If we were incorrect in assuming that LSU would not have been in the Sugar Bowl if SOS would not have counted, then why did we need Podnunk St to be Crayola U along with Notre Dame losing?
Podnuck St and Crayola U winning didn't matter any more than CryBaby St and Light House of the Blind U winning or ND losing. Those games all had equal weight for the entire season, and while they were the last pieces of the puzzle, they didn't impact the results any more than any other game earlier in the season. Just a convenient whipping boy for the media so they could leverage out the objective parts of the BCS formula and cram their subjective influence down our throats, since they (the media) are clearly omnipotent when it comes to college football.
Essentially, what this does is take us back to the way things were before the BCS and original Bowl Coalition, with two major differences. The Rose Bowl is now included in the mix and the normal conference bowl tie-ins are not a factor. Those are the only reasons why we've had split national titles in the past. They're out to eliminate split national champs. They are not interested in the best team winning.
I was incorrect when I said that LSU would be the odd man out. Oklahoma was number 1 in the BCS based on there very good SOS and a -0.5 in QW. I hadn't realized that. Oklahoma would have been left out last year, but I still don't agree with the change. With this new formula, if it is what I've heard, the computer polls cannot possibly correct an oversight of the human polls. If the average of the human polls counted for half, and the average of the computer polls counted for half, there would be a possibility. However, it seems the humans make up 2/3 and the computers make up 1/3. So the human flawed polls rule again. AP writers around the nation can rejoice...
This has to be bogus. None of the big web sites have any news on this up. A change like this would be HUGE news, and would be plastered everywhere.
Great!!!! Why didn't they just do away with the BCS completely. Here we go again with cupcake U going undefeated and making the championship game while much better teams sit and watch. Well we can no longer type MNC now we need to type MYTHICAL.n.c..Because it can't get any more mythical now. What a complete joke a system that is a hollow shell and really is no system at all. A bunch of sports writers that have their own regional bias and get to see very few of the teams actually play get to decide who plays just like it was only a few years back. What if the Coaches and the AP are split and the BCS breaks the tie yet in the final poll the Coaches and AP are still split? Wouldn't we still have a split championship? What a total sham and a shame!!!!!! :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
We needed "Podnunk St to be Crayola U along with Notre Dame losing" so it would lower USC SOS. If SOS was not in the equation the only way for LSU to get in to the Sugar Bowl would have been an OU loss. When OU lost to KState and dropped to #3 in both human polls they would have been odd man out, not LSU.
The 11-member BCS Presidential Oversight Committee is meeting today in Chicago, but there's a Pac-10 generated version that's going to be discussed today as well. If you read the other article listed above as well as this, you'll see that there is one solution in place just for 2004 to prevent a reoccurence of what happened in 2003, with discussions for changes from 2005 forward continuing. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that this arrangement will only be for 2004 and only to keep 2003 from reoccuring (as slim a chance as that might be). Keep in mind that schools schedule years in advance and have been scheduling the past couple of years with strength of schedule and quality wins in mind. Strength of schedule will remain, though quality wins on the face of it seems a little redundant ("quality wins" improve your strength of schedule already, so it's like getting partial double credit). I think you'll see a limited margin of victory reintroduced, too. Also, I'd like to see more of the BCS computer polls include overall conference strength of schedule versus non-conference opponents, yet another way to "punish" those schools who schedule UMass or Georgia Southern as non-conf games as well as their fellow conference teams that play those who schedule such softies. Believe me, a longer-term BCS fix is a ways off. Heck, that conference game issue alone is gonna be a war! Here's a CBS Sportsline article from yesterday on this: http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/7321926
