Posted on: May 14, 2012 2:59 pm
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].
Posted on: December 28, 2011 6:02 pm
BCS fixScore: 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.
Posted on: December 23, 2010 4:32 am
As it stands right now, the same would happen as currently is set by the BCS. We still have 6 BCS Conferences . . . are these six conferences willing to change a few more rules? We really do not know.
I suspect that the 6 BCS conferences will still get into one of the FIVE BCS Bowls that pay $18mil per participating team .
That means the Automatic Qualifier [AQ] is still active. I would like to see a rule that says that the AQ must win their 12th game of the season to be in one of the FIVE BCS Bowls. I do believe this Qualifying round will allow a few other schools that are not one of the 6 BCS Conferences to prove that they can "dance" with the big boys by beating a highly ranked team to get into a BCS Bowl Game. We might even see a highly ranked team go to a National Championship Game. . . Utah had that possibility when they were ranked #6, and the only undefeated team . . . but they would have had to beat the #5 team, Southern California in their home field in Los Angeles.
This format would also have the other teams playing for a spot in the Final BCS Rankings. A #7, #8, #9 #10 team that could possibly be in consideration for one of these games could get knocked out, and a #11, #12, #13, #14, or even a #15 could be Ranked in the BCS Poll after these games, at a higher position. There are 4 "At-Large" teams to be considered for these FIVE BCS Bowls, and I do believe they should be the Highest ranked teams that are NOT already an AQ.
Don't forget, with a #1 v #2, #3 v #4, #5 v #6, #7 v#8, #9 v #10, etc. we will see some winners and losers. We already know who we THINK are the best from the Polls, and this will either prove that the polls were close or if the rankings are somewhat 'bunk'. And don't forget the best upside of this format, we get to see games between teams that would have NEVER have had the foresightedness to have scheduled. . . .And we have these teams play with minimal layoff of 6 or 7 days to a max of 13 dsays while they are in their end of season prime. This is sometimes lost when a team has a layoff of 30 to 40 days since their last game.
It would be rear to see the subjective choice of #1 and #2 who would play in the 12th unscheduled game of the season replay in the National Championship game, but if the score was sooooo close, [like a 7-6 score or even a 26-25 score, and/or extenuating circumstances], it could be possible.
And a benefit of having this unscheduled 12th game means 1 game less to schedule a cream puff team. If a conference has 9 conference games, and an unscheduled 12th game, there are only 2 games left for out of conference rivals.
As far as a formal playoff, don't hold your breath unless you come up with a solution that will enable it to happen BEFORE the Bowls, [the Bowls are sacared cows and cannot be used for a playoff as many of these schools [Presidents] would rather have the Bowls than Playoffs] and within the 12 games that the Schools have agreed to have as the maximum games permitted to be played. It's not the Athletic Directors, it's the School Presidents and Board of Directors who rule the roost. [but you didn't hear that from me]
Do check out my 4 pages of blogs at my profile page here at CBS Sportline, and you could also check out my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings.
Posted on: December 11, 2010 1:26 pm
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.
Posted on: November 15, 2010 1:33 pm
Thank you BBWVFAN for the lead in "Did every game count?"
Posted on: November 14, 2010 10:59 pm
BCS Computers? SEC owned? Really!Score: 112November 9, 2010 2:12 am
I like the Computers . . . I think they are the best way to go.
Posted on: November 14, 2010 10:53 pm
BCS Computers? SEC owned? Really!Score: 115November 14, 2010 2:12 pm
1- Some of the computers DO have a built in bias with the start of their formulas. A few use the ending polls from last season and 1 or 2 use the preseason polls in their formula. I believe that Colley's Computer poll does not use either of these methods in his start up of the computer polls.
2- There IS some favortism by the Coaches polls and maybe even some in the AP polls, and only GOD knows if the Harris Pollsters even know what a football is.
3- A plus one you want? And then after that will you be satisfied? I think not. This would only accomadate the top four selected teams by partisan votes.
4- I have proposed the best way to satisfy most of the concerns is to have teams of perceived equal pairity play one another. #1 host #2, #3 host #4, #5 host #6, etc. all the way to #119 hosting #120, if it serves the purpose, or at least as many teams playing as there are Bowl Berths. I have proposed this to be the 12th game of the season. All teams schedule 11 games and leave the 12th spot open to wait and see WHO they will play, and who will host. These are the games we could have never had the forsightedness to have scheduled. These would also allow Titan to battle Titan, and let the teams play the games.
I have described this plan of action many times on this board, and have posted more descriptions on my profile page blogs here at CBS Sportsline, and I also have more details in my book, December Dream . . .Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings.
Yes you can argue why should #1 risk playing #2 for the pre-bowl qualifier, when they are #1 already, but the point is they are PERCEIVED to be #1 by the humans and the computers, at least most of the time, except for the 2003 BCS where the AP [still part of the BCS formula at this time] and Coaches had So. Cal #1, LSU #2, and Oklahoma #3, while the BCS rankings had Oklahoma #1, LSU #2 and So. Cal #3. All three teams were undefeated in this 3 way record tie. And that was also the last SPLIT DECISION where the BCS National Champion was LSU, while the Associated Press picked So. Cal as the National Champion.
My proposed plan WILL let Boise State, and TCU earn their way into the National Championship final game, and will unseat any team that is overrated. At the end of the 12th game we will have a better idea who is better than whom. The top 10 teams will all have better computer ranings due to the fact that they have beaten a highly ranked team, and the losers will not be so displaced by losing to a higher ranked team. A #3 team that loses may fall to a #7 or #8 position, but still get into a BCS Bowl.
Let's face it, it is all about the money and the 5 BCS Bowls all pay the same. In my eyes, there are 10 winners going to Bowls, and the pay is the same. We might also consider elimination of Automatic Qualifiers if they don't win this 12th game, but that's another issue.
Posted on: November 2, 2010 12:30 am
A few of you have made some remarks about the Computer Pollsters, and I have a chapter in my book December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankins which discusses their methods. Of course you may do the research I did, and come up with your own conclusion. I would suggest you cut and paste this for your long term memory, or just buy my book and get all of the remarks, lol , but these are a few segments from my book for your use and information. . .
The Sagarin Poll
Pre-season polls do provide a starting point that can be used by the computer process, as no one really knows who is going to win all or most of their games each season. . . This basis becomes unusable as teams begin to create a record that is more reliable than the pre-season guessing that formulated the pre-season poll, and then the actual records are applied with a recognizable basis to apply to the actual formula. The pre-season poll is usually a biased slant based on the previous years record and returning experienced players. The first few games and subsequent games add to the actual team's performance.
AndersonSports by Anderson and Hester
Billingsley Dynamics by Richard Billingsley
Mr. Billingsley further states that unlike most systems who use wins and losses to calculate strength of opponents, while his uses a unique twist by applying the opponent's rank and rating. An undefeated team has a ticket to the top 10 as they receive “full earnings” of their opponent's value. A loss on the other hand, allows for a deduction percentage. As the loss column increases, the handicap grows and the only fix is to beat a higher ranked team.
Mr. Colley states that his Colley Matrix: 1- has no bias towards conference, tradition, history, etc. [and hence, has no pre-season poll]; 2- it is reproducible and one can check the results; 3- uses a minimum of assumptions; 4- uses no ad hoc adjustments; 5- none-the-less adjusts for strength of schedule; 6- ignores runaway scores; and, 7- produces common sense results that can compare well to the human polls.
Mr. Colley states many advantages to his computer matrix system. His rankings are based only from the results on the field. He uses no pre-season poll, and all teams start from the same basis, and allows no bias from opinion, past performances, tradition or other possible sources. Strength of schedule has a strong influence on his ranking system. . . Winning margins have no effect on this system, as do game locations and weather factors.
The Massey Ratings by Kenneth Massey
[My remarks are based on Mr. Massey's August 15<sup>th</sup> 2000 Theory. I requested permission to add this in the Appendix, and Mr. Massey said, “It is outdated, and doesn't refer to the rating system I submit to the BCS. I have two sets of rankings. The one described in your text [my following remarks] you copied [for Mr. Massey's permission] was used until the BCS mandated that margin of victory couldn't be used. I did not ever post any description of that alogrithm.”]
The Massey Rating states what is used, and not used in their computer model as such: based on win-loss outcomes relative to schedule difficulty; early season ratings will fluctuate significantly until a sufficient number of games have been played; teams not connected by a schedule graph are rated as isolated groups; these rankings are used in the BCS; these rankings use the MOV formula; and, margin of victory is not used and ratings do not reflect point differential.
This system does take into consideration the home field advantage, while disregarding the crowd noise, surface, day or night, or weather conditions. . . This system does measure the ability to score points, but does not distinguish how the points were acquired. . . The schedule of strength is the only representative of games played and depends on where the game is played. . . . The GOF [Game Outcome Function]
distinguishes between a 10-0 win and a 50-40 win, as a close high scoring game is likely to have more variance and less likely to be dominated by either team. A low scoring game may indicate a defensive struggle or poor game conditions.
And lastly, a few of my comments included: Colley seems to be the only pollster that presents all the formula of his ranking methodology, so you may duplicate his system, and check his validity. The other pollsters leave some of their details left to this writer's imagination. All pollsters do give some literate input as to some of the specific that makeup the computer mix, like team record, location, strength of schedule, etc., but it seems that each of these items do have the possibility that each of the pollsters are looking at these categories slightly different, or at least with variables in their subsets.