Bill Connelly’s original article
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/20...-committee

Complete BCS standings for your perusal
http://www.footballfoundation.org/Progra...hives.aspx

Andy Staples began his assessments in 2003… http://www.si.com/college-football/2013/...-committee

No argument here. Alabama vs. TCU. Cincinnati vs. Texas. And the semifinals games almost certainly would have gotten us with our real championship game all over again. Minimum whining overall from Boise State and SEC yahoos (like Andy Staples from SI.com). A nice relief after 2008’s frustration.

Mess grade (how much controversy would exist)—A.
Staples: Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Florida

This is one of those cases where knowing in hindsight how TCU and Cincy did in their bowls changes your perception of the teams. But the committee does not have that luxury. Plus you really don't know how Cincy would have played if Kelly would have stuck around for a playoff.

Its also interesting that today TCU is a P5 school and Cincy is not. But in 2009, Cincy was BCS and TCU was not. Although in 2009 you were starting to see the signs that the Big East no longer was considered a power conference because Cincy was treated pretty much the same as TCU when being considered for the BCS NCG. Throw in UConn's awful showing in 2010 representing the Big East in the BCS bowl, it makes it easy to see why the Big east football conference fell apart.

2008 to 2010 probably were the trigger years for the end of the BCS although it had been building for years. The fact that Cincy, TCU and Boise ended up being 3 of the BCS bowl teams in 2009 upset some of the old school thinkers.

Anyway, with all that said, its hard to argue against taking the top 4 unbeatens. Florida had its chance against Bama. TCU and Cincy should get their chance too. Too bad Boise does not get a shot, but the WAC got even less respect than the Big East and MWC in 2009. Which makes it easy to understand why the WAC fell apart too.

Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU

(08-08-2014 06:45 AM)goofus Wrote:  This is one of those cases where knowing in hindsight how TCU and Cincy did in their bowls changes your perception of the teams. But the committee does not have that luxury. Plus you really don't know how Cincy would have played if Kelly would have stuck around for a playoff.

Its also interesting that today TCU is a P5 school and Cincy is not. But in 2009, Cincy was BCS and TCU was not. Although in 2009 you were starting to see the signs that the Big East no longer was considered a power conference because Cincy was treated pretty much the same as TCU when being considered for the BCS NCG. Throw in UConn's awful showing in 2010 representing the Big East in the BCS bowl, it makes it easy to see why the Big east football conference fell apart.

2008 to 2010 probably were the trigger years for the end of the BCS although it had been building for years. The fact that Cincy, TCU and Boise ended up being 3 of the BCS bowl teams in 2009 upset some of the old school thinkers.

Anyway, with all that said, its hard to argue against taking the top 4 unbeatens. Florida had its chance against Bama. TCU and Cincy should get their chance too. Too bad Boise does not get a shot, but the WAC got even less respect than the Big East and MWC in 2009. Which makes it easy to understand why the WAC fell apart too.

Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU

I agree with you and the author. Although its possible the committee could still go for Florida instead of TCU.

top 4 unbeaten are a no brainer
would they really leave Fla out?
I wouldn't be surprised if Fla got in over Cin

TCU was still ranked ahead of Cincinnati in the polls late in the season, despite Cinci being in a BCS conference. Not so sure it's a given than UC would get in ahead of TCU for the final slot (assuming Alabama, Texas and Florida are the other teams in the playoff).

If it happened this year, absolutely. UF would be in over Cincy.

I'll be interested to see how much of a stink BCS #7 (but Pac-12 champ) Oregon and BCS #8 (but Big Ten champ) Ohio State would have made versus an undefeated "Group of 5" school.

(08-08-2014 08:33 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  TCU was still ranked ahead of Cincinnati in the polls late in the season, despite Cinci being in a BCS conference. Not so sure it's a given than UC would get in ahead of TCU for the final slot (assuming Alabama, Texas and Florida are the other teams in the playoff).

TCU was ahead of Cincy in the human polls, but the computers had UC far enough ahead that Cincy jumped TCU in the final BCS poll before the bowl games.

I would have liked to see what that team looked like with Kelly still on the sidelines for the bowl game, because that team had a real lot of talent. I don't think it would be fair to dismiss UC based just on the bowl game result. They beat some real good teams that year. The schedule was no joke.

(08-08-2014 08:44 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 08:33 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  TCU was still ranked ahead of Cincinnati in the polls late in the season, despite Cinci being in a BCS conference. Not so sure it's a given than UC would get in ahead of TCU for the final slot (assuming Alabama, Texas and Florida are the other teams in the playoff).

TCU was ahead of Cincy in the human polls, but the computers had UC far enough ahead that Cincy jumped TCU in the final BCS poll before the bowl games.

I would have liked to see what that team looked like with Kelly still on the sidelines for the bowl game, because that team had a real lot of talent. I don't think it would be fair to dismiss based just on the bowl game result.

Right, but you can not assume that the committee would go the way of the computers vs the way of the polls. The polls were pretty unanimous for TCU ahead of Cincy. For me generally speaking, if it's a situation like this- I think the committee will go more the ways of the polls than they would looking at the computers. And, when the gap in the polls is as big as it was here(Harris- 112, coaches 56, AP 74)- I think that even moreso.

If ever there were a year that screamed for an 8 team playoff, this is it. Not four, but five unbeaten teams, all of them conference champions. In addition there were eight conference champions in all ranked in the top 9 of the BCS. Realignment insures we will never see that again. Oregon (PAC10), Ohio State (B1G) and Georgia Tech (ACC) were all potential first round winners if not potential champions.

Florida would have just lost to Alabama (#1) by almost 3 touchdowns the week before.

They'd be competing with Cincinnati (TCU was ahead in the polls) for spot #4 to face.... Alabama.
The committee isn't voting in a rematch one week after the loser got beat by 19.

1 loss Florida lost their de-facto playoff game and unbeaten Boise didn't have enough SOS.

(08-08-2014 08:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 08:44 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 08:33 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  TCU was still ranked ahead of Cincinnati in the polls late in the season, despite Cinci being in a BCS conference. Not so sure it's a given than UC would get in ahead of TCU for the final slot (assuming Alabama, Texas and Florida are the other teams in the playoff).

TCU was ahead of Cincy in the human polls, but the computers had UC far enough ahead that Cincy jumped TCU in the final BCS poll before the bowl games.

I would have liked to see what that team looked like with Kelly still on the sidelines for the bowl game, because that team had a real lot of talent. I don't think it would be fair to dismiss based just on the bowl game result.

Right, but you can not assume that the committee would go the way of the computers vs the way of the polls. The polls were pretty unanimous for TCU ahead of Cincy. For me generally speaking, if it's a situation like this- I think the committee will go more the ways of the polls than they would looking at the computers. And, when the gap in the polls is as big as it was here(Harris- 112, coaches 56, AP 74)- I think that even moreso.

Most voters had UC ahead of TCU. However there were a lot of voters who put TCU #2 or 3 and bumped UC down to 5th or lower (one even had us 8th), purposely trying to change the polls in an attempt to fight for the little guy.

Like the good ole' Rudy story, everyone roots for an underdog when it doesn't matter.

But if the 2015 rules were in place, and it had mattered, I think you would have seen a lot fewer people trying to manipulate the system. UC had a much tougher strength of schedule that year. We had a tougher conference and we beat the PAC-10 runner up (Oregon State) on the road.

And like goofus said, if Kelly had stuck around for the bowl game, it might have turned out differently. Our nominal head coach against Florida was Jeff Quinn, who had two feet out the door because he had already been hired as Buffalo's head coach (where he's done an awful job). It's hard to win a game against a top-10 opponent without a coach.

It's not like Florida wasn't experiencing their own coaching issues prior to the Sugar Bowl. Urban Meyer had announced he was taking a leave of absence after initially saying he was resigning. Florida was clearly the superior team whether Kelly was on the opposing sideline or not.

just was looking at the coaches ballots in '09 and sorry more had TCU ahead of Cincy.

Cincy had 1 1st(Brian Kelly), 2 2nds, 10 3rds, 21 4th, 17 5th, and then 7 6th and 1 8th(Les Miles)
TCU had 6 2nd, 29 3rd, 21 4th, 3 5th

MWC had BYU and Utah which was pretty close to the Big East with Pitt and WV.

(08-08-2014 09:27 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  It's not like Florida wasn't experiencing their own coaching issues prior to the Sugar Bowl. Urban Meyer had announced he was taking a leave of absence after initially saying he was resigning. Florida was clearly the superior team whether Kelly was on the opposing sideline or not.

Yes, Florida was a better team. But Florida's "coaching issues" weren't a hinderance because Meyer was still on the sideline and their regular coaching staff was calling the plays.

If anything, Florida's coaching issues were a motivating factor. The players were playing in their legendary coach's (supposedly) last game.

In hindsight I still maintain Florida would have beaten Alabama if the two had a rematach for the championhship game. That Florida team was loaded: Tebow, Aaron Hernandez, Jeff Raine, Chris Demps, Riley Cooper, the Pouncy Brothers, Carlos Dunlap, Joe Haden, Janoris Jenkins, etc. Moreover they would have been extremely motivated as they were in that Sugar Bowl against Cincinnati to prove a point. It was Tebow's Swan Song. They were pissed because they had been #1 all year but lost to Bama.

(08-08-2014 09:27 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  It's not like Florida wasn't experiencing their own coaching issues prior to the Sugar Bowl. Urban Meyer had announced he was taking a leave of absence after initially saying he was resigning. Florida was clearly the superior team whether Kelly was on the opposing sideline or not.

The UC coaching situation was a disaster. There was a skeleton crew left and most were out searching for jobs in December. Bowl practices were run by a few GA's and some volunteers.

I am not saying UC would have beaten Florida otherwise, but the coaching issue loomed large for the red and black that night.

(08-08-2014 09:27 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  It's not like Florida wasn't experiencing their own coaching issues prior to the Sugar Bowl. Urban Meyer had announced he was taking a leave of absence after initially saying he was resigning. Florida was clearly the superior team whether Kelly was on the opposing sideline or not.

I don't think there is a question Florida was the better team, but comparing the 'coaching issues' is WAY off the mark. There were GAs calling plays in that game for UC.

Looking at the schedule UC played and the undefeated record, it would have been a supreme injustice had they been left out of a 4 team playoff that year.

(08-08-2014 09:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  If ever there were a year that screamed for an 8 team playoff, this is it. Not four, but five unbeaten teams, all of them conference champions. In addition there were eight conference champions in all ranked in the top 9 of the BCS. Realignment insures we will never see that again. Oregon (PAC10), Ohio State (B1G) and Georgia Tech (ACC) were all potential first round winners if not potential champions.

2008 was probably a better argument for a 8-team playoff. A lot of good 1-loss teams in 2008.

2009 not as much. GT, Ohio State, Oregon all had 2 losses. They can't really complain.

The coaching issue kind of connects to the "star player injured" issue. Does the committee consider the "TV value" or story lines of the semifinals...or do they truly go for the best Sept-Dec team?

Will the CFP be "big" enough to keep every single coach around? Brian Kelly didn't have a shot at a national title in 2009...so he jumped on a dream job at Notre Dame. What if Cincy did get a spot in the playoff? Does he tell Notre Dame to wait around for him to win the title (thus increasing his stock even more!)...would ND do that...

More interesting scenarios ahead...

(08-09-2014 02:34 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The coaching issue kind of connects to the "star player injured" issue. Does the committee consider the "TV value" or story lines of the semifinals...or do they truly go for the best Sept-Dec team?

Will the CFP be "big" enough to keep every single coach around? Brian Kelly didn't have a shot at a national title in 2009...so he jumped on a dream job at Notre Dame. What if Cincy did get a spot in the playoff? Does he tell Notre Dame to wait around for him to win the title (thus increasing his stock even more!)...would ND do that...

More interesting scenarios ahead...

If Cincy had been in a final 4 playoff, it would be hard to see Kelly bail before the playoffs. But I could never see him turn down Notre Dame just cause Cincy is in the playoffs. So if Notre Dame forced the issue and said take the job now or else we are going with our 2nd choice, Kelly would probably still leave Cincy hanging. I just don't think Notre Dame would force the issue as long as they have an agreement with Kelly he is gone the day after Cincy's last game.

IF the playoffs ever expand to 16 teams, and a coach has the 15th seed, then maybe I could see a coach bailing before the playoffs too, but a 16-team playoff probably means some playoff games in December.