BCS Rankings: Oklahoma State In The Title Game Could Put Stanford In Fiesta, Sugar, Even Alamo (Unlikely)

 
The Stanford Cardinal looked like they were ready to pack their bags for the Fiesta Bowl after the LSU Tigers beat down the Georgia Bulldogs to eliminate the embarrassing three SEC team BCS scenario. And after the Virginia Tech Hokies went down to the Clemson Tigers in the ACC Championship game, Stanford seemed to have locked up the #4 spot, which by BCS selection procedure should have assured them an automatic qualifier bid.
After Saturday's results, they may very well still go to the Fiesta Bowl. But it's no longer a guarantee. Not after Bedlam.
The Oklahoma St. Cowboys laid a total smackdown on their rival Oklahoma Sooners on Saturday night in Stillwater, throwing a potential monkey wrench into the Cardinal's BCS title hopes. Oklahoma State looked totally dominant on offense and defense, giving them the big marquee victory they needed to lift them right up with the Alabama Crimson Tide in the BCS title discussion.
Alabama seemed like a total knock-in to be the second representative along with LSU, but a lot of issues are starting to arise. There's a lot of resentment among the non-SEC bloc of the country that two teams from the same conference could play each other for the title, that Alabama doesn't deserve to be there because they didn't even win their own division, much less their conference, that Alabama-LSU would make for an uncompelling and unconvincing matchup based on the defensive slogfest that populated the first contest, that Alabama didn't even need to play Championship weekend to get to the title game. All these element could hurt them with the human votes, and could cost them their BCS title shot.
So Oklahoma State could work their way back into the BCS title picture. They have more wins over ranked teams, more quality victories, a better strength of schedule, and they won the highest-rated conference according to the computers. The computers should have the Cowboys #2 tomorrow, they'll just need the human element to catch up to earn that spot.
But enough about those guys. What happens with Stanford?
Here's the provision that would have applied for the Cardinal if it was an LSU-Alabama title game.

5. 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.
6. If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 5, and if no team qualifies under paragraph No. 5 and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 4 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.

Since #1 and #2 would have been SEC teams and #3 would have been the Big 12 champion and provision #5 wouldn't have applied. Provision #6 would have ensured Stanford would have been a BCS eligible team, and they would have very well earned a Fiesta Bowl invite to Tempe to feature Andrew Luck.
But if Alabama drops to #3, provision #5 applies. Stanford would no longer be protected. And as we've said before, Stanford being protected is what they needed to ensure the BCS didn't snub them because of lackluster fan attendance.
So who could take Stanford's spot?
The Crimson Tide would be selected to replace LSU in the Sugar Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl would go next to replace Oklahoma State and then have the first spots, and they have their pick of likely four teams: Kansas State (already in top 14 at-large eligible position), Stanford (the best of the bunch), Michigan (close to top 14 at-large eligible position, and should move there over Michigan State, Georgia and Oklahoma after Saturday), TCU (close to an auto-bid if they hit the top 16 and Michigan State and Georgia drop beneath them). That leaves three spots for four teams, and while it's unlikely, it's possible the Cardinal could be dropped from that group.
It'd be unprecedented for the Cardinal to be dropped out of the BCS altogether to the Alamo at the #4 spot. But it could happen because of the attendance issues. It's unlikely because of the Andrew Luck factor; it's more of a question of whether they'd drop to the Sugar Bowl for a matchup with Alabama.
It's not likely. Stanford should still feel 95% certain they're going to Tempe, and 100% sure if the LSU-Alabama title game holds. But the Cardinal should probably feel definitely uncertain (and perhaps a tad uneasy) like most of the top college football teams going into tomorrow's selection show.

'Super committee' headed for failure, aides concede

 
Washington (CNN) -- Members of the congressional "super committee" -- the bipartisan panel tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings over the next decade -- will likely announce Monday that they have failed, according to both Democratic and Republican aides.
"No decisions or agreement has been reached concerning any announcement or how this will end," one senior Democratic aide said. "But, yes, the likely outcome is no agreement will be reached."
Legally, a majority of the 12-member committee has until midnight Wednesday to reach an agreement, though any deal needs to be announced for legislative reasons by the end of Monday.
The failure of the committee -- evenly split between six Democrats and six Republicans -- sets in motion an alternative timetable for $1.2 trillion in spending reductions starting in January 2013. Leaders on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the nature of the fallback plan, which cuts evenly from domestic and defense programs.
Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, veterans' benefits and other politically sensitive programs are spared the budget ax.
Pressure has already started to build to undo a number of cuts included in the fallback plan, which was a product of last summer's debt-ceiling agreement. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and key Republicans argue that the military will be undermined by excessive reductions to the Pentagon budget.
It is also unclear how the sharply divided Congress will reach agreement a series of looming budget decisions, including an expiring payroll tax cut and calls for a new extension of unemployment benefits. Both questions need to be dealt with by the end of December.
At the same time, the committee's failure has triggered a furious political blame game. Democrats have blasted Republicans for not being more receptive to higher taxes on the wealthy, while Republicans insist Democrats are unwilling to make necessary spending cuts to popular domestic programs.
Super committee member Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, told CNN on Monday that Republicans undermined any prospect for genuine compromise by being unwilling to phase out the Bush-era tax cuts for upper-income Americans.
"This is a matter of fundamental fairness," Kerry said. "We are stuck on this insistence of making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. I think the American people will judge that to be insane."
Fellow panel member Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said Democrats risked throwing the economy back into a recession by trying to use the super committee's mandate to hike taxes on small businesses and other drivers of job creation.
"Our Democratic friends said we won't cut one dollar more without raising taxes," Kyl told CNN. "That tells you a lot about the ethos in Washington. We went into the exercise to try to reduce federal government spending. What we get from the other side is, no, we won't make more cuts unless you raise taxes."
At the center of the dispute is conservative activist Grover Norquist, head of the group Americans for Tax Reform and author of a popular GOP campaign pledge never to raise taxes. Democrats portray Norquist as an ideological thug who has effectively imposed a reign of terror over congressional Republican petrified of crossing his group and incurring the wrath of the GOP's anti-tax base.
"The pledge to Grover Norquist keeps coming up," Kerry said. "Grover has been the 13th member of the (super committee) without being there. I can't tell you how often we hear about the pledge."
Norquist dismissed the Democrats' accusations Monday, telling CNN that congressional liberals were to blame for the super committee's failings. He also predicted that the collapse of the talks would set the stage for next year's campaign.
This is "what the election of 2012 will be about," Norquist said. Do "you want (President Barack) Obama's European-sized government or an American-sized smaller government?" There is a "clear distinction between the parties and the direction the country should go in."
So far, it is clear that the super committee process is galvanizing both conservative and liberal pressure groups. An interfaith group held a prayer vigil Sunday in Lafayette Park near the White House to urge Congress not to make budget cuts that would likely affect the poor.
"We gather this time with an audacious purpose, and that is to ask God ... to move the hearts of policy makers that they will act and make decisions with compassion and fairness," said the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ.
Similar vigils will be held this week in Los Angeles; Richmond, Virginia; Philadelphia and Dallas.
While there doesn't appear to have been any one specific tipping point in the super committee's deliberations, it became increasingly clear over the course of the past week that the ideological chasm between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of taxes had simply become too wide.
Some key Republicans broke with their party's anti-tax orthodoxy by backing a proposal by panel member Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, that included $400 billion in increased revenue.
Toomey's plan would have lowered overall income tax rates while limiting tax breaks in a way that would raise $250 billion. Republicans estimated that the reform would spark enough economic growth generating another $110 billion.
A change in how tax brackets are adjusted for inflation would raise another $40 billion.
The plan also included $800 billion in spending cuts, thereby hitting the minimum threshold of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.
Democrats, however, called the measure unacceptable in part because it didn't phase out the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, estimated by nonpartisan budget analysts to cost $800 billion over the next decade.
For their part, Democrats countered with a proposal to generate $400 billion in new revenue strictly from increased tax collections. At the same time, they wanted to spend $700 billion to help boost the economy, including an extension of the payroll tax cut, extended unemployment benefit payments and money permanently to prevent cuts in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.
Democrats want to offset those costs with money saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a move characterized by some legislators in both parties as an accounting gimmick.
Republicans were also bitterly critical of Democrats for their alleged failure to consider more serious reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Last week, panel Republicans floated a last-ditch $640 billion proposal -- not enough to meet the committee's $1.2 trillion mandate, but enough to help mitigate the impact of the fallback cuts and at least claim partial success. Republicans said the plan included "low-hanging fruit" agreed to by both parties in the past, according to multiple sources.
The plan featured roughly $540 billion in spending cuts and fees, the sources noted. Among other things, it raised $3 billion in revenue by closing a highly publicized tax loophole for corporate jet owners.
Democrats balked, however, for the same reason they also rejected larger GOP proposals: a perception there wasn't enough "shared sacrifice" in the form of higher taxes on the wealthy, the sources said.
"No person could look at that (alternative plan) and say it met the test of fairness and balance," said panel member Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland.