In terms of selecting the correct #1 vs #2 matchup I think the BCS has worked since about 2005 or so (since they went to the 1/3 AP/Harris 1/3 coach's 1/3 computer) when they threw out the quality win and strength of schedule nonsense.
hrposon
· 10 months ago
You've got to be kidding... The only year the BCS did work well was 2005. It couldn't miss. 2008 will be known as the year that brought the BCS system down.
grover
· 10 months ago
No, I'm serious. As a method to pick the top 2 teams at the end of the season, the BCS has done very well since 2005. The mistakes (Fla State in 2000, Nebraska in 2001, Oklahoma in 2003) have not been there in recent years. This years mistake of Oklahoma over Texas was not the fault of the BCS - that was the fault of the Big12. The BCS was never designed to pick a conference or division champion.
Zac
· 10 months ago
I have to agree with hrposon. Last year was a text-book reason for a play-off. Given the BCS chose a a two-loss team, which won the NC going away, it's arguable regarding their selection of the other team. This past season wasn't much different. The Big-12 was a text-book example. There were 3 (Count em!), THREE 1-loss teams in the Big-12 South alone. Few have been in agreement as to which one, if any, should have gone to the NC. Not to mention, the only undefeated team wasn't invited to the NC game, and they proved they should have been there. My take on the BCS...they need to drop the "C" and tell it like it really is.
hrposon
· 10 months ago
You're right about the Big 12 mess. I like the idea of the highest football graduation rate as the fifth tiebreaker. ( Mike Leach's idea )
As far as the BCS picking two teams to play in BCS game, it's succeeded every year. It's just doesn't get it right.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I think everyone thought 2004 was the year that would bring it down. That year was significantly more compelling and the BCS stood that test.
I would rather compare the 2008 Sugar Bowl to the 1926 Rose Bowl.
hrposon
· 10 months ago
At first I thought you meant the Columbia - Stanford game but after I looked it up, it made more sense. We don't speak much of the Columbia football program except when they had the nation's longest losing streak.
Wardboy3
· 10 months ago
I think the BCS has only gotten it right 3 times. Fla St vs Va Tech Miami vs tOSU TX vs USC
All other games you can NOT honestly sit there and say the TWO best teams were playing.
grover
· 10 months ago
OK then, what would have been your #1 vs #2 matchups for the last 3 years?
Wardboy3
· 10 months ago
I am not the one to sit here and say this team over this team. What I am saying is that in the past 11 years there was NO controversy over the two teams playing only 3 times.
This is why I am in favor of a playoff. Let the teams decided it on a field and not coaches (who do not watch anybody else play) or someone putting info into a computer.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Our point is that you usually can't narrow it down to just two teams with certainty.
2005 and 2002 where exceptions. 2001 could have gone to Miami after the regular season. Most years have 3 teams that deserved consideration before the bowls.
Good Ben top eight or sixteen would not lengthen the season, I dont favor bye weeks and the conf champ idea excludes some teams more deserving than other so-called conference champs for example OU beat TCU good game- TCU left out-OU destroyed Cinn- BE conf Champ-BCS bowl so the #2 or #3 team from some conferences are probably better than #1 team from others
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
12 game geason + 1 conference championship game + 4 rounds in a sixteen team tournament = 17 games. 16 games can be justified to the NCAA by comparison to the FCS champion Richmond's 2008 schedule.
Bye weeks are necessary unless the number of teams is a power of two. A hard number of teams produces an irresolvable cutoff error. While bye weeks guarantee a team gets past the first round, they also allow more time for a team to get rusty.
The conference championship clause in my idea is only used in the very unlikely case that 9 or more teams qualify. In the 11 year history of the BCS the most teams that would have qualified are 5 (twice, 2004 and 2008).
I left out both TCU and Cincinnati of the championship system.
grover
· 10 months ago
Why are you all so worried about certainty? The current system works. Think about all you lose in your post. In it you lose Oklahoma - Boise St in 2006. Because it happened the way it did you will remember that game for 20 years. Also in 2006 you would include Michigan. Why bother watching / playing Ohio State - Michigan at the end of that year? You think people would give a rip if all it determined was seeding? If you had a 16 team playoff any you had OK - TX - Fla - LSU - USC all playing each other every year, then everything else in college football would fall by the wayside - none of the rest of it would matter. There would be nothing special about Ohio State and Texas playing in September. No big deal if Florida lost to Auburn - they can always make it up in the playoff.
The current system works, and has worked every year except 2004. Here is the system in a nutshell: 1a. Win every game and you are in the national title game (SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, Big 10, ACC) 1b. Win every game for 2 years and you are the title game (all other conferences) 2. Lose a game and you are at the mercy of others. Even if you make it to the NC game and win, your season is empty and meaningless in my book.
The BCS has produced some very special things - OSU-Miami in 2002, TX-USC in 2005, Boise St-OK in 2006. Odds are everyone reading this thread can recall with clarity details of Texas's 2005 season including winning a competitive game at OSU. You would not remember any of that if there was a large playoff. Ask yourself this - do you remember who won the basketball title last year? How about 2 or 5 years ago? Would you remember a Duke #1 vs UNC #2 matchup that occurred in Feb 2005? Same questions for the NFL. Odss are you remember things with a lot more clarity in college football over a longer period of time because there are less games, and when games with significance happen it is rare enough that you pay attention and you therefore keep that memory with you,
Long live the BCS!
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Grover #1 win every game and your in the NC game- would it not be better for say an OSU to schedule N ILL or Bowling Green instead of Texas and or USC, Had OSU not scheduled that USC game,they woulda had an arguement for an appearance, same goes for Bama if the belonged to a Conference without a CCg game like Pac-10,Big E or B 10/11. A big playoff will not happen anytime soon, no need to worry about the loss of importance of the regular season.We have seen teams go undefeated and win their bowls and not be considered and other years seen two loss teams in the MNC game, when others were just as good if not better. All conferences ought to adopt the same system for determining a Conf Champ and CCG games should be played in every conference or eliminated-period Some conferences may have a four loss team as their champ, while others may have several good 1 loss teams as was the case this season prior to the CCG games and Bowls. 1 loss PSU 1 loss USC 1 loss Fla 1 loss OU 1 loss Tex 0 loss Utah 0 loss Bama 0 loss Bois st 1 loss TTech that adds up to 9 so we could argue over who's # 8 or #9 instead of who's #2, or #3, this would not diminiss the importance of the regular season and if the positions are based upon some SOS arguement will could still see some exciting OOC matchups. With games scheduled years in advance, some of these exciting matchups are not quite what the fans or the media deemed too important, because some teams have better years than others as was the case with the Tex vs Ark game- heck before the season started that looked like a better matchup that TCU vs OU, so the trend will be Sunbelts & C-USA games during OOC games because with the current system run up the score and post big numbers and even if you drop one to an arch rival your still in the MNC game
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
You attack like I want a large playoff. You obviously did not look at the content in my link.
Playoffs? So we can get the certainty of the NFL?
Any year a team ends the season undefeated and not the champion the BCS failed. Anytime the difference between #2 and #3 came down to a few computers the system failed.
Given the task of setting the top 2 teams in a bowl game the BCS has done an admirable job in good faith to get that task done.
To select two teams that are decidedly #1 and #2 after the regular season the way it is scheduled is an impossible task.
grover
· 10 months ago
I probably went a little over the top with my post, but personally I don't want to see any expansion of the post season. 4 teams is too many for me. I did see your link. Quite well put together like all you do.
"Anytime the difference between #2 and #3 came down to a few computers the system failed." - I guess that's the core of my disagreement. In these cases the system did not fail, the number #2 and #3 teams failed.
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
I really dont understand-how did #3 team fail or #4 or #5 for that matter? Utah,Texas and USC all won their bowls and nerver had a shot at a Champ game and the Mythical B-12 champ/chump lost theirs as usual Hookem Horns 5 consecutive bowl wins-including 3 BCS Bowls 2 Rose 1 Feista 8 consecutive 10+ win seasons
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
The only way to fix the BCS is to kill it. I really find it laughable that any alleged sports fan can argue in favor of the BCS. If it truly is the best way, someone needs to notify the NCAA that they're doing it wrong by having playoffs or tournaments in EVERY other sport in every division, except for D-1A football. Then clue the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major and Minor League baseball that their way of finding a true champion is antiquated. The BCS is nothing more than a corrupt mechanism for fattening the coffers of the "elite" conferences who made the rules.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Are you kidding me? The NFL is the primary proof that a playoff system doesn't guarnatee anything.
What we really need is an NBA, NHL or MLB system with the top 8 teams playing three best of seven rounds to determine the champions.
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
Great idea Ben, best of seven rounds in football.
What the current NFL playoff system guarantees is that the eventual champion wins it on the field, in an elimination format that includes more than 25% of all teams.What it does not give us - as opposed to the BCS - is a one-game, winner take all between two teams who were picked to play in the game by people sitting in front of their computers comparing stats. It infuriates me to hear people say - in any given year - "well, the BCS worked this year, we got #1 and #2". The BCS gives you #1 and #2 every year, but they're the two teams that the voters "say" are #1 and #2.
What we really need in NCAA D-1A football is a playoff system that would be based on a points system (I have devised one). Teams get points for a win, a road win, out of conference win, etc. Teams are penalized for playing lower division teams, and receive fewer points for a home win than a road win. This would take into account teams like Ohio State, who play eight home games a year, two against weak MAC teams and a third against a D-1AA team, but knowing as long as they beat Michigan, they'll get a free ride into a big-money BCS bowl, because the Big Ten is one of the "chosen conferences". Florida State, who because of suspensions for a cheating scandal, reworked their schedule to front-load two D-1AA teams in Tallahassee while a large percentage of their roster was suspended, would do so knowing that those two games would cost them big-time in accruing enough points to make the 16-team playoff.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Their is a propensity around here to shoot down playoff ideas.
The genius of the previous ides was that it would create year round football.
As for your point system, their should be some method for allowing better computers to replace those that are under performing.
I don't really have a problem with big name schools going to big name bowls. Let the conference and bowls work out contracts in their own best interest.
The BCS's role should be to determine the national title and define which teir a bowl is based on its conference tie ins. The bowls should be played in increasing level of prestige, culminating in the BCS bowls on New Year's Day. The championship game would be the only game played after this.
The BCS Bowls function as games to honor the champions of the premier conferences and would sometimes double as a semi-final. The premier bowls would be the those with the first selection from EACH conference after the BCS has made its selection and the second such bowl from the stronger BCS conferences and would to be played from December 26th through December 31st. All other bowls would be regional bowls and be played from December 19th through December 25th.
This definition directly allows for the possibility that conference strength might change with time and allow the bowls,conferences and TV networks the ability to renegotiate their contracts and the BCS to determine the champion and certify the prestige of the bowls.
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
"I don't really have a problem with big name schools going to big name bowls"
Personally, I don't have a problem with any deserving school - big name or not - from going to a bowl game as reward for a good season. Limiting big name bowls to big name schools seems elitist to me, and brings us right back to the problem that we currently have: self-proclaimed "elite(big name)" conferences making the rules about who is worthy of going to a "big name bowl".
There were 34 bowl games this year. A 16-team playoff would require 15 games to determine a champion on the field. That leaves 19 bowl games to accommodate all the 6-6, 7-5 and 8-4 teams whose schools want to reward their teams and fans with a week in the sun somewhere.
As long as the NCAA doesn't have the balls to do the right thing, and allows ESPN, the presidents of fewer than half the member institutions of D-1A football, and the various bowl committees to run this sham they call the BCS, we'll be stuck without having a true champion.
Regan
· 10 months ago
oldenglish, we have hashed out and shot down most of these things over the course of this and the previous Playoff Thread.
Bowls cannot effectively be worked into a 16-team playoff. It just won't won't work.
You seem convinced that the "powers that be" are intent on 'not doing the right thing', but have you taken much time to actually look at why things are the way they are?
No matter what, there are so many issues, points-of-view, and vested interests in so many strata of CFB, one simple "one-size-fits all" simply cannot and will not solve the problems.
Regardless, as has been discussed repeatedly, a Playoff will merely switch one set of gripes for another, and CFB will lose a lot in the translation.
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
I wonder how much money the BCS pays Grant Teaff to act like a dumbass and say things like: “There’s just no plan out there. Our coaches would vote on one if there was one out there. I ask our coaches all the time, ‘Okay, give me a good plan and we’ll present it to (the NCAA),’ and we scratch our heads.”
All Teaff needs to do is pick up the phone, call the NCAA and ask them how they've been doing it in DII and DIII football for the past 36 years.
Regan
· 10 months ago
You honestly think it is that simple...
Okay...there's a book by Stewart Mandel called "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls"
It's not complicated at all. I don't need to read a book written by a guy who never wore a jock-strap in his life - Stewart Mandel - but who has a vote to TELL us who the best teams are. Stewart Mandel is part of the problem. Stewart Mandel - as would most sports writers who vote to TELL us who the best teams are - is as consistent with his opinions as a fart in a windstorm. I'm sure it has nothing to do (tongue in cheek) with any special favors and treatment by the "elite" conferences and teams he's paid to cover and report on (and then vote for).
Tell me, when is the last time you heard any whining and moaning from DII or DIII coaches about the process they use to crown a true champion?
“You’ll have to forgive me if I’m in no hurry to see the Fiesta Bowl turn into the ‘NCAA Southwest Regional.’” Stewart Mandel - Dec. 30, 2008
“Obviously, the one certain way to increase interest in such games would be the inception of a playoff.” Stewart Mandel - Jan. 4, 2009
Regan
· 10 months ago
Of course it isn't - because you said so. You have written twice as many books, right? Why bother debating logical points if you can name-call and dismiss reasonable points out of hand?
How many books have you written? The guy did the research, and stated it as it is.
As far as attempting to take quotes out of context, I'd give you an A+. Mandel is on the "Plus-One" Bandwagon. While I don't believe a straight-up Plus-One is the best system, I at least can recognize that he has a grasp of the complex issues and wide range of viewpoints that chaotically grip the sport and has explained them with great detail.
It IS complicated; but feel free to stay in imaginationland....
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
Those who continue to champion the corrupt BCS either work in some capacity for the self-proclaimed "elite" conferences and profit financially, or they have a vote to determine who gets to play. With you, it could be you're Stewart Mandel's mother or boyfriend.
You need to get a life instead of throwing around such profound terms as "complex issues" and "chaotically grip" and "debating logical points" to describe a game. It's really not that important to me. The greedy bastards at ESPN, Fox Sports, BCS and the "elite" conferences have ruined college football as far as I'm concerned.
Regan
· 10 months ago
oldenglish, you do not know me. Making insinuations of my "needing to get a life" because I disagree with you is not...constructive.
Some people just disagree with you. That's life. Just because I do does not mean I benefit in any way from the BCS.
If you actually look at my posts, you will see that I believe the BCS needs fixing too; I just don't want a playoff.
You can see CFB in any way you choose, but by automatically drawing conclusions about others' points and bashing them personally is neither helpful or (if I may speak for my fellow Fanbloggers) wanted.
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
And you don't know me.
You have your opinion, Stewart Mandel has his, I have mine. I assure you, mine will not be swayed by anything you or Stewart Mandel pontificate about the wisdom and correctness of the BCS. That's just the way it is. Doesn't mean I'm right, doesn't mean you're right. So don't try to be cute in attacking me for having MY opinion - one that doesn't jive with yours.
But if you choose to attack me personally for having a strong opinion that runs counter to yours - which you did - don't be surprised when I fire back.
Since you asked, I have only written two books, neither of which, I'm near certain, would appeal to you. They're not chock full of statistics, winning percentages and numbers, and are not geared to the shallow-minded, jock-sniffing type, Not saying that's what you are, just making a general observation. So you're no doubt correct in your opinion about Stewart Mandel being much more accomplished than I - at least for your taste and your mentality. As I said, college football is not that important to me any more, and - for me - that is due in large measure to the BCS and it's pig-headed defenders.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Fair enough. Just familiarize yourself with the issues at hand before going after others' points. Things are the way they are for a reason, and simply attacking them without a basis for reference isn't helpful.
We all want changes to the system, I want to ensure that changes are positive...
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
Why is it that some human beings are so presumptuous as to pompously assume that because someone disagrees with his point of view, that that person is uninformed, and needs to "familiarize yourself with the issues at hand"?
Confidence and self-assuredness are wonderful traits. But when they cross the line into out-of-hand dismissal of others as having no intelligence or credibility, simply because they don't agree with your view, they smack of haughty arrogance.
We just suffered through eight years of a president/self-proclaimed decider, who dismissed (and fired) everybody who didn't agree with him. I argued (on the issues at hand) that he was wrong for eight years. Some insist to this day - as does he - that he was never wrong. All I know for sure is that this country is in far worse shape after eight years of him telling us he knew what was best for us all, than it was before he was appointed.
But back to the point. I don't know if I'm right in my opinion of the BCS, but I know it's my opinion. And as someone who has been a fan of college football for about 50 years, I believe my opinion that the BCS is unfair, corrupt and discriminatory is well thought out. But I'm also not foolish enough to think that my opinion matters a hill of beans to the self-anointed "elites" who devised and run the BCS. All I can do is pull for WVU and the Miami Hurricanes, hope they do well, and hope that they get a fair shake if ever they find themselves in position to contend for the title at the end of the season.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Not trying to be pompous. The issues are very complex, much moreso than I had a clue before I actually read up on how many "powers that be" there are.
Besides, it is always in everyones' best interests to truly understand the issues, right? That's all I'm saying.
On a political note, I liked GWB, and still do. That's a whole different bird, however.
You are right about your opinions, and I apologize if you got the impression I was attacking you personally for not sharing mine. I tend to be sarcastic sometimes.
I'll join you on the Miami cheers, though...
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
Thanks...no harm, no foul. I just don't see the current BCS setup as being in anybody's best interest other than the six "elite" conferences and Notre Dame. And with the obscene amounts of money ESPN and Fox throw at it, it's too late - even if there was the desire - to stop it. It's like the "Blob" if you're old enough to remember that movie.
Regan
· 10 months ago
I'm only 29 (never wanted to turn 30; been 29 for a few years now), but I remember the Blob.
I agree that the BCS is flawed, skewed, and in need of change. Im just adamantly against a True Playoff because of what it would mean to the Regular Season.
Ben Prather and I have a decent plan up on one of these threads, check it out if you're interested.
Porcine
· 10 months ago
I have seen both blobs.
oldenglish
· 10 months ago
No offense, but trying to decipher these plans some people devise, with their ratios, fractions, plus ones, etc. frankly gives me a headache.
I think the first thing that needs to be done, is to eliminate the "elite" conferences as decision-making entities as to whom gets the privilege of playing in the big-money bowl games or for the "title".
Next, no polls - including pre-season polls, which are no more than beauty contests - until week 5 of the season. You see the same names at the top of the pre-season rankings year after year. All it accomplishes is that it sets an unfair pecking order based on absolutely nothing relevant to the current season. It also makes it impossible for surprise teams to climb to the top. One team was undefeated this year - Utah. Do you suppose had Utah been ranked, oh, let's say #5 in pre-season (rather than Wisconsin, who finished 7-6) that pre-season #28 Utah might have been ranked higher than #7 after an undefeated season, and could only climb to #2 after thrashing Alabama? I say week 5 for the first poll, because that's the week teams generally have finished beating up on cupcakes, and start their conference schedules. I would penalize teams for playing lower division teams, so there's no way a Florida State enters week 3 ranked #24 after outscoring two D-1AA teams (who ended up a combined 4-20) by 115-7.
Just like giving high school players five, four or however many stars, pre-season rankings based on what you did last year and who you are, are meaningless. UM signed the #1 offensive player - Kyle Wright - and the #1 defensive player - Willie Williams - several years back. Anybody know where they are today? Meanwhile, this kid could be the 1st pick this year, and certainly top 5. Notice the "NR" next to his position rank?
You say: "Im just adamantly against a True Playoff because of what it would mean to the Regular Season."
I'm guessing you're going to use the argument that playoffs make the regular season "meaningless"? Nothing could be further from the truth. A team still would need to finish in the top 16 to make the playoffs, which means you still have to try to win all your games, which - last time I played - was what we did every week anyway, regardless of where it might have placed us in the rankings. One thing is still pretty consistent, if you lose games, you usually drop in the rankings; to move up, you have to keep winning.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Replying to this comment in a place it can be read.
I have greatly expanded the original concept hashed out be Regan and I to be a significant BCS reform.
My expanded idea would be to make the BCS the governing body for the bowls, charged with assigning prestige to the bowls and conferences and increasing the consensus of the national champion, instead of an agreement between the bowls. The bowls have proven they can't govern themselves and the NCAA refuses to make a stand.
I like the three criteria used to measure the conferences. I would propose establishing three tiers of conferences, elite, automatic qualifier and at large. The cutoffs for each would by 0.75 and 0.5 respectively using values like these.
Whether a conference is elite or if an at large conference warrants an automatic qualificatrion would be evaluated every year. Automatic qualifications would be evaluted every time a conference's BCS Bowl tie in hosted the national title. This way if a conference earns BCS status they know they have it at least until their BCS tie in comes around again.
This also allows for BCS bowls to be determined. They are the ones with tie ins to the conferences with automatic qualifications. Every time a BCS bowl hosts the NCG its conference tie ins would be evaluated for BCS automatic qualifications and if it no longer has a tie in with an automatic qualifying conference the bowl would lose its BCS status (becoming a premier bowl). If a conference without a BCS Bowl tie in earned a BCS automatic qualification its premier bowl would become a BCS bowl and that bowl would be added to the end of the current national championship cycle.
This would provide an incentive for the bowls to compete for the tie ins with the stronger conferences. It also allowes the conferences and bowls to work out their tie ins in their mutual best interest, no rules forcing any bowls to take any teams they don't want. The complaints that the at large conferences need to be included in the revenue sharing is handled by their participation in the championship system, not by shoe horning them into a BCS bowl.
If this was done, the Big 12 could, for example, simply change its tie in to the Cotton Bowl and the Cotton Bowl would then become a BCS bowl (after the tie in has been used once without BCS status). The Fiesta Bowl would remain a BCS bowl until the next time it hosted the national championship game, when it would lose its BCS status unless it securred a tie in with an automatic qualifying conference.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 10 months ago
I have always gotten a chuckle at people who damn the BCS for what it is not. It's not this... it's not that... there aren't enough this... there aren't enough that....
What a lot of people fail to realize, IMO, is that the BCS is a bowl marketing alliance. It is an agreement between the conferences (all of them, BTW) and the four major bowls as to how bowl selections will be prioritized to pair the consensus (very key word) #1 and #2 ranked teams. That's it - one game, as you noted correctly, WEA.
(PS. Yes, I am still on hiatus. I will be back next Monday with a posting barrage. Enjoy your time without uniform threads, suckers!)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Yes, I failed to drive home the most important point--that first and foremost, it's a business. Money is at the root of all things...
The BCS is more maligned institution than would be if Walmart bought Amway and Exxon/Mobile...
gatorhippy
· 10 months ago
I dunno, WEAtl...
Seems to me that if one could walk onto any street corner to buy crappy gas in bulk cheaply to sell it off to your friends who in turn provide you with additional income as they resell it would be pretty popular...
The biggest public outcry would be from the Catholics complaining that the Protestants had cornered the market and be looking to sue for a monopoly...
Oh wait...
I guess that last part does sound kinda like the BCS...
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I can't wait. I already have 12 Wal Mart greeters in my down line...
I'm sure Regan will be all over this--like a Morman missionary with an Amway franchise...
j/k, Regan...
Regan
· 10 months ago
Actually, I was raised Baptist....we lurk in the shadows until we are ready to pounce on heresy. :-)
Oh, and Wal-Mart is absolute and unadulterated EVIL...
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
Think what you want about Wal-Mart, but I wish they'd take over the banking industry and apply their very successful business practices there.
At the rate banks are being bailed out now, I'll be happy if there will even BE a 2009 College Football season.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Would they call it Wal-Street then?
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
Sure...or whatever they damn well please, as long as they right the ship through capitalism, and not socialism or communism, again.
I'm afraid it's too late for that though...comrade. (And with the temps around -10 around here right now, I feel like I'm in Siberia anyway.)
U.of S.C.1978
· 10 months ago
Keep the old collegiate chin high Tom. You and I, our grandchildren, hell man, all of us. We are in the banking bidness. Kick back, light a stogie. Sip some single malt. CE...LE....BRA...TION TIME...... COME ON!!!!!
Help the rest of us figure out how to screw the masses. We'll probably have to wait 20 or 30 years before the next round. That's OK though, it will be a fully baked conspiracy by then.
As an aside. I once read Sam Walton's biography. Very interesting man he was. I just cannot reconcile that vision of Sam, with the Wal-Martization of America. On the one hand, he would have been proud. On the other, I think he would be ashamed of what Wal-Mart has done to America.
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
We are in the banking bidness...but unfortunately, it's only the investment half. We aren't going to see any returns on that investment, even if the banks come back. I'll drink the single malt and light a stogie anyway though.
Anyhoo, I've accidentally hijacked the thread. Sorry!
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
It is a freezing 33 here in Florida!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 10 months ago
Tom:
Can't disagree about bankers. Let em' starve. They sure would kick us to the curb.
But, WalMart employs the whole rest of the world, selling us inferior products here in the US. I say that Sam Walton and his ilk ought to all move to whatever country it is that they like to give all of our money to. I say yank their business license here in the USA also. It's companies like them that are offloading all of our cash into foriegn economies. That's why we're going broke. We don't manufacter in America anymore. That's how this country used to make it's money. They are all really lucky that I am not in charge. I'd make Saddam Hussein look like a choir boy.
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
They're capitalists. I'll take Wal-Mart over Bailout Mania and/or our government in control of the economy any day of the week.
Unfortunately, it looks like the days our government staying out of the economy is over.
Let me say this. I'll take the BCS over the government taking over CFB any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Sam Walton was a good guy. He'd be rolling in his grave based on the way the company is being run.
If you remember, while he was alive, Wal-Mart had a huge "Made in the USA" thing going on.
The guy didn't get to the funeral home before the greedy board of directors sold Wal-Mart's soul to China.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Wal-Mart is part of the problem. They encourage debt by accepting Credit Cards.
(I'm a Small-Business economist/financial officer. Wal-Mart is the only thing more evil than Mike Leach. I bet he shops there...)
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
They'll take your money just like any other business. It's not Wal-Mart's fault sheeple are stupid.
People who don't have fiscal responsibility shouldn't even have credit cards in the first place. Ah, but that's the world we live in now.
Regan
· 10 months ago
The big difference is that Wal-Mart seems intent on going into almost every sector, from pharmacy to even gas station.
Most companies just want to be successful. These &@%#*^#$ers want the world to be Wal-Earth.
Monopolies are anti-capitalistic, don't forget. :)
Cougar_Fan
· 10 months ago
And don't you forget that monopolies are not illegal, just monopolistic behavior. Cheaper prices is not monopolistic behavior. Let them get into any sector they want! The market (i.e. us Americans) will decide whether they deserve to be there. Isn't it strange that most academic economists (and macro-economists in particular) favor globalization and walmart? True that Wal-mart runs ma and pa businesses under, but they also employ a great deal of otherwise unemployable workers and they provide a huge aggregate boost to the economy via cheaper prices.
Regan
· 10 months ago
I didn't say they were illegal, I said they were anti-capitalistic.
Cheaper prices are indeed an aspect of a company attempting to monopolize a market.
If the market is rigged by a monopoly, it cannot allow us Americans do decide whether they deserve to be there.
Most Economists do not necessarily advocate what you are claiming, since it is an overly-broad notion. Most Economists do enjoy free trade, but what exists now with China is a massive Trade Deficit.
Lastly, "unemployable workers"? Smacks with elitism, if you ask me, no offense...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
I totally agree, unemployable?- or since most manufacturers have moved operations oversees and south of the border, to maximize profits and reduce overhead, the results are reduced middle class jobs for American workers and slave labor type working conditions for the factory workers. The quality of product produced is inferior and the impact on the environment is extremely detrimental, because some countries( Mexico ) have absolutely no water or wastewater treatment and toxins are being released directly into the river or receiving stream.Its not just Walmart, but Fisher Price Toys and General Motors and many other large companies.These actions result in deformed babies and wide spread cancer amongst the young women who work at these factories. The Rio Grande river is one of the most polluted rivers in the world and millions of people depend upon this stream on both sides of the border.To sarifice the workers and the environment for the sake of increased profits for investers is just plain wrong and the economy of this country has been compromised by greed and corruption that flourishes in Mexico. A republic that throughout history optimizes a true capitalistic society were the rich get richer and those in power control everything. The results are devastating on a global scale, poverty, disease and crime are the order of the day. The river is used on Texas side of the border to irrigate crops oranges,melons,cabbage,lemons and lettuce are grown in the fertile valley and salmonella outbrakes are just as common as cities who's police chief's are murdered by machinegun fire the day they start their job. In one border city this past year there were over 1,300 murders thats more than they had in Bagdad last year. The old supply & demand form of business unregulated has resulted in complete chaos and fear for the hard working people barley surviving on beans and tortillas. Walmart just offers low paying jobs with inferior foreign made products and they have enjoyed worldwide success and huge profits at what cost to the American way of life, not to mention the global environment and the health and safety of their workers. You get what you pay for- quality products made in the USA or cheap Chinese and Mexican junk.
OU_Ron
· 10 months ago
You need to run for office TC, I'm gonna have my wife boycot Walmart..........on another note, I read an article today on what alcohol can do to you, it scared me so bad that I'm gonna stop reading....
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Thanks Ron Na cant run for office, too many skeletons in too many closets. I have a confession to make. Had to get my eyes checked and order eyewear before the New Year. In a town bout 21 miles away from here two eye doctors and two eye glasses places one accepts my insurance and the other is outside my network- ya you guessed it My eyeglasses came from wallyworld made in China- no doubt, so now I can blame the big industrial mega giants for my poor eyesight on top of everything else- can't help but laugh What made it worse was I had to come up with some outa pocket money and wait to get reinbursed- dang rip off insurance companies God Bless America
Cougar_Fan
· 10 months ago
Ok I don't mean to be rude. But what you say here is demonstrably NOT true. I've seen the movie "Wal-mart the high cost of low prices," and it horribly misconstrues the argument. Understandably the film maker has no economic background which shows in his analysis. Before you go on a crusade against Wal-mart you should read some more (e.g. Martin Wolf "why globalization works," it actually addresses everything you mentioned and its from somebody who has spent his life studying the issue, as opposed to that documentary. Another good documentary is "Commanding Heights," its on PBS.com. And if you read something opposed to globalization read something respectable like "Globalization and its discontents"). Having studied macro-economics and the economic history of America. I can tell you that if you were interested in the economic situation of Latin America why don't you eliminate the destructive tariffs in the US that affect those countries. If you did that you would reduce the migration pressure toward the US and you will boost the US and Latin American economies (and none of those consequences are debated). About protecting American jobs that are moved oversees. Are you aware with how comparative advantage plays out in your argument? Your claims are internally inconsistent. You propose saving US jobs that get exported but you don't understand that by doing so you would push both the US and foreign economy into more poverty, which is one of the problems you claim is caused by trade liberalization. The reality is that the opening of the China to the world economy has increased nearly four-fold the average income of those workers, and has produced a HUGE aggregate boost to the US economy. About environmental issues, capitalism has a much better track record with environmental issues than planned economies (addressed in Martin Wolf's book). And did you say that Mexico epitomizes true capitalism? Trust me I've studied its economic record, and I've lived there, it is not, nor has it ever made it to the level of true capitalism. But thankfully it is getting there (in part thanks to NAFTA). You really need to read more before you start pontificating on these issues.
Regan
· 10 months ago
True Capitalism is as dangerous as True Communism.
Wal-Mart, by definition, is an American success story, just like Microsoft.
In a True Capitalism, though, nothing would stop Wal-Mart from cornering the market and causing massive Barriers to Entry, which leads inexorably to Monopolistic behavior.
If Wal-Mart wasn't so aggressive in running other industries wholesale out of business, there would be no problem.
In concept, you're spot on. Due to the circumstances, however...
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Only a little thing called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act...
Cougar_Fan
· 10 months ago
Fair enough. I can accept that.
Cougar_Fan
· 10 months ago
Cheaper prices does NOTconstitute monopolistic behavior. Once Wal-mart has a significant market share to have influence over prices of what it sells then we can talk about it being monopolistic, but as far as I've studied it I've found no data that supports the idea that it is in a position where it possesses monopoly levels of market share. The reality is that . With respect to Economists and globalization, yes, actually they do. Among professional academic economists very few have opposed it (The only notable one I can think of is Joseph Stiglitz out of Colombia). There are many more who support it (Beginning with Ricardo who helped debunk mercantilism and among others today Martin Wolf). The globalization debate is more a scuffle between economists and sociologists/anthropologists rather than within economics. With respect to elitism and unempoyability I was anticipating a common fallacious argument used against walmart in regard to its compensation of workers which people don't feel is fair. I thought you were referring to that but you haven't brought it up so my bad I jumped the gun on that. I don't mean to sound elitist but it bothers me when I hear people with no macro-economics background make ridiculous statements and claims about the international trade and globalization. I can respect people who oppose globalization but I can't stand people who make unfounded statements without understanding the science of international trade and finance, its just disingenuous. The reality is that there are a LOT of people talking about globalization who don't know anything about the subject (case in point the movie Wal-mart the high cost of low prices). Finally about China, true it is a large deficit, but how do you feel about the fact that the opening of India and China to the world economy since 1978 has also represented the largest lift from poverty the world has ever seen. That makes me feel pretty good about myself at the end of the day. Are you worried about them overrunning our market? (Germany imports more to the US than China) Are you worried about monetary terrorism? (That is a potential problem but we solve it by increasing our savings rate, and China could do it but they'd take themselves out at the same time).
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Regan-I must agree, they had ruined small town American owned MoM & Pop operations and turned American small town Mains street in to ghostowns. See the film titled Walmart the High cost of Low price. I try to avoid and boycott them, however I must admit that sometimes they are sole-sorce for particular items- mostly Chinesee junk Buy American if possible Hookem-Horns
Regan
· 10 months ago
I saw that documentary; it was disturbingly true...
I've already claimed that within the next 10 years, I see Wal-Mart establishing Apartment complexes for it's Employees right off-site of some of its stores to bring us full-circle back to the "Mill-Town" days of the Robber Barons and indentured servitude...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Regan- you know why you never take one Baptist fishing? because they will drink all your beer, take two then they watch each other
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
That goes double for the LDS -- that's why missionaries go in pairs.
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Ben never thought of that BTW how many wives do they have to ask first, before they can go fishing?-LOL
gatorhippy
· 10 months ago
Just the First wife...
She's the one in charge of the household...
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
LMAO!!!!
Whom do you ask? The organizer, the maternal one, or the slut?
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
I think I'd ask the slut...but that's where my priorities are. :-)
Tommy_Trojan
· 10 months ago
Tom:
And, your sure to get the truth, as they never lie.
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
You've heard the term, "lie to me", no?
Tommy_Trojan
· 10 months ago
Tom:
Pretty good song, actually. Can't remember the name of the "Blues guy" who did it. I used to sit in the pub listening to it all the time. Jonny Lang - that's the guy. Ever heard it? Great Blues tune.
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
Most definitely. I likes dem blues...and I likes my barbeque while I'm listenin' to dem blues.
gatorhippy
· 10 months ago
Lang is a hack...
Ya'll need to get off that homegenized record label packaged bullsh!t and get you some real blues...
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
I like Muddy Waters, BB King, Albert King, Shuggie Otis, Lightnin' Hopkins...but my favorite is Buddy Guy.
That bluesy enough for ya?
gatorhippy
· 10 months ago
Shuggie Otis?
I dunno about that, man...
I did like his work with Zappa but not much more...
King is good but became watered down quickly on in the corporate recording machine eseentially ruining his style...
King, Hopkins(though not a huge Texas-style blus fan), and Guy are/were true innovators but all influenced by the original in Robert Johnson...
Incidentally, Waters & Burnside were cousin-in-laws...
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
Yeah, Shuggie Otis. Sweet Thang is one of my all-time favorites.
Didn't know that about Waters and Burnside.
Anyway, I'm not a music snob. I enjoy a wide variety of genres and artists.
Nothing makes me spout off about my deepest beliefs concerning religion, etc. than when I get tanked up on good ol' Guinness or Boddington's Pub Ale.
Tinged with numerous explicatives about how #&@%-ing awesome God is, etc...
Eh, the Dropkick Murphys share the same flaw, so who knows? :)
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
You should try a hand grenade and a good old chat with a street preacher on Bourbon Street...
Ah, those Sugar Bowl memories...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Your alright man-no offense I like Murphys Ale Courage and Youngs
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
You're right. And it still SUCKS.
gatorhippy
· 10 months ago
In reality, the BCS is no different than the the Bowl coalition or the old bowl "system"...
It does nothing but furnish a 1 vs 2 matchup to finish the season off...
The muddled picture is still there just as it was 20 years ago and provides no real indication of anything...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
An alleged 1 vs. 2 matchup.
gatorhippy
· 10 months ago
Mmmm...
No...
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant...
It's still a guaranteed 1 vs. 2 matchup according to the BCS rankings...
Something that wasn't guranteed/rarely happened under the old system regardless of who was doing the ranking...
Not saying it's correct mind you...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
The BCS's alleged rankings.
Regan
· 10 months ago
An Improvement of the BCS is (should be) what is on everyone's agenda. I was pretty much the last one on the BCS-support bandwagon until 2004.
One problem that so many people have is that they believe what they believe, and until they get what they want, they will whine, sit back, and do nothing.
This is kinda what I was doing for a while, until Ben Prather emailed me, wanting to iron out a compromise system taking his statistics and my abstract rules/clauses to formulate a structure that would actually work really well, be actually feasible, and would solve the problems.
I was a bit hesitant at first to embrace a new idea, but Ben convinced me and I really believe we have a good system that he is now eagerly marketing in the hopes of maybe getting some ground traction.
Personally, I am aligned with Kevin Donahue on the matter - I like the One Big Game. It seems to me that (aside from 2004), if you are in a major conference and go undefeated, you have an NC berth.
Given the fact that AUB didn't get a shot against SCAL (I could have sprung for one more game), and now that UTAH has proved that the mid-majors really do deserve a seat at the table, I believe circumstances justify allowing for the possibility of one or two extra games IF an individual season would benefit from it.
What I would ask for everyone is simply this: back up your words. If you really believe change is good for this sport, and want grass-roots change in the sport, do something more than complain here or elsewhere. Try to make a difference - learn what alternative plans are out there and pick one to support.
In the process, I honestly believe that research into the problems and issues with the BCS, along with the Facts lurking in the background will lead people to have a greater appreciation for how CFB can best truly be best served.
It is easy to simply put forth the almost cliche "16 team playoff, 11x Conf Champ + 5 At-Large" system. If it were really that simple, it would have happened by now. Learn why it isn't, and learn to see things from others' perspective, so when the "grass-roots" effort eventually does make its move, it will happen the right way.
Well, you have to admit BCS is great for college football, like my man Eric Bischoff title of his book "Controversy Creates Cash" and the BCS has created who lot of cash. Next year when BCS sees the New Cotton Bowl, mark my words the Cotton Bowl will be apart of the BCS Mix in the near future. BCS+Dallas New Stadium+ 100,000 fans+Cotton Bowl= $$$$$$$
As a fan I want a playoff, but if I was working for any of those six BCS conferences the BCS is just fine b/c BCS Creates a lot of cash and controversy sells.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I can see the Cotton Bowl replacing the Fiesta Bowl as the Big 12 tie-in. The Fiesta Bowl was created to give the WAC a bowl berth in 1971. It would be a great venue for the champions of the MWC and WAC to square off. The Poinsettia Bowl this year is an indicator of what that game would look like.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Is that stadium really supposed to seat that many?
4cornerz
· 10 months ago
Yes
Wardboy3
· 10 months ago
This is what it says on their website: Seating Capacity: A capacity of 80,000 plus standing room or additional seating in the end zones, along with ticketed areas in the end zone plazas can increase total capacity to 100,000.
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Right now DKR Memorial has the record for attendance 94,000 seats+ with over 98,000 total including teams, media, security and vendors etc etc- So ole Jerry Jones has to set a new record- The Cotton shoulda stayed in the fairgrounds- well will still got the RRS game there for the time being anyway
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Critique of the BCS Formula As a formula to determine the average ranking it is not that bad. The polls have enough samples to mitigate against outliers and the computer average mitigates them by throwing out the highest and lowst values.
Using the points awarded instead of the rankings of the polls significantly increases the accuracy of the results. One improvcement that could be made is to use the raw data of the computeres rather than the rankings of each as well. Each computer ranking used has an underlying raw score that is analagous to the total points of the polls. By linearly scaling each so that the #2 team has a value of 0.96 and the #25 team a value of 0.04 the precision of the computer ranking average can be significantly increased.
While slight improvements may be suggested, the BCS formula's weakness is not its algorithm.
Critique of the BCS Sampling Methods One of the primary issues with the formula is its samping methods. It relies on two polls. The Coaches poll has long been charged with voter prejudice and partisan voting blocks among the conferences who are too focused on their own teams to really consider how the other teams rank. The Harris Poll involves voters who admittedly don't even watch all of the top 25 teams play a game.
This gives Sports Center, a trusted source for most of these voters, an unfair say in the title race. Sports Center gives significantly more time to conferences ESPN has a TV contract with. Compare the air time given to Ball State or Tulsa to that of Utah or TCU. Despite the MWC teams being ranked higher they were hardly ever shown.
The computers used are in the middle of the pack. Several other computer methods exist that are significantly better, but are excluded because they use MOV. This is despite evidence that MOV is the single best NCAA statistic as indicating the winners of bowl games. The BCS computers are too dependent on each teams records.
In the end the historical bias of the voters and the dependence of the computers on each team's record are opposed. I believe they are balanced fairly well, but their is room for disagreement.
Critique of how the BCS formula is applied Another other issue with the BCS formula is how it is applied. The current system only allows for two teams, so the formula is used to decide between the #2 and #3 team.
Using the BCS rankings is significantly less informative than using the formula values themselves. The difference between two teams values is an indicator of the consensus that one team is better than the other.
Rather than use the BCS formula to seperate teams at a given ranking it would be much better to seperate teams at a given gap in the standings.
Tommy_Trojan
· 10 months ago
Ben:
Your greatest statement was how the "media" determines who will play in the National Championship game. They do all this to bolster their own ratings. It's a complete farce and the whole nation has drunk the kool-aide. Some things are clear: like Florida was a very good football team. What else was very clear: was that the Big 12 played no defense whatsoever. Yet, these bozo's were bound and determined to get a Big 12 representative into the game. It went on all year long and got started last year. The media got into a frenzy because QB's in the Big 12 were putting up outlandish numbers. Well, all that meant is that the conference had very poor DB's, LB's and DE's. Nobody could get to the QB. But, these genius' are not interested in presenting the facts. It has been very clear that the Big 12 has been far behind most other conferences in total defense. But, defense does not get you "style points" with the media (see USC 08'). So, the Big 12's got it workin'. They have it figured out. They are playing the media like all dayum day long.
Gator_Jim
· 10 months ago
Ben and Tommy, I think you are both right on here. My only exception is that there is not enough interaction between the upper echelon teams from different conferences to be able to accurately rank them. That is why I feel that there needs to be a playoff with the top 16 teams, as ranked by the formula. Let's not forget that not only this year but in 2004 as well, Utah was undefeated, went to the Fiesta Bowl and demolished Pitttsburgh 35-7 while Auburn squeaked out a 16-13 victory over Virginia Tech.
I hear so many say "we don't need a national champion" but as I know you guys know that can never be the case. The media is going to proclaim a National Champion one way or another. Heavens, in 1969 President Nixon declared Texas to be the National Champion...
We might as well choose a national champion by the first school's logo that Punksatony Phil sees on February 2nd, or have a watery tart rise from the lake and present a sword to the best looking quarterback in the land. After all, it is a beauty contest where style points count more than points allowed, margin of victory, and strength of schedule.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Demolished Pittsburgh, the 8-4 Big Eas(y)t co-champ? And you're comparing that to a win against VT? The same VT that was ranked #10 in the AP going into the bowls, compared with Pitt's #19? The same VT that beat #9 ranked Miami in the ACC CG? Squeaked, huh?
The squeaker getting left out later paid huge dividends with your team getting extra 'goodwill' consideration in 2006, LSU getting unbelievable consideration last year, and then your team again with probably a little extra this year. You will never see an undefeated SEC team get left of the BCS title game again. NEVER.
You guys are welcome!
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Utah 2004 was a better team than Utah 2008.
gatorhippy
· 10 months ago
Of course it was...
Urban Meyer was the coach...
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
But who did they play, Ben? Auburn played 4 teams ranked in the top 15 (before the bowls) USC played 2 and OU played one.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
In 2004? They played None. The MWC did nothing that year.
And Utah 2008 played 3 before the bowls. Utah 2004 was better than Utah 2008.
The standings were much more top heavy in 2004 than 2008. 2008 was much more top heavy than 2007. If we did what we did this year, or 2004, last year we would have gone to the title game.
Glass_Joe
· 10 months ago
I wouldn't say Utah 2004 was a better team. I think they had a better offense but 2008's defense was better. In my opinion the two teams are pretty danged close. What was impressive about the 2004 team though is they beat everyone handily. Wasn't their closest game decided by like 14 points? Then again, their opposition was nothing like it was this last year.
laplajo1
· 10 months ago
Come on, folks. The BCS is better than the system we had before when the Pac 10 and Big 10 could dodge the best teams with their out-dated Rose Bowl tie-up and then when the popularity contest that was the AP and UPI. I wonder how many teams from those conferences would have still won the NC had the present system been in place.
All Comments
The only year the BCS did work well was 2005. It couldn't miss.
2008 will be known as the year that brought the BCS system down.
This years mistake of Oklahoma over Texas was not the fault of the BCS - that was the fault of the Big12. The BCS was never designed to pick a conference or division champion.
As far as the BCS picking two teams to play in BCS game, it's succeeded every year. It's just doesn't get it right.
I would rather compare the 2008 Sugar Bowl to the 1926 Rose Bowl.
Fla St vs Va Tech
Miami vs tOSU
TX vs USC
All other games you can NOT honestly sit there and say the TWO best teams were playing.
This is why I am in favor of a playoff. Let the teams decided it on a field and not coaches (who do not watch anybody else play) or someone putting info into a computer.
2005 and 2002 where exceptions. 2001 could have gone to Miami after the regular season. Most years have 3 teams that deserved consideration before the bowls.
Here are my thoughts since the BCS started of which teams should have been considered each year.
for example OU beat TCU good game- TCU left out-OU destroyed Cinn- BE conf Champ-BCS bowl
so the #2 or #3 team from some conferences are probably better than #1 team from others
Bye weeks are necessary unless the number of teams is a power of two. A hard number of teams produces an irresolvable cutoff error. While bye weeks guarantee a team gets past the first round, they also allow more time for a team to get rusty.
The conference championship clause in my idea is only used in the very unlikely case that 9 or more teams qualify. In the 11 year history of the BCS the most teams that would have qualified are 5 (twice, 2004 and 2008).
I left out both TCU and Cincinnati of the championship system.
The current system works, and has worked every year except 2004. Here is the system in a nutshell:
1a. Win every game and you are in the national title game (SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, Big 10, ACC)
1b. Win every game for 2 years and you are the title game (all other conferences)
2. Lose a game and you are at the mercy of others. Even if you make it to the NC game and win, your season is empty and meaningless in my book.
The BCS has produced some very special things - OSU-Miami in 2002, TX-USC in 2005, Boise St-OK in 2006. Odds are everyone reading this thread can recall with clarity details of Texas's 2005 season including winning a competitive game at OSU. You would not remember any of that if there was a large playoff. Ask yourself this - do you remember who won the basketball title last year? How about 2 or 5 years ago? Would you remember a Duke #1 vs UNC #2 matchup that occurred in Feb 2005? Same questions for the NFL. Odss are you remember things with a lot more clarity in college football over a longer period of time because there are less games, and when games with significance happen it is rare enough that you pay attention and you therefore keep that memory with you,
Long live the BCS!
A big playoff will not happen anytime soon, no need to worry about the loss of importance of the regular season.We have seen teams go undefeated and win their bowls and not be considered and other years seen two loss teams in the MNC game, when others were just as good if not better. All conferences ought to adopt the same system for determining a Conf Champ and CCG games should be played in every conference or eliminated-period
Some conferences may have a four loss team as their champ, while others may have several good 1 loss teams as was the case this season prior to the CCG games and Bowls.
1 loss PSU
1 loss USC
1 loss Fla
1 loss OU
1 loss Tex
0 loss Utah
0 loss Bama
0 loss Bois st
1 loss TTech
that adds up to 9 so we could argue over who's # 8 or #9 instead of who's #2, or #3,
this would not diminiss the importance of the regular season and if the positions are based upon some SOS arguement will could still see some exciting OOC matchups.
With games scheduled years in advance, some of these exciting matchups are not quite what the fans or the media deemed too important, because some teams have better years than others as was the case with the Tex vs Ark game- heck before the season started that looked like a better matchup that TCU vs OU, so the trend will be Sunbelts & C-USA games during OOC games because with the current system run up the score and post big numbers and even if you drop one to an arch rival your still in the MNC game
Playoffs? So we can get the certainty of the NFL?
Any year a team ends the season undefeated and not the champion the BCS failed.
Anytime the difference between #2 and #3 came down to a few computers the system failed.
Given the task of setting the top 2 teams in a bowl game the BCS has done an admirable job in good faith to get that task done.
To select two teams that are decidedly #1 and #2 after the regular season the way it is scheduled is an impossible task.
"Anytime the difference between #2 and #3 came down to a few computers the system failed." - I guess that's the core of my disagreement. In these cases the system did not fail, the number #2 and #3 teams failed.
Utah,Texas and USC all won their bowls and nerver had a shot at a Champ game and the Mythical B-12 champ/chump lost theirs as usual
Hookem Horns 5 consecutive bowl wins-including 3 BCS Bowls 2 Rose 1 Feista
8 consecutive 10+ win seasons
What we really need is an NBA, NHL or MLB system with the top 8 teams playing three best of seven rounds to determine the champions.
What the current NFL playoff system guarantees is that the eventual champion wins it on the field, in an elimination format that includes more than 25% of all teams.What it does not give us - as opposed to the BCS - is a one-game, winner take all between two teams who were picked to play in the game by people sitting in front of their computers comparing stats. It infuriates me to hear people say - in any given year - "well, the BCS worked this year, we got #1 and #2". The BCS gives you #1 and #2 every year, but they're the two teams that the voters "say" are #1 and #2.
What we really need in NCAA D-1A football is a playoff system that would be based on a points system (I have devised one). Teams get points for a win, a road win, out of conference win, etc. Teams are penalized for playing lower division teams, and receive fewer points for a home win than a road win. This would take into account teams like Ohio State, who play eight home games a year, two against weak MAC teams and a third against a D-1AA team, but knowing as long as they beat Michigan, they'll get a free ride into a big-money BCS bowl, because the Big Ten is one of the "chosen conferences". Florida State, who because of suspensions for a cheating scandal, reworked their schedule to front-load two D-1AA teams in Tallahassee while a large percentage of their roster was suspended, would do so knowing that those two games would cost them big-time in accruing enough points to make the 16-team playoff.
The genius of the previous ides was that it would create year round football.
We really need a system like this.
As for your point system, their should be some method for allowing better computers to replace those that are under performing.
I don't really have a problem with big name schools going to big name bowls. Let the conference and bowls work out contracts in their own best interest.
The BCS's role should be to determine the national title and define which teir a bowl is based on its conference tie ins. The bowls should be played in increasing level of prestige, culminating in the BCS bowls on New Year's Day. The championship game would be the only game played after this.
The BCS Bowls function as games to honor the champions of the premier conferences and would sometimes double as a semi-final. The premier bowls would be the those with the first selection from EACH conference after the BCS has made its selection and the second such bowl from the stronger BCS conferences and would to be played from December 26th through December 31st. All other bowls would be regional bowls and be played from December 19th through December 25th.
This definition directly allows for the possibility that conference strength might change with time and allow the bowls,conferences and TV networks the ability to renegotiate their contracts and the BCS to determine the champion and certify the prestige of the bowls.
Personally, I don't have a problem with any deserving school - big name or not - from going to a bowl game as reward for a good season. Limiting big name bowls to big name schools seems elitist to me, and brings us right back to the problem that we currently have: self-proclaimed "elite(big name)" conferences making the rules about who is worthy of going to a "big name bowl".
There were 34 bowl games this year. A 16-team playoff would require 15 games to determine a champion on the field. That leaves 19 bowl games to accommodate all the 6-6, 7-5 and 8-4 teams whose schools want to reward their teams and fans with a week in the sun somewhere.
As long as the NCAA doesn't have the balls to do the right thing, and allows ESPN, the presidents of fewer than half the member institutions of D-1A football, and the various bowl committees to run this sham they call the BCS, we'll be stuck without having a true champion.
Bowls cannot effectively be worked into a 16-team playoff. It just won't won't work.
You seem convinced that the "powers that be" are intent on 'not doing the right thing', but have you taken much time to actually look at why things are the way they are?
No matter what, there are so many issues, points-of-view, and vested interests in so many strata of CFB, one simple "one-size-fits all" simply cannot and will not solve the problems.
Regardless, as has been discussed repeatedly, a Playoff will merely switch one set of gripes for another, and CFB will lose a lot in the translation.
All Teaff needs to do is pick up the phone, call the NCAA and ask them how they've been doing it in DII and DIII football for the past 36 years.
Okay...there's a book by Stewart Mandel called "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls"
(http://www.amazon.com/Bowls-Polls-Tattered-Soul...)
Get this book, and read the first chapter, so you have an idea of how unbelievably complex the issue is...seriously...it is NOT a quick-fix....
And this from a Utah fan...
Tell me, when is the last time you heard any whining and moaning from DII or DIII coaches about the process they use to crown a true champion?
“You’ll have to forgive me if I’m in no hurry to see the Fiesta Bowl turn into the ‘NCAA Southwest Regional.’”
Stewart Mandel - Dec. 30, 2008
“Obviously, the one certain way to increase interest in such games would be the inception of a playoff.”
Stewart Mandel - Jan. 4, 2009
How many books have you written? The guy did the research, and stated it as it is.
As far as attempting to take quotes out of context, I'd give you an A+. Mandel is on the "Plus-One" Bandwagon. While I don't believe a straight-up Plus-One is the best system, I at least can recognize that he has a grasp of the complex issues and wide range of viewpoints that chaotically grip the sport and has explained them with great detail.
It IS complicated; but feel free to stay in imaginationland....
You need to get a life instead of throwing around such profound terms as "complex issues" and "chaotically grip" and "debating logical points" to describe a game. It's really not that important to me. The greedy bastards at ESPN, Fox Sports, BCS and the "elite" conferences have ruined college football as far as I'm concerned.
Some people just disagree with you. That's life. Just because I do does not mean I benefit in any way from the BCS.
If you actually look at my posts, you will see that I believe the BCS needs fixing too; I just don't want a playoff.
You can see CFB in any way you choose, but by automatically drawing conclusions about others' points and bashing them personally is neither helpful or (if I may speak for my fellow Fanbloggers) wanted.
You have your opinion, Stewart Mandel has his, I have mine. I assure you, mine will not be swayed by anything you or Stewart Mandel pontificate about the wisdom and correctness of the BCS. That's just the way it is. Doesn't mean I'm right, doesn't mean you're right. So don't try to be cute in attacking me for having MY opinion - one that doesn't jive with yours.
But if you choose to attack me personally for having a strong opinion that runs counter to yours - which you did - don't be surprised when I fire back.
Since you asked, I have only written two books, neither of which, I'm near certain, would appeal to you. They're not chock full of statistics, winning percentages and numbers, and are not geared to the shallow-minded, jock-sniffing type, Not saying that's what you are, just making a general observation. So you're no doubt correct in your opinion about Stewart Mandel being much more accomplished than I - at least for your taste and your mentality. As I said, college football is not that important to me any more, and - for me - that is due in large measure to the BCS and it's pig-headed defenders.
We all want changes to the system, I want to ensure that changes are positive...
Confidence and self-assuredness are wonderful traits. But when they cross the line into out-of-hand dismissal of others as having no intelligence or credibility, simply because they don't agree with your view, they smack of haughty arrogance.
We just suffered through eight years of a president/self-proclaimed decider, who dismissed (and fired) everybody who didn't agree with him. I argued (on the issues at hand) that he was wrong for eight years. Some insist to this day - as does he - that he was never wrong. All I know for sure is that this country is in far worse shape after eight years of him telling us he knew what was best for us all, than it was before he was appointed.
But back to the point. I don't know if I'm right in my opinion of the BCS, but I know it's my opinion. And as someone who has been a fan of college football for about 50 years, I believe my opinion that the BCS is unfair, corrupt and discriminatory is well thought out. But I'm also not foolish enough to think that my opinion matters a hill of beans to the self-anointed "elites" who devised and run the BCS. All I can do is pull for WVU and the Miami Hurricanes, hope they do well, and hope that they get a fair shake if ever they find themselves in position to contend for the title at the end of the season.
Besides, it is always in everyones' best interests to truly understand the issues, right? That's all I'm saying.
On a political note, I liked GWB, and still do. That's a whole different bird, however.
You are right about your opinions, and I apologize if you got the impression I was attacking you personally for not sharing mine. I tend to be sarcastic sometimes.
I'll join you on the Miami cheers, though...
I agree that the BCS is flawed, skewed, and in need of change. Im just adamantly against a True Playoff because of what it would mean to the Regular Season.
Ben Prather and I have a decent plan up on one of these threads, check it out if you're interested.
I think the first thing that needs to be done, is to eliminate the "elite" conferences as decision-making entities as to whom gets the privilege of playing in the big-money bowl games or for the "title".
Second, eliminate automatic conference bids - and especially, eliminate Notre Dame's "special" status.
Next, no polls - including pre-season polls, which are no more than beauty contests - until week 5 of the season. You see the same names at the top of the pre-season rankings year after year. All it accomplishes is that it sets an unfair pecking order based on absolutely nothing relevant to the current season. It also makes it impossible for surprise teams to climb to the top. One team was undefeated this year - Utah. Do you suppose had Utah been ranked, oh, let's say #5 in pre-season (rather than Wisconsin, who finished 7-6) that pre-season #28 Utah might have been ranked higher than #7 after an undefeated season, and could only climb to #2 after thrashing Alabama?
I say week 5 for the first poll, because that's the week teams generally have finished beating up on cupcakes, and start their conference schedules. I would penalize teams for playing lower division teams, so there's no way a Florida State enters week 3 ranked #24 after outscoring two D-1AA teams (who ended up a combined 4-20) by 115-7.
Just like giving high school players five, four or however many stars, pre-season rankings based on what you did last year and who you are, are meaningless. UM signed the #1 offensive player - Kyle Wright - and the #1 defensive player - Willie Williams - several years back. Anybody know where they are today? Meanwhile, this kid could be the 1st pick this year, and certainly top 5. Notice the "NR" next to his position rank?
http://miami.scout.com/a.z?s=13&p=8&c=1&nid=154...
You say: "Im just adamantly against a True Playoff because of what it would mean to the Regular Season."
I'm guessing you're going to use the argument that playoffs make the regular season "meaningless"? Nothing could be further from the truth. A team still would need to finish in the top 16 to make the playoffs, which means you still have to try to win all your games, which - last time I played - was what we did every week anyway, regardless of where it might have placed us in the rankings. One thing is still pretty consistent, if you lose games, you usually drop in the rankings; to move up, you have to keep winning.
I have greatly expanded the original concept hashed out be Regan and I to be a significant BCS reform.
My expanded idea would be to make the BCS the governing body for the bowls, charged with assigning prestige to the bowls and conferences and increasing the consensus of the national champion, instead of an agreement between the bowls. The bowls have proven they can't govern themselves and the NCAA refuses to make a stand.
I like the three criteria used to measure the conferences. I would propose establishing three tiers of conferences, elite, automatic qualifier and at large. The cutoffs for each would by 0.75 and 0.5 respectively using values like these.
Whether a conference is elite or if an at large conference warrants an automatic qualificatrion would be evaluated every year. Automatic qualifications would be evaluted every time a conference's BCS Bowl tie in hosted the national title. This way if a conference earns BCS status they know they have it at least until their BCS tie in comes around again.
This also allows for BCS bowls to be determined. They are the ones with tie ins to the conferences with automatic qualifications. Every time a BCS bowl hosts the NCG its conference tie ins would be evaluated for BCS automatic qualifications and if it no longer has a tie in with an automatic qualifying conference the bowl would lose its BCS status (becoming a premier bowl). If a conference without a BCS Bowl tie in earned a BCS automatic qualification its premier bowl would become a BCS bowl and that bowl would be added to the end of the current national championship cycle.
This would provide an incentive for the bowls to compete for the tie ins with the stronger conferences. It also allowes the conferences and bowls to work out their tie ins in their mutual best interest, no rules forcing any bowls to take any teams they don't want. The complaints that the at large conferences need to be included in the revenue sharing is handled by their participation in the championship system, not by shoe horning them into a BCS bowl.
If this was done, the Big 12 could, for example, simply change its tie in to the Cotton Bowl and the Cotton Bowl would then become a BCS bowl (after the tie in has been used once without BCS status). The Fiesta Bowl would remain a BCS bowl until the next time it hosted the national championship game, when it would lose its BCS status unless it securred a tie in with an automatic qualifying conference.
What a lot of people fail to realize, IMO, is that the BCS is a bowl marketing alliance. It is an agreement between the conferences (all of them, BTW) and the four major bowls as to how bowl selections will be prioritized to pair the consensus (very key word) #1 and #2 ranked teams. That's it - one game, as you noted correctly, WEA.
(PS. Yes, I am still on hiatus. I will be back next Monday with a posting barrage. Enjoy your time without uniform threads, suckers!)
The BCS is more maligned institution than would be if Walmart bought Amway and Exxon/Mobile...
Seems to me that if one could walk onto any street corner to buy crappy gas in bulk cheaply to sell it off to your friends who in turn provide you with additional income as they resell it would be pretty popular...
The biggest public outcry would be from the Catholics complaining that the Protestants had cornered the market and be looking to sue for a monopoly...
Oh wait...
I guess that last part does sound kinda like the BCS...
I'm sure Regan will be all over this--like a Morman missionary with an Amway franchise...
j/k, Regan...
Oh, and Wal-Mart is absolute and unadulterated EVIL...
At the rate banks are being bailed out now, I'll be happy if there will even BE a 2009 College Football season.
I'm afraid it's too late for that though...comrade. (And with the temps around -10 around here right now, I feel like I'm in Siberia anyway.)
Help the rest of us figure out how to screw the masses. We'll probably have to wait 20 or 30 years before the next round. That's OK though, it will be a fully baked conspiracy by then.
As an aside. I once read Sam Walton's biography. Very interesting man he was. I just cannot reconcile that vision of Sam, with the Wal-Martization of America. On the one hand, he would have been proud. On the other, I think he would be ashamed of what Wal-Mart has done to America.
Anyhoo, I've accidentally hijacked the thread. Sorry!
Can't disagree about bankers. Let em' starve. They sure would kick us to the curb.
But, WalMart employs the whole rest of the world, selling us inferior products here in the US. I say that Sam Walton and his ilk ought to all move to whatever country it is that they like to give all of our money to. I say yank their business license here in the USA also. It's companies like them that are offloading all of our cash into foriegn economies. That's why we're going broke. We don't manufacter in America anymore. That's how this country used to make it's money. They are all really lucky that I am not in charge. I'd make Saddam Hussein look like a choir boy.
Unfortunately, it looks like the days our government staying out of the economy is over.
Let me say this. I'll take the BCS over the government taking over CFB any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
If you remember, while he was alive, Wal-Mart had a huge "Made in the USA" thing going on.
The guy didn't get to the funeral home before the greedy board of directors sold Wal-Mart's soul to China.
(I'm a Small-Business economist/financial officer. Wal-Mart is the only thing more evil than Mike Leach. I bet he shops there...)
People who don't have fiscal responsibility shouldn't even have credit cards in the first place. Ah, but that's the world we live in now.
Most companies just want to be successful. These &@%#*^#$ers want the world to be Wal-Earth.
Monopolies are anti-capitalistic, don't forget. :)
Isn't it strange that most academic economists (and macro-economists in particular) favor globalization and walmart? True that Wal-mart runs ma and pa businesses under, but they also employ a great deal of otherwise unemployable workers and they provide a huge aggregate boost to the economy via cheaper prices.
Cheaper prices are indeed an aspect of a company attempting to monopolize a market.
If the market is rigged by a monopoly, it cannot allow us Americans do decide whether they deserve to be there.
Most Economists do not necessarily advocate what you are claiming, since it is an overly-broad notion. Most Economists do enjoy free trade, but what exists now with China is a massive Trade Deficit.
Lastly, "unemployable workers"? Smacks with elitism, if you ask me, no offense...
In one border city this past year there were over 1,300 murders thats more than they had in Bagdad last year.
The old supply & demand form of business unregulated has resulted in complete chaos and fear for the hard working people barley surviving on beans and tortillas.
Walmart just offers low paying jobs with inferior foreign made products and they have enjoyed worldwide success and huge profits at what cost to the American way of life, not to mention the global environment and the health and safety of their workers.
You get what you pay for- quality products made in the USA or cheap Chinese and Mexican junk.
I have a confession to make. Had to get my eyes checked and order eyewear before the New Year. In a town bout 21 miles away from here two eye doctors and two eye glasses places one accepts my insurance and the other is outside my network- ya you guessed it
My eyeglasses came from wallyworld made in China- no doubt, so now I can blame the big industrial mega giants for my poor eyesight on top of everything else- can't help but laugh
What made it worse was I had to come up with some outa pocket money and wait to get reinbursed- dang rip off insurance companies
God Bless America
Before you go on a crusade against Wal-mart you should read some more (e.g. Martin Wolf "why globalization works," it actually addresses everything you mentioned and its from somebody who has spent his life studying the issue, as opposed to that documentary. Another good documentary is "Commanding Heights," its on PBS.com. And if you read something opposed to globalization read something respectable like "Globalization and its discontents").
Having studied macro-economics and the economic history of America. I can tell you that if you were interested in the economic situation of Latin America why don't you eliminate the destructive tariffs in the US that affect those countries. If you did that you would reduce the migration pressure toward the US and you will boost the US and Latin American economies (and none of those consequences are debated).
About protecting American jobs that are moved oversees. Are you aware with how comparative advantage plays out in your argument? Your claims are internally inconsistent. You propose saving US jobs that get exported but you don't understand that by doing so you would push both the US and foreign economy into more poverty, which is one of the problems you claim is caused by trade liberalization. The reality is that the opening of the China to the world economy has increased nearly four-fold the average income of those workers, and has produced a HUGE aggregate boost to the US economy.
About environmental issues, capitalism has a much better track record with environmental issues than planned economies (addressed in Martin Wolf's book). And did you say that Mexico epitomizes true capitalism? Trust me I've studied its economic record, and I've lived there, it is not, nor has it ever made it to the level of true capitalism. But thankfully it is getting there (in part thanks to NAFTA).
You really need to read more before you start pontificating on these issues.
Wal-Mart, by definition, is an American success story, just like Microsoft.
In a True Capitalism, though, nothing would stop Wal-Mart from cornering the market and causing massive Barriers to Entry, which leads inexorably to Monopolistic behavior.
If Wal-Mart wasn't so aggressive in running other industries wholesale out of business, there would be no problem.
In concept, you're spot on. Due to the circumstances, however...
With respect to Economists and globalization, yes, actually they do. Among professional academic economists very few have opposed it (The only notable one I can think of is Joseph Stiglitz out of Colombia). There are many more who support it (Beginning with Ricardo who helped debunk mercantilism and among others today Martin Wolf). The globalization debate is more a scuffle between economists and sociologists/anthropologists rather than within economics.
With respect to elitism and unempoyability I was anticipating a common fallacious argument used against walmart in regard to its compensation of workers which people don't feel is fair. I thought you were referring to that but you haven't brought it up so my bad I jumped the gun on that. I don't mean to sound elitist but it bothers me when I hear people with no macro-economics background make ridiculous statements and claims about the international trade and globalization. I can respect people who oppose globalization but I can't stand people who make unfounded statements without understanding the science of international trade and finance, its just disingenuous.
The reality is that there are a LOT of people talking about globalization who don't know anything about the subject (case in point the movie Wal-mart the high cost of low prices).
Finally about China, true it is a large deficit, but how do you feel about the fact that the opening of India and China to the world economy since 1978 has also represented the largest lift from poverty the world has ever seen. That makes me feel pretty good about myself at the end of the day. Are you worried about them overrunning our market? (Germany imports more to the US than China) Are you worried about monetary terrorism? (That is a potential problem but we solve it by increasing our savings rate, and China could do it but they'd take themselves out at the same time).
I try to avoid and boycott them, however I must admit that sometimes they are sole-sorce for particular items- mostly Chinesee junk
Buy American if possible
Hookem-Horns
I've already claimed that within the next 10 years, I see Wal-Mart establishing Apartment complexes for it's Employees right off-site of some of its stores to bring us full-circle back to the "Mill-Town" days of the Robber Barons and indentured servitude...
because they will drink all your beer, take two then they watch each other
BTW how many wives do they have to ask first, before they can go fishing?-LOL
She's the one in charge of the household...
Whom do you ask? The organizer, the maternal one, or the slut?
And, your sure to get the truth, as they never lie.
Pretty good song, actually. Can't remember the name of the "Blues guy" who did it. I used to sit in the pub listening to it all the time. Jonny Lang - that's the guy. Ever heard it? Great Blues tune.
Ya'll need to get off that homegenized record label packaged bullsh!t and get you some real blues...
That bluesy enough for ya?
I dunno about that, man...
I did like his work with Zappa but not much more...
King is good but became watered down quickly on in the corporate recording machine eseentially ruining his style...
King, Hopkins(though not a huge Texas-style blus fan), and Guy are/were true innovators but all influenced by the original in Robert Johnson...
Incidentally, Waters & Burnside were cousin-in-laws...
Didn't know that about Waters and Burnside.
Anyway, I'm not a music snob. I enjoy a wide variety of genres and artists.
Nothing makes me spout off about my deepest beliefs concerning religion, etc. than when I get tanked up on good ol' Guinness or Boddington's Pub Ale.
Tinged with numerous explicatives about how #&@%-ing awesome God is, etc...
Eh, the Dropkick Murphys share the same flaw, so who knows? :)
Ah, those Sugar Bowl memories...
I like Murphys Ale
Courage and Youngs
It does nothing but furnish a 1 vs 2 matchup to finish the season off...
The muddled picture is still there just as it was 20 years ago and provides no real indication of anything...
No...
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant...
It's still a guaranteed 1 vs. 2 matchup according to the BCS rankings...
Something that wasn't guranteed/rarely happened under the old system regardless of who was doing the ranking...
Not saying it's correct mind you...
One problem that so many people have is that they believe what they believe, and until they get what they want, they will whine, sit back, and do nothing.
This is kinda what I was doing for a while, until Ben Prather emailed me, wanting to iron out a compromise system taking his statistics and my abstract rules/clauses to formulate a structure that would actually work really well, be actually feasible, and would solve the problems.
I was a bit hesitant at first to embrace a new idea, but Ben convinced me and I really believe we have a good system that he is now eagerly marketing in the hopes of maybe getting some ground traction.
Personally, I am aligned with Kevin Donahue on the matter - I like the One Big Game. It seems to me that (aside from 2004), if you are in a major conference and go undefeated, you have an NC berth.
Given the fact that AUB didn't get a shot against SCAL (I could have sprung for one more game), and now that UTAH has proved that the mid-majors really do deserve a seat at the table, I believe circumstances justify allowing for the possibility of one or two extra games IF an individual season would benefit from it.
What I would ask for everyone is simply this: back up your words. If you really believe change is good for this sport, and want grass-roots change in the sport, do something more than complain here or elsewhere. Try to make a difference - learn what alternative plans are out there and pick one to support.
In the process, I honestly believe that research into the problems and issues with the BCS, along with the Facts lurking in the background will lead people to have a greater appreciation for how CFB can best truly be best served.
It is easy to simply put forth the almost cliche "16 team playoff, 11x Conf Champ + 5 At-Large" system. If it were really that simple, it would have happened by now. Learn why it isn't, and learn to see things from others' perspective, so when the "grass-roots" effort eventually does make its move, it will happen the right way.
All IMHO....along with "Playoffs SUCK TOO!"
Moo-Ha....
I have a little sympathy for the BCS.
As a fan I want a playoff, but if I was working for any of those six BCS conferences the BCS is just fine b/c BCS Creates a lot of cash and controversy sells.
Seating Capacity: A capacity of 80,000 plus standing room or additional seating in the end zones, along with ticketed areas in the end zone plazas can increase total capacity to 100,000.
The Cotton shoulda stayed in the fairgrounds- well will still got the RRS game there for the time being anyway
As a formula to determine the average ranking it is not that bad. The polls have enough samples to mitigate against outliers and the computer average mitigates them by throwing out the highest and lowst values.
Using the points awarded instead of the rankings of the polls significantly increases the accuracy of the results. One improvcement that could be made is to use the raw data of the computeres rather than the rankings of each as well. Each computer ranking used has an underlying raw score that is analagous to the total points of the polls. By linearly scaling each so that the #2 team has a value of 0.96 and the #25 team a value of 0.04 the precision of the computer ranking average can be significantly increased.
While slight improvements may be suggested, the BCS formula's weakness is not its algorithm.
Critique of the BCS Sampling Methods
One of the primary issues with the formula is its samping methods. It relies on two polls. The Coaches poll has long been charged with voter prejudice and partisan voting blocks among the conferences who are too focused on their own teams to really consider how the other teams rank. The Harris Poll involves voters who admittedly don't even watch all of the top 25 teams play a game.
This gives Sports Center, a trusted source for most of these voters, an unfair say in the title race. Sports Center gives significantly more time to conferences ESPN has a TV contract with. Compare the air time given to Ball State or Tulsa to that of Utah or TCU. Despite the MWC teams being ranked higher they were hardly ever shown.
The computers used are in the middle of the pack. Several other computer methods exist that are significantly better, but are excluded because they use MOV. This is despite evidence that MOV is the single best NCAA statistic as indicating the winners of bowl games. The BCS computers are too dependent on each teams records.
In the end the historical bias of the voters and the dependence of the computers on each team's record are opposed. I believe they are balanced fairly well, but their is room for disagreement.
Critique of how the BCS formula is applied
Another other issue with the BCS formula is how it is applied. The current system only allows for two teams, so the formula is used to decide between the #2 and #3 team.
Using the BCS rankings is significantly less informative than using the formula values themselves. The difference between two teams values is an indicator of the consensus that one team is better than the other.
Rather than use the BCS formula to seperate teams at a given ranking it would be much better to seperate teams at a given gap in the standings.
Your greatest statement was how the "media" determines who will play in the National Championship game. They do all this to bolster their own ratings. It's a complete farce and the whole nation has drunk the kool-aide. Some things are clear: like Florida was a very good football team. What else was very clear: was that the Big 12 played no defense whatsoever. Yet, these bozo's were bound and determined to get a Big 12 representative into the game. It went on all year long and got started last year. The media got into a frenzy because QB's in the Big 12 were putting up outlandish numbers. Well, all that meant is that the conference had very poor DB's, LB's and DE's. Nobody could get to the QB. But, these genius' are not interested in presenting the facts. It has been very clear that the Big 12 has been far behind most other conferences in total defense. But, defense does not get you "style points" with the media (see USC 08'). So, the Big 12's got it workin'. They have it figured out. They are playing the media like all dayum day long.
I hear so many say "we don't need a national champion" but as I know you guys know that can never be the case. The media is going to proclaim a National Champion one way or another. Heavens, in 1969 President Nixon declared Texas to be the National Champion...
We might as well choose a national champion by the first school's logo that Punksatony Phil sees on February 2nd, or have a watery tart rise from the lake and present a sword to the best looking quarterback in the land. After all, it is a beauty contest where style points count more than points allowed, margin of victory, and strength of schedule.
The squeaker getting left out later paid huge dividends with your team getting extra 'goodwill' consideration in 2006, LSU getting unbelievable consideration last year, and then your team again with probably a little extra this year. You will never see an undefeated SEC team get left of the BCS title game again. NEVER.
You guys are welcome!
Urban Meyer was the coach...
And Utah 2008 played 3 before the bowls. Utah 2004 was better than Utah 2008.
The standings were much more top heavy in 2004 than 2008. 2008 was much more top heavy than 2007. If we did what we did this year, or 2004, last year we would have gone to the title game.