Big 12. These are examples of options available for the BCS should there be a 3-loss team win their championship.
Of course the BCS will have to provide some compensation to the conferences that are eliminated due to their record, but it should not be the full payout. They have not earned it. BCS History shows that it is not fair to let a team use conference affiliation as a sole ticket to the big-money bowls. It is not only bad for the BCS reputation, it serves as a catalyst to funky conference alignments like TCU in the Big East and it leads to more fan apathy and exacerbates the calls for a college football playoff. Even with the automatic qualifying conferences, 10 wins is not too much to ask as a minimum for BCS qualification.
In conclusion, it should be recognized that there are some BCS conferences with challenging competition. However, the short history of the BCS has shown that a team with 3 or more losses will not represent their conference well. It looks like it is almost a certain loss. Therefore, the BCS should require that their teams have a minimum of 10 wins even if they are from an automatic qualifying conference. Once all of the teams with 10 wins are taken, then a team with only 9 wins can be considered. Even if a 3-loss team is in the top ten, it does not bode well for their success. Only once has a team ranked lower than 15 ever won a BCS game. That ranking should be considered the lower limit.
No comments:
Post a Comment