The CardBoard
Yet another reason to hate the BCS - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Yet another reason to hate the BCS (/thread-745.html)


Yet another reason to hate the BCS - Renaissance Man - 11-16-2010

It occurred to me this morning that, regardless of the outcome of the Kal game, it will probably be beneficial to Stanford\'s Rose Bowl hopes (discounting the other BCS bowls) to lose to Oregon State.  Given the fact that Boise St. and TCU both beat OSU, their computer rankings would be enhanced by and Oregon State victory over a highly ranked team, improving the liklihood of a non-AQ in the national championship game, opening the Rose bowl slot.  You have to love a system that creates a situation where losing can be more beneficial than winning.

Re: Yet another reason to hate the BCS - Farm93 - 11-16-2010

Mmmmmm, no!

If Stanford is 10-2, then there will be big, big, big pressure for the Rose Bowl to take the non-AQ 12-0 team that does not qualify for the BCS Title game.  Alternatively, with no SEC representation in the BCS game, the Rose Bowl could opt to go with the best one-loss at-large SEC team available Auburn/LSU.  Loyalty only goes so far in this new BCS world.  Stanford losing game #2 at home in front of ~25,000 actual fans would be a killer on so many levels.

Besides, future Oregon State wins at this point are not really helping any team much.  Every school would have better "Best Wins".   TCU has Utah and Boise State will have Nevada.

The non-AQ path to the BCS game has very little to do with Oregon State and almost everything to do with the SEC title game.

If Auburn falls to Alabama then it will probably fall to 4-7 in the BCS standings.  BUT!!! If Auburn destroys South Carolina then the people polls could "fix" the standings.  Auburn could become the people poll #1, and just to make sure the BCS results are right.  The people polls could have ballots that look like this..

Auburn, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Ohio State, Boise State, TCU.

The pro-Auburn rationale would be justified by claiming that voters began to appreciate that all of the 1 loss teams from big conferences should be ahead of Boise State and TCU.  Oh, what a coincidence...that meant that Auburn finished #2 in the final BCS standings.  Huh :-[

It has happened before, and that forced BCS list would have nothing to do with Oregon State and everything to do with the SEC and their highly rated championship game.

Given the crowd of big brand names with 1 loss, Stanford can not afford to have 2 losses.  A 2 loss Stanford team is going to the Alamo bowl.  Not that the Alamo bowl is such a terrible destination, BTW.

Re: Yet another reason to hate the BCS - fyao - 11-16-2010

What are the payouts of the Alamo Bowl vs. BCS bowls?

There are 17 million reasons to love the BCS - jacketree - 11-16-2010

Alamo Bowl Payout = $2.25M

BCS Bowl Payouts are all $17M

In this case, it might do UCB and OSU well to the tune of $1.475M each to roll over and let Stanford win. (I believe bowl receipts are split 10 ways.)

Re: Yet another reason to hate the BCS - unclechuck - 11-16-2010

Jacktree - I believe that the AQ conferences get that $17 mil for their first BCS game each year and a second game is only something in the $5 mil area, so the dropoff to the 2nd tier games - Alamo, Cotton, etc. isn\'t quite so dramatic.

I remember getting worked up about this last year. Anyone have specifics?

Re: Yet another reason to hate the BCS - Farm93 - 11-16-2010

Normally, the drop off is half.  The other half gets shared by all of the AQ conferences.

However, the real benefit is not the 2nd BCS vs. Alamo, it would be the 2nd BCS vs. Sun or Vegas.  A Pac-10 team will be going to the Alamo bowl.  The real difference would be that instead of having some team in the Vegas bowl with virtually no money getting shared after expenses, a team would grab that at-large BCS share.

Normally, the Pac-10 lets the teams spend that first million or a million and a half.  So put all of the pieces together and it would be about a million a school.

For C.a.l it is a bit more meaningful.  If Stanford bumps up to the BCS, then C.a.l will be in the Holiday bowl if they finish 6-6.  For C.a.l getting to the Holiday bowl instead of the Sun Bowl would be a good deal.

Though maybe Te.d.ford followers are tired of the Holiday bowl.

Re: Yet another reason to hate the BCS - unclechuck - 11-17-2010

Farm93 - good point - the frame shift up particularly in a year the Pac10 won\'t fill it\'s bowl contract commitments would be a sweet deal for all. We can hope.

I\'ve been going to the Holiday Bowl the last 12 years so I endured B.ears\' drubbing by TX Tech (the Mack Brown jobbing year). One of the most disappointing games I\'ve ever attended; exceeded only by the AZ pratfall last year.

However, last time out UCBarely did upset a favored A&M team. I was there to support the Pac10, but A&M won my heart with great "Kicking Hippie Ass" t-shirts. Alas, sold out by the time we arrived.