Tag:playoffs
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: January 5, 2012 8:35 pm
 

Alabama v LSU - biggest game in BCS? . . .

Countdown to the BIGGEST game in BCS history

Score: 113 January 5, 2012 6:01 pm
Don't want to take the wind out of you sails, but I do not think of this National Championship game as the Biggest in BCS History . . .

Maybe it is if your an SEC Fan[atic], or an LSU or Alabama Fan[atic]. . . but I do consider my self a College Football Fan[atic], and to me this is just another Bowl game. Cool

I have enjoyed all the bowl games I have seen this year, maybe 65 to 75 percent, as I have to do some things other than watch football. lol

This year has had some particularly good matchups, like Oklahoma State v. Stanford, Oregon v. Wisconsin, Baylor v. Washington, Air Force v. Toledo, Utah State v. Ohio, La Lafayette v. San Diego State, TCU v. LA Tech, Georgia v. Michigan State, and even Michigan v. Virginia Tech. That being said, I do think the NC Game will be pretty good, but will any team be able to score a touchdown? Tongue out 

Don't forget, defense wins games, but offence keeps the viewers happy, so they don't fall asleep [or worse yet, go to another channel . . . lol.

We saw in their first meeting only field goals, and I think a lot of non football fan[atic]s will NOT watch because they will not expect this to be a very "fan active" game. [fan active means lots of points by my definition] As you will note, most of the games that I posted above had high scores by both teams, like over 21 points for each team.

And to sum it up, I would have liked to have seen Oklahoma State play LSU for a couple of reasons. . . Like, could LSU keep the scoring machine like OK ST to fewer than 1 touchdown per quarter? and could LSU put up the points equal or greater than OK ST?

Unfortunately, we will NEVER KNOW! Sealed

The computer poll average had OK ST at #2. And as we all know, the Harris Pollsters and the Coaches put Alabama at #2 by a slim margin.

With that being said, the BCS that was formed to have a unified National Champion by using computers has been ineffective, as we see the partisanship of the Coaches and Harris pollsters have nullified the very reason we have added the computers to the equasion.  Yell

I like the Computers best because they have NO BIAS. . . people do!

And if the computers were the sole judge, we would have seen OK ST play LSU.  Wink
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 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?

Posted on: September 1, 2010 9:38 pm
 

Why the BCS will continue to be strong . . .

As a point of the original question, I picked the 16 team playoff as the bigger joke. . .

First of all, you all have seemed to miss the number one point, it's all about the MONEY!

I do not have the numbers, but maybe one of you proponets who desire the playoff can find out how much the teams/schools make with a playoff in Division II and Division III. I would also like you to check the ATTENDANCE to all of the playoff games. I'll bet dimes to donuts the attendance and dollars don't amount to many.

The Bowl system was NOT created to judge who is the best team, and NO ONE REALLY CARED! The Bowls were created to host an EXHIBITION Game between a powerhouse of a team from another area of the country to come to our town and play our best local team, and while were at it, let's raise some bucks for the economic and social development of our areas. Most, if not all the Bowls are NON_PROFIT Organizations. They raise money that is used to fund Boys and Girls clubs so they can have activities that they would never have been able to do without the support from these Bowls, or other organizations which support the economically disadvantaged people in their areas, just like the United Way, and similar organizations.

The Bowls are truly UNIQUE. . . NO OTHER SPORT HAS THEM! Cool  A playoff is fine with me, as long as it is completed before the 35 or 36 scheduled Bowls. . . but that just AIN"T GONNA" HAPPEN!

Yes there are a few blunders and miscues with the BCs system as we have seen in the past. A few teams/schools were not justifiably treated to the games they may have been or should have been invited to play, but that has established the BCS's learning curve. The one I believe that has been hurt most was Kansas State, and that is why the BCS has the "Kansas State" rule.

The BCS needs to progress, and with the further re-development of the Conferences, and the better quality of players and teams from the NON-BCS conferences, we will see an occasional rule change and maybe the admittance of other conferences, or maybe, and this is my best change is to eliminate the Automatic Qualifier.

Another fact of why the BCS was created was to get some of that 'Rose Bowl' money. I know your saying, "what?", and that is fine. The Rose Bowl was not the 'grandaddy' because they were the first bowl, but they were the Highest Paying Bowl as well. . . and it was a closed bowl to only the Pac 10 and Big 10. The other conferences wanted to play in the Rose Bowl because of the scheduled payout.

With the creation of the BCS there were four bowls, and all had the same scheduled payout. Now the Rose Bowl was not the highest paying bowl, and now the other bowls of the BCS also paid the premium top dollars once only enjoyed by the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl, who were the top paying bowls in that order.

I have only one innovation that I would like implemented, and I put together a strong arguement for my proposal in my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings www.bbotw.com Infinity Publishing.

My methodology is to allow teams of perceived equal strength play each other. #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. Let's face it, the regular season IS the playoff. By the time we get down the last game of the season, we know who are the best teams, we just quibble a bit of the order of who is the best. This system will vindicate a few of these arguements, and maybe provide a bit of discovery along the way.

And the BOTTOM LINE is simply this. . . there are 10 BCS Bowl berths. Each one is the same scheduled payout per team/school. [currently $18mil]. Do you think any of the Presidents or Board of Directors of the Schools of these six conferences really care IF their School wins? HELL  NO, just as long as they play in the game. Win or lose, the pay is the same.

Rather than counting Who was the winner, start counting which school/conference has made the most dollars from the teams in their conference by appearing in these BCS Bowls. . . As 'deepthroat' said . . . "follow the money".

The BCS will be around for a long time. . .
Posted on: August 3, 2010 5:34 pm
 

No Cost and NO Headaches . . . Just a Qualifier





There is NO WAY that the Bowls will be used as a Playoff venue. The Bowls are the "sacred cows" or in this case the "Cash cows".
My system will not add any cost or headaches to have a Qualifying Round. These teams play 12 games already. This is just an unschedule 12th game of the season. These games will be held at the top rated team's home venue. The odd numbers in the BCS Rankings determine the home teams.

I am certain that any one network or even a consortium of 2 or 3 networks would bid for the right to broadcast a 36 game college football extravaganza over a 4 or 5 day period. This makes this 12th game of the season a new profit center for the participating teams and conferences. The monies paid by the broadcast network will cover travel expense with more dollars available to all of the participating teams and conferences. [ I am more specific about this in my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the BCS Rankings ]

The money may be larger for a 16 team playoff of 16 teams, or 8 games, but ONLY for those that participate. Is your system using ONLY 8 Bowls or is it using 15 Bowls? By using 15 Bowls, you are taking away monies from 14 Schools/Conferences that could have played in those extra 7 Bowls.

Do you think the fan base will travel to ALL of the games or only the first bowl? How many fans do you think will travel to the second or even the third Bowl? and how many fans will not go because they can only go to one Bowl and are hoping their team will be in the Final Bowl? Seems to me the first round may not be a sell out by any stretch of the immagination. This could be a REAL Fan Headache.

Right now, the Schools are okay with a 12 game schedule, as these are teams that have players that are there for school and an education. These are not Pro players, and the fact is only about 2% of all the players will even get a chance to be pro players.

So do you also think that these Schools/Conferences will be happy with being displaced from a Bowl because they were not in the top 16? Do you think say a Florida team will be happy losing the first game and ONLY receiving the dollars from one game while say an Oklahoma State gets to receive the dollars from 3 Bowl appearances. This type of playoff is a complete disparity of potential earnings for more teams than not.

Based on the Bowls, there are, I believe 36 Bowls currently scheduled. 15 of them will be tied up as playoff, and 21 Bowls will have the remainder of the qualified teams. That means 58 teams will play in the Bowls that normanly service 72 Teams. So as I read it, you are for limiting the opportunity for 14 Schools/Conferences to have the pleasure of going to a Bowl, and possibly earning additional monies for playing in a Bowl.

My system DOES pit #1 against #2, #3 vs #$, etc. But the fact is, WHO says #1 is really #1 and #2 is really #2, etc. . . People do, and not necessairily you or me. If they are really #1, then let's Crown them before the Bowl game.

In my system we see #1 Hosting #2, #3 hostin #4, etc., and we let them PROVE they are worthy of the vote they have received from the Harris Pollsters and Coaches. In 2008, the BCS poll had Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Southern California and Utah in that order. Had Oklahoma played Florida and either team win in a medicore victory and the same situation with Texas and Alabama, and Utah with a decisive victory over Southern California, don't you think we might have seen Utah in the National Championship Game? With a situation like this, we just might have seen Utah getting better votes from the Harris Pollsters and Coaches to be in the #1 or #2 spot. After all, of thse 6 teams, the only one without a loss WAS Utah.

My system is mearly a QUALIFYING Round. It answeres the argument of "well who did they play?" My system will also show who is a prentender and who is a contender. My system also does not interfer with the Bowl System. It keeps the Bowl System in tact.

Posted on: June 27, 2010 4:28 pm
 

Qualifier and the distribution of the Money . . .

Let me clearify. . . the plan I have proposed is NOT a playoff system. It is a Qualifier round that will be played before the final BCS Rankings.

Frankly, I am only interested in my plan because it will have teams play teams that are perceived to be of equal stature. Everytime one team has a terrific season, they seem to schedule another team that could be a good match. Of course these games are scheduled another 3 or 4 or even 5 years down the line.  My plan puts them together RIGHT NOW!

Last game of the regular season could be a real eye opener if we had #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, etc.

As for the Bowls. . . If they still have to play the bowls to determine Champions, then let it be. Frankly, if my team doesn't win their bowl game, it is very ok with me. They are kids, and the trips to these bowls are adventures in their lives, and yes, they can be distracted by Disneyworld, side trips, and all the events that take place.

Keep the Bowls as they are, and reward the teams for a well played season!

If you feel as I do, then read my book. . . December Dream . . . Qualifying for the BCS Rankings www.bbotw.com  Thank you.

[and then someone suggested that the schools divide all the money from all the Bowls . . }

You actually said that they should DIVIDE ALL THE MONEY ?!?!?!  lol ROFLOL  Surprised

Don't hold your breath!   Yes the Big 10[11][12] did double dip a few times, as you put it, and so did the SEC and Big 12[10], and Pac 10[12], and maybe the ACC and Big East, but that is what it is all about. . . THE MONEY !

That is the very reason I suggested that they do the 12th Game unscheduled. It has #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, etc all the way down the line. The home teams have the advantage for receiving monies from the gate, parking, concessions, etc. and they would be expected to pay the visitor the "going rate". Like last season, Ohio State had Navy in for a game and paid $2.5 mil for Navy to come and play. That is typical for a one team visit with no return game. With a home and home situation, there is No dollars spent for the visitor. Ohio State did not pay USC last year as they made the trip to USC the previous year.

The Teams, in my scenario, would split the Broadcasting rights, as the networks would pay a premium to broadcast these 12th unscheduled games, at least as I suggested in my book. I have a four day marathon featuring games every day for 70 teams. 35 games overall. #69 hosting #70 may not be a great viewership, but when your with teams in the top 20 or 30, you will get very high viewership, and the Broadcasting package would pay equally to all the teams that participate. Remember this is additional to broadcasting the 11 game regularly scheduled games.  I have purposly created a new profit center.

In essence, I have provided the "showdown" that will actually send the teams that win their 12th game to a higher level, eliminating or at least repositioning the losers to a lower BCS ranking [The teams that lose to a top 10 ranked team will have these noted as quality losses, and will not hurt their ranking as much as it would if they lost to a #30 ranked team.] and we just might have a #2 playing a #6 for the National Championship, depending who wins! [or it could be a #1 playing #4, or #2 playing #3, or whatever other combinnations that are possible among the top 6 or so teams, going into the 12th unscheduled game.]

Remember the top 5 Bowls all pay the same, and if a #1 loses, they may still get in the BCS bowl mix.

Just a side note here. . . one team did get an invite to a low paying bowl and they actually had to pull monies from their school to assist with the expenses incurred for the Bowl trip, as the amount paid was not enough. Don't forget, your not just brining the team. . . how about the Band, Cheerleaders, Trainers, Doctors, other personnel you see on the sidelines at your typical away game, and of course there will be some members from the administration that will be included in the total tab paid by the school for the trip.
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com