Chat with Brad Edwards
Welcome to SportsNation! On Monday, resident BCS expert Brad Edwards will drop by to chat about what the latest BCS standings mean to the nation's top teams going forward.
Send your questions now and join Brad Monday at 11:30 a.m. ET!
Brad Edwards (11:31 AM)
Last chat of the season for me. That was least eventful final weekend I can remember in the BCS era. Not only was the title game clear cut, but I can't recall another time when all of the BCS games had such easy decisions to make for their selections. Maybe chaos will come next year. These last two have been pretty boring.
Joey (Charleston, SC)
Do you think the BCS guidelines should be amended, to prevent an unranked conference champion from taking a spot at a BCS bowl game?
Brad Edwards (11:35 AM)
This season is the first of a four-year cycle for the BCS. No major selection guidelines will be changed under this contract, and there currently is no next contract. They'll start negotiating it in 2012, and I'm sure one item under discussion will be creating some sort of qualifying standard for AQ conference champions. I think the only way they'll get agreement on it is if the conference in question didn't lose all the BCS money if its champ didn't qualify. Money is a major sticking point, because these schools budget with the expectation of receiving a certain amount from the BCS every year.
You're probably sick of all the Boise St. questions even as a neutral but I'll ask anyhow: How did a WAC team end up in the Las Vegas Bowl?
Brad Edwards (11:39 AM)
The WAC worked to get Boise into a bowl where it would have a chance to play a ranked opponent. It just so happened that the Pac-10 didn't fill three of its bowl spots, so there was an opening in Vegas. In order for it to happen, though, the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (in San Fran) had to release Boise, since that game contractually has the first pick from the WAC. To its credit, the bowl let the Broncos go when it realized Boise wasn't going to be happy to be there and knew that Nevada would be much happier to have that spot.
please remind everyone where we would be pre-BCS. Auburn v. OSU or TCU in the Sugar; Oregon v. Wisconsin in the Rose; Okla v. Stanford in Fiesta?
Brad Edwards (11:41 AM)
Good point, Troy. Without the BCS, Auburn (No. 1 in the AP poll) would be playing in the Sugar, while Oregon (No. 1 in the coaches' poll) would be playing in the Rose. Not sure which team would've been matched against Auburn, but it's safe to say we'd be staring at the possibility of a split title rather than seeing the game almost everyone wants to see.
If Wisconsin beats TCU, do you see them with a legit chance to finish the year at No.2?
Brad Edwards (11:44 AM)
Probably depends how close the BCS title game is. Also depends how bad Wisconsin beats TCU. Not sure if you saw this, but this is the first time in the history of the AP poll (since 1936) that No. 1 has played No. 2 and No. 3 has played No. 4 in bowl games. Wisconsin, of course, is No. 4 in the poll, even though it's fifth in the BCS Standings.
Brad, why should a fringe college football fan like myself follow the sports when it is completely unfair and biased?
Brad Edwards (11:47 AM)
You don't have to follow it. Just watch the NFL, where a team has a chance to make the playoffs with a losing record (see NFC West). Every sport, no matter how popular, has years where things may seem unfair. Sure, it happens more often in college football, but a lot of fans enjoy the debate as much as the games.
I'm happy for us but don't you think it's a bit cheap that OSU gets picked over Stanford when Stanford has clearly had the better season? oh well I'm happy we don't have to play VT they won 11 in a row and they don't get respect so it would make us look bad.
Brad Edwards (11:51 AM)
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. Whether you're talking about the Sugar Bowl taking Ohio State or the Outback Bowl taking Florida, these bowls are businesses that are trying to make money. What's fair and what team deserved it, that has absolutely nothing to do with the selections. What matters is which teams will sell tickets and drive TV ratings, and there may be no team in college football that's an easier pick for a bowl than Ohio State.
How much of a boost did Stanford get over Wisconsin due to the PAC10 9 game schedule? How much was due to each team's OOC schedule?
Brad Edwards (11:53 AM)
Stanford definitely benefitted in the computers from playing nine conference games and playing a road game against a bowl team (Notre Dame) out of conference. Wisconsin was hurt in the computers by not playing a strong non-conference schedule. Stanford and Wisconsin each have one Top-25 win, so I think they should both consider themselves fortunate that the BCS Standings elevated them into a major-bowl spot.
Your comment on the debate is exactly whats wrong with the BCS, all BCS supporters see is that people are talking about the BCS, not the fact that 99% is negative, and dont you think fans would enjoy debates about playoff games much more than what would (should have been)?
Brad Edwards (11:57 AM)
I would love to see a playoff, ideally 8 teams. But I do recognize that even a small-scale playoff would detract from the greatest regular season in sports. That said, I'd be willing to sacrifice a little of the regular season to improve the postseason, but it's a slippery slope. I can promise you that if there was even a four-team playoff, Auburn would've still been in it with a loss to South Carolina, and that would've taken a lot of the fun (and debate) out of last week. Never mind the fact that Auburn quickly killed all the excitement by laying a thumping on SC.
Tell us how conference re-alignment will affect the bowl tie-ins. I assume Pac-10 and Big 10 gain (tie-ins) while Big 12 loses (tie-ins)?
Brad Edwards (11:59 AM)
I assume you're talking about the non-BCS bowl games. I haven't seen any of those deal yet, but it would make sense that the Pac-10 would gain at least one bowl affiliation and that the Big 12 would lose at least one. Not sure if anything will change with the Big Ten, because that conference seems to always get a second team in the BCS and never fills its final spot in Detroit.
I believe a playoff system would be the ideal way to deal with the struggles that come with the BCS, but it would also be very hard to determine who deserves what seed. But why can't we just try out a playoff system? It would be better than what is already in place.
Brad Edwards (12:02 PM)
The problem with a playoff is that the Rose Bowl (along with the Big Ten and Pac-10) won't agree to any postseason structure that would prevent that game from getting a matchup of those two conference champions most of the time. Because of that, I think the most likely next step is what they call an unseeded plus-one. Basically, all the conference champs would go to their natural bowl spots and play their bowl games, then we'd run the BCS Standings after the bowls and have 1 and 2 play each other a week or so later.
I think the Orange Bowl got a pretty good matchup and could be one of the better BCS games. Thoughts?
Brad Edwards (12:05 PM)
I thought the Orange made the right call taking Stanford. These are two teams that disappeared from a lot of people's radar after a loss (Virginia Tech to James Madison and Stanford to Oregon), and I think many fans aren't aware of how well both of these teams are playing right now. Sure, Stanford is ranked in the top five, but I'm not sure many folks have seen them play very often. This is definitely a game I'm looking forward to.
Brad, my Huskies FINALLY DID IT!! Now, all they have to do is beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. If they were to win, would it be a bigger upset than Boise State in 2007?
Brad Edwards (12:07 PM)
In some ways, it might be a bigger upset, just because UConn is unranked and Oklahoma sure shouldn't be caught off guard after having been upset in a couple of recent Fiesta Bowls. I haven't seen the lines yet, but I'm guessing Oklahoma will be a bigger favorite over Connecticut than it was over Boise State four years ago.
Scott (East Lansing, mi)
why did ohio state go the sugar bowl over michigan state whenstrength of Schedule and wins against bowl eligible teams are both in favor of MSU?
Brad Edwards (12:09 PM)
See my earlier post on this topic. MSU never had a chance, because it's not about who earned it. It's all about things like name, tradition, size of the fan base and marquee players. OSU has the advantage on MSU in all of those categories.
Brad Edwards (12:10 PM)
Last question. Not much to discuss today, since the BCS came out so clean this year.
Ben (Fort Worth)
Let's say TCU wins the Rose Bowl. How will the quality of their win be discredited this year? Utah's win vs. Alabama didn't really count because 'Bama was disappointed not to be in the NCG, Boise State only beat OU with gimmicks, and so forth... What excuses are being prepared out there in AQ-land this time around?
Brad Edwards (12:13 PM)
Of all the excuses used by Alabama and Oklahoma, some of which I think are legitimate, none would apply to Wisconsin this year. I don't think you could ever make a convincing argument that a Big Ten team wasn't fired up to be in the Rose Bowl, especially one that hasn't been there in more than a decade. I'm sure Wisconsin fans will come up with something if they lose, but I'm not buying it. There's no reason you shouldn't get the Badgers' "A" game in Pasadena.
Brad Edwards (12:15 PM)
Thanks, everyone, for another good season. If you have the Bowl Bound app, there's a Bowl Mania league being set up to compete against me in picking the bowl games. After two straight bad bowl seasons, I'm due for a good one, so expect a challenge. See you all next year. Happy Holidays!