Talk:Bowl Championship Series

More detail needed: when a BCS Conference champion is in the title game

In the "BCS bowl games" section, it says, "Unless their champion is involved in the BCS National Championship game, the conference tie-ins are as follows...." But it doesn't explicitly say what happens when a BCS conference champion is involved in the national championship. I'm assuming that the spot left by the BCS conference champ is replaced with an at-large bid. E.g., this year, if USC--the pac10 champ--were to make it to the title game, then the pac10 champ slot would be replaced with an at-large bid, and not, say, the pac10 runner up Cal..

Southern Cal-->USC

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)

Computer Rankings

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)

Source for Statement

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)

2004-05 formula as applied to 2003-04 pre-bowl standings

In the section about the new 2004-05 formula, the article has listed LSU's AP and coaches poll numbers but attributed them to USC (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?pollId=null&weekNumber=17&seasonYear=2003). According to the ESPN archive, those figures were LSU's totals.

The computer rankings they cite do belong to USC. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/stewart_mandel/07/15/bcs.explainer/

Also, in the 2003-04 season controversy section, the article had that USC would have been an "indisputable" number one and there may have been controversy over the number two spot. It was LSU that was number one and USC narrowly over OU (http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=40).

Boogieone711

"also 11-1"

I modified a statement which claims that USC was "also 11-1", implying that OU and LSU were 11-1. Those teams were 12-1, so I made note of that fact.

New logo

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)

Unoffical?

Isn't the BCS championship game the offical NCAA Football D-1 championship game? I thought that the Crystal Football was the Trophy given to the National Champion, and that's given to the BCS Championchip game. False Prophet 19:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, its not official. As we say at NCAA Division I-A national football championship, "The NCAA Division I-A national football championship is the only Division I-A NCAA-sponsored sport without an organized tournament to determine its champion.". If you look at the NCAA page on football championships, they don't mention I-A.[1] If you look at the history tab for past championships[2] they list BCS as a "selecting organization", and they give them the top billing, but they continue to list other "selecting organizations" as well. You will see that they list 2 champions for 2003 based upon their being no consensus for either USC or LSU. So, the crytal football is the BCS trophy, given by the BCS. It is a "mythical national championship" in the sense that it is not officially endorsed as the definitive champion by the NCAA. This situation will likely persist until such time as a reasonable playoff system is introduced. Johntex\^talk 19:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up Johntex, I'll use that info to keep that true on other pages. False Prophet 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether or not the NCAA recognizes anything. The BCS contract that binds each member institution to its results was signed by all BCS conferences and schools, including the two "adversaries" in the 2003 conflict. Obviously the voters in the AP poll are going to insist on its continued relevance, but after each BCS National Championship game, that relevance extends only to their opinions as to the Nos. 2-25 teams. One of the main reasons the BCS emerged was the historical absurdities that often occurred in the human polls now so revered by the BCS critics. Its purpose is to correct the recurring problems in the human polls. Since the advent of this admittedly imperfect BCS system, the AP poll has been relegated to the status of the Davey O'Brien award for the best college QB. If the Heisman Trophy goes to a QB and the O'Brien goes to a different QB that same year, the latter cannot claim the Heisman. Similarly, the team that wins on the field the crystal football is, by contract, the only true National Champion. Other "O'Brien trophy winners" can claim such status, but that does not make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.21 (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that unlike the O'Brien Award, you have regular media (who are admittedly biased since they're the voters :-) ) who claim, as above, that the AP is just as official as the other, and that 2003 saw a split national championship. LSU and USC both are given credit.

I would agree that the BCS champion is the true national champion, as far as they are concerned - more so now with the AP not part of it. However, the AP champ is still the "mythical national champion, just as it has always been. it's just that the "mythical" part of the AP is more noticeable now than ever before.63.3.19.1 22:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The people who vote on the O'Brien Award are just as convinced they have recognized the best CFB QB as the AP pollsters think they have recognized the best team. Their views (both O'Brien and AP voters) are irrelevant to the agree-upon processes at hand. Everybody agrees that the Heisman is the top individual award. Period. And every CFB team and conference agrees (by signing the contract) that the BCS NCG decides the sole NC. You see, in August 2003, an AP reporter (of all people) asked Pete Carroll what his team's goal was for the season. Carroll responded as expected: "We want to go to the Sugar Bowl and win the National Championship." He said nothing about the O'Brien-like certificate of approval by the AP. Why? Because he knew (and all CFB coaches, ADs and administrators know) that the BCS contract they all signed is top dog. Period. Some people say perception is reality, but if you follow that path, you end up in the Davey O'Brien wing of CF. They all signed the contract, they fight for those two NCG berths, and the winner of that game is the NC. By contract. The AP voters have been demoted ... by CFB itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.21 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to mention is that the Associated Press never agreed to be part of the BCS and threatened legal action to get out of its computation. The AP championship has been awarded for many more years, and will be awarded long after the BCS bites the dust. Z1perlster (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FSU would still be qualified

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. [3] --MECU≈talk 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

BCS-sucks.com external link

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This addition that was added [4] 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)

Cite needed

I don't think this revert was needed: [5], 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)

"AP National Championship Game"

This term has no meaning. The AP awards a championship, but unlike the BCS, it does not purport to have a "championship game." What is it you are trying to do here?

BIG EAST NEED RESPECT

• 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)

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)

Sorry my bad I thought they were under an atomatic BCS berth --Kevmicester2000 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

"BCS Buster" Question

I'm wondering if either the definition in the article needs to be expanded upon, of if Notre Dame should be mentioned in that section. The article just says it "refers to any team not from a BCS conference that manages to earn a spot in a BCS bowl game." ND isn't in a conference, but they have been to BCS bowl games, or are they not counted as a BCS Buster because of their special contracts or whatever? TBIRallySport 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question. Since "BCS Buster" is a colloquial term, it is hard to define the term precisely. I think the answer is "yes" because Notre Dame is not from any BCS conference and therefore is somewhat "outside" the system of BCS bowls and conference tie-ins. Johntex\^talk 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Since ND has it's own tie-in to the BCS, I would say they're in their own conference, per se. I would say BCS Buster would be "Any team that doesn't have an automatic chance to earn a BCS spot." ND Does, all the BCS conferences do too. Boise State (MWC) does not, they are a BCS Buster. --MECU≈talk 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But the rule that allows Notre Dame into the BCS bowls is technically not specific for Notre Dame. While I'm sure they had Notre Dame in mind, the rule covers any independent. Therefore, if Navy or Army met the criteria, they would come in under the rule and be a BCS Buster - same as Notre Dame. Johntex\^talk 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

bcsfootball.org states otherwise -- "4. Notre Dame will have an automatic berth if it is in the top eight of the final BCS Standings." Majin Izlude ^talk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually did think that ND had their own written rule... they have their own contract with the BCS. Army and Navy don't and would have to go under the higher-than conference championship ranking (greater then #16) or top 12 to get in, which is what I believe BCS Buster rules applies to. --MECU≈talk 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only does ND have a special rule, but their Athletic Director, Kevin White, has equal standing with the Conference commissioners as a BCS board representative. See here AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. They do have a rule just for themselves. In that case then, they should be considered part of the BCS, and not a BCS Buster, I think. Johntex\^talk 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if saying that Boise State is a BCS Buster due to the new rules. Boise State ended with a rank high enough to make it into the BCS even with the old rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.51.39 (talk • contribs)

Returning to this issue: above Johntex mentions it is a colloquial term which is a key issue - the whole section strikes me as Original Research (at worst) and is certainly unreferenced (at best). In addition to the ND Rule and the new automatic qualifier rules for the mid-major conferences, the mid-majors also have representation in BCS governance now (see my link above) so no mid-major that makes it in can technically be described as a "BCS Buster" now. I'm inclined to urge deletion of the section altogether especially if additional (well-sourced) info is added to the 2006 Changes section about the issues that drove the change to include automatic qualication of a midmajor rep. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be kept, if sourced. I would say Boise State is a BCS Buster since it's not from a BCS conference and they're playing in a bowl game. A BCS Buster is one that busts into the BCS despite the heavy odds (and system setup designed to prevent it). But until it's sourced.... --MECU≈talk 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean this year? Unfortunately, I think you're operating under the old concept of what is a BCS conference. The original BCS conferences are now the "Automatic Qualifier Conferences". According to the official BCS site, The BCS is managed by the commissioners of the 11 NCAA Division I-A conferences... and It is also not an exclusive system that rewards only a few. The University of Utah demonstrated in 2005 that a team from a conference without an annual automatic berth can have access to a BCS bowl game. Also, this page lists the WAC (and all the others) as a "BCS Conference". Finally, there is now a formal qualifying system for determining those "automatic qualifying conferences": Mathematical standards of performance will be applied to determine the number of conferences whose champions will automatically qualify for a BCS game after the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons. The champions of no fewer than five conferences and no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths in the BCS bowl games. [6] AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They can say all the marketing they want, but when 9 of the 10 BCS game spots go to "BCS Conference" Teams, and it required a non-BCS Conference team to go undefeated whereas several BCS conference teams have two losses... then there is a systematic exclusionary process. But, that's my opinion. --MECU≈talk 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mecu. The term is in common usage and still has a valid meaning even with the changes to the BCS. We should keep the section and work on references. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While the terms "non-BCS" and "BCS buster" are common, they are technically incorrect according to the current BCS rules. Under the current rules, can an independent such as Navy ever make it to a BCS bowl? My interpretation is that if they were ranked 1 through 3, yes, and possibly if ranked 4 if current rule 5 didn't apply.reamon 08 Jan 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

Michigan Fans

• 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.58.6 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Ha! An unsigned dig at Michigan fans. *Sigh* let the mass of Nebraska fans editing this page begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.110 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Math Typo

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).

Change made. --MECU≈talk 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

-Also, it states at the bottom that the independent record is 0-2 in bcs bowls when in fact it is actually 0-3. Notre dame also lost the 2000 fiesta bowl to Oregon State.

Potential College Playoff System

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)

• (edit conflict)Aside from the fact I like the BCS, er, at least I like the value of the regular season being the playoffs, this isn't really what Wikipedia is about. We're an encyclopedia, and there is actually a policy against original research. So unless your can provide some sources about the above, we couldn't include it in any article. Further, I don't think talking about possible playoff systems is very encyclopedic. If you simply wanted a forum to post your ideas that will get seen (do talk pages get looked at by search bots?), you have accomplished that. I doubt it will have much impact, as any determination for a playoff system by the BCS/NCAA folks would be most likely made up by them. For better or worse. But, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope an obvious college football fan like yourself will stick around and help us improve Wikipedia's coverage of college football! --MECU≈talk 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes regarding my original essay on college football playoffs. I will remove if it is unuseful. I figured if I put it on a talk page, people may read it, comment, get a dialogue going. If this is the wrong place to do this, then please, remove it.Brian.J.Grewe 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Would not Wikinfo (http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) be an approriate place for the above essay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.63.123 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on BCS Controversies

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)Doug Sanders

I tried to fix this. Please let me know if y'all think this is OK.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed that no mention of the controversial nature of the BCS system is mentioned in the introduction to the main page. This is not POV, it is simply citing a large body of the article that specifically deals with the on-going problems of this system. I will make a small edit to balance the intro. Happysomeone 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of the FACT that the NCAA sanctions playoff tournaments in all other Football divisions (I-AA, II and III)? That fact alone flies in the face of every single arguement that the BCS supporters tout. This should be added.

Update Bowl Chart

There is a bunch of changes to the number of bcs bowl game wins and loses.

Right now all the appearance numbers should be correct and already include the games that are still yet to be played. The record for each school only shows the games that have already been played. I updated the results of the Rose Bowl for both USC and Michigan. After the Fiesta Bowl tonight I will update the table if I'm still awake. Otherwise I'm sure someone else will take the initiative.

BCS Controversies Section

The 2003/04 section should include the fact that LSU is the only BCS champion to not receive a unanimous #1 vote in the Coaches Poll. The BCS contract required that all coaches vote the BCS champion #1, but 3 coaches broke rank and voted USC #1 anyway. Dude202 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference or source for this? IF not, please find one. If so, add it in. --MECU≈talk 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I found 5 online sources. I would also assume that the final Coaches Poll from the 2003-04 season is in the ESPN encyclopedia of college football. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

I am putting the first reference in the actual article. The rest are here so that if any of the links go bad, someone might have an easier time finding the sources than I just had. Dude202 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

4th paragraph, 2nd sentence:

"...are not given automatic births to BCS bowls..." should actually be "...are not given automatic berths in BCS bowls"

I believe berths in would be the correct usage. Since a berth is similar to position in meaning, I would use in as opposed to to. Usually when one is given a position, it is usually in something instead of on something.

I would change it myself, rather than bug everyone about a simple homonym/grammar issue, but I am a newly registered user.

Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flosofl (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

forgot to sign it the first time, sorry

Flosofl 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Flosofl (told you I was new)

I've made the change, except I left it "berths to", because I believe they get a berth to a bowl game and not in a bowl game. Only a few more days before you can edit it yourself. (We had to do that because of vandalism, nothing personal) Welcome to Wikipedia! --MECU≈talk 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that, in 2003/04, LSU was the only BCS champion to not receive a unanimous #1 vote in the Coaches Poll. But this is a false controversy. The winner of the BCS NCG is awarded the NC Trophy, the crystal football. THAT is the sole true NC award. Why? Because all of the teams, conferences and administrators AGREED, by contract, that it goes to the true NC. The two polls, which during the season provide opinions about relative team strength, become irrelevant with respect to the NC after the two BCS title game participants are chosen. After the NCG, the polls do provide a useful function: determining Nos. 2-25. But with respect to the NC, whether some coaches stuck to their contract carries no weight (it was a meaningless gesture even though somebody hopefully explained to those coaches later on the concept of a contract). I know some people still believe the polls carry some gravitas after the NCG, but the participants (the teams and coaches) should graciously decline such "awards." They signed the contract, they should stick to it. So OK, you can mention that "LSU was the only BCS champion to not receive a unanimous #1 vote in the Coaches Poll," but you must follow that up with the clause: "... but it meant nothing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.21 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh SEC homers, it does matter! Its true, LSU was the BCS champion. The controversy was that the AP poll picked someone else for champion, and three coaches broke their contract to vote for someone else for national champion. It was this controversy that led to the changes in the formula to pick the #1 and #2 overall for the championship game. Jklharris 09:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bowl Schedule until 2010

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)

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)

Yes, you can see my changes here. Perhaps you need to refresh/reload the page? --MECU≈talk 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of page

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)

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 {{Main}}. --MECU≈talk 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

2006-2007 Controversies

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)

extremely biased

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)

I agree, six sources under "BCS Controversies" aren't enough. Shouldn't be that hard to find more.Happysomeone 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.236.56 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 

Future Controversies

I added a small section under "BCS Controversies" outlining a future problem that the BCS system might run into. It involves the BCS not having enough eligible teams to fill its 10 at-large spots. I give an example from the 2001-02 season.

I also added TCU's 2000 and 2005 teams as additional non-BCS teams who would have recieved automatic berths under the current format in the "Changes for 2006-07" section. Both teams finished in the top 16 and ahead of a BCS conference champion (Purdue in 2000 and Florida State in 2005). Bmf 51 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That was deemed original research by someone else and I agree. Unless you can provide a source for the information, we can not accept it. MECU≈talk 12:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The section about the controversy that I created a few months back has been rendered moot, as the BCS has added a rule that covers the situation I mentioned (which was added to this article in November). Interestingly, they added this rule shortly to the BCS's website after I e-mailed them asking about it. Perhaps, because of me, the BCS has averted another controversy. In the case of the 2001-02 season, Syracuse (ranked #17) would have received the other at-large berth. So, the following teams would have qualified:

ACC Champions - Maryland

Big East Champions - Miami-FL

Big Ten Champions - Illinois

Big 12 Champions - Colorado

Pac-10 Champions - Oregon

SEC Champions - Louisiana State

Big 12 At-large - Nebraska

SEC At-large - Either Florida or Tennessee

Pac-10 At-large - Either Stanford or Washington State

Big East At-large - Syracuse

Bmf 51

Please read our policy on original research. MECU≈talk 12:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anything about changing the article in my last response. I was pointing out that, even if it weren't original research, it wouldn't be necessary to add it now, anyway, because the BCS has added a rule to prevent such a situation. I understand the reason my original edit was removed. My last response on this talk page wasn't disputing that. Perhaps reading that response again, more carefully, would help you understand. Bmf 51

Incredibly, even after adding the "18 or 22" rule, it is still possible that less than 10 teams would qualify for BCS bowls, because at-large teams still must have at least 9 wins. Z1perlster (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BCS School Map

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)

Criticism of BCS Revenue Sharing

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)

I did not delete it, but I thought it seemed very out-of-place when I read this article. This article already seems biased against the BCS because the "controversy" section is so long. This presents considerable POV issues when you consider that the BCS is a system virtually everyone in a leadership role in college football has agreed to. I have heard more criticism claiming that non-BCS schools recieve more than they should from the system than too little. I don't understand the relevance of the highly theoretical "per-team" distrubution of funds. There are good reasons why second-tier conferences do not distribute their share equally among schools. It is because they recognize that some of the teams in their conferences are on the verge of being unable to field a D-1AA team at all, and are in no way BCS-relavant. Schools like Hawaii, BYU, Utah and Boise State would never agree to an arrangement like that accordingly. --76.17.236.56 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BCS Support Section

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)

The spot about NFL teams sitting starters at the end of a season lacks a NPOV from it's tone. It is stated as fact and should either have an attribution to an external source (espn blog, newspaper, whatever) or should be reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.215.233 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing this article would benefit from is if anything comparing the BCS to a to a theoretical NCAA playoff sytem was deleted. The system has supporters because it has greatly increased the liklihood of #1 and #2 meeting in a bowl game. Prior to 1992 this almost never happened. I don't have any source, of course. The benefits are just self-evident.--76.17.236.56 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the inclusion of this statement:

"Supporters also note that while the BCS routinely involves controversy about which two teams are the top teams, in rare instances there is a clear-cut top two; the BCS ensures these top two will play each other for the championship. For example, USC and Texas in 2005 were the only undefeated teams; both teams had only a couple of close contests and had nearly every other game out of reach for the opponent by the second or third quarter. Under the BCS system, these two teams got to play for the championship. Before the BCS, they would likely have played two other schools, and if they both won, then there would be either two champions, or else #2 Texas would have been denied a championship despite going 13–0.

This is support for BCS vs. the old, non-aligned bowl system. So what? No one is arguing we should go back to that. Its like having a segment in the page about the United States Government where someone advocates democracy over cave-man rule. It is not relevant, and should be removed.

>>You are completely correct. The entire "support" section is incredibly weak. On the one hand, it seems necessary to include support. On the other hand, it has to be better than the content provided.Obamafan70 (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in rules

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)

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)

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)

I got a response email from the BCS checking the scenerio I outlined above, and my assumptions were correct. Lets say Ohio State and Michigan both finish the season with 1 loss, Ohio State loses to Wisconsin, and Michigan loses to Ohio State. Wisconsin does not play Michigan and finishes the season undefeated in the Big-10, but they lose 2 or 3 games out of conference. In this case, Wisconsin would be the Big-10 champion, but would get bumped out of the BCS bid because Ohio State and Michigan finished 1st-2nd which trumps the conference champion berth. --Pparazorback 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the point was that "The third-ranked team will receive an automatic berth, if it has not already received one" as it currently says is wrong. That statement is feasible, but the actual rule is only if no other team from the conference is in the championship game, which is infeasible.

I think we should have two sets of rules: one that is nearly verbatim from the BCS website, and another that simplifies it by going over the rules that are feasible and ignores the rules that will never occur. Opinions? If there aren't any, then I'll write it up in a little bit. 18.232.1.131

BCS Controversies

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)

I agree. This page is getting long. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Also: the Use of Bowl Game Names (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange) vs. "BCS National Championship Game".

In these tables, the names are used alternatively, with rare continuity in form. Either the bowl name or "BCS National Championship Game" should be used; this, in turn, could lead to the BCS Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickschuyler (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. The tables are fine. Prior to the 2006-07 season there were 4 bowls (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange). For the 2006-07 season and on, a 5th bowl was added, "BCS National Championship Game." In 2003 for example, the national championship game was refered to as "2003 Fiesta Bowl" not the "2003 BCS National Championship Game" in 2007 for example, the "2007 Fiesta Bowl" and the "2007 BCS National Championship Game" were two completely different games. Bcspro (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii v. Hawai`i

Both spellings are used on this page. We should pick one and stick to it. Agnamus (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When talking about a Hawai`i-centric topic it should be spelled "Hawai`i", the official spelling. When outside of that topic, even though technically incorrect, "Hawaii" is generally accepted and should be used to avoid confusion and/or discrepancies.

Ex. If we were on the [University of Hawaii] page we should spell it "Hawai`i" when referring to it in text. But even then, you will notice it is spelled "Hawaii" in the page title.

Since this is a Football-centric topic it should be "Hawaii". And, if you get down to it, this is an English page and the okina is not an English letter, and in English we spell Japan "Japan" and not にほん, 日本, or even Nihon (or Nippon) just "Japan" --Billy Nair (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There were only a few places in the actual article that needed the change. In the citation section I see no reason at all to remove the okina. --Billy Nair (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

two bowl tables will grow without limits

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:20041129 phpF8eiVe.gif

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)

"BCS support" section should be removed

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)

No more "support" in the "controversy" section. "Support" should remain with its own section. Bcspro (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"BCS support" section contains bad and irrelevant arguments; should be removed

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)

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)

--I did some clean-up on the support section. I removed some stuff that is not an issue of contention between critics and supporters. For instance, most critics readily accept that the BCS is an improvement over prior systems. So, there is really no reason to include this in the "support" section. Obamafan70 (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

--Thank you for your response which again gives me an opportunity to illustrate the point. With respect to (1) -- I agree with this. Somewhere in the article it could be stated for contextual reasons. But you would have to note that "both critics and supporters agree the BCS is an improvement over previous systems in terms of championship validity." For (2) -- how could this be a huge point for a supporter like you???? This is not a debate point. Find one sourced article where a critic challenges this point, and it will merit inclusion here. If you paid attention to the congressional hearings, you would know that the MWC commissioner nor Rep. Joe Barton challenged this point. In fact, they argued the BCS increased access. But this isn't indicative of support.Obamafan70 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Current Controversies Section is Contradictory

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)

Why is there any concern what Obama thinks should be done? He is in no way involved in college football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.11.2 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Utah 2004 - "At-Large?"

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)

• No, the rule of a non-BCS conference champion in the top 12 automatically getting into a BCS bowl was not added until the 2006-07 season Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Utah was an automatic team. From 1998-2005, any non-BCS conference team who finished in the top six would be given an automatic bid. I personally consider them an "Automatic At-Large". Bcspro (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was unaware of the pre-2006 rule. Thank you for the clarification Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pick-Your-Poison BCS Proposal

The problem with BCS playoff is that it takes too many games to decide, so plus-one is the only possibility. I have a BCS playoff idea that I have not seen anywhere else (which I posted in FreeRepublic yesterday).

I called it the pick-your-poison BCS playoff system, you can call it "playing chicken".

The advantage of this system is that it retains the current BCS bowl games, and needed only a plus-one national title game to determine the national chimps, regardless of whether it starts with 8 or 10 teams, or 100 teams...

After the final BCS ranking has been determined, i.e. after the conference title games, etc, half the teams in the BCS-qualified group would “pick their poison”.

To get into the national title game (i.e. only 2 teams allowed from the 4 winners of the current 4 BCS bowl games), you have to beat the top-2 highest final-BCS-ranked teams that lost, you own ranking and that of any winning team does NOT matter (this is called the whom-you-beaten rule). Again, the key is who beats the highest-ranked team, or at least the top-2 of the beaten, to determine who gets into the national title game.

Your own ranking only matters in that the highest ranked team get to pick first, followed by the next highest team which have not picked or been picked.

Hence #1 could pick #2, then #3 will get to pick next, whereas if #1 picked #4, then #2 will get to pick next, and so on.

This way, #1 team cannot complain that they won their bowl game and yet did not go to the title game because they were stucked with #8 team. #1 team now gets to decide whom they want to risk with, i,e. playing chicken. If they pick too high, they may loose, if they pick too low, they may loose even if they win the bowl game.

To determine their own destiny, they (#1 team) would have to pick at least the #3 team, or they could increase their chance of winning the bowl game by going with #4, and hope both #2 AND #3 don’t get upset. If #2 picked #3 (after #1 picked #4), then #1 still go to the title game if they beat #4 in the bowl game.

Or they could chance it and pick #5, and which means they go to title game by beating #5 if no upset happen to any other team regardless of how the other teams pick their bowl opponent.

With this pick-your-poison BCS playoff system, the BCS bowl games could retain some of its importance, be completed on Jan 1st, and then have the title game on Jan 8th at a new site (different each year like the Superbowl).

You can add other interesting mechanics too. LIke letting the BCS bowls choose which game they want after the teams have picked their opponent (or be picked). Also, you can add rules that say if somebody blows out an opponent, they get additional consideration as to who goes to the national title game. This is so that for example, #1 might want to pick #8, because if they blow out #8, like by 50 points or more, then they get to go to the national title game if the other teams did not blow out their respective opponent, etc.

ESPN acquire rights to BCS

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)

Vandalism

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)

Image copyright problem with File:BCSTitleGameLogo2009.png

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)

Virginia Tech 2000 Sugar Bowl - Big East

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)

BCS Bowl wins and appearances by conference

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)

Problems with HR 599

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)

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)

Needed: Clear & accurate description of how standings are currently calculated

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)

I suggest the current standings method be spun off into an article of its own. Gaohoyt (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Appearances by conference

Two things

1. 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.
2. 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)

"Appearances" before appearances

not a good idea - the table will surely be messed up even worse after the BCS bowls

Table format

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)

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)

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)

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)

OfficialBCS edit on 4/20/2010

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) Obamafan70 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

>> Your opinion about the neutrality of the article (as a whole) is duly noted. However, your comments are a pretty classic example of a straw man. I did not challenge what he added. I challenged what he deleted; he removed facts from the introduction that the BCS is controversial, facts that are relevant and important to Wikipedia readers. reader. Furthermore, your response does not address any (2) or (3) of my original concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamafan70 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Obamafan70 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AQ

• Isn't "Automatic non-AQ" = "Automatic non-Automatic Qualifier" or "Automatic Qualifier"? Ucla90024 (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

To American-centric

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)

SEC record in national championship games

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)

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)

Incorrect link

The link to "Cowboy Stadium" does not click-through to the right page.

fixed, thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ohio State edits

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bowl Championship Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bowl Championship Series/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

To get to GA: Shorten TOC Restructure "BCS rankings" section to limit subheadings "BCS history and schedule" could also be restructured to limit subheadings (tables?) Restructure "Future schedules" to limit subheadings Move "BCS Bowl wins and appearances by team" and "BCS Bowl wins and appearances by conference" to their own article/list? All sections need more sources.↔NMajdan•talk 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1548
• Added {{dead link}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)