re: OFFICIAL BCS/ NATIONAL TITLE DISCUSSION

Are we clear now?

quote:

---

Are we clear now?

---

After you guys caught the screw up, the weird part to me was why they even needed to specify that provision to the #3/4 rules.

Then I realized it's because the 2 conference limit is in the "at-large" section, which isn't until later in the document.

While not really all that complicated, if you don't step back from the legaleze of the document and apply some common sense to the words, it's easy to make mistakes.

I go back to it all the time to verify what people write. For example, I hadn't heard until today about the provision where the Rose Bowl must select a non-AQ group team that is an AQ the first time a Big Ten/PAC-10 team is taken for the NCG.

quote:

---

For the games of January 2011 through 2014, the first year the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NCG and a team from the non-AQ group is an automatic qualifier, that non-AQ team will play in the Rose Bowl.

---

They're leveling the field with the other bowls since the Rose has 2 BCS conference tie-ins I'm guessing. Otherwise, the Rose would never get stuck with Boise, Utah, or Hawaii like the other have.

quote:

---

Wait, so you have to win your conference to play for the NC right?

---

Yes. In 2002, they instituted the rule that you had to win your division, at least, to play for the NC in order to prevent another Nebraska fiasco. In 2004, they added the rule that you had to win your conference to play for the NC to prevent another Oklahoma. Both of these rules are what kept UGA out of the NC in 2007. The original BCS charter also states that two teams from non-AQ conferences CANNOT play each other for the NC. Cmon Matt, you should know all of these rules.

quote:

---

In 2002, they instituted the rule that you had to win your division, at least, to play for the NC in order to prevent another Nebraska fiasco. In 2004, they added the rule that you had to win your conference to play for the NC to prevent another Oklahoma. Both of these rules are what kept UGA out of the NC in 2007.

---

After 2007, they instituted the rule that says that you can't play for a national title if you have two losses. And coming in 2010, your team does not have to field eligible players in order to qualify for the BCSNCG.

quote:

---

If fantastic means the worst thing to ever happen, then I agree with you.

---

I think it would be an improvement over the current system

I have a good feeling Oregon loses to Oregon St. and Boise St loses to Fresno ST and Nevada ...

that's why I edited .. I just originally read that, then went back a few posts and realized he was joking ..

quote:

---

But if 12-0 Auburn loses to SC, then South Carolina goes to the Sugar and Auburn almost definitely finishes above LSU in the final BCS

---

I completely disagree with this. What are you basing this off of? The only reason UF only fell a couple of spots last year was becasue both Bama and UF were undefeated. If Auburn gets beat by a 3 or 4 loss USCe (they still have to play clemson) I think they will fall behind us since we would be on a 4 game winning streak. Also, we would have a higher computer ranking so even if they were one spot in front of us in the polls, they may still be behind us in the BCS.

They would have an extra game for SOS, they would have a win over every decent team we played in conference, most importantly, US, and 1 loss to SC. We would have a win over similar teams, but even though our loss would be to a Top 5 team, our wins are not as good because Arkansas would be the top team at maybe 13-15. They would have a win over us at #3 or #4. That almost certainly gets them in.