‘Death to the BCS:’ Nonsense rules

[deweydw]

An interesting read on the BCS.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ys-deathtothebcs101310

“It’s hard to argue with a 16-team playoff.”

[TIMB0B]

The actual skill involved is suspect. A Dutch computer scientist named Martien Maas, who has never been to a college football game but compiles rankings in his spare time, analyzed amateur ranking systems for their accuracy in picking bowl games last year. He assumed the success rate of predicting the correct winners would be somewhere between 75 and 85 percent. The computers barely chose 50 percent of the games correctly.Straight up?

[NateHeupel]

“It’s hard to argue with a 16-team playoff,” Colley said.

It's actually exceedingly easy to argue against a 16 team playoff.


Dutch computer scientist named Martien Maas, who has never been to a college football game but compiles rankings in his spare time, analyzed amateur ranking systems for their accuracy in picking bowl games last year.

http://www.maasranking.nl/CollFoot/cfrank.htm

For those of you who are lazy, let me give you the highlight from that link:

Rank Team Wins Losses Rating Score

1 Oklahoma 5 0 100.0
2 LSU 6 0 97.4
3 Boise St 5 0 95.5
4 TCU 6 0 89.9
5 Missouri 5 0 88.4

The assumptions of Maas' Rating System are:

1. Winning is the only thing that matters.
(Margin of victory is not taken into account).
2. Wins against stronger opponents should be "rewarded" more than wins against less stronger Opponents
(Losses to stronger Opponents should be "punished" not as much as Losses to less stronger Opponents).

[Jacie]

That is some interesting rating system.

At #73 is Colorado State. Why is that interesting? CSU is 1-5 and ranked higher than Rutgers (3 wins), Tennessee (2 wins), Army (4 wins), among others. They must have looked darn good in those 5 losses . . .

[goingoneight]

The people that still argue for the BCS are worth a facepalm, a shaking-your-head-no and a good roll of the eyes.

[soonerguild]

All the pro-bcs people always argue that the reason this system is so great is because in the regular season "all the games matter" and "we have the most exciting regular season of any sport." Considering that a one loss team plays for the national title more often than not, I would say that is partially false.

The fact is if you had an 8 or a 16 team playoff, the regular season would still be just as exciting and important. Even if you made it 16 teams(I think it should be 8), it would still be equally as exciting as it is now. 8 conf champs and 8 at large would still have an exciting regular season, and if thats not enough you could have the first or first and second rounds at home sites, and home field advantage would make it more important.

The bowl system would not die.

All that said, I still hope we can grease past some folks if we win out and play for the ship. ;)

[Aldebaran]

A list of names of people who stand in the way of progress toward a playoff should be made. It could easily be argued that this list is being made for purely clerical purposes at first.

[Leroy Lizard]

A list of names of people who stand in the way of progress toward a playoff should be made. It could easily be argued that this list is being made for purely clerical purposes at first.

WTF? Are you going to firebomb their houses?

You know one group of people that stand in the way of getting rid of the BCS? Those that want to dismantle the BCS. I have seen one botched petition and ludicrous argument after another. As long as the pro playoff minions continue to argue like third-graders, college presidents will remain unswayed.

We have argued this issue a billion times in here already. And each time the argument settles into a name-calling mudfest. And as long as that happens, college presidents aren't going to be persuaded by anything we say.

[SoonerNutt]

The assumptions of Maas' Rating System are:

1. Winning is the only thing that matters.
(Margin of victory is not taken into account).
2. Wins against stronger opponents should be "rewarded" more than wins against less stronger Opponents
(Losses to stronger Opponents should be "punished" not as much as Losses to less stronger Opponents).


Sounds alot like the RPI basketball ratings. I like it, because OU is on top.

[ThinMan]

8 is too many. When was the last time that many teams had an argument for national champion? Four teams is all we need.

[Leroy Lizard]

So ThinMan fires off the opening salvo. Now others will come in and want either an eight-team playoff or a sixteen-team playoff.

It makes no difference in the end, because all playoffs will ultimately become a 16-team playoff as fans become increasingly angry that their team got shafted. So there is no point in arguing for anything else.

[Mark_in_Tulsa]

The BCS (even tho it could use a little more tweaking) is good enough to find the best team in the nation out of the top 4. Then use that top 4 to have a playoff.

[Penguin]

A 16 team playoff? Why would a team ranked number 1-4 even bother showing up for a conference championship game? Or even the last game or two of the season? That would destroy college football as we know it.


We can run a 4 team playoff at the most.

[Sabanball]

The author this book, Dan Wetzel, was interviewed on sports talk radio here in Birmingham today and I actually thought he made a very intelligent case for a playoff system.

[adoniijahsooner]

Like I said in a previous thread... crowning a champion in college football is a complete and utter joke until we get a playoff system in place. Seriously, how can anybody walk away feeling completely satisfied with a myth championship.

[OU_Sooners75]

A 16 team playoff? Why would a team ranked number 1-4 even bother showing up for a conference championship game? Or even the last game or two of the season? That would destroy college football as we know it.


We can run a 4 team playoff at the most.

Because you can make it where realignment mandatory Create 12 conferences of 10 teams. Each conference champion is an auto bid to the playoff. After those 12, the four highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation gets the final four bids. We can still have the bcs or a form of it to create an rpi type ranking system to determine seeds and the four final teams to be invited.

The playoff would make the season even moreexciting. You could have more OU vs USuCks and big time games like that without fear of being left out of the national championship talk!

Win your conference your automatically in! Make the NCAA take over the post season.

[Leroy Lizard]

Like I said in a previous thread... crowning a champion in college football is a complete and utter joke until we get a playoff system in place. Seriously, how can anybody walk away feeling completely satisfied with a myth championship.

Is there anyone here not proud of OU's 2000 national title?

[Leroy Lizard]

The author this book, Dan Wetzel, was interviewed on sports talk radio here in Birmingham today and I actually thought he made a very intelligent case for a playoff system.


Until you fill us in on his argument, of what possible use is your post? WTF are we supposed to do now? Nod our heads?

[bigfatjerk]

There's a chance Ohio State goes undefeated and doesn't make the NC game this year. The BCS system is a joke.

[Okie35]

It's actually exceedingly easy to argue against a 16 team playoff.


This, and sure most of the fans are all for it but not all the coaches (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2010-01-04-fiesta-bowl_N.htm). I'm fine with how it is eventually it will all work out.

[Okie35]

There's a chance Ohio State goes undefeated and doesn't make the NC game this year. The BCS system is a joke.

Play better.

[bigfatjerk]

I'm sorry how can you play better when going undefeated. I'm against a 16 team playoff. 8 team is the most I would see happening.

[royalfan5]

Do you know what would be fun? An Ohio State/Michigan State final.

[jumperstop]

Playoff talk every year, doesn't make a difference. The BCS will be in place for at least the next five years or whenever it's contract is up...if not longer than that. When there is a chance it will acctually happen then I'll start talking about it more.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm sorry how can you play better when going undefeated. I'm against a 16 team playoff. 8 team is the most I would see happening.

Nope. Look at the growth of the playoffs in other college sports. Football. Basketball. Baseball. There is no chance that the public will be satisfied with an 8-team playoff.

How many teams are involved in the basketball playoff? (And they're planning to expand it even more.)

[jumperstop]

I'm sorry how can you play better when going undefeated. I'm against a 16 team playoff. 8 team is the most I would see happening.

Anywhere between 4 and 8 would be ok with me. Too many more it might make the regular season games less important. At bowl time, look who #16 is and tell me if they deserve a shot at the MNC

[bigfatjerk]

The post season in college basketball has less teams involved by percentage than football has. I would argue that the bowl season hurts the regular season more now because it has too many teams involved.

[BoulderSooner79]

There's a chance Ohio State goes undefeated and doesn't make the NC game this year. The BCS system is a joke.

If that happened, it would at least be a funny joke.

[NateHeupel]

I'm certainly not arguing for the BCS to be saved. But, as others have stated, I have yet to seen a 5th team worthy of a shot at the national title. Further, you can fit a 4 team playoff into the current bowl infrastructure with only minimal modifications to the existing schedule.

How about a 16 team playoff?
Round of 16 - one week
Round of 8 - one week
Round of 4 - one week
Title game - one week

That's 4 weeks you have to come up with somewhere. And go ahead and write off the week of Christmas. So make that 5 weeks. To end the season before the start of the 2nd semester, as the university presidents are so ostensibly opposed to do, that 1st round of 16 would have to start the week after the conference title games.

Get the logistics to work there. I'll wait.

[Penguin]

Because you can make it where realignment mandatory Create 12 conferences of 10 teams. Each conference champion is an auto bid to the playoff. After those 12, the four highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation gets the final four bids.


What? So you want to give automatic bids to the Big East, C-USA, the MWC, the WAC, the MAC, and the Sun Belt conferences? Where can I buy tickets for this awesome playoff?

[bigfatjerk]

I'm certainly not arguing for the BCS to be saved. But, as others have stated, I have yet to seen a 5th team worthy of a shot at the national title. Further, you can fit a 4 team playoff into the current bowl infrastructure with only minimal modifications to the existing schedule.

How about a 16 team playoff?
Round of 16 - one week
Round of 8 - one week
Round of 4 - one week
Title game - one week

That's 4 weeks you have to come up with somewhere. And go ahead and write off the week of Christmas. So make that 5 weeks. To end the season before the start of the 2nd semester, as the university presidents are so ostensibly opposed to do, that 1st round of 16 would have to start the week after the conference title games.

Get the logistics to work there. I'll wait.

Are you kidding me? Some teams have 5 weeks between the last game they played and a bowl game. You could fit 3 or 4 games into anywhere from December to January. 8 team is the optimal playoff for me. The FCS has a 16 team playoff and they have no problem here.

[Leroy Lizard]

The post season in college basketball has less teams involved by percentage than football has. I would argue that the bowl season hurts the regular season more now because it has too many teams involved.

Percentage is not the issue, but rather the growth. The basketball playoff started with only a small number of teams (12 I think), but grew and grew? Why? For the same reasons the football playoff will grow and grow.

Take a look at the playoffs in the other conferences if you don't believe. They didn't stop at 8 teams. FBS won't either.

[Leroy Lizard]

Are you kidding me? Some teams have 5 weeks between the last game they played and a bowl game. You could fit 3 or 4 games into anywhere from December to January. 8 team is the optimal playoff for me. The FCS has a 16 team playoff and they have no problem here.

FCS doesn't have conference championships, and their seasons are often one game shorter.

We've done this repeatedly. About the only thing you can do is start all the games in August (which we used to do but quit because it was a bad idea) or extend the games well into the second semester (which is a bad idea all around).

Or have games played near final exams. Good luck with that one.

[bigfatjerk]

There are 300+ teams in D1 basketball. Of course it'll grow. If college football grows to 200 teams there will be 100 bowl games.

[ThinMan]

I grew up before they even bothered to matchup the top two teams, so I actually don't have a problem claiming 7 National Championships.

:pop:

[Rickety_Syd]

Like I said in a previous thread... crowning a champion in college football is a complete and utter joke until we get a playoff system in place. Seriously, how can anybody walk away feeling completely satisfied with a myth championship.

I was thoroughly satisfied after the 2000 title.
And in 1985, when we were voted No.1.



BTW, an utter joke would be the NCAA basketball tournament. That monstrosity is ludicrously insane and in desperate need of a serious diet plan.

[btb916]

We have argued this issue a billion times in here already. And each time the argument settles into a name-calling mudfest. And as long as that happens, college presidents aren't going to be persuaded by anything we say.

Might just be me, but I don't think Boren is perusing these forums often...could be wrong....

[OU_Sooners75]

What? So you want to give automatic bids to the Big East, C-USA, the MWC, the WAC, the MAC, and the Sun Belt conferences? Where can I buy tickets for this awesome playoff?

Obviously you missed where I said mandatory conference realignment... Didn't you?

And yes every conference champ gets an invite. Want a true national championship playoff, then every conference and every school should have equal opportunity to make the playoff. No matter if they are good enough to win it all or not.

Does Siena really have the right to be in the big dance?

[ThinMan]

Obviously you missed where I said mandatory conference realignment... Didn't you?

.... and all games will be played in Hawaii.

Because both of those are totally doable.
:pop:

[oumartin]

All the pro-bcs people always argue that the reason this system is so great is because in the regular season "all the games matter" and "we have the most exciting regular season of any sport."



pretty much what stoopsie says

[silverwheels]

Any system that relies on voting is a joke. But a playoff wouldn't really work that well with the current alignment of Division 1-A. I'd almost rather a national champion not be named at all than be voted upon.

[SoonerPride]

.... and all games will be played in Hawaii.

Because both of those are totally doable.
:pop:

Any premise that starts with forcing Notre Dame to do anything is over before its begun.

Playoff pumpers need to start with what is feasible and not off in fantasy land.

[SoonerPride]

Any system that relies on voting is a joke. But a playoff wouldn't really work that well with the current alignment of Division 1-A. I'd almost rather a national champion not be named at all than be voted upon.

It isn't voted upon.
That's what we used to have.

We now have a two team playoff.

Really, we do.

[silverwheels]

It isn't voted upon.
That's what we used to have.

We now have a two team playoff.

Really, we do.

Human votes account for 2/3 of the BCS poll. It's only slightly better than the old system, but it still sucks.

[Leroy Lizard]

Might just be me, but I don't think Boren is perusing these forums often...could be wrong....

I was referring to the pro-playoff establishment as a whole. I have yet to see an argument proposing a playoff that would appeal to the sensibilities of college presidents. Until you get one...

[SoonerPride]

Human votes account for 2/3 of the BCS poll. It's only slightly better than the old system, but it still sucks.

Any method would involve voting.

You have 120 teams.

Paring that field to 4 or 8 or 16 teams requires some kind of vote or computer or committee (March Madness style).

Whatever.

There is no way to get from point A to point C without some intermediary.

Just. Not. Possible.

[silverwheels]

Any method would involve voting.

You have 108 teams.

Paring that field to 4 or 8 or 16 teams requires some kind of vote or computer or committee (March Madness style).

Whatever.

There is no way to get from point A to point C without some intermediary.

Just. Not. Possible.

120 teams. And I know that an objective playoff wouldn't work well (if at all) in the current landscape of college football. I kinda said that already.

For one to really work, and I mean really work, you'd have to cut Division 1-A down and relegate all of the Eastern Michigans, Louisiana-Lafayettes, etc., and re-structure the conferences so that they make sense geographically but are also as equal as possible in strength and number. Then you'd have to regulate OOC schedules so that no one can play 3 or 4 cupcakes. It's not happening for tons of reasons, I know, but I can dream.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

plus one is what we need

[SoonerPride]

120 teams. And I know that an objective playoff wouldn't work well (if at all) in the current landscape of college football. I kinda said that already.

For one to really work, and I mean really work, you'd have to cut Division 1-A down and relegate all of the Eastern Michigans, Louisiana-Lafayettes, etc., and re-structure the conferences so that they make sense geographically but are also as equal as possible in strength and number. Then you'd have to regulate OOC schedules so that no one can play 3 or 4 cupcakes. It's not happening for tons of reasons, I know, but I can dream.

In a "perfect" world or if you were Caesar or something and could just decree change, then you could get to a sensible expanded playoff scenario.

At best we might get a +1 game down the road, and even that is iffy.

There have been very few times someone was left out that had a real good case for being in the top two teams. Auburn might be the only one and their OOC was weaksauce.

[silverwheels]

A plus one would be somewhat better than what we have now, and even better than that if the BCS bowls got rid of conference tie-ins and just picked teams based on ranking.

[OU_Sooners75]

.... and all games will be played in Hawaii.

Because both of those are totally doable.
:pop:

You act like a 16 team playoff is undoable!

Here is a clue... FCS has a 16 team playoff and they manage just fine.

Anyone that thinks it undoable is not thinking clearly.

[SoonerPride]

Anyone that thinks they'll tell Notre Dame what to do is not thinking clearly.

FIFY

[Leroy Lizard]

You act like a 16 team playoff is undoable!

Here is a clue... FCS has a 16 team playoff and they manage just fine.

Sure, without those pesky conference championship games.

FCS is not the same as FBS. They are completely different leagues with different problems. What works for FCS will not necessarily work for FBS.

[Okie35]

None of this matters we're fans not players or coaches.


"This is the thing about the playoffs, who says the playoff system would be any different than the BCS system is now? If you put in an eight-team playoff system and you have six automatic qualifying groups that are in the BCS, there's six teams. Another one of those conferences feel like they have another one (Florida, for instance). There's a seventh.

"Show me right now how a playoff system is going to make it easier for Texas Christian University and Boise State, unless you give us an automatic qualifying berth into that playoff system.

"If you're asking Gary Patterson to jump on the bandwagon, my answer is no right now, because you haven't given me the guidelines of what a playoff system would be about."

The man knows his math. Consider 2009. Put the six BCS conference champions in a playoff — if Congress wants to keep out any of the six, it'd better bring the National Guard. Add in Florida. That leaves one vacancy, so TCU or Boise State don't make it.

Think anyone would notice?

"Second thing is," Patterson continued, "my kids have been here at the Fiesta Bowl for five, six, seven days. It has been an unbelievable experience. I played in Division II, I coached in Division II and I-AA, and been in the playoff system.

"Every week you practice at your own place. You practice for seven days, you get on a bus or plane and fly to that place, you go play the game, if you lose, you're done. There is no experience to it.

"You win, you go back to your place, you practice for seven days, you go play again. Where do we reward the players?"


Patterson wanted to make something as visible as his team's purple uniforms. He is not against a playoff. He is not for the BCS. He just has never yet seen any proposal to make him swoon. Until he does, he's not beating anyone's drum.

If only blogs and talk shows were that reasonable.

Anything else? How about going to a 16-team playoff?

"I don't think you can, No. 1, because of academics, because of health of players. I think what you will find out is all these guys will go in the first round of the draft, and you are going to tell them they are going to play four more games?

"You'll get guys who say, 'I don't know if I can do that. Why should I risk the rest of my career with four more games? I want to support my team, but I also have a family back home that doesn't have much, so why do I do that?' "

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2010-01-04-fiesta-bowl_N.htm

[GKeeper316]

managerial, top-down incompetence or agenda pushing isn't limited to the BCS. in fact, it's more pervasive in today's political and economic climate than ever before. and make no mistake... the BCS is all about money and power.



Massey and Colley, and their ranking peers for that matter, are like so many others. They are good and smart people with noble intentions, and they work for bosses who make them look bad. The BCS is too strong a force. The nerds aren’t ready for a revolution.

[Leroy Lizard]

"If you're asking Gary Patterson to jump on the bandwagon, my answer is no right now, because you haven't given me the guidelines of what a playoff system would be about."

IOW, the devil is in the details.

It is far easier to support the general idea of a playoff (although I don't); it is much more difficult to support a particular system.

My biggest complaint with playoff proponents is that they present an ever-shifting target. They constantly morph their playoff idea to counter criticism, but cannot settle on a single system. So on Day 1 they want conference champions included; on Day 2 they want only the Top-8 ranked teams because some teams play in weak conferences. Back and forth, back and forth.

[Leroy Lizard]

managerial, top-down incompetence or agenda pushing isn't limited to the BCS. in fact, it's more pervasive in today's political and economic climate than ever before. and make no mistake... the BCS is all about money and power.

You can say that about anything.

[GKeeper316]

IOW, the devil is in the details.

It is far easier to support the general idea of a playoff (although I don't); it is much more difficult to support a particular system.

My biggest complaint with playoff proponents is that they present an ever-shifting target. They constantly morph their playoff idea to counter criticism, but cannot settle on a single system. So on Day 1 they want conference champions included; on Day 2 they want only the Top-8 ranked teams because some teams play in weak conferences. Back and forth, back and forth.

agreed. tournament ceding works fine for basketball and baseball, but football is a much much different animal than either of those sports...

[GKeeper316]

You can say that about anything.

pretty sure i just did.

[Leroy Lizard]

Gary Patterson is a very smart coach. And he understands the spirit of the game.

[yermom]

couch fans.

sure, FCS has a play off. how many people watch or attend those games?

[OU_Sooners75]

couch fans.

sure, FCS has a play off. how many people watch or attend those games?

Not sure.... But what does that have to do with fbs? Are you trying to say that tv ratings would lower in a playoff system? I sure hope not!

[silverwheels]

couch fans.

sure, FCS has a play off. how many people watch or attend those games?

I watch when I can. Also, FCS schools have much smaller fanbases than the majority of FBS schools. Can't really use that as an argument against a playoff.

[Leroy Lizard]

Not sure.... But what does that have to do with fbs? Are you trying to say that tv ratings would lower in a playoff system? I sure hope not!

I think he's saying that the two situations are completely different. The pressures to win in FCS are not even of the same magnitude. The number of fans put out by the increased travel demands of a playoff are not even similar. And it goes on and on.

There is no need to compare to FCS. If a playoff system really is for the best, it should stand on its own merits.

[Leroy Lizard]

I watch when I can. Also, FCS schools have much smaller fanbases than the majority of FBS schools. Can't really use that as an argument against a playoff.

You can't really use FCS as an argument for a playoff either.

[silverwheels]

I haven't.

[Leroy Lizard]

But many have. And it makes little sense.

[TIMB0B]

First and foremost, the cancer of the BCS are the CCGs. Why? Because the CCG is a one game winner-take-all playoff, which more often than not does not even feature the top 2 teams in the conference.

Example: Team A finished 8-0 in their conference, Team B finished 7-1, and Team C finished 6-2. Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, and Team C also lost another game to a team that both Team A and Team B beat. Who won the conference? Team A, right? No.

Team C beat Team A in the CCG, so Team C was dubbed conference champions even though Team A still had the best conference record afterwards finishing 8-1 to Team C's 7-2. How could Team C logically be the conference champion again? Because of a ridiculous one game winner-take-all CCG.

Why wasn't Team B in the CCG to begin with when they had the better record than Team C and even won the head-to-head match up vs them? Because they were in a different division. That head-to-head match up turned out to be completely irrelevant because Team B didn't beat Team A and win their division.

However, even after that, Team A still went on to play in the NCG. How? Believe it or not, the BCS got it right because it doesn't look at conference champions, but which teams had the best overall resume.

So, who were the teams in this scenario?

Team A: OU
Team B: Texas
Team C: K-State

2003 season.

I'd even go further and say that having conference affiliations and champions altogether is a thorn in the side of the BCS as well. Look no further than 2001 when 1-loss Nebraska still went to the NC after losing their division to 2-loss Colorado (1 loss was an OOC game), and didn't even play in the CCG. Why? Again, because the BCS doesn't recognize conference champions, but the overall body of work.

The Independent schools such as Notre Dame are the only BCS friendly programs out there because they don't play in a conference. Their schedule and record determines their merit.

In conclusion, there are two systems at play here and only one causes the controversy: conference championships.

If we went to a playoff, you'd still have to fix the CCG issue. The 2003 scenario would've seen K-State in the playoff while OU sat at home. And don't tell me about having at-large berths as the solution. If you do that, then that takes away the importance of winning your conference. Either they should do away with the CCGs, or change the format to feature the top 2 conference teams and not just exclusively division winner vs division winner. Just remember, in 2008, Mizzou still had a shot at winning the conference if they upset OU in the CCG after finishing 5th in the conference! And who would've taken OU's place in the NC? Texas, who didn't even win the division.

And a final FYI, not once has OU needed the CCG to get them in the NC. Going into each of those games those years, OU was already either #1 or #2. The CCGs have been nothing but a potential landmine to knock them out of the NC, and actually did knock Mizzou out in 2007.

[SoonerPride]

Precisely

Well, the Big 12 has solved our CCG problem.

Now it will most likely be the problem of the PAC 12 & Big 11-2
And of course the SEC and ACC :)

[Okie35]

agreed. tournament ceding works fine for basketball and baseball, but football is a much much different animal than either of those sports...

Exactly so there is no reason debating over it. Nobody will win.

[Landthief 1972]

The whole argument is moot, not because of scheduling, or conference championships, or college presidents keeping the football season out of spring semester. The real factor is money. The reason the conferences exist the way they do is because teams like ISU want to catch the scraps falling of the table of OU and Texas. The networks have a huge investment in bowl games, even the crappy ones featuring .500 teams. There's a reason everyone laughs about the idea of an automatic berth in the playoff going to the MAC or the Big Least - they suck because they are low revenue/low tv viewership teams, and they are low revenue teams because they don't have the talent to consistently put butts into the seats. Does anyone really believe that the Big Tetwelve, Pac-Tetwelve or Big Twelten are going to agreeably ditch half of their money maker teams and take the Akrons and Pittsburgs of the world, just to ease transition to a playoff? Really?

[TIMB0B]

The whole argument is moot, not because of scheduling, or conference championships, or college presidents keeping the football season out of spring semester. The real factor is money. The reason the conferences exist the way they do is because teams like ISU want to catch the scraps falling of the table of OU and Texas. The networks have a huge investment in bowl games, even the crappy ones featuring .500 teams. There's a reason everyone laughs about the idea of an automatic berth in the playoff going to the MAC or the Big Least - they suck because they are low revenue/low tv viewership teams, and they are low revenue teams because they don't have the talent to consistently put butts into the seats. Does anyone really believe that the Big Tetwelve, Pac-Tetwelve or Big Twelten are going to agreeably ditch half of their money maker teams and take the Akrons and Pittsburgs of the world, just to ease transition to a playoff? Really?
Actually, it's been said that a playoff would generate as much as 10 times more revenue than the current postseason.

[SoonerPride]

Actually, it's been said that a playoff would generate as much as 10 times more revenue than the current postseason.

Aye there's the rub though...the BCS conferences are guaranteed those BCS bowl payouts. The NCAA ain't in on the deal.

Ditch that for an NCAA controlled tourney and let the NCAA divvy up the pie, even if it is 10x larger?

Where's the profit motive in that? Sure for the have-nots, but the haves say, um "not so fast my friend."

omigod did I just type that Corso-ism?

[bigfatjerk]

The regular season to TCU basically means nothing. They aren't going to make the NC game. Why are they even playing games?

[Leroy Lizard]

Actually, it's been said that a playoff would generate as much as 10 times more revenue than the current postseason.

I don't see how. The viewership won't increase that much, and how much can you raise the price of a ticket?

A playoff would likely bring in more money, but how do you distribute it? That is where the fun and hard feelings begins.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So their fans can bitch.

[Leroy Lizard]

The regular season to TCU basically means nothing. They aren't going to make the NC game. Why are they even playing games?

They're playing games. So there must be a reason. Think about it.

[SoonerPride]

The regular season to TCU basically means nothing. They aren't going to make the NC game. Why are they even playing games?

1. Some of 'em hope to go to the NFL.
2. For a free ride college scholarship at a damn fine university
3. Cause they like to have fun.

Reason #1 is a good argument against a college playoff. You'll get more Malcolm Kelly-esque 'mystery' injuries that keep seniors and playmakers hoping for a lower draft number to keep from ruining their chances by playing in - what to exiting players - is a meaningless string of games at the end of their careers.

[bigfatjerk]

If there were less bowl games I would agree with you. The regular season means much more. That used to be true in college football till the last 15 years. Now teams with losing record go to bowl games some times. If there were about 20 bowl games instead of 35 you are right the regular season in college football means the most of any post season. But right now bad teams get into the post season in college football. 7-5 teams shouldn't be in bowl games.

[Leroy Lizard]

If there were less bowl games I would agree with you. The regular season means much more. That used to be true in college football till the last 15 years. Now teams with losing record go to bowl games some times. If there were about 20 bowl games instead of 35 you are right the regular season in college football means the most of any post season. But right now bad teams get into the post season in college football. 7-5 teams shouldn't be in bowl games.

But that's easy to fix. Simply raise the money required to host a bowl game.

I think you will find out that the public likes all the bowl games.

Besides, the point of a bowl game is to provide the players on a team an extra game as a reward for a season well played. If a chamber of commerce wants to put together a game and invite a couple of teams, so what?

[yermom]

what do extra bowl games hurt?

to some programs, winning 6 games is a big deal.

ask Baylor fans...

but the Meineke Care Care bowl has no bearing on the MNC winner, which is basically what we are talking about as far as meaning full regular season

how interesting would it be if a team knew they could pull their starters the last couple of games because they knew they were clinched in the playoffs by winning their division?

[TIMB0B]

how interesting would it be if a team knew they could pull their starters the last couple of games because they knew they were clinched in the playoffs by winning their division?

Is that all you're worried about? This possibility?

[jkjsooner]

All the pro-bcs people always argue that the reason this system is so great is because in the regular season "all the games matter" and "we have the most exciting regular season of any sport."


This really isn't that strong of an argument.



In the current system, for a championship contender, the games after losing that first game all of a sudden feel almost meaningless. Do you remember the days of having empty seats after losing the Texas game because fans gave up on the season because we were no longer in the title hunt?
With an 8 team playoff, some teams (Boise) would still need to go undefeated so it makes no difference for them. Others could survive with one loss but probably not two. Each game is still darn important.
For the rare cases where a team could still lose a game late in the year and still get into the playoff, they would be fighting for home field advantage which is hugely important in college football.


An 8 team playoff wouldn't be like basketball or the NFL where you can make the playoffs while losing 30-40% of your games.

[bigfatjerk]

This really isn't that strong of an argument.



In the current system, for a championship contender, the games after losing that first game all of a sudden feel almost meaningless. Do you remember the days of having empty seats after losing the Texas game because fans gave up on the season because we were no longer in the title hunt?
With an 8 team playoff, some teams (Boise) would still need to go undefeated so it makes no difference for them. Others could survive with one loss but probably not two. Each game is still darn important.
For the rare cases where a team could still lose a game late in the year and still get into the playoff, they would be fighting for home field advantage which is hugely important in college football.


An 8 team playoff wouldn't be like basketball or the NFL where you can make the playoffs while losing 30-40% of your games.

How many of the top 8 ever really lose 30-40% of the games that often? The most you have in the top 8 is usually 2 losses. That is usually less than 20%

[jkjsooner]

IOW, the devil is in the details.

It is far easier to support the general idea of a playoff (although I don't); it is much more difficult to support a particular system.

My biggest complaint with playoff proponents is that they present an ever-shifting target. They constantly morph their playoff idea to counter criticism, but cannot settle on a single system. So on Day 1 they want conference champions included; on Day 2 they want only the Top-8 ranked teams because some teams play in weak conferences. Back and forth, back and forth.

I think the "day 1" and "day 2" are really "person 1" and "person 2". You wouldn't expect at this stage for everyone's ideas to align would you?

Until those in power get together and actually make an effort to come up with a compromised solution you're going to a wide variety of ideas. The same would have happened had we been debating how the BCS would work before it was created.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think the "day 1" and "day 2" are really "person 1" and "person 2". You wouldn't expect at this stage for everyone's ideas to align would you?

I wouldn't expect fans to go back and forth between the two, only using them when they are convenient. Fans may not want the same playoff, but each fan should settle on what is and what is not important. They can't even do that.


Until those in power get together and actually make an effort to come up with a compromised solution you're going to a wide variety of ideas. The same would have happened had we been debating how the BCS would work before it was created.

But the situation is more serious than you make it. This isn't like a bunch of people arguing over Mary Ann or Ginger. The differences in opinions point to a fundamental flaw in a playoff: No matter how slice it or dice it, any playoff will present barriers that will completely turn off a lot of pro-playoff supporters. It's like Mary Ann is a nagger and Ginger is a meth addict. My wife ain't perfect, but I'm not abandoning her for either.

So arguing for a playoff is like arguing for world peace. Sure, world peace is great. We can put that ideal on a bumper sticker. Now, talk about the details and see how far you get.

[OU_Sooners75]

I think he's saying that the two situations are completely different. The pressures to win in FCS are not even of the same magnitude. The number of fans put out by the increased travel demands of a playoff are not even similar. And it goes on and on.

There is no need to compare to FCS. If a playoff system really is for the best, it should stand on its own merits.


You want to bet?

The pressure to win in NAIA is extreme. The pressure to win is extreme no matter what level.

It may not be as wide spread in FCS or any other division as is it in FBS...but the pressure to win and succeed is there.

[Doged]

You want to bet?

The pressure to win in NAIA is extreme. The pressure to win is extreme no matter what level.

It may not be as wide spread in FCS or any other division as is it in FBS...but the pressure to win and succeed is there.

I played my college ball at the NAIA level, and you are correct. At the same time, I've been a Sooner fan since grade school, so when I transfered to OU I already knew the pressure on those players would be more than what I faced as a player simply because they deal with many more fans, far more publicity and far more money.

My experience with playoffs was different than what Coach Patterson describes, though. To us, a playoff game was a special event. It was fun and something to be proud of. We got to play teams we'd never even heard of in places we'd never been, and they always went to extra lengths to make it fun and welcoming for us. The added academic load wasn't really even a factor or even that much of a load to be honest.

[Leroy Lizard]

You want to bet?

The pressure to win in NAIA is extreme.

No, it's not. Very few of those players have future careers on the line. The national news media isn't on campus.

Don't confuse desire with pressure. They want to win. They don't have as much on the line, though.

[OU_Sooners75]

No, it's not. Very few of those players have future careers on the line. The national news media isn't on campus.

Don't confuse desire with pressure. They want to win. They don't have as much on the line, though.


Jerry rice, Joe Jacoby, and there have been quite a few more in the history of the NFL thT have come from schools that are not or were not fbs or d1a schools.

Yes the pressure is there to win at any level. I can definitely say u never played this sport leroid.

[OU_Sooners75]

Doged I did as well, but I started my cfb career in the fbs ranks. So yes I know of both pressures and it is a little more intense at the major schools. But the pressure is there no matter where you go. If it isn't then you are not a competitive person.

[Leroy Lizard]

Jerry rice, Joe Jacoby, and there have been quite a few more in the history of the NFL thT have come from schools that are not or were not fbs or d1a schools.

Yes the pressure is there to win at any level. I can definitely say u never played this sport leroid.

Jerry Rice did not come from an NAIA school. Joe Jacoby went to Louisville.

And sure, you might have one or (at best) two players on these teams that could play at the pro level. They're hardly the norm.

And the media pressure is essentially non-existent. Beg to differ?

[soonerinkaty]

How does the FCS do it? Does it hurt them?

[Leroy Lizard]

How does the FCS do it? Does it hurt them?

I dunno. I doubt we would hear about it if did. I taught at an FCS school, and flunked players. Sometimes they couldn't play because of it.

But they weren't super stars so no one heard about it or even gave a ****.

Now flunk Landry Jones and see what happens.

[OU_Sooners75]

Jerry Rice did not come from an NAIA school. Joe Jacoby went to Louisville.

And sure, you might have one or (at best) two players on these teams that could play at the pro level. They're hardly the norm.

And the media pressure is essentially non-existent. Beg to differ?

Obviously you are too stupid to read what was written.

No one said they were from NAIA. I said they didn't play in d1a when they were in school or the major programs.

[BoulderSooner79]

Got in late on this thread - what's the executive summary? Did we get that whole playoff thing figured out?

[OU_Sooners75]

Also letarded.... How many schools actually put a lot of players in the NFL? Most schools are lucky if they get one.

Do you think the pressure to win comes from the media? If so you are just flat out ignorant. The media is not what determines a coaches job or a players depth chart position.

[Leroy Lizard]

Obviously you are too stupid to read what was written.

Gee, it sounds like this thread is pretty much turning into the mud-slinging fest that it always does.

I suppose I should point out that you brought up the whole NAIA thing in the first place, but couldn't think of any NAIA NFL players so you slipped in the non-Division-1A reference.

As for the number of pros that each team, even at the big schools, turns out... that isn't the point. What matters is how many THINK they have a reasonable chance, especially earlier in their careers. It is much different between FBS and the other divisions.

Does anyone have anything new to add? We've already done this a thousand times. Sooner or later, someone throws out the first insult and awaaaaay we go!

[OU_Sooners75]

As for the number of pros that each team, even at the big schools, turns out... that isn't the point. What matters is how many THINK they have a reasonable chance, especially earlier in their careers. It is much different between FBS and the other divisions.

Does anyone have anything new to add? We've already done this a thousand times. Sooner or later, someone throws out the first insult and awaaaaay we go!

First I never said anything bout NAIA producing a lot of NFL talent. I saidthe pressure to win is there too. I did sY that quite a few of the best players in NFL history have come from smaller programs.

You are just to Moronic To comprehend what was actually said. Like I sId dillweed the pressure to win is at every level. You wouldn't no this because you never played sport in your life.

Tell me I'm wrong letard. Tell the pressure to win is not high from the NAIA ranks all the way up to the major players like ou.

[TIMB0B]

Gee, it sounds like this thread is pretty much turning into the mud-slinging fest that it always does.

I suppose I should point out that you brought up the whole NAIA thing in the first place, but couldn't think of any NAIA NFL players so you slipped in the non-Division-1A reference.

As for the number of pros that each team, even at the big schools, turns out... that isn't the point. What matters is how many THINK they have a reasonable chance, especially earlier in their careers. It is much different between FBS and the other divisions.

Does anyone have anything new to add? We've already done this a thousand times. Sooner or later, someone throws out the first insult and awaaaaay we go!Bottom line is, if you want to create more parity in CFB, then a playoff should be implemented. Otherwise, it will always be the haves and have nots. There are now 120 teams in the league and it continues to expand. With that ever growing number that means there will be even more bowl games added to the postseason. However, if you went to a postseason playoff format, with the growing number of teams in 1-A, the more difficult it will be to reach the postseason, therefore making the regular season just as important as it is now.

[Leroy Lizard]

First I never said anything bout NAIA producing a lot of NFL talent. I saidthe pressure to win is there too. I did sY that quite a few of the best players in NFL history have come from smaller programs.

Thank you.


You are just to Moronic To comprehend what was actually said. Like I sId dillweed the pressure to win is at every level. You wouldn't no this because you never played sport in your life.

Tell me I'm wrong letard. Tell the pressure to win is not high from the NAIA ranks all the way up to the major players like ou.

First you said extreme. Then you said just as high. And now you're just saying high.

As I said before, the desire to win appears in all sports. But pressure comes from many sources: oneself, family, coaches, friends, the media, potential employers, the school. At the NAIA level, football is much more of an avocation than at the FBS level,where football is seen by many players as a stepping stone to big things.

Consider the tweet punched out by Jaz Reynolds. At my school, no one even knows it happened. FBS players live in a fishbowl with a lot of people having a stake in how they play. You simply cannot compare the two.

Now, I will turn the matter over for you to dish out a fine round of insults.

[Leroy Lizard]

Bottom line is, if you want to create more parity in CFB, then a playoff should be implemented.

A playoff won't bring parity, it will deepen the gap. Schools that have the best chance of making the playoff can argue that an athlete playing for them could play three or four extra games each year, all on national tv. Over a period of four years, that's almost an entire season. That's more games on tv, in front of potential pro scouts...

Think about that: A team that has gone deep into the playoffs each year can field players with up to 12 more games of experience over their less fortunate rivals. So not only is the playoff team more attractive to recruits, it also ends up with more experienced players.

How will Kent State attract players with a playoff? They have almost no chance of playing in one, and if the bowls go by the wayside (which I think will happen) there is almost no chance of its players getting any post-season playing time at all.

[OU_Sooners75]

Letard...I'm not going to get in a war of words. You know damn well what is being said. The pressure to win is at every leveland to say it isn't just shows your ignorance.

[OU_Sooners75]

Letard.... The partity wouldn't disappear thanks to limits on scholarships. We will still have programs that will suck, but we will not have so called dynasties either in a playoff system. There wouldn't be a wider gap in parity, it would Shrink, bit not like some people think.

Fcs has a good parity. Yes some teams lie app state make runs every year but there is usually a differnt champ every season. Kind of like in fbs, but fbs is set up were only two teams play for the title leaving moreroom for repeats.

[TIMB0B]

A playoff won't bring parity, it will deepen the gap. Schools that have the best chance of making the playoff can argue that an athlete playing for them could play three or four extra games each year, all on national tv. Over a period of four years, that's almost an entire season. That's more games on tv, in front of potential pro scouts...

Think about that: A team that has gone deep into the playoffs each year can field players with up to 12 more games of experience over their less fortunate rivals. So not only is the playoff team more attractive to recruits, it also ends up with more experienced players.

How will Kent State attract players with a playoff? They have almost no chance of playing in one, and if the bowls go by the wayside (which I think will happen) there is almost no chance of its players getting any post-season playing time at all.
Do you read what you post? A playoff would absolutely bring more parity for the mere fact that every program would immediately have a shot at the NC from game one. All you have to do is win your conference, and get a playoff berth. Hmm, now which conferences would be easier to win? A current BCS conference or a nonBCS conference? If you said BCS you'd be wrong. All of a sudden Kent State has its best opportunity for TV exposure by getting a playoff berth than they've ever had of getting a bowl bid, because the recruits won't feel the need to have to go to an elite school, but rather to any school that's competitive in their conference enough to get a shot at the playoffs.

If a recruit wants almost a sure bet that they'll be in the playoffs annually, they will go to a Boise State/Houston/TCU at this stage over any other BCS program. Why? Because it's been the easiest road to win the conference since they don't have to play elite competition.

In the short term, it'll be relatively the same familiar schools up at the top, but over the long term (5 or so years) the gap will decrease with more parity across the NCAA. It took a while, but the 85 scholarship limit has helped create a little parity. A playoff will progress it even further.

[OU_Sooners75]

Timbob...meet letard.

But one thing. Players don't really go looking to mKe the playoffs. They are there to win championships and to get to the NFL. The smaller college programs don't have the resources as the major ones.

Doesn't mean they cannot compete. And I M with you for the most part inthe parity issue.0

[Leroy Lizard]

Letard...I'm not going to get in a war of words.-

Okay, let's see how the rest of your post goes.


You know damn well what is being said. The pressure to win is at every leveland to say it isn't just shows your ignorance.

Oh yeah, no war of words there. :rolleyes:

BTW, you have outdid yourself. First you said it's extreme. Then you said it's just as high. Then you said it's high. And now you're just saying it's there.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

[TIMB0B]

Timbob...meet letard.

But one thing. Players don't really go looking to mKe the playoffs. They are there to win championships and to get to the NFL. The smaller college programs don't have the resources as the major ones.

Doesn't mean they cannot compete. And I M with you for the most part inthe parity issue.0

We don't know that for sure now, do we? D-1A has never had a playoff. If a playoff is implemented, going somewhere to win championships will essentially be the same thing at any conference. You have to win conference championships before you can get a shot at the national championship. As I said, in the short term, it will still look like the same CFB landscape of elites, but over time when recruits start going elsewhere because conference championships mean playoff berths, and playoffs mean TV exposure and a shot at the NC, the parity will increase.

[Leroy Lizard]

Do you read what you post? A playoff would absolutely bring more parity for the mere fact that every program would immediately have a shot at the NC from game one.

In theory. But not in practice. Kent State has no shot, and every big-time program is going to tell recruits that they have no shot. So every year Kent State will fall further and further behind.


All you have to do is win your conference, and get a playoff berth.

Oh ho!! Now we're going to play the Playoff Tango. In your scheme, conference champs get an automatic bid. How do you plan to sell that idea to the powerhouses in college football and to the college presidents that are dead set against a 16-team playoff? (Or were you going to have an 8-team playoff with automatic conference champ bids? That would be truly hysterical.)


Hmm, now which conferences would be easier to win? A current BCS conference or a nonBCS conference? If you said BCS you'd be wrong. All of a sudden Kent State has its best opportunity for TV exposure by getting a playoff berth than they've ever had of getting a bowl bid, because the recruits won't feel the need to have to go to an elite school, but rather to any school that's competitive in their conference enough to get a shot at the playoffs.

Which is why OU, Nebraska, USC, Texas, Florida, Ohio State... will never go for your scheme.

(Well, USC might now.)

Now, when I point out that the college football world will scream if a 6-5 Akron team gets into the playoffs over a 8-3 Georgia team, you will promptly switch to a new scheme. "What if we only use the top 16 according to the BCS?!?!" Sure, that solves that problem, but you now regenerate the problem with parity.

And back and forth. Back and forth.

I swear that some of you must have a stack of cards, with a different playoff scheme on each one. Presented with a barrier, you just wade through the stack looking for the scheme that best answers the dilemma. But in real life you can only have one scheme.

So which one is it?

[TIMB0B]

In theory. But not in practice. Kent State has no shot, and every big-time program is going to tell recruits that they have no shot. So every year Kent State will fall further and further behind.That may work in the short term because "helmet" teams are attractive, but in the long run recruits will wise up and look at where the best chance to play early for a program is, and which has the best chance of winning its conference.




Oh ho!! Now we're going to play the Playoff Tango. In your scheme, conference champs get an automatic bid. How do you plan to sell that idea to the powerhouses in college football and to the college presidents that are dead set against a 16-team playoff? (Or were you going to have an 8-team playoff with automatic conference champ bids? That would be truly hysterical.)

Which is why OU, Nebraska, USC, Texas, Florida, Ohio State... will never go for your scheme.

(Well, USC might now.)Irrelevant to my point. I stated that a playoff would create more parity in 1-A CFB over the current system, and this reasoning of yours proves my point clearly.


Now, when I point out that the college football world will scream if a 6-5 Akron team gets into the playoffs over a 8-3 Georgia team, you will promptly switch to a new scheme. "What if we only use the top 16 according to the BCS?!?!" Sure, that solves that problem, but you now regenerate the problem with parity.

And back and forth. Back and forth.

I swear that some of you must have a stack of cards, with a different playoff scheme on each one. Presented with a barrier, you just wade through the stack looking for the scheme that best answers the dilemma. But in real life you can only have one scheme.

So which one is it?
See, your problem is championships to you are won by politicking and recruit rankings. The BCS programs have essentially a monopoly over TV contracts, which draws recruit interest over the nonBCS schools. Not to mention, the conference champs are guaranteed a big money BCS bowl tie-in even if they go 8-4 (Pitt 2005). But you know what? It's the system everyone agreed to.

So, if a 6-5 Akron team makes the playoffs, who cares? It's the system everyone will have agreed to if there was a playoff. You may not like it, but Akron and the MAC conference will be happy it got a shot, as well as the school that would play them in round 1.

I could tell you all about how a playoff should be implemented, but I won't waste my time. I used to be a hardcore defender of the BCS before they made the tweaks in favor of more subjective weight into the components (human polls now account for 2/3rds). Even then, they've always had the coaches poll, which is probably the most absurd poll out there. Coaches don't have time to watch the games, and come up with an educated decision. And let's not forget the bias that comes with it i.e. that old drunk and Bowden's ranking of OU.

[Leroy Lizard]

Irrelevant to my point. I stated that a playoff would create more parity in 1-A CFB over the current system, and this reasoning of yours proves my point clearly.


No, YOUR completely unrealistic notion of a playoff would create more parity.

More parity is not inherent to a playoff system. Most systems would actually deepen the divide.

So which system do we get? Probably not yours. So how do you feel now?


See, your problem is championships to you are won by politicking and recruit rankings. The BCS programs have essentially a monopoly over TV contracts, which draws recruit interest over the nonBCS schools. Not to mention, the conference champs are guaranteed a big money BCS bowl tie-in even if they go 8-4 (Pitt 2005). But you know what? It's the system everyone agreed to.

And it has its flaws. But it solved the one problem that everyone bellyached about: The fact that in some years the #1 team didn't play the #2 team.

So now we are guaranteed a #1 versus #2 match every year. The result? We just bitch some more.



So, if a 6-5 Akron team makes the playoffs, who cares? It's the system everyone will have agreed to if there was a playoff.

The fans aren't going to vote on the system. They will get handed whatever the Powers That Be want them to have. And the fans will whine and cry even more than they do now.

Who cares if Akron gets in? The fans. Why should a 6-5 Akron team get a chance to play for all the marbles when an 8-3 Georgia team (which has a better record against much stiffer competition) cannot?


I could tell you all about how a playoff should be implemented, but I won't waste my time.

Because the holes in the system will appear almost immediately. Playoff proponents love to talk in terms of general abstractions, and not the details. Because they can't agree on the details.

16 teams? Forget it. Sure, whatever system we adopt will eventually grow into one, but you're not going to get a 16-team playoff right away.

Conference champs get an automatic bid? Forget it. The big powers are not going to let that happen for good reasons. Those teams play tough competition and don't want to get penalized for it. And why should they?

[BoulderSooner79]

I see we're nearing consensus just like we do every year. Carry on.

[Crucifax Autumn]

This thread would be better if it was about nekkid boobies.

[Mississippi Sooner]

Imma go to bed now. I should be able to sleep it off by early this afternoon.

[OU_Sooners75]

Timbob... Your talking to a brickwall, someone that has never played in junior high let alone any level. He really has no clue as to what recruiting details.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I can honestly say I don't give a **** what they do to change the system as long as they don't do anything to reduce the excitement that makes college football the greatest sport in the world. I DO like the simplicity of a +1 kinda deal though. Take it too far and it turns into the No Fun League which I have refused to really watch since about '91. I haven't even watched but 1 Superbowl in those near 20 years and I don't want that to happen to the college game.

[TIMB0B]

No, YOUR completely unrealistic notion of a playoff would create more parity.

More parity is not inherent to a playoff system. Most systems would actually deepen the divide.

So which system do we get? Probably not yours. So how do you feel now?You don't even know what my suggestion is. You've written it off because you're being obtuse.




And it has its flaws. But it solved the one problem that everyone bellyached about: The fact that in some years the #1 team didn't play the #2 team.

So now we are guaranteed a #1 versus #2 match every year. The result? We just bitch some more.
Based on a 2/3rds arbitrary voting system. That's why people still bitch.



The fans aren't going to vote on the system. They will get handed whatever the Powers That Be want them to have. And the fans will whine and cry even more than they do now.Only the 5% of fans out there like you.


Who cares if Akron gets in? The fans. Why should a 6-5 Akron team get a chance to play for all the marbles when an 8-3 Georgia team (which has a better record against much stiffer competition) cannot?If there's a playoff, scenarios like this are bound to happen, but they will have agreed to the system so it doesn't matter. There are 120 teams currently in the league, but there's a glass ceiling that nearly half of them can't reach, and it's because of money.




Because the holes in the system will appear almost immediately. Playoff proponents love to talk in terms of general abstractions, and not the details. Because they can't agree on the details.Ha! Right, because the BCS has never made any tweaks. They still can't even figure out the flaws that create the root of the controversy (Refer to my post a page or so back).


16 teams? Forget it. Sure, whatever system we adopt will eventually grow into one, but you're not going to get a 16-team playoff right away.

Conference champs get an automatic bid? Forget it. The big powers are not going to let that happen for good reasons. Those teams play tough competition and don't want to get penalized for it. And why should they?Over time, parity will increase, so the stiff competition will level off throughout all conferences, some moreso than others.

[silverwheels]

You don't even know what my suggestion is. You've written it off because you're being obtuse.

Didn't take you long to figure that out. :D

[Landthief 1972]

I thought the number of bowl series teams was dropping because very few school make a profit from having a football team. AS I recall, OU is one of about 8-10 that actually make a profit.


Bottom line is, if you want to create more parity in CFB, then a playoff should be implemented. Otherwise, it will always be the haves and have nots. There are now 120 teams in the league and it continues to expand. With that ever growing number that means there will be even more bowl games added to the postseason. However, if you went to a postseason playoff format, with the growing number of teams in 1-A, the more difficult it will be to reach the postseason, therefore making the regular season just as important as it is now.

[TIMB0B]

I thought the number of bowl series teams was dropping because very few school make a profit from having a football team. AS I recall, OU is one of about 8-10 that actually make a profit.

No. You must be referring to this article, though...NCAA report: Economy cuts into sports (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686)

COLUMBIA, Mo. -- Count college sports among the sagging economy's latest victims.

A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before.

Researchers blame the sagging economy and suggested that next year's numbers could be even worse.

The research was done by accounting professor Dan Fulks of Transylvania University, a Division III school in Lexington, Ky. It shows the median amount paid by the 120 FBS schools to support campus athletics grew in one year from about $8 million to more than $10 million.

The NCAA doesn't release individual schools' revenues and expenses. But Fulks confirmed that Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, Texas and Tennessee are among the select group that made money. So is Missouri, which reported generating $2 million in profits from campus athletics in 2009.

NCAA interim president Jim Isch, who spent 11 years as the association's chief financial officer, called the latest numbers less a reflection of "runaway spending" in college athletics than a reality of the country's larger economic crisis.

He noted that most schools typically plan for future expenses several years in advance, which in this case meant fiscal projections that didn't account for a prolonged recession.

The gap between the haves and the have-nots appears to be growing. The largest reported amount of revenue generated by an athletics program was $138.5 million -- nearly three times the median of $45.9 million. The top-spending program reported $127.6 million in annual expenses, with a similarly sized gap from the median.

"The top end ... still does not have to rely on institutional subsidies," Isch said. "But those that do are falling further behind."

Sixty-eight FBS schools reported turning a profit on football, with a median value of $8.8 million. The 52 FBS schools that lost money on football reported median losses of $2.7 million.

The breakdown for basketball programs at those 120 schools was nearly identical, though the median values for profitable programs ($2.9 million) and money-losing ones ($873,000) were smaller.

The fiscal fortunes of major college athletic programs without football teams were even worse. None of the 97 schools in that category reported making money from athletics, with median losses of more than $2.8 million.

Fulks pointed out that many schools funnel profits from football and men's basketball -- which for the top schools can mean millions in Bowl Championship Series payments and NCAA tournament payments -- into lower-profile sports that can't rely on season ticket plans, TV packages and well-heeled donors.

More teams generally means larger subsidies from the school.

"Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," he said. "If you start splitting that up between 30 or 40 sports, you start losing money."

As public universities throughout the country struggle with double-digit tuition increases, employee furloughs, teacher layoffs and enrollment caps, scrutiny of those institutional subsidies for athletics are increasing.

In Iowa, the Board of Regents voted unanimously in March to order school presidents at Iowa, Iowa State and Northern Iowa to come up with plans to scrap -- or dramatically decrease -- such sports subsidies. Campus leaders are expected to report back to the Iowa regents next month.

[Leroy Lizard]

You don't even know what my suggestion is. You've written it off because you're being obtuse.

Enough of this ****. Is it a 16-team playoff? Yes or no?

Does it provide for conference champs to get automatic bids? Yes or no?

If you answer no to either question, then tell us the real answer.

And if you want your system to be some closely guarded secret, why?

[TIMB0B]

Enough of this ****. Is it a 16-team playoff? Yes or no?

Does it provide for conference champs to get automatic bids? Yes or no?

If you answer no to either question, then tell us the real answer.

And if you want your system to be some closely guarded secret, why?

My postseason suggestion is something that would never happen, because every year would be different. Although, it would solve the annual controversy without taking away from the "every week is a playoff" regular season we currently have, which I love, but the powers-that-be would never go for it.

I'm not in favor of an 8 or 16 team playoff, contrary to what you might believe through this discussion. My argument has been that a playoff (of at least that size) would create more parity across the CFB landscape. I think it would be great for CFB in general, but there's no denying the regular season (especially the OOC games) would lose its excitement and relevance.

My argument against the BCS stems from subjective voting and the fact that there are conference affiliations. Sounds ridiculous I'm sure, but ideally, every program should be an Independent like Notre Dame et al, schedule whoever (I have a suggestion on how schedules should be done too), then be ranked according to record, SOS, and maybe some kind of MOV rating capped at 20 points or so. Beyond that, perhaps quality wins and such - how ever much info is needed to separate the pretenders from the contenders without opinions as a component. The NFL has an opinionated power poll that means nothing. CFB can have the same.

[Leroy Lizard]

My postseason suggestion is something that would never happen, because every year would be different. Although, it would solve the annual controversy without taking away from the "every week is a playoff" regular season we currently have, which I love, but the powers-that-be would never go for it.

I'm not in favor of an 8 or 16 team playoff, contrary to what you might believe through this discussion. My argument has been that a playoff (of at least that size) would create more parity across the CFB landscape. I think it would be great for CFB in general, but there's no denying the regular season (especially the OOC games) would lose its excitement and relevance.

My argument against the BCS stems from subjective voting and the fact that there are conference affiliations. Sounds ridiculous I'm sure, but ideally, every program should be an Independent like Notre Dame et al, schedule whoever (I have a suggestion on how schedules should be done too), then be ranked according to record, SOS, and maybe some kind of MOV rating capped at 20 points or so. Beyond that, perhaps quality wins and such - how ever much info is needed to separate the pretenders from the contenders without opinions as a component. The NFL has an opinionated power poll that means nothing. CFB can have the same.

Here is what you wrote:


All you have to do is win your conference, and get a playoff berth.

Gee, that sounds like you are suggesting a playoff with automatic bids to conference champs. Does it not?

And since there are more than eight conferences, there is little choice but to believe you are suggesting a playoff with at least 16 teams. (Sure, we could have a 12-team playoff, but logistically you may as well have 16 teams.)

Again, this is typical of playoff proponents: They can't even lay down some basic tenets. You tried to say that a playoff would create more parity, but your playoff idea relies on automatic conference championship berths to do that. But that is not possible with an eight-team playoff, a crucial pitfall that you now want to deny.

But wait, you now are saying that all this doesn't matter, because your playoff idea is completely infeasible -- the powers-that-be will never go for it. But I already told you that!

So your ideas have been a total ****ing waste of time. You can't tell us how teams are selected, other than some mumbo-jumbo about SOS, MOV ratings, and what have you. (But I thought conference champs were going to get automatic bids.) You can't even tell us how many teams. (I asked you point-blank how many, and you couldn't answer.)

Now, like most playoff proponents, it is time for you to get in a huff, throw your arms up in the air, and belt out the usual ad hominem attacks. "Ohhhhhh, you're so mean, Lizard! You don't get it, Lizard! Why should I have to explain it to you, Lizard. You're always like this, Lizard."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not that I don't get it: You can't ****ing explain it. And none of your cheerleaders can either.

[TIMB0B]

Here is what you wrote:



Gee, that sounds like you are suggesting a playoff with automatic bids to conference champs. Does it not?

And since there are more than eight conferences, there is little choice but to believe you are suggesting a playoff with at least 16 teams. (Sure, we could have a 12-team playoff, but logistically you may as well have 16 teams.)

Again, this is typical of playoff proponents: They can't even lay down some basic tenets. You tried to say that a playoff would create more parity, but your playoff idea relies on automatic conference championship berths to do that. But that is not possible with an eight-team playoff, a crucial pitfall that you now want to deny.

But wait, you now are saying that all this doesn't matter, because your playoff idea is completely infeasible -- the powers-that-be will never go for it. But I already told you that!

So your ideas have been a total ****ing waste of time. You can't tell us how teams are selected, other than some mumbo-jumbo about SOS, MOV ratings, and what have you. (But I thought conference champs were going to get automatic bids.) You can't even tell us how many teams. (I asked you point-blank how many, and you couldn't answer.)

Now, like most playoff proponents, it is time for you to get in a huff, throw your arms up in the air, and belt out the usual ad hominem attacks. "Ohhhhhh, you're so mean, Lizard! You don't get it, Lizard! Why should I have to explain it to you, Lizard. You're always like this, Lizard."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not that I don't get it: You can't ****ing explain it. And none of your cheerleaders can either.
My postseason suggestion has never been proposed by anyone, so it's atypical of "playoff proponents."

[Leroy Lizard]

My postseason suggestion has never been proposed by anyone, so it's atypical of "playoff proponents."

In other words...

http://www.cksinfo.com/clipart/sports/football/footba11-punt.png

[adoniijahsooner]

So Leroy you truly believe what we have in place works? I mean we might be #1 in the BCS because people are more impressed with our opponents, and not because we actually beat those teams on the field. Does that seem right to you? Let's look at how we judge teams these days. Nebraska beats KSU 48-13, which beat UCLA, which beat texas, so everyone assumes that Nebraska will destroy Texas....did that happen? Then we add in scores, conferences, whether a team played on a neutral site, and all sorts of other bull**** and thats how we come up with our champion. LSU got in over a 1 loss team because "no one bested them in regulation" LOL.

[silverwheels]

I don't get why people even try to have discussions with Leroy anymore.

[Leroy Lizard]

So Leroy you truly believe what we have in place works?

Let's see...

College football enormously popular for over 100 years. Check!

Yes it has worked. Is it perfect? Depends on what you want. To me, college football is about the games and rivalries... the stories and the plays. It is plenty exciting as it is. The fact that OU didn't win the so-called national title in 1973 hasn't lessened my enjoyment of the game. Otherwise I would have quit watching a long time ago.

If you value those things, college football has delivered in a big way for a very long time.

Now, if all you care about is settling who is #1, I suggest visiting www.nfl.com. They have the perfect game for you.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't get why people even try to have discussions with Leroy anymore.

Yep, it's starting:


Now, like most playoff proponents, it is time for you to get in a huff, throw your arms up in the air, and belt out the usual ad hominem attacks. "Ohhhhhh, you're so mean, Lizard! You don't get it, Lizard! Why should I have to explain it to you, Lizard. You're always like this, Lizard."

[silverwheels]

I wouldn't have said anything at all if not for all of that unnecessary bull**** in that post. Were you born a complete tool or have you worked at it your whole life?

[Leroy Lizard]

I wouldn't have said anything at all if not for all of that unnecessary bull**** in that post. Were you born a complete tool or have you worked at it your whole life?

Waaah, Lizard's mean! :rolleyes:

[Leroyt]

Waaah, Lizard's mean!


It's clear that you don't want a playoff, but it also seems like your entire argument is that pro-playoff is not a united front and can't decide what it wants. Yet, in your many posts in this thread, you've not stated why what we have is the right system (except, essentially "it works" and is why college football is popular), and when people begin arguing, you say they will begin calling you names, which you then essentially do with posts like the one quoted. So.... well done?

[slh1234]

The Computer rankings are not an attempt to predict who would win against whom. They are simply a scoring system for what teams have done during the year. As such, they are an attempt to put the teams with the highest score against each other in one championship game.

That's where the whole "Good win" and "Who did you play" argument comes into play. Teams know the rules and need to build their schedules to get the best BCS score if they want to get into the BCS champ game. It's just like teams needing to build their game strategy to cross the goal line more often that the other team in order to win the game. They know the rules of both, so they have to play the game to get to the BCS champ game. But it is not an attempt to determine who would win which game.

[silverwheels]

Waaah, Lizard's mean! :rolleyes:

"Mean"? Hardly. You're just a tool. And that's probably the nicest thing that could be said about you. Get over yourself.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's clear that you don't want a playoff, but it also seems like your entire argument is that pro-playoff is not a united front and can't decide what it wants. Yet, in your many posts in this thread, you've not stated why what we have is the right system (except, essentially "it works" and is why college football is popular), and when people begin arguing, you say they will begin calling you names, which you then essentially do with posts like the one quoted. So.... well done?

No, I have not called anyone names.

Again, we've been through this a million times. And ultimately, the pro-playoff proponents always offer up completely unreasonable ideas, and when I call them on it they get mad. At that point they start in with the same old ad hominem attacks.

IT'S ALWAYS THIS WAY.

For once, I would like to see a playoff proponent offer something up that isn't full of glaring holes. If you are really behind a playoff, why not think things through? Why put something out that you know isn't going to fly or doesn't contradict your own principles?

So in about a week, someone will come in here and say that they want an eight-team playoff while, in the same breath, claim that they want every team in the country an equal shot at winning the national title. The fact that an eight-team playoff is going to almost certainly favor the traditional powers is something that they don't even bother to consider. When I point it out, they promptly switch arguments.

Later, someone will have the PERFECT SOLUTION. Of course, it requires that the University of Oklahoma campus moves to New Hampshire and that the University of Washington and Washington State form a single team, but it works. Pigs will fly before it could ever happen, but it works.


"Mean"? Hardly. You're just a tool.

I've posted in here since 1999 (or thereabouts). Do you really think for one minute that your little cheap shot is going to bother me?

[Cornfed]

I say we play rock paper scissors.

[silverwheels]

I don't care if it bothers you or not. I'm just calling a spade a spade. You're free to have your own opinion. That's not why people dislike you. People dislike you because you either argue for the sake of arguing or if you really do believe in your side of the argument, you act like you're the smartest person on the planet and disregard anyone else's opinion on the matter and treat them like morons. That's being a tool.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yet, in your many posts in this thread, you've not stated why what we have is the right system (except, essentially "it works" and is why college football is popular)

To answer your question: The fact that it works and that college football is tremendously popular cannot be so easily dismissed. We must preserve the integrity, excitement, and color of the game while, at the same time, do our best to ensure that student-athletes can succeed academically.

I see no benefit in having a playoff over the current system other than to settle the "Who's #1?" issue. I may be curious to know, but I'm not going to risk all that is great about college football to find out.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't care if it bothers you or not. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Which is exactly what I do.

So deal with it.

[silverwheels]

Okay, tool.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Seems to me the BCS is working great today as is.

[adoniijahsooner]

To answer your question: The fact that it works and that college football is tremendously popular cannot be so easily dismissed. We must preserve the integrity, excitement, and color of the game while, at the same time, do our best to ensure that student-athletes can succeed academically.

I see no benefit in having a playoff over the current system other than to settle the "Who's #1?" issue. I may be curious to know, but I'm not going to risk all that is great about college football to find out.

So what you are saying is that unless cfb can keep the tradition, rivalries, and current atmosphere it should not be tampered with? Thats actually a good argument.

[Leroy Lizard]

So what you are saying is that unless cfb can keep the tradition, rivalries, and current atmosphere it should not be tampered with? Thats actually a good argument.

I would go a step further and say that I want a guarantee that all that is great about college football remains intact.

We have a great game. Our inability to be satisfied is going to ultimately destroy this game, as I see it. In other words, we need to keep our desires in check. It's a form of self-control.

[Crucifax Autumn]

The controversy around every final BCS poll before the bowls is actually one of the things that makes it so fun to watch and keeps other teams' games more interesting. And it really is a good compromise between the old system where 1 and 2 weren't guaranteed to play in a bowl and a playoff.

If there really was to be a plus 1 or a 4 team mini-playoff I think it could still be fun, but I fear Leroy is correct that it would just keep getting bigger and bigger everytime someone barely misses the playoffs this whole crap would start again demanding more.

Personally, I think a lot of the rage against the BCS could be avoided if the sports reporters on TV would do more explaining about how it works. They insist on explaining other well known rules every FVCKING game, but they just gloss over this and kinda disrespect the computers regularly with eyerolls and the like. If they'd instead actually go over the computer average, talk about the subtle differences between say, Sagarin and the Colley formulas, and how and why these rankings are sometimes so different from the humans.

Tonight on the BCS show I was really disappointed that they didn't go further into the subject of human v. computer differences. Thye did a decent job of explaining how the humans need to pay attention to what actually went on in games to counter the fact that the computers don't "watch" the games, but they didn't mention how there's a very good side effect of this. The humans and computers counterbalance each other in a near perfect way, removing emotion from the computers and "don't know what really went downedness" of the computers.

To get a great overview of the BCS and an even broader and better overview of how all the computers work in an easy to follow read, try http://www.bcsknowhow.com/

Of course you can get more detailed and complicated information with some web research, but at a minimum a person following the polls, bitching about the BCS, complaining that team A should be higher or lower, or who just wants to understand how the system works for the game we love should AT LEAST know all the stuff on that site.

[yermom]

my biggest gripe on the BCS is that they don't release the formulas for the computers

[there there]

my biggest gripe on the BCS is that they don't release the formulas for the computers

I know at least some of them do. Here's one for example: http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

[Leroy Lizard]

I know at least some of them do. Here's one for example: http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

That's a pretty interesting formula. I have my own idea, but I'm not sure many would understand it. But if I'm right it would beat anything currently available. (I'm probably wrong. ;) )

[soonercastor]

Yeah only Colley makes his equation available; and just last week there was an article where one of the computer dudes said he could potentially accept $1,000,000 to rig it....too lazy to find the link.

[yermom]

I know at least some of them do. Here's one for example: http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

yeah, i think 4/6 do. i meant all of them

[TIMB0B]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/sports/ncaafootball/17score.html?_r=2&ref=sports

Numbers Are a Weak Spot in the B.C.S. Standings
By JEFF PASSAN and DAN WETZEL
Published: October 16, 2010

The Bowl Championship Series will release its first standings of the year on Sunday. One-third of the formula that will eventually determine the matchup for college football’s national championship game comes from a compendium of six computerized ranking systems that deal in mathematical minutiae. The nerds did not just crash the jocks’ party. They were invited.

Since the inception of the B.C.S. in 1998, it has used the computers as a shield against cries of partisanship in the polls that make up the other two-thirds of the formula. One of the computer rankers for the B.C.S. is Richard Billingsley, a stress-management expert from Hugo, Okla.

His knowledge of college football history is encyclopedic. His knowledge of mathematics, the foundation of any accurate computer-ranking system, is not.

“I’m not a mathematician,” Billingsley said. “I’m not even a highly educated man, to tell you the truth. I don’t even have a degree. I have a high school education. I never had calculus. I don’t even remember much about algebra. I think everyone questions everything I do. Why is he doing that? Does he know what he’s doing, a crazy kook in Oklahoma?”

The short answer is no. Billingsley’s ranking system is vilified by professional mathematicians and a subculture of amateur computer rankers. His is not the only one. The stringent rules placed by the B.C.S. on the computers — they must, for example, exclude margin of victory from their formulas, making 10-7 equivalent to 70-7 — turned them into the laughingstock of the numbers community. Two of the computer analysts, Jeff Sagarin and Kenneth Massey, acknowledge that their rankings for the B.C.S. are not the most accurate they can produce.

“You’re asked to rank teams that don’t play each other, that don’t play long seasons, and you can’t include margin of victory?” said Massey, who provides a “better version” on his Web site, masseyratings.com. “It’s a very challenging problem from a data-analysis standpoint. It does require sacrificing a bit of accuracy. It’s not the best way to do it.”

It is bad enough that one analytical mathematician, the U.C. Irvine professor Hal S. Stern, has called for the statistical community to boycott participation in the B.C.S. standings.

When the godfather of modern sports statistics, Bill James, wrote a rousing affirmation, Stern’s suggestion spread rapidly. It encapsulated the overwhelming anti-B.C.S. sentiment that populates the college-football-viewing country. The computers are an easy scapegoat for a public skeptical of artificial intelligence playing such a large part in crowning a national champion.

Any potential impartiality they bring, however, is quickly scythed by the inability of the B.C.S. to trust its own numbers.

The B.C.S. has tinkered with the computers time and again. When the systems blatantly disagreed with the two human elements used — the equally questionable coaches poll and the Harris Interactive Poll, a group of voters with laughable qualifications — they were overhauled. The computer systems that refused to compromise their math by removing margin of victory were removed themselves.

“Stern’s analysis was clearly right,” James said. “This isn’t a sincere effort to use math to find the answer at all. It’s clearly an effort to use math as a cover for whatever you want to do. I don’t even know if the people who set up the system are aware of that.

“It’s just nonsense math.”

The “nonsense math” is certain to inflame debate. Experts last week predicted that Boise State, the underdog from the upstart Western Athletic Conference, would be ranked first. Ohio State, the top-ranked team in the polls, could be as low as fifth because of its across-the-board low computer rankings.

Accordingly, the computers end up being the patsy more than any part of the B.C.S. system. Fans want to understand the math behind them. They cannot, not because of quantitative inability but because of lack of transparency; only Wes Colley, who runs the Colley Matrix system, makes his formula public.

Billingsley chooses not to. It is a simple formula, he said, because he is a simple man. He does, against all reason, use the previous season’s end rankings as the starting point for the current year’s. It matters not whether the team lost its coach or its quarterback. Billingsley thinks that to understand the present, one must understand the past, even if that past resembles the present in no demonstrable fashion.

So good news, Florida Gators fans: Tim Tebow is still your quarterback in at least one place.

“I don’t know that the powers that be even know what he’s doing,” Stern said.

They do not know. Three of the computer rankers said the B.C.S. did not verify the numbers they turned in. It supports the notion that the B.C.S., like a teenage-movie cliché, befriended the pocket-protector set only to cast it as the perfect red herring.

Which leaves college football with a problem it cannot solve: real mathematicians exposing the computers — and the B.C.S. — for the nonsense they are.

[Leroy Lizard]

Wasn't this already posted? In fact, I thought it was in the original post.

[tommieharris91]

It's very well known that Billingsley's methodology is terrible and something else needs to replace it. Basically, in his rankings, teams are rated based on opponent's record when they beat them. So, in his ratings, when OU beat Florida State, Billingsley saw that they beat a 1-0 team. His ratings for OU don't care what FSU did after they got beat. So, if OU beats Mizzou this weekend, his ratings will count the win only that week and only as beating a 6-0 team, regardless of what Mizzou does the rest of the season. It's awful methodology that doesn't take the entire body of work into account.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's very well known that Billingsley's methodology is terrible and something else needs to replace it. Basically, in his rankings, teams are rated based on opponent's record when they beat them. So, in his ratings, when OU beat Florida State, Billingsley saw that they beat a 1-0 team. His ratings for OU don't care what FSU did after they got beat. So, if OU beats Mizzou this weekend, his ratings will count the win only that week and only as beating a 6-0 team, regardless of what Mizzou does the rest of the season. It's awful methodology that doesn't take the entire body of work into account.

The BCS should probably just issue a request for computer algorithm proposals. Then have a group of mathematicians select four that meet reasonable criteria.

That problem is relatively easy to solve.

[RedstickSooner]

Dunno why we keep having this conversation.

If you don't like how it is, quit watching.

Until you do, it won't change.

Period.

Colleges are selling out games and filling up ever-larger stadiums. And you *honestly* expect them to upset the apple cart? Are you nuts?

[starclassic tama]

as a sooner fan i love the BCS...