SEC could have 3 Teams in BCS
No more than two teams from a conference may be selected, regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings.
Based on that rule, if LSU and Alabama both win out their regular seasons (which is probable but obviously not guaranteed) and then Georgia somehow finds a way to win the SEC Championship over LSU, the SEC would likely be able to send a 1 loss LSU and a 1 loss Alabama to the NC game (SEC NC Thread) AND send Georgia to another BCS game as an AQ. In my opinion, the fact that this scenario is even possible is just another reason why the current BCS system is ridiculous. Georgia is not even the third best team in their conference, but they are a fluke away from getting a BCS bid. I am still yet to hear a reasonable argument for why we can't just take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. That gives us 7(!!!) meaningful games, which we can still call bowls and rotate them between sites, instead of just 5 (only 1 of which is truly meaningful). We can still also have all of the other bowls for everybody else that nobody watches unless your team is in it. So, if you aren't a top team, your motor city bowl is just as meaningless as it used to be. Another benefit to the playoff system is that there would be less pressure to be perfect, so we might see fewer cupcakes in the non-conference schedules.
Anyway, those are my rants on both the SEC and BCS merged into one post. Discuss amongst yourselves.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
Do you realize that Arkansas is also ranked #3?
November 20th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
Well they play LSU next week so there shouldn't be a 1-2-3 SEC showing. But you never know, if Arkansas wins...
November 20th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
if arkansas wins, i wouldn't be surprised to see bama-ark-lsu as 1-2-3.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
That's probably not relevant, since they wouldn't be anymore if LSU goes undefeated.
November 20th, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^
Yeah, that's why I said that Georgia is not even the third best team in their own conference.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
Fuck the SEC. I remember when Michigan went 6-1 against the SEC from 1998-2007.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^
November 20th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
Exactly my point, how great would it be to have a clear champion each year? It would also force the Boise States and Houstons to either shut up or put up because they would have to win three games against elite talent (which I don't think they could do) but at least they might get the shot then.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
I'd laugh my ass off, if true madness happened this weekend and Houston wound up in the championship game, and they ended the SEC's streak by beating LSU.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^
which begs the question: what would be worse, two sec teams or houston in the nc game?? both make me want to vomit.
November 20th, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^
I'd rather see Houston. I already watched LSU beat Bama once this year!
November 20th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
So you're saying if Georgia beats LSU in the SEC championship game LSU will still go to the National championship? Makes no sense.
November 20th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^
2 out of LSU, Bama and Arkansas will play for the championship IMHO. Which 2 is still to be determined.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
You really think LSU would still be ranked 1 or 2 in the BCS after losing to shitty ass Georgia?
November 20th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
November 20th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^
Everyone with one loss except possibly Boise. That's how they've behaved in the past with an end-of-season loss and I don't know why it'd be different this year.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^
Because that's nothing like a 11-1 Michigan who's only loss was to the number 1 team in the national.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^
The problems you refer to are caused by several problems, none of which is the lack of a playoff.
First, there should be no limit on the number of teams in one conference that can get a bid. I am no SEC fan, but if they have three top-10 teams, they should all get bids.
Second, the Big East shouldn’t get an auto-bid. Their auto-bid is taking up a spot that should go to a more worthy team that has proven itself on the football field.
Third, conference championship games create anomalies. As you noted, Georgia is probably the 4th-best team in the SEC, but they will get to play for a title, for no other reason than being in the comparatively weak East division.
You could have a playoff without solving any of these issues. And you could solve those issues without having a playoff.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
to have automatic bids if there isn't going to be a playoff. It doesn't make sense to do that but they continue to do so.
November 20th, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^
There is no way feasible that I could disagree with you more. First, everyone in the media believes the SEC to be all-powerful and untouchable. If there were no limit to the amount of conference teams in the BCS then we would see 5+ SEC teams play in BCS-Bowl games over the next 5 or so years until the rest of the country boycotts the bowl games. Plus, how do you prove their worth when they are only playing each other. Second, without an autobid, would we ever see a team from a "meh" conference have a chance to compete at a national level in an already screwed up system.
However, I do think that conference championships would be worthless if there were a playoff system.
November 20th, 2011 at 4:56 PM ^
Oakapple, you are correct that my two rants are only loosely related. I guess my connection was that the current BCS system sucks. At least a playoff systems let's the top teams determine, on the field, who deserves to be in the championship. Right now, everyone is going to be annoyed if the NC is an SEC rematch game, but if the rematch occurred because LSU and Bama both made it through a seeded playoff, then most rational people could accept that the SEC deserved to have both teams there. Likewise, with the UM OSU situation a few years back, both teams would have been in the playoff and could have earned a right to play eachother again, instead of every Michigan fan feeling we got screwed (sans the bowl outcomes).
November 20th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
If LSU loses to Georgia, they'll fall to at least number three, so that won't be a problem. The scenario is actually possible if Arkansas beats LSU on Saturday and Georgia beats whichever team (likely Alabama as the relevant tiebreaker would be BCS standings) that comes out of the SEC West. If all the games are close, it's possible that LSU and Arkansas could have a rematch for the title.
That said, it's really, really unlikely that all those things occur. Voters would be reluctant to set up that matchup, so unless Stanford, VA Tech, and Oklahoma State all lose with only four games remaining between the three, I think we're safe.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^
I have a hard time believing that after all of the talk a few years about having a conference rematch that they'd put Alabama and LSU in the title game.
I think you're more likely to see Stanford in the title game, especially if Luck wins the Heisman. A loss to Oregon is much better than a loss to Georgia or Arkansas.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^
I'd much rather watch Andrew Luck than a re-match of the most boring 1v.2 game I can remember, but if both Bama and LSU win out I would completely understand why there should be a re-match. Bama's loss would be more "quality" than any of the competition.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
Quality losses are not how rankings are established (see '06 Michigan).
November 20th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
is that Stanford will not win it's conference. Oregon has the head-to-head tiebraker so unless they lose to Oregon State they go to the Pac-12 Championship (against a poor opponent because USC is banned).
November 20th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^
the argument was how could a team that didnt win its own league play for the National Championship? All the writers, coaches and TV poo pahs RAILED against a Mich OSU rematch...Now that its SEC teams? All those arguments seemed to have disappeared..I HATE the BCS...blow the thing UP
November 20th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
Not surprisingly, the rules are different when it comes to SEC schools. Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma 2003 didn't win conference titles because they both got destroyed in their conference title games, yet they both still played for the National Championship.
In 2007, LSU already had an ugly loss to the mighty Kentucky Wildcats. Then they lost their last regular season game to Arkansas 50-48. They still went on to play for the national title because every team in the top 5 had 2 losses. It didn't surprise me in the least that an SEC school became the first ever 2 loss national championship team.
I think a major problem is the love SEC schools get in the polls. Two weeks ago, Alabama dropped just one spot from #2 to #3 after their overtime loss to LSU. Could you imagine a 1 loss Michigan team or a 1 loss Big Ten team dropping just one spot in the polls?
November 20th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
Alabama is #1 in Sagarin/Predictor and #2 in Sagarin/ELO. I don't disagree with your premise here but this is one time the voters got it right.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
Remember when Michigan and ohio were 1-2 and we lost the last game? Urban Meyer made the argument that "they already played and had their chance", this referring to Michigan. People also made case that Michigan didn't win their conference. So, I say to the scenario above, HELL NO. If Georgia wins the SEC title, no SEC team should be in the BCS Championship game. The unwritten rules can't change to tailor to the SEC. I'm tired of that shady conference. I would rather see Houston vs Boise St.
November 20th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
I don't think many people on here are particularly fond of the potential scenario. That is kind of my point, and it is why I think that an 8 team playoff would be more fair and reduce the perpetual late season squabbling that the BCS was supposed to end once and for all.
November 20th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
Conference champs would still get a bid. I can't think of any system where the conference champs not getting a playoff spot would be a good idea.
November 20th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
Problem is, then you still could end up with a Georgia getting in there as the fourth best team in their conference but having won the conference championship. A legit power conference winner will almost always be among the top 8 at the end of the season anyway. I could live with a conference champ AQ ONLY IF there is a rule stating that the champ must be ranked in the top 12 AND no other team from their conference is in the top 8. If these criteria cannot be met, then they don't deserve an auto bid (I am looking at you Big East for part 1 and SEC for part 2).
November 20th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
You don't belong in the BCS.
Tough luck.
November 20th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^
Alabama lost 9-6 at home to the #1 team in the country
We lost 42-39 on the road to the #1 team in the country
We didn't get a rematch. No one should. The precedent was set. The SEC is attempting to set themselves as a Big 12 above the Big 6 where they get special treatment over the other big 6 leagues
November 20th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
they are the two best teams in the country.
It's not even a question like it was when you had Florida and Michigan both with one loss.
And using 2006 as an example is flawed, because the Big Ten got brutally exposed.
November 20th, 2011 at 5:54 PM ^
an example is only flawed because of hindsight. You never know who may be exposed until the games are played. The SEC might be exposed in this years bowl games.
November 20th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
Personally, if they try this "SEC = god" crap with an all-SEC championship, I'll encourage everyone to protest in the only way that matters.
Don't watch.
November 20th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
Then find a team who wants to slug it out with either LSU or Alabama. Nobody's raising their hand.
November 20th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^
I wonder if the SEC bias can be attributed to numerous "bad sector" errors lately....