Posted on: May 14, 2012 3:16 pm

December Dream . . . - Reviews . . .

REVIEWS posted on Facebook 18APR 2012


Nov 18, 2009 08:00 PM by Richard Coreno

Ask a college football fan about the Bowl Championship Series and be prepared for an earful on how it must be overhauled - or done away with - to determine a true national champion in the 120-member NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as NCAA Division I-A).

College football researcher John J. Trombetti adds a different twist to crown the gridiron king - while making more bowl games relevant and financially successful - in December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings (November 2009, Infinity Publishing, www.bbotw.com).

The BCS consists of four traditional contests - the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi, Allstate Sugar Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl - and the Citi BCS National Championship Game.

"It is a fine system, and I think it can outlast the test of time," writes Trombetti. "It is a formula that uses the human polls and computers to determine the best possible candidates to play for the National Championship.

"The Harris Interactive Poll (media, former coaches and former players) and the USA Today Coaches’ Poll (59 voters, who are members of the American Football Coaches Association) each make up one-third of the total BCS Poll ranking. The computer poll (using six ranking systems) makes up one-third of the rankings of the entire BCS Poll. There are two additional components to be added to the BCS formula: the strength of schedule and the team’s record."

Trombetti utilizes a solid game plan to explore the history of the BCS, which was created in 1998 to determine the winner of the American Football Coaches Association National Championship Trophy - recognized in the final coaches’ poll, but not by the NCAA - and participants in the major bowl games.

The system has been adjusted due to several controversies over the years, which includes the number of polls utilized and providing "mid-major" conference teams a place to race in the derby. The BCS poll of the top 25 teams is initially published about halfway through the season and updated weekly until the final ranking is released after the conference championship games.

An impressive computer formula is the Colley Matrix System of Wesley N. Colley, Ph. D., according to Trombotti: "(The Colley system rates well) with the media and coaches on the National Champion; most often agreed on the top five; and agreed on the top 10 within a place or two. [So it seems to me that this system may be a good substitute for the replacement of the media and coaches…does it seem that way to you?]"

The top two teams in the final BCS poll are in the title game, with automatic bowl bids guaranteed to the champions of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pac-10 and S outheastern Conference. Criteria is included so Notre Dame, an independent, can receive an automatic berth, along with a bid available to the highest ranked champion from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference and the Western Athletic Conference. Additional "at-large" spots are issued by the bowl committees.

There are another 29 bowl games, with new contests slated for New York City after the 2010 season and Dallas, Texas, in 2011. In a section that chronicles the bowl system since 1902, Trombetti explains that there would be a lot to lose if this format was merged into a playoff system or eliminated for a tournament styled after basketball’s NCAA "March Madness."

"In essence, the bowls were created to promote tourism by bringing in the top teams of the country to play in the games," he writes. "Today, the bowls are promoted by the cities that host the games for economic development, and the advertising of those companies that want the exposure with their names included in the title of the game.

"As you may know, the bowls we have today are financial windfalls for the schools and conferences that participate. Last year alone [2008 season], the bowl payout maxed out over one quarter of a BILLION dollars. A playoff system using the bowls would, could, limit distribution of these funds to fewer schools and conferences. With this amount of money available to the participants, do you really think a playoff scenario could ever be reached using the Bowl System we have today?"

Trombetti reaches pay dirt as he explains in detail his proposal to retain the BCS and bowls, which has an initial regular season schedule of 11 games, with the conference championships played no later than the weekend after Thanksgiving Day. The BCS rankings would include all FCS programs, which will position teams for a special slate of games to end the season. The contests would occur two weeks after Thanksgiving and cover four days. Bowl selections would follow the unique feast inside stadiums throughout the nation.

"And, the end result will produce a more decisive winner (in the BCS title game) than ever before," he writes.


Review by Gregg Elder

It seems every year, about this time, there is a lot of discussion concerning the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision and its Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The BCS was designed to create a national champion for Division I collegiate football teams. However, one thing that you can say that it does is create controversy. This year is no different, especially since Congress is now weighing in, saying that a "national champion" cannot be determined without a play-off system in Division I (the other divisions in college football have a play-off system to determine their National Champions). In advance of this year's conversation, comes a small book dedicated to the BCS with a possible solution to the issue. December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings (November 2009, Infinity Publishing, www.bbotw.com), by John Trombetti, should soon be available soon, is a good review of the BCS and includes his thoughts on crowning a true National Champion, without the controversy.


Dedication; The Opening Chapter; The Computer Polls; The Human Pollsters; The Start of the Bowl System; Analysis and Discussion; What If; Shall We Have; Appendix I; Appendix II; Appendix III; Appendix IV; Bibliography

Starting the book by providing a historical perspective of the college bowl games and then moving into the polls that make up the BCS gives the reader excellent insight into big time college football and the polls. Trombetti uses this opportunity to illuminate the rise of the bowl games, and the economic impact they have on the cities and sponsors. As more bowl games were added to the end of the season, and the use of human polls, where favoritism and partiality come into play, to determine the national champion, it became clear to the NCAA that another method was needed to decide the best team. However, in the first year of the BCS, 1998, Trombetti points out that there was controversy centering around #3 ranked Kansas State (one loss), which resulted in the "Kansas State Rule" for the BCS, where a #3 team can be invited to play in a BCS Bowl Game. Of course, that is not the only controversy from the BCS and he provides plenty of other examples through the years. Even with these reminders, Trombetti shows his knowledge of the system by providing his thoughts on how the NCAA could have mitigated these problems. As there does not appear to be a play-off system on the horizon, due to the size of the current bowl payouts (in 2008, Trombetti notes that over a quarter BILLION dollars were in play) and the different agendas of the university presidents and coaches, he still provides a rational, and lucrative, play-off system that would yield a more decisive BCS champion.

The early chapters, while providing the foundation for the rest of the book and were necessary, were difficult to read as Trombetti described the peculiarities of each poll that makes up the BCS. However, even for the casual college football fan, he does a good job of illuminating the differences in each poll and they are rather interesting. The book really hits its stride as Trombetti describes the history of each bowl game, the original purpose of each, and the payouts per team. Building upon that, he wastes no time moving into the analysis of the BCS and his well reasoned argument for a play-off system that would benefit more teams, cities, and television networks. While this is a small book (98 pages), he packs a lot of information into it without wasting a lot of time on any one chapter. December Dream could have benefited from a few things; better editing, a more readable format for the BCS Series Standings, and accessible descriptions of the individual polls. Finally, as I read it, I couldn't help thinking it was more a college thesis than an approachable book on the BCS. Trombetti knows his subject matter, that is very clear, however he needed to connect with the reader. December Dream: Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings is an excellent analysis of the BCS that culminates in arguably the best reasoned approach to a true National Champion.

Code: 5H8X-7VF3-F73J-6KK0

To see the original postings, go to:


Posted on: May 14, 2012 2:59 pm

a FOUR TEAM Playoff? NOT!!!

I prefer the top four teams/schools to be in this LIMITED Playoff, that really should do away with conference championship games, as they become irrevelent to the degree that a team/school with less wins can defeat the undefeated no loss team/school. We have seen this before in the BCS, and does this 4 team/school format really do much for all of College Football, or just a few teams/schools/conferences? Undecided

In order to get a fair and just "shake-up" of the teams/schools participating in any playoff, we should have a "QUALIFIER ROUND", which would answer a few questions like, who did they play, and handicap the "Human Pollsters" who consistantly vote based on the best thoughts only of the teams/schools in their OWN Conferences' first!

And since it's all about the money Money mouth, can a four team/school playoff bring in more to ALL the Conferences, or will it only benefit the 4 chosen teams/schools with a shower of more for them . . . and less for all others?

These are many of the reasons that I chose to fabricate a one round QUALIFIER that would let the teams/schools play the game!
BY having the SUBJECTIVE voted teams/schools play the team/school that is the closest in the polls play one another, so we can see if these two are really as good as the Human Pollsters think they are.

And lets not forget that the College ranks ADDED a 12th game so that more teams/schools could qualify with a 6-6 record to go to the "overflow' of bowls that have been created, since there were too many with a 5-6 record [when there were 11 regular season games], who could NOT qualify for a bowl game.

So we added a 12th game to get these teams/schools to be QUALIFIED to play in a bowl game at 6-6. So much for the evolution of the College Football system we have today, not even beginning to discuss the BCS addition.

With the transition leading to a 7 win qualifier to play in Bowls, will mean less Bowls . . . and less dollars for many of the teams/schools/conferences.

So the question is, "HOW CAN MORE TEAMS/SCHOOLS/CONFERENCES make more dollars?

Let's go back to that 12th game of the regular season, and make that a QUALIFIER ROUND for ALL the teams/schools to play the teams/school that is perceived to be the closest comparable team/school. #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, #7 hosting #7, etc all the way down to at least as many teams/schools that are necessary to fill all the Bowls [70 teams/schools currently], or even all the way to #119 hosting #120.

This would really shake up the BCS Rankings, and some pretenders may get blown away, while the truly solid teams/schools will hold their positions. So a #3 gets wacked by a #4, and may slip down to #7, while that #3 may get promoted to #2, or even #1 . . . And that #12 team/school may get into a better paying bowl with a victory over #11 then it would have earned if it never had the opportunity to play #11. Laughing

We, the fans, would benefit by seeing some of the best games that we would have never had the foresightedness to have scheduled. In effect, this would do what a Playoff is intended to do, but really give more teams/schools the chance to participate, provide more meaning for the 12th game of the season, and eliminate the ever lingering opportunity for teams/schools to schedule those cream puff teams, like St. Mary's of the Poor.

How to make more money? By setting up this 12th game of the season as a different broadcasting package seperated from the regular season broadcasting package as currently done, this 12th game WILL bring in an enormous amount of dollars, as the featured billing will make it the most watched games of the season . . . and maybe even more than the majorityof the non-BCS Bowls.

And another benefit will curtail the past arguements that one teams /school played 40 days since their last game, while their opponet played their last game just 21 days ago.

Yes College Football fan[atic]s, their is a way to make more dollars for all AND give viewing benefits of some of the best matches of perceived equal teams/schools play, and the Bowls remain the same.

Please do go back and read my blogs on my profile page here at CBSSportsline or just read my reviews at www.bbotw.com , where you also purchase my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings . And if you really want to read my book, and will give me feedback, then I will even send you my pdf file of my book, if you send me a private message here at CBSSportsline. [I know $'s are tight, and I only make $0.73/copy, but it's worth it if I can convert you disbelievers].
Posted on: April 30, 2012 5:05 pm

4 team limited is NOT the way to go . . .

"Dodd Plan".....Horrible Idea

April 27, 2012 7:29 pm
It doesn't matter which plan is selected, it is LIMITED to only 4 teams/schools. Frown

That was the whole idea in December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings was to let at least as many as 70 [35 bowls] teams/schools participate.

By letting even those who were perceived to be in the "hunt" for a better Bowl, play a game with another team/school that is ranked next to them, and let the winners go up a rank or two, and the losers will lose a rank or two. It is one way to negate some of the "subjective" voting, and maybe really demonstrate that the subjective voting is not necessairily the gospel as to the best teams/schools.

This scenario would not only let the teams/schools settle it on the field, but would eliminate one of the OutOfConference games, hopefully the one against Our Lady of the Poor. Laughing And after this round of the 12th regular season game with unscheduled opponets, based on the rankings, we might see a significant difference in the Strength Of Schedule factor that seems to always be a point of contention with respect to the question, " well who did they play?"

By having only 4 teams/schools in the mix, this system will not be taking the advantage of having a perfect opportunity to allow all the teams/schools to participate in the Bowl selection process with an opportunity to cash in on a $2mil bowl rather than only getting to a $750,000 bowl.

And after all is completed in the December Dream . . . scenario, we would have better bowl matches, more interaction between teams/schools that are closer in the rankings, and eliminate the 35 to 45 day wait between games, as all teams/schools would have ended the regular season within 4 days of each other, and they would not have to wait more than 7 to 17 days before their Bowl appearance. Wink

And in the end, we would have the best week of football games that we would have never had the foresightedness to have scheduled! Surprised

Posted on: August 14, 2010 1:13 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 12:47 pm

How would a Playoff be better?

August 13, 2010 8:24 pmScore: 120
Please note, the BCS is the first rating vehicle that uses a concensus to determine the ratings. It is a 3 part formula with The Coaches, The Harris Pollsters, and The Computer. Actually, I like the computer part as I think it helps deter some of the prejudice we might otherwise see prevail in the system. The humans can be swayed and be victims of their own personal situations, while the computer is fixed in it's program, and does not ever change during the season.

I think the BCS is a very viable methodology, and in it's history, there has been some room to grumble about certain years, and 3 no loss teams at times, so who really is better than the others will continue to be a guessing game, until we have the teams play.

I devised a system, and it's not a playoff, but a Qualifier. As I have read on this board many times over . . . "well who did they play?" and the chorus pounds on a #1 team that plays a Division II or III team. This is why we need to Qualify the teams. Many of you have heard this before, and I am just going to do this one more time because it is the same benefit as we would get from a playoff. . . 
In the 12th game of the season, we have NO games scheduled. After the BCS poll comes out, we have #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, #5 hosting #6, etc. all the way to #119 hosting #120 if you want, but I think having only as many teams playing as there are Bowl Berths. 

Now you may say, Why should #1 play #2 when they should be playing in the NC Game? Well who says they are #1 and #2?  Human Pollsters and Coaches and the Computer, that's who! And don't you think there may be some hidden prejudices and personal favorites in these pollsters picks? You betcha'! By having these teams play, we will see how well teams of PERCEIVED strength will do against each other. If you want a game, and you want to see teams that are touted as getting there because they beat a Division II or III team, well here's their chance to vindicate their right to be a contender. 

All of this action would take place BEFORE the Bowls matchups. This would give us the best games we could have never had the foresightedness to have scheduled. It would pit Titan against Titan. It would eliminate maybe one of those "cream puff" games, as this game would actually only allow the teams to schedule 11 of the 12 seasonal games. This would keep the Bowls in tact. This could give the Conferences the ability to rearrange their Network broadcasting rights to include 11 games, and some of the proceeds of broadcasting these 35 or 36 games over a 4 day period will pay for the travel expense for all of the teams, and perhaps the gate could be shared by the two teams playing, as this would not be equal to a home and home scheduled game. This could really create a new profit center for the schools and conferences.

This would let the teams determine their destiny, and because these games would be played 10 to 14 days past Thanksgiving, we should see all teams in their prime condition. The only down side I see is for the teams ranked in the #7 to #10 position, as they just may lose their right to be in a BCS Bowl. Translated to they may not receive the $18mil associated with the scheduled payout of the BCS Bowls. 

Let's face it . . . it is all about the money. . . and If the #1 or #2 team loses, don't you think they will still be in the top 10 to be included in another BCS Bowl besides the NC Game? YES! and they will still get their $18mil scheduled payout!

On the other hand, if your thinking about using the Bowls in the 4 or 8 or 16 team playoff, it will never happen. WHY? Because of the Money. Do you think your favorite school President and Board of Directrs will be happy when your school looses in the first round and another school gets 3 paychecks to your one? These Presidents and Board of directors don't give a darn about a playoff, but believe me, they can't wait to eyeball that game with a scheduled payout of $18mil.

My system, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings www.bbotw.com Please check it out, and if you really do not want to purchase this book, I understand, but do go to my profile and read my blogs for more info.

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

Posted on: June 23, 2010 8:55 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 12:49 pm

A Fair and Equitable System . . .

June 20, 2010 3:16 pm Score: 107 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.

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