BCS Bowl Still on PSU's Horizon

[Former Wildcat]

I agree. Team #6 did have another win over an 8-2 (non-BCS) team. I have adjusted accordingly.

Obviously, the teams are not finished playing and the resumes can change. I can only go on what has happened.

TAE, if we are going on a merit system like college basketball, Iowa is the MOST DESERVING team in the country for a final at-large bid. It is not even close. Iowa has only two losses. Both are to teams from BCS leagues that have good records. Iowa has two wins over 9-2 teams from BCS leagues. They also have wins over three other teams from BCS leagues with winning records. No other candidate can touch their resume.

After Iowa, it gets tricky. Teams 2-7 are all pretty close and all have games yet to play. I was surprised after looking at Stanford at how badly they stack up with everyone else. They only have two good wins and they have a bad loss.

Other teams that could end up in the mix are Oregon and Georgia Tech if they do not win their conferences. Obviously, Texas or Cincinnati would be an at-large if they were knocked off.

Here is another team to consider:

Wins over:
7-2, 6-3

Losses to:
4-6

This team could end up with another win over a team with a winning record and a loss to a 12-0 team. Where do they fit?

[Former Wildcat]

Here is my rational for Teams 2-7. Virginia Tech has three losses, but two of them are to very good teams. How can you penalize them for playing two of the best teams in the country? They have three wins over 7-3 BCS teams. The only teams that can match those kinds of quality wins are Iowa (rated ahead of them) and USC (who has a bad loss).

Wisconsin was difficult. One of their losses was on the road to a 9-2 team and the other at home to a 9-2 team. They also have four wins over teams with winning records, although two are non-BCS. The more I think about it the more I think Wisconsin should actually be behind USC and OSU. I put them ahead because their wins were better than OSU's and their losses were better than USC's.

USC is definitely 3 or 4. If not for a bad loss at Washington, they would be #1 hands down. Their other two losses are to good BCS teams. They also have a number of good wins, including a road win over a 9-2 BCS team and two other road wins over BCS teams with winning records.

Oklahoma State could be anywhere from 4-6. Their loss to Texas can be discounted because any of these teams would lose to Texas. The home loss to Houston is not good, but Houston is 8-2 and owns wins over two other BCS teams. They have four wins over winning BCS teams, but none of those teams are better than 6-4. Also, only one of those four is on the road. This team is very similar to PSU in that they have lost to good teams and beaten marginal-to-bad ones. The only reason they lead PSU is they have more decent wins and their losses are slightly better.

Penn State could be 5 or 6. Their losses are to good teams, but they are both at home by 10 points. The major problem with Penn State is in the wins department. They have only two wins over teams with winning records.

California is like Penn State with an extra loss. Their win over Arizona is more impressive than any PSU win, but it was at home. They have three losses, all to good teams, but two were at home.

As for Pitt. They have two decent wins (one on the road). Their one loss is a bad one. Their schedule to this point is abysmal. I might slot them at 7 or 8. They are probably ahead of Stanford and maybe Cal. Time will tell with Pitt as their schedule is about to get much tougher.

[The Ancient Enemy]

Barring insanity, USC is totally out of it, genius. They have 3 losses.

You can post as much rationale as you want. The fact remains that Penn State has wonderful, long-standing relationships with the Fiesta and Orange and will more than likely get that bid. Where are you missing this: The bowls are businesses. The goal is not "most deserving", it is "who brings the most cash". As I have already said, the Orange has been complaining about their matchups and they are losing money. They are going to take 2 teams who will fill the stadium and travel well.

Again...

This is not a system where the "most deserving" team goes. The bowls are private businesses who exist for profit, just like the gas station in Pleasantville. Comprende?

And I love this "they can only play the teams on their schedule" crap. So can Penn State!!!! Is it Penn State's fault that Akron sucks? Syracuse? That Syracuse renewal was solidified after they came off a BCS season. It's a toss up if the opposing team is worth a 'dang' when the game is finally played. Why are you so enamored with luck?

How many teams over 500 has Florida played?

I would also like to point out that if Ohio State loses to Michigan, Penn State wins the Big Ten.

I hate to break this to you, but the Fiesta Bowl selecting Penn State over someone else is no more of an injustice than Sheetz stocking Snyder's potato chips over Herr's. It's their choice, not yours. Deal with it. Write your congressmen about all the injustice when a company decides to promote one product over another. It's really not that complicated as to why they would want Penn State over Boise.

[Former Wildcat]

I understand. My point is that basketball has a better system. If the decision were merit-based, then PSU would be about 5th or 6th in the pecking order. I am pointing out what is WRONG with college football. I know that USC is out-of-it; however, if you look at the numbers, they probably shouldn't be.

The business thing is a major problem. Why is March Madness so much better than the BCS? Part of it is the playoff thing, but another part is the way the teams are selected. Granted the committee makes questionable decisions every year, but the BCS makes at-large selections that are indefensible on any grounds other than money-making. If they really wanted to maximize profit, why even have the automatic qualifiers? They are trying to ride both sides of the fence, and they end up looking like morons.

As for Florida, they have actually played 6 teams over 500; five from the SEC and one non-BCS. Obviously, they have won all of those games. Of the teams that I looked at, only two (Wisconsin and USC) played more than 6.

As for OSU, I know that they share the Big 10 championship if they lose. However, PSU must win at MSU to share it with them.

[The Ancient Enemy]

Finally we have reached common ground. haha

The thing neither of us has said though is this: Basketball is better because if you win every game in front of you, you are the national champion. There is absolutely no debate. It is all head to head, and it is glorious.

As for a football playoff... Honestly, at this point, I am so disgusted that I would be happy with a 4-team playoff, which is only 1 extra game.

The Pitt fans use it against the PSU fans when we talk about attendance and generated income, but those things are extremely, extremely important. Right now, on the bubble, there are literally 16 million reasons why we are right and they are wrong on this issue.

Does PSU deserve a BCS bid? Of course not.

[davesandstorm]

I'm okay with PSU getting in, but only if Pitt gets in and they play each other. (Not really but it'd be some fun).

[Former Wildcat]

Figured I'd update the irrationality.

Here is how I would rank the teams looking for the final BCS at-large berth. We know the BCS is not merit-based, but if it was, the at-larges should be TCU, Boise, Alabama-Florida loser and Iowa. I am including the team's record, their quality wins (over teams with winning records with non-BCS teams noted), and their losses.

1. Iowa: Record 10-2. Wins over teams with these records 10-2, 9-3, 6-4. Losses to teams with these records 10-2, 8-4. Analysis: Iowa has two high quality wins and neither of their losses are bad.

2. Oklahoma State: 9-2. Wins over: 7-4, 7-4, 6-5, 6-5. Losses to: 11-0, 9-2 (non-BCS).
Analysis: OSU has four good wins and both of their losses are to good teams.

3. Virginia Tech: 8-3. Wins over: 8-3, 8-3, 7-4. Losses to: 11-0, 10-1, 8-3.
Analysis: Three quality wins. Two losses to elite teams and a good loss. My gut tells me this is the best team and that no other team on this list would have a better record playing this schedule, but they do have three losses.

4. USC: 8-3. Wins over 10-2, 8-3, 8-3, 6-5. Losses to: 9-2, 7-4, 3-7
Analysis: Three pretty good wins. One bad loss and the Stanford loss doesn't look as good now.

5. Penn State: 10-2. Wins over 9-2 (non-BCS), 8-4. Losses to: 10-2, 10-2
Analysis: Similar to Ok St except they have only one good win, compared with four for Ok St. Their losses are more impressive and Northwestern doesn't look so bad now.

Others to consider:
North Carolina: 8-3. Wins over 8-3, 8-3, 7-4, 7-4 (non-BCS). Losses to: 10-1, 6-5, 3-8
Miami: 8-3. Wins over 10-1, 6-5, 6-5, 7-4 (non-BCS) Losses to: 8-3, 8-3, 8-3.
Clemson: 8-3. Wins over 8-3, 7-4, 6-5. Losses to: 11-0, 10-1, 2-9.
Nebraska: 8-3. Wins over 7-4, 6-5. Losses to: 8-3, 7-4.
Wisconsin: 9-3. Wins over: 6-5, 7-4 (non-BCS). Losses to: 10-2, 10-2, 8-4.
Pitt: 9-1. Wins over: 7-3, 7-3, 6-5. Losses to: 4-7.
Oregon State: 8-3. Wins over: 8-3, 7-4, 6-5. Losses to: 11-0, 8-3, 6-4.
California: 8-3. Wins over 7-4, 6-5, 6-5. Losses to: 9-2, 8-3, 7-3.

[Former Wildcat]

In addition to what I have above. There are three teams who could fall into consideration with a loss.

Cincinnati: 10-0. Wins over: 8-3, 7-3, 7-3, 7-3, 7-4. No losses.
Analysis: If they beat Illinois, they should be in no matter what. Even with a loss to Pitt, they would still have five quality wins and their only loss would be to a one or two loss team.

Georgia Tech: 10-1. Wins over 8-3, 8-3, 8-3, 6-5. Loss to: 8-3.
Analysis: They must beat Georgia to have a good case. If they do, they would still only have three good wins, but both of their losses would be good. I say they must win the ACC to be deserving.

Oregon: 9-2. Wins over 9-2, 8-3, 7-3, 6-4, 6-5. Losses to 11-0 (non-BCS), 7-4.
Analysis: If they should lose to OSU, they would be near the top of the list but would not be deserving. They would probably have two good wins and all three losses would be to good teams.

[The Ancient Enemy]

The 2nd place Big East team is not going to the BCS. Neither is the 2nd place Pac-10 or ACC. Neither is Oklahoma State.

[Former Wildcat]

My point isn't who is going. My point is who should be going. If you look at what Oklahoma State has done or what Cincinnati has done, both of those teams should be near or at the top of the list. I still think Iowa is the most deserving team.