riamirpasarfei.ml/2344-uber-free.php The college football regular season has come to a close, but bowl season now looms in the near future. Once again, the near-impossible task of selecting the top four teams in the country was completed by the playoff selection committee. Ultimately, the committee made the decision to choose four teams to compete for the national title. Showing no symptoms of a championship hangover, Clemson is poised to make a repeat title run this coming January. This year, Clemson will get a chance to bring down the Crimson Tide again, as the teams are set to square off in the Sugar Bowl on Jan.
This season, Clemson is led by junior quarterback Kelly Bryant, who has established himself as a legitimate dual-threat offensive star. Bryant is among the most accurate passers in the nation, ranking sixth in completion percentage. While Bryant has been up to the task offensively, the Tiger defense has held its own as one of the best defenses in the country. Clemson gives up the sixth fewest yards per game and the second fewest points per game When it mattered most this season, the defense has stepped up for Clemson. Outside of this one blemish on their record, the Tigers have handled every other team on their schedule.
The passionate, energetic and often irreverent senior has flat-out balled this season, racking up 4, yards and 41 touchdowns through the air —— both of these numbers rank second in the nation. Mayfield and the athletic wideout duo of Mark Andrews and Marquise Brown have shredded opposing defenses, leading the nation in total offensive yards and offensive efficiency. Averaging Overall, though, the Oklahoma defense has been wildly inconsistent and will have much to prove as it matches up against a solid Georgia team.
Much like Clemson, Oklahoma has been able to take care of business against most every opponent. Oklahoma will now travel out to the west coast to play Georgia in the Rose Bowl on Jan. As the one-loss champion of the SEC, Georgia has earned a spot in the college football playoff for the first time. The Bulldogs flew under the radar for most of the season, even after a one-point win at Notre Dame. Powered by a top-tier defense that ranks fourth in yards allowed per game and third in points allowed per game, Georgia rattled off nine straight wins to begin the season before falling to Auburn on the road.
The success of this offensive unit this season has been surprising, especially considering that the quarterback at the helm, Jake Fromm, is a true freshman. Despite his youth, Fromm has not shied away from the spotlight; his No argument, but economically you can't do it. The major BCS teams require too much income - that needs to be fixed first. They couldn't survive with 6 home games and splitting the revenue on those games. The problems in the FBS go way too deep for major changes. That's why I'm not saying a playoff is bad. What I'm saying is that a playoff won't change any of the problems people complain about, and I don't actually believe that most fans want a playoff as much as they want better games.
I believe if you look at history, you'll find there are several conferences whose champions have never won an NCAA tournament game. In order to have a college football playoff that replicates the NCAA basketball tournament in terms of participation, you'd have to have 24 teams 11 conference champs and 13 at-large.
Of course, as Pat has mentioned, the regular season connectivity still pales and is the most-overlooked issue. And I agree with his thesis that people want better games more than they want a playoff. The scariest thing is that it's getting worse, and the main driver is economics. Without some other method of stabilizing the economies of university academic programs, they're going to keep trying to find cheaper and cheaper alternatives for home games, which means worse and worse connectivity.
With the scheduling delays for football i. There are plenty of teams in the tournament that they could beat - heck, at the least, the other low-seeded teams. Troy in a hypothetical FBS championship wouldn't have a chance against any of the other teams. Troy's best win last year was Florida Atlantic - they're the only team they beat that actually ended the year with a winning record.
March Madness is large enough that it's essentially guaranteed to include everyone who could conceivably win the tournament. A team tourney that includes the non-BCS conference champs is guaranteed to leave off a team that could. In this case, most likely, Georgia would be the team that has the best case for being left out for no particularly good reason.
Troy led LSU by 21 points in the 4th quarter. To say they wouldn't have a chance against any of the teams flies in the face of the facts. I don't think they would win a playoff game, but they deserve the opportunity to try. I'm not sure if you got the memo - LSU was not a good team last year. They certainly wouldn't be in anyone's playoff tourney unless it was a team field. Saying that Troy was up by 21 points and still lost to an team kinda stresses the point.
Georgia would have a very legitimate point that Troy has absolutely no business being in a playoff when they're not. Follow that thought through. The BCS conference teams "fan out" and the talent level equalizes between all the conferences. Which means you now reduce the number of games played between the best teams in Division IA, worsening the overall useful connectivity.
And worse, on the whole, the games get worse , because you have more "top team vs. No one is denying Troy the opportunity to "try". Seriously, was Troy more deserving of a theoretical playoff berth last year than Oklahoma State, a team that finished fourth in a six-team division? OSU beat the crap out of them- that really speaks volumes about letting the Sun Belt champion in ahead of a real team. However, I still prefer my slogan: "Give a playoff spot to those who deserve it the most". It's funny, but I don't really get why fans care about conference champs at all for a playoff. Pretty much the only playoff I really think would "work" would be an 8-team playoff, no automatic berths, all teams selected by committee.
People will always complain about the committee, sure, but at least the system isn't an artificial system attempting to create a "fair" playoff that can't possibly exist. Even a 4-team playoff would probably be enough most years. And while people would complain about the committee a ton, no one would be complaining about the quality of the games. I expect in a sixteen team playoff with autobids, Buffalo would have been the 16 seed last year, not Troy. And there's no way I'd count them out against Tulsa, either.
I hate to say it as a Big East guy, but they might well have had a slim chance against Cinci, too. Maybe even Virginia Tech. So I don't see how including Troy over Oklahoma State or Georgia Tech or Georgia or BYU or Oregon is any worse than including low-major champs in March Madness in and that, quite frankly, the and Orange among the 'first teams out' both years would beat by 30 points every time they played. Besides, the point of including all conference champions in the playoffs is so that every school well, except the three indpendents, but there aren't enough of them to matter a whole lot can go out and win their conference on the field, and that gets them a chance to play for the national championship, no matter what pollsters or computers or the selction committee thinks of their chances.
Granted, they get to start their run on the road against someone like USC or Florida or Texas or Ohio State, so they probably won't make it out of the first round, but they deserve a chance. And the point of having at-large bids, instead of inviting conference champs only, is that sometimes there are ties, there are some independents, and sometimes the 2 team in a conference is still a legit topish team. It isn't, and that's my point: I don't want football to turn into basketball, with it's fluke winners and undeserving participants in it's tournament.
With college football's current system there are no fluke winners. Every champion is undisputed and had earned it over the course of the entire season. I prefer to keep it that way. Troy was the Sun Belt champion, and most people were talking about autoberths for conference champions. The Bulls had a worse record, on an easier schedule, than Troy. Or the CUSA champ, for that matter. Or even the WAC champ, if Boise has a down year.
Not by any decent measure of schedule. Not Sagarin's, not Wolfe's, not Massey's, not Colley's. What makes you think I'm singling out the Sun Belt? I wouldn't autoberth any of the non-BCS conferences, and if you really want to get rid of the "BCS conference favoritism is unfair! Ideally I wouldn't have any champion autoberths, since they're stupid and unjustifiable, but fans seem to want it and I'm sure the conferences would require it since they each bring tons of money to the total pie. But giving Troy - and Buffalo, for that matter - an autoberth simply because of a strange belief that being the conference champion of a crap conference is an accomplishment worthy of millions of dollars is flat-out bizarre.
Automatic berths guarantee that the best team in college football would have a chance to play itself into the playoffs and into the national championship, regardless of conference or preseason standings. Is that so hard to understand? Moreover, in a playoff scenario, Troy is likely to improve a lot, simply because they can offer recruits a chance to play in the playoffs. They could fairly quickly become a Gonzaga or Memphis like team that was nationally respected despite playing in a down conference or barring that, a Davidson or George Mason or College of Charleston like perpetual participant who periodically got a big upset or two.
Why would they improve? They'd only improve if they pulled in recruits from better teams, and the better teams already have a chance to play in significant national profile games.
Sun Belt games are barely on TV; even a player on a bad Big Ten team, like Indiana, is on nationally televised games multiple times a year. Troy saying "hey, we might get to the playoffs and get pounded our first game" isn't going to sway any serious recruits away from teams in BCS conferences. Agree completely with Dennis While the dregs of the minor conferences are uncompetitive, the top teams from minor conferences consistently are competitive with the major conference teams.
Lop-sided conference vs.
Now, I'm not saying the minor conference teams are ever likely to be the 1 seed or team I've been a propoent of a "plus 1" system as the best of bad options, but I really like this proposal. This would actually be correct. The first big problem to the minor bowls is the gambling action will leave killing a huge chunk of the audience. Third a playoff changes a fans perception on what a bowl game is from a reward to a participation ribbon.
The physicality of the sport prevents football from having a large number of games. The teams in the championship game have played 6 possibly but never going to happen 7 games in 3 weeks. The only way to have large playoff fields is to greatly expand the season or to kill the players. The latter is not going to happen and the first could is a huge risk. Using your December schedule there is a huge risk that the ratings are not going to be there.
There will have to be either direct competition of their own product or against the NFL. Nor should it. I am sick of hearing about Utah. They played a schedule that was easier than all but 2 teams of the top 5 BCS conference last year. They barely won many of there games. They had a chance to play Texas but ran from the opportunity and their big bowl win was against a team that was playing for nothing with out there star player.
If they want to play with the big boys actually take up the challenge. Boo Hoo Texas would not agree to play in Utah suck it up and be road warriors make a name for your program going into established powers and beating them and you will become a draw. Better yet try to join the Pac 10 or Big There might not be an official cap on teams from a conference but there will be a defacto political cap. I know I am repeating myself but only 2 teams from the top 5 BCS schools played an easier slate than the hardest slate from the non BCS schools.
Every team in the Big East would be competitive with the winner of the Sun Belt winner. The TV cameras covering the game cost more than the whole Troy athletic budget. More so these teams are rating killers no one will watch and half the stadium will be empty. Even Nebraska will not travel to a first round game like this. Asking for that much travel from fans is asking for empty seats during this time of year.
Even rich alum that could afford to go to each "bowl" playoff game are in a time crunch because of Christmas. Right now the bowls do great because most of them take place after Christmas when family obligations are much less and its vacation time. Making the Rose bowl into a playoff game will still kill what makes the Rose bowl special. Stuff like the tonight show interview of the teams, the parade, etc. Now the players are in a one week lock down of having to win the game festivity be damned.
In this system, the second round would be December 13 before most of these bowls start and the semi-finals would be after New Year's when just about all of them are done. How would this have any impact on these bowls? Ohio State has no problem selling out when they play at home against MAC teams. Why would these teams sell out games early in the season and then fail to sell them out when there is actually something to play for?
The higher seeded team hosts the first and second round, their fans wouldn't need to travel any more than they would for a typical home game. Also, the NFL manages to sell out games throughout December. Wouldn't big time programs be able to do the same? What impact would a playoff have on the Rose parade? It's not like the city of Pasadena would cancel it because now there's more at stake in the game.
Exactly, and yet the big time programs still draw more people on a per game basis than the NFL does. Why wouldn't people come to see a playoff? Because they do it during a good time to travel to those locations. I do have to agree that having games at colleges in December isn't going to be as successful as you'd expect. But people travel from all over Wisconsin to see the Packers in December. Is it really that much different from traveling to Austin or Baton Rouge in December? I just don't understand your argument.
I agree with S. The games on campus will sell out. The problem with this proposal is having the semifinals an finals both at Bowl sites, because those are the ones that fans really have to travel for. For most people, making two big trips a week apart isn't feasible. So they'll either go to the semis and not be able to go the championship or skip the semis in the hopes of going to the final. The Packers are a bit of a special case - using them as attendance measurements would imply that any city in the US could support an NFL team. You don't get the same kind of fanaticism in other small markets, like Jacksonville, which only manages to sell out by shrinking the number of claimed available seats in the stadium.
The other problem with this format that hasn't been mentioned is you just forced the independents into conferences, which is fine - but it bloats the size of the conferences a little bit more, which reduces the overall connectivity of the league. But you do get that level of fanaticism with Green Bay is often compared to a college team, actually. The games would sell-out, and they would sell-out no problem. There are only 3 independents left and 11 conferences. How is that going to "bloat" the conferences? But it's not the degree of "bloating" that matters, it's the fact that big conferences are bad for connectivity, so taking an independent and making them a conference member is bad.
The independents are a nice connecting bridge between the ACC and the Big Ten last year, for instance. I should've probably just said "removing independents hurts connectivity. Wouldn't it be better for connectivity if the ACC and Big Ten just played each other instead of common opponents? Then they wouldn't've played the other opponents they did. The conference connections could definitely be improved, but even when that's done independents would still help.
With the schedule format 3 or 4 out of conference games out of 12 there just aren't enough cross-conference games for good connectivity. You're absolutely right about the Green Bay-Jacksonville comparison. But the fact is you do get that kind of fanaticism in the college game. The biggest teams in the BCS conferences i. Also, who said anything about forcing teams into conferences?
Notre Dame, Army, and Navy could still qualify for an at-large birth. They'd be at a disadvantage in doing so, but those are the sacrifices these institutions would have to make in order to take advantage of being independent i. Also agreed that schedule connectivity is a problem, but it's a problem with no easy solutions. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with college football's archaic structure. While I'm certain the stadiums would remain full for the regular season if there were a playoff, TV ratings and overall focus on the product would dwindle.
Would there be anywhere near as much attention paid to those games if both teams were likely to make the playoffs regardless? Why would there be? So high rating games like the Citrus Bowl, Outback Bowl and Aloha bowl will instantly lose what half of their income if not more. For the fans, it changes the mindset of what a bowl game means. As crazy as the number of bowl games there is it is still seen as a reward for a decent to great season.
Playoffs change this mindset to one where the games are seen as participation prize making it much more optional. I miss read the OP and thought all 4 rounds would be at bowl sites. So the games will still probably sell out. But, saying that you can't really compare the NFL to college as someone else already mentioned. NFL games for the most part are day trips for most fans involved where they live within a couple of hours from the stadium and drive to the game on the day of and go home the night of.
College games though involve much more overnight travel where outside of students the drive is much longer and the number of people that stay overnight is high though in that most of these games will be played at empty campuses that increase that only increases the numbers. Giving up one day in early December for a football game is no big deal with college you are giving up a weekend.
And asking for people to give up 2 weekends in December that is asking a lot. On TV college underdogs are rating killers pure and simple. George Mason games had the lowest ratings when they went on their run, the non BCS teams have either been the worst or second worst rated game of their respected years slate even the all time classic Boise State game. But more important these schools for the most part do not travel. The parade will still be held of course but the involvement of the participating schools would not be there.
For years when the rose bowl is the final there is just not time for anything more than maybe one media day. No trips to Disneyland or Knottsberry farm or any of the other pure reward type actives for the players. Never mind that the teams most likely to get here have players that have been on the award circuit giving them approximately zero time to actually enjoy the holidays.
And since they are not getting paid I am not impressed by well the NFL does it for an answer. I would love love love to see this idea implemented. I haven't watched a BCS bowl for the last three years, because I find it so completely pointless. I would watch this. But I digress- a plus-one would have been good last year. Of course, Texas Longhorn fans would scream that they were getting robbed, so there would still be controversy. Does anyone deserve the 2 spot after USC?
Do we really want to see a USC vs Texas rematch? If there was a plus-one, the bowl matchups would have been different because they would pair 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 instead of 1 vs 2. So of course a plus-one doesn't make sense based on the past matchups since they already had the 1 vs 2 games. There are two variants of 'plus one' that get tossed around.
A four-team mini-playoff, like you propose which I think is better than the current system, though still has too few teams , and the 'pure plus one' play the 'traditional' bowls, and then select the BCS title game participants after that. I have serious issues with the 'pure plus one' format, because I think it would almost never be better than the current system. Or does Utah play USC?
And most years aren't any better; you usually end up with either the title game we actually got being extremely likely because the two teams that played were really the best by a fair margin, and weren't going to meet in an earlier game or more confusion. A seeded plus one, on the other hand, would at least put two more teams in the mix, which is a small step in the right direction. Still, I think you need at least eight teams without autobids for conference champions and 8 teams with autobids for the BCS 6 doesn't work; too often at least two BCS conference champs are outside the top 10 and not legit title contenders or sixteen teams with autobids to have a good chance of catching every legit title contender every year.
Agreed on the pitfalls of the "pure plus-one". I think it would be worse, in fact. And even though Utah stomped Alabama last year, if that game were to have happened in and three of Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and USC were all to have won their bowl games, which teams would be picked in the "pure plus-one"? Even if they were the only undefeated, I'm not sure Utah would finish better than 4th. If the "pure plus-one" was in place in and Hawaii knocked off Georgia, would Hawaii have been picked over even 2-loss LSU? There is a difference between a four team playoff and a Plus-one.
I would be more receptive to a four-team playoff than either a plus-one or a sixteen team format BUT For example last year Florida and Oklahoma get in. Someone would be very unhappy. That's just one example. The only way everyone in theory could be satisfied would be to dilute the regular season and start letting too many teams in, and I'm against that. Having the two best teams play for the National Championship after the rebular season has been played is, in my opinion, the best way to do things.
They're undefeated with a top 5 ranking. Because if you want to be the champion you have to beat all contenders? Who cares. If they are that good they will be ranked in the top by the Pollsters and Computers. If the 'little guys' want more respect they should do what Miami did in the late 70s and 80s thru today to earn it - play Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere. The regular season is the playoff. Just because some years the Nat'l Champ loses a game [or much more rarely, 2 games] is no different than having an 8 or loss CBB Champion.
And learn! I agree in principle, but in practice, the pollsters tend to just go with the crowds.
The reality is that many teams like Utah last year are barred from the championship game before the season even starts. Utah can make a name for themselves over time, and I would even say they've begun to do that. But that takes like a decade before people gradually start to take a non-BCS team seriously. Maybe the Utes will get some benefit from what the Utes did, but that hardly seems fair in the here-and-now.
I've gradually come to hold the same opinion as some others above. If D1 is going to be broken up into FBS-Actually-has-a-chance-to-win-a-title and FBS-we'll-rank-them-just-to-spice-things-up-but-never-in-the-top-5; then call things what they are and stop the farse. A sports league is not set up fairly if each of its member teams doesn't have an equal chance on paper to win a title. There are better reasons to break up the FBS than just "stop the farse".
FBS is just too big for a sport with so few games. Decent connectivity would require throwing out the league structure and carefully and perfectly planning every team's games. That's just not practical. Incidentally, the reason why non-BCS teams don't get ranked in the top 5 except once in a blue moon is the same problem. Non-BCS schools's schedules are really, really bad. The problem's all connectivity. A league of around 50 or so would actually be tractable in 12 games. In other words: somehow I doubt the "have-nots" in the FCS can yell loud enough for anyone to care.
As a result, they end up with far, far better connectivity than the FBS does. Small divisions are better. It's already been proven that teams like Utah and Boise State can go undefeated and still won't crack the top 5. In a truly fair system, every team would start the season on equal footing with the same chance to win a championship. That is obviously not the case now - there are 60 teams that have zero chance to win the championship before anyone steps on the field.
So either make it a fair system, or split up the FBS. Check your facts. Boise State, , Utah, Utah and Boise State don't get ranked high because they play all the creampuffs that people criticize BCS teams for, except they play twice the number of games against them. They didn't crack the top 5 until after they won their bowl games.
Utah was 6 and Boise State was 9 at the end their respective regular seasons. Had they scheduled the bowl game team for a game in the regular season, they would've been Top 5. Which gets them what exactly? Who cares where you're ranked if your not in the Top 2? What does winning the "Orange Bowl" get you? Any sport where half the teams have zero chance of winning a championship is a joke.
Real college football fans care about where their team is ranked at the end, what bowl they played in, and whether or not they won. You do realize this is a sport where fans go crazy when their team wins a goofy trophy for winning a single game, right? Utah had a chance this year but they where the ones that backed out of playing Texas. If they played and beat Texas there is little doubt they would have been ranked in the top 3 in the human polls and either 1 or 2 in the computer polls which probably would have been enough to get them in.
It was there misfortune that they played Michigan in a historically down year and barely beat them. So even this win in most years would have been good enough to vault them into the top 5 of the BCS. If Troy for example where ever to go undefeated they would be ranked in the top 4 or 5 since they play 1 or 2 power teams on the road just about every year.
Another recent example is the USF Bulls. They where ranked number 2 in the BCS for 2 weeks despite starting the season at number They go undefeated or stay at one loss they are playing for the national championship. But, than this is a program much like Miami and Florida State that has worked for their respect and not cried for it playing on the road and moving up to tougher competition at every chance and asking for games against Florida.
Maybe they never get to 2 in a non fluky season but they put themselves in a position to be respected when the opportunity presented itself. The effects of early season polling on the top 2 teams is greatly exaggerated at least when it comes to undefeated teams. If you play in a BCS conference and go undefeated it is the rare occurrence Auburn that a undefeated team gets "screwed" but that is just the fluke just like this year in the NFL a team with an record made the playoff while a team fresh off a year and with a record stays home.
So there are no conference championship games, but conference champions get an automatic bid. Does not compute. Old school, my ass. You name the decade, I'll name a team from it that didn't play for a National Title while being undefeated because they played in a chump conference. That's how the Big Ten and Pac 10 determine their champions. Hell, that's how the NFL determined its champion for a while.
No, not really. They have tiebreakers to go to a BCS bowl. The difference is important, because the BCS bowl is just about money and prestige - it has nothing to do with an opportunity for bigger and better awards, since the BCSCG candidates are selected in a completely separate manner. You can't really justify "old school" champions feeding into a playoff system when they were never intended to do so. And ad-hoc tiebreakers kinda suck with systems that are as poorly connected as college football.
So both Oklahoma and Missouri are or , or , etc. They didn't play each other. Who wins conference championship? Or, what if Oklahoma is and is ranked 9. They beat Missouri Missouri is and ranked You send Missouri? I agree, it doesn't make sense to lose the conference championships. In the PAC 10 you don't need the game, because the teams all play each other. But in the SEC, if the West and East champions didn't play each other, how can you send one to the championship and leave the other home?
I also think the 16 team format requires too many games. If you put the conference championships back in, you have the final winner having to play 17 games.
That is just too many at this level. If it was up to me, I would scrap the BCS, go back to the pure bowl system and let the sportswriters argue about who is number one. However, if you are going to have a playoff, I would make it 8 teams. The six major conferences all send a champion, and the other two seats go to the most highly ranked champions of the smaller conferences. The at large seats should be eliminated. If you can't win your conference you have no business playing for a national championship which puts more emphasis on the regular season. Also, it doesn't make sense to give an automatic berth to the smaller conferences.
Most of the time they have no business being at the dance. BTW, I agree strongly with Pat. The regular season seems to be getting worse and worse. I attribute a lot of this to the BCS; teams seem to be afraid to schedule tough out-of-conference games because one loss could knock them out of the BCS race. Never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained simpler: the worse scheduling is probably due to the fact that football is being squeezed for every penny, and finding schools that'll take a cheap payout are getting fewer and fewer.
ADs at universities have pretty much said this, word for word. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next few years as the recession makes athletic budgets tighter. Yeah, I think the only thing that's going to turn around the scheduling problem is when playing the big-time teams gets them more money.
I think you'll begin to see that happen more and more. I pretty much agree with you but I think there might be one other idea that could help create better OOC match-ups. This bonus would not be based on the current years schedule either as that should be accounted for by the voters and computers. I would suggest this bonus be based on say 35 percent 3 year old record, 25 percent each 2 and 4 year old records and 15 percent 1 year out.
I know that these are whole new teams but in college programs are usually good for a long time and scheduling USC for the season you should expect them to be a good team. So if USC does suck that year you at least tried to play a legit team. At the same time there will be a negative hit to your bonus for playing D2 teams at home and zero score for playing D2 on the road if that where every actually to happen. There should also be penalties if you break agreements to play better teams with of course exceptions being made for what ever agreed upon reasons.
There can of course be other exceptions from the formula based either on long time or regional reveries. I think a system like this would all but require the perennial powers to play at least one or two legit OOC teams a year. Years with 3 or 4 teams competing for either 1 or 2 of the championship this bonus would make the big difference. Strength of schedule is already taken into account with the computer rankings.
Give the computers more weight instead of the human polls, and you get more weight for strength of schedule.
Of course, this will never happen. When the computer polls disagree with the humans, the humans raise a stink and the computers end up with less weight in the BCS formula. At least that's what happened last time. Insane, and completely self-defeating, but true. The problem is that the disagreement that caused the heavy weighting of humans over computers was completely justified by the results on the field leading up to that.
Computers lifted Nebraska ahead of a Colorado team that had just beat them and a one-loss Oregon team that was 2 in both polls and Oregon went on to beat Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl , and Miami won one of the more one-sided BCS title games though it's possible Miami would have done that to anyone. I wish the computers were more accurate than humans, but at least for the very top teams, with the rankings used by the BCS when the computers counted for more than the polls, it ain't so. Yes, Nebraska got drubbed in Boulder. But from beginning to end, they were the second-best, second-most proven team in the country that year.
I can't stand them most of the time. What the computers do that I love is, they take the whole season into account. This isn't college basketball--getting hot late like Colorado did that year shouldn't mean a whole lot when very few teams with more than one loss sans playoff will have even the smallest of chances of making the national title game. In fact, only LSU has ever played for the title with two losses. Now, you could certainly make the case that Oregon got screwed.
Their only loss was to a Stanford team. Granted, their only truly impressive win was over Washington State, but Nebraska's only great win was over Oklahoma. And yes, Nebraska got crushed, but the odds are very good that Oregon or Colorado would have done the same. That Miami team was ridiculous.
And as for Oklahoma's loss came to an win Kansas State team. OU lost to the best team, and They acquitted themselves relatively well in the end. It's true that the computer-aided Nebraska and Oklahoma teams may have had a case, but what it comes down to is that when they played in the BCS title game, they lost the former in failure of epic proportions, the latter in a display of offensive ineptitude that today looks shockingly out of character for a Big 12 team , and the teams passed over won bowl games against top-5 opposition. You have to decide somehow between teams with a similar resume, and there's no denying that the teams the humans liked did better.
That's not actually what happened. I don't know why that story gets spread around I'll have to dig and find the source on this, but it may take a while. What actually happened is that the BCS went to a bunch of statisticians, people in the sport, etc. In fact, most of the reforms were suggested by statisticians for very valid mathematical reasons. The version of the BCS early in the decade pre, I think was actually a complete disaster: a separately-included SoS meant you double-counted, since SoS is the basis of a non-margin of victory statistical ranking, and the heavy weighting of the statistical component severely overstresses how imprecise each ranking is.
The most recent change was just to remove margin-of-victory from the statistical rankings. I know a lot of people think this was an example of the BCS hurting the system because margin-of-victory makes things "more accurate," but that's not actually the case at all. In the vast majority of games where you care, the score will be too close to measure degree of victory in any sane manner. Basically: margin-of-victory works when you measure the league as a whole. It doesn't really work when you're trying to figure out if a victory is better than a victory.
Without margin-of-victory which you have to exclude, see above the statistical rankings just aren't that precise. Having the rankings be half as important as the human polls is probably about right. The other amusing thing to realize is that the statistical polls are typically tuned to match the human polls, historically - college football is too disconnected to rigidly constrain rankings just by results.
So the commonly-held belief that they're "independent" isn't really true - they're independent of current-year biases, but they frequently have the same long-term biases as human polls. The relative weight of the computer and human portion of the BCS formula is one part of the debate, but I think a bigger "problem" is that there are only 6 computers that are included and the top and bottom rankings are discarded, leaving only four. Regardless of where anyone stands on the relative weight of the computer portion of the BCS formula, I think the system would benefit from a much larger sample of computer systems.
I think the Massey Consensus Ratings are a good example. First, I'll renew my push for calling them statistical rankings. They have nothing to do with computers. I could generate ELO ratings for college football using a notepad and a few hours OK, maybe more than that, but the basis for the rankings should be statistical. Why would more be better? Billingsley should be dropped in any rational discussion, and that should stress the point: more rankings are only good if they make sense.
Note that of the remaining 4, Wolfe does something that's not on this list, but that's because it's not valid: he weights games, stressing the most recent games like weighted DVOA. But for a ranking system that's intended to promote teams into a playoff, that's violently wrong. If the available statistical rankings reasonably span all reasonable possibilities in that list, that's enough. It's also absolutely necessary for the BCS to spell out what they actually want from the statistical rankings: a relative ranking of the season of each team. That's the only criterion that makes sense.
Yes, but imagine if in the Harris poll, there were 4 good pollsters and bad ones. In that case trimming down the would make things better. Is it just as necessary for the BCS to spell out to voters what they actually want from their votes as well? Or is it valid that the voters are trusted to bring their own perspective on the logic of their poll to the table? One other important thing that statistical rankings can do that the BCS formula dismisses is not just rank teams but rate them. The strength of the statistical system's output is that it can say the number one team is way stronger than the number two team, for instance.
That the gap between No.
Most specifically, the conference champions from the three best conferences top to bottom regardless of their records, and then the three highest ranked conference champions besides. Login or Register to post comments. A league of around 50 or so would actually be tractable in 12 games. With a reasonable window for finals to be taken. College games though involve much more overnight travel where outside of students the drive is much longer and the number of people that stay overnight is high though in that most of these games will be played at empty campuses that increase that only increases the numbers. Averaging All rights reserved.
But by using the numerical rank in the BCS formula instead of the more nuanced rating , this data is lost. Theoretically, voters could be asked to assess this type of nuance as well, but I think they would struggle mightily to do so. I've actually waffled back and forth on this a while, and really, I'm not sure.
They probably should - but there is some validity to just letting the humans rank them "however they want," because in reality, you're trying to mimic a fan's ranking, and how a fan would rank teams to get into the NC probably varies just as much. Mainly I just think the vetting needs to be improved on the human polls: coaches' ballots should be excluded if their ballots show a significant bias against the consensus over a multi-year period for any one school, and the Harris poll needs to substantially increase in size to help wash out incompetence. But by using the numerical rank in the BCS formula instead of the more nuanced rating, this data is lost.
It's not actually that easy. The scales aren't the same between statistical rankings: matching them could be quite difficult, since you'd have to define "reference performances" and define the ranking of said reference performances. You'll note that in Massey's Consensus Ratings, he uses ordinal rankings to compare the teams as well. I think you could do it, though, it'd just take a lot of work. You could do something like ask each poll to provide a ranking based on the probability a team is located at a certain rank times the rank value, for instance. I'm not sure that would translate well for all polls, and it doesn't allow for all kinds of distance gaps, but it's better than nothing.
If you don't want a playoff, fine. There are good reasons against one. However, "the regular season is the playoffs" isn't one of them. Ask USC fans the last couple of years. The regular season IS the playoffs. USC had control of their destiny, and they blew it when they lost to Oregon State. From there it comes down to strength of schedule, where Florida and Oklahoma were more impressive with one loss.
The major problem with this plan is eliminating conference championship games and leaving team conferences around. I'd prefer to blow all the conferences up and rest them in a logical, evenly-sized arrangement I've put together variants with 8-team, team, and team conferences , but if you just want everyone at 10 teams or less so you can reasonably play a round-robin within a game schedule, here's my simple plan The schools that play Big East football split off into a new conference referred to as the Big East for the rest of this post.
It leaves a bit of a mess in the mid-majors, but that can be sorted out much more easily and the MAC needs to lose three teams somehow; CUSA might need to lose one. You're essentially blowing up ALL or at least, far too many of college football's traditions in quest of making a playoff work.
We're going to tear apart the Southeast Conference in pursuit of this??
Such proposals remind me of Clark Griswold's demented quest to see WallyWorld in the original "Vacation" film. Clark was better off before becoming obsessed with an amusement park, and college football is better off not re-inventing itself for the sake of a playoff. My plan leaves the Pac 10 alone, returns the Big Ten to the alignment that it had for forty years, pretty much sets up the ACC and Big East as they always should have been or at least as close as you're going to get , and re-divides the Big 12 -- originally formed by smushing together the SWC and Big 8 -- to incorporate some of the new western powers.
Alabama-Auburn is still a conference game. Florida-Georgia is still a conference game. Georgia-Alabama is still a conference game. Georgia-Georgia Tech is now a conference game. I mean, the 'best' way to knock down the SEC to 10 schols from a 'tradition'-based standpoint is to get rid of South Carolina and Arkansas, but that makes it very hard to put together the rest of the 'extra' pieces in a coherrent way.
As long as college teams get to pick their own schedule the post season is meaningless. Schedules should be computed by a known formula like the NFL. Cream puff games make it difficult for me to take the BCS seriously. The BCS does a good job at choosing a national champion. That's all it was ever designed to do. You will never have a situation where a mediocre team gets hot and becomes "champion" in the BCS.
Eight team playoff. Conference champions only. Pick which ones any way you like. One loss can still destroy your season, so the regular season still matters.