If 4 teams go undefeated in College Football...

[TBGKon]

I caught SportsCenter last night and there was a question posed to the guys about if there are 4 undefeated teams in college football this season, who would the championship game matchup be? By my assumption, the 4 possible teams are:

- Ohio State

- Auburn

- West Virginia

- USC

Here's where you all come in, what are your thoughts, who would play for the big glass football??

[OB33]

The thing you have to remember is that with the new format you could square off Ohio State and USC in the Rose Bowl, have West Virginia play Auburn in the Sugar Bowl (or whatever BCS bowl you want) and then have the two winners play in the championship game.

At least that's my understanding.

[TBGKon]

The thing you have to remember is that with the new format you could square off Ohio State and USC in the Rose Bowl, have West Virginia play Auburn in the Sugar Bowl (or whatever BCS bowl you want) and then have the two winners play in the championship game.

At least that's my understanding.

That would be the way I wish it was. To my knowledge 1 and 2 after all regular season games play in the BCS Championship Game, and 8 other teams make it to the Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls, making a total of 10 BCS teams.

[dfwabel]

The thing you have to remember is that with the new format you could square off Ohio State and USC in the Rose Bowl, have West Virginia play Auburn in the Sugar Bowl (or whatever BCS bowl you want) and then have the two winners play in the championship game.

At least that's my understanding.

No, you cannot. The BCS ranking will have the #1 and 2 teams play in the Championship game on January 8, period. If there is a Big 10 or Pac 10 team in one of those spots, the conference(s) will send another team to the Rose Bowl. It is not and will not be seen as a semi-final if four teams have identical records. In the event of more than two teams with identical records (zero or one loss), the computer ratings will most like be the deciding factor in the BCS rankings over the polls.

[OB33]

The thing you have to remember is that with the new format you could square off Ohio State and USC in the Rose Bowl, have West Virginia play Auburn in the Sugar Bowl (or whatever BCS bowl you want) and then have the two winners play in the championship game.

At least that's my understanding.

No, you cannot. The BCS ranking will have the #1 and 2 teams play in the Championship game on January 8, period. If there is a Big 10 or Pac 10 team in one of those spots, the conference(s) will send another team to the Rose Bowl. It is not and will not be seen as a semi-final if four teams have identical records. In the event of more than two teams with identical records (zero or one loss), the computer ratings will most like be the deciding factor in the BCS rankings over the polls.

Thanks for the clarification, the new BCS format still confuses me.

But I think if the top 4 stay unbeaten it will probably be Ohio State v. Auburn by based on their tougher schedules IMO. Although it would be kinda interesting to see former snubs USC and Auburn go at it (except for the whole not having OSU in there).

[KevinMcD]

OSU vs. Auburn. They were 1-2 since the beginning of the year so they will stay that way. That will be a good game in Gledale. If this happens they have to go to a playoff, USC and WV will be whining like Auburn did in '02.

[Bleujayone]

Ranking sytems suck. It's like judges scores in skating or gymnastics- a decision based on opinions not necessarily on accomplishment. This ranking system also encourages teams to run up the score on weaker opponents in order to improve their rankings (basically, if you have sportsmanship- you get penalized).

There should be a playoff system in place. Divs I-AA, II, and III alrady prove it can be done. Every year in I-A there's always some ranking contoversy, who has a stonger schedule, who's REALLY #1, "co-champs", left out, B-S.

How hard is this; if you win the conference, you're in the playoffs. Period. If you're the running up in the conference- you get to go too. Simply going 11-0 shouldn't make you automatically in the championship, and going 10-1 or 9-2 shouldn't eliminate you. You could start off with 22 teams and have them play 1 game a week over the month of December- by January you'd be down to 2. One loss, you're out. None of the bowl game crap. No ranking. Just wins and losses.

I know, I know... It's not going to happen while universities can make oodles of cash in their joke of bowl games. Six wins and you too can play a meaningless exhibition game.

But just imagine if you could have a NCAA Final Four of football- with the championship on New Year's Day.

.....so long as I'm dreaming I'd also like a pony.

[winghaz]

I would absolutely love it if four teams -- those four, for example -- would finish the regular season unbeaten.

[BCBoy]

Well, no doubt it should be Ohio State vs. Auburn for the National Championship since they play in better conferences than the crappy Pac-10 and the Big East (which I am beginning to respect, but it's not on the same level as the Big 10 or SEC).

[Cyclopsis Joe]

Man, why does it have to be these four!?

[OMMF]

In the spirit of the oft-quoted words of our President: "You forgot about Rutgers!"

[NJTank]

I never thought Id see Rutgers ranked let alone be 5-0

[Epiphanic]

I would have preferred that TCU went unbeaten and all the "big schools" finish with one loss. That would be a primo situation for all the BCS haters as the Horned Frogs would certainly not be in the Championship game and possibly not in a BCS bowl.

But alas, they were beat.

The Scarlet Knights are a nice surprise, but they are part of the Big East so they are a BCS school (albeit an unlikely one).

[Burning River]

Living in Ohio, I am a homer for Ohio State. Always my favorite team. But, I always thought the Pre-Seaon ranking were an escape clause for the BCS to use at the end of the year. I think you should have your first ranking (AP and Coaches) after 3 or 4 games. The it would be more fair... and... MORE ACCURATE!! But, they set themselves up in case there are several undefeated. They say "Oh.. so sorry. The Pre-Season poll had you two ranked 9 and 11, the other two were ranked higher at 1 and 4."

So far this year... things may take care of themselves. Example: If Ohio State and Michigan go undeafeated until they meet. One of them will lose and "POOF!" no more Championship game worries for the BCS!

A Play-Off format with the Bowl System in place is the solution. Wouldn't the CapitalOne Bowl be more interesting if it were Round 1 of the Play-Offs??

[infrared41]

There should be a playoff system in place. Divs I-AA, II, and III alrady prove it can be done. Every year in I-A there's always some ranking contoversy, who has a stonger schedule, who's REALLY #1, "co-champs", left out, B-S.

How hard is this; if you win the conference, you're in the playoffs. Period. If you're the running up in the conference- you get to go too. Simply going 11-0 shouldn't make you automatically in the championship, and going 10-1 or 9-2 shouldn't eliminate you. You could start off with 22 teams and have them play 1 game a week over the month of December- by January you'd be down to 2. One loss, you're out. None of the bowl game crap. No ranking. Just wins and losses.

I'm not in favor of a full fledged playoff but I do think there should be a "plus one" game just because of situations like this. A full fledged playoff would make regular season games like OSU-Michigan and Notre Dame-USC etc. far less important and it still doesn't solve the problem of good teams getting left out.

How does this one get solved in a playoff system? What happens if...

Ohio State goes 3-1 non conference and 7-1 in the Big 10. Final record 10-2

Michigan goes 4-0 non conference and 6-2 in the Big 10 Final record 10-2

Penn State goes 4-0 non conference and 6-2 in the Big 10 Final record 10-2

Iowa goes 0-4 non conference and 7-1 in the Big 10 with wins over Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State but they lose to Indiana. They win the Big 10 with a final overall record 7-5.

Iowa goes to the playoffs at 7-5 while two of three 10-2 teams stay home. I know it's unlikely but it's possible.

[rams80]

There should be a playoff system in place. Divs I-AA, II, and III alrady prove it can be done. Every year in I-A there's always some ranking contoversy, who has a stonger schedule, who's REALLY #1, "co-champs", left out,  B-S.

How hard is this; if you win the conference, you're in the playoffs. Period.  If you're the running up in the conference- you get to go too. Simply going 11-0 shouldn't make you automatically in the championship, and going 10-1 or 9-2 shouldn't eliminate you.  You could  start off with 22 teams and have them play 1 game a week over the month of December- by January you'd be down to 2. One loss, you're out. None of the bowl game crap. No ranking. Just wins and losses.

I'm not in favor of a full fledged playoff but I do think there should be a "plus one" game just because of situations like this. A full fledged playoff would make regular season games like OSU-Michigan and Notre Dame-USC etc. far less important and it still doesn't solve the problem of good teams getting left out.

How does this one get solved in a playoff system? What happens if...

Ohio State goes 3-1 non conference and 7-1 in the Big 10. Final record 10-2

Michigan goes 4-0 non conference and 6-2 in the Big 10 Final record 10-2

Penn State goes 4-0 non conference and 6-2 in the Big 10 Final record 10-2

Iowa goes 0-4 non conference and 7-1 in the Big 10 with wins over Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State but they lose to Indiana. They win the Big 10 with a final overall record 7-5.

Iowa goes to the playoffs at 7-5 while two of three 10-2 teams stay home. I know it's unlikely but it's possible.

16-team playoff.

11 Conference champs

5 at larges

Seeding done by whatever ranking system is in place by then.

You were wondering what the point of marquee games would be? Seeding.

Perfectly fair.

Also in your Iowa scenario, it's ludicrous to suggest that a team capable of winning games against OSU, Michigan, and Penn State in a given year would have that awful a Non-Conference schedule. Anyway, my defense of the system there would be...1) We place a lot of emphasis on winning the conference, something Iowa clearly was capable of doing. 2) The quality Conference wins should silence any doubt about Iowa's worthiness.

[whitedawg22]

I think you should have your first ranking (AP and Coaches) after 3 or 4 games. The it would be more fair... and... MORE ACCURATE!!

I can't believe I'm agreeing with a Buckeye, but I agree that this is the biggest flaw in the current college football ranking system. Take a look at the rankings right now: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex. What separates any of the undefeated teams (or one-loss teams) except preseason expectations and rankings? So far there have only been a few games that have given any insight into how strong the best teams really are (OSU-Texas, Michigan-ND, Auburn-LSU, etc.), and it's rare for one undefeated team to leapfrog another, barring a loss.

Teams should be ranked based on how strong people think they are based on their entire season of games, not moved up or down based on their previous ranking and their past week's result. The only way to ensure this holds true is to require that any polls which have a part in determining BCS teams refrain from publishing until midway through the season, as the BCS poll itself does.

[Epiphanic]

You need to keep in mind that part of the BCS formula are human polls (i.e. Coaches Poll) which inherently bias the BCS system. It really doesn't matter when the BCS polling is released, because the same junk goes into it.

Ultimately, the only way to determine a true champion is by virtue of a playoff system. Conference winners and at-larges are fair enough. Infrared's scenario of Iowa winning the Big 10 with a 7-5 record is just the way it happens. Similar stuff happens with the NCAA tournament with the automatic bids of the one-bid conferences (i.e. Oakland (MI) qualified with a losing record). If you can't win your conference...bummer.

A tournament system inherently replaces the bowl system and probably will never be seriously considered because of it. (It's all about the benjamins, baby). With that in mind and the failure of the BCS system to fix what it was designed to avoid (split-national championships), the NCAA should just get rid of the BCS system and accept the fact that there may be multiple national champion. For me, the NCAA just needs to decide which is the lesser of two evils: split national championships or a playoff system.

[rams80]

I've said this before and will continue to say this...Why can't you have both? (toss about 8 bowls to the playoffs, and you can have additional bowls for teams that don't make the field of 16.)

[Epiphanic]

I've said this before and will continue to say this...Why can't you have both? (toss about 8 bowls to the playoffs, and you can have additional bowls for teams that don't make the field of 16.)

You can name each game the Such and Such Bowl, but the point I am tring to make is that a playoff system inherently changes the system where the Bowl system isn't really valid. That's all.