Well?

I'd say yes. If Louisville wins out, I'm guessing that they will be in the title game so.. if they don't and another team in their division finishes undefeated you would have to give them the same level of respect since the essentially have the same type of schedule. (Louisville had the better non-conference schedule but, not as though it was brutal or anything). Plus, if they win out, they will have beaten the #3 team and West Virginia.

Now, if you want to argue if Louisville should even be at #3... that is a different discussion I think.

One of the main reasons I don't think anyone should be ranked until week 4 or 5..

Yes... undefeated in a BCS conference warrants a championship berth. Especially when the Big East will most likely finish the year with 2 one loss teams if Rutgers goes undefeated.

One of the main reasons I don't think anyone should be ranked until week 4 or 5..

Even if they started rankings in week 3 or 4, Rutgers or Boise State still wouldn't have been ranked very high.

I voted yes, but I think there's a case to be made for "no".

I think whenever possible the title game should be two undefeateds. So I would even go so far as to say that if Boise State and Ohio State are the last two 0-loss teams, they should play.

Duke and Florida International are the remaining winless teams in I-A, and I believe that a bowl game should be made just for them, assuming that they're still winless at season's end. One champ, one doormat. I want symmetry.

Since college football puts a premium on going undefeated, and Rutgers is in a BCS conference, I say yes. If college football fans don't like that, so much the better. Maybe we'd finally get a playoff system out of it.

Even if they started rankings in week 3 or 4, Rutgers or Boise State still wouldn't have been ranked very high.

That would at least be an improvement. I don't even think Rutgers was ranked until week 5. Hell... look at Wisconsin... same situation as Rutgers. What if they would have beat Michigan earlier.. they weren't ranked so, at best they would be what, #8ish right now.

Duke and Florida International are the remaining winless teams in I-A, and I believe that a bowl game should be made just for them, assuming that they're still winless at season's end. One champ, one doormat. I want symmetry.

That's an excellent idea. In keeping with the symmetrical approach, fans should recieve hundreds of dollars for the honor of attending the game.

Especially when the Big East will most likely finish the year with 2 one loss teams if Rutgers goes undefeated.
That would be impossible.

yes because they will have played and beaten 2 good teams and a couple of average teams. i don't like the question tho because it identifies a very flawed system. the 2 best teams decided by a process of a playoff system should play. i don't think rutgers is one of the 2 best teams in the country but then who is to say Ohio State is the best team either.

I hope so. Like an earlier poster said a Rutgers national title game might actually convince the powers that be to implement a playoff system.

(There is no way they will beat Louisville or WVU so it is kind of a moot point anyways)

That's an excellent idea. In keeping with the symmetrical approach, fans should recieve hundreds of dollars for the honor of attending the game.
I just got my check for the Rutgers-Pitt game that I attended, and I missed the entire first quarter. What? You haven't gotten paid yet?

I don't think they will beat Louisville, but I can't wait to watch it Thursday!

Rutgers actually matches up a lot better with Louisville than West Virginia in my opinion. WVU racked up over 300 yards rushing the other night and Rutgers should be able to do close to the same with Rice and Leonard. Defensively WVU got absolutely no pressure and on top of that let the UL wide receivers run free. Rutgers has a physical front seven and should be able to get good pressure. In the past Brohm has been a little rattled in such situations. I'm not really sure how good the secondary is, but they at least seemed to handle Palko for the most part.

The biggest factor, however, is that last year Louisville was a different team away from home. Remember, this is a team that got blown out by South Florida last year. They got punched in the mouth and just stayed down against a fairly average but physical team. They may have gotten over that, and if so, they'll probably beat Rutgers. I definitely expect Rutgers to apply the punch. We'll see if Louisville gets up this time.

As to the actual topic, I voted yes, but I don't think Rutgers can get by both WVU and Louisville.

My immediate thought to this poll was that there is no way that Rutgers beats Louisville and West Virginia. I believe that still, but if they can beat both of those teams and finish 12-0, then they probably do deserve to play in the title game.

It's too early to say for me -- there's a lot of football left to play. I would lean toward yes since they do need to beat both Louisville and West Virginia.

But let's not pretend -- the Big East is not a BCS conference. Can anyone honestly look at the Big East and say it deserves the same recognition as the SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-10? I think it's more of a BCS Lite conference -- I would give the same credence to a Big East team going undefeated as say a Mountain West team. I don't think going undefeated in the Big East is worthy of an automatic ticket to the pseudo national title game.

Here's my rant as well -- I don't see how anyone could argue that Rutgers automatically belongs in the title game with an undefeated season AND oppose a playoff. The current bowl system is not about who is undefeated and won the most game. The current system is about choosing the two best teams subjectively. If Texas or Auburn/Florida wins out, how could anyone who advocates the current bowl system say Rutgers belongs in the title game over one of those teams?

I think Rutgers unfortunately needs to take one for the greater good. If Rutgers and Boise State can go undefeated and the national title game can get together one or two one-loss teams, maybe people will finally pull their head out and decided to determine the national title on the field and not in their imaginations.

I also think that if pigs can teach themselves to fly, they should also be able to face Ohio State in the Championship game.

It's too early to say for me -- there's a lot of football left to play. I would lean toward yes since they do need to beat both Louisville and West Virginia.

But let's not pretend -- the Big East is not a BCS conference. Can anyone honestly look at the Big East and say it deserves the same recognition as the SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac-10? I think it's more of a BCS Lite conference -- I would give the same credence to a Big East team going undefeated as say a Mountain West team.

Including the ACC in the same sentence as the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and PAC-10... leaves you credibility challenged. Seriously, have you been paying attention this season? The ACC is much more BCS-lite than the Big East.

James Madison would annihilate any I-A team except Ohio State and Troy, so I think OSU and Troy should be in the national championship game.

If they win out, yes they should, so the poll is worded correctly.

As for the 'will they', so far in the history of the BCS, no team ranked lower than #5 in the BCS standings at this point of the season has ever made the championship game.

I'm voting no. If you state winning a BCS conference and going undefeated is enough to get in a title game on its own - why should USC schedule Notre Dame? Why should Texas and Ohio State ever play? Cal-Tennesee? Michigan-ND? USC-Arkansas? Forget about it.

All major conference teams will turn into Bill Snyders and start scheduling three cupcakes. The *only* reason to schedule tough non-conference opponents is to provide you with another chance at a title if you lose a game. If that goes away because West Virginia, Louisville or a Texas team much better than their conference decides to schedule cupcakes and go undefeated, why on earth would USC face 3 top 25 opponents ever again? And that, IMO, is awful for college football.

Including the ACC in the same sentence as the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and PAC-10... leaves you credibility challenged. Seriously, have you been paying attention this season? The ACC is much more BCS-lite than the Big East.

In this season only, I would agree and add that the Big 12 also does not belong in the tier of BCS conferences with the SEC, B10, and PAC10. The B12 has two very good teams in Texas and Oklahoma, a few very bad teams in Colorado/Iowa State/Baylor, and then a handful of pretty average teams in the middle.

If you look at their resumes and not their names, I don't think you can say that the teams in the B12 are light years ahead of the teams in the Big East this season.

arles that really states it perfectly. i have said that in an earlier post on another subject. i am a Cal supporter and you are absolutely right. why should a team play anyone but the weakest 1-a teams and a 1-aa team as well if that gives you a better chance to go undefeated. USC is playing ND, Nebraska and Arkansas- every one of then in the top 25. If we went to a playoff system teams would not have to worry so much about who they schedule in the pre-season.

but the way it stands now choosing the #1 and #2 teams is simply flawed. you might just as well stick Boise state in there. actually if Rutgers or boise St. got in there it would be a good thing. you would see a true playoff next season. in fairness tho, Rutgers is a little different because they at least have to beat WV and Louisville (good teams) to get there, but i would still not equate it to a Big-10 etc schedule.

I'm voting no. If you state winning a BCS conference and going undefeated is enough to get in a title game on its own - why should USC schedule Notre Dame? Why should Texas and Ohio State ever play? Cal-Tennesee? Michigan-ND? USC-Arkansas? Forget about it.

All major conference teams will turn into Bill Snyders and start scheduling three cupcakes. The *only* reason to schedule tough non-conference opponents is to provide you with another chance at a title if you lose a game. If that goes away because West Virginia, Louisville or a Texas team much better than their conference decides to schedule cupcakes and go undefeated, why on earth would USC face 3 top 25 opponents ever again? And that, IMO, is awful for college football.


I agree with you, provided that USC had gone undefeated. But that Oregon State (a team that three other teams have already beaten) defeated them throws a big wrench into the concept that their season has earned them the right over an team that has an undefeated season.

I'm voting no. If you state winning a BCS conference and going undefeated is enough to get in a title game on its own - why should USC schedule Notre Dame? Why should Texas and Ohio State ever play? Cal-Tennesee? Michigan-ND? USC-Arkansas? Forget about it.

All major conference teams will turn into Bill Snyders and start scheduling three cupcakes. The *only* reason to schedule tough non-conference opponents is to provide you with another chance at a title if you lose a game. If that goes away because West Virginia, Louisville or a Texas team much better than their conference decides to schedule cupcakes and go undefeated, why on earth would USC face 3 top 25 opponents ever again? And that, IMO, is awful for college football.


I absolutely agree. I think a one loss team should go ahead of a lesser undefeated team that played a weaker schedule. However, I think the 1 loss school better be dominating in its wins. If Rutgers can win all of their games in a very convincing fashion, considering they are playing two well rated teams in Louisville and West Virginia and the top 1 loss teams are barely winning most of the games on their schedule than I would vote for an undefeated Rutgers or an undefeated Louisville in the national championship game.

It's incredibly surreal that we're even having this discussion.

I'm voting no. If you state winning a BCS conference and going undefeated is enough to get in a title game on its own - why should USC schedule Notre Dame? Why should Texas and Ohio State ever play? Cal-Tennesee? Michigan-ND? USC-Arkansas? Forget about it.

All major conference teams will turn into Bill Snyders and start scheduling three cupcakes. The *only* reason to schedule tough non-conference opponents is to provide you with another chance at a title if you lose a game. If that goes away because West Virginia, Louisville or a Texas team much better than their conference decides to schedule cupcakes and go undefeated, why on earth would USC face 3 top 25 opponents ever again? And that, IMO, is awful for college football.

Because that's the system they have given us.

Really, the answer here is simple: don't vote this kind of team high enough so that they qualify under the BCS formula.

Do I think they should play in the title game? Sure. But if they don't have a high enough ranking, they won't. That's the answer to why these other teams should play each other. Because in the end, the polls still matter the most, and a 1-loss Texas will still outrank an undefeated Rutgers.

If schedules were decided every year like in pro sports, then I'd be willing to get into an argument about strength of schedules. But 5-10 years ago, the only way Rutgers gets on a top 10 teams' schedule is to be the homecoming patsy. How does a team like Rutgers achieve "Cinderella" status for having an unexpectedly huge year? The system does not give them the opportunity. Instead, they have to show they belong for a number of years before they even get considered a good enough team to rank highly at the outset - to "earn respect." Which is BS, IMO.

I don't see why this team can't have the opportunity to be the football version of George Mason. Just because the system doesn't give them the opportunity to prove they belong like the NCAA Tournament does in basketball, doesn't mean we should foreclose their opportunity to play in a meaningful game because they didn't have the foresight and traditional football excellence necessary to schedule the big boys years in advance (except, as I mentioned, to be the homecoming doormat) of what might be, in all honesty, a lucky, once in "5 decades" season.

We celebrate teams like this in other sports, college and pro; in college football, though, we resort to comparing schedules and downplaying their accomplishments because of the inherent limitations of the college championship system. I think they deserve the opportunity because there is no playoff, and college football above all else cares more about not losing than giving teams an opportunity to prove they deserve to play for the championship. I fail to see why we shouldn't just argue about 2 or 3 undefeated teams and instead argue over 1-loss teams because of the conferences they are in.

Again I don't think this is going to be an issue because a team like Rutgers will never get ranked high enough for them to be 1 or 2 in the BCS. Louisville at least has some history to back their ranking, or else they'd be right where Rutgers is. In the absence of a playoff, it is simply "all or nothing" for these teams, and in the admitted interest of pushing college football to do the right thing in moving to a playoff, I think they should be allowed to play for the championship if they go undefeated in a BCS conference. And that's what they are, not BCS Lite. They're either in it or not in it. If the BCS thought they shouldn't belong, again, do what's right and kick them out. If you want them in, suffer the consequences.

I agree to the "unfair nature" of college football. My point is that if a Rutgers, West Virginia or Louisville wants to be considered part of the big boys, they need to use just 1 of their 5 nonconference spots on a top 25 non-patsy. That's not a lot to ask and I think a team like Wisconsin, Cal, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech or even Boise State would take a home game against any of these Big East teams. And some (Boise, GT, ...) might even take a home-and-home.

My point, though, with Rutgers especially (or pick any team in the future), is that you're presuming they could schedule a non-patsy 5 years ago. Sure, if they string together 5 solid years and appear to be making some progress, they might have the opportunity to take on a good team. But as it stands, this is essentially the Detroit Tigers coming from out of nowhere to be a good team. Maybe a legit contender, maybe not, but it isn't something people could have predicted.

I'm talking about this kind of situation, where they rise up one year out of the blue, beat a couple of good teams (theoretically) in their conference, and find themselves at least in the top 8 or so at the end of the regular season. The response to that shouldn't be, "Nice season. Do it again for 10 more years, schedule Texas, and we'll consider you legit"; there should be some way to recognize their accomplishment IN THIS SEASON other than "go play in a meaningless BCS bowl game but leave the championship talk to the real teams."

I agree they ought to try to schedule a team like that for the future, but how do you deal with what is occurring now? I don't think you should just leave them out of it. Then again, this is why, as much as I enjoy football, I'll never be a huge college football fan. What makes the college basketball tournament so interesting for someone like me, who doesn't even watch basketball all that much, is exactly what college football fans root against from October through the bowl season. Makes no sense to me why the two sports are treated so differently by fans, not just the governing bodies.

I agree to the "unfair nature" of college football. My point is that if a Rutgers, West Virginia or Louisville wants to be considered part of the big boys, they need to use just 1 of their 5 nonconference spots on a top 25 non-patsy. That's not a lot to ask and I think a team like Wisconsin, Cal, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech or even Boise State would take a home game against any of these Big East teams. And some (Boise, GT, ...) might even take a home-and-home.

In addition to Ksyrup's great points, Louisville did schedule Miami, Kansas State, and Kentucky as their OCC opponents. Kentucky is an in-state rivalry (they can't get away from that one), and at the time they scheduled Miami and K-State, they were good teams. The fact that Miami had a down year and K-State hasn't been that great in the last few years is not Louisville's fault.

I mean in that case you are penalizing Louisville for not being able to predict the future.

I'm more understanding of Louisville than Rutgers. I wouldn't have a big problem with them playing in the title game simply because they did *try* to schedule decent teams and managed to go undefeated with a ton of injuries. I just have a hard time with a team going out and scheduling UNC, Illinois, Ohio, Howard and Navy (a la Rutgers) and being upset they are not in the title hunt. None of these teams have been relevant since the early to mid 90s for some (IL, UNC) and the rest haven't really ever been in recent memory.

Really, the answer here is simple: don't vote this kind of team high enough so that they qualify under the BCS formula. THANK YOU!

This is the solution to everyone's problems with the BCS. Always has been, and always will be.

The pollsters and coaches wring their hands and get all upset that a one-loss Florida may jump over an undefeated Louisville (or Rutgers in this thread) in the BCS standings, or some SEC/ACC/Big 12 team that doesn't even win it's championship game will somehow play for the national title - and the whole time they are the ones with the absolute power to prevent all of this from happening.

I just got my check for the Rutgers-Pitt game that I attended, and I missed the entire first quarter. What? You haven't gotten paid yet?

I attended the Minnesota-NDSU game and all I've gotten is smug arrogance from the head coach. :(

THANK YOU!

This is the solution to everyone's problems with the BCS. Always has been, and always will be.

The pollsters and coaches wring their hands and get all upset that a one-loss Florida may jump over an undefeated Louisville (or Rutgers in this thread) in the BCS standings, or some SEC/ACC/Big 12 team that doesn't even win it's championship game will somehow play for the national title - and the whole time they are the ones with the absolute power to prevent all of this from happening.

This is a good point and I am actually surprised that more isn't made of the fact that the coaches have a say in who goes the BCS games and, even more importantly for the coaches and their conferences really, who gets a spot that is worth $15M (or $5M for a second team from a conference). What is to keep all of the SEC teams' coaches or all of the Pac 10 teams' coaches from dropping Boise State in their final polls, so that a second team from their conference may make the BCS?

THANK YOU!

This is the solution to everyone's problems with the BCS. Always has been, and always will be.

The pollsters and coaches wring their hands and get all upset that a one-loss Florida may jump over an undefeated Louisville (or Rutgers in this thread) in the BCS standings, or some SEC/ACC/Big 12 team that doesn't even win it's championship game will somehow play for the national title - and the whole time they are the ones with the absolute power to prevent all of this from happening.

I never understood why they didn't do this in 1990. Who cares what the official NCAA score said, everyone knows Colorado lost to Missouri. Why couldn't the voters just treat Colorado like it was a two loss team?

First of all, I just want to say that Ksyrup makes fantastic points in this thread, and in my opinion is spot-on in why the system is so messed up. That being said, I'll preface this by once again saying I'm a huge Rutgers fan and think they should play in the NC if they win out.

I'm more understanding of Louisville than Rutgers. I wouldn't have a big problem with them playing in the title game simply because they did *try* to schedule decent teams and managed to go undefeated with a ton of injuries. I just have a hard time with a team going out and scheduling UNC, Illinois, Ohio, Howard and Navy (a la Rutgers) and being upset they are not in the title hunt. None of these teams have been relevant since the early to mid 90s for some (IL, UNC) and the rest haven't really ever been in recent memory.

When UNC and Illinois were scheduled, they were coming off bowl games. When you have an opportunity to schedule BCS opponents, you do it. Plus those were two programs perceived to be on the upswing...it was a solid job of scheduling and something that our AD was applauded on when it got done. You just never know what you're getting when you schedule college football games (okay, basically never...obviously OSU/Mich/USC are the major exceptions...but RU can't get on a schedule of a team like that).

It's the same reason Rutgers was scheduled as THREE homecoming opponents this season. This has to be the first time ever that a team in the NC hunt at this point of the season has also been a homecoming opponent for three teams. Want to hear how fast things change in college football scheduling? About 3 weeks ago, my fellow Rutgers fans were saying how weak our OOC schedule is next season. Well fast forward to today, and Maryland doesn't look as weak as they did then.

I said this in another thread after the Pittsburgh win...ANY team would sign up for victories in all the perceived "guaranteed" wins on their schedule. The losses against the teams you're supposed to beat hurt you a hell of a lot more than the wins against teams you shouldn't beat help. It IS an accomplishment to beat all of the non-powers on your schedule.

I do agree that the system is unfair. An 8-team playoff seems to be the best overall solution, but we have the BCS so we have to deal with it.

My point is that while it seems unfair to keep an undefeated Rutgers team out of the championship game, I just don't see how I could vote for a Rutgers team that will end up with two top 25 wins and none of their 5 noncof games in the top 40 vs. a USC team with 5 top 25 wins, a 1-loss Michigan who played ND or a Texas team that scheduled its one loss in Ohio State.

Regardless of how they got there, Rutgers has the 101st ranked SOS to this point (compare that to Lousiville who ranks 42nd). To have a national championship game between someone like Ohio State and a team ranked above 100 in SOS would be a joke, IMO. As many have said, I doubt the poll voters would let it happen but it does show how silly this BCS system really is. I am in the camp that wants all 1-loss teams and see the BCS try to figure it out.

I agree with what you're basically saying. But let's say everything worked out and RU actually ended up in the championship game vs OSU. What would happen if they made it a game, or actually won? Would it still be a joke? I know it's a remote chance, but for my reasoning, I'll quote a post of mine from another thread:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1295778&postcount=262

I'm a huge Rutgers fan and would love to see them in the National Championship. But I figured they would get absolutely destroyed by Ohio State. Then this weekend, Ohio State had trouble with Illinois, a team Rutgers destroyed 33-0 in a game that wasn't even that close. Now I'm not trying to sell the transitive property here, but all it shows is that any one team can beat or remain competitive with anyone for one game. On the biggest stage, after a month of not playing competitively, it's not very uncommon for the "star" players on the big teams to just come out a little flat. And that's all you need to pull off an upset.

That's why I hate statements like Whitlock's. If you really think a team that is 8-0 and just came off a solid win over WVU can't hang with OSU for ONE game, you're insane. And would it matter if Louisville's D didn't show up and they got into a shootout with OSU? I seem to remember an amazing NC game last year that was seriously lacking star defensive players.

I agree with what you're basically saying. But let's say everything worked out and RU actually ended up in the championship game vs OSU. What would happen if they made it a game, or actually won? Would it still be a joke? I know it's a remote chance, but for my reasoning, I'll quote a post of mine from another thread:

The worst case scenario, IMO, for schools like Rutgers would be to make it to the championship game and then get destroyed... If they make it, they'd better damn well be competitive/win or teams like this will get killed by human polls in the future.

The worst case scenario, IMO, for schools like Rutgers would be to make it to the championship game and then get destroyed... If they make it, they'd better damn well be competitive/win or teams like this will get killed by human polls in the future.

Absolutely. Not only will you put up a turd in the biggest game you've ever played, but the fans and media across the country will hate you for making them watch you put up a turd instead of seeing OSU play Florida/Michigan/take your pick (even though there is turd-potential there too).

If Rutgers plays Ohio State for the title, I'm taking the points.

If Rutgers plays Ohio State for the title, I'm taking the points.

I won't place any bets until I get astrofan64's analysis

:D

The worst case scenario, IMO, for schools like Rutgers would be to make it to the championship game and then get destroyed... If they make it, they'd better damn well be competitive/win or teams like this will get killed by human polls in the future.

Oh come on, It's not like Nebraska and Oklahoma didn't get absolutely destroyed in various national title games. How about that Florida team in 95, or Florida State in 96? All those teams got destroyed. The system is never going to be perfect, and if Louisville loses by 30 to Ohio State or Michigan it doesn't mean they didn't deserve a shot to play for the NC.

I prefer a system where Ohio State and Texas are rewarded for taking each other on, or Michigan and Notre Dame, or Louisville and Miami.

I could handle Louisville getting to the championship game, because you can't blame the Cards for the sudden mediocrity of Kansas State and Miami. Louisville has done everything it can to show it's a good team worthy of a chance.

Rutgers has performed very well against a bunch of stiffs. Should Rutgers go undefeated (and I'd be stunned if that happened, 9-3 or 10-2 seems a more logical finish), they should not be rewarded for taking only slight chances. However, Rutgers plays an all-star schedule compared to Boise State, so it's all relative.

We don't have a playoff, so we need a system where the championship game is played between the teams thought to be the best, not between the teams who have orchestrated the best record.

The BCS mandates that the computer polls not try and get into the whole debate over comparing performances. They want that to be the exlusive domain of the panel. So the computer polls are stripped of some of their power, and tend to be rather monochromatic - more just measures of final record, adjusted by strength of schedule. They do a good job of that.

If Rutgers plays Ohio State for the title, I'm taking the points.

I don't think I would even bother watching the game. Putting Rutgers in the title game is a great way to devalue college football.

I'm a huge Rutgers fan and my answer to this would be a resounding "no."

If they win out i'll be more than satisfied to see them match up against a quality opponent in whichever BCS bowl they go to, but they do not belong in the national title game. And frankly, it wont matter because they won't go undefeated. Looking at the remainder of their schedule I'd say these are the possibilities for them in order of likelihood:

10-2
9-3
11-1
12-0

I'll be at the Louisville game on Thursday night yelling me head off, but I still don't honestly expect us to win.

I'll be at the Louisville game on Thursday night yelling me head off

Did you turn British on us there?

I'll be pulling for Rutgers on Thursday night, mostly because I'd rather see OSU v. Florida or USC than Louisville in the title game.

I don't think I would even bother watching the game. Putting Rutgers in the title game is a great way to devalue college football.

Just like West Virginia had no chance in the Sugar Bowl last year, on the road against such a great SEC team. Like I said, if they get there I'm taking the points.

The fact that we're having this discussion about Old Queens to begin with is really the coup here. Do I think they'll win out? No. But I sure would love to see it, just to keep hearing about Rutgers in the status quo for all the weeks leading up to the big bowl games. I think this run is as big as any for the program and will solidify their place in the upper echelon of programs in the future.

Laugh if you must, but Rutgers has a pipeline to Florida and is teeming with talent throughout its backyard. And I'm not just talking about the top rated recruits. Even the players just below that tier would still be competitive and would help with depth, since that's really what separates teams that have a few good years versus ones that can sustain it.

Your conferences aren't that good, stop kidding yourselves.

For me, this is more of a conceptual argument than it is really about Rutgers specifically. They just fit the bill "in the flesh" at the moment. But even if they lose between now and then, the idea is still the same. Another team could be the next Rutgers and possibly not lose a game.

I prefer a system where Ohio State and Texas are rewarded for taking each other on, or Michigan and Notre Dame, or Louisville and Miami.

I could handle Louisville getting to the championship game, because you can't blame the Cards for the sudden mediocrity of Kansas State and Miami. Louisville has done everything it can to show it's a good team worthy of a chance.

Rutgers has performed very well against a bunch of stiffs. Should Rutgers go undefeated (and I'd be stunned if that happened, 9-3 or 10-2 seems a more logical finish), they should not be rewarded for taking only slight chances. However, Rutgers plays an all-star schedule compared to Boise State, so it's all relative.

Again, no one has effrectively, IMO, countered the argument about how schedules are conceived in college football. For planning purposes, most OOC games are scheduled several years in advance. I daresay Rutgers couldn't have conceivably scheduled a BCS team or two 5 years ago with the thought that they would be in the running for a national championship. And like someone already pointed out, they have been so bad historically that even this year, they are a homecoming game for 3 teams! From a historical perspective, this year's schedule isn't that of a contender taking "slight chances;" it's of a progam struggling to compete willing to be the patsy for (what were thought to be) better teams. A lot can change in a few years, and I have a hard time, conceptually, writing a team like this off.

Again, I find it strange that college football refuses to acknowledge or champion the Cinderella story, although that's the main selling point of March Madness.

To illustrate the point about schedules, a couple of years ago FSU and Oklahoma did a home-and-home agreement for 2010 and 2011. It's conceivable (and if changes don't happen soon, some FSU fans will say it's PROBABLE) that by 2010, FSU is no longer anywhere near a contender. If, by chance, playing a weak FSU OOC game in those two years actually hurts OU's chances in the BCS, what would you say at that point? It's the same gamble every team takes when scheduling years in advance.

A school can only decide who to schedule based on the information they have and their relative "station" in the college football world at that particular point. If they could come up with a system where each team kept open 1 or 2 OOC games each year and filled them for the next year immediately following the conclusion of the previous year's season, then I could understand using the schedules as a determining reason to drop someone. If Rutgers, given their season this year and the opportunity to fill a spot for next year, chose to bypass an offer to play USC or ND, for instance, and decided to play Vanderbilt, then I'd hold it against them. But holding a schedule against them that was developed while the team was a doormat seems to ignore the reality of the situation.

I don't know if Rutgers would be competitive against a top conference winner. But I think they should have the chance to prove it, if the BCS is going to be worth anything at all as a playoff substitute.

Btw, interesting (part of an) article about Louisville and scheduling:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2652451



The loudest Big East bashing seems to be coming from Southeastern Conference advocates. Here's the funny thing about that: Ask how many SEC teams are willing to schedule Louisville.

The number is two. According to the Louisville administration, everyone else in the league has ducked, dodged and squirmed away from games with the Cardinals.

http://espn-ak.starwave.com/photo/2006/1107/ncf_u_petrino_195.jpg
Joe Robbins-US PRESSWIRE
Negative campaigning shouldn't keep Bobby Petrino and the Cards out of Glendale.


Kentucky does it more out of rote obligation, satisfying the state's mandate to have its two I-A teams play on an annual basis. The Wildcats are so thrilled about the series that they've cravenly demanded moving the games in Lexington off their traditional season-opening date to a spot later in the calendar, when the matchup will draw less attention.

The other SEC school to step up is Georgia, which has agreed to a two-year home-and-home with Louisville starting in 2010.

Vanderbilt backed out of a contract with the Cards that was to start next year. Everyone else in the SEC has passed at least once on home-and-home overtures from Louisville this century, according to senior associate athletic director Kevin Miller.

It's gotten to the point that Louisville is now offering neutral-site games with SEC teams. Miller said he's met with officials in Nashville about scheduling Louisville against Alabama, Arkansas or Tennessee. Athletic director Tom Jurich (10) said he's open to playing an SEC team in the Georgia Dome. They've asked ESPN for help in lining up games, too.

The takers are few -- and not just in the SEC. Among the others who have broken contracts with the Cardinals in recent years, according to Miller: Boston College, Georgia Tech, Duke and Texas Tech.

"[Football scheduling] has become the hardest part of my job," Jurich said.

SEC schools are busy filling out their schedules with home games, largely against chumps. So far in 2006 the league has produced exactly one road win against a nonconference opponent from a Big Six league: Vanderbilt over Duke. The Big East owns six road wins over Big Six opponents in 2006.

This is how you preserve the status quo: refuse to play up-and-coming programs, then howl about their allegedly weak schedules.

How many non-conference games does Louisville expect to play in a year? 20? They've got UK and UGa, what's the whining about? Generally speaking, most teams want cupcakes in their non-conf. schedule, and Louisville is no longer an easy win. Big whoop.

Then don't complain about their schedule if you aren't willing to play them :p. And they only have UGA for 2 years (a home and home).

How many non-conference games does Louisville expect to play in a year? 20? They've got UK and UGa, what's the whining about? Generally speaking, most teams want cupcakes in their non-conf. schedule, and Louisville is no longer an easy win. Big whoop.

The whining comes from the people supporting 1-loss teams who complain that Louisville's conference sucks and/or they don't play a good OOC schedule. That "Big Whoop" might prevent Louisville from playing for a NC because of that perception.

There's nothing they can do about the conference they're in at this point...you either accept the conference as a legit BCS conference or you send them packing. All that leaves to bitch about is their OOC schedule, and the SEC apparently wants no piece of them, yet wants to howl about how a 1-loss Florida team should get the nod over Louisville because UL plays a crap schedule.

The whining comes from the people supporting 1-loss teams who complain that Louisville's conference sucks and/or they don't play a good OOC schedule. That "Big Whoop" might prevent Louisville from playing for a NC because of that perception.

There's nothing they can do about the conference they're in at this point...you either accept the conference as a legit BCS conference or you send them packing. All that leaves to bitch about is their OOC schedule, and the SEC apparently wants no piece of them, yet wants to howl about how a 1-loss Florida team should get the nod over Louisville because UL plays a crap schedule.

I don't think there's any question that UL will play for the national title if they win out, so I guess I just dismiss it as typical conference politicking.

Then don't complain about their schedule if you aren't willing to play them :p. And they only have UGA for 2 years (a home and home).
In defense of some of these top SEC schools (Florida, Auburn, LSU,..), I don't think it's a fair expectation to think Louisville can immediately get a home-and-home like an Ohio State or Cal could. Louisville has to understand they will probably only get an away game with the elite programs until they demonstrate a longer period of consistent top 25 success and/or the Big East continues to do well.
I think the biggest problem the Boise States, Louisvilles, Rutgers and Fresno States have are that they expect to be given home-and-home from national programs. That's just not going to happen off the bat. So, they may have to suck it up and take a road game at LSU or a road game at Florida State until they get a few more successful seasons and reach the status of a bigger program.

Someone like West Virginia (top 25 for 5-6 straight seasons with a few top 10-15 finishes) will probably have an easier time of getting a home-and-home. Louisville has had some success, but they haven't been as consistent. Still, with a few more finishes like this season, I think their status will reach a point where they can start getting the home-and-home matchups they may prefer (of course, the true irony is that by that time they may decide they really don't need them because of the initial *prestige* they get from the polls).

In defense of some of these top SEC schools (Florida, Auburn, LSU,..), I don't think it's a fair expectation to think Louisville can immediately get a home-and-home like an Ohio State or Cal could. Louisville has to understand they will probably only get an away game with the elite programs until they demonstrate a longer period of consistent top 25 success and/or the Big East continues to do well.
I think the biggest problem the Boise States, Louisvilles, Rutgers and Fresno States have are that they expect to be given home-and-home from national programs. That's just not going to happen off the bat. So, they may have to suck it up and take a road game at LSU or a road game at Florida State until they get a few more successful seasons and reach the status of a bigger program.

Rutgers already has a deal in place with Notre Dame for (starting in 2010 and I believe going for 6 years) a split series between South Bend and Giants Stadium, where even with continued success leading up to that game, we'll have trouble getting more than half that place filled with Rutgers fans. No one is expecting home at homes.

For me, this is more of a conceptual argument than it is really about Rutgers specifically. .

That might be the case here on this board, but the fact that this argument is happening on sports shows nationally is HUGE for the school itself.

First of all, this thread got a lot more relevant tonight.

Second of all, I am required by internet law to toot my own horn for my analysis in this thread from Monday:

Rutgers actually matches up a lot better with Louisville than West Virginia in my opinion. WVU racked up over 300 yards rushing the other night and Rutgers should be able to do close to the same with Rice and Leonard. Defensively WVU got absolutely no pressure and on top of that let the UL wide receivers run free. Rutgers has a physical front seven and should be able to get good pressure. In the past Brohm has been a little rattled in such situations. I'm not really sure how good the secondary is, but they at least seemed to handle Palko for the most part.

The biggest factor, however, is that last year Louisville was a different team away from home. Remember, this is a team that got blown out by South Florida last year. They got punched in the mouth and just stayed down against a fairly average but physical team. They may have gotten over that, and if so, they'll probably beat Rutgers. I definitely expect Rutgers to apply the punch. We'll see if Louisville gets up this time.


I nailed it!

You semi-nailed it. Louisville applied the early punch, but Rutgers applied the deadly counterpunch in the 2nd half. I don't know if I've seen a better defensive half this season in a big game. Just masterful.

Thank you, Rutgers, for not making my arguments completely irrelevant in less than a week! :)

I still have yet to hear a good argument against the "Cinderella story" in college football. I heard one guy call in to Cowherd's show yesterday and mention George Mason, but then the talk went back to Rutgers (and Louisville) playing crap schedules. This morning on Mike & Mike, again mention of GM in college basketball and how people love the feel good stories, but then a discussion of how Rutgers will not be playing for the NC this year, but maybe if they do this for another couple of years, they'll get the preseason ranking they deserve and be in a better position to compete for the NC down the road. WHY? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a team can't just have 1 great year that allows them to compete for the NC. It's not about a team's history, it's not about setting that program up to compete 5 years from now, it's about what that team does on the field in that year. Anything else makes no sense.

If Rutgers wins out and is the only or even one of two undefeated teams and does NOT make the NC game I will stop watching college football.

There is no way they end up in the BCS top 5 unless they move up about 12 spots in the coaches poll AND half of the top 10 lose a second game. A couple of them will have to happen (ND, USC, and Cal all play each other, and possibly Florida/Auburn in the SEC Championship), but Texas, the OSU/UM loser, and a couple of the survivors of these top 10 face-offs will all likely be ranked ahead of Rutgers.

I am required by internet law to toot my own horn for my analysis in this thread from Monday: I nailed it!

FWIW, I thought about your comments late in the game last night.

Well, okay, technically I thought "y'know, this is kinda what somebody predicted at FOFC, darned if I remember who though".

But it's the thought that counts, right?
;)

Thank you, Rutgers, for not making my arguments completely irrelevant in less than a week! :)

I still have yet to hear a good argument against the "Cinderella story" in college football. I heard one guy call in to Cowherd's show yesterday and mention George Mason, but then the talk went back to Rutgers (and Louisville) playing crap schedules. This morning on Mike & Mike, again mention of GM in college basketball and how people love the feel good stories, but then a discussion of how Rutgers will not be playing for the NC this year, but maybe if they do this for another couple of years, they'll get the preseason ranking they deserve and be in a better position to compete for the NC down the road. WHY? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a team can't just have 1 great year that allows them to compete for the NC. It's not about a team's history, it's not about setting that program up to compete 5 years from now, it's about what that team does on the field in that year. Anything else makes no sense.

Here's the ideal scenario for the BCS haters to me... It's not good for Rutgers, but is for the BCS haters..

Ideal scenario:

Rutgers wins out
OSU/Michigan remain undefeated
A 1 win team is 2nd in the BCS Rankings

So, we get a OSU/Michigan vs. 1 loss BCS team in the title

Then 1 loss BCS team wins

And Rutgers wins their bowl.

Rutgers ends up the only undefeated team in the nation, with a 1 loss team having the title.

I think that is the ideal scenario for those who want to see the BCS topple and a playoff come in.

I'm not saying it will make that happen, but the noise for a playoff increases big time imo.

FYI, Rutgers jumped from 15th to 10th in the Sagarin ratings, while Louisville fell to only 5th from 3rd.

I don't see why that's not a good scenario for Rutgers. Obviously, the best scenario would be them in the BCS Bowl, but that's not going to happen unless there's a huge change in sentiment among voters and some crazy stuff happens on the field. So to end up undefeated and make the "odd man out" argument about being undefeated but not getting a shot at the championship and "we was robbed" is about as good a scenario as they'd likely see this year.

Here's the ideal scenario for the BCS haters to me... It's not good for Rutgers, but is for the BCS haters..

Ideal scenario:

Rutgers wins out
OSU/Michigan remain undefeated
A 1 win team is 2nd in the BCS Rankings

So, we get a OSU/Michigan vs. 1 win BCS team in the title

Then 1 win BCS team wins

And Rutgers wins their bowl.

Rutgers ends up the only undefeated team in the nation, with a 1 win team having the title.

I think that is the ideal scenario for those who want to see the BCS topple and a playoff come in.

I'm not saying it will make that happen, but the noise for a playoff increases big time imo.


I assume you mean a 1 loss team and not a 1 win team? :D

I don't see why that's not a good scenario for Rutgers. Obviously, the best scenario would be them in the BCS Bowl, but that's not going to happen unless there's a huge change in sentiment among voters and some crazy stuff happens on the field. So to end up undefeated and make the "odd man out" argument about being undefeated but not getting a shot at the championship and "we was robbed" is about as good a scenario as they'd likely see this year.

Very good point. You'll always have the "what-if" without having the "we had our chance and missed it"...

I assume you mean a 1 loss team and not a 1 win team? :D

Fixed ;)...

So it sounds like my only chance of ever watching college football again (until they institute a playoff system) is Rutgers losing a game. Go WVU!

So it sounds like my only chance of ever watching college football again (until they institute a playoff system) is Rutgers losing a game. Go WVU!

Cincy is a good team with a very good defense. They've stayed competitive all season, and I think it will be a tough game next week.

FWIW, I'm rooting for Rutgers regardless of what happens with the BCS, playoffs, etc... I think it's a great story.

Rutgers v. Boise State in the BCS!

Seriously, though, if Rutgers had somehow gotten a date this year with an Auburn or a Texas and not been going through their resurgence... would that not be an argument for Auburn or Texas having a weak schedule?

FWIW, I'm rooting for Rutgers regardless of what happens with the BCS, playoffs, etc... I think it's a great story.


Too bad they can't hit a 3-point basket! :D

One of the number-crunchers needs to run the scenario where an undefeated Rutgers team actually gets the #2 spot in the polls. Then, with all the other BCS components, who would get into the title game, assuming you have one or more of the other strong looking teams finish with one loss?

I think there is a significant chance that, at the end of the line, enough voters would be persuaded that any BCS-conference team with an unbeated record deserves a shot, that woudl would indeed see major changes in the human-conducted polls. The open question remains whether that woudl be enough to overcome what might be a continued push from the other factors in the BCS calculation.

One of the number-crunchers needs to run the scenario where an undefeated Rutgers team actually gets the #2 spot in the polls. Then, with all the other BCS components, who would get into the title game, assuming you have one or more of the other strong looking teams finish with one loss?

I think there is a significant chance that, at the end of the line, enough voters would be persuaded that any BCS-conference team with an unbeated record deserves a shot, that woudl would indeed see major changes in the human-conducted polls. The open question remains whether that woudl be enough to overcome what might be a continued push from the other factors in the BCS calculation.

My understanding is that with the human polls counting as 2/3's of your BCS points that an undefeated #2 Rutgers is pretty much in..

We don't get access to the BCS computer formulas, do we?

One of the number-crunchers needs to run the scenario where an undefeated Rutgers team actually gets the #2 spot in the polls. Then, with all the other BCS components, who would get into the title game, assuming you have one or more of the other strong looking teams finish with one loss?

I think there is a significant chance that, at the end of the line, enough voters would be persuaded that any BCS-conference team with an unbeated record deserves a shot, that woudl would indeed see major changes in the human-conducted polls. The open question remains whether that woudl be enough to overcome what might be a continued push from the other factors in the BCS calculation.

If you mean human polls, I think Rutgers would be a lock. The computers like Rutgers a great deal, so if they get all the losses they need to get to #2 in the human polls, I dont think anything would stop them from heading to the national title game.

I'm not sure what kind of scenario Rutgers would need to make the national title game though. I think we'll have a clearer idea come sunday when the new polls are released, but offhand I would guess the following:

Texas loss
Florida loss
Auburn loss
Arkansas loss
Notre Dame loss
USC loss

and maybe more. It really will depend on where they are in the human polls comes sunday.

For some historical reference, in 1990, Georgia Tech was #16 going into its game with Virginia (ranked #1 at the time) on November 3. Yes, this is one week later, but there is one more week in the season with conference title games and several other teams with Dec. 2 games. I think Tech jumped to #8 after the Virginia game and was #2 heading into the bowls.

I'm not sure what kind of scenario Rutgers would need to make the national title game though. I think we'll have a clearer idea come sunday when the new polls are released, but offhand I would guess the following:

Texas loss
Florida loss
Auburn loss
Arkansas loss
Notre Dame loss
USC loss

and maybe more. It really will depend on where they are in the human polls comes sunday.

You'd also probably have to overcome the loser of the OSU-Michigan game, which might not be possible unless one of those teams lose 2 games before the end of the season.

If you mean human polls, I think Rutgers would be a lock. The computers like Rutgers a great deal, so if they get all the losses they need to get to #2 in the human polls, I dont think anything would stop them from heading to the national title game.

I'm not talking about them "getting losses" to move up. I'm talking about them finishing undefeated, and seeing at least a fair contingent of human poll particpants decide for whatever reason move them up to #2 ahead of one-loss teams like Florida, USC, Texas, or whomever is still left standing. I haven't followed this - but that's a scenario that I think is still fairly reasonable.

I'm not talking about them "getting losses" to move up. I'm talking about them finishing undefeated, and seeing at least a fair contingent of human poll particpants decide for whatever reason move them up to #2 ahead of one-loss teams like Florida, USC, Texas, or whomever is still left standing. I haven't followed this - but that's a scenario that I think is still fairly reasonable.

For the human poll, I'd think any chance they'd have of moving up to #2 would hinge greatly on how well those 1-loss teams play over the rest of the season and how "big" Rutgers would win against WVU.

I'm not talking about them "getting losses" to move up. I'm talking about them finishing undefeated, and seeing at least a fair contingent of human poll particpants decide for whatever reason move them up to #2 ahead of one-loss teams like Florida, USC, Texas, or whomever is still left standing. I haven't followed this - but that's a scenario that I think is still fairly reasonable.

Not all that reasonable, IMHO. The voters are hard-headed, and Rutgers preseason position (unranked) will haunt them down the stretch. Voters never have the guts to radically change rankings, they almost exclusively need to have teams lose to move them down.

Not to mention the BCS rankings actually count the points you get in the votes, so even if Rutgers hit #2 I assure you they would be a very "weak" #2, with probably the 3-4-5 teams being barely behind them in points, which would hurt Rutgers in the BCS calculation.

Unless Rutgers takes a stunning jump in this weekend's poll, they're going to need the wave of losses to get to #2.

I'm not saying I think it's likely, but I'm saying it's possible.

You could have poll particpants who, as the season closes, sense the media speculation and attention, and startts to say "well, this one really does matter..." and are faced with the notion that there is a major conference team with an undefeated record who, based on current polling results, stands to sit out and watch a one-loss team play for the title. It's at least conceivable to me that, in such a situation, some of those voters would decide "no, as a matter of principle, I think that team deserves its shot" and they move Rutgers up from #7 to #2 on their submissions, relatively independent of what happened that week or how good various teams looked. No, it wouldn't be everyone, but it's possible that we see at least a little bit of this sort of thinking -- perhaps it starts this week after the Louisville win, but as the situation gets more refined, it seems to me that you could have more results-oriented thinking creeping into the polling.

It's a possible scenario, is my only argument. I know it's usually safest to assume that everyone who ranks Team A ahead of Team B right now will just continue to do so until Team A loses. That's true. I'm just suggesting that the totality of the circumstance might dictate a deviation for some voters this year. Possibly.

I wouldn't totally discount the effect that WVU's play this weekend might have on the pollsters either.

If they come out & look great steamrolling Cincinnati then Louisville looks better by comparison, making Rutgers win last night look better as well. On the other hand if the Mountaineers look very ordinary or even {gasp} lose tomorrow then it becomes even easier to think that Louisville was simply overrated going into last night themselves & that devalues Rutgers win over the Cardinals.

I think that WVU probably needs to look good tomorrow as part of any of these "what-if" scenarios that has Rutgers jumping over the pack of one loss teams.

My understanding is that with the human polls counting as 2/3's of your BCS points that an undefeated #2 Rutgers is pretty much in..
Remember, though, the polls component is based on the vote totals, not the ordinals. A really close 2/3 is going to treat both teams approximately equally.

One of the number-crunchers needs to run the scenario where an undefeated Rutgers team actually gets the #2 spot in the polls. Then, with all the other BCS components, who would get into the title game, assuming you have one or more of the other strong looking teams finish with one loss?

I think there is a significant chance that, at the end of the line, enough voters would be persuaded that any BCS-conference team with an unbeated record deserves a shot, that woudl would indeed see major changes in the human-conducted polls. The open question remains whether that woudl be enough to overcome what might be a continued push from the other factors in the BCS calculation.
I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps this a case of East Coast/West Coast/In Between bias coming out, but I think there is a signficant sentiment out there that Rutgers' win last night simply underscores the perception that the Big East is a second tier conference. The big three in the Big East lack an impressive win. With Miami exposed as a fraud, I think at this point West Virginia's win at home versus Maryland is the best win they have. I think there will be strong sentiment from voters in the Big 10, Big 12, SEC and probably the west that will rank one loss teams from more power conferences ahead of an undefeated Rutgers.

It would be intersting though to see if Rutgers does make it to No. 2 in the polls how the computer numbers will work. Based on the lastest Sagarin ratings, I'd imagine that for the most part Rutgers would end up between 5 and 10 on most of the computers. Is that enough to hold on to No. 2?

Again, as someone who hates the current system, I'm in favor of anything that makes the argument that we need a playoff. If it takes an undefeated Rutgers and Boise State relegated to second class in the BCS while a one-loss team plays for a national title, I'm all for it.

My fear is that we'll end up where we were before the BCS, where if the system fails this year we'll just continue to make these pointless tweaks every year trying to convince everyone that this time we have all the bugs out of the BCS. The BCS is the Maximum Football of polls.

The BCS is the Maximum Football of polls.

If that's the case, then I guess Brohm visited the beer tent during halftime.

As I put in the other thread, the best possible outcome for the BCS haters would be this:

Ohio State/Michigan loses before their game
Loser beats the undefeated team
WVU beats Rutgers
Boise State wins out

That will give us potentially 10 1 loss teams plus an undefeated Boise State

There has always been a bias against Eastern football, whether it was Penn State, Syracuse, West Virginia or whoever.

As I put in the other thread, the best possible outcome for the BCS haters would be this:

Ohio State/Michigan loses before their game

Alright, let's stop talking crazy and figure out some BCS hating scenario with some shred of possibility.

As I put in the other thread, the best possible outcome for the BCS haters would be this:

Ohio State/Michigan loses before their game
Loser beats the undefeated team
WVU beats Rutgers
Boise State wins out

That will give us potentially 10 1 loss teams plus an undefeated Boise State


I think your scenario should be tweaked to have Rutgers winning out. I actually think that an undefeated Rutgers and Boise St. who both potentially get snubbed would be ideal for the BCS haters.

Dola: Actually, I still disagree even more..

I think OSU/Michigan go into the title game undefeated...

Then lose to a 1 loss team..

and Rutgers AND Boise St. win out..

So you have a 1 loss champion and Boise St. and Rutgers undefeated on the outside after the bowl games... I think that is a much better scenario for the BCS haters than a snubbed Boise St.

Alright, let's stop talking crazy and figure out some BCS hating scenario with some shred of possibility.

I must have missed something last weekend then. Didn't Michigan go down to the wire against Ball State, and Ohio State get a scare from Illinois? In conference play, history has shown, almost anything can happen.