Talk:Bowl Championship Series

message: I changed all the references to "Southern Cal" to instead say USC, as the last section in the USC Trojans football page notes, under the heading "Correct terminology." --Impaciente 12:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Cal-->USC

message: Does someone want to tackle how the computer ratings are being handled? It seems to be an interesting focus of controversy right now. And I'm a California student :) Goodralph 02:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer Rankings

message: I'm wondering about this statement from the article: "There was also an incident in which two AP voters from Texas were reprimanded by their newspapers for putting Auburn ahead of Texas." I never heard anything about this at the time.  I've done a Google search but turned up no evidence.  Does anyone have a source for this, please? Johntex\talk 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for Statement

message: I recently saw during the Seahawks-Panthers telecast that Fox (in addition to getting the TV rights for the next few years) had designed a new BCS logo with their logo in it. As soon as it comes up on Google Images could someone (and this does include me) put it up?--ChicosBailBonds 02:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New logo

message: the BCS official website(which you have linked up) states that
A)a champion from the non-auto bid conferences(IE, the MWC, CUSA, WAC, MAC, Sunbelt) gains a bid automatically by finishing in the top12 of the BCS standings or
B) gains a bid automatically by finishing in the top 16 of the BCS if a BCS conference champion finishes lower than said team.
however it is never stated nor implied in any language that the lower ranked BCS conference Champ is to relinquish its automatic bid in place the non-auto Champion. Therefore, if those rules were applied to the 2005-2006 season, TCU would have qualified but Florida State would have remained in the BCS also.
:After another edit of someone to try and suggest that someone would be selected instead of another conference champion, I believe quoting the BCS website on how this works is the best explanation. I have added this and replaced all previous info on the subject. If someone wants to rewrite it so it's not a direct quote, but as long as it says the same thing, please do.  --MECU≈talk 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSU would still be qualified 

message: I do not believe this article needs the link to BCS-sucks.com. I have removed the link twice. If you believe this link needs to exist, please provide justification here. --MECU≈talk 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No problem.  Just thought it was relevant as a leading anti-BCS website.  Is there any Wikipedia page where the link should go? TexasDawg 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think so. I looked at the website and don't see any value of it. It doesn't present any well formed argument and just reposts news with some off-hand comments. And how can you back up the claim that it is the leading anti-BCS website? If you wanted to expand or create a section on opponents to the BCS or alternatives to the BCS, I think it would work quite well in the article as long as it remains NPOV and cites sources for the claims. Then, this website might belong in there. --MECU≈talk 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe at least one or two anti-BCS pages should be listed.  BCS-sucks.com is a fine one as far as I'm concerned, though I don't mind if someone finds a different one or two they think are more informative.  Regardless, we should link to some BCS criticism in the name of balance.  Criticism of the BCS is a significant viewpoint that should be represented in the external links. Johntex\talk 07:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried to connect to www.bcs-sucks.com and couldn't. I'm fine with criticism of the BCS, but if I recall when I looked at it back in August, it didn't have much value and mostly had advertisements. Perhaps it has changed, if I could connect to it, I'd be willing to look at it again. --MECU≈talk 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem to be working for me either, which is a bad sign for using them.  Let's see if we can find a better site. Johntex\talk 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This addition that was added  but then reverted as linkspam I think is actually decent. The site looks new and doesn't have much information, but it's clean and presents a counter argument (though with not many words) and a proposal. I'd be for including it in Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS-sucks.com external link 

message: I don't think this revert was needed: , the before we add that information, we need to cite a source to provide that information, otherwise it would be original research. If you can provide the source, add it in and cite it please. --MECU≈talk 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite needed 

message: *I was reading the schedule for 2006-07 and where the hell does the Big East champion fit in this? --Kevmicester2000 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big East Champion is clearly listed under "at large teams".  This is because (unlike the champions from conferences like the Pac-10, Big-10 or Big-12) the Big East Champion is not tied to a certain bowl by contract.  If you don't like that, I suggest you take it up with the Big East and tell them you want them to negotiate a bowl-tie-in contract for their conference champion. Johntex\talk 07:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry my bad I thought they were under an atomatic BCS berth --Kevmicester2000 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob.  They do have an automatic berth - it just isn't specifically tied to a particular bowl.  They are guaranteed to play in a BCS bowl, just not guaranteed which one it will be.  I hope that helps - sorry if my first reply was harsh. Johntex\talk 06:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIG EAST NEED RESPECT 

message: *Sigh* Let the mass of Michigan fans editing this page begin. Already there has been at least one. Hopefully they can get over it....
02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan Fans 

message: In the section 2004-05 Formula, LSU's number in the coaches poll should be 99.4, not 96.3 (1516/1525)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry Wright, III (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made. --MECU≈talk 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math Typo 

message: This section is hidden to save space.  Click the [show] button to display it
THE REGULAR SEASON
All conferences must have a championship game or a valid champion (one who has played all of its conference opponents). There a couple ways this could happen within a 12-game regular season: 
1. All BCS conferences must have 12 teams: the Big Ten could pick up a twelfth team (Notre Dame, or possibly a strong MAC or C-USA team), the PAC-10 opens up its doors for a couple strong WAC or Mountain West teams, and the Big East finds four teams from the C-USA, MAC or Independents (Marshall, Ball State, Navy, Army, and etc.). In this case, all teams would play 8 regular season conference games, 3 non-conf. games and four teams per conference would play a ninth (the conference championship game and “battle for third” game—I’ll explain later).
Or…
2. Big 12, SEC, ACC would play 8 conference games (with four teams per conference playing a ninth conference game), the PAC-10 would play nine conference games, the Big East (needing to pick up only two teams) would play nine conference games, and the Big Ten would play 10 conference games and everyone would still play three non-conference games (except for the Big 10, which would only play two non-conf. games). 
Now, in either event, there will be a number of teams that only play eleven games since only two teams per 12-team conference play in the conference championship. I would suggest that along with a conference championship, a “battle for third” game would be played between each division’s second-place teams. This would allow four teams per BCS conference to qualify for the playoffs, and if you aren’t in the top 4 of a BCS conference you should not be worried about trying to get into the playoffs (sorry Tennessee).
A stipulation would be that each team’s “regular” season starts on the Saturday before Labor Day and end on the Saturday before Thanksgiving (which would allow for one bye week). Championships for all conferences are held on the Saturday after Thanksgiving (which, I think, would become a hugely popular tradition). The six BCS conference champs would be granted automatic entry into the playoffs.
Regarding non-conference games: out of the three non-conference games at least two must be against teams that finished in the top 40 of the BCS on average over the last five years. One of the two Top-40 games must be against a team from a BCS conference. 
In the Big Ten’s case, if they didn’t pick up a 12th team or drop a team (it would be best if Penn State jumped ship and joined the Big East, which would instantly increase the credibility of that conference), they would have to play 10 conference games to determine a valid champion and therefore would only have two non-conf. games, but would still have to adhere to the non-conf. game scheduling parameters. Don’t feel too bad though, they still get to play Northwestern, Illinois and Indiana every year. 
This schedule would leave less room for cupcake games (really, only one per year, which would allow some “tradition” games to be played, like ND vs. Army) and would help voters see how teams truly stack up against other conferences while also allowing non-BCS conference teams the chance to beef up their resumes. And remember, the opponents need only to average a Top 40 BCS ranking from the immediate five preceding seasons, which means more than 40 teams will meet this criteria (probably 45-48).
THE BCS RANKINGS
Currently, the BCS only ranks the top 25. Obviously the BCS formula would have to be adjusted to rank the top 50 or 60 teams so that teams could get into the “Top 40.” Computer polls already rank all Div. I teams and the human polls would be adjusted as follows:
Since it is too hard for coaches (who are legitimately biased, anyway) to figure out a top 25, the coaches’ poll would be replaced by a 25-person committee that would rank the Top 50. This committee would be composed of venerable sportswriters, ex-players, ex-coaches, ex-refs and etc.. Each committee member would be paid a stipend-salary. The playoffs will make a TON of money, so paying 25 people $20,000 to rank teams for 3 months a year seems feasible, especially because it will be the committee’s JOB to rank the Top 50. 
Since the top 50-60 BCS teams are the only ones that need to be analyzed, this means that only 25-35 games must be watched thoroughly (considering that some top 50-60 teams will  be playing non-top 50-60 teams). Each committee member would be required to watch and thoroughly evaluate four games; these games would be randomly picked according to schedule (i.e. all 1 pm EST games are split amongst the members, and etc.) and assigned to each member. This would create an overlap of 3-4 committee members per game. 
Not all games are televised (but MOST are) and so thoroughly analyzing all 35 meaningful (Top 50 BCS) games might not be feasible every week. But, each committee member will have their “games to watch” schedule weeks before the beginning of the season and could speak with local media, scout the conference that teams are from, or even arrange to have trusted sources scout the game for them. Of course there are going to be discrepancies, they are unavoidable, but this committee would produce a much more educated, credible and equitable ranking system than the Coaches’ Poll. 
I would recommend the committee get into the same room on Monday afternoon to hammer out the rankings and educate fellow members about the games they missed. The actual rankings would be a poll from among all 25 members (to be published each week) and would not come out until Wednesday of each week in order to allow the most time for deliberation from the committee. 
Harris Poll voters would have to rank their Top 50 as well, though the Harris Poll should get less weight in the BCS formula, as their rankings will not be as concise or informed as the committee poll.
Neither human poll is to start until after the fourth week of the season (hint: don’t schedule a bye or a cupcake in the first four weeks of the season), so the first BCS Top 50 poll would not be published until the Wednesday after the fourth week of the season (invariably, the last Wednesday of September). 
The breakdown of the BCS formula will be 40% BCS Committee Ranking, 30% Harris Poll, and 30% Computer Poll Average (top and bottom computer scores dropped, all computer polls must factor margin-of-victory up to 21 points).
Regarding a team’s five-year average: if a team received absolutely no votes of confidence from either human poll then their final regular season computer poll average would still be used to calculate their BCS ranking for that year. The final BCS poll would actually rank every single Div. I-A team since the computer poll average would always create SOME kind of BCS ranking. Also, this would allow us to retroactively figure out each teams’ five-year average for scheduling purposes. 
NOTRE DAME
I know you thought I was going to neglect the Notre Dame situation, but I’m not. If you look at past BCS rankings, it becomes clear that the current BCS conferences usually have 3-4 Top 25 teams in the final standings (further supporting the automatic entry rule for BCS conference). Even the ACC finished with three Top 25 BCS teams this year. If that field were pushed out to 50, it would show that the BCS conferences field at least five Top 40 BCS teams (over a five-year average), which means BCS conference teams are, on average, playing four BCS Top 40 teams per year. And since each team is required to play at least two other non-conf. Top 40 BCS teams in order to qualify for the playoffs that brings the magic number to six. 
If Notre Dame (or any other independent) declined to join a BCS conference they would have to schedule at least six teams which were ranked in the Top 40 BCS (over a five-year average), two of which must average in the Top 20 BCS (over a five-year average) in order to be eligible for the post-season. Notre Dame’s current schedule holds two Top 20 teams (UM, USC), one Top 25 team (UCLA) and three teams that might have averaged Top 40 over the past five years (Penn St., Purdue, Georgia Tech). 
Looks like Charlie might need to start scheduling some tougher teams, huh? Well, that’s been the argument against them all season, so guess what? This year Notre Dame might not be eligible for the playoffs. Of course, according to the rules, hardly anyone would qualify for the playoffs, as no one scheduled two non-conf. games against BCS Top 40 teams (except USC). Who knows what might have happened had Notre Dame scheduled Tennessee instead of North Carolina? At any rate, the bowls wouldn’t need all the revenue that a Notre Dame game would bring since EVERYONE would watch the playoffs, no matter who was playing. You know why? Because it would be the PLAYOFFS!
THE PLAYOFFS
After the 12-game regular season six automatic entries would be granted to the BCS Conference Champions into the 12-team NCAA DIV. 1A Football Playoffs. The other six slots would be filled by at-large teams who would earn a spot in the playoffs according to the final BCS rankings. Now, in some cases, one (or possibly two) BCS conference champions would not be in the top 12 of the final BCS standings and in that case, the team ranked 12th (or 11th) in the final BCS would be left out.
This system also provides a smooth transition to a 16-game format (without adding any weeks to the schedule) should “bubble” teams like WVU, Virginia Tech, Rutgers and Tennessee feel left out. 
But, I would take issue with the argument that some team is always going to feel left out. Here’s the thing, if you go out and schedule good non-conf. games, you can afford to lose one or two conference games. But WVU, Va. Tech and Rutgers had horrible non-conf. schedules, and Tennessee lost three conference games (too many!) can they really make a solid argument that they should be in the playoffs?
The playoffs would be structured similar to the NFL Playoffs, teams being seeded by the BCS rankings and with the top four in the final BCS standings being given a bye in the first round. 
The first round (Seed 12 vs. 5, 8 vs. 9, 7 vs. 10, 6 vs. 11) would be played on the second Saturday of December, which is anywhere from Dec. 9th to 15th (would play on third Saturday in one particular instance when Thanksgiving falls on the 29th, the latest possible date for Thanksgiving). This is a solid 6-10 days before most college exam weeks fall so this would allow the “student-athletes” ample time to study and read up on Voltaire.  
The second round of the playoffs would be one week later (a range of December 16th through 22nd); currently there are seven bowls scheduled to be played between Dec. 19th and 24th. 
The third round (or Final Four) would be the week after Christmas (at least 10 days after the 2nd round), always rotating around New Year’s Day in a range of the 30th thru the 4th. The Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and Orange would rotate these two Final Four games and the NC game. 
When not hosting a playoff game the BCS bowl left out hosts a New Year’s Day game between the two highest BCS-ranked teams that did not make the playoffs. This year it would’ve been Notre Dame versus WVU; are you gonna tell me you wouldn’t rather see a close, high scoring game between these to offenses than the slaughtering LSU is gonna give the Domers?
Then the National Championship Game (not the BCS Championship Game!) would be held on a Monday night game over a week later, which would be Jan. 7th thru 13th to avoid conflicting with the NFL playoffs.
After all of this scheduling, there is still room for lower-tier bowls for teams that finish outside of the playoff bracket, especially if they want to fill in gaps over the New Year’s week, which will only have 3 bowls scheduled (I’ll get to specifics later).
Under this scenario the following teams would be playing on December 9th in the first round of the playoffs: Boise St. vs. Auburn, Wisconsin vs. Oklahoma, Louisville vs. Arkansas, and USC vs. Wake Forest.
Who wouldn’t want to see if BSU actually has what it takes against a seemingly superior SEC middle-of-the-packer? Or watch Wisconsin try to prove that they can beat a “quality” opponent while Oklahoma tries to lay to rest all of the whining over the Oregon game? Or how about two high-octane offenses like Arkansas and UL exchanging TDs like Christmas presents? And if UCLA can beat SC so could Wake. 
Also, within this bracket there exists no possible outcome where there are more than four rematches out of the 11 contests (although, because of the new stipulation that teams play Top-40 non-conf. games more rematches are likely to result in the post-season).
If you look at who would make the playoffs there is only one three-loss team (Arkansas) and they might not have made it had WVU, Rutgers or Va. Tech (2-loss teams) scheduled better non-conf. games and boosted their strength of schedule. I contend that this playoff system would not de-value the regular season because you still need to win at least 10 games just to get into the playoff conversation. You really think anyone will be taking a Saturday for granted if they feel like 10 wins might not be enough? 
THE FINANCES
One of the major hurdles to overcome is the college presidents of the BCS conferences who would not want to lose precious bowl dollars. Here’s what needs to happen to appease them:
All the college presidents and bowl chairmen from each bowl will negotiate for the eight opening round playoff games. 16 bowls would rotate hosting a playoff game two out of the four years, moving from first round, off, to second round, then off again (wash, rinse, and repeat).
11 of the 32 bowls that are played each year would host a playoff game. The 20 remaining bowls (eight of which will host a playoff game the next year) will select 40 non-playoff teams to play in their bowls. The remaining bowl is the BCS bowl left out for that particular year between the two highest-ranked playoff teams.
Now, I am no socialist, so I do not propose splitting all of the bowl money equally over the 119 Div. I teams. I simply propose that all TV money generated for ALL bowls be put into a pot and split equally among ALL bowl teams’ conferences. To elaborate: A total of 54 teams will play (40 non-playoff teams, 12 playoff teams, plus the 2 highest-ranked non-playoff teams) so if the SEC has seven bowl teams they would receive 7/54 (13%) of the total TV money for all Bowls. If the WAC has two bowl teams, they would receive 3.7%. This also means that Notre Dame no longer gets such a disproportionate amount of bowl money (1.85%, which is a whole lot better than the 9.17% they’re getting this year). 
Bowls would still make money on ticket, sponsorship and ancillary sales (MORE money, in fact). In this scenario there would be at LEAST 12 meaningful bowl games. How many meaningful bowls are there this year? Six? Seven at most? The bowls wouldn’t worry as much about how well teams “travel,” because fans will travel for a legitimate playoff game, not for the Sun Bowl presented by Minute Maid. Plus, playoff bowl games (16 bowls that currently don’t cause much of a stir) would surely get higher-profile sponsors: I’m sure Pepsi would jump at the chance to host a playoff game every other year that was GUARANTEED to sell-out and be a legitimate television event.
Flaws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.J.Grewe (talk • contribs) 
*Please note, this is a talk page for discussing the article in question, in this case, Bowl Championship Series.  It is not a message board for generally discussing the topic.  BigDT 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential College Playoff System 

message: The last part of paragraph two should include a statement to the effect that even though Ohio State and Boise State were the only two undeated teams in 2006, under the BCS system they did not play for the national championship. 
Dsanders60 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix this. Please let me know if y'all think this is OK.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on BCS Controversies 

message: The Future Schedules section should probably be the same as this.
:I made the few changes, it was just a few dates. I also added this url as a reference. Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~. --MECU≈talk 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me; my apologies.  But did you make changes?  Because I don't see them.  The 2009 Fiesta Bowl is still listed as January 3, 2009.  The 2010 Fiesta Bowl is still listed as January 2, 2010.  The 2010 Orange Bowl is also incorrect.  Just to be sure, the dates listed in the first link are also listed on the Orange Bowl site.72.140.103.37 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can see my changes here. Perhaps you need to refresh/reload the page? --MECU≈talk 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowl Schedule until 2010 

message: This page is getting really long (and, yes, I'm part of the problem).  We may want to consider splitting one or two of the sections, (formula and controversies, which could truly be their own articles).  I've tagged them.  However, I want to hear what the consensus thinks. Kermitmorningstar 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think the listy sections (near the bottom) could be removed to their own pages first and that would help tremendously. I'm hesitant to remove the BCS Controversies, but if after removing the formula and listy sections it's still long, then we can remove it as well using . --MECU≈talk 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  This page should discuss the evolution of the BCS, how it works, and arguments for and against it.  All other information should be either simply be deleted, moved to another page, or used to create new pages.--SMP0328 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of page 

message: Although there was plenty of controversy, I don't believe the 2006-2007 season was the most controversial season for the BCS.  However, the section describing controversies season has 2-4 times the amount of text/information as any of the other seasons.  The 2006-2007 controversies section should be edited/shortened to only the most important points, in my opinion.  Do others concur?  Does anyone want to do it? -Milkncookie 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-2007 Controversies 

message: This entire topic is extremely biased against the BCS system. This article should really focus on the factual events and leave the reader to decide how they feel about the BCS, or cite additional sources to show that opinions are in fact wide spread.
Snobrdjimmyjam 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  extremely biased 

message: The map of BCS Schools featured in this article is outdated. It is supposed to show all the teams from BCS conferences, plus each independent school. However, Temple is no longer an independent. They will begin playing in the MAC this season. Bmf 51 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS School Map 

message: A section regarding criticism of the BCS on the subject of revenue sharing was added, yet deleted without any discussion here.  I have reverted the deletion, added a further citation regarding Congressional inquiry, and moved the section under "BCS Controversies."  Should deletion be necessary, please discuss the reasons for doing so beforehand. 141.213.222.173 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of BCS Revenue Sharing 

message: This section includes the prospect that if there were indeed a playoff, teams would inevitably pull out their starters at the end of the season to either give them rest or as a way of tanking a game so they get a better opponent. There is no basis for this, and not an argument commonly made about college sports in general. The reasoning on the page is that this happens in the NFL, yet often teams in college have to win to maintain a high enough ranking for what the common cutoff suggestions are, especially with the conference championship game that some of those teams would have to win.
Bah, that looks like I'm trying to discuss it, but honestly, I feel like the part of the article I'm responding to does not have an expert opinion to back it up, and the logic within the article can be refuted by what I said. Jklharris 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS Support Section 

message: In the rules used to determine which teams compete in the BCS bowl games, I think there is a mistake.
There is the bullet that says
"The third-ranked team will receive an automatic berth, if it has not already received one."
but on the bcs website, it says
"If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 4, and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 3 in the final BCS Standings, that team will become an automatic qualifier, provided that no at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the national championship game."
Now, I think that means the third-ranked team will only receive an automatic berth if it
a) Is from one of the bcs conferences
b) Does not have another team in the conference that is in the bcs championship game.
It seems weird because that would virtually never happen.  It would imply that it is only applicable if the third ranked team is ranked above the champion of its conference.  18.232.1.131 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a good point... the explanation was unclear.  I added an example to try to clarify it.  It's possible to have 3 teams (one #1/#2, one #3/#4, and the conference champion).  In that case, the #3/#4 rule wouldn't apply, since it would violate the rule about 3 teams from a conference.  Yes, virtually impossible, but this is the BCS, right?  =P  Kermitmorningstar (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is another scenerio that is not quite clear, and while this is also virtually impossible, it can happen.  Bullet Point 1 says that #1 and #2 in the BCS will play for the National Championship.  Bullet #2 says Champions of the BCS Conferences are also guaranteed spots.  What happens under this scenerio, and I will use 2006 as an example.  Ohio State finished 1st in the BCS, and Michigan 3rd.  What would have happened if Michigan had of finished 2nd -- But the conference champion was NOT Ohio State OR Michigan, rather was Wisconsin.  That could have happened.  Now, in this instance, which team would be excluded?  #2 in the BCS or the Automatic Qualifier?  -Pparazorback (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in rules 

message: I think the BCS Controversies section should be moved to a new article.  This would reduce the content in this page which is becoming extremely long, and it would also allow for more elaborate coverage on both major and minor controversies.  I would be bold and do it myself, but I would like to see if any other people have suggestionsFrank Anchor (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.   This page is getting long. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work folks.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS Controversies 

message: This article is long enough (some will say too long) as it is.  Placing the result of each bowl game twice in both tables causes them to grow "downward" substantially after each season.  Since each BCS bowl game already has its own article with game results, the individual results here are redundant.  Alternatively, only W-L records of a team in a particular bowl could be listed in this article, by adding columns to the existing tables.  Z1perlster (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  two bowl tables will grow without limits 

message: :Image:20041129 phpF8eiVe.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:20041129 phpF8eiVe.gif

message: The "BCS support" section should be removed; its arguments in favor of the BCS are already summarized in the "BCS Controversy" section, and the section helps make the overall BCS article too long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.53.226 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No more "support" in the "controversy" section. "Support" should remain with its own section. Bcspro (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "BCS support" section should be removed 

message: There should be no separate "BCS support" section.  There is already a "BCS controversies" section.  The word "controversy" means that a system has both proponents and opponents.  Therefore, supporting arguments and criticisms should both be there.
Only the first argument raised in the "BCS support" section is really a relevant one.  The second paragraph argues that the BCS system sometimes gets lucky because there are two clear-cut top teams at the end of the season, though the text admits that this happens "rarely."  That a system rarely gets lucky is hardly a good argument in support.
The "BCS controversies" section used to have more relevant and analytically valid arguments in favor of the BCS system.  Those should be restored.  It looks like "Bcspro" cut them out.  That was a mistake.
The last four paragraphs under "BCS support" contain information that is irrelevant to the question whether the BCS system is a good one.  The article is too long as it is, and these only make it longer.  This is another reason that the "BCS support" section should be eliminated, and the original "BCS controversies" section restored.
:I removed that statement because "controversy" is aganist the BCS and "support" is for the BCS. What the statement says is then summed up in the "support" section which should still remain. Bcspro (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "support" section is removed, what I cut out should be placed back in. However, I believe that there should be two sections instead of just one. Bcspro (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. I think that the fact that it is an improvement over the previous system should 1) be in an article about it to give the article context and 2) is a huge point of the Pro-BCS argument for supporters (like me). Please revert that.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "BCS support" section contains bad and irrelevant arguments; should be removed 

message: While it seems nicely done. The following statement: 
"Moreover, the composition of human polls is controversial: for example, the Associated Press has prohibited the BCS from using its rankings in the BCS formula, and ESPN has removed itself from the USA Today coaches poll." 
Without some explanation as to why the above organiziations (the AP and ESPN) have removed themselves from the BCS formula and Coaches poll, the article as written seems to imply that each organization recognizes that human polls are inherently flawed. As mentioned earlier in the article "In particular, human polls are unavoidably subjective". If the AP for example does not want the BCS to use their poll, then why does the AP continue to conduct the polls at all, and continue to publish them on a weekly basis without any disclaimer to it's readers that they are "unavoidably subjective."
Perhaps a citation regarding the AP and ESPN positions' would bring some clarty and credibilty to the section as it is currently written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.5.203.131 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Current Controversies Section is Contradictory 

message: Regarding this sentence:
:"Despite the possibility of an "at-large" berth being granted to a non-BCS conference team, this didn't happen until the 2004-05 season, when Utah received a BCS bid to play in the Fiesta Bowl...."
Is this accurate in the context of "automatic" vs. "at-large" bids?  The selection rules listed in the article indicate that the Utes received an automatic bid - they were a champion of a non-BCS conference and they finished in the Top 12 of the final standings.  Wouldn't this mean their berth was as assured as those of any other conference champion?  By my reading, an "at-large" team is one who met the qualifications for a BCS bowl but who wasn't guaranteed a spot; they had to be selected by a bowl committee.  If my interpretation isn't correct, then perhaps the definitions of "automatic" and "at-large" should be better fleshed out. Dpiranha (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I was unaware of the pre-2006 rule.  Thank you for the clarification Frank Anchor Talk to me 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah 2004 - "At-Large?" 

message: ESPN has acquire the rights to air the BCS from 2011 to 2014. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcs-tv&prov=ap&type=lgns  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.135.107 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESPN acquire rights to BCS 

message: The second paragraph read:
"History leading to creation of the BCS
Prior to the 1992 season, college football had no system that attempted to match the top-ranked teams in a post-season championship game. Not surprisingly, this led to the possibility, and even prevalence, that different human polls would select different national champions. This happened on many occasions.See NCAA Division I-A national football championship for a compilation of past "national champions" since 1869. Either way, Jeff Dworin will piss on you."
I removed the last line.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.98.190 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The image :File:BCSTitleGameLogo2009.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:BCSTitleGameLogo2009.png

message: At various places in this article Virginia Tech is listed as being a member of the ACC. However, when it played for the National Championship in 2000 they were still a member of the Big East. Therefore, the number of times the Big East has had teams play for the National Championship should be changed to 3 (Miami 1-1; Virginia Tech 0-1). No?
This should be fixed in several pages, however I don't know how to edit the boxes. Sorry, can someone take care of this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.11.184 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Tech 2000 Sugar Bowl - Big East 

message: I reverted this section back to its original form prior to a massive and unexplained edit by RichieB73 on January 7. RichieB73 had inexplicably changed the listing of wins and appearances to current conference affiliation, effectively counting all of Miami's BCS bowl appearances for the ACC and one of Virginia Tech's (instead of for the Big East, which conference both teams were in at the time). Besides the unexplained nature of this change (and the lack of consistency it demonstrated with our other presentation of history: everything else is by conference at the time), the change gave the misleading impression that the Big East had only sent a team to a BCS bowl six times over the past eleven years, rather than a team every year (which had to happen given that the Big East has always had an automatic berth for its conference champion), and that the ACC has ever sent more than one team in any given year. In point of fact, although both the ACC and the Big East have had automatic berths for their conference champions since the BCS was created, neither team has ever sent a team other than its conference champion to a BCS bowl game (either as a non-conference-champion automatic qualifier or as an at-large selection). I do not think this reversion of the state of the article prior to RichieB73's change (which was apparently made without discussion or justification) should be controversial, but if it is, let the discussion begin. 76.106.55.103 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS Bowl wins and appearances by conference 

message: There are two problems with HR 599 as currently written.
One, it says that "The term 'playoff system' means a system by which the national championship game of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision is the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff system for which all NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and unaffiliated NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision teams are eligible."  The current "BCS Championship Game" system would be considered a valid playoff under this definition, as (a) all teams are eligible, and (b) technically it is "single elimination" as one team is eliminated from consideration in each game.
Two, nothing stops the BCS from changing the name of its game to the "BCS Championship Game".  The winner is still the AFCA National Champion, which would allow that team to give out "national football championship" rings in accordance with the NCAA bylaws.
* That Don Guy (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could certainly make up your own definition of playoff system, but anyone familiar with the situation and the long debate recognizes the difference between the current system and an NFL-style playoffs.  The current BCS does have a championship game for which all teams are elligible, but no one in reliable sources has ever called this a "playoff"... It seems a perfectly accurate representation of the current debate.  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with HR 599 

message: I read the entire page, and found it preposterously confusing.  I came to this page as the fan of a particular team, trying to figure out if and how strength of schedule currently works in the BCS standings (in other words, which other teams on our schedule I should be rooting for or against).  Read the "2004-Present" section -- one would believe the AP Poll is still part of the standings, for pete's sake!  There is no summary of how the Coaches' Poll or the Harris Interactive Poll work, and precisely zero explanation of what "computer rankings" even means.  Even a wholesale copy & paste from the BCS website would be more edifying, although all I get there is "Each computer ranking provider accounts for schedule strength within its formula."  Searching further in Wikipedia, I came up with 2006 BCS computer rankings and 2007 BCS computer rankings (naturally, no 2008, 2009, or timeless page exists), which break down how each of the six computer rankings are computed to some degree of satisfaction, but there are no links from this page to either of those pages (I had to track them down by wiki-searching for the names of those rankings firms, such as Anderson & Hester, gotten from the BCS page).
I realize that the BCS standings are fairly complicated and seem to change yearly.  I'm also no real expert in either college football nor Wikipedia etiquette, so apologies if I seem an ignoramus.  But I found this page to actively detract from my understanding of the subject it purports to clarify. Hythlodayalmond (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the current standings method be spun off into an article of its own. Gaohoyt (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed: Clear & accurate description of how standings are currently calculated 

message: Two things
#Right now, the order teams are listed within the conference is ordered chronologically (i.e. teams that got into a 1998 BCS bowl are listed before teams that got into a 1999 BCS bowl, etc).  I think it should be changed either to alphabetically, or to by the # of BCS bowls. 
#Should we note somewhere how many of those bids were at-large/other than conference champs? (for example, 8 so far for the Big Ten, 2 for the Pac-10, none for the ACC)?
Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances by conference 

message: Should the table listed  BCS Bowl wins and appearances by conference  include at-large bigs? Its difficult year in year out to know what is considered an at-large bid. Really Boise State, Utah, Hawaii and TCU's bids should not be considered at-large bids since in the rule book the top 12 team from a non bcs conference gets an automatic bid. then there is the rules about how Notre Dame can get an automatic bid. how about the rule about the #3 or #4 team getting an automatic bid if they arent their conference champion? there are to many scenarios and thus it should really be removed as it would be to diffucult to list the true at large bids. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clean it up a bit. The 2004 & 2009 Utah, 2006 BSU, 2007 Hawaii, 2009 TCU teams are now  refered to as "Automatic non-AQ." As for the automatic bids to the #3 or #4 teams, I left them go. Perhaps we should provide a link or a footnote to the "Kansas State Rule." Also, Notre Dame did have an automatic bid to the 2006 Fiesta Bowl but it was NOT because they were ranked in the Top 8. I can't remember exactly why because I don't know the exact rule. Once again Notre Lame throws a wrench into the mix. Sorry, I'm just speaking the truth. Bcspro (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the BCS web pages, ND was AQ due to being ranked #6. There is no other way for ND to get an AQ.  Reamon (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

text: There are not too many scenarios to be able to list the AQs and the at-large. The rules are finite and simple. The BCS pages have a list of all the participants and how each team was selected for each bowl. Reamon (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table format 

message: A couple of issues here
(1) Edit wars are against WP standards. If you have a recommended change, discuss it here and others can decide if the proposed change is necessary and/or adds to the value of the article.
(2) The fact that OfficialBCS removed information concerning the controversial nature of the BCS raises concerns about his neutrality on the subject WP:NPOV. 
(3) OfficialBCS may have a conflict of interest (again see WP standards).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamafan70 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what OfficialBCS added is factually correct, and I for one and sick and tired of anyone adding anything that is not critical of the BCS being called bias. I understand that opinion polls say the BCS is unpopular, but most of this article is devoted to criticism instead of the facts of what the BCS is like it should be. Through that lens, OfficialBCS's edits are very constructive and a nice addition. I think they should stay.--CastAStone//(talk) 18:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OfficialBCS edit on 4/20/2010

message: * Isn't "Automatic non-AQ" = "Automatic non-Automatic Qualifier" or "Automatic Qualifier"? Ucla90024 (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I too find the "Automatic non-AQ" odd. It's apparently an invention by bcspro in an attempt to denote that a team from a "non-AQ" conference (something which is only implicitly defined by the BCS pages) earned an automatic bid, such as via current rule 3 under the "Automatic qualification" sections. I'd think it better if the notation used "Automatic via rule 3" or something like that rather than an apparent oxymoron. Or just simply "AQ" since it is immaterial whether the conference for that team is considered an "AQ conference." Reamon (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AQ

message: What sport is this? To those of us outside America it is impossibel to tell - it ought to be in the first line. If I read enough of it I can perhaps deduce it is 'football', but again, outside America, this is soccer, which I suspect this isn't.  'Bowl' implies bowling, ie rolling a ball at a target, (either a cue ball or skittles) to us non-Americans.
89.168.87.17 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: To American-centric

message: The table showing records in national championship games by conference says the SEC is 7-0 in nine appearances. What happened in the other two? Rickmbari (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They lost them, in 2011-12 LSU lost to Alabama (there HAD to be an SEC loss that year) and in 2013-14, Auburn lost to FSU.  They are actually 9-2 in 10 games (two teams appeared in one game).  It looks like that already got fixed, however.--Jayron32 03:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEC record in national championship games 

message: The link to "Cowboy Stadium" does not click-through to the right page.
: fixed, thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect link

message: Can someone more familiar with WP policies on vacated wins look at the recent edits by an IP? I'm unsure if that had already been taken into account. Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio State edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bowl Championship Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061107175042/http://msn.foxsports.com:80/id/7894701_37_1.pdf to http://msn.foxsports.com/id/7894701_37_1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217034434/http://www.bcsfootball.org:80/bcsfb/definition to http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/definition
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 10:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bowl Championship Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205130213/http://meridianmagazine.com/sports/031128ncaa.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sports/031128ncaa.html
*Added  tag to http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1548
*Added  tag to http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/37274379.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bowl Championship Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63ibmT4ft?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbadgerherald.com%2Fsports%2F2005%2F01%2F17%2Fap_removes_poll_from.php to http://badgerherald.com/sports/2005/01/17/ap_removes_poll_from.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bowl Championship Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://badgerherald.com/sports/2005/01/17/ap_removes_poll_from.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014213854/http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12858012/obama-administration-considering-action-on-bcs to http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12858012/obama-administration-considering-action-on-bcs
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bowl Championship Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://badgerherald.com/sports/2005/01/17/ap_removes_poll_from.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308042615/http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/15585812 to http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/15585812
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220025655/http://wwwc.house.gov/judiciary/Legacy/delany090403.htm to http://wwwc.house.gov/judiciary/Legacy/delany090403.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified