Search
It's BCS teams, not BCS leagues
By Bobby La Gesse
Date Posted: 2009-08-25
I’ve never been able to completely get behind the notion that teams in non-automatic qualifying conferences have a tougher time getting to a BCS bowl than teams in an automatic qualifying conference.
Does anyone really think Duke is more likely to play in the Orange Bowl than Utah?
Yes, the Utes will likely have to go undefeated to get into a BCS bowl (and as we know, that won’t guarantee them a spot in the championship game). But Utah is an elite program that’s averaged 9.8 wins the last five years.
The Blue Devils will have a hard time running the table in September. Nabbing the ACC’s automatic BCS bid in December is a little out of their league.
Utah is more likely to climb its mountain to the BCS than Duke, Iowa State, Indiana or Syracuse is to climb the BCS conference-affiliated one.
The black-and-white world of BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences is antiquated. Three non-automatic qualifying teams have made BCS bowls in the last four years. Teams don’t need to be in an automatic qualifying conference to get a BCS bid.
As Utah has shown, there is more than one path to a BCS bowl.
Instead of looking at college football through conference affiliations, why don’t we look at the strength of a program?
College football isn’t about BCS conferences, it’s about BCS teams.
Utah is a BCS quality program. Duke isn’t. You won’t be surprised if the Utes make a BCS bowl. You will if the Blue Devils do.
Some teams are expected to contend for a BCS bowl. Others wouldn’t shock you if they made it. The rest don’t have a shot. Big 12, Big 10, Mountain West Conference, Western Athletic Conference teams (see accompanying charts on page B3) are a part of each group. On the field, success isn’t dependant on what league a team plays in.
I believe we should judge teams based on if they are a BCS quality program. Do they consistently win? Would you expect them to get to a BCS bowl game? Are they consistently in the discussion for a BCS bowl bid?
That last point is a key one for me.
Only 10 teams get to play in a BCS bowl game. That’s a limited number. A lot of great football teams get left out. Last year, Texas Tech and TCU were BCS worthy and a handful of other teams — Mississippi, Oregon, Oregon State, Georgia — were discussed as possible BCS at-large teams.
If a team is seriously being talked about as an at-large selection, that means it is on the cusp of the BCS. Being a BCS bubble team in college football holds a lot of weight.
To me, it says a team is elite. It says the university has a BCS-quality football team.
I know most people don’t associate the term bubble with elite since NCAA Tournament bubble teams are average teams that really don’t have a shot at winning the national title.
In college football, being a BCS bubble team holds a lot more weight. The first two teams left out are just as likely to knock off the top teams as any of the at-large selections.
I know this approach to college football doesn’t deal with any of the financial inequities non-automatic qualifying conferences talk about. This isn’t supposed to deal with that. It’s supposed to deal with on the field results.
It also doesn’t fix the national championship problem. The BCS rarely gets the best two teams playing in the title game. But that’s a problem with the system. The system only works if two teams go undefeated.
There is nothing we can currently do with the system. Thanks to a new TV contract, the BCS is here through the end of the 2012 season.
That means no playoff. That means no easy answers. That means no change.
But you can change how you process college football.
Instead of spending the next four years in the static world of college football where league affiliation trumps all, enter the fluid world where a program’s success also is taken into account.
You might as well. We are going to be with the BCS for a while. And while it’s not perfect, we might as well try to get the most out of it that we can.
Bobby La Gesse can be reached at (515) 663-6929, or rlagesse@amestrib.com.
BCS quality programs
Here is a list of college football teams that staff writer Bobby La Gesse sees as BCS quality programs, or teams capable of being in the running for a BCS bowl on a consistent basis. Teams listed in alphabetical order and statistics are over the last 10 years.
Team W-L Bowls BCS Bowls Conference titles BCS titles
Alabama 76-52 7 2 1 0
Note: May have already overtaken LSU as the top SEC West program.
Auburn 85-40 8 1 1 0
Note: On this list because of past success. It’s Gene Chizik’s job to keep Tigers here.
Boise St. 108-20 9 1 8 0
Note: Win over Oklahoma in Fiesta Bowl is one of the best games this decade.
BC 88-39 10 0 0 0
Note: Eagles have played in the ACC Championship game the last two years.
Cincinnati 69-55 7 1 1 0
Note: This past season may be the first of several Big East titles for the Bearcats.
Florida 96-33 10 4 3 2
Note: Best program in America over the last few years.
Florida St. 90-38 10 5 5 1
Note: Trending down, but capable of getting to a BCS bowl every season.
Georgia 98-30 10 4 2 0
Note: One of the best programs in the toughest conference in America.
LSU 93-35 9 4 3 2
Note: In midst of best stretch in program history.
Miami (Fla.)92-33 9 4 4 1
Note: Still capable of a BCS run in a down league.
Michigan 86-38 9 4 3 0
Note: Rich Rodriguez should have Michigan winning again soon.
Ohio St. 51-12 9 5 5 1
Note: Class of the Big 10.
Oklahoma 109-24 10 7 6 1
Note: One of the most consistent programs in the country.
Oregon 86-23 9 1 2 0
Note: Looking to keep success going after coaching change.
Penn St. 76-65 6 2 2 0
Note: Joe Pa is still running strong in Happy Valley.
Tennessee85-41 8 1 0 0
Note: Lane Kiffin must turn those 85 wins into BCS bowls for Vols to stay here.
TCU 83-39 9 0 4 0
Note: Horned Frogs may be Texas’ second best program.
Texas 106-23 10 3 1 1
Note: Mack Brown brought Texas back to the national elite.
Texas Tech 82-45 9 0 0 0
Note: On this list based on last year.
USC 99-27 8 7 7 1
Note: Trojans have been to seven straight BCS bowl games.
Utah 85-36 8 2 4 0
Note: Few programs are better than the Utes.
Va. Tech 100-30 10 4 4 0
Note: Definition of a BCS quality team.
Wake Forest 63-58 5 1 1 0
Note: More likely to make a BCS bowl than several teams with better long-term records.
West Virginia 81-42 8 2 2 0
Note: Can the wins keep rolling in without Rich Rodriguez?
Could become BCS quality programs
Here is a list of college football teams that haven’t played at a BCS quality level for the past decade, but that staff writer Bobby La Gesse thinks could possibly do it in the next five years. Teams listed in alphabetical order and statistics are over the last 10 years.
Team W-L Bowls BCS Bowls Conference titles BCS titles
Arkansas 71-53 7 0 0 0
Note: Will Razorbacks move up or down in the SEC West under Bobby Petrino?
BYU 79-44 6 0 4 0
Note: Three straight double-digit winning seasons, but yet make serious run at BCS. California 77-55 6 0 0 0
Note: Have to beat USC to get to top status.
Clemson 76-48 9 0 0 0
Note: Tigers can never seem to live up to preseason hype.
Fresno St. 81-49 9 0 1 0
Note: Bulldogs capable of beating anybody, anytime, anywhere.
Georgia Tech 78-48 10 0 0 0
Note: In a year or two, Paul Johnson may have win a conference title.
Hawaii 83-48 7 1 2 0
Note: Can Greg McMakin coach Hawaii to another BCS bowl?
Iowa 69-49 7 1 2 0
Note: Consistently puts itself near top of the Big 10.
Kansas 57-62 4 1 0 0
Note: The Jayhawks could be ready to control the Big 12 North.
Louisville 86-38 8 1 3 0
Note: Last two seasons tough after smooth transition into Big East.
Mississippi 62-58 5 0 0 0
Note: Another year or two like 2008 and the Rebels will be other list.
Missouri 66-56 5 0 0 0
Note: Can the Tigers keep up their recent success?
Nebraska 86-41 8 2 0 0
Note: Struggles of last few years appear to be behind them.
North Carolina 71-48 3 0 0 0
Note: UNC may be on verge of great things under Butch Davis.
Notre Dame 69-53 6 3 N/A 0
Note: Too hit or miss to be considered a BCS-quality program.
Oklahoma St. 63-58 6 0 0 0
Note: This could be the year the Cowboys finally make a BCS bowl.
Oregon St. 79-49 8 1 1 0
Note: Looking for first outright conference title since 1964.
Pittsburgh 69-52 6 1 1 0
Note: Must build off of last season.
Rutgers 50-69 4 0 0 0
Note: Rutgers must win a Big East title if it’s to join the elite.
South Florida 74-43 4 0 0 0
Note: Another school capable of being a power in the wide-open Big East.
Virginia 69-55 7 0 0 0
Note: Great recent history, but tough to tell where future is headed.
Wisconsin 86-44 9 1 1 0
Note: Surprisingly has been to only one BCS bowl in last decade.
By Bobby La Gesse
Date Posted: 2009-08-25
Bobby La Gesse covers Iowa State football and women's basketball for the Tribune.
I’ve never been able to completely get behind the notion that teams in non-automatic qualifying conferences have a tougher time getting to a BCS bowl than teams in an automatic qualifying conference.
Does anyone really think Duke is more likely to play in the Orange Bowl than Utah?
Yes, the Utes will likely have to go undefeated to get into a BCS bowl (and as we know, that won’t guarantee them a spot in the championship game). But Utah is an elite program that’s averaged 9.8 wins the last five years.
The Blue Devils will have a hard time running the table in September. Nabbing the ACC’s automatic BCS bid in December is a little out of their league.
Utah is more likely to climb its mountain to the BCS than Duke, Iowa State, Indiana or Syracuse is to climb the BCS conference-affiliated one.
The black-and-white world of BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences is antiquated. Three non-automatic qualifying teams have made BCS bowls in the last four years. Teams don’t need to be in an automatic qualifying conference to get a BCS bid.
As Utah has shown, there is more than one path to a BCS bowl.
Instead of looking at college football through conference affiliations, why don’t we look at the strength of a program?
College football isn’t about BCS conferences, it’s about BCS teams.
Utah is a BCS quality program. Duke isn’t. You won’t be surprised if the Utes make a BCS bowl. You will if the Blue Devils do.
Some teams are expected to contend for a BCS bowl. Others wouldn’t shock you if they made it. The rest don’t have a shot. Big 12, Big 10, Mountain West Conference, Western Athletic Conference teams (see accompanying charts on page B3) are a part of each group. On the field, success isn’t dependant on what league a team plays in.
I believe we should judge teams based on if they are a BCS quality program. Do they consistently win? Would you expect them to get to a BCS bowl game? Are they consistently in the discussion for a BCS bowl bid?
That last point is a key one for me.
Only 10 teams get to play in a BCS bowl game. That’s a limited number. A lot of great football teams get left out. Last year, Texas Tech and TCU were BCS worthy and a handful of other teams — Mississippi, Oregon, Oregon State, Georgia — were discussed as possible BCS at-large teams.
If a team is seriously being talked about as an at-large selection, that means it is on the cusp of the BCS. Being a BCS bubble team in college football holds a lot of weight.
To me, it says a team is elite. It says the university has a BCS-quality football team.
I know most people don’t associate the term bubble with elite since NCAA Tournament bubble teams are average teams that really don’t have a shot at winning the national title.
In college football, being a BCS bubble team holds a lot more weight. The first two teams left out are just as likely to knock off the top teams as any of the at-large selections.
I know this approach to college football doesn’t deal with any of the financial inequities non-automatic qualifying conferences talk about. This isn’t supposed to deal with that. It’s supposed to deal with on the field results.
It also doesn’t fix the national championship problem. The BCS rarely gets the best two teams playing in the title game. But that’s a problem with the system. The system only works if two teams go undefeated.
There is nothing we can currently do with the system. Thanks to a new TV contract, the BCS is here through the end of the 2012 season.
That means no playoff. That means no easy answers. That means no change.
But you can change how you process college football.
Instead of spending the next four years in the static world of college football where league affiliation trumps all, enter the fluid world where a program’s success also is taken into account.
You might as well. We are going to be with the BCS for a while. And while it’s not perfect, we might as well try to get the most out of it that we can.
Bobby La Gesse can be reached at (515) 663-6929, or rlagesse@amestrib.com.
BCS quality programs
Here is a list of college football teams that staff writer Bobby La Gesse sees as BCS quality programs, or teams capable of being in the running for a BCS bowl on a consistent basis. Teams listed in alphabetical order and statistics are over the last 10 years.
Team W-L Bowls BCS Bowls Conference titles BCS titles
Alabama 76-52 7 2 1 0
Note: May have already overtaken LSU as the top SEC West program.
Auburn 85-40 8 1 1 0
Note: On this list because of past success. It’s Gene Chizik’s job to keep Tigers here.
Boise St. 108-20 9 1 8 0
Note: Win over Oklahoma in Fiesta Bowl is one of the best games this decade.
BC 88-39 10 0 0 0
Note: Eagles have played in the ACC Championship game the last two years.
Cincinnati 69-55 7 1 1 0
Note: This past season may be the first of several Big East titles for the Bearcats.
Florida 96-33 10 4 3 2
Note: Best program in America over the last few years.
Florida St. 90-38 10 5 5 1
Note: Trending down, but capable of getting to a BCS bowl every season.
Georgia 98-30 10 4 2 0
Note: One of the best programs in the toughest conference in America.
LSU 93-35 9 4 3 2
Note: In midst of best stretch in program history.
Miami (Fla.)92-33 9 4 4 1
Note: Still capable of a BCS run in a down league.
Michigan 86-38 9 4 3 0
Note: Rich Rodriguez should have Michigan winning again soon.
Ohio St. 51-12 9 5 5 1
Note: Class of the Big 10.
Oklahoma 109-24 10 7 6 1
Note: One of the most consistent programs in the country.
Oregon 86-23 9 1 2 0
Note: Looking to keep success going after coaching change.
Penn St. 76-65 6 2 2 0
Note: Joe Pa is still running strong in Happy Valley.
Tennessee85-41 8 1 0 0
Note: Lane Kiffin must turn those 85 wins into BCS bowls for Vols to stay here.
TCU 83-39 9 0 4 0
Note: Horned Frogs may be Texas’ second best program.
Texas 106-23 10 3 1 1
Note: Mack Brown brought Texas back to the national elite.
Texas Tech 82-45 9 0 0 0
Note: On this list based on last year.
USC 99-27 8 7 7 1
Note: Trojans have been to seven straight BCS bowl games.
Utah 85-36 8 2 4 0
Note: Few programs are better than the Utes.
Va. Tech 100-30 10 4 4 0
Note: Definition of a BCS quality team.
Wake Forest 63-58 5 1 1 0
Note: More likely to make a BCS bowl than several teams with better long-term records.
West Virginia 81-42 8 2 2 0
Note: Can the wins keep rolling in without Rich Rodriguez?
Could become BCS quality programs
Here is a list of college football teams that haven’t played at a BCS quality level for the past decade, but that staff writer Bobby La Gesse thinks could possibly do it in the next five years. Teams listed in alphabetical order and statistics are over the last 10 years.
Team W-L Bowls BCS Bowls Conference titles BCS titles
Arkansas 71-53 7 0 0 0
Note: Will Razorbacks move up or down in the SEC West under Bobby Petrino?
BYU 79-44 6 0 4 0
Note: Three straight double-digit winning seasons, but yet make serious run at BCS. California 77-55 6 0 0 0
Note: Have to beat USC to get to top status.
Clemson 76-48 9 0 0 0
Note: Tigers can never seem to live up to preseason hype.
Fresno St. 81-49 9 0 1 0
Note: Bulldogs capable of beating anybody, anytime, anywhere.
Georgia Tech 78-48 10 0 0 0
Note: In a year or two, Paul Johnson may have win a conference title.
Hawaii 83-48 7 1 2 0
Note: Can Greg McMakin coach Hawaii to another BCS bowl?
Iowa 69-49 7 1 2 0
Note: Consistently puts itself near top of the Big 10.
Kansas 57-62 4 1 0 0
Note: The Jayhawks could be ready to control the Big 12 North.
Louisville 86-38 8 1 3 0
Note: Last two seasons tough after smooth transition into Big East.
Mississippi 62-58 5 0 0 0
Note: Another year or two like 2008 and the Rebels will be other list.
Missouri 66-56 5 0 0 0
Note: Can the Tigers keep up their recent success?
Nebraska 86-41 8 2 0 0
Note: Struggles of last few years appear to be behind them.
North Carolina 71-48 3 0 0 0
Note: UNC may be on verge of great things under Butch Davis.
Notre Dame 69-53 6 3 N/A 0
Note: Too hit or miss to be considered a BCS-quality program.
Oklahoma St. 63-58 6 0 0 0
Note: This could be the year the Cowboys finally make a BCS bowl.
Oregon St. 79-49 8 1 1 0
Note: Looking for first outright conference title since 1964.
Pittsburgh 69-52 6 1 1 0
Note: Must build off of last season.
Rutgers 50-69 4 0 0 0
Note: Rutgers must win a Big East title if it’s to join the elite.
South Florida 74-43 4 0 0 0
Note: Another school capable of being a power in the wide-open Big East.
Virginia 69-55 7 0 0 0
Note: Great recent history, but tough to tell where future is headed.
Wisconsin 86-44 9 1 1 0
Note: Surprisingly has been to only one BCS bowl in last decade.
| Comments |
| TopFrog This article is too logical so will be dismissed by many BCS protectionists and apologists. Do away with conferences and go with regional divisions, take the champs, a couple of at-large teams and have a playoff, I say. Go Frogs! 8/26/09 ArtDirector "Instead of looking at college football through conference affiliations, why don’t we look at the strength of a program?" The real problem is it doesn't really matter how the teams are looked at ... it matters how the teams are PAID. As hapless as Duke, Syracuse, and other BCS bottom feeders may be, they will continue to be paid more money than quality programs who get into BCS games, but don't have don't belong to right conference. The sad truth is even if you want to refer to BCS teams instead of conferences, Iowa State will make more money than any outsider team, even if they've won an outright conference championship. 8/26/09 |
|
We welcome comments on all sides of all issues. We want our comment forums to be a respectful, comfortable place for people of all opinions to discuss topics of interest. Toward that end, we will not approve comments that contain profanity, obscenity, libel, name-calling, or personal attack. We reserve the right to disapprove any comment for any reason.
|