Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
 
Tag:December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings
Posted on: May 17, 2012 4:24 pm
 

Which 4 team playoff?


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. Money mouth 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? Wink

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 . . . Undecided

And I really think you need to go to my profile page here and read my blogs. . .

Posted on: May 14, 2012 3:16 pm
 

December Dream . . . - Reviews . . .

REVIEWS posted on Facebook 18APR 2012

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-----------------------

Nov 18, 2009 08:00 PM by Richard Coreno

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.

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
----

Review by Gregg Elder

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.

Contents:

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.

Code: 5H8X-7VF3-F73J-6KK0

To see the original postings, go to:

http://wwoodyhays.blogs.cbssports.c
om

Posted on: May 14, 2012 2:59 pm
 

a FOUR TEAM Playoff? NOT!!!

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? Undecided

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 Money mouth, 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. Laughing

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 23, 2010 4:32 am
 

What happens in general in December Dream format

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 Money mouth.

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. Surprised . . .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. Sealed [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
 

Q & A with Wildcatfan1 on playoffs . . .

Throwing out The BCS- A CFB Playoff in My World

Score: 116December 11, 2010 4:07 am
So Wildcatsfan,
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 Surprised ]
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[11][12] and Pac 10[12] 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
 

Conference playoffs may no longer be necessary

Thank you BBWVFAN for the lead in "Did every game count?" 

I want to say that one of the points of the system I have divised in my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings www.bbotw.com does address this point by pointing out that Conference playoffs may no longer be necessary.

Conference playoffs are becomming a part of the mix, but in my opinion if we were to have a Qualifying Round with the 12th game of the season, we just may see that there is no need for a conference playoff game. As you may or may not recall, my system has #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, etc all the way down to #119 hosting #120, or at least as many teams as there are Bowl berths.

In my system, every game does count as the teams with the least amount of losses will be ranked higher in the BCS Rankings. The #6, #7,#8, #9 and #10 teams would all be in a position of 'must' win or they could be replaced with the winners from #11, #12, #13 , #14 and maybe even #15, who could advance in the BCS Rankings and secure a spot in the BCS Bowls. As it stands right now, just getting into one of the five BCS Bowls is a major plus for the Schools regardless of the results, because it assures they will receive the same paycheck, win or lose. Remember, the Goals of the School Presidents and Board of Directors is to get the paycheck, and if we win, that's the gravy. That seems to me to be the one reason why the School Presidents and Board of Directors allowed these six conferences to band together to assure that at least one of their Schools WILL be an automatic qualifier.

This could in effect have teams from the same conferene playing for a second time, but if you go back and check this formula, you will see that there are less than a handful of games where this happens. The beauty is that this does put a challenging contest of teams of PERCEIVED near equal strength playing one another. Whereas, the arguement of "well who did they play?" will be muted, because we will see the results of these games. . . and if both teams from a conference do win their games, we could possibly see these teams playing in a BCS Bowl that could be the justification of the 'former' conference playoff game.

Reality is, we will continue to see the Conference playoff games, and here it goes again, because of the MONEY and additional income for the Schools, Teams, and Conferences.

And regardless of what Dodd says, we could still see Ohio State and that School up North playing in a Conference Championship game. That School up North could lose to Ohio State and STILL be the winner of their division.

Posted on: November 14, 2010 10:59 pm
 

BCS Computers? SEC owned? Really! Part 2

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.
The computers are programed, and do not change as a rule. There have been a few changes along the way, and this does not happen every year, but can be predicated when the BCS changes their stated criteria, and this has happened a few times since the start of the BCS. [growing pains lol]

A few of the computers do have have factored into their programs the basis of how the teams finished in the previous year BCS standings. One uses the preseason polls as a starting basis, and another uses all of the teams as being equal at the start. I think they should not be using the previous year as a starting point for the current years, and particularly NOT the preseason rankings.

Now don't forget, the Computer polls only make up one third of the total package of the BCS rankings. One third are the Harris Pollsters, and there could be some prejudices in their group, but the way it is set up for that is to have off setting people from all the conferences. I know that doesn't make anyone feel comfortable, but these people are all vouched to be good at picking unbiased, and without personal preferences. Surprised[Last year even Terry Bradshaw was one of the Harris Pollsters]. And it is my understanding that these Harris Pollsters are committed to watch some games, but I don't recall how many.

Now we have the third group, the Coaches. Now we all know they see at least one game each week, the one they are coaching lol.
Now I want to direct you to go back to the USA Today newspaper, last December, on the Thursday or Friday after the last BCS Rankings. They publish all the Coaches final poll for the BCS Rankings. It is the ONLY published and publicly reported vote by the Coaches. All the other votes throughout the years are not of public knowledge.Sealed This is also the Rankings that could influence which teams get to go to which, or should I say, the Higher Paying Bowls. . . You can bet your bottom dollar [ no pun intended] that a few of these Coaches will help other teams in their conferences by voting the other teams in their conferences a bit higher than the AP polls would maybe rank the same team.

WHY? If a conference team goes to a bowl, the monetary gains are shared with the conference.

I think ALL the Coaches polls should be published, and maybe they should not be a part of the BCS formula. . .  I'd settle for either, or, too. Wink

Posted on: November 2, 2010 12:30 am
 

Computer Pollsters, and some of their basis . . .

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 Cool, 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

It is apparent that this pollster is straight to the points that go into the computer ranking. This formula also ties the conferences into the rating system. A big plus or minus, depending if your in a conference that wins or loses most of their out of conference schedules. And, whereas Sagarin uses the top 10 and 11 to 30 for comparison, Anderson and Hester uses the top 10 and 11 to 25 for comparison.

Billingsley Dynamics by Richard Billingsley

This pollster has a different point of view of assessing point values to teams than the other polls. The first significant difference is the pre-season polls. Mr. Billingsley does not acquiesce to accepting the pre-season polls, but starts each season based on last year's finishing polls to assess his starting values to each team. It is a simplistic system that gives each team opportunity to gain points, based on the opponents they beat, and the points acquired to date, by that opponent. It's pretty obvious that you gain more points by beating a team with a better win loss record. Strength of the opponent determines how many points can be accumulated with a victory. And as the season goes long, the opponent's point values rise, thus giving more emphasis to a team's most recent victory.

 

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. Billingsley also puts some slight consideration value on where the game is played and the average fan attendance. A capacity crowd in a 40,000 seat stadium will bring a better value than a 20,000 attendance in a 60,000 seat venue.


The Cooley Matrix by Wesley N. Colley Ph.D.

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.

Peter Wolfe

This computer system rates all varsity teams at 4 year colleges that can be connected by mutual opponents. If the team's opponents are not comparable, being a community college, JV team, etc., then they are not counted, but the game location is taken into account. This system also rates teams on a won loss record, and not does not take into consideration run up scoring.


 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.

Yes, they do have biases, but remember, their biases don't change. They are set for the entire season. Ther real question is, How can a team set their particular game plan to satisfy ALL of the preset biases of all the Computer Pollsters?

 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com