President Elect Obama Says that Akhhorus is "Not Sensible"

[Keino]

I think any sensible person would say that, if you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear, decisive winner, that we should be creating a playoff system. Eight teams, that would be three rounds to determine a national champion. It would -- it would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803615.html)

Obviously I am joking, but I was reading this column and thought it would be a great opportunity at a cheap shop at my BCS/Playoff Nemesis........

[Keino]

Also, I couldn't really choose the appropriate forum for this thread, so I dumped it in Potomac, but it probably should go to the College Sports forum.......

[Fathead]

This is one issue I agree with Obama 100% on.

[akhhorus]

All the more reason I'm glad I didn't vote for him :)

Hey look, the BCS TV contract went up over 50% in the new deal. I guess millions of sensible college football fans like the system....

[Keino]

All the more reason I'm glad I didn't vote for him :)

Hey look, the BCS TV contract went up over 50% in the new deal. I guess millions of sensible college football fans like the system....

I don't think a TV contract is evidence that people like the system. It is evidence that despite all its flaws, the Networks are able to generate ad revenue off of the games. People watch because there is no alternative.

[akhhorus]

I don't think a TV contract is evidence that people like the system. It is evidence that despite all its flaws, the Networks are able to generate ad revenue off of the games. People watch because there is no alternative.

No, the alternative is to protest the system and not watch. Especially if "teams are being screwed." Despite all the whining from ESPN(who ironically won the contract for the BCS) and the rest of the pundits, the people seem to have little problem with it.

[Keino]

No, the alternative is to protest the system and not watch. Especially if "teams are being screwed." Despite all the whining from ESPN(who ironically won the contract for the BCS) and the rest of the pundits, the people seem to have little problem with it.

LOL. Protest the system and not watch?

So if I am upset my Terps are shutout of a title game after an 11-1 season, I should not support them in their Bowl game?

Again, the TV contract is not evidence that people have no problem with it.

[akhhorus]

LOL. Protest the system and not watch?

So if I am upset my Terps are shutout of a title game after an 11-1 season, I should not support them in their Bowl game?

Again, the TV contract is not evidence that people have no problem with it.

Didn't we mine the vein of discussion once and decided that what the ratings were of the BCS games were important? The fact that the TV money when up 45 million dollars a year means that ratings are going up, QED people outside of fans of the teams involved are watching, QED people have no problem with the system.

[Fathead]

I generally don't watch CFB because of the ridiculous lack of a playoff.

[Keino]

Didn't we mine the vein of discussion once and decided that what the ratings were of the BCS games were important? The fact that the TV money when up 45 million dollars a year means that ratings are going up, QED people outside of fans of the teams involved are watching, QED people have no problem with the system.

Yes, and the obvious conclusion to draw is that Fans of football are going to watch football, despite the flawed manner in which the champion is decided. Then you factor in School/Local/Alumnus loyalties and you have Non-Football fans tuning in to watch the programs that they are affiliated with/Cheer for. Again, TV ratings and Contracts are not evidence that people are happy with the system, only evidence that they watch whether or not they are happy with it.

I generally don't watch CFB because of the ridiculous lack of a playoff.

Me either. I support Maryland and Penn State, but I will only watch a Bowl game not involving these two teams if the match-up is compelling. I haven't watched a National title Game in years....

[RedskinsDave]

I watch the BCS games but prefer a playoff system. That makes the ratings and tv contracts/ratings irrelevant to the discussion. It's all about the individual schools and conferences not wanting to give up their guaranteed piece of the pie. As a free marketer, I don't blame them. As a fan, I wish things would change. The BCS system is kind of like the two party system we have in that they are so deep into the current system and make so much money from it that changing it only benefits the outsiders.

[akhhorus]

Yes, and the obvious conclusion to draw is that Fans of football are going to watch football, despite the flawed manner in which the champion is decided. Then you factor in School/Local/Alumnus loyalties and you have Non-Football fans tuning in to watch the programs that they are affiliated with/Cheer for. Again, TV ratings and Contracts are not evidence that people are happy with the system, only evidence that they watch whether or not they are happy with it.

First off, you prove my point in your second paragraph. If fans of CFB are as livid at the BCS as Jay Mariotti, Wilbon and such claim to be(I still think its an act), they wouldn't be watching any games where the schools they root for aren't involved. Ratings have been rising for the BCS games for years, so the people don't mind the system(at the very least). If ratings dropped off, you'd be here crowing about how the people are speaking with their feet and the BCS should be abolished.

Me either. I support Maryland and Penn State, but I will only watch a Bowl game not involving these two teams if the match-up is compelling. I haven't watched a National title Game in years....

See above lol.

I watch the BCS games but prefer a playoff system. That makes the ratings and tv contracts/ratings irrelevant to the discussion. It's all about the individual schools and conferences not wanting to give up their guaranteed piece of the pie. As a free marketer, I don't blame them. As a fan, I wish things would change. The BCS system is kind of like the two party system we have in that they are so deep into the current system and make so much money from it that changing it only benefits the outsiders.

And much like a 3rd party: its just not practical. Obama, in his advocacy of this playoff idea, is saying that teams should just cut back on their schedules so that they can play an 8 team playoff. Thats never going to happen. 108 teams aren't going to cut out 1-2 games+conference championships+the minor bowls just so that the BCS can throw together a system that just changes who's screwed.

The only remotely practical idea is an "+1" system. Where the top 4 teams play, then the winners play for the title.

[guess88]

I doubt we ever see playoffs because the BCS brings too much tv and newscaster worthy drama and articles. I'd prefer a playoff system, but the drama associated with the BCS gives espn, nbc, comcast, si, (any sports related program) so much more to write about. Those extra articles, means more ad space, means more money. It's not that it's the right thing to do, but it's the business thing to do.

Yeah, the proper form of protest is not watching, but realistically, that won't ever happen. It's not like hating cotton socks, and telling them to protest for change by stopping the purchase of cotton socks. People will watch college games regardless... at least their own schools.

[BurgundyNGold]

All the more reason I'm glad I didn't vote for him :)

Hey look, the BCS TV contract went up over 50% in the new deal. I guess millions of sensible college football fans like the system....
I usually agree with you on all things sports, but I cannot agre with you here. The only reasons the BCS still exists are for money and for to maintain the status quo in college football. Ironically, NCAAF would ultimately make more money in the medium and long term with a playoff system than they would the bowl system, if they did it right.

I don't see any justification for not having a playoff system in college football. Not having one persists the illegitimacy of a "national champion".

[guess88]

The only remotely practical idea is an "+1" system. Where the top 4 teams play, then the winners play for the title.

Not a bad idea. Why not clear up some of the doubt and make it top 8 teams though?

[BurgundyNGold]

I doubt we ever see playoffs because the BCS brings too much tv and newscaster worthy drama and articles. I'd prefer a playoff system, but the drama associated with the BCS gives espn, nbc, comcast, si, (any sports related program) so much more to write about. Those extra articles, means more ad space, means more money. It's not that it's the right thing to do, but it's the business thing to do.

Yeah, the proper form of protest is not watching, but realistically, that won't ever happen. It's not like hating cotton socks, and telling them to protest for change by stopping the purchase of cotton socks. People will watch college games regardless... at least their own schools.
It doesn't have to be either/or. With a playoff system, you can have BCS ratings and the BCS could control the playoff.

As for the bowl games, the existing bowl games of little consequence could still be played. The big 4 could be used to host championship games (i.e. Rose Bowl hosts the PAC10 championship, Orange hosts the ACC championship, etc). And you could add a new bowl for the national championship.

There's more money to be made here than they can see. They're about as short sighted as MLB, I think.

[RedskinsDave]

And much like a 3rd party: its just not practical. Obama, in his advocacy of this playoff idea, is saying that teams should just cut back on their schedules so that they can play an 8 team playoff. Thats never going to happen. 108 teams aren't going to cut out 1-2 games+conference championships+the minor bowls just so that the BCS can throw together a system that just changes who's screwed.

The only remotely practical idea is an "+1" system. Where the top 4 teams play, then the winners play for the title.

I am pretty sure having the top four play followed by a title game is........a playoff.

Secondly, no one has to cut back their schedule to accommodate a playoff when most teams are off for a month before they play their bowl games.

[BurgundyNGold]

The only remotely practical idea is an "+1" system. Where the top 4 teams play, then the winners play for the title.
I could go for that, almost. If you had an 8 team playoff, you could use the Big 4 bowls to host the championship, the semifinals and one of the quarterfinals. You could rotate it as they do now and 3 lesser bowls can bid for the other 3 quarterfinal matchups.

[akhhorus]

I am pretty sure having the top four play followed by a title game is........a playoff.

Absolutely no one is advocating that system though. It doesn't really matter, someone's going to get screwed no matter what system you run. The question is if its the #3 and 4 teams or the #s 9-12 teams.


Secondly, no one has to cut back their schedule to accommodate a playoff when most teams are off for a month before they play their bowl games.

Cutting back on games is what Obama is pushing. That'll never happen. But because of the schedule, unless you want it bleeding into mid January, you have to. The last title game is December 6th. And the BCS games start about a month after that so that the top teams can rest and scout. Figure a 3 week break and the bare minimum of a week off between rounds and you're in mid January already.

I could go for that, almost. If you had an 8 team playoff, you could use the Big 4 bowls to host the championship, the semifinals and one of the quarterfinals. You could rotate it as they do now and 3 lesser bowls can bid for the other 3 quarterfinal matchups.

Here's the problem with the 8 team playoff:

Assuming everyone ends up with 1 loss(the champs of the SEC, big 12, Pac10, Big 10, ACC, big East plus 2 at-larges. No conference can have more than 2 teams in the "playoff"):

1. Florida
2. Texas Tech
3. Penn State
4. USC
5. I'm going to assume that Miami wins the ACC
6. Pittsburgh
7. Alabama(at large)
8. Texas(at large)

So, Oklahoma, Utah, Boise State, Missouri(assuming they make the big12 title game) would get screwed in this scenario. Even if you replace the Big East spot with another at large spot, all you're doing is changing who whines. All a playoff does is change who is screwed, its not a fix.

[Keino]

First off, you prove my point in your second paragraph. If fans of CFB are as livid at the BCS as Jay Mariotti, Wilbon and such claim to be(I still think its an act), they wouldn't be watching any games where the schools they root for aren't involved. Ratings have been rising for the BCS games for years, so the people don't mind the system(at the very least). If ratings dropped off, you'd be here crowing about how the people are speaking with their feet and the BCS should be abolished.



See above lol.

Yea, but I fall into the category I alluded to earlier. I am a Pro football fan, but only like college insomuch as I have affiliations, that could change ironically, if NCAA adopted a playoff system and remove themselves from the single member list of legitimate leagues that do not settle their Champion via Post-season tournament.

Most football fans are just that (See Dave's post). You are about the only person I know that likes the system as is and would not prefer a playoff. Granted, I don't know every college football fan, but most I know would prefer a playoff over the current arbitrary and wholly subjective system.

And you don't know me as well as you think. I would not ever adopt Television Ratings into my argument, even if they were down. That is simply something I don't pay attention to, and you could tell me the ratings are down or up and I wouldn't know the difference, nor would I care. All I care about is seeing the champion determined on the field of play and not in a smoke filled board room.

[akhhorus]

Yea, but I fall into the category I alluded to earlier. I am a Pro football fan, but only like college insomuch as I have affiliations, that could change ironically, if NCAA adopted a playoff system and remove themselves from the single member list of legitimate leagues that do not settle their Champion via Post-season tournament.

Most football fans are just that (See Dave's post). You are about the only person I know that likes the system as is and would not prefer a playoff. Granted, I don't know every college football fan, but most I know would prefer a playoff over the current arbitrary and wholly subjective system.

And you don't know me as well as you think. I would not ever adopt Television Ratings into my argument, even if they were down. That is simply something I don't pay attention to, and you could tell me the ratings are down or up and I wouldn't know the difference, nor would I care. All I care about is seeing the champion determined on the field of play and not in a smoke filled board room.

The smoke filled board room would be picking the teams who make it to the playoff. Nothing changes lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

Here's the problem with the 8 team playoff:

Assuming everyone ends up with 1 loss(the champs of the SEC, big 12, Pac10, Big 10, ACC, big East plus 2 at-larges. No conference can have more than 2 teams in the "playoff"):

1. Florida
2. Texas Tech
3. Penn State
4. USC
5. I'm going to assume that Miami wins the ACC
6. Pittsburgh
7. Alabama(at large)
8. Texas(at large)

So, Oklahoma, Utah, Boise State, Missouri(assuming they make the big12 title game) would get screwed in this scenario. Even if you replace the Big East spot with another at large spot, all you're doing is changing who whines. All a playoff does is change who is screwed, its not a fix.
Why do you need to ensure that all conferences get representation? If the BCS ratings determine the top 8, just use that. It would be somewhat like the chase in NASCAR. The top 10 point leaders at some point get to go for the cup. There are no porvisions for ensuring that JGR, Roush or anyone else gets a slot or is limited to X number of slots.

You want the 8 best teams, not the 8 best based on conference finishes. You could argue that the ACC doesn't have a team worth competing in the playoff while leaving an undefeated Boise St who is ranked higher playing in the Jiffy Lube Bowl, lol.

[RedskinsDave]

It's pretty simple that money is the one thing keeping the big leagues from wanting a playoff system. They make a fortune off their guaranteed bowl games and don't want to lose them. They are willing to have controversy over an indisputable champion.

[akhhorus]

Why do you need to ensure that all conferences get representation? If the BCS ratings determine the top 8, just use that. It would be somewhat like the chase in NASCAR. The top 10 point leaders at some point get to go for the cup. There are no porvisions for ensuring that JGR, Roush or anyone else gets a slot or is limited to X number of slots.

You want the 8 best teams, not the 8 best based on conference finishes. You could argue that the ACC doesn't have a team worth competing in the playoff while leaving an undefeated Boise St who is ranked higher playing in the Jiffy Lube Bowl, lol.

So, the current top in the BCS:
1. Alabama 11-0
2. Texas Tech 10-0
3. Texas 10-1
4. Florida 9-1
5. Oklahoma 9-1
6. USC 9-1
7. Utah 11-0
8. Penn State 10-1

I count 2 undefeated teams, 2 1 loss teams and a passel of good 2 loss teams in the next 10 spots. You can't tell me that teams like Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia and Oklahoma State wouldn't complain about not getting into the playoff while Utah does?

[Keino]

You think that there is nothing different about who whines and I think that is the ultimate source of our disagreement on the issue.

I personally advocate a 16 team playoff system, but I am extreme. Having said that, I think there is a big difference between the whining of #3 and 4, verses #9 and 10, Especially when we have a situation like 2004 in which an Undefeated team is (and you can just link to the thread where we argue the strength of schedule component of that season) shut out of the Title Game largely due to where each team was ranked pre-season.....I can live with #9 whining. It wouldn't be perfect, but it is much more acceptable than having #3 whine when their argument is not whining, but rather is quite legitimate.

[akhhorus]

It's pretty simple that money is the one thing keeping the big leagues from wanting a playoff system. They make a fortune off their guaranteed bowl games and don't want to lose them. They are willing to have controversy over an indisputable champion.

I don't buy that, sorry. Its based on the premise that a playoff would make them less money, and thats basically impossible if you would have good and popular college teams playing multiple games when no one else is playing.

[akhhorus]

You think that there is nothing different about who whines and I think that is the ultimate source of our disagreement on the issue.

I personally advocate a 16 team playoff system, but I am extreme. Having said that, I think there is a big difference between the whining of #3 and 4, verses #9 and 10, Especially when we have a situation like 2004 in which an Undefeated team is (and you can just link to the thread where we argue the strength of schedule component of that season) shut out of the Title Game largely due to where each team was ranked pre-season.....I can live with #9 whining. It wouldn't be perfect, but it is much more acceptable than having #3 whine when their argument is not whining, but rather is quite legitimate.

If you're creating a playoff based system on the premise that a championship should be decided on the field and not by some group who decided who plays for the title, then you can't say that you can live with anyone whining.

I've already explained why Auburn didn't deserve to go in 2004. Play someone other than the Citadel.

[Keino]

So, the current top in the BCS:
1. Alabama 11-0
2. Texas Tech 10-0
3. Texas 10-1
4. Florida 9-1
5. Oklahoma 9-1
6. USC 9-1
7. Utah 11-0
8. Penn State 10-1

I count 2 undefeated teams, 2 1 loss teams and a passel of good 2 loss teams in the next 10 spots. You can't tell me that teams like Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia and Oklahoma State wouldn't complain about not getting into the playoff while Utah does?

Sure they would, but just like the NCAA B-Ball tourney wherein a handful of teams who have a legit argument get shut out of the tourney, nobody would care once the games began and I think People would love to see those 8 teams play a playoff. I mean if Utah made it through that tournament, would there be any doubt about them?

[akhhorus]

Sure they would, but just like the NCAA B-Ball tourney wherein a handful of teams who have a legit argument get shut out of the tourney, nobody would care once the games began and I think People would love to see those 8 teams play a playoff. I mean if Utah made it through that tournament, would there be any doubt about them?

Ask Hawaii how playing a real team for a change worked out for them last year. There has to be standards teams must meet to make either the BCS or some hypothetical playoff system.

And if no one would care after the games begin, then no one cares after the BCS games begin, and the ratings prove that.

[BurgundyNGold]

You think that there is nothing different about who whines and I think that is the ultimate source of our disagreement on the issue.

I personally advocate a 16 team playoff system, but I am extreme. Having said that, I think there is a big difference between the whining of #3 and 4, verses #9 and 10, Especially when we have a situation like 2004 in which an Undefeated team is (and you can just link to the thread where we argue the strength of schedule component of that season) shut out of the Title Game largely due to where each team was ranked pre-season.....I can live with #9 whining. It wouldn't be perfect, but it is much more acceptable than having #3 whine when their argument is not whining, but rather is quite legitimate.
Me too, but I understand that is not likely to happen initially. I'll take the 8 team playoff format over nothing. My suspicion is that before too long, the 8 game format will need to be expanded to a 10 or 12 game format (maybe play ins to the final 8?) because of #9 and #10 controversies. Eventually, we could see 16.

The thing in that under a 16 game format, you'd actually have 15 games played. If given out to the 15 biggest bowls (or the 8 biggest bowls and the 7 highest bidders among the other bowls) you could retain the lion's share of that holy bowl revenue.

[BurgundyNGold]

Ask Hawaii how playing a real team for a change worked out for them last year.

And if no one would care after the games begin, then no one cares after the BCS games begin, and the ratings prove that.
I think they care. People are just putting aside the concept of legitimacy in favor of watching some good college football. That's what I do anyway.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't buy that, sorry. Its based on the premise that a playoff would make them less money, and thats basically impossible if you would have good and popular college teams playing multiple games when no one else is playing.

No, its based on the premise that those specific conferences who have guaranteed money would lose or at least have the potential to. Why else would they be against it? Do they like not having a clear cut champion?

[akhhorus]

Me too, but I understand that is not likely to happen initially. I'll take the 8 team playoff format over nothing. My suspicion is that before too long, the 8 game format will need to be expanded to a 10 or 12 game format (maybe play ins to the final 8?) because of #9 and #10 controversies. Eventually, we could see 16.

The thing in that under a 16 game format, you'd actually have 15 games played. If given out to the 15 biggest bowls (or the 8 biggest bowls and the 7 highest bidders among the other bowls) you could retain the lion's share of that holy bowl revenue.

But that revenue would be going to the teams that advanced, and not to the teams that qualify for it in today's system. That alone would prevent that from happening. A lot of the teams from 15-40 like that 1-4 million dollars they make from the Chick-Fil-A bowl lol.

[akhhorus]

No, its based on the premise that those specific conferences who have guaranteed money would lose or at least have the potential to. Why else would they be against it? Do they like not having a clear cut champion?

There's been 1 year where there wasn't a clear cut champion(and the voters in the polls make sure that it happened like that), there's been clear champs since then.

[akhhorus]

I think they care. People are just putting aside the concept of legitimacy in favor of watching some good college football. That's what I do anyway.

And maybe some people do that, but if the bile over the BCS was as big as Keino and the ESPN talking heads made it out to be, ESPN and Fox wouldn't have been bidding up the TV rights to the BCS from 2011-2014 so high. You don't buy something at a 50% premium from the previous contract unless its popular.

[BurgundyNGold]

So, the current top in the BCS:
1. Alabama 11-0
2. Texas Tech 10-0
3. Texas 10-1
4. Florida 9-1
5. Oklahoma 9-1
6. USC 9-1
7. Utah 11-0
8. Penn State 10-1

I count 2 undefeated teams, 2 1 loss teams and a passel of good 2 loss teams in the next 10 spots. You can't tell me that teams like Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia and Oklahoma State wouldn't complain about not getting into the playoff while Utah does?
They can complain but they wouldn't have much grounds. The BCS rankings include their strength of schedule. In my mind, Boise State has a bigger reason to complain, being undefeated and not ranked in the top 8. Generally speaking, if you want to be ranked higher, it's pretty simple. Don't lose.

[BurgundyNGold]

But that revenue would be going to the teams that advanced, and not to the teams that qualify for it in today's system. That alone would prevent that from happening. A lot of the teams from 15-40 like that 1-4 million dollars they make from the Chick-Fil-A bowl lol.
There's nothing stopping NCAAF from continuing to have the Chick-Fil-A bowls. They have no consequence now. I don't see how that would change under a playoff system.

[Keino]

If you're creating a playoff based system on the premise that a championship should be decided on the field and not by some group who decided who plays for the title, then you can't say that you can live with anyone whining.

I can and I have. LOL Shades of Grey Akh, shades of grey. (Or is it Gray?)

I've already explained why Auburn didn't deserve to go in 2004. Play someone other than the Citadel.

And I don't buy it. They played in the SEC, easily the top to bottom best conference, as you yourself have argued. They Played more ranked teams than the others (Who cares if they played one of those ranked teams more than once) and they played Higher ranked teams. They played a legit schedule despite 2 non-conference Cupcakes.

Auburn beat the #4, #5, #8 and #15 Teams that year (Yes 8 and 15 were the same team, so what?)

OKlahoma beat the #5, #21 and #22

USC beat #7 and #19.

So while USC didn't have a Citadel on their schedule, they also didn't have an LSU, Georgia or Tennessee. Okalahoma had to play one Top ranked team in Texas.

Again, all this proves that Auburn being undefeated had a legitimate argument for inclusion in the title game, even if you agree with the decision that was made (I don't), you cannot deny that they had a legit argument.

[Keino]

Ask Hawaii how playing a real team for a change worked out for them last year. There has to be standards teams must meet to make either the BCS or some hypothetical playoff system.

And if no one would care after the games begin, then no one cares after the BCS games begin, and the ratings prove that.

The ratings prove nothing. Continuing that line doesn't help your argument at all.

[akhhorus]

They can complain but they wouldn't have much grounds. The BCS rankings include their strength of schedule. In my mind, Boise State has a bigger reason to complain, being undefeated and not ranked in the top 8. Generally speaking, if you want to be ranked higher, it's pretty simple. Don't lose.

And if the BCS title game this year is Bama/Florida vs Texas Tech, no one can much room to complain. If Bama beat Florida and Texas Tech runs the table, there should be absolutely zero complaining.

For either system(and this is something I discussed with Keino many times before), there has to be a set series of threshholds for teams to surpass in order to be considered:
1-Win your conference title
2-Beat at least 4 ranked teams or 2 top ten teams. They can be ranked at the time you beat them or at the end of the season.
3-Win 4 road games
4-No games against Division I-AA or 2 schools.

That should weed out the creampuff abusers.

[Keino]

There's nothing stopping NCAAF from continuing to have the Chick-Fil-A bowls. They have no consequence now. I don't see how that would change under a playoff system.

Agreed. It would be the equivalent of the NIT. Right now there are something like 33 Bowl games being played.

66 Teams play in the post-season.

[akhhorus]

There's nothing stopping NCAAF from continuing to have the Chick-Fil-A bowls. They have no consequence now. I don't see how that would change under a playoff system.

If you're taking 15 of those bowls to make up the hypothetical playoff system, then it would change since 2 of those teams would get the revenues from those games while the lesser teams wouldn't.

I can and I have. LOL Shades of Grey Akh, shades of grey. (Or is it Gray?)



And I don't buy it. They played in the SEC, easily the top to bottom best conference, as you yourself have argued. They Played more ranked teams than the others (Who cares if they played one of those ranked teams more than once) and they played Higher ranked teams. They played a legit schedule despite 2 non-conference Cupcakes.

Auburn beat the #4, #5, #8 and #15 Teams that year (Yes 8 and 15 were the same team, so what?)

OKlahoma beat the #5, #21 and #22

USC beat #7 and #19.

So while USC didn't have a Citadel on their schedule, they also didn't have an LSU, Georgia or Tennessee. Okalahoma had to play one Top ranked team in Texas.

Again, all this proves that Auburn being undefeated had a legitimate argument for inclusion in the title game, even if you agree with the decision that was made (I don't), you cannot deny that they had a legit argument.

Just cutting and pasting from our previous discussion on the topic:
(cream puffs in bold).
Auburn's 2004 schedule:
Louisiana-Monroe
at Mississippi State(3-8 that year)
No. 4 LSU
Citadel
at No. 8 Tennessee
Louisiana Tech
Arkansas
Kentucky(2-9 that year)
at Mississippi (4-7 that year)
No. 5 Georgia
at Alabama
No. 15 Tennessee

USC's:
at Virginia Tech
Colorado State (4-7)
at Brigham Young
at Stanford (4-7)
No. 7 California
No. 19 Arizona State
Washington(1-10)
at Washington State
Oregon State
Arizona (3-8)
Notre Dame
at UCLA

Oklahoma:
Bowling Green(9-3 that year)
Houston (3-8 that year)
Oregon
Texas Tech
No. 5 Texas
at Kansas State(4-7 that year)
Kansas(4-7 that year)
at No. 20 Oklahoma State
at No. 22 Texas A&M
Nebraska
at Baylor(3-8 that year)
Colorado

Auburn clearly had an inferior schedule, they played 2 borderline D1a teams, 1 DIAA team and only had 1 tough road game(Tennessee).

The ratings prove nothing. Continuing that line doesn't help your argument at all.

It proves that the people aren't clamoring for a playoff as much as you think they are.

[BurgundyNGold]

And if the BCS title game this year is Bama/Florida vs Texas Tech, no one can much room to complain. If Bama beat Florida and Texas Tech runs the table, there should be absolutely zero complaining.

For either system(and this is something I discussed with Keino many times before), there has to be a set series of threshholds for teams to surpass in order to be considered:
1-Win your conference title
2-Beat at least 4 ranked teams or 2 top ten teams. They can be ranked at the time you beat them or at the end of the season.
3-Win 4 road games
4-No games against Division I-AA or 2 schools.

That should weed out the creampuff abusers.
Yeah, but just because something works out to the satisfaction of many people one year does not mean that the system that led to the result is any more fair or any less arbitrary than in years where there are controversies.

If we are going to ignore BCS ratings, and I could entertain that, then we should just take the winners of the various conferences and let them slug it out in a playoff. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[BurgundyNGold]

If you're taking 15 of those bowls to make up the hypothetical playoff system, then it would change since 2 of those teams would get the revenues from those games while the lesser teams wouldn't.
True, unless they found a new way to divvy up the pie. Obviously, the teams who perform better should get more loot but not to those levels.

And the Petsmart bowls would be the same, revenue wise.

[akhhorus]

Yeah, but just because something works out to the satisfaction of many people one year does not mean that the system that led to the result is any more fair or any less arbitrary than in years where there are controversies.

The only year with even a hint a controversy was the year LSU won and USC got the coaches' Poll NC. I'm an SEC fan through and through, I didn't think Auburn deserved to go in 2004.

[Keino]

Auburn clearly had an inferior schedule, they played 2 borderline D1a teams, 1 DIAA team and only had 1 tough road game(Tennessee).

I don't think that is all that clear given they played higher ranked teams than either the title game participants and played more ranked teams. That, in my mind mitigates the weaker Non-Conf Opponents. And don't leave out that they also beat Tenn on a Neutral field.



It proves that the people aren't clamoring for a playoff as much as you think they are.

No it doesn't. The only way ratings would prove that is if there was a Playoff alternative offered and then they would be meaningful. If the alternative is to watch nothing, I think there is sufficient evidence by posters in this thread that not watching isn't a palatable option, even though they clearly don't like the system. I tend to believe that they represent the vast majority of viewers......

[akhhorus]

I don't think that is all that clear given they played higher ranked teams than either the title game participants and played more ranked teams. That, in my mind mitigates the weaker Non-Conf Opponents. And don't leave out that they also beat Tenn on a Neutral field.


USC beat a top 10 team, a top 20 team and Virginia tech-In Blacksburg in a year where Va tech went 10-2. And they didn't play any total jokes on their schedule.

Oklahoma beat 3 ranked teams(1 #5), two of them on the road. A frisky BGSu team and 1 joke on their schedule.

Auburn was impressive in beating 3 top ten teams, but they got held back by playing 3 scrimmages(especially since the BCS didn't count the Citadel game at all).

No it doesn't. The only way ratings would prove that is if there was a Playoff alternative offered and then they would be meaningful. If the alternative is to watch nothing, I think there is sufficient evidence by posters in this thread that not watching isn't a palatable option, even though they clearly don't like the system. I tend to believe that they represent the vast majority of viewers......

Thats supposition. If the people really believed that this system is a joke, then they wouldn't watch it-nothing as an alternative or not.

[Keino]

Thats supposition. If the people really believed that this system is a joke, then they wouldn't watch it-nothing as an alternative or not.

Hello Pot, I am Kettle.

Your statement is as much Supposition as mine, especially when individuals in this very thread have essentially indicated they watch for the exact reasons I stated. Again, ratings prove nothing without an alternative.

[MONK_in_HOF]

The only way ratings would prove that is if there was a Playoff alternative offered and then they would be meaningful. If the alternative is to watch nothing, I think there is sufficient evidence by posters in this thread that not watching isn't a palatable option, even though they clearly don't like the system. I tend to believe that they represent the vast majority of viewers......

I agree with this. I am a casual college football fan by comparison to the NFL but there is no way you could convince me that a playoff system wouldn't increase the TV ratings and interest towards the CFB postseason.

Personally I think a playoff would certainly make the CFB championship more legit and certainly more interesting. I have come across very few people who think the current system is a better, more legit means of deciding the champs than a playoff format would be. Regardless of my dislike for the current format I still try to watch the BCS games b/c after all it usually is 2 good teams squaring off. However it pales in comparison to the final four, which IMO is must see.

[akhhorus]

I agree with this. I am a casual college football fan by comparison to the NFL but there is no way you could convince me that a playoff system wouldn't increase the TV ratings and interest towards the CFB postseason.

Personally I think a playoff would certainly make the CFB championship more legit and certainly more interesting. I have come across very few people who think the current system is a better, more legit means of deciding the champs than a playoff format would be. Regardless of my dislike for the current format I still try to watch the BCS games b/c after all it usually is 2 good teams squaring off. However it pales in comparison to the final four, which IMO is must see.

So, why aren't the networks pushing the NCAA for at least an And 1 system, and are happy to bid a 50% premium just for the status quo? If Fox Sports, CBS and ESPN told the NCAA that they won't pay more for college football broadcast rights until they put in a playoff system, it would happen tomorrow.

[Keino]

I agree with this. I am a casual college football fan by comparison to the NFL but there is no way you could convince me that a playoff system wouldn't increase the TV ratings and interest towards the CFB postseason.

Personally I think a playoff would certainly make the CFB championship more legit and certainly more interesting. I have come across very few people who think the current system is a better, more legit means of deciding the champs than a playoff format would be. Regardless of my dislike for the current format I still try to watch the BCS games b/c after all it usually is 2 good teams squaring off. However it pales in comparison to the final four, which IMO is must see.

I think most people feel this way. I can't prove it, but it's what I think and why I think ratings don't prove anything with regard to the overall satisfaction with the process.

[Keino]

So, why aren't the networks pushing the NCAA for at least an And 1 system, and are happy to bid a 50% premium just for the status quo? If Fox Sports, CBS and ESPN told the NCAA that they won't pay more for college football broadcast rights until they put in a playoff system, it would happen tomorrow.

Because the networks are making money hand over fist either way. What do they care?

[akhhorus]

Because the networks are making money hand over fist either way. What do they care?

Because they need/want every dime that they can get. If they thought a playoff would get them even a few million more, they'd force the NCAA to do it. You don't think that at least the networks have studied how much money a playoff could make them as compared to the current system?

[Keino]

Because they need/want every dime that they can get. If they thought a playoff would get them even a few million more, they'd force the NCAA to do it. You don't think that at least the networks have studied how much money a playoff could make them as compared to the current system?

I am sure they have, but it is also smart business to have the plan in place ready to implement (which I am sure they have in addition to studying the issue) while enjoying the status quo. They know that if they try to strong arm the powers that be into something, that it may result in them not winning the broadcast rights for various games. Making a lot of money is better than making no money at all.The only way that is remotely feasible is by all of the networks joining together on that point and since they are competitors, fat chance of that happening.

We have a saying in our department here.....Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered.

[akhhorus]

I am sure they have, but it is also smart business to have the plan in place ready to implement (which I am sure they have in addition to studying the issue) while enjoying the status quo. They know that if they try to strong arm the powers that be into something, that it may result in them not winning the broadcast rights for various games. Making a lot of money is better than making no money at all.The only way that is remotely feasible is by all of the networks joining together on that point and since they are competitors, fat chance of that happening.

We have a saying in our department here.....Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered.

If the networks did it as a collective, the NCAA couldn't hurt them all since they need their TV money. Because they're so many games at one time, the NCAA could never start their own network to bypass them. The individual conferences couldn't even do that(I know the Big 10 has, but its like the NFLN and the ratings suck because no one cares about Purdue vs Iowa). If there was even the hint of more money in a playoff, it would have happened a long time ago.

[BurgundyNGold]

If the networks did it as a collective, the NCAA couldn't hurt them all since they need their TV money. Because they're so many games at one time, the NCAA could never start their own network to bypass them. The individual conferences couldn't even do that(I know the Big 10 has, but its like the NFLN and the ratings suck because no one cares about Purdue vs Iowa). If there was even the hint of more money in a playoff, it would have happened a long time ago.
It will happen. Just not now.

[akhhorus]

It will happen. Just not now.

If it didn't happen after the LSU/USC year, it probably won't-except for maybe that And 1 system I've mentioned.

[BurgundyNGold]

If it didn't happen after the LSU/USC year, it probably won't-except for maybe that And 1 system I've mentioned.
NCAAF is slow to respond to change. This bowl system is a product of 100 years of football. In the last 20 years, the major innovations have been to rotate the national title game between the Big 4 and to introduce the BCS system. The latter was introduced as a misguided attempt to eliminate controversy, which has largely been a failure.

Sooner or later, the people or the networks or both will demand change to the system, if for no other reason because the current system is too arbitrary to have legitimacy.

[akhhorus]

NCAAF is slow to respond to change. This bowl system is a product of 100 years of football. In the last 20 years, the major innovations have been to rotate the national title game between the Big 4 and to introduce the BCS system. The latter was introduced as a misguided attempt to eliminate controversy, which has largely been a failure.

Sooner or later, the people or the networks or both will demand change to the system, if for no other reason because the current system is too arbitrary to have legitimacy.

Well, then the ratings and how much the networks are bidding for the BCS game are definitely relevant then :)

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, then the ratings and how much the networks are bidding for the BCS game are definitely relevant then :)
The bidding for TV contracts can go up while the networks demand changes. They don't really correlate. Bidding went up for SNF even though NBC was demanding the ability to have flex games. If the networks think it is in their best interest, they'll make the demands. Within the next TV contract or two, I expect to see overtures made by the networks for a playoff system. It's just good business.

[akhhorus]

The bidding for TV contracts can go up while the networks demand changes. They don't really correlate. Bidding went up for SNF even though NBC was demanding the ability to have flex games. If the networks think it is in their best interest, they'll make the demands. Within the next TV contract or two, I expect to see overtures made by the networks for a playoff system. It's just good business.

Well, that won't be for a long time. The new ESPN BCS contract is for 2011-2014. So, not only would it have to make more financial sense for the NCAA(and the network), but they would have to give the contract to ESPN in a no-bid fashion(or repay the 125 million a year to ESPN) for the playoff games if they want to get it done in the next decade.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, that won't be for a long time. The new ESPN BCS contract is for 2011-2014. So, not only would it have to make more financial sense for the NCAA(and the network), but they would have to give the contract to ESPN in a no-bid fashion(or repay the 125 million a year to ESPN) for the playoff games if they want to get it done in the next decade.
Yeah, I don't think it will happen soon, barring a few years of major controversies. But I can see it happening around the time we put a man back on the moon, lol.

[Keino]

NCAAF is slow to respond to change. This bowl system is a product of 100 years of football. In the last 20 years, the major innovations have been to rotate the national title game between the Big 4 and to introduce the BCS system. The latter was introduced as a misguided attempt to eliminate controversy, which has largely been a failure.

Sooner or later, the people or the networks or both will demand change to the system, if for no other reason because the current system is too arbitrary to have legitimacy.


You've touched on exactly why I hate it.

http://msp70.photobucket.com/albums/i103/andydostal/silky_johnson-chappelle.jpg

This never gets old to me ------^

[akhhorus]

You've touched on exactly why I hate it.

This never gets old to me ------^

Until you can create a playoff system where no good teams are left out of it(and a 20+ team playoff is totally impossible), then there's no structural difference between the BCS and some 8 or 12 team playoff. Its still "the smoke filled room" deciding who plays in a playoff or BCS, and teams will gripe.

[AliBabba]

Until you can create a playoff system where no good teams are left out of it(and a 20+ team playoff is totally impossible), then there's no structural difference between the BCS and some 8 or 12 team playoff. Its still "the smoke filled room" deciding who plays in a playoff or BCS, and teams will gripe.

I think it's progress, not no difference

[akhhorus]

I think it's progress, not no difference

If the point of the playoff is to be equitable, then it's not progress except for in the sense of changing who whines.

[Keino]

Until you can create a playoff system where no good teams are left out of it(and a 20+ team playoff is totally impossible), then there's no structural difference between the BCS and some 8 or 12 team playoff. Its still "the smoke filled room" deciding who plays in a playoff or BCS, and teams will gripe.

Shades of Grey (Gray).

There is a ton of difference and it goes beyond structure. Teams would have to win 4 straight games against the best teams in the country to be crowned champ, and I am sorry, that is not arbitrary.

[akhhorus]

Shades of Grey (Gray).

There is a ton of difference and it goes beyond structure. Teams would have to win 4 straight games against the best teams in the country to be crowned champ, and I am sorry, that is not arbitrary.

Thats not what I'm talking about and you know it. The selection of the schools that could join the playoff would be as arbitrary as the BCS.

Pick 8 teams out of this tangle:
1. Alabama 11-0
2. Texas Tech 10-0
3. Texas 10-1
4. Florida 9-1
5. Oklahoma 9-1
6. USC 9-1
7. Utah 11-0
8. Penn State 10-1
9. Boise State 10-0
10. Ohio State 9-2
11. Georgia 9-2
12. Oklahoma State 9-2
13. Missouri 9-2
14. BYU 10-1
15. Michigan State 9-2
16. TCU 9-2
17. Ball State 10-0
18. LSU 7-3
19. Cincinnati 8-2
20. Pitt 7-2
21. Oregon State 7-3
22. North Carolina 7-3
23. Miami 7-3
24. Oregon 8-3
25. Maryland 7-3
Florida State, Ga Tech also(since they could be ACC champs).
Cincinnati(potentially Big East Champ)

[RedskinsDave]

I'll take 8 of the top 9 and drop PSU. That's 8. Let em play it out. I am much more comfortable letting the 8th, 9th or 10th ranked team in the country cry about not making the playoffs then wondering if the 3rd ranked team got screwed by one of the components of the BCS.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'll take 8 of the top 9 and drop PSU. That's 8. Let em play it out. I am much more comfortable letting the 8th, 9th or 10th ranked team in the country cry about not making the playoffs then wondering if the 3rd ranked team got screwed by one of the components of the BCS.
I would have to agree with that. My only caveat is that there are teams that finish undefeated that are ranked 10 and below. They should get a shot at the title over 2 loss teams that might be ranked in the top 8.

[akhhorus]

I'll take 8 of the top 9 and drop PSU. That's 8. Let em play it out. I am much more comfortable letting the 8th, 9th or 10th ranked team in the country cry about not making the playoffs then wondering if the 3rd ranked team got screwed by one of the components of the BCS.

The whole pretext of the playoff is to eliminate any controversy and all you're doing is creating the same amount as you want to eliminate. A playoff fixes nothing.

[AliBabba]

I'll take 8 of the top 9 and drop PSU. That's 8. Let em play it out. I am much more comfortable letting the 8th, 9th or 10th ranked team in the country cry about not making the playoffs then wondering if the 3rd ranked team got screwed by one of the components of the BCS.
That's the exact progress I was thinking about.

There is no system right now that can make this process completely equitable. But for the sake of competition let's at least take some steps in the right direction.

[akhhorus]

I would have to agree with that. My only caveat is that there are teams that finish undefeated that are ranked 10 and below. They should get a shot at the title over 2 loss teams that might be ranked in the top 8.

This makes even less sense imo. So, a team with a weak conference and doesn't play anyone worth a crap should get into a potential playoff over a big conference team that lost to two great teams? That makes a playoff easier to dismiss. If you set up a system like that, how long before good programs jump ship to weak conferences just so they can beat up on a bad schedule for a playoff spot?

[akhhorus]

That's the exact progress I was thinking about.

There is no system right now that can make this process completely equitable. But for the sake of competition let's at least take some steps in the right direction.

So, kicking out one of the winners of the big conferences for a winner of a weak conference is progress? C'mon lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

This makes even less sense imo. So, a team with a weak conference and doesn't play anyone worth a crap should get into a potential playoff over a big conference team that lost to two great teams? That makes a playoff easier to dismiss. If you set up a system like that, how long before good programs jump ship to weak conferences just so they can beat up on a bad schedule for a playoff spot?
By that logic, the NFL should scrap it's current playoff system -- where some teams win playoff bids by playing in woeful divisions -- and go with Power Rankings system to determine who should play for the Superbowl title.

[AliBabba]

So, kicking out one of the winners of the big conferences for a winner of a weak conference is progress? C'mon lol.
If Penn State plays Oregon State in the Rose Bowl we just took two massive steps backward. Meanwhile two undefeated teams have no shot at the championship.

I think the "big" BCS conferences have too much of a sense of entitlement anyhow. Big 10 wants to be sure they send a team every year, play a GD championship. Otherwise I'm cool with sending nobody from the Big-10, Big East, ACC this year. Let USC, Boise and Utah battle the Big-12 and SEC

[BurgundyNGold]

The whole pretext of the playoff is to eliminate any controversy and all you're doing is creating the same amount as you want to eliminate. A playoff fixes nothing.
A playoff makes teams earn the title on the field over 3 games, not in the press box based on preference and preseason prognostication.

[AliBabba]

This makes even less sense imo. So, a team with a weak conference and doesn't play anyone worth a crap should get into a potential playoff over a big conference team that lost to two great teams? That makes a playoff easier to dismiss. If you set up a system like that, how long before good programs jump ship to weak conferences just so they can beat up on a bad schedule for a playoff spot?
Why does the new system have to be so rigid (as it is now) that it cannot adapt to teams that are trying to molest it? Obviously the ranking system would take into account other factors besides just win/loss. Hell the current BCS rankings will provide 8 teams this year that I think would make for a good playoff

[akhhorus]

By that logic, the NFL should scrap it's current playoff system -- where some teams win playoff bids by playing in woeful divisions -- and go with Power Rankings system to determine who should play for the Superbowl title.

I have no problem stripping bad conferences of playoff spots. No one from the AFC or NFC west should have made the playoffs for years lol.

If Penn State plays Oregon State in the Rose Bowl we just took two massive steps backward. Meanwhile two undefeated teams have no shot at the championship.

I think the "big" BCS conferences have too much of a sense of entitlement anyhow. Big 10 wants to be sure they send a team every year, play a GD championship. Otherwise I'm cool with sending nobody from the Big-10, Big East, ACC this year. Let USC, Boise and Utah battle the Big-12 and SEC

Its not equitable AT ALL to let some undefeated teams from conferences that have no good teams play for a title against teams who play a war of a schedule. If BYU, Utah and Boise State want to play for the title, they can easily join a real conference like the Pac-10.

[akhhorus]

Why does the new system have to be so rigid (as it is now) that it cannot adapt to teams that are trying to molest it? Obviously the ranking system would take into account other factors besides just win/loss. Hell the current BCS rankings will provide 8 teams this year that I think would make for a good playoff

And y'all will say that's inequitable and that a bunch of teams got screwed out of the money from BCS games. The BCS does take into consideration quality wins and strength of schedule. Thats why it works(and why Auburn didn't get into the title game in 2004).

[AliBabba]

If BYU, Utah and Boise State want to play for the title, they can easily join a real conference like the Pac-10.

Really? You think they can just easily join? Send a stamped self-addressed postcard? What about the next three after that? Maybe we can just make all the "good" conferences 30 deep.

Obviously as I said their would be a ranking system that would take into account the value of ones wins and losses. But as the Boise St showed against Oklahoma, these teams deserve a chance against the power conferences

[akhhorus]

Really? You think they can just easily join? Send a stamped self-addressed postcard? What about the next three after that? Maybe we can just make all the "good" conferences 30 deep.

The Pac-10 is only 10 teams(hence the name lol). They could easily add 4 more teams and be forced to play a championship game. Miami, Va Tech and BC joined the ACC rather easily when the Big East collapsed as a football conference.

Obviously as I said their would be a ranking system that would take into account the value of ones wins and losses. But as the Boise St showed against Oklahoma, these teams deserve a chance against the power conferences

For every Boise State, I can show you a Hawaii from last year.

[AliBabba]

And y'all will say that's inequitable and that a bunch of teams got screwed out of the money from BCS games. The BCS does take into consideration quality wins and strength of schedule. Thats why it works(and why Auburn didn't get into the title game in 2004).
So keep their ranking system and expand the field. Make teams earn the championship on the field. Isn't the friggin' championship supposed to be the best team? Why then do you only have a chance if you have the best season as a whole?

Some very good teams lose early in seasons which eliminates them from playing the championship game in this current format. However, at the end of the year there may be nobody that could beat them. Since they are locked out with no playoff to get in they have to settle for third, thats BS.

[akhhorus]

So keep their ranking system and expand the field. Make teams earn the championship on the field. Isn't the friggin' championship supposed to be the best team? Why then do you only have a chance if you have the best season as a whole?

Teams do earn their spots in the championship on the field. Its called the season+Conference title games. The BCS doesn't look at the records dryly sans context, they look at who the teams played, who they lost to and if they won their conferences. And use enough polling from disparate sources so that one group can't put their finger on their scale.

Some very good teams lose early in seasons which eliminates them from playing the championship game in this current format. However, at the end of the year there may be nobody that could beat them. Since they are locked out with no playoff to get in they have to settle for third, thats BS.

Actually no. Florida lost early in the season, but they're a lock to make the Championship game this year if they win out.

[AliBabba]

The Pac-10 is only 10 teams(hence the name lol). They could easily add 4 more teams and be forced to play a championship game. Miami, Va Tech and BC joined the ACC rather easily when the Big East collapsed as a football conference.

The Big-10 has 11 teams. (hence the name)

For every Boise State, I can show you a Hawaii from last year.

Absolutely, and if that Hawaii team is taking Penn States (#9) spot its much better for the competitive landscape than if an undefeated team who played some quality competition (which is what they'd have to have done to reach the BCS top 8) was locked out of the nat'l championship picture

[akhhorus]

The Big-10 has 11 teams. (hence the name)

O..k...what does this have to do with anything?

Absolutely, and if that Hawaii team is taking Penn States (#9) spot its much better for the competitive landscape than if an undefeated team who played some quality competition (which is what they'd have to have done to reach the BCS top 8) was locked out of the nat'l championship picture

No, its not. Its screwing over Penn State, who played a tough big conference schedule. That Boise State team in 2006 beat the stuffing out of a good Oregon State team that year, so they could have been a good team overall. Hawaii last year struggled to beat a 4-7 Washington team. This is why the BCS' use of context of quality wins and losses is effective.

[AliBabba]

Teams do earn their spots in the championship on the field. Its called the season+Conference title games. The BCS doesn't look at the records dryly sans context, they look at who the teams played, who they lost to and if they won their conferences. And use enough polling from disparate sources so that one group can't put their finger on their scale.

I've already said the ranking system is adequate for getting a field of teams. Not good enough for picking just two though.

Actually no. Florida lost early in the season, but they're a lock to make the Championship game this year if they win out.

That's one example. Again for every Florida there is a 2003 USC that loses early in the year and is done.

[akhhorus]

I've already said the ranking system is adequate for getting a field of teams. Not good enough for picking just two though.

Thats your opinion. Maybe Auburn shouldn't have scheduled The Citadel in 2004 lol.

That's one example. Again for every Florida there is a 2003 USC that loses early in the year and is done.

And they won part of that title because the coaches' poll recognized that they deserved consideration. The system wins again lol.

[Keino]

I am much more comfortable letting the 8th, 9th or 10th ranked team in the country cry about not making the playoffs then wondering if the 3rd ranked team got screwed by one of the components of the BCS.

See, this is what I keep repeating the numerous times Akh and I have this discussion. I am glad to know I am not the only one.....

[AliBabba]

No, its not. Its screwing over Penn State, who played a tough big conference schedule. That Boise State team in 2006 beat the stuffing out of a good Oregon State team that year, so they could have been a good team overall. Hawaii last year struggled to beat a 4-7 Washington team. This is why the BCS' use of context of quality wins and losses is effective.

Hawaii would have made the playoff and been eliminated. This Penn State team lost to a lesser team in Iowa. That loss and the fact that they're conference chooses to NOT play a championship game may eliminate them. now if one of the undefeated teams were to lose, or another team ahead of them then Penn State may jump back in.

However, that plays out though at least Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida and the undefeated teams get their fair shot as they all deserve it.

[AliBabba]

See, this is what I keep repeating the numerous times Akh and I have this discussion. I am glad to know I am not the only one.....
You are not alone ...

[akhhorus]

Hawaii would have made the playoff and been eliminated. This Penn State team lost to a lesser team in Iowa. That loss and the fact that they're conference chooses to NOT play a championship game may eliminate them. now if one of the undefeated teams were to lose, or another team ahead of them then Penn State may jump back in.

However, that plays out though at least Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida and the undefeated teams get their fair shot as they all deserve it.

No, they don't all deserve a shot. The winner of the Big 12 from Texas/TT/Oklahoma does because the winner would have beaten at least one of the others and everyone else essentially. The winner of Bama/Florida deserves a title shot because they all would have won a tough conference(beating a number of tough teams) and beating a top 4 team for the title(although, Florida should get penalized for playing the Citadel lol)

[akhhorus]

You are not alone ...

Mass delusion doesn't make for correctness lol.

[AliBabba]

No, they don't all deserve a shot. The winner of the Big 12 from Texas/TT/Oklahoma does because the winner would have beaten the other two. The winner of Bama/Florida deserves a title shot because they all would have won a tough conference(beating a number of tough teams) and beating a top 4 team for the title

This is your opinion. IMO the winner of the Big 12 championship game, if they have a loss, should not automatically be given a title shot over say a USC or even an Alabama if they were to lose to Florida

(although, Florida should get penalized for playing the Citadel lol)

Lay off the Citadel would ya, lol

[akhhorus]

This is your opinion. IMO the winner of the Big 12 championship game, if they have a loss, should not automatically be given a title shot over say a USC or even an Alabama if they were to lose to Florida

Alabama shouldn't get a title shot since they didn't win their division. USC in this case is why all the big conferences should have a title game. Assuming Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma, but wins the Big 12, they would have a much better case to make the title game because of their strength of schedule/quality wins.

[AliBabba]

Alabama shouldn't get a title shot since they didn't win their division. USC in this case is why all the big conferences should have a title game. Assuming Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma, but wins the Big 12, they would have a much better case to make the title game because of their strength of schedule/quality wins.
They would have a better strength of schedule, more quality wins, and a higher BCS ranking. So they'd get seeded higher the playoff. You can't convince me that Texas Tech would absolutely beat Alabama or SC though. I'd rather give all those top teams a shot at it and see who really is the best.

As for the comment about the conference championship games, as I said before I am all for it too. In fact that's exactly what I'd send Paterno in the condolence package if they missed the playoffs.

[akhhorus]

They would have a better strength of schedule, more quality wins, and a higher BCS ranking. So they'd get seeded higher the playoff. You can't convince me that Texas Tech would absolutely beat Alabama or SC though. I'd rather give all those top teams a shot at it and see who really is the best.

Then Alabama should beat Florida, and SC should have beaten Oregon State if they wanted to make sure they get in.

As for the comment about the conference championship games, as I said before I am all for it too. In fact that's exactly what I'd send Paterno in the condolence package if they missed the playoffs.

See, even in any hypothetical playoff, the Big 10 winner just cannot be left out for some crappy conference winner. That undermines any playoff concept.

[Keino]

Actually no. Florida lost early in the season, but they're a lock to make the Championship game this year if they win out.

Only because they will have the opportunity to play an undefeated Alabama squad in the SEC chip game. If they were on Alabama's side of the conference, they would be shut out of it, however.

Personally, I think a playoff is the only legit way to determine a champion. It is the way every other sports league in this country settles its champion.

[akhhorus]

Only because they will have the opportunity to play an undefeated Alabama squad in the SEC chip game. If they were on Alabama's side of the conference, they would be shut out of it, however.

If they were on Alabama's side of the conference, they would have played Alabama already and either one would be effectively eliminated from the title chase.

Personally, I think a playoff is the only legit way to determine a champion. It is the way every other sports league in this country settles its champion.

I'll be sure to point this out to you next you disagree with what everyone else considers the common sense or the majority.

[RedskinsDave]

I'll be sure to point this out to you next you disagree with the common sense or the majority.

So you're admitting that you are arguing against both common sense and the majority?

[akhhorus]

So you're admitting that you are arguing against both common sense and the majority?

I edited lol.

[Keino]

If they were on Alabama's side of the conference, they would have played Alabama already and either one would be effectively eliminated from the title chase.

Right, my point was they would have lost to Bama to be at 1 loss at this point in the season.



I'll be sure to point this out to you next you disagree with the common sense or the majority.

Feel Free. In this instance, I think the majority is absolutely correct and the one sport not settling it's champion in a like manner is wrong.

[akhhorus]

Right, my point was they would have lost to Bama to be at 1 loss at this point in the season.

Then the current scenario would be impossible and you don't have a point. Florida's schedule would have been much different this year and its a counter-factual to say that they would be 9-1 right now.

Feel Free. In this instance, I think the majority is absolutely correct and the one sport not settling it's champion in a like manner is wrong.

The "majority" can feel free at any time to not watch the BCS games to let the NCAA and TV networks know how they feel.

[Keino]

Then the current scenario would be impossible and you don't have a point. Florida's schedule would have been much different this year and its a counter-factual to say that they would be 9-1 right now.

I have a point but you refuse to see it. These are two worthy teams and a playoff system would afford each a chance at the title.



The "majority" can feel free at any time to not watch the BCS games to let the NCAA and TV networks know how they feel.


We've been over this over and over again. It should be quite clear, using this thread as a microcosm that most people hate the system, but tune in anyways, and there are a few, like myself that hate the system and won't watch unless my team is there. That has been my contention all along. People would prefer a playoff system....the "Majority" that is. Asking people to not tune in is absurd.

[akhhorus]

I have a point but you refuse to see it. These are two worthy teams and a playoff system would afford each a chance at the title.

No, I know what your point is trying to be. But in your hypothetical, Florida wouldn't have had the same schedule and Alabama & Florida couldn't have the same records. Even in the counter-factual that Ole Miss beats Florida in the Swamp again, Bama and Florida would still have to play.

We've been over this over and over again.

You started this thread to pick this fight/discussion again.

It should be quite clear, using this thread as a microcosm that most people hate the system, but tune in anyways, and there are a few, like myself that hate the system and won't watch unless my team is there.

Umm..no. You and Fathead don't tune in because they don't have a playoff. I don't count a substantial majority of people who hate the BCS but watch anyways. If you count Dave, its 3 who do that. So, if you want to use this thread as a microcosm and your assumption that a majority of American College football fans don't like the BCS, the BCS is losing the NCAA and TV a ton of cash since, they're losing 40% of the their potential BCS hating audience. Again: don't you think that ESPN and Fox Sports did some market research about how people view the BCS before bidding up the rights to the 2011-2014 BCS games?

That has been my contention all along. People would prefer a playoff system....the "Majority" that is.

Thats an assumption. There's no absolutely proof of that.

Asking people to not tune in is absurd.

Then don't complain. Things only change in this country when people vote with their feet.

[redskin_rich]

Ah, the endless war... The war on drugs, no. The war on terrorism, nope.

The debate on the usefulness/worthlessness of the BCS ranking system and the lack of a true playoff in NCAA Div III Football.

Much better than real politics, any day of the week.

I must say though, Akh is the only outspoken supporter of the current system, I have ever heard or seen. We should do a poll and see how the hR community feels about this. I think it would be one of the most lopsided polls ever.

[akhhorus]

Ah, the endless war... The war on drugs, no. The war on terrorism, nope.

The debate on the usefulness/worthlessness of the BCS ranking system and the lack of a true playoff in NCAA Div III Football.

Much better than real politics, any day of the week.

I must say though, Akh is the only outspoken supporter of the current system, I have ever heard or seen. We should do a poll and see how the hR community feels about this. I think it would be one of the most lopsided polls ever.

Every SEC football fan I know likes the current system, oddly enough the only people I've heard clamoring for a playoff are Pac10 fans and ACC fans(non southern ones).

[redskin_rich]

Every SEC football fan I know likes the current system, oddly enough the only people I've heard clamoring for a playoff are Pac10 fans and ACC fans(non southern ones).
That very well could be, as most everyone I discuss this issue in person with is an ACC fan. More reason for the poll, as we have lots of different people here, from different places. It would have to be public, so we could differentiate the locals from the abroad voters.

Though, the media is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of a playoff system over the BCS and that is both locally and nationally.

Obama isn't a Pac10 or ACC fan is he? I would think he would be a Big10 fan.

[akhhorus]

That very well could be, as most everyone I discuss this issue in person with is an ACC fan. More reason for the poll, as we have lots of different people here, from different places. It would have to be public, so we could differentiate the locals from the abroad voters.

Though, the media is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of a playoff system over the BCS and that is both locally and nationally.

The national media is pushing it(for whatever reason), but at least down south, the local sports media is fine with the status quo. Despite the constant yammering about on ESPN, I think its an act to just complain for the sake of doing so. ESPN just bought the rights for the BCS from 2011-2014 lol.

[Fathead]

I think this is obvious... Only a serial killer, a nazi, or a commie is against a playoff.


Which one are you, akh?

[Keino]

You started this thread to pick this fight/discussion again.

I started this as a joke, and never expected it to be more than just you or I participating as it has been in the past (With Brandon sprinkling in some opinion here or there), but not watching as you propose is not a realistic alternative.



Umm..no. You and Fathead don't tune in because they don't have a playoff. I don't count a substantial majority of people who hate the BCS but watch anyways. If you count Dave, its 3 who do that. So, if you want to use this thread as a microcosm and your assumption that a majority of American College football fans don't like the BCS, the BCS is losing the NCAA and TV a ton of cash since, they're losing 40% of the their potential BCS hating audience. Again: don't you think that ESPN and Fox Sports did some market research about how people view the BCS before bidding up the rights to the 2011-2014 BCS games?

Dave, Ali, BNG, Fathead, and myself all hate the system. How is that not a substantial majority?




Thats an assumption. There's no absolutely proof of that.

And I acknowledged that I couldn't prove it when I first said it.



Then don't complain. Things only change in this country when people vote with their feet.


Equally Absurd. I will continue to complain until they fix this broken system.

[Fathead]

Also, the idea that all a playoff does is change the crying about being left out and not fix it is ridiculous. There is crying about who doesn't make the tourney in college BBall, but that certainly doesn't mean we should start a BCS for basketball.

[Keino]

I have asked the Admins if placing a public Poll in the main forum would be okay. Upon approval I will create one, as I am curious as to where the HR community stands on the issue.

[akhhorus]

I think this is obvious... Only a serial killer, a nazi, or a commie is against a playoff.

Which one are you, akh?

I'm an SEC fan who believes that traditional and pageantry are still important for college football. If it was up to me, we wouldn't have the BCS and the bowl matchups would be like they were before it.

I started this as a joke, and never expected it to be more than just you or I participating as it has been in the past (With Brandon sprinkling in some opinion here or there), but not watching as you propose is not a realistic alternative.

Huh?

Dave, Ali, BNG, Fathead, and myself all hate the system. How is that not a substantial majority?

Follow me around the room again:
If this thread is a microcosm of the American CFB fan(which I don't stipulate to), then two things are gleaned:
1-A vast majority of people hate the BCS(something that isn't backed by national polling)
2-Of that "vast majority," 40% won't watch it because of their hatred.

So, the TV networks are more than happy to pay a 50% premium on something that leaves 40% of its potential audience on the table? No sir. Thats not possible.

And I acknowledged that I couldn't prove it when I first said it.

Equally Absurd. I will continue to complain until they fix this broken system.

Go ahead. As long as cfb ratings and BCS ratings stay high, nothing's changing ever.

[Keino]

I'm an SEC fan who believes that traditional and pageantry are still important for college football. If it was up to me, we would have the BCS and the bowl matchups would be like they were before it.

The paegentry is archaic and not in tune with today's world. The Bowl match-ups before were even worse because certain conferences were locked into bowls regardless of their record. 1994 Undefeated Penn State is a perfect example.



Huh?


Was responding to the charge that I started the thread to pick a fight while getting back to the initial point (following the conversation) that Not watching is not a realistic alternative.


Follow me around the room again:
If this thread is a microcosm of the American CFB fan(which I don't stipulate to), then two things are gleaned:
1-A vast majority of people hate the BCS(something that isn't backed by national polling)
2-Of that "vast majority," 40% won't watch it because of their hatred.

So, the TV networks are more than happy to pay a 50% premium on something that leaves 40% of its potential audience on the table? No sir. Thats not possible.

Okay, it's not a one to one comparison, I can acknowledge that, but the overwhelming majority in this thread hate the manner in which the champ is determined and I believe that if given the option (No need to point out that I can't prove it since I am stating a belief) the vast majority of CFB fans would take the playoff over the status quo. And again, the networks paying an increase premium is no evidence of anything other than they will maintain the same profit margin. As you and I both know, networks lose money on the games and recoup that money in ad revenue.



Go ahead. As long as cfb ratings and BCS ratings stay high, nothing's changing ever.

Maybe, maybe not. The more people who howl about it the better the chances are that things will change.

[Fathead]

I'm an SEC fan who believes that traditional and pageantry are still important for college football. If it was up to me, we wouldn't have the BCS and the bowl matchups would be like they were before it.







SEC? So you are a nazi serial killer then. ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

SEC? So you are a nazi serial killer then. ;)
Nazi, no. Serial killer, possibly. Fallabout drunk, yes, lol.

[akhhorus]

The paegentry is archaic and not in tune with today's world. The Bowl match-ups before were even worse because certain conferences were locked into bowls regardless of their record. 1994 Undefeated Penn State is a perfect example.

Thats the way it should be. CFB is all about the tradition and pagentry.

Was responding to the charge that I started the thread to pick a fight while getting back to the initial point (following the conversation) that Not watching is not a realistic alternative.

Of course it is. If some tv network you like is showing a show you hate, are you forced to watch it because you like the network?

Okay, it's not a one to one comparison, I can acknowledge that, but the overwhelming majority in this thread hate the manner in which the champ is determined and I believe that if given the option (No need to point out that I can't prove it since I am stating a belief) the vast majority of CFB fans would take the playoff over the status quo. And again, the networks paying an increase premium is no evidence of anything other than they will maintain the same profit margin. As you and I both know, networks lose money on the games and recoup that money in ad revenue.

The networks paying a higher amount means they believe that the BCS will remain highly viewed for the next 6 years, which means they don't believe a playoff is coming anytime soon, QED the fanbase is fine with the current system.

Maybe, maybe not. The more people who howl about it the better the chances are that things will change.

Not at all. In order to change anything you'll have to convince either ESPN(who's on air personalities whine about it non stop) or the commissioners of the power conferences(who run the BCS) that its in the financial interest of everyone to have a playoff. The only ways to do that is to deny revenue or entice with revenue improvement.

[BurgundyNGold]

The networks paying a higher amount means they believe that the BCS will remain highly viewed for the next 6 years, which means they don't believe a playoff is coming anytime soon, QED the fanbase is fine with the current system.
Just because people will continue to watch college football doesn't mean that they are fine with the current system. People still pay taxes but that does not imply that they're happy with how the government has operated with those funds. It's just not a big enough bone of contention yet to change behavior (i.e wheeling out the guillotine, torches and pitchforks, lol).

[akhhorus]

Just because people will continue to watch college football doesn't mean that they are fine with the current system. People still pay taxes but that does not imply that they're happy with how the government has operated with those funds. It's just not a big enough bone of contention yet to change behavior (i.e wheeling out the guillotine, torches and pitchforks, lol).

I don't think that a very fair analogy since participation visa-via the government is mandatory. If people were as upset with the BCS as Keino likes to make them out to be, the TV networks wouldn't be trying to lock into contracts for it long term-especially at a higher price. They do market research, they know better than we do how CFB fans feel about the BCS. And they're willing to pay 45 million more a year for the rights to broadcast those games. That says a lot about how the BCS is seen. You're not going to pay more for the rights to a product or service that a vast majority of consumers are soft because they're only buying because they don't have another choice if they want to watch the CFB championship(and other prominent bowl games). If there was more money in a playoff, it would have happened a long time ago.

[Keino]

Thats the way it should be. CFB is all about the tradition and pagentry.

We will always disagree on this point. Tradition for the sake of Tradition.....I think you know where I am headed with this.......



Of course it is. If some tv network you like is showing a show you hate, are you forced to watch it because you like the network?

Only that isn't the situation. I have options to tune into a network that is showing a program I like. It's not that I dislike football, quite the opposite actually, and there is no alternative program available ergo I am forced to watch it if I want to watch College football.



The networks paying a higher amount means they believe that the BCS will remain highly viewed for the next 6 years, which means they don't believe a playoff is coming anytime soon, QED the fanbase is fine with the current system.

That is a logical leap of epic proportions and I have argued ad nauseam why this is so. The ratings only prove they watch it, not that they are happy with the status quo.



Not at all. In order to change anything you'll have to convince either ESPN(who's on air personalities whine about it non stop) or the commissioners of the power conferences(who run the BCS) that its in the financial interest of everyone to have a playoff. The only ways to do that is to deny revenue or entice with revenue improvement.

And I have already argued that it would take cooperative effort from competitors which is not likely to take place. So it will remain a Grass-roots endeavor.....and so I will continue to point out the craptacular nature of it all.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't think that a very fair analogy since participation visa-via the government is mandatory. If people were as upset with the BCS as Keino likes to make them out to be, the TV networks wouldn't be trying to lock into contracts for it long term-especially at a higher price. They do market research, they know better than we do how CFB fans feel about the BCS. And they're willing to pay 45 million more a year for the rights to broadcast those games. That says a lot about how the BCS is seen. You're not going to pay more for the rights to a product or service that a vast majority of consumers are soft because they're only buying because they don't have another choice if they want to watch the CFB championship(and other prominent bowl games). If there was more money in a playoff, it would have happened a long time ago.
Perhaps my analogy isn't apt, but the sentiment is the same. People hate FedEx Field but they still go to Redskin games to support their team. I imagine that people will watch college football -- national title legitimacy aside -- because they have allegiance to a team or just because they like good football. That doesn't mean that most people wouldn't much rather see a playoff system or that they would or should be willing to forego college football altogether to get it.

[akhhorus]

We will always disagree on this point. Tradition for the sake of Tradition.....I think you know where I am headed with this.......

Only that isn't the situation. I have options to tune into a network that is showing a program I like. It's not that I dislike football, quite the opposite actually, and there is no alternative program available ergo I am forced to watch it if I want to watch College football.

No one is forcing you to watch it ever.

That is a logical leap of epic proportions and I have argued ad nauseam why this is so. The ratings only prove they watch it, not that they are happy with the status quo.

No, the fact that 2 sports networks fell over themselves in order to pay 50% more for the rights to future BCS games prove that. Unless you're trying to posit that ESPN/Fox sports know that people totally hate the BCS and its losing ratings because of that-but still are willing to pay more for the rights.

And I have already argued that it would take cooperative effort from competitors which is not likely to take place. So it will remain a Grass-roots endeavor.....and so I will continue to point out the craptacular nature of it all.

Good luck there Johnny Cash ;)

Perhaps my analogy isn't apt, but the sentiment is the same. People hate FedEx Field but they still go to Redskin games to support their team. I imagine that people will watch college football -- national title legitimacy aside -- because they have allegiance to a team or just because they like good football. That doesn't mean that most people wouldn't much rather see a playoff system or that they would or should be willing to forego college football altogether to get it.

You can watch the Redskin games at home and deny Snyder your money. There are teams with large fan bases, but even those aren't enough to make for a big enough TV audience.

[Keino]

No one is forcing you to watch it ever.

Okay but don't act like I have an alternative. I don't, not a reasonable one anyway.



No, the fact that 2 sports networks fell over themselves in order to pay 50% more for the rights to future BCS games prove that. Unless you're trying to posit that ESPN/Fox sports know that people totally hate the BCS and its losing ratings because of that-but still are willing to pay more for the rights.

Previously addressed. As long as they continue to make money they do not care. They aren't losing ratings because CFB has a Monopoly on the product and ultimately, people watch even if they don't like the system. They know people hate it and don't care, because it remains profitable.

[akhhorus]

Okay but don't act like I have an alternative. I don't, not a reasonable one anyway.

I didn't say you didn't have an alternative.

Previously addressed. As long as they continue to make money they do not care. They aren't losing ratings because CFB has a Monopoly on the product and ultimately, people watch even if they don't like the system. They know people hate it and don't care, because it remains profitable.

And for the 37th time: assuming(a safe assumption) that Fox/ESPN/NFLN(who broadcasts some bowl games) did even a tiny bit of market research, they would know the true feelings of the CFB watching audience towards the BCS and how many viewers they're losing(or could lose) because of it. They've decided that its the maximum revenue potential to keep the status quo-they're not going to leave tens of million of ad revenue on the table.

[Keino]

Okay, I created the poll. I tried to be objective in how I created the poll options, but let me know if you think it should be tweaked a bit.

[akhhorus]

Okay, I created the poll. I tried to be objective in how I created the poll options, but let me know if you think it should be tweaked a bit.

Its literally an impossible poll to do here for several reasons:
1-A VAST majority of the fans here will be ACC/UMD/UVA fans. In my experience, ACC fans from the north are always in favor of a playoff(Bob only knows why).
2-The way it is now gives you an automatic declaration since the majority of polling options are for a playoff. And you'll never find out who supports a playoff and who won't watch the BCS
3-If you make it a straight "BCS or not" or "BCS or playoff" poll, you'll never get a straight answer either since people will want options in that.

[Keino]

Its literally an impossible poll to do here for several reasons:
1-A VAST majority of the fans here will be ACC/UMD/UVA fans. In my experience, ACC fans from the north are always in favor of a playoff(Bob only knows why).
2-The way it is now gives you an automatic declaration since the majority of polling options are for a playoff. And you'll never find out who supports a playoff and who won't watch the BCS
3-If you make it a straight "BCS or not" or "BCS or playoff" poll, you'll never get a straight answer either since people will want options in that.

I was actually going to count any votes for the "And 1" format as a vote of support for the system. My thinking is, based on a point that you raised......nobody is discussing that as a solution and it would only be a moderate tweak to the status quo. Even though technically it would be a Playoff as Dave pointed out.

I don't understand either, why fans of a BCS conference would be overwhelmingly in support of a playoff either (Besides it being the right way to determine a champion). I would expect that sort of thing from MAC Conference supporters and the like.

[akhhorus]

I was actually going to count any votes for the "And 1" format as a vote of support for the system. My thinking is, based on a point that you raised......nobody is discussing that as a solution and it would only be a moderate tweak to the status quo. Even though technically it would be a Playoff as Dave pointed out.

I would only support that system-as we discussed before-if it was an option if there were 4 teams that met a hard threshhold of accomplishments. Otherwise the system stays untouched.

I don't understand either, why fans of a BCS conference would be overwhelmingly in support of a playoff either (Besides it being the right way to determine a champion). I would expect that sort of thing from MAC Conference supporters and the like.

I can explain a theory I have, but it would be mean towards ACC fans lol.

[Keino]

On the "will you or won't you watch" question, I agree that there was no way to include that aspect of the discussion in this poll. I am thinking a follow-up Poll or even a PM to those who vote in favor of a playoff......

I don't think you could say anything more mean to ACC/MD fans than previous comments.....

[akhhorus]

On the "will you or won't you watch" question, I agree that there was no way to include that aspect of the discussion in this poll. I am thinking a follow-up Poll or even a PM to those who vote in favor of a playoff......

We're getting too complicated then. We would need the same voters to vote on the 2nd poll and that'll never happen lol.

I don't think you could say anything more mean to ACC/MD fans than previous comments.....

I've been mean to the ACC, not their fans. Personally, I think ACC(and Pac10) fans are in favor of the playoff because both conferences don't play particularly tough schedules(on top of a generally weak in-conference schedule) and will always be lagging behind in the BCS chase. The SEC and Big 12 have a championship game at the end of the season against what is almost always a top 10 opponent, so we like the system due to that extra push at the end of the season for our teams. The solution isn't a playoff, the solution is for the Pac10(and Big 10) to create a championship game and for the ACC play tougher teams.

[Keino]

Eh, I don't buy it. Simply because Miami and FSU used to be the standard in CFB. I think if an ACC team went undefeated they would not be left out of the thing. The issue with the ACC and those two programs in particular is that they have gone in to a down cycle after being dominant teams for about a decade at the same time the BCS came into being....

Hell the ACC thought by getting the better Football programs from the Big East (Tech, Miami, & BC) and getting the requisite teams for the conf. championship, that they were propelling themselves into the land of the Elite. It simply hasn't worked out as planned.

As to the follow-up poll, I was thinking (since it was public) of just PMing the follow-up to those who voted in favor of a playoff. Far from scientific, but the poll is about the pulse of HR, not the entire country.

[akhhorus]

Eh, I don't buy it. Simply because Miami and FSU used to be the standard in CFB. I think if an ACC team went undefeated they would not be left out of the thing. The issue with the ACC and those two programs in particular is that they have gone in to a down cycle after being dominant teams for about a decade at the same time the BCS came into being....

Eh..FSU is the only ACC team to make it to a BCS title game, Miami was in the Big East when they made it. The big 12 and SEC have been the dominate conferences in the last few years.

Hell the ACC thought by getting the better Football programs from the Big East (Tech, Miami, & BC) and getting the requisite teams for the conf. championship, that they were propelling themselves into the land of the Elite. It simply hasn't worked out as planned.

They did, but the clamor from up north about the BCS only started after the ACC started faltering.

As to the follow-up poll, I was thinking (since it was public) of just PMing the follow-up to those who voted in favor of a playoff. Far from scientific, but the poll is about the pulse of HR, not the entire country.

Then its useless as a poll.

[Keino]

Eh..FSU is the only ACC team to make it to a BCS title game, Miami was in the Big East when they made it. The big 12 and SEC have been the dominate conferences in the last few years.

Agreed.



They did, but the clamor from up north about the BCS only started after the ACC started faltering.

I know that I've wanted a playoff since Georgia Tech and Colorado split the National Championship in 1990.



Then its useless as a poll.

Not really, as the original suggestion from Rich was to find out where the rest of HR stood on the issue. That's not useless. Maybe in the context of our argument it is, but I am viewing it as a Separate, sub-matter no necessarily impacting our discussion one way or the other.

[akhhorus]

I know that I've wanted a playoff since Georgia Tech and Colorado split the National Championship in 1990.

Okay, but the pundits and talk complaining about a playoff started after OSU beat Miami.


Not really, as the original suggestion from Rich was to find out where the rest of HR stood on the issue. That's not useless. Maybe in the context of our argument it is, but I am viewing it as a Separate, sub-matter no necessarily impacting our discussion one way or the other.

OK, but don't try to use the results as proof of anything.

[Keino]

OK, but don't try to use the results as proof of anything.

They would only prove what HR thinks, which we have mutually established is heavily biased towards the ACC/Big East so, no, I wouldn't use the poll results as a "See the country hates the BCS". I do have some sense, I wouldn't just go over an grind my feet into someone couch. Yea, I remember grinding my Feet in Eddie's couch.......:thinker:

[akhhorus]

They would only prove what HR thinks, which we have mutually established is heavily biased towards the ACC/Big East so, no, I wouldn't use the poll results as a "See the country hates the BCS". I do have some sense, I wouldn't just go over an grind my feet into someone couch. Yea, I remember grinding my Feet in Eddie's couch.......:thinker:

**CENSORED BY DJ** your BCS, **CENSORED BY DJ**!!!
**CENSORED BY DJ** your BCS, **CENSORED BY DJ**!!!
**CENSORED BY DJ** your BCS, **CENSORED BY DJ**!!! Playoff is, playoff is!

[Keino]

**CENSORED BY DJ** your BCS, **CENSORED BY DJ**!!!
**CENSORED BY DJ** your BCS, **CENSORED BY DJ**!!!
**CENSORED BY DJ** your BCS, **CENSORED BY DJ**!!! Playoff is, playoff is!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/G__ROW/chappeleRickJamesDirtyUpCouch.gif

[Keino]

Interesting Len Shapiro piece on the impact of the ESPN deal with the BCS.

Shapiro (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112501413_2.html)

[smoak]

Now tha we got this cleared up, I hope Steve Spurrier, Bobby Bowden, and Sweet Lou can get started on fixing the economy. It is going to be such a tough year ahead for this country, that I am just thrilled with get this BCS nonsense behind us. :D

[Fathead]

I hope Missouri wins the Big 12 champ now. And Florida beats Alabama, so then Florida and Texas play in the title game and the BCS commits suicide when Texas wins the national title w/o winning its conference.

[Keino]

I hope Missouri wins the Big 12 champ now. And Florida beats Alabama, so then Florida and Texas play in the title game and the BCS commits suicide when Texas wins the national title w/o winning its conference.

I'd love to see that happen. I'd love to see the argument that says OU deserves to be in the Big 12 title game over UT. Strikes me as pretty arbitrary and the notion that a team can play in the title game without winning it's league is a farce. Just as it was when Oklahoma lost years ago to Colorado in the conf. title game and still got to go play for the title......

And how is Penn State not in the discussion?

[akhhorus]

I'd love to see that happen. I'd love to see the argument that says OU deserves to be in the Big 12 title game over UT. Strikes me as pretty arbitrary and the notion that a team can play in the title game without winning it's league is a farce. Just as it was when Oklahoma lost years ago to Colorado in the conf. title game and still got to go play for the title......

And how is Penn State not in the discussion?

If Oklahoma loses in the big 12 title game, neither them or Texas will play for the title(especially since that Oklahoma dropping in the rankings would hurt Texas' numbers). USC would almost certainly leapfrog them into the #2 spot-especially if they lay a pasting on UCLA.

And where's your 'righteous outrage' for Georgia Tech? They're tied for the best record(overall and in conference) in the ACC, yet they won't play for the title since they lost to Va Tech? Maybe they need an 8 team playoff in the ACC also? Oh wait, thats called "the season."

[NCskinsfanatic]

They would only prove what HR thinks, which we have mutually established is heavily biased towards the ACC/Big East so, no, I wouldn't use the poll results as a "See the country hates the BCS". I do have some sense, I wouldn't just go over an grind my feet into someone couch. Yea, I remember grinding my Feet in Eddie's couch.......:thinker:

Lmao...I mean I'm a grown man, how am I gonna look grinding my feet in someones couch...

[Keino]

If Oklahoma loses in the big 12 title game, neither them or Texas will play for the title(especially since that Oklahoma dropping in the rankings would hurt Texas' numbers). USC would almost certainly leapfrog them into the #2 spot-especially if they lay a pasting on UCLA.

And where's your 'righteous outrage' for Georgia Tech? They're tied for the best record(overall and in conference) in the ACC, yet they won't play for the title since they lost to Va Tech? Maybe they need an 8 team playoff in the ACC also? Oh wait, thats called "the season."


I have no outrage over the ACC, because they all seem to suck. I may have some if there was a 3 team, arbitrary decision made as to who represents their side of the conference in a title game, but that is not the case and Head to Head is and always has been a fair tie-breaking determinate.

No, what Im indignant about is what I have heard from the Pundits, which is exactly the scenario laid out by Fathead. If Bama loses and OU loses there is a good chance that UT leapfrogs and plays in the title game.

Feel free to explain why USC deserves to leapfrog anyone when they play an inferior schedule as well.....

[Fathead]

I have no outrage over the ACC, because they all seem to suck. I may have some if there was a 3 team, arbitrary decision made as to who represents their side of the conference in a title game, but that is not the case and Head to Head is and always has been a fair tie-breaking determinate.

No, what Im indignant about is what I have heard from the Pundits, which is exactly the scenario laid out by Fathead. If Bama loses and OU loses there is a good chance that UT leapfrogs and plays in the title game.

Feel free to explain why USC deserves to leapfrog anyone when they play an inferior schedule as well.....

I've seen one scenario where the voters move USC up since they would be a conf champ. But its a bizzare scenario.

[akhhorus]

I have no outrage over the ACC, because they all seem to suck. I may have some if there was a 3 team, arbitrary decision made as to who represents their side of the conference in a title game, but that is not the case and Head to Head is and always has been a fair tie-breaking determinate.

Then you shouldn't be complaining about Texas possibly leapfrogging Oklahoma in the BCS. Or not nearly as much. I'm sorry, but you can't be critical of the BCS and not be over Ga. Tech not getting into the ACC title game.

No, what Im indignant about is what I have heard from the Pundits, which is exactly the scenario laid out by Fathead. If Bama loses and OU loses there is a good chance that UT leapfrogs and plays in the title game.

Don't get pre-indignant. Do so when/if the scenario happens.

Feel free to explain why USC deserves to leapfrog anyone when they play an inferior schedule as well.....

Considering that in your scenario, Ohio State would move up to the 7ish range, the USC strength of schedule would be the best among the big conference winners with 1 loss(minus Florida).

[RedskinsDave]

I do love that the BCS is about the blow up in all of its flaws. So let's get this straight: Team A beats Team B on a neutral site yet Team B jumps over Team A in the BCS. Was there a bonus card involved that no one saw? The system is pure and utter bunk and no matter what happens this year, the argument that there are at least 6 and possibly 8 teams who deserve a shot at the title via a playoff system is stronger than ever.

[Keino]

Then you shouldn't be complaining about Texas possibly leapfrogging Oklahoma in the BCS. Or not nearly as much. I'm sorry, but you can't be critical of the BCS and not be over Ga. Tech not getting into the ACC title game.

Head to head as trump card makes my outrage pretty consistent actually. Maryland won the ACC in like manner (Tie with FSU but won head to head).



Don't get pre-indignant. Do so when/if the scenario happens.



This made me laugh out loud.....almost with a Coffee Spit-take......

It is the very notion that makes me indignant...LOL

[BurgundyNGold]

I do love that the BCS is about the blow up in all of its flaws. So let's get this straight: Team A beats Team B on a neutral site yet Team B jumps over Team A in the BCS. Was there a bonus card involved that no one saw? The system is pure and utter bunk and no matter what happens this year, the argument that there are at least 6 and possibly 8 teams who deserve a shot at the title via a playoff system is stronger than ever.
Agreed, but that's what makes the BCS and the current bowl system so maddening. It's racked with flaws and everybody knows it, yet it still isn't likely to change anytime soon.

[akhhorus]

I do love that the BCS is about the blow up in all of its flaws. So let's get this straight: Team A beats Team B on a neutral site yet Team B jumps over Team A in the BCS. Was there a bonus card involved that no one saw? The system is pure and utter bunk and no matter what happens this year, the argument that there are at least 6 and possibly 8 teams who deserve a shot at the title via a playoff system is stronger than ever.

Team A should have beaten Team C(whom Team B crushed by 40 points when Team C was #2 in the BCS) when they had the chance lol.

Head to head as trump card makes my outrage pretty consistent actually. Maryland won the ACC in like manner (Tie with FSU but won head to head).

No, by your flawed logic about why there should be a playoff system, Georgia Tech should be afforded a chance to show why-despite their losses-they could be the ACC champion.

This made me laugh out loud.....almost with a Coffee Spit-take......

It is the very notion that makes me indignant...LOL

No, no matter what the BCS did-even if Bama and Oklahoma win this weekend-you'll find some reason to be indignant.

[Keino]

No, by your flawed logic about why there should be a playoff system, Georgia Tech should be afforded a chance to show why-despite their losses-they could be the ACC champion.

I don't get how you can apply my logic for determining the Overall college football champion to determining a conference champion. It's like taking a Macro-economic principal and trying to apply it to a micro-economic situation. It doesn't get more flawed than that. I have stated how I feel that the ACC has fairly determined it's champ game participants (Which you can either accept or not) and it is not the same situation as what is happening in the Big 12. Not even close.



No, no matter what the BCS did-even if Bama and Oklahoma win this weekend-you'll find some reason to be indignant.

That's probably true, but don't pre-indignant about my righteous indignation. Let me actually be indignant before complaining about it. ;)

[akhhorus]

I don't get how you can apply my logic for determining the Overall college football champion to determining a conference champion. It's like taking a Macro-economic principal and trying to apply it to a micro-economic situation. It doesn't get more flawed than that.

Your counterexample only holds true if we were talking about two different economic situations. We're not.

I have stated how I feel that the ACC has fairly determined it's champ game participants (Which you can either accept or not) and it is not the same situation as what is happening in the Big 12. Not even close.

The ACC actually uses similar criteria to the Big 12, if there's enough deadlocks in the tiebreakers, they go to the BCS ratings. How exactly would you settle the big 12 tie? Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma all have the same conference record and the head to head records don't work for obvious reasons. The BCS tiebreaker for the Big 12 is the 5th tiebreaker, so they were deadlocked in:
1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other
2. The records of the three teams will be compared within their division
3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6)
4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents.

Please tell us how you would have sorted it out :)

That's probably true, but don't pre-indignant about my righteous indignation. Let me actually be indignant before complaining about it. ;)

You are already indignant lol.

[Keino]

Your counterexample only holds true if we were talking about two different economic situations. We're not.

But we are talking about two different situtation. I have consistently argued that the National Champion should be settled via playoff. I have not remotely made that argument for determining the various conference champions, and advocating a playoff system for the former does not mean that I must advocate it for the latter.



The ACC actually uses similar criteria to the Big 12, if there's enough deadlocks in the tiebreakers, they go to the BCS ratings. How exactly would you settle the big 12 tie? Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma all have the same conference record and the head to head records don't work for obvious reasons. The BCS tiebreaker for the Big 12 is the 5th tiebreaker, so they were deadlocked in:
1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other
2. The records of the three teams will be compared within their division
3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6)
4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents.

Please tell us how you would have sorted it out :)

I would have nuked Texas. Problem solved. In all seriousness a team would not leap-frog a team they lost to. So I would have placed Texas in the game more than likely, which would have not been fair to Texas Tech.



You are already indignant lol.

About the Notion that a non Conf champ can play in the title game. I am not idignant about the results of a game (and their subsequent effect on who plays in the title game) that hasn't occurred yet.

[akhhorus]

But we are talking about two different situtation. I have consistently argued that the National Champion should be settled via playoff. I have not remotely made that argument for determining the various conference champions, and advocating a playoff system for the former does not mean that I must advocate it for the latter.

Your premise for having a playoff means you have to rail to heaven about Georgia Tech's situation and further more it means you have to advocate for a playoff in the conference situs.

I would have nuked Texas. Problem solved. In all seriousness a team would not leap-frog a team they lost to. So I would have placed Texas in the game more than likely, which would have not been fair to Texas Tech.

Then you're being just as arbitrary as the BCS you hate so much(actually more so).

About the Notion that a non Conf champ can play in the title game. I am not idignant about the results of a game (and their subsequent effect on who plays in the title game) that hasn't occurred yet.

I'm taking bets on whether or not you complain post title games about the BCS matchups regardless of the outcome lol.

[Keino]

Your premise for having a playoff means you have to rail to heaven about Georgia Tech's situation and further more it means you have to advocate for a playoff in the conference situs.

Not at all, and I really don't see how you can reasonably draw that conclusion. The NFL doesn't have DIvision playoffs to determine who makes the overall playoffs. That is a logisitcal nightmare.



Then you're being just as arbitrary as the BCS you hate so much(actually more so).

I agree that it is arbitrary (and said is much in my answer) but it makes sense. I don't agree that it is more arbitrary than one team leapfrogging a team they lost with an identical record.



I'm taking bets on whether or not you complain post title games about the BCS matchups regardless of the outcome lol.


If you run a clean book, I might give you some action......LOL

[akhhorus]

Not at all, and I really don't see how you can reasonably draw that conclusion. The NFL doesn't have DIvision playoffs to determine who makes the overall playoffs. That is a logisitcal nightmare.

You can't say at one time that "it should be decided on the field" and another "well, thats fine, even though its arbitrary."

I agree that it is arbitrary (and said is much in my answer) but it makes sense. I don't agree that it is more arbitrary than one team leapfrogging a team they lost with an identical record.

Then you should be pushing for Texas Tech, oh wait they lost to Oklahoma. Those three teams tied in head to head record(because of the Mobius loop of wins/losses), record inside their division, record against the next 3 teams in the division and were 1 step away from just deciding by draw. It was a freak occurrence and shouldn't be used as whining material imo.

If you run a clean book, I might give you some action......LOL

Big "if" there lol.

[Keino]

Akh that's nonsense. Because I support a playoff to determine the National Champion does not mean I have to support a playoff to determine who makes the playoff.

As for the rest, eh, I would argue that if you lose by 40 to anyone you aren't title material and while I acknowledge my solution would not be fair to Texas Tech, you cannot convince me that Oklahoma deserves it over Texas, who beat them. IMO Texas Tech really lost their bone of contention by getting blown out. Either way I was pulling for Missouri. Go Tigers!!!

[akhhorus]

Akh that's nonsense. Because I support a playoff to determine the National Champion does not mean I have to support a playoff to determine who makes the playoff.

Whats good for the goose...

As for the rest, eh, I would argue that if you lose by 40 to anyone you aren't title material and while I acknowledge my solution would not be fair to Texas Tech, you cannot convince me that Oklahoma deserves it over Texas, who beat them. IMO Texas Tech really lost their bone of contention by getting blown out. Either way I was pulling for Missouri. Go Tigers!!!

Then Texas should be out since they lost to the team that lost to Oklahoma by 40 points.

[Keino]

Whats good for the goose...



Then Texas should be out since they lost to the team that lost to Oklahoma by 40 points.

LMAO.

If they lost by 40, I might be convinced.