May 17, 2012 4:16 pm Okay Hoops25 . . . here it is . . .
In my solution, the higher ranked team/school hosts the lower ranked team/school at their facility. Visitor tickets will be provided as customary for regularly scheduled teams/school. It's just that no one know who will be the higher ranked team/school until the BCS Polling after 11 games.
As for the last game of the regular season, well it now becomes game #11. Everyone gets moved back a week for their traditional "Final Rivalry Game". And if there are still a need for a Conference Championship game, then it will also have to be completed by Thanksgiving weekend, [Thanksgiving weekend is usually the 12th or 13th week from the start of the regular season, unless a team/school starts their first game in August.] as that would be the last week of the regular season for game 11. Game 12 of unscheduled opponets in this Qualifying round will take place 10 to 14 days after Thanksgiving weekend. I see 4 days of College Football, and I even have a proposed schedule of what games are televised at what times over the four day period. Of course, this would be subject to rearranging by the Broadcasting Company to provide the highest and best audiance viewing and exposure to maximize the dollars raised in this [ad]venture. And of course, whichever Broadcasting Company that is willing to pay the most for the package of 35 games +/-, depending on Bowls available, and these dollars would be directly paid to traveling teams/schools to defray any expense in transporting their regular traveling squad, band cheerleaders, and the NORMAL people that are included in regular season traveling to other opponets.
As for tickets available to opponets . . . well this is something that most colleges provide maybe 20% or 30% of their tickets for the opponets, and if not sold out, do you think there would be a problem dumping them on gameday at the chosen facility? I think not. [for example sake, How many tickets does Clemson give to South Carolina when they play? How many tickets does Michigan give to Ohio State when they play? How many tickets does Southern California give to Notre Dame when they play? How many tickets does Miami give to Virginia Tech when they play? In each case, these home teams DO provide tickets for the Visiting team/school, and I would expect the same for this Qualifying round.]
As for using the computers, they are prejudice only to their formulas, which do not change week to week. The computers have been a constant in their selection process. Some have NEVER changed their formulas, and a few have changes their formulas. And if you go back and review the rankings from the first week of the BCS rankings, you will see an interesting thing going on, and I don't know if the Human pollsters follow the computers, or if the computers follow the humans. I really don't think the computers CAN follow the human pollsters, as they are FIXED to their preset variables, while humans are not. And the computer polls would be the same ones currently used in the BCS Rankings.
Their may be a competitive advantage to being a home team, but until someone can predict the future, no one will know WHO will be a home team. The only exception would be a very sought after reason for a team/school to strive to be #1, as that would be a guarenteed home status. And if a team/school has reached a position in the top 10 of the BCS, don't you think they may have won a few games on the road to get there?
As for proverbial 'football powerhouses', there are many. And we usually see then scattered somewhere in the top 25 to 30 rankings, so I think the top 15 contests would really be worth watching, don't you? Don't discount the other games of this 'football feast', as they will feature teams that are perceived to be equals. And we really did see some great games in the lower Bowls where we did see teams/schools in the 40 to 70 rankings that played some games that were better than a BCS bowl or 2.
As for Notre Dame, let's just say that they may be getting "squeezed" to get into a conference, or, as an Independent, there are also other conferences that may not be so locked up as the future of the PAC 12 and Big 10[B1G] seem to be. Maybe Texas and or Alabama would like to do a home and home with Notre Dame, unless the ND goes to the Big East . . .
And I really think you need to go to my profile page here and read my blogs. . .
Ask a college football fan about the Bowl Championship Series and be prepared for an earful on how it must be overhauled - or done away with - to determine a true national champion in the 120-member NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as NCAA Division I-A).
College football researcher John J. Trombetti adds a different twist to crown the gridiron king - while making more bowl games relevant and financially successful - in December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings (November 2009, Infinity Publishing, www.bbotw.com).
The BCS consists of four traditional contests - the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi, Allstate Sugar Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl - and the Citi BCS National Championship Game.
"It is a fine system, and I think it can outlast the test of time," writes Trombetti. "It is a formula that uses the human polls and computers to determine the best possible candidates to play for the National Championship.
"The Harris Interactive Poll (media, former coaches and former players) and the USA Today Coaches’ Poll (59 voters, who are members of the American Football Coaches Association) each make up one-third of the total BCS Poll ranking. The computer poll (using six ranking systems) makes up one-third of the rankings of the entire BCS Poll. There are two additional components to be added to the BCS formula: the strength of schedule and the team’s record."
Trombetti utilizes a solid game plan to explore the history of the BCS, which was created in 1998 to determine the winner of the American Football Coaches Association National Championship Trophy - recognized in the final coaches’ poll, but not by the NCAA - and participants in the major bowl games.
The system has been adjusted due to several controversies over the years, which includes the number of polls utilized and providing "mid-major" conference teams a place to race in the derby. The BCS poll of the top 25 teams is initially published about halfway through the season and updated weekly until the final ranking is released after the conference championship games.
An impressive computer formula is the Colley Matrix System of Wesley N. Colley, Ph. D., according to Trombotti: "(The Colley system rates well) with the media and coaches on the National Champion; most often agreed on the top five; and agreed on the top 10 within a place or two. [So it seems to me that this system may be a good substitute for the replacement of the media and coaches…does it seem that way to you?]"
The top two teams in the final BCS poll are in the title game, with automatic bowl bids guaranteed to the champions of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pac-10 and S outheastern Conference. Criteria is included so Notre Dame, an independent, can receive an automatic berth, along with a bid available to the highest ranked champion from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference and the Western Athletic Conference. Additional "at-large" spots are issued by the bowl committees.
There are another 29 bowl games, with new contests slated for New York City after the 2010 season and Dallas, Texas, in 2011. In a section that chronicles the bowl system since 1902, Trombetti explains that there would be a lot to lose if this format was merged into a playoff system or eliminated for a tournament styled after basketball’s NCAA "March Madness."
"In essence, the bowls were created to promote tourism by bringing in the top teams of the country to play in the games," he writes. "Today, the bowls are promoted by the cities that host the games for economic development, and the advertising of those companies that want the exposure with their names included in the title of the game.
"As you may know, the bowls we have today are financial windfalls for the schools and conferences that participate. Last year alone [2008 season], the bowl payout maxed out over one quarter of a BILLION dollars. A playoff system using the bowls would, could, limit distribution of these funds to fewer schools and conferences. With this amount of money available to the participants, do you really think a playoff scenario could ever be reached using the Bowl System we have today?"
Trombetti reaches pay dirt as he explains in detail his proposal to retain the BCS and bowls, which has an initial regular season schedule of 11 games, with the conference championships played no later than the weekend after Thanksgiving Day. The BCS rankings would include all FCS programs, which will position teams for a special slate of games to end the season. The contests would occur two weeks after Thanksgiving and cover four days. Bowl selections would follow the unique feast inside stadiums throughout the nation.
"And, the end result will produce a more decisive winner (in the BCS title game) than ever before," he writes.
It seems every year, about this time, there is a lot of discussion concerning the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision and its Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The BCS was designed to create a national champion for Division I collegiate football teams. However, one thing that you can say that it does is create controversy. This year is no different, especially since Congress is now weighing in, saying that a "national champion" cannot be determined without a play-off system in Division I (the other divisions in college football have a play-off system to determine their National Champions). In advance of this year's conversation, comes a small book dedicated to the BCS with a possible solution to the issue. December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings (November 2009, Infinity Publishing, www.bbotw.com), by John Trombetti, should soon be available soon, is a good review of the BCS and includes his thoughts on crowning a true National Champion, without the controversy.
Dedication; The Opening Chapter; The Computer Polls; The Human Pollsters; The Start of the Bowl System; Analysis and Discussion; What If; Shall We Have; Appendix I; Appendix II; Appendix III; Appendix IV; Bibliography
Starting the book by providing a historical perspective of the college bowl games and then moving into the polls that make up the BCS gives the reader excellent insight into big time college football and the polls. Trombetti uses this opportunity to illuminate the rise of the bowl games, and the economic impact they have on the cities and sponsors. As more bowl games were added to the end of the season, and the use of human polls, where favoritism and partiality come into play, to determine the national champion, it became clear to the NCAA that another method was needed to decide the best team. However, in the first year of the BCS, 1998, Trombetti points out that there was controversy centering around #3 ranked Kansas State (one loss), which resulted in the "Kansas State Rule" for the BCS, where a #3 team can be invited to play in a BCS Bowl Game. Of course, that is not the only controversy from the BCS and he provides plenty of other examples through the years. Even with these reminders, Trombetti shows his knowledge of the system by providing his thoughts on how the NCAA could have mitigated these problems. As there does not appear to be a play-off system on the horizon, due to the size of the current bowl payouts (in 2008, Trombetti notes that over a quarter BILLION dollars were in play) and the different agendas of the university presidents and coaches, he still provides a rational, and lucrative, play-off system that would yield a more decisive BCS champion.
The early chapters, while providing the foundation for the rest of the book and were necessary, were difficult to read as Trombetti described the peculiarities of each poll that makes up the BCS. However, even for the casual college football fan, he does a good job of illuminating the differences in each poll and they are rather interesting. The book really hits its stride as Trombetti describes the history of each bowl game, the original purpose of each, and the payouts per team. Building upon that, he wastes no time moving into the analysis of the BCS and his well reasoned argument for a play-off system that would benefit more teams, cities, and television networks. While this is a small book (98 pages), he packs a lot of information into it without wasting a lot of time on any one chapter. December Dream could have benefited from a few things; better editing, a more readable format for the BCS Series Standings, and accessible descriptions of the individual polls. Finally, as I read it, I couldn't help thinking it was more a college thesis than an approachable book on the BCS. Trombetti knows his subject matter, that is very clear, however he needed to connect with the reader. December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings is an excellent analysis of the BCS that culminates in arguably the best reasoned approach to a true National Champion.
I prefer the top four teams/schools to be in this LIMITED Playoff, that really should do away with conference championship games, as they become irrevelent to the degree that a team/school with less wins can defeat the undefeated no loss team/school. We have seen this before in the BCS, and does this 4 team/school format really do much for all of College Football, or just a few teams/schools/conferences?
In order to get a fair and just "shake-up" of the teams/schools participating in any playoff, we should have a "QUALIFIER ROUND", which would answer a few questions like, who did they play, and handicap the "Human Pollsters" who consistantly vote based on the best thoughts only of the teams/schools in their OWN Conferences' first!
And since it's all about the money , can a four team/school playoff bring in more to ALL the Conferences, or will it only benefit the 4 chosen teams/schools with a shower of more for them . . . and less for all others?
These are many of the reasons that I chose to fabricate a one round QUALIFIER that would let the teams/schools play the game! BY having the SUBJECTIVE voted teams/schools play the team/school that is the closest in the polls play one another, so we can see if these two are really as good as the Human Pollsters think they are.
And lets not forget that the College ranks ADDED a 12th game so that more teams/schools could qualify with a 6-6 record to go to the "overflow' of bowls that have been created, since there were too many with a 5-6 record [when there were 11 regular season games], who could NOT qualify for a bowl game.
So we added a 12th game to get these teams/schools to be QUALIFIED to play in a bowl game at 6-6. So much for the evolution of the College Football system we have today, not even beginning to discuss the BCS addition.
With the transition leading to a 7 win qualifier to play in Bowls, will mean less Bowls . . . and less dollars for many of the teams/schools/conferences.
So the question is, "HOW CAN MORE TEAMS/SCHOOLS/CONFERENCES make more dollars?
Let's go back to that 12th game of the regular season, and make that a QUALIFIER ROUND for ALL the teams/schools to play the teams/school that is perceived to be the closest comparable team/school. #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, #7 hosting #7, etc all the way down to at least as many teams/schools that are necessary to fill all the Bowls [70 teams/schools currently], or even all the way to #119 hosting #120.
This would really shake up the BCS Rankings, and some pretenders may get blown away, while the truly solid teams/schools will hold their positions. So a #3 gets wacked by a #4, and may slip down to #7, while that #3 may get promoted to #2, or even #1 . . . And that #12 team/school may get into a better paying bowl with a victory over #11 then it would have earned if it never had the opportunity to play #11.
We, the fans, would benefit by seeing some of the best games that we would have never had the foresightedness to have scheduled. In effect, this would do what a Playoff is intended to do, but really give more teams/schools the chance to participate, provide more meaning for the 12th game of the season, and eliminate the ever lingering opportunity for teams/schools to schedule those cream puff teams, like St. Mary's of the Poor.
How to make more money? By setting up this 12th game of the season as a different broadcasting package seperated from the regular season broadcasting package as currently done, this 12th game WILL bring in an enormous amount of dollars, as the featured billing will make it the most watched games of the season . . . and maybe even more than the majorityof the non-BCS Bowls.
And another benefit will curtail the past arguements that one teams /school played 40 days since their last game, while their opponet played their last game just 21 days ago.
Yes College Football fan[atic]s, their is a way to make more dollars for all AND give viewing benefits of some of the best matches of perceived equal teams/schools play, and the Bowls remain the same.
Please do go back and read my blogs on my profile page here at CBSSportsline or just read my reviews at www.bbotw.com , where you also purchase my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings . And if you really want to read my book, and will give me feedback, then I will even send you my pdf file of my book, if you send me a private message here at CBSSportsline. [I know $'s are tight, and I only make $0.73/copy, but it's worth it if I can convert you disbelievers].
April 27, 2012 7:29 pm It doesn't matter which plan is selected, it is LIMITED to only 4 teams/schools.
That was the whole idea in December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings was to let at least as many as 70 [35 bowls] teams/schools participate.
By letting even those who were perceived to be in the "hunt" for a better Bowl, play a game with another team/school that is ranked next to them, and let the winners go up a rank or two, and the losers will lose a rank or two. It is one way to negate some of the "subjective" voting, and maybe really demonstrate that the subjective voting is not necessairily the gospel as to the best teams/schools.
This scenario would not only let the teams/schools settle it on the field, but would eliminate one of the OutOfConference games, hopefully the one against Our Lady of the Poor. And after this round of the 12th regular season game with unscheduled opponets, based on the rankings, we might see a significant difference in the Strength Of Schedule factor that seems to always be a point of contention with respect to the question, " well who did they play?"
By having only 4 teams/schools in the mix, this system will not be taking the advantage of having a perfect opportunity to allow all the teams/schools to participate in the Bowl selection process with an opportunity to cash in on a $2mil bowl rather than only getting to a $750,000 bowl.
And after all is completed in the December Dream . . . scenario, we would have better bowl matches, more interaction between teams/schools that are closer in the rankings, and eliminate the 35 to 45 day wait between games, as all teams/schools would have ended the regular season within 4 days of each other, and they would not have to wait more than 7 to 17 days before their Bowl appearance.
And in the end, we would have the best week of football games that we would have never had the foresightedness to have scheduled!
How to divide bigger pie becomes focus of BCS g...
April 17, 2012 6:05 pm
So . . . the Conferences want a BIGGER piece of the pie . . .
Well to be honest, the BCS Conferences do get the biggest part of the pie . . . and if they want MORE PIE, then make more pies!
It is pretty well know that most of the Bowls feature schools/teams from the BCS conferences. Yeah, a Boise State or Utah gets in there once in a while, and frankly, they did EARN the BCS placement they received, and should not be berated for having achieved this goal.
Now you all know about my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings [www.bbotw.com or just go back and read all the blogs on my profile].
In my book I set it up to be a three pie situation, rather than the current two pie situation that we currently have. More pie = more dollars!
My proposal has a standard 11 [yes eleven game schedule] games against preset opponets. And YES, in my scenario there is a 12th game of the regular season, but this game is, and again the litney of #1 hosts #2, #3 hosts #4, #5 hosts #6, etc. all the way down to #119 hosting #120, or at least as many scvhools/teams as there are Bowl Breths to fill.
This 12th Game IS THE THIRD PIE!!!!
Perhaps it should be organized and run by the NCAA, just like the basketball March Madness. Let the NCAA distribute these monetary treasures as determined by the best Television and Radio contract they can negotiate.
And of course, the other PIE is the BCS Bowl, and the other bowls as well.
And don't forget . . . the reason the Rose Bowl is always touted so highly in all of the discussions is the mear fact that before the BCS Bowls being established, the Rose Bowl always had the Highest payout to the schools/teams that played in that game. That's why the SEC always eyeball the Rose Bowl as the treasure it has always been.
Score: 113 January 5, 2012 6:01 pm Don't want to take the wind out of you sails, but I do not think of this National Championship game as the Biggest in BCS History . . .
Maybe it is if your an SEC Fan[atic], or an LSU or Alabama Fan[atic]. . . but I do consider my self a College Football Fan[atic], and to me this is just another Bowl game.
I have enjoyed all the bowl games I have seen this year, maybe 65 to 75 percent, as I have to do some things other than watch football. lol
This year has had some particularly good matchups, like Oklahoma State v. Stanford, Oregon v. Wisconsin, Baylor v. Washington, Air Force v. Toledo, Utah State v. Ohio, La Lafayette v. San Diego State, TCU v. LA Tech, Georgia v. Michigan State, and even Michigan v. Virginia Tech. That being said, I do think the NC Game will be pretty good, but will any team be able to score a touchdown?
Don't forget, defense wins games, but offence keeps the viewers happy, so they don't fall asleep [or worse yet, go to another channel . . . lol.
We saw in their first meeting only field goals, and I think a lot of non football fan[atic]s will NOT watch because they will not expect this to be a very "fan active" game. [fan active means lots of points by my definition] As you will note, most of the games that I posted above had high scores by both teams, like over 21 points for each team.
And to sum it up, I would have liked to have seen Oklahoma State play LSU for a couple of reasons. . . Like, could LSU keep the scoring machine like OK ST to fewer than 1 touchdown per quarter? and could LSU put up the points equal or greater than OK ST?
Unfortunately, we will NEVER KNOW!
The computer poll average had OK ST at #2. And as we all know, the Harris Pollsters and the Coaches put Alabama at #2 by a slim margin.
With that being said, the BCS that was formed to have a unified National Champion by using computers has been ineffective, as we see the partisanship of the Coaches and Harris pollsters have nullified the very reason we have added the computers to the equasion.
I like the Computers best because they have NO BIAS. . . people do!
And if the computers were the sole judge, we would have seen OK ST play LSU.
Score: 92 December 12, 2011 7:01 pm I do believe that a solid majority wants a playoff system . . . a system tha can not be formulated without all of the Schools being in agreement. With such a playoff that is continually being suggested, with seeding and higher ranked teams playing lower ranked teams [i.e. #1 vs. #8] are ridiculeous. There is NO TIME for seeding playoffs unless we start about the 9th game of the season. I really do not see this happening. . .
I do see an easy QUALIFYING scenario where as the last game of the regular season we can effectivly match #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, etc. all the way down to #119 hosting #120, or at least #69 hosting #70, as we have 35 bowls to fill. It would be simple to arrange these "last game of the regular season" to be a match up as stated above. Why should #1 host #2, you may say. . . It's simple!
How did #1 become #1? They played 12 games and lost none. How did #2 become #2, and #3 become #3? They each lost 1 game. And how did we determine why #2 should be #2 and #3 being #3? Well the Computers had #3 as their #2 pick, but the HUMAN POLLSTERS made the difference in their selection to pick differently from the computers, and now we have LSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma State. Since we are acceptable that we prefer the prejudices of HUMAN POLLSTERS to an non-changing criteria of the computers, we will not necessairily always have the picks correct.
With my system, we have #1 hosting #2, etc., to at least #69 hosting #70. We let the teams that are PERCEIVED to be equal play their final game of the season against one another. [WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE TEAMS THE EXPERTS THINK ARE CLOSE TO BEING EQUAL PLAY EACH OTHER?]
By having this as the 12th game of the season, we have effectivly provided a QUALIFYING ROUND for all the potential bowl participants to prove that they are as good as their record indicates. No more do we have the argument of who did they play, and this can also be a sure way to dispute seemingly tied records.
Overall, this would happen after Thanksgiving weekend, and the games would start and be completed 10 to 14 days after Thanksgiving weekend.
I have several blogs on my profile page about this system, which is also in my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings, www.bbotw.com Infinity Press. Please review my blogs/book and I will refute/appreciate any of your questions, complaints, and/or suggestions.
Let's take a moment to go back in history and see what happened when Ohio State was #1 and Michigan was #2. A lot of people thought that after the last game of the regular season, Ohio State beat Michigan, and since Michigan had their opportunity to beat Ohio State and lost, that they should not be given another opportunity to play in the National Championship game.
Here it is, a few years later, and we have similar circumstances, with LSU #1, having beat Alabama in the regular season, and because it's SEC, then there must be a rematch. If you look at the final Coaches poll in USA Today, 5 dec 2011 edition, you can see that the Coaches of the SEC did put their conference rankings slighly higher than the other Coaches rankings. And you can see that the Computers, which have no distinctive biase, put Oklahoma State in the #2 position. And Alabama bearly beat out Oklahoma State for the #2 position.
Call it what you want . . . but I have proposed such a pre bowl selection Qualifying Round [as the 12th game of the regular season], which would have made this an easire solution as to who should play who in each of the Bowls. Having #1 host #2, #3 hosts #4, etc up to #69 hosting #70, as there are 35 bowls. [see my blogs for more info, or buy my book at www.bbotw.com December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings.]
Who put Alabama at #2? It was the HUMAN POLLSTERS. It was their OPINIONS. My system throws away opinions and let's the teams battle it out on the field. Isn't that why you want playoffs? My system pits schools/team of perceived equal strength play it out, and the winners go on to a better bowl than the losers.
As we have seen, LSU can put up 35 to 45 points, as they have done in many of their games this year. Oklahoma State has put up 30 to 60 points in most of their games [6 above 50 points]. We have seen Alabama put up points slightly less than LSU. LSU beat Alabama 9 to 6 in OT.
The question I have is if LSU played Oklahoma State, could we see a high scoring game by both? I believe we would, and that is the #1 reason why I would have favored this matchup. Like Michigan, Alabama had their chance.
And lastly, if we see another 9 to 6 type of game with Alabama just bearly beating LSU, then we see Oklahoma State sufficiently put away Stanford with their typical 30 to 60 points, we just may see the Associated Press vote to have Oklahoma State as their National Champion. . . and if this happens . . . AGAIN . . . then I blame the HUMAN POLLSTERS as the culprit who paired LSU and Alabama in the NC Game.
My system let's the schools/teams of perceived equal strength play to prove their biased human pollsters were correct, or not so correct in their ranking of the schools/teams; and THEN we can have schools/teams assigned to the proper bowl.