Roman Wolve said, ". . . we just want to see a fair and equitable end to each college football season. As every other professional and NCAA champion is determined by a playoff and no other sport utilizes a BCS type system. . ."
And I just want to address this by saying that the regular season is a sort of playoff. There are few teams that survive the gambit of 12 gruling games, riddled with injuries, replacements, and even carrying that target on your back as a team goes unscathed through the regular season.
There is no fair and equitable solution in picking a true #1 team, but the closest thing we have doing an unbiased ranking are the computers, and they are one third of the BCS ranking. The computers have no prejudices or moral issues with any team. They are unswayed by human emotions, needs, wants, and desires. And most of all, the Computers are consistant in their ranking procedures.
Let me make sure your not thinking that only the computer imput should be looked at in this decision making process for ranking teams, but we must recognize that as long as people pollsters are also voting, they have agendas and prejudices. I do believe that the BCS ranking is a close proximity as to the rankings of the best teams of College Football, and to institute a playoff would be, in essence, killing off the bowl system as we know today, and a ruining of the "sacred cow", or in this case the "cash cow".
Like everyone who wants a playoff system, I too would like to see the best play the best. I do think some of the human pollsters are guilty of prejudices [and I cite some of this in my book], and that is why I do think we need to separate the condenders from the pretenders..
I think the BCS is the best alternative to any playoff, which will NOT, in my opinion make the dollars that the bowls make for the schools, teams, and conferences. That is why I devises a non-playoff system that would pit titan against titan, and really give us not only the flavor of a playoff, but the harsh reality of who is really worthy of being in the top ranking as the true #1 and #2 team to play in the National Championship game.
The biggest arguement that I hear ever year is . . . Well who did they play? And with my system we let them play the game! Teams of perceived equal strength play one another, and the winning team will, in essence, advance. A #4 or even a #5 team could ultimately end up playing in the National Championship game with my system, and the biggest benefit will be for the viewer, the fan!
I want to say it just one more time. . . 11 game scheduled regular season; a 12th game of the regular season will be based on the BCS Rankings with #1 hosting #2; #3 hosting #4; #5 hosting #6; etc. and this can go to #69 hosting #70 [to qualify the teams that will be heading for a Bowl], or even #119 hosting #120 [if we want to include all Division I teams].
This is as good as a playoff as it will thin the condenders and the victors will step up a notch to be eligible for the bowl. A few teams may drop out of contention for the BCS Biowls, and a few more teams may rise to their just positions. The top paying bowls are the BCS bowls where the top 10 teams [subject to Automatic Qualifiers [AQ]] will play and earn the Big Bucks. And maybe after this 12th unscheduled game, the BCS may want to rethink AQ's if they lose their 12th game.
This could lead to some of the best football we would have NEVER had the foresightedness to have scheduled. This would present an equitible system in place, every bit as qualifying as a playoff system. And we still have the Bowl games . . .sorta' like having your cake . . . and eating it too!
If you have questions, go to my profile and read my blogs, or just buy my book of December Dream . . . Qualifying for the BCS Rankings available at www.bbotw.com in paperback for $10.95.
Showing posts with label Bowl Champion Series. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bowl Champion Series. Show all posts
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Give the people what they want . . .
We will not live long enough to see a bracketed playoff, no matter how many teams, if your using the Bowls. The Bowls represent a QUARTER BILLION industry to all the schools and conferences that participate. The Bowls are all independent, and all of these hosts have their own game plan, and it really does not matter, at least not too much, who the teams/schools are that come to play in their bowl, just as long as they come, and enjoy the vacation [spend money].
These Bowl Committees will use the monies they collect to sponsor programs for kids, like in Miami where they have a Boys & Girls Club that would not exist without these funds. If it is any consolation, the bowls were ment to be exhibition, and were up until 1965 when the AP decided to name their Champion after the Bowls were played. Then in '66' & '67', the AP went back to naming the Champion after the regular season, and in 1968, they made it permanent to announce their winner after the Bowl Games.
As for my version of a playoff. . . #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, etc as the last regular season game. Then we have the winners from 1&2 play the winner of 3&4, or maybe the winner of 5&6. There would definately be a flair of interest, and with the pocketbook of the BCS per team in the 5 Bowls they control, the losers of the top matchups would possibly retain their presence in a lower BCS Bowl, but the dollars will be the same. If your in the 7,8,9,or 10 position, and lose, you may be booted to a Capital One or Pizza Bowl.
The top BCS Bowl would in effect, by defacto, be a PLUS ONE that many fans desire in lieu of a real playoff system.
In a few of the posts above mine, there was a complaint as to "why would a #1 team want to play a #2 as the last game of the season? Who says the #1 team IS the real #1 team unless they are the only unblemished team, like Utah a few years ago. I'll tell you how they are number 1, by subjective voting. Associated Press, Harris Pollsters, and Coaches. At least one game with a percieved to be equal opponet is all I ask. Then we can make out the Bowl schedule.
Another up there in the posts had a problem with the computer programs favoring one team more than another. That's fine by me, as long as they are not changed throughout the season. Sagarine's computer poll is very open on how he does it, and you can go to his website and review his criteria. He posts the changes and when they were made. So do most of the other computer pollsters. The point is, they are consistant from the 1st game of the season to the last game of the season. And they have their own formula for strength of schedule that they follow. Now Anderson and Hester computer Poll named Utah #1 when they went to the Bowl and won and finished the season 13-0.
I do believe that a few of the computer polls favor one conference more than another, but that is based on the criteria they have used and tested over a long period of time. That is also why we have had some changes in the chosen Computer Polls. You don't see the NY Times or Seattle Times computer Polls in the mix anymore.
I have a chapter on the Computer Pollsters in my book. Or you can go to their site if you wish, and examine how they do it. . . all but one. And he won't tell me how he does it, as I wanted to have that in my book as well.
Do take a moment and ask yourself, do you like the Bowls the way they are? Do you really want that #1 playing #2 to see who really is better? My plan does it and the only thing that will change will be that as the last game of the season we will see teams play their perceived equal. These are the games we could have never had the foresightedness to schedule!
December Dream . . .Qualifying for the BCS Rankings www.bbotw.com
These Bowl Committees will use the monies they collect to sponsor programs for kids, like in Miami where they have a Boys & Girls Club that would not exist without these funds. If it is any consolation, the bowls were ment to be exhibition, and were up until 1965 when the AP decided to name their Champion after the Bowls were played. Then in '66' & '67', the AP went back to naming the Champion after the regular season, and in 1968, they made it permanent to announce their winner after the Bowl Games.
As for my version of a playoff. . . #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, etc as the last regular season game. Then we have the winners from 1&2 play the winner of 3&4, or maybe the winner of 5&6. There would definately be a flair of interest, and with the pocketbook of the BCS per team in the 5 Bowls they control, the losers of the top matchups would possibly retain their presence in a lower BCS Bowl, but the dollars will be the same. If your in the 7,8,9,or 10 position, and lose, you may be booted to a Capital One or Pizza Bowl.
The top BCS Bowl would in effect, by defacto, be a PLUS ONE that many fans desire in lieu of a real playoff system.
In a few of the posts above mine, there was a complaint as to "why would a #1 team want to play a #2 as the last game of the season? Who says the #1 team IS the real #1 team unless they are the only unblemished team, like Utah a few years ago. I'll tell you how they are number 1, by subjective voting. Associated Press, Harris Pollsters, and Coaches. At least one game with a percieved to be equal opponet is all I ask. Then we can make out the Bowl schedule.
Another up there in the posts had a problem with the computer programs favoring one team more than another. That's fine by me, as long as they are not changed throughout the season. Sagarine's computer poll is very open on how he does it, and you can go to his website and review his criteria. He posts the changes and when they were made. So do most of the other computer pollsters. The point is, they are consistant from the 1st game of the season to the last game of the season. And they have their own formula for strength of schedule that they follow. Now Anderson and Hester computer Poll named Utah #1 when they went to the Bowl and won and finished the season 13-0.
I do believe that a few of the computer polls favor one conference more than another, but that is based on the criteria they have used and tested over a long period of time. That is also why we have had some changes in the chosen Computer Polls. You don't see the NY Times or Seattle Times computer Polls in the mix anymore.
I have a chapter on the Computer Pollsters in my book. Or you can go to their site if you wish, and examine how they do it. . . all but one. And he won't tell me how he does it, as I wanted to have that in my book as well.
Do take a moment and ask yourself, do you like the Bowls the way they are? Do you really want that #1 playing #2 to see who really is better? My plan does it and the only thing that will change will be that as the last game of the season we will see teams play their perceived equal. These are the games we could have never had the foresightedness to schedule!
December Dream . . .Qualifying for the BCS Rankings www.bbotw.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
