Oklahoma State came REALLY close to the BCS title game

NUance

NUance

Assistant Coach
Man this thing was close. Very close. And it came down to the human vote. OSU had the edge in SOS (#9 versus #42 for Bama). So the BCS computers liked OSU more than Alabama: The computer rankings for OSU: Anderson/Hester #2, Jeff Sagarin #3, Richard Billingsley #2, Colley Matrix #2, Kenneth Massey#2, and Dr. Peter Wolfe #3. LINK

But Alabama beat OSU in both human polls. The Coaches Poll was very tight: Alabama = 1399, OSU = 1367. The Harris Poll was also close: Alabama = 2723. OSU = 2654. LINK (AP Poll is no longer used.)

In the end, it would have taken a very small number of people—I'm guessing 50 or so—to sway the outcome. Frankly, I would have rather seen OSU in the game than give Bama a second crack at it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seed the top 4 BCS teams in BCS bowls, then have the winners of those two games in the national championship game.

So, for example, this year LSU would play Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, Bama would play OSU in the Fiesta Bowl, and then there would be an extra game for the winners.

 
krill said:
Seed the top 4 BCS teams in BCS bowls, then have the winners of those two games in the national championship game.

So, for example, this year LSU would play Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, Bama would play OSU in the Fiesta Bowl, and then there would be an extra game for the winners.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be ideal. But still the #5 team would b!^@h and moan. I guess there's just no way you could get away from that.

 
NUance said:
krill said:
Seed the top 4 BCS teams in BCS bowls, then have the winners of those two games in the national championship game.

So, for example, this year LSU would play Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, Bama would play OSU in the Fiesta Bowl, and then there would be an extra game for the winners.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be ideal. But still the #5 team would b!^@h and moan. I guess there's just no way you could get away from that.
Click to expand...
I have less sympathy for a #5 team than a close #3.

+1 is simply a 4 team playoff, but I guess they want to avoid the P word. When I first heard about it, I thought they meant play all the bowls as usual with conference tie-ins and other random matchups in bowls, then play one more game between 1 & 2. That seemed dumb to me as there'd just as likely be controversies about the top 2 after the bowls as before, but a 4 team playoff sounds fine with me.

 
I'd be better with a four-team playoff than the current system but I'm still in favor of an eight-team playoff.

Four teams would have been perfect this year but last year you would have had the same arguement about the #4 team that you have about the #2 team this year. Auburn, Oregon and TCU were undefeated but then you had a log-jam of one-loss teams: Wisconsin, Stanford, Ohio St., Michigan St., and even Boise St.

My proposal: Eight team playoff with those eight teams going to the four BCS bowls. Once those teams are determined (like they were yesterday) all the other teams can be selected for the other bowls so you don't lose that part. You take the conference champions as long as they're rated in the Top 10 (or maybe 12) of the BCS standings - the Big East and ACC don't automatically get in for having the #15 and #23 rated teams. The remaining spots are determined by the highest-rated teams in the BCS rankings. Those eight teams are seeded with the higher-seeded team hosting the game either one week or two weeks after the conference championship games (one week would be better but two might fit around finals better). The four losing teams would be rematched in two of the BCS bowls with the winners being paired in the other two bowls. The winners play in the National Championship Game a week later. Bowl system still in place, season isn't any longer, and we get an actual national champion.

 
I would have rather seen Oklahoma State in the championship games, especially with the way they beat Oklahoma.

 
NUance said:
krill said:
Seed the top 4 BCS teams in BCS bowls, then have the winners of those two games in the national championship game.

So, for example, this year LSU would play Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, Bama would play OSU in the Fiesta Bowl, and then there would be an extra game for the winners.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be ideal. But still the #5 team would b!^@h and moan. I guess there's just no way you could get away from that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the first argument against a +1 is always going to be "well, we'll just have the same fight over over #5", then if non-AQ's and non-conference champions (i.e. Stanford / Bama) really deserve consideration.

Personally I believe the only way it's ever going to work is an 8 team playoff where the first round is in the bowl system, and the B10 / Pac-12 are guaranteed seeds that play each other in the Rose Bowl every year. Keep in mind the most vocal opponents of any type of +1 or playoff is the B10 and Pac-12 because they don't want to flush the Rose Bowl tradition down the toilet. Then you have the SEC, Big 12, and ACC champs keep their tie-ins to the Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowl, seeded against three at-large teams.

 
Will Okie Lite have wristbands and shirts made for next season that say: .009 ??

 
Has anyone seen an article calculating how it would have played out if OSU has not received the 5 votes for #4 and one vote for #5?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top