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. . .
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.
Why should the Bowls participate with the desires of fan[atic]s wanting a playoff system using the bowls?
Obviously, you just don't get it. . . The Bowls were created for different reasons, but one thread that is common to all is the fact that they are promoting the tourism and economic wind fall that occurs when a city/area hosts this type of EVENT. You see, it's not just a game, it's an event. The Rose Bowl started it all when they wanted to host an EXHIBITION GAME to be a part of their winter festival. The Orange Bowl started to promote economic development to their area. Even the Sun Bowl was created to generate economic development to the area.
You can betcha' that if these BCS Bowls go away, the Bowls may revert to what they were before, and the Rose may go back to hosting Pac 12 and Big 10 schools/teams.
What I am saying simply is that the Bowls may be able to again pick and choose who they want.
And just one last note. . . the Rose Bowl in 2002, under the BCS Administration had Washington State and Oklahoma. The Rose Bowl was not happy with the BCS Selection [as Iowa went to the Orange Bowl], and the Rose Bowl did not sell out, the first time since 1944.
As for the minor bowls . . . well don't you think they also desire to create an event to lure the fan[atic]s to their city to participate in the week long event, and spend money in the local communities? Of course they do! And if their Bowl is just the first stop of a playoff, they may not have the opportunity to have the "event" status they currently have, as the game would be more of a business trip that a week long event, and the economic part of such an event will be lost.
Read my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the final BCS Rankings, Infinity Press, $10.95 in paperback, www.bbotw.com .
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.
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 getthere. [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.
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 Rankingswww.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.
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. [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. 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.
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.