As always, the flaws of the BCS (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/polls) calculations can be seen miles away. So what you're telling me is 3 separate human polls count SC number one followed up by Texas, but a computer puts Texas over SC? Anyone else see something wrong with this? Actually, I'm sure a lot of people are happy to see that, but let's just put the bias aside for a second and really think about this.
Now am I worried? Absolutely not. The margin between 1st and 2nd in the BCS is the closest it's ever been in 8 years and USC has a very decent schedule ahead of them with many ranked teams. Regaining the 1st spot is inevitable, no matter how well Texas does.
One thing that I would change in the human polls, though, if I could would be VT. They are, far and away, a better team than Texas. I'd much rather have my Trojans play Texas than VT right now. They're just damn good and deserve that number 2 spot.
it may sound like a big deal but it really isn't. wether you are # 1 or 2, you're going to play for the national championship. plus the position could easily swap this saturday. like you said vt has everything to lose if they go undefeated. as long as both usc and texas run the table, vt has no chance of playing for the national championship.
i will say this though about ranking. no matter how you look at it, polls are subjective and bias. whereas, the computer ranking aroun more objective. thus, it's more fair.
we can all agree that the ranking system is bull (in determinaing the national champion). so if you can stay at top two positions, you have nothing to complain about.
I'll jump in this with my idea for a 16-team playoff. All 11 Division 1A conference champions plus 5 at-large teams. Regular season ends by last weekend in November. Playoffs start at home of higher-seeded teams first weekend of December. Regionals next week. Final four at major bowl sites, championship at major bowl site on New Year's Day. Instead of 50+ teams playing bowls into late December and early January, 16 teams play and season is actually shorter, so university presidents' concerns about a longer season don't hold up. However, it would knock a game or two off the recently approved 12-game season (What was that university presidents were concerned about?) cutting into athletic department revenues for those teams that actually make money on football home games.
Worried about that great Motor City Bowl tradition? Then keep playing the lower-tier bowls as football's version of the NIT. Who said you can't have playoffs and bowls?
A playoff works for 1-AA, and you don't see huge numbers of players flunking out of Furman and William & Mary because they play more games.
Quote from: roguegeekI'd much rather have my Trojans play Texas than VT right now. They're just damn good and deserve that number 2 spot.
Why is that? VaTech has only played 1 ranked team, 15th Ga Tech, they have hardly proven themselves. I think Miami has a very good shot at beating them.
Texas passed USC because they routed #10 tech by 35 points while Usc squeaked by an overranked #9 Notre Dame. I don't think anybody wants to play Texas right now.
Cal, Fresno St, and UCLA is a tough way to end the season, too. Good luck with that :nana:
I agree that USC should be number one, but Texas is better than Tech.
I don't agree that Notre Dame is over ranked.
Thing is, VT will probably play FSU in the ACC Championship game and Texas will probably play my alma mater THE University of Missouri in the Big 12 Championship. So VT will probably get the nod. But Texas would beat VT on a neutral field.
But the last thing in the world anyone wants to hear is a USC fan crying like a baby. You know what USC stands for right? :)
Quote from: Stephen072774Why is that? VaTech has only played 1 ranked team, 15th Ga Tech, they have hardly proven themselves. I think Miami has a very good shot at beating them.
vt is playing #13 boston college this week. and #6 miami next week. and virginia (who was ranking last week).
texas has no more ranked teams on theschedule.
by the end of the season, the schedule will be pretty much even.
Quote from: dbNncI'll jump in this with my idea for a 16-team playoff.
16 teams is way too many. 8 is good. even 4 will work.
you can keep the same bowl system. designate top 3 bowl games as a playoff games. have 4 teams play in #2 and #3 bowl games. the winners play in #1 bowl game for the national championship.
Quote from: JetSwingQuote from: Stephen072774Why is that? VaTech has only played 1 ranked team, 15th Ga Tech, they have hardly proven themselves. I think Miami has a very good shot at beating them.
vt is playing #13 boston college this week. and #6 miami next week. and virginia (who was ranking last week).
texas has no more ranked teams on theschedule.
by the end of the season, the schedule will be pretty much even.
Yeah thats exactly my point... theres no way Tech can leapfrog TX now, maybe after the Miami game
Quote from: Stephen072774Quote from: JetSwingQuote from: Stephen072774Why is that? VaTech has only played 1 ranked team, 15th Ga Tech, they have hardly proven themselves. I think Miami has a very good shot at beating them.
vt is playing #13 boston college this week. and #6 miami next week. and virginia (who was ranking last week).
texas has no more ranked teams on theschedule.
by the end of the season, the schedule will be pretty much even.
Yeah thats exactly my point... theres no way Tech can leapfrog TX now, maybe after the Miami game
maybe. vt would have to blow out both bc and miami. that may get some points from the computer rankings. but still i don't think vt can pass texas unless texas screw up.
Texas will get passed by VT and USC. They don't have the strength of schedule left to stay in the BCS #1 OR #2. That said, they are better than VT.
VT might now win out though. . . stay tuned.
yes, usc will reclaim the #1 spot. but vt won't be leap frogging texas...they're too far behind.
Quote6 teams is way too many. 8 is good. even 4 will work.
Sixteen is not too many. TV and fans would love a December Saturday with eight NCAA playoff football games. An eight- or four-team playoff would leave out too many teams, especially those from smaller conferences -- a big criticism of the BCS. Plus, to get TV to agree to any playoff it would somehow have to be rigged so Notre Dame has a shot to get in. A playoff of three 11-0 or 12-0 teams plus a 8-3 Notre Dame would be bogus.
Quote from: dbNncPlus, to get TV to agree to any playoff it would somehow have to be rigged so Notre Dame has a shot to get in. A playoff of three 11-0 or 12-0 teams plus a 8-3 Notre Dame would be bogus.
lol, I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.
Quote from: dbNncQuote6 teams is way too many. 8 is good. even 4 will work.
Sixteen is not too many. TV and fans would love a December Saturday with eight NCAA playoff football games. An eight- or four-team playoff would leave out too many teams, especially those from smaller conferences -- a big criticism of the BCS. Plus, to get TV to agree to any playoff it would somehow have to be rigged so Notre Dame has a shot to get in. A playoff of three 11-0 or 12-0 teams plus a 8-3 Notre Dame would be bogus.
16 teams IS too many. if would take a month of playing every week to determin the the national champion. also, it would be more difficult to pick 16 teams than say 8 teams. and too many undeserving teams would get in the playoff.
give the champions of each of the six conferences that currently get automatic bids to the bcs an automatic bid to the playoff:
1. Big Ten
2. Big 12
3. ACC
4. Big East
5. Pac-10
6. SEC
and the other two teams (for 7 and 8 spots) could come from a smaller conferene like WAC or Conference USA or a team like notre dame which is an independent.
so, if you're the conference champion, you're in. the rest are not good enough. this system would not leave out anyone.
every major bowl games would host the playoff games. and the rose bowl (in case of this year) will host the national championship.
Quote from: JetSwingQuote from: dbNncQuote6 teams is way too many. 8 is good. even 4 will work.
Sixteen is not too many. TV and fans would love a December Saturday with eight NCAA playoff football games. An eight- or four-team playoff would leave out too many teams, especially those from smaller conferences -- a big criticism of the BCS. Plus, to get TV to agree to any playoff it would somehow have to be rigged so Notre Dame has a shot to get in. A playoff of three 11-0 or 12-0 teams plus a 8-3 Notre Dame would be bogus.
16 teams IS too many. if would take a month of playing every week to determin the the national champion. also, it would be more difficult to pick 16 teams than say 8 teams. and too many undeserving teams would get in the playoff.
give the champions of each of the six conferences that currently get automatic bids to the bcs an automatic bid to the playoff:
1. Big Ten
2. Big 12
3. ACC
4. Big East
5. Pac-10
6. SEC
and the other two teams (for 7 and 8 spots) could come from a smaller conferene like WAC or Conference USA or a team like notre dame which is an independent.
so, if you're the conference champion, you're in. the rest are not good enough. this system would not leave out anyone.
every major bowl games would host the playoff games. and the rose bowl (in case of this year) will host the national championship.
I have always been an advocate of this system... three round playoff...maybe 4 rounds with a few byes for higher ranked teams. Keep the bowl system, invite three more bowls into the BCS to rotate about the three tiers of playoffs. All other bowls would essentially be consolation games. Often the 3rd ranked team has a legitimate gripe about not getting a shot at the title. I can't envision a scenario in which the 9th ranked team can really say they dominated.
but many times the runner up in a certian conference can be better than the winner of another conference, and these are always taken into account by the polls.
Just like this year with both Bama and GA undefeated... if (big if) they are both undefeated and meet in the sec game, should the looser be passed up by say an 8-3 fighting Irish? In that system it would.
Quote from: Stephen072774but many times the runner up in a certian conference can be better than the winner of another conference, and these are always taken into account by the polls.
Just like this year with both Bama and GA undefeated... if (big if) they are both undefeated and meet in the sec game, should the looser be passed up by say an 8-3 fighting Irish? In that system it would.
you can't really go by win/loss record. that's what the current ranking system go by in essence. and it's flawed. also if you win your conference, you get automatic bid to certain bowl games so that already happens now.
this happens in any playoff system meaning you will never have equal strength in brackets.
also if you just lost in a conference championship, what's the point in going to playoff, when you've already proven that you're not not good as the conference champion.
essentially, the conference championship is a qualifying round for the playoff.
that's more than fair enough.
I think the SEC will pull out of the BCS after this year anyway. They'll likely have an un-beaten team win the SEC and, for a second or third year in a row, not have a team play for the national championship. SEC pulls out and the BCS folds. So this may be moot pretty soon. I hope.
Quote from: Stephen072774but many times the runner up in a certian conference can be better than the winner of another conference, and these are always taken into account by the polls.
Just like this year with both Bama and GA undefeated... if (big if) they are both undefeated and meet in the sec game, should the looser be passed up by say an 8-3 fighting Irish? In that system it would.
I don't care if a conference runner up is left out... they lost their conference... they can beg and negotiate for an at-large spot, but they have no entitlement to play in the tourney. They will surely get a consolation bowl game and get to stomp some MAC team or SunBelt team on national television... that's what you get for losing your conference.
then the clear advantage would be an independent team who didn't have a conference championship.
Quote from: Stephen072774then the clear advantage would be an independent team who didn't have a conference championship.
i mentioned independent team only because of notre dame. the reason you can't leave out notre dame is reason being they're one of the premier college football program and they have the potenital to be the top 5 team year in and year out.
i couldn't care less if WAC or Conference USa were included but i suppose that's being fair. there's a good reason why they're in those conferences.
also one thing you can do is force notre dame to join a conference. the only reason they're not part of bcs is greed. they're getting $60 million from nbc. if you want to play for the national championship, joing a conference like everyone else!
and yes, notre dame will be excluded from the bcs soon
I think the main issue here is that AS MUCH as possible should be settled on the field, not in polls or computer algorithms. A short playoff accomplishes this without botching up the lucrative bowl system currently in place. I know I would be glued to many more post-season games were we to have a playoff system.
Some of us seem to be too concerned about the second place teams from good conferences. I never said that second-place conference teams shouldn't be considered for the at-large slots, but much like the NFL, only 1 team per division (in the case of college football, major conference) is guaranteed. The rest can be left up to the same lame-ass selection processes and formulas we have now. My point is that polling and computing to try and capture the best team in the nation with a selected set of 2 teams is not always possible. With a sample set of 8 teams selected in such a manner, the odds are that the best team in the country is somewhere in the mix and has the chance to prove themselves on the gridiron.
Quotealso if you just lost in a conference championship, what's the point in going to playoff, when you've already proven that you're not not good as the conference champion.
You mean like Oklahoma in 2003 when it lost to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game but was still ranked no. 1 in the BCS standings and lost to LSU in the BCS title game? USC was named AP national champion, and now announcers on ABC and ESPN, co-participants in the BCS, say USC is going for its third national title. So they're nullifying their own championship game of 2003.
If you have a playoff, all conference champions should be included. Should Utah at 12-0 been left out of a playoff last year, if one had existed, because it doesn't play in a major conference? What could be better for TV ratings than an underdog like Utah making a run through a playoff like my alma mater NC State did in in the NCAA basketball tournament in 1983?
Quotei mentioned independent team only because of notre dame. the reason you can't leave out notre dame is reason being they're one of the premier college football program and they have the potenital to be the top 5 team year in and year out.
i couldn't care less if WAC or Conference USa were included but i suppose that's being fair. there's a good reason why they're in those conferences.
This may sound like I'm anti-Notre Dame. I'm not, but I do think Notre Dame gets preferential treatment that's not always deserved by on-field performance.
Look at last year where Utah of the Mountain West was 12-0 including a Fiesta Bowl win, 35-7, over Pittsburgh. Notre Dame was 6-6 including an Insight Bowl loss to Oregon. The last time Notre Dame finished the season ranked in the AP poll was 2002, at 17th after a Gator Bowl loss to NC State. The last time it was in the top 5 was 1993 when Notre Dame finished no. 2 to Florida State. Since then, Brigham Young in 1996 and Utah in 2004 have finished in the AP top 5. So it looks like non-BCS conferences put teams in the top 5 more often than Notre Dame gets there.
Historic AP polls (http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/history/APpolls.txt)
Another reason I'd like to see a playoff would be to get conferences back to 8 or 9 teams and undo the ACC expansion that's ruined the round-robin basketball format where every team played every other team home and away every year. I like having Va. Tech in the conference but can do without Miami and Boston College.
One more friendly disagreement:
Quote16 teams IS too many. if would take a month of playing every week to determin the the national champion.
What's wrong with that? Bowls currently start a few days before Christmas and last until Jan. 3 or 4. A 16-team, four-round playoff would be over on New Year's Day. So a playoff would be over sooner than the current system.
A four-round playoff works for Div. 1-AA and Div. II and, like I said before, you don't see football players flunking out of William & Mary because they played too many games. Who complains about a month of NCAA tournament basketball games?
Quote from: dbNncQuotealso if you just lost in a conference championship, what's the point in going to playoff, when you've already proven that you're not not good as the conference champion.
You mean like Oklahoma in 2003 when it lost to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game but was still ranked no. 1 in the BCS standings and lost to LSU in the BCS title game? USC was named AP national champion, and now announcers on ABC and ESPN, co-participants in the BCS, say USC is going for its third national title. So they're nullifying their own championship game of 2003.
If you have a playoff, all conference champions should be included. Should Utah at 12-0 been left out of a playoff last year, if one had existed, because it doesn't play in a major conference? What could be better for TV ratings than an underdog like Utah making a run through a playoff like my alma mater NC State did in in the NCAA basketball tournament in 1983?
yes, oklahoma did not deserve to play for the national championship. they basically got a second chance.
BUT it's not simple as it may look. maybe Oklahoma knew they could lose that game and still play for the national championship. or just just got lucky.
Quote from: dbNncOne more friendly disagreement:
Quote16 teams IS too many. if would take a month of playing every week to determin the the national champion.
What's wrong with that? Bowls currently start a few days before Christmas and last until Jan. 3 or 4. A 16-team, four-round playoff would be over on New Year's Day. So a playoff would be over sooner than the current system.
A four-round playoff works for Div. 1-AA and Div. II and, like I said before, you don't see football players flunking out of William & Mary because they played too many games. Who complains about a month of NCAA tournament basketball games?
first, let's not even try draw comparison to college basketball. you could have 128 team tornament, it would be fine. it's basketball.
as for divsion ii playoff, they get no support from the network and sponors (compare to the bowl games). so it's financially important for them to have many round as possible. also, for division ii players, injuries are not a huge factor since majority of them won't be playing on sundays. furthermore, there are a lot more at stake in division i champioship (we're talking tens of millions of dollars). so you would like to play minimum number of games if you're the players.
and like i said before, there alread a system (conference championships) the supports 8 team playoffs.
Fun discussion, not trying to argue or get anybody mad...
QuoteBUT it's not simple as it may look. maybe Oklahoma knew they could lose that game and still play for the national championship. or just just got lucky.
ESPN and others reported before the KSU-OU game that regardless of the outcome OU would still lead the BCS standings.
Quoteand like i said before, there alread a system (conference championships) the supports 8 team playoffs.
The BCS Web site (http://www.bcsfootball.org) itself lists 11 Div 1A conferences; only six are guaranteed spots in the BCS games. So its not obvious where the other two teams would come from in an eight-team playoff. Thus, having all 11 conference champions plus 5 at-large teams that could include Notre Dame if the Irish are good enough makes more sense.
Quoteas for divsion ii playoff, they get no support from the network and sponors (compare to the bowl games). so it's financially important for them to have many round as possible. also, for division ii players, injuries are not a huge factor since majority of them won't be playing on sundays. furthermore, there are a lot more at stake in division i champioship (we're talking tens of millions of dollars). so you would like to play minimum number of games if you're the players.
I doubt many if any Div. 1-AA or Div. II teams make money from football or any other sport. I'd say fewer than half of the 117 Div. 1-A teams make money from football, and several each year lose money going to lower-tier bowls that few fans attend and few people watch on TV. The majority of Div. 1-A players won't be playing professional football, either. Most seniors who have hopes of playing pro ball participate in all-star games such as the Senior Bowl, so the concern they might get injured if they play too many games must not be that great. I would guess most would like the exposure a tournament would give them, like the basketball players get in the roundball tournament.
Quotefirst, let's not even try draw comparison to college basketball. you could have 128 team tornament, it would be fine. it's basketball.
The university presidents' public argument against a football playoff is it would take athletes out of class. It's one game a week on a Saturday, and the semester would be over for the last two rounds of a four-round playoff (for those schools on the semester system). The NCAA basketball tournament is two games each week -- a weekday and a weekend day in the middle of the spring semester -- and you don't hear any university presidents complaining about that.
dude, basketball is not football. the recoup time for football is 1 week at minimum!
the reason for not having playoff is money+pride=greed!
a lot of the player from big programs would goto the nfl. i'm not talking about entire dividion i teams. i'm talking about teams who has legitimate chance of win the national championship. the are not significant in this particular arugment.
again, there a reason why bsc is only including 6 major conferences. do you really think a team from the Mountain West, MAC, WAC or Sun Belt has a chance of winning the national championship? the answer is NO. if the school in thse conferences have good enough programs, they wouldn't be in those conference in the first place. it's seldom that the best of thems from those conferences get ranked. even if they go undefeated, it's not same as usc going undefeated. currently, #20 tcu is the only ranked team from non major conferences (hint: they have no chance of beating top ranked teams).
we just don't need to clutter up the playoff.
BCS is BS is the truth.
The BCS is designed to force all of the major conferences to play along with the ultimate greed machine, the NCAA. This is the same ruling body that said that a certain pro and US Olympic Skier had to give up all endorsements (and basically stop skiing) in order to play Receiver for Colorado. This is the same conference that made $10 million off sellling Mike Williams jerseys when he was a Fresh. but encourages the NFL to keep younger players out of the NFL to force them to play in the only other major football league the NCAA.
All other divisions of college football including D1AA have playoffs, but D1A has bowls. The reason, the NC double Ass wholes (to quote the program) make millions of dollars off of every bowl game. In order to keep making the same amount of money on the bowl games they need to get good teams to go to the bowls. I say, why don't you make the Independance and Seattle Bowls, round 1 of a 16 team playoff, then make the mid-bowls like the Holiday middle round playoffs, and rotate between the Rose, Orange, Cotton etc... for the final 4 and Championship. This is exactly how it works for all other divisions.
However this will never happen. Another reason why this won't happen is because of greedy/crappy coaches who don't want to play in a playoff system. Teams like Florida/FSU/Texas/USC/NotreDame all benefit from human polls because they're usually in them year-after-year. This is how they stay on top. They get into major bowls and that gets them on T.V. They go and recruit and tell young kids, "look come to my school I've been in a major bowl every year for the past decade." However, if they have a playoff, then more teams get the same exposure. Also, those big team/coaches know that they can usually get a good performance out of their teams in one game, especially when they have 1 month to prepare. To win a college football playoff you have to be good and get lucky (no injuries playing tough competition each week.) This is hard for coaches because it adds more stress, in that they have to put on a good show for a national audience every week. If USC had a bunch of injuries and then lost to school that was ranked lower then them, it would look bad for USC. This would impact recruiting and so some coaches favor the bowl system.
Our best bet for a playoff is for teams like V-Tech, who will only get into the #2 spot if USC or Texas loose and they win all remaining games, keep on getting ripped off. Either way, I think that the stupid NCAA will hang onto the Bowl system for as long as possible. Remember when teams go to bowls they get gifts, have bowl sponsored meals, team events, etc.... One year the Huskies got to go to the Playboy mansion. Now that's pretty sweet, but imagine what the NCAA big-wigs are getting from the sponsors????? I'm guessing they get lots of great stuff and will don anything to hang onto that.
PLayoff would be better for competition, for College Football Fans, for Vegas, for the players, everyone, except the NCAA and Coaches.
gifts are not the only thing schools receive...high profile teams would get upwards of $12- $19 milliion just for participating in bowl games. that is a lot of money! why would anyone want to change that...
last year, college bowl games generated revenue of about 1.1 billion for the cities that hosted them.
Quote from: JetSwingi will say this though about ranking. no matter how you look at it, polls are subjective and bias. whereas, the computer ranking aroun more objective. thus, it's more fair.
we can all agree that the ranking system is bull (in determinaing the national champion). so if you can stay at top two positions, you have nothing to complain about.
I refer you to the 2004 Auburn season. From
http://www.fanblogs.com/sec/004779.php dated January 10, 2005.
After pundits spent the last week or so beating up on Auburn for it's weak schedule, John Pruett from The Huntsville Times checked the official NCAA stats and found Auburn got a bum rap. In fact, Auburn had the fifth toughest schedule in the country.
Despite playing Louisiana-Monroe (5-6), LA Tech (6-6), and DI-AA The Citadel, Auburn finished as the highest rated BCS team in strength of schedule by the NCAA official statistics.
Texas A&M was #1, followed by North Carolina, Arizona, Arizona State, and Auburn. Where did the BCS title game teams rank? Oklahoma's schedule was ranked 11th and USC's was 18th.Playoffs would at least have given AU a shot at a championship.
VT should get kicked out of the BCS for the gawd awful jerseys they wore against BC. WTF?
hey i was at the game...were we lound or what?!? :)
they totally dominated the game in stats but the score really didn't reflect that.
forget the jersey...i think they did to get a new color scheme :mrgreen:
Last night I saw G Love and Special Sauce in concert. The band that opened for them was called Virginia Coalition. They were awsome. You Virginia guys ever hear of them?
Quote from: Jake DVT should get kicked out of the BCS for the gawd awful jerseys they wore against BC. WTF?
+1
I think there should be an NCAA rule regarding symmetry with uniforms. All these uniforms with color swatches all over in weird places just work like camoflauge. I can't make anything out.
At least they didn't wear the all-orange uni's like they did back in '94 against UVA.
While we've been debating how to arrive at a playoff I think the one thing we would all agree on is that any type of playoff who be better than the current bcs bowl system. But the question has to be asked, go you guys really think the system will change? I hate to be pessimistic, but i don't... too much money.
Stephen07 I don't think it will change either because of the money!
I think if it changes it will be a slow process. Herbstreit's "+1" system which is essentially just a two round playoff (4 teams) might catch on because it only requires one extra game be added to the bowl system. In several years, that system may expand again, but it would be a slow and gradual change if it happens at all.
That's more like it (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/polls). :thumb:
i think vt is going to jump texas...maybe this weekend :dunno:
What would be a black eye for the BCS would be if two teams jump So. Cal, and So. Cal goes undefeated and the two-time defending national champions with a 34-game winning streak were left out of the BCS title game. That's unlikely but not impossible.
Also interesting would be if LSU wins out, the undefeated teams except USC lose, and LSU and USC meet in the title game. Then you would have announcers saying USC is the two-time defending national champion. But wait! LSU won the BCS title game in '03. So USC can't be the two-time defending champion if the BCS is what determines the true national champion.
Going back to an earlier post, in 2001 Nebraska played Miami for the BCS title even though the Cornhuskers didn't even make it to their own conference title game. Colorado beat them in the regular season and won the Big 12 title.
BCS TV contracts are in place through 2010, and that's what it's really all about: TV and sponsorship money.
If Texas' weak Big 12 schedule leaves them out of the BCS title game, expect to see Mack Brown crying in front of every TV camera he can find. That might not be so bad.