Posted on: December 11, 2010 1:26 pm

Q & A with Wildcatfan1 on playoffs . . .

Throwing out The BCS- A CFB Playoff in My World

Score: 116December 11, 2010 4:07 am
So Wildcatsfan,
for the record, My original response is in bold
                     your response in regular print.
                     and my retort in Italics

So you really believe and accept the voting of the Harris Pollsters, the Coaches, and the Computer average to be the total authority as to WHO IS #1 . . . and that it is without a doubt that these teams are the best.
Of course not. With that said, there's only little room to debate. The #8 ranked team in the final BCS has never been the best team in college football. Realistically I would say after the Top 5 ranked teams, there's no team worthy of a NCG argument in any year. So is there room for debate? Yes. Are they perfect? No. With that said, the coaches/AP in general are in the ballpark.

Since you somewhat agree to the polls being 'in the ballpark' then there is NO reason to even have a playoff, and at best a plus one, since there are really only maybe the top 5 that should be considered. That is one reason why my format, using the 12th game works so well. It has a prebuilt plus one scenario built in with #1 hosting #2, and #3 hosting #4, and even #5 hosting #6. With a very strong victory by a #5 [or#6 ] team, they could be swayed by the human pollsters to catipult them into a #2 position. Of course, #1 or #2 would have to have a stomping over their opponet, while #3 playing #4 proved to be a not so well played game that the voters decided that neither was worthy of a #1 or #2 position. This situation could be rear, but we have seen some interesting things in College Football. My point is, there IS NO NEED for ANY playoff. Especially with my proposal. It eliminates any question as to who of the top 4 are the best with a 12th game matchup and a BCS Bowl game.

By having the #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, etc. we have teams of perceived equal strength play the game . We really do not know if they are equal unless they play. Maybe #2 IS better than #1 and so should be in that position. To say #1 has to defend their position by playing a #2, before the Bowls are announced, do let the teams play, and prove why they are worthy of #1 , and eliminated who they have played [like that 3rd game against St. Mary's of the Poor] to earn this position.
Yes, but what Im saying is if the #1 and #2 teams are without a doubt (hypothetically) more deserving of a NCG spot than anyone else, why should they play. Hell, look at last year for example, even with TCU, Boise, and Cincy going unbeaten, is ANYONE going to say that Alabama and Texas were WITHOUT QUESTION the two most deserving teams to play for the title based on how the season went and the challenges they faced? In your scenairio, they would have played and Bama (lets say for arguements sake they still won) would have faced maybe Cincy in the title game if Cincy beat the #4 team. Would that have been a better system? I'd say absolutely not.

So let's look at Florida where Urban Meyer petitioned the pollsters to gain the #2 position ahead of Michigan, since they had already lost to Ohio State in the regular season by 41-39. Aned let's look at Mack Brown who also petitioned the AP to vote for Texas to be in the National Championship game. Both cases, these Coaches LOBBIED to get the necessary votes to play in the National Championship game. These teams were NOT necessairily deserving by the methods they used to get there. . . but they did get there.
[By the way, because of the Mack Brown petitioning, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, and that is why the AP is no longer a part of the BCS Rankings, at the request of the AP.] So were either of these teams really deserving? It is questionable, even today.

And a few years back, we have seen the 3 way tie, just ask Auburn, Southern Cal, and Oklahoma. . . and a few teams left out, just ask Kansas State.
An even better example. So in 2004, Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma went unbeaten. Auburn would have basically been given a gift pass to the title game to play USC because the top 2 teams played each other, while they got to play an inferior #4 team. How is that right?

The #4 team that year was Texas, with one loss to Oklahoma by a score of 12-0 [in the 5th game of the season]. Maybe a bit inferior to Oklahoma, but still a viable contender. As well as the 2004 season [ which I also used in my example] you might also consider 2003 with Oklahoma, LSU, and Southern California, all undefeated. That was the year Southern California was left out of the BCS National Championship Game, and was named the National Champions by the Associated Press. [3 Coaches also voted for Southern California in the Post Bowl BCS Votes] This would have never happened under my proposed system. The #4 team was a one loss Michigan, and they DID play Souther California in the Rose Bowl and Southern California won 28-14. Do you think my proposal works a bit better with this example?
[ #1 played #2 and #3 played #4 resulting in a split decision . . . ]

And let's not forget #3 Kansas State who was left out of the BCS in 1998 for #8 Florida as an at-large team. Undefeated #10 Tulane received no Bowl invitation, even though they were their conference Champion. And we did see the Kansas State rule created by the BCS.

And we now have a system to test teams like Boise State, whom some have said, they don't play the level of competition as do the six BCS conferences, and should not have a shot at the National Championship [NC]. This method gives them a proving ground to demonstrate that they can earn a spot in the BCS Bowls, and maybe even the NC Game. [when they don't lose to Nevada Surprised ]
False. Because to me it still doesn't show whether they can withstand the week to week grind. All that shows me is in the years they cruise through a terrible WAC conference, they can win ONE big game they have to play. Doesn't prove to me they can run the SEC like Auburn did. Doesn't prove to me they could run the BIG 12. A playoff would prove that if they had to win 3-4 straight games vs. top competition.

I guess we really won't know about Boise State, as they did lose to Nevada. But let's look back at Utah at the end of the 2008 season. Utah was ranked #6 and with no losses. the only other no loss team was Boise State ranked at #9. #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #3 Texas, #4 Alabama and #5 Southern California were all one loss teams. With my proposed system, we would have seen Utah having the chance to prove that they can beat a team in my 12th game format, that would have been Southern California. In my opinion, with Utah beating Southern California that year, I am certain that they would have won the respect of the AP and Coaches and Harris Pollsters to have moved up to a #2 position to play for the National Championship game. My 12th game qualifier round is just that. . . a qualifier round. Win this game, and we know that not only does your record prove your team to be competent and together, and the other wins that you have acquired are now relevent. Thus, my system does let teams EARN their way into a BCS Bowl, and maybe even the National Championship game. 

I believe that my total proposal as described in my book will be the closest we will ever see to any playoff because it does a few items that the School Presidents will accept, in perserving the Bowl system, adding no additional games, and can still provide an additional profit center.
I firmly disagree. While your proposal might hit some ideas that presidents could agree to, I don't think you'll ever see them go away from the current system unless it is to go to a playoff system, similar to the one I proposed, maybe with only 8 teams at the start. But like all other D-1 NCAA sports, eventually a tournament will be the deciding factor for a national champion.

This is a moot point. They will NEVER go to a playoff system because of the monetary inequities of a bracketed playoff system. Even with a discussion of a plus one, the Big 10[11][12] and Pac 10[12] are ready to walk and keep their Rose Bowl and traditions alive and well without the other conferences. Don't blame the Commissioners of these Conferences, this comes from the Presidents and Board of Directors.

Posted on: August 3, 2010 5:34 pm

No Cost and NO Headaches . . . Just a Qualifier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on: June 27, 2010 4:28 pm

Qualifier and the distribution of the Money . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a side note here. . . one team did get an invite to a low paying bowl and they actually had to pull monies from their school to assist with the expenses incurred for the Bowl trip, as the amount paid was not enough. Don't forget, your not just brining the team. . . how about the Band, Cheerleaders, Trainers, Doctors, other personnel you see on the sidelines at your typical away game, and of course there will be some members from the administration that will be included in the total tab paid by the school for the trip.
Posted on: June 23, 2010 9:11 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Give the People what they want . . .

June 22, 2010 8:52 pmScore: 124

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

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com