Throwing out The BCS- A CFB Playoff in My WorldScore: 116December 11, 2010 4:07 am
for the record, My original response is in bold
your response in regular print.
and my retort in Italics
So you really believe and accept the voting of the Harris Pollsters, the Coaches, and the Computer average to be the total authority as to WHO IS #1 . . . and that it is without a doubt that these teams are the best.
Of course not. With that said, there's only little room to debate. The #8 ranked team in the final BCS has never been the best team in college football. Realistically I would say after the Top 5 ranked teams, there's no team worthy of a NCG argument in any year. So is there room for debate? Yes. Are they perfect? No. With that said, the coaches/AP in general are in the ballpark.
Since you somewhat agree to the polls being 'in the ballpark' then there is NO reason to even have a playoff, and at best a plus one, since there are really only maybe the top 5 that should be considered. That is one reason why my format, using the 12th game works so well. It has a prebuilt plus one scenario built in with #1 hosting #2, and #3 hosting #4, and even #5 hosting #6. With a very strong victory by a #5 [or#6 ] team, they could be swayed by the human pollsters to catipult them into a #2 position. Of course, #1 or #2 would have to have a stomping over their opponet, while #3 playing #4 proved to be a not so well played game that the voters decided that neither was worthy of a #1 or #2 position. This situation could be rear, but we have seen some interesting things in College Football. My point is, there IS NO NEED for ANY playoff. Especially with my proposal. It eliminates any question as to who of the top 4 are the best with a 12th game matchup and a BCS Bowl game.
By having the #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, etc. we have teams of perceived equal strength play the game . We really do not know if they are equal unless they play. Maybe #2 IS better than #1 and so should be in that position. To say #1 has to defend their position by playing a #2, before the Bowls are announced, do let the teams play, and prove why they are worthy of #1 , and eliminated who they have played [like that 3rd game against St. Mary's of the Poor] to earn this position.
Yes, but what Im saying is if the #1 and #2 teams are without a doubt (hypothetically) more deserving of a NCG spot than anyone else, why should they play. Hell, look at last year for example, even with TCU, Boise, and Cincy going unbeaten, is ANYONE going to say that Alabama and Texas were WITHOUT QUESTION the two most deserving teams to play for the title based on how the season went and the challenges they faced? In your scenairio, they would have played and Bama (lets say for arguements sake they still won) would have faced maybe Cincy in the title game if Cincy beat the #4 team. Would that have been a better system? I'd say absolutely not.
So let's look at Florida where Urban Meyer petitioned the pollsters to gain the #2 position ahead of Michigan, since they had already lost to Ohio State in the regular season by 41-39. Aned let's look at Mack Brown who also petitioned the AP to vote for Texas to be in the National Championship game. Both cases, these Coaches LOBBIED to get the necessary votes to play in the National Championship game. These teams were NOT necessairily deserving by the methods they used to get there. . . but they did get there.
[By the way, because of the Mack Brown petitioning, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, and that is why the AP is no longer a part of the BCS Rankings, at the request of the AP.] So were either of these teams really deserving? It is questionable, even today.
And a few years back, we have seen the 3 way tie, just ask Auburn, Southern Cal, and Oklahoma. . . and a few teams left out, just ask Kansas State.
An even better example. So in 2004, Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma went unbeaten. Auburn would have basically been given a gift pass to the title game to play USC because the top 2 teams played each other, while they got to play an inferior #4 team. How is that right?
The #4 team that year was Texas, with one loss to Oklahoma by a score of 12-0 [in the 5th game of the season]. Maybe a bit inferior to Oklahoma, but still a viable contender. As well as the 2004 season [ which I also used in my example] you might also consider 2003 with Oklahoma, LSU, and Southern California, all undefeated. That was the year Southern California was left out of the BCS National Championship Game, and was named the National Champions by the Associated Press. [3 Coaches also voted for Southern California in the Post Bowl BCS Votes] This would have never happened under my proposed system. The #4 team was a one loss Michigan, and they DID play Souther California in the Rose Bowl and Southern California won 28-14. Do you think my proposal works a bit better with this example?
[ #1 played #2 and #3 played #4 resulting in a split decision . . . ]
And let's not forget #3 Kansas State who was left out of the BCS in 1998 for #8 Florida as an at-large team. Undefeated #10 Tulane received no Bowl invitation, even though they were their conference Champion. And we did see the Kansas State rule created by the BCS.
And we now have a system to test teams like Boise State, whom some have said, they don't play the level of competition as do the six BCS conferences, and should not have a shot at the National Championship [NC]. This method gives them a proving ground to demonstrate that they can earn a spot in the BCS Bowls, and maybe even the NC Game. [when they don't lose to Nevada ]
False. Because to me it still doesn't show whether they can withstand the week to week grind. All that shows me is in the years they cruise through a terrible WAC conference, they can win ONE big game they have to play. Doesn't prove to me they can run the SEC like Auburn did. Doesn't prove to me they could run the BIG 12. A playoff would prove that if they had to win 3-4 straight games vs. top competition.
I guess we really won't know about Boise State, as they did lose to Nevada. But let's look back at Utah at the end of the 2008 season. Utah was ranked #6 and with no losses. the only other no loss team was Boise State ranked at #9. #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #3 Texas, #4 Alabama and #5 Southern California were all one loss teams. With my proposed system, we would have seen Utah having the chance to prove that they can beat a team in my 12th game format, that would have been Southern California. In my opinion, with Utah beating Southern California that year, I am certain that they would have won the respect of the AP and Coaches and Harris Pollsters to have moved up to a #2 position to play for the National Championship game. My 12th game qualifier round is just that. . . a qualifier round. Win this game, and we know that not only does your record prove your team to be competent and together, and the other wins that you have acquired are now relevent. Thus, my system does let teams EARN their way into a BCS Bowl, and maybe even the National Championship game.
I believe that my total proposal as described in my book will be the closest we will ever see to any playoff because it does a few items that the School Presidents will accept, in perserving the Bowl system, adding no additional games, and can still provide an additional profit center.
I firmly disagree. While your proposal might hit some ideas that presidents could agree to, I don't think you'll ever see them go away from the current system unless it is to go to a playoff system, similar to the one I proposed, maybe with only 8 teams at the start. But like all other D-1 NCAA sports, eventually a tournament will be the deciding factor for a national champion.
This is a moot point. They will NEVER go to a playoff system because of the monetary inequities of a bracketed playoff system. Even with a discussion of a plus one, the Big 10 and Pac 10 are ready to walk and keep their Rose Bowl and traditions alive and well without the other conferences. Don't blame the Commissioners of these Conferences, this comes from the Presidents and Board of Directors.