# Louisville Cardinal BCS Title Game?



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

With Ohio State and Michigan playing each other late in the season and one of them obviously taking a loss, can an undefeated Louisville Cardinal team from the Big East make the BCS title game over a one loss OSU/Michigan or a one loss SEC team?


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

I don't think they can. I think they should play in the national championship (if undefeated), but those computer rankings won't help their cause. 

Their only hope is a blow out of monumental proportions in the Mich-OSU game, so the voters can drop the loser of that game down a few notches in the other polls. If it's close either way, then they'll be ranked 1 (winner) and 3 (loser), and even a 2 in the polls won't help them over come the dreaded computer rankings.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If we end the season with just two undefeated teams, then I hope those two teams get to play each other, no matter what the names on the jerseys... but there are a couple of scenarios that scare me.

If Ohio St wins out, and Louisville wins out, I think that is the best shot... even if Louisville has close games I think they might just earn enough points to squeak by at #2 by the end of the season.

IF, however, Michigan wins out... that poses more of a problem because Ohio St wouldn't drop as far with one loss and might still get into a title game rematch.

It is still dicey anyway if Florida or Auburn wins out as the points after #1/#2 right now are pretty bunched up.

On the flip side... I almost want the BCS to screw up big time so people will finally give some serious thought to a playoff system for division I.


----------



## Undertaker (Jan 1, 2005)

L' Yes!


----------



## rgraham541 (Aug 6, 2006)

HDMe said:


> On the flip side... I almost want the BCS to screw up big time so people will finally give some serious thought to a playoff system for division I.


I agree 100%:joy:


----------



## bulldog200024 (Jan 27, 2006)

I vote for

Bull
Crap
System


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

rgraham541 said:


> I agree 100%:joy:


I would agree, too, but only if they make winning you conference worthwhile.

I'd have the 6 BCS conference champs, 1 mid-major (highest ranked), and one at-large bid (ranked 8th or higher, much like the Notre Dame rule already in effect).

But, then someone would complain that the best team in the SEC lost in their conference championship. Hello! If you lose in your conference championship, you are NOT the best team in the conference. That actually IS a playoff, and people complain.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I can agree with taking conference champions... and as said, if you play and lose your conference championship you can't say you weren't given a chance, because you played in the game and lost.

I wouldn't even have a problem if they just took say the top 8 or 10 teams at the end of the year and had a playoff there... even the mid-majors like a Marshall or Tulane crept close to #10 by going undefeated.

Besides the bowl system, though, I really hate the rankings determining things.

Take this year for instance... so far Ohio State and Michigan both look like good teams, but one of them is going to have to lose. Ok, and the loser of that game will drop. Also ok... BUT another 1-loss team like Florida can sneak in and go above Michigan just because Michigan lost late in the season vs Florida losing earlier in the season. That always seems suspect to me... especially in a year like this when we know two good teams are going to play and one has to lose no matter how incredible they are and even if they play 4 overtimes, someone has to lose... then another team who lost earlier can sneak in at the last minute.

That's why I want a playoff... Besides liking to see teams get a fair shake... imagine how great the college bowl season could be... instead of a bunch of 7-4 or 6-5 teams squaring off in the Tough Actin' Tinactin Fungus bowl... we could have a #1 vs #10 matchup!

Tell me the schools and TV networks wouldn't make way more money on that deal!

Should be a win-win... we play an 11-12 game season, then have a couple of weeks worth of playoffs in the existing bowls but with a higher calibre of teams playing in them.

In the meantime... I would love to see Louisville win out and get to play in the title game... and I'm an ACC fan, but we have no shot at anything major this year.


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

Michigan and Ohio State won't play each other in any BCS game.


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

I still would keep the current bowl system alive, though.

They could play the opening round during the early bowl games that usually match-up Conference A's 5th place team vs. Conference Bs 4th place team, play the semi-finals around New Years, and the nat'l championship the week after. It's 3 extra games for the two top teams, and 7 more bowls total. 

Plus, keep the other bowls, 'cuz their fun and that makes college football interesting. Hey, this year Indiana (my wife's alma mater) may go to the Motor City Bowl or something. That's great and gives everyone something to follow. 

You want your team to be playing for something, even if it's just a trip to the Insight Bowl.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

This is a movie that we will see over and over and over in the future.

The difference between the Big Least, or as I like the call it the "Leastleftovers", as it is really the schools that nobody wanted after the cream moved up from the old Big Least to the ACC, which itself was a leftover deal after the best school in the old Lambert Trophy eastern independents joined the Big 10, is a gap so wide that it will be easy for one team to dominate it, and then get pounded in either the BcS championship, or in whatever BcS bowl they are assigned to.

For reasons having to do with television more than anything else, the BcS took a good system that was working and created an illegal cartel of the true majors, plus the Leastleftovers, excluding the Leastleftovers peers in the other mid-major conferences (CUSA, MAC, Mountain West, etc). The theory was they could sell WVU or Pitt out of that joke league as something similar to what plays in the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC or Pac 10. 

Now it has Loserville. Or better yet, RUTGERS. Unless a complex set of upsets happen, it has to spool up its "championship game" of Ohio State (or Michigan) vs Rutgers or Loserville. The kind of game that if played in September would be on ESPN 360 Plus Extra Regional Sideband Two and would be a laugher.

At the very least (pun intended) it ends up with, hopefully fan-less Rutgers, having to be in one of its prescious cartel bowl slots getting pounded by whoever. Great. Eat it BcS.

BTW, the standard comback is "but WVU won the Sugar Bowl in 05". Yep. And if the other mid-majors were not excluded they would beat what was really the 4th best team in the SEC once every 5 or 10 years too. It does not prove that the Leastleftovers champion belongs, or that the Mountain West champion does not.

The BcS has a quandry on its dirty little hands. 

GREAT.


----------



## bigpuma (Feb 15, 2004)

HDMe said:


> On the flip side... I almost want the BCS to screw up big time so people will finally give some serious thought to a playoff system for division I.


We have seen the BCS screw up several times before and we still are no closer to a playoff system.


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

bigpuma said:


> We have seen the BCS screw up several times before and we still are no closer to a playoff system.


My question for those that want a playoff is: How would you like to see it done?

Bowls are already big money (TV, local economies, and schools), and some people like them (for holiday viewing and trips).

Also, what do you watch during the regular season and bowl season? I think my habits are the same for both; I'll watch Top 10 BCS teams, the Big Ten, and ND.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Unfortunately the BCS has gotten lucky most years... in that there are usually only 3 or maybe 4 teams at the end of the year who think they have a claim to a title game... and most years we have ended up with just two undefeateds... but the way to really have things blow up would be to have 4 undefeateds at the end of the year OR better yet about 10 teams with just one loss and no undefeated teams left... then the whole mess would go south in a hurry as everyone would be complaining.

I still like football... but I end up ignoring most of the bowl games because they have lower tier teams just playing to be playing... and even though we do get a few good matchups now with the BCS... I still don't feel like all the teams get a chance to play it out at the end of the year.

Nothing is perfect... and in basketball, for instance, the best team doesn't always win the NCAA... there is lots of luck involved... but at least the tournament winning team had to win 6 games in a row against usually increasing difficulty... and some smaller schools get a shot, and one loss doesn't completely kill your season.


----------



## Mustang Dave (Oct 13, 2006)

Well I guess this poll is now just academic :lol: I sort of thought Rutgers had a shot at beating Louisville but I wouldn't have bet money on it! Good game to watch even for non-fans of those teams. What mess if WV beats Rutgers the last game of the season. They might have to pick the Big East represenative based on the cheerleading squads.  

Out of the current top 10 in the BCS (as of Thursday Nov 9th 10:49pm and 10 seconds) it appears USC has the toughest remaining schedule with Oregon, Cal and ND left to play and have the opportunity to gain the most ground in the standings.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Well, well, well. 

Now the BcS cartel has to do something with fan-less Rutgers. It has walkovers over Cincy and Syracuse, and then it has to play at WVU. If the State University of New Jersey can beat West Virginia's university of New Jersians, then its is 12-0 and has played a schedule no less weak than WVU or Louisville did. 

So how does the cartel exclude Rutgers, and if it does, how does it ever sell WVU or Louisville as legitimate in future years?

Ohio State 75, Rutgers 0.

Only because OSU will let up in the second half.


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

I guess that's why they play the games. Hell, put Rutgers in there against an undefeated Big Ten team.

I agree with you Sam, they can't say that one BCS conference is inferior to another. Well, hmmm...maybe this will inspire the annual "BCS rule change".


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The only rule change the BcS needs to make is to abolish itself.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If Ohio St were all that great, then Illinois wouldn't have put a scare into them last week... Same for Michigan almost losing to Ball St.

I like how those are explained away as "flukes" when a team like Rutgers or Louisville plays the same Illinois team and wipes the floor with them, it is described as part of a weak schedule.

I also always love how if Michigan scheduled Rutgers everyone would say how weak their schedule was... but then this year they will pan Rutgers for not having a tough schedule.

"Big" teams are told not to schedule weak... weak teams are told to schedule strong... which makes it very tough for a smaller school to schedule a "big" team since it is win-win for the small school and lose-lose for the big one.

Even with a playoff, some teams would be left out and others would claim they were robbed... but at least we would get some head-to-head matchups that might not otherwise be scheduled.

No one from the big schools, for instance, wants Boise St on their schedule after how that school competes in recent years... If you lose people will say "how do you lose to Boise St"? And if you win, people say "weak schedule"... then at the same time will bash Boise St for not having a tough schedule either.

Also continues to amaze me how teams with one loss are said to be "improving" since their loss... but Michigan could lose their last game of the year (essentially) to Ohio St and considered being suddenly in a downward spiral just for playing a tough team!

And last, but not least... two undefeated teams (Boise St and Rutgers) will likely get few top ten votes this week in lieu of teams who have lost already a game, in some cases a loss to a lower ranked team.

Also curious... since Rutgers has essentially the same schedule as Louisville... it seems to me that everyone who thought Louisville (including computer rankings) was #3 should now rank Rutgers higher than them for winning the game and at least in the top 5... but I suspect Louisville will drop to around #10, WV will go up to #9 even though they lose to Louisville, and Rutgers will hover around #11 or #12 even though they beat Louisville.

Strangeness and some "good old boy" stuff keeps many teams out of the rankings.


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

Good game. Bad result. Schiano made some GREAT half time adjustments that my Cards just couldn't adapt to... oh well, I'm an alum, I love my Cards 8-1 or 1-8. I hope Rutgers runs the table now, simply because that will help UofL be higher than WVU in the polls and have a better shot at an at-large BCS bid...


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Neither Louisville nor WVU have any shot at a second BcS bid for the Big Least.

You have 10 slots. Five go to the champions of the major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, SEC and ACC). Then the Big Least gets one. So you have four wild cards.

Notre Dame, unless it colapses gets one. The OSU-UM loser gets one. The SEC championship game loser gets one. And Auburn or Boise State gets the last one. 

It is almost impossible to justify the automatic bid for the Big Least, but to dream of a second bid is impossible.

Louisville's best hope is for UND to win out (and thus make the BcS and not get the Least's #2's slot in the Gator), Pitt to beat WVU and WVU to beat Rutgers. That leaves WVU with 2 losses and Rutgers and Louisville tied with one. Rutgers goes the BcS, Louisville to the Gator and WVU to Canada.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

For the folks who like to slam the Big East... and keep in mind I'm an ACC fan!

Check out this year's Ohio State schedule...

9/2 N. ILLINOIS W 35-12
9/9 at Texas W 24-7
9/16 CINCINNATI W 37-7
9/23 PENN STATE W 28-6
9/30 at Iowa W 38-17
10/7 BOWLING GRN. W 35-7
10/14 at Michigan St. W 38-7
10/21 INDIANA W 44-3
10/28 MINNESOTA W 44-0
11/4 at Illinois W 17-10
11/11 at N'western
11/18 MICHIGAN

The games already played, and won, have the scores beside of them... Ok, they played and beat Texas... and will play Michigan... the other 10 games are against so-so teams.

With Louisville and WVU in the top 10... and Rutgers in the top 15... and Rutgers still has to play WVU I believe, after just beating #3... can someone explain how Ohio State is playing such a hard schedule by comparison? Each school will have played (by season end) 2 top 10 teams during the year.

Just saying... lots of "weak schedule" slamming going on.. but I don't see a lot of meat in the Ohio St schedule either... and I believe Rutgers blew-out Illinois 33-0, which Ohio St barely got by...

They have another common opponent in Cincinnati... which Rutgers has not yet played... so perhaps another chance to guage Rutgers vs Ohio St.


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

The other two things I'd like to point out are:

1. How many teams have played 9 bowl eligible teams (by the end of the regular season)? The team that did the UofL/Rutgers game said only 1 - Louisville. 

2. Anyone catch Kirk Herbstreet's comment in the 2nd half, paraphrasing - "For all those critics of the Big East, myself included, that were against the strength of the Big East, BACK OFF. This conference with the depth of Louisville, WVU, Rutgers, Pitt, South Florida is good enough for the BCS."


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

If your ISP gets ESPN360, spool up Friday's "Five Good Minutes" segment of PTI. Its Corso and he explains about the Leastleftovers relative to the true majors in a very articulate manner. 

Its just not the same. Its a lower level of the sport.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I saw Corso on PTI... and he slammed the Big East for playing against Cincinnati... but Ohio State scheduled Cincinnati too! I notice he didn't slam them...

I also notice he slammed Rutgers for playing UNC... but he didn't slam Notre Dame for playing UNC.

Without a playoff, we have no idea how these teams would play against each other.

I also note that so far today... Auburn lost... Cal lost... Florida squeaked by winning by 1 pt.. so maybe this will all become a moot point as those "clearly better than the Big East 1-loss teams" will lose their 2nd games over the next week and Rutgers can float to the top anyway in spite of the bias.

I want a tournament, and soon... as not only would it settle the arguments... but we would get to see some great matchups of teams that never play each other instead of crappy 6-5 teams playing in the Tic-Tac Awesomeness Bowl


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

A "tournament" would ruin college football.

In any event, the talking heads that argue about the non-conference schedules of Leastleftovers teams compared to the non-conference schedlues of True Majors miss the point entirely. 

The issue is the CONFERENCE schedule of the Leastleftovers that is weak. They play each other.

This is a play that we will see over and over. The True Majors will eliminate each other and a Leastleftover will sail through its cupcake filled league of marginal programs.

Its just a different level.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Again... look at Ohio State's schedule of cupcakes... most of those are in their conference. Most of their conference is not very good this year either. They aren't even playing the other good team (Wisconsin) in their own league this year!

Let me ask this... if you think you can rank a team based on your own perceptions without them actually playing against other teams you rank ahead of them... would you like your own job performance to be evaluated the same way? Say your salary is determined not by your boss who actually sees you work every day, but by bosses at other companies who deem your job "easier" than their employees and thus you should be paid less.

Also... the same "experts" who are ranking the teams about the Big East now... are the same experts who had Florida St and Miami and Penn St in the top 10 pre-season! The ONLY reason to have Florida St and Miami in the pre-season top 10 is because of reputation and nothing to do with this year at all... and as has played out during the season, neither team was very good. In fact virtually ALL the experts had Florida St as a favorite last night against Wake Forest... and Wake beat them badly (30-0) in Tallahassee... so how do you think the "experts" are doing ranking teams?

Maybe if this "tournament would ruin football" feeling is correct, we should stop all tournaments. Why have it in the NFL? Or basketball if you want to stay with college sports... let's just use the polls to determine the top-2 NCAA teams and play one basketball game at the end of the year too.


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

HDMe said:


> I saw Corso on PTI... and he slammed the Big East for playing against Cincinnati... but Ohio State scheduled Cincinnati too! I notice he didn't slam them...


I guess Corso forgot that Cincinnati is in the Big East and therefore must be played. Just like all the SEC teams have to play perrenial pushover Kentucky and Vandy...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ray_Clum said:


> I guess Corso forgot that Cincinnati is in the Big East and therefore must be played. Just like all the SEC teams have to play perrenial pushover Kentucky and Vandy...


Yep... maybe he hasn't adjusted to the new conference alignments. I admit, I have a hard time reminding myself that Lousville and Cincinnati are Big East now... especially during basketball season where the Big East is huge and lots of talent top to bottom.

Even before joining the Big East, I got to see Louisville play a couple of times as NC State had them on the schedule for a couple of years there... always confused me because the colors of the jerseys were so similar it was sometimes hard to tell which team was which when you first turned on the football game!

I'm still hoping for more collapse of the 1-loss teams to help out Rutgers if they stay undefeated.

I admit (and I'm guessing you share this) I was confused when I saw the new polls this morning... The AP has #7 Rutgers, #8 WVU, #10 Louisville. The Coaches poll has #7 WVU, #8 Rutgers, and #12 Louisville.

I figured it would be more like 7-8-9 with Rutgers, Louisville, then WVU... since WVU was beaten solidly by Louisville it made no sense to move WVU back in front again... and with Rutgers undefeated it makes sense to rank them above WVU who was beaten by the team they just beat.

But nobody ever said the folks voting in the polls made sound voting decisions!


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

I hope the actual voters have more common sense that Corso.

If you are scheduling your teams out of conference games today, then you are making your 2011 schedule, cause everything else has been scheduled years in advance.

If you go to www.nationalchamps.net, you can see every teams future schedule.

What a coach that is hired today should do is recruit for his own team, then take some time to recruit for his opponents four years down the road. Can you see Charlie Weiss doing that? "well, if not ND, maybe you'd like to play in Pittsburgh, or serve your country in the Navy"


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jimbo09 said:


> What a coach that is hired today should do is recruit for his own team, then take some time to recruit for his opponents four years down the road. Can you see Charlie Weiss doing that? "well, if not ND, maybe you'd like to play in Pittsburgh, or serve your country in the Navy"


That's a great point! Lots of folks that had Miami or Florida St on the schedule this year are getting good wins that mean nothing. Florida from the SEC, for instance, may very well be playing a Florida St team with a losing record! In past years that would have been a top 10 matchup.

Even with normal 4-year turnover you don't know what a school will be like by the time you schedule them to play you... and then with folks leaving early and injuries, there is no way of knowing if that powerhouse schedule you set up for 2011 will actually be a good one once it gets here!


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

Teams above my Cards...

1. Ohio State 
One game left - 11/18 vs. Michigan​2. Michigan 
One game left - 11/18 at Ohio State​3. USC 
Three games left - 11/18 vs. California, 11/25 vs. Notre Dame, 12/2 at UCLA​4. Florida 
Three games left - 11/18 vs. Western Carolina, 11/25 at Florida State the SEC Title Game vs. Arkansas​5. Notre Dame 
Two games left - 11/18 vs. Army 11/25 at USC​6. Rutgers 
Three games left - 11/18 at Cincinnati, 11/25 vs. Syracuse, 12/2 at West Virginia​7. Arkansas 
Three games left - 11/18 at Mississippi State, 11/24 vs. LSU, then SEC Title Game vs. Florida​8. West Virginia 
Three games left - 11/16 at Pitt, 11/25 vs. South Florida, 12/2 vs. Rutgers​9. Wisconsin 
One game left - 11/18 vs. Buffalo​10. Louisville 
Three games left - 11/18 vs. South Florida, 11/25 at Pittsburgh, 12/2 Connecticut​
Best bet for my Cards to get a Top 6 BCS and an automatic bid:


Louisville wins out, impressively
Florida and Arkansas win out, then Florida win SEC Title Game
Rutgers wins out, including at WVU
USC thumps Notre Dame

or

Rutgers and WVU lose 2 of next 3 games and Louisville wins out - goes as Big East Champ

Having said all this, I love my Cardinals 8-1 or 1-8, I love them, their my alma mater and as was sung in the '60s you gotta be true to your school...


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

Wait a minute, didn't you guys beat WVU....how are you all lower than them now?


If Rutgers wins out, you have your best chance to pull an at large with 1 loss, since the SEC teams will have at least 2, and WVU will drop. If WVU beats Rutgers, they are the Big East babyface, and the voters will elevate them and drop everyone else just out of anti-Big East bias.


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

jimbo09 said:


> Wait a minute, didn't you guys beat WVU....how are you all lower than them now?
> 
> If Rutgers wins out, you have your best chance to pull an at large with 1 loss, since the SEC teams will have at least 2, and WVU will drop. If WVU beats Rutgers, they are the Big East babyface, and the voters will elevate them and drop everyone else just out of anti-Big East bias.


Yeah, don't get me started on that one... I think that my four items are pretty good. It would give the help for Louisville to get the Top 6 auto at-large...


----------

