Originally Posted by glitterhearts
I'm confused about all of this. They have been talking about this soooo much on the news here since last football season. I still don't get it.
There were a number of undefeated teams in the BCS rankings, although based on their strength of schedule, their ranking was either higher or lower relative to other teams with similar records. TCU, BSU, and Cincinnati were all undefeated, but even after remaining so for their entire season, they were of lower rank than Florida and Alabama.
The BCS* determines to which bowls teams go, depending on rank, schedule, and numerous other factors. There is no playoff/bracket structure for the championship like there is in the NFL --or, for that matter, most other competitions. The BCS chooses the top two teams, places them together, and let's them duke it out.
For other big-name bowl games, like the Rose Bowl, for example, the two teams are chosen by arbitrary standards. The champions of the PAC-10 play the champions of the Big-10 in a game that stretches back some 80 years, I believe.
The debate is that the selection method is unfair. BSU, TCU, and Cincinnati fans are crying because they didn't have a legitimate shot at the championship, despite their perfect records --while Texas (another undefeated team) does. Frankly, BSU should never have been ranked #6, and giving them any form of BCS bowl is a charitable donation to a failing conference. They played terrible teams with terrible records. It doesn't say much that you can wipe up the mat with a school whose enrollment is 1/4 your own.
Does this make it a little clearer? I wasn't sure what you were confused about, so I took a stab in the dark.
*As well as bowl sponsors, with distance from competing schools, size of program, strength of schedule, as well as numerous other things factored into the consideration