According to the convoluted formulas of the BCS, even if Stanford does not lose another game, they could be shut out of representing the PAC10 in the Rose Bowl. I would have to think that this would make Harbaugh a very unhappy camper, and I wouldn't blame him. This is nuts.
OT: An 11-1 Stanford team could be shut out of the Rose Bowl
Utah is only months from joining the new Pac-12, meaning the Utes could get to their first Rose Bowl before Arizona, which joined in 1978.
Stanford has a better chance of making the Rose Bowl through BSU, TCU or Utah making the NC game than from Oregon losing twice. That is wild. This could just as easily affect the b10 in coming years, especially given the new conference allignment and championship game. If you have 2 top 10 teams from one division, the one that doesn't make the conference title will likely not be going to the Rose Bowl.
I think the rule says they only have to do it once every 4 years, so if it happens this year, we don't have to worry about it until 2014-15.
I heard this about MSU back when OSU was #1.
This is nothing new with the BCS. Remember in 2004, we played Texas in the Rose Bowl. USC went to the national title game so the Rose Bowl got an at large team for us to play. They chose a 10-1 Texas team instead of going with the second place Pac 10 team in California, who was also 10-1.
Nothing new. The BCS is still a joke.
What about 2001 when Colorado beat Nebraska head-to-head and won the Big 12 championship game, but were behind NU in the final BCS rankings? That year, non-conference champ NU played in the national championship game (and was spanked by Miami) while Colorado received an at-large bid to the Fiesta Bowl (and was spanked by Oregon).
In the end, Oregon had the much better argument. Only one loss. Colorado had lost twice earlier in the year, and at the time, no two-loss team had played for a national championship game.
Good ol' Mel Kiper, though, argued stridently for the Buffaloes, despite their two losses.
If the Pac 10 or Big 10 loses a team to the national title game, then an eligible non-BCS team will take their slot. In 2004, Texas or Cal could've been chosen.
Maybe they should have thought of that before they lost a game.
They're not going to win their own conference...so what's the problem here?
Yeah, you know everyone's talking about replacing Rich Rod with Harbaugh, but I really question his decision making as a coach when he thought the best strategy was to lose.
Good one-loss teams get left out of BCS bowls every tear. If Stanford goes 11-1, it will be on the short list of likely candidates for an at-large bid to one of the other BCS bowls (along with the #2 teams from the B10, SEC and B12). UM would be thrilled to be in that position and Stanford should too.
The reasoning behind the rule is that the Rose Bowl gets to pick two teams before any other bowls, forcing the other bowls to take the non-BCS teams. If the NCG is Oregon vs. Auburn, you are going to have OSU/Wisconsin vs. TCU in the Rose Bowl, and Stanford gets to play one of Oklahoma, Alabama, or VaTech.
Is Geaux Blue going to delete this because it's not about Michigan sports?
/feeling prickish today
I understand the OUTRAGE. But...I think its overblown.... BFD. The BCS is stupid but not because its going to deprive us of PAC10 vs. Big10 in the rose bowl...its stupid because since its inception its made these bowls mean nothing from a historical stand point. In 9 years since the BCSs creation the Rose Bowl has only featured Pac10 vs. Big10 5 times....the Rose Bowl as we all grew up rooting for doesn't exist anymore. The BCS is stupid because its conflugrated, nonsensical, and doesn't give us the best two teams for the title more times than not.
Before Michigan and OSU got obliterated in 06, there was a good case of Michigan over Florida to face OSU again in the NT game.
Had Michigan destroyed USC and OSU beaten Florida, I'm sure we all would still be furious that we got shut out of the BCS championship game.
2000 was effed up (FSU over Miami and Washington, Miami gave FSU their only loss that year)
2001-2002 NU didn't win their conference and were ranked 4 in both human polls yet went to title game,
2003-2004 OU, LSU, USC all 1 loss but Oklahoma didn't win their conference
2004-2005 Auburn, Utah, Boise, OU and USC all undefeated and OU v USC is a stinker because OU shouldn't have been there.
2006 Michigan/Florida/Wiscy/Louisville all one loss and Boise undefeated yet FLa goes onto the championship game.
2008-2009 big 12 kerfuffle
last year with the "separate but equal bowl"
7 serious controversies over a 10 year span is not "more right than not.." IMO.
11-1 Stanford is probably not going to happen.
I think they're a great team and playing great football, but the next 4 games are not gimme's, even for Harbaugh.
Arizona, Oregon State and Cal (at Cal) are not exactly going to lay down on the ground for Harbaugh and the fighting trees.
But yeah, if they go 11-1 and no Rose Bowl, that sucks.
They've looked good so far, but assuming they'll win out based on what has happened already is a stretch. They've only beaten one team with a winning record this year (5-3 USC on a last second field goal). If they can beat Arizona this week it looks a lot more probable, but right now 11-1 is a pretty big assumption.
Oregon State is BSU's second best win? What is their best win? There's always VaTech, but they were obviously way overrated at the start of the season. Or does the BCS standings not readjust quality of opponent? (As in, does the BCS still treat BSU's win over VaTech as a win over the #10 team or does it reassess how good VaTech is after they went on to suck it up.)
Although in Boise's defense, Virginia Tech looks like they are by far the best team in the ACC, so at this point this might still count as a victory over a 11-2 BCS team, which is what Virginia Tech was expected to be before the season started.
Right, I'm not criticizing BSU for scheduling VaTech. I actually think BSU does a pretty admirable job of trying to schedule high profile, tough opponents for their nonconference schedule. I was just curious as to whether the BCS rankings (in terms of strength of schedule) reflect how tough the opponent was perceived to be when they played or if the quality of that win is readjusted to reflect how tough that opponent ends up seeming.
Cool, thanks. That's what I was thinking. It makes much more sense that that's how it would work, but I just wasn't sure.
if Stanford beat OSU in the Rose Bowl?
Do you mean good "KABOOM!?!" or bad "KABOOM!?!"?
I think I'd be pretty happy/satisfied if Stanford beat OSU. (And no, I would not be salivating at the thought of Harbaugh coming here. I want Rich Rod to have one more year regardless of how the season finishes up.)
What would it look like if OSU beat Stanford?
And in the old system, if both teams win out, Oregon would be in the Rose Bowl over Standford. You don't win your conference, you don't get the autobid.
BCS is stupid, but for many other reasons.
This makes me a saaaaaaaaaaaaaad panda.
JHC, still another reason I HATE everything about the BCS.
This is absurd and obscene.
How is the game between # 3 TCU and #5 Utah not televised nationally?!
The MWC has their own TV station. It's why you never see the MWC on TV unless the MWC team is on the road or neutral field.
That should help them in the nation's spotlight.
11-1 Stanford = BCS Bowl (not rose)
They would take that.