Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Posted on: December 16, 2011 4:02 pm

Use the Bowls? . . . I think NOT!

Why should the Bowls participate with the desires of fan[atic]s wanting a playoff system using the bowls?

Obviously, you just don't get it. . . The Bowls were created for different reasons, but one thread that is common to all is the fact that they are promoting the tourism and economic wind fall that occurs when a city/area hosts this type of EVENT. You see, it's not just a game, it's an event.
The Rose Bowl started it all when they wanted to host an EXHIBITION GAME to be a part of their winter festival. The Orange Bowl started to promote economic development to their area. Even the Sun Bowl was created to generate economic development to the area.

You can betcha' that if these BCS Bowls go away, the Bowls may revert to what they were before, and the Rose may go back to hosting Pac 12 and Big 10[12] schools/teams.

What I am saying simply is that the Bowls may be able to again pick and choose who they want.

And just one last note. . . the Rose Bowl in 2002, under the BCS Administration had Washington State and Oklahoma. The Rose Bowl was not happy with the BCS Selection [as Iowa went to the Orange Bowl], and the Rose Bowl did not sell out, the first time since 1944.

As for the minor bowls . . . well don't you think they also desire to create an event to lure the fan[atic]s to their city to participate in the week long event, and spend money in the local communities? Of course they do! And if their Bowl is just the first stop of a playoff, they may not have the opportunity to have the "event" status they currently have, as the game would be more of a business trip that a week long event, and the economic part of such an event will be lost.

Read my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the final BCS Rankings, Infinity Press, $10.95 in paperback, .
Posted on: December 23, 2010 4:32 am

What happens in general in December Dream format

As it stands right now, the same would happen as currently is set by the BCS. We still have 6 BCS Conferences . . . are these six conferences willing to change a few more rules? We really do not know.

I suspect that the 6 BCS conferences will still get into one of the FIVE BCS Bowls that pay $18mil per participating team Money mouth.

That means the Automatic Qualifier [AQ] is still active. I would like to see a rule that says that the AQ must win their 12th game of the season to be in one of the FIVE BCS Bowls. I do believe this Qualifying round will allow a few other schools that are not one of the 6 BCS Conferences to prove that they can "dance" with the big boys by beating a highly ranked team to get into a BCS Bowl Game. We might even see a highly ranked team go to a National Championship Game. . . Utah had that possibility when they were ranked #6, and the only undefeated team . . . but they would have had to beat the #5 team, Southern California in their home field in Los Angeles.

This format would also have the other teams playing for a spot in the Final BCS Rankings. A #7, #8, #9 #10 team that could possibly be in consideration for one of these games could get knocked out, and a #11, #12, #13, #14, or even a #15 could be Ranked in the BCS Poll after these games, at a higher position. There are 4 "At-Large" teams to be considered for these FIVE BCS Bowls, and I do believe they should be the Highest ranked teams that are NOT already an AQ.

Don't forget, with a #1 v #2, #3 v #4, #5 v #6, #7 v#8, #9 v #10, etc. we will see some winners and losers. We already know who we THINK are the best from the Polls, and this will either prove that the polls were close or if the rankings are somewhat 'bunk'. And don't forget the best upside of this format, we get to see games between teams that would have NEVER have had the foresightedness to have scheduled. Surprised . . .And we have these teams play with minimal layoff of 6 or 7 days to a max of 13 dsays while they are in their end of season prime. This is sometimes lost when a team has a layoff of 30 to 40 days since their last game.
It would be rear to see the subjective choice of #1 and #2 who would play in the 12th unscheduled game of the season replay in the National Championship game, but if the score was sooooo close, [like a 7-6 score or even a 26-25 score, and/or extenuating circumstances], it could be possible.

And a benefit of having this unscheduled 12th game means 1 game less to schedule a cream puff team. If a conference has 9 conference games, and an unscheduled 12th game, there are only 2 games left for out of conference rivals.

As far as a formal playoff, don't hold your breath unless you come up with a solution that will enable it to happen BEFORE the Bowls, [the Bowls are sacared cows and cannot be used for a playoff as many of these schools [Presidents] would rather have the Bowls than Playoffs] and within the 12 games that the Schools have agreed to have as the maximum games permitted to be played. It's not the Athletic Directors, it's the School Presidents and Board of Directors who rule the roost. Sealed [but you didn't hear that from me]

Do check out my 4 pages of blogs at my profile page here at CBS Sportline, and you could also check out my book, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings.

Posted on: November 14, 2010 10:53 pm

BCS Computers? SEC owned? Really!

BCS Computers? SEC owned? Really!

Score: 115November 14, 2010 2:12 pm
1- Some of the computers DO have a built in bias with the start of their formulas. A few use the ending polls from last season and 1 or 2 use the preseason polls in their formula. I believe that Colley's Computer poll does not use either of these methods in his start up of the computer polls.

2- There IS some favortism by the Coaches polls and maybe even some in the AP polls, and only GOD knows if the Harris Pollsters even know what a football is.

3- A plus one you want? And then after that will you be satisfied? I think not. This would only accomadate the top four selected teams by partisan votes.

4- I have proposed the best way to satisfy most of the concerns is to have teams of perceived equal pairity play one another. #1 host #2, #3 host #4, #5 host #6, etc. all the way to #119 hosting #120, if it serves the purpose, or at least as many teams playing as there are Bowl Berths. I have proposed this to be the 12th game of the season. All teams schedule 11 games and leave the 12th spot open to wait and see WHO they will play, and who will host. These are the games we could have never had the forsightedness to have scheduled. These would also allow Titan to battle Titan, and let the teams play the games.

I have described this plan of action many times on this board, and have posted more descriptions on my profile page blogs here at CBS Sportsline, and I also have more details in my book, December Dream . . .Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings

Yes you can argue why should #1 risk playing #2 for the pre-bowl qualifier, when they are #1 already, but the point is they are PERCEIVED to be #1 by the humans and the computers, at least most of the time, except for the 2003 BCS where the AP [still part of the BCS formula at this time] and Coaches had So. Cal #1, LSU #2, and Oklahoma #3, while the BCS rankings had Oklahoma #1, LSU #2 and So. Cal #3. All three teams were undefeated in this 3 way record tie. And that was also the last SPLIT DECISION where the BCS National Champion was LSU, while the Associated Press picked So. Cal as the National Champion.

My proposed plan WILL let Boise State, and TCU earn their way into the National Championship final game, and will unseat any team that is overrated. At the end of the 12th game we will have a better idea who is better than whom. The top 10 teams will all have better computer ranings due to the fact that they have beaten a highly ranked team, and the losers will not be so displaced by losing to a higher ranked team. A #3 team that loses may fall to a #7 or #8 position, but still get into a BCS Bowl.

Let's face it, it is all about the money and the 5 BCS Bowls all pay the same. In my eyes, there are 10 winners going to Bowls, and the pay is the same. We might also consider elimination of Automatic Qualifiers if they don't win this 12th game, but that's another issue.

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 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: June 20, 2010 4:18 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 12:54 pm

Playoff, money, Bowl system remaing intact . . .

My system incorporates a type of playoff, and it will keep the money, and even add additional monies to the system while keeping the Bowl system intact. It will keep the total number of games at 12, which is what the Colleges and Universities desire.

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 in paperback for $10.95.
Posted on: January 30, 2010 4:12 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 12:58 pm

December Dream . . . [logistics, format]

I have set up the format to have all 11 games completed, and or Conference Championships completed by Thanksgiving weekend. Then we see the BCS rankings. Then in the nex 10 to 14 days, the playoff begins. Realistically, I think the number of Bowl berths are how many teams should be playing a 12th game. Those teams above the number of Bowl berts available most likely have less than a 6 win record, so maybe they don't play a 12th game that year. . . or not. That is not for me to decide.

The logistics are set that #1 hosts #2, #3 hosts #4, etc. In a some cases there may be a very few repeating games. And I have even suggested a revision of the current broadcasting rights, and a special broadcasting contract that could assist in the transporting of teams to their designated game for this 12th unscheduled regular season game. All the home teams would have to have an understanding of the gate split, or other consideration for the visiting team. Whatever is typical with a visiting team with no replay in the contract. Same with the ticket distribution. These are details that would have to be worked out by all 120 teams in Division I CF. I am not saying this is an easy plan, but it could be a viable plan with ALL schools participation, just like the BCS had to be agreeable by the Six conferences, but this will take all 11 conferences and the independents participation.

Last year, one of the computer pollsters still picked Utah as their Number One. Utah was ranked #6. In my scenario, Utah would have traveled to Southern California. If they would have decisively beaten Southern California, They may have jumped up high enough to be in the National Championship game, being the highest ranked undefeated team. Don't forget, two thirds of the BCS rankings are from human pollsters, and they are very subjective, and when it comes to their votes, we have seen in the past, they can be lobbied, like Mack Brown of Texas in 2004 and Urban Meyer of Florida in 2006.

It is true, many teams will make the cut to stay in the reach of the BCS Bowls, which are the highest paying Bowls, and that's what this is really all about, THE MONEY! A few teams will drop out of the top 10, and maybe even a few Conference Champions among them, so be it. I find it refreshing this year that all of the top 10 teams ranked in the BCS played in the BCS Bowls. This is the first time since the BCS started that that has happened. With the implementation of my Qualifying Round, it should remain that the Top Ten of the BCS Rankings should be in the BCS Bowls.

I have also set a proposed schedule of the 12th game to start on a Wednesday and end on a Saturday. On Sunday, the Final Rankings will be set, and the Bowl Games will be announced. This puts us at about December 10 or 12, somewhere in that date range, depending on the calander. Most teams do not know where they are going for a Bowl, usually by the 6th or 7th of December anyways, so this is just a few more days past this time.

As for the most current BCS Poll we would have seen Cincinnati hosting TCU and Florida hosting Boise State. If Boise would have had a decisive victory over Florida, and Cincinnati just bearly beating a TCU team, don't you think we just might have had enough human pollsters think that Boise State would have earned the right to be in the National Championship Game? Boise would have been undefeated. . . The human pollsters have had an effect on the rankings before, and will continue having an effect on the rankins in the future. And don't forget, the rankings have teams that are perceived to be teams of equal strength.

The real benefits of my proposed plan is to defeat one argument that is futile. . . "well who did they play?" This plan will let them play the game! Another argument is, "so they played that 'cup-cake' team". Now they may not have room to play Podunk academy for girls and boys. Do your reading, and check out what non-related others have said about my plan at December Dream . . . it is MY dream.  Don't be so hasty to dismiss it. Think about it. It is different. And it is not a bracket playoff. And there are more details in the book. And so many have stated, there is no need for a playoff because the season IS the playoff. My plan just qualifies the contenders from the pretenders.
Posted on: December 19, 2009 7:18 pm

So you want a Playoff . . .

Forget about it . . .It ain't gonna' happen . . .
Every time I read about a proposed playoff system I get bent out of shape, mostly because the proposers of the idea instantly want to use the Bowl Games. It's all about the money and in 2008/9 season the bowls paid out about one ouarter of a BILLION dollars.
I do think there is a solution, and I proposed the alternative in my new book December Dream . . . Qualifying for the BCS Rankings .
It should be available on the web at or . by 25 DEC 2009.
I addressed all the points of view, and provided a way for the schools to make maybe a few more dollars, but it will take all 120 FBS schools to agree and participate if ever it is to come to fuition.
Posted on: December 9, 2008 6:06 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 1:05 pm

titan against titan . . . then to the bowls

you are soooo correct about going back to 1964. . . those were the days when going to a bowl was a reward for a team's good play throughout the season . . .their REWARD!

and now the idea has spun into a format for challenging the teams to be prepared to continuing to play at top level in a championship scenario. and the reason the ROSE BOWL has, shall we say, been the 'grandaddy' of them all was because it paid more than 2 times the payout of any of the bowls. this in fact is one of the reasons the universities allowed the BCS to prosper and exist. . . you see, it's STILL all about the money.

the BCS proposition wanted to add the rose bowl to the mix so they could boost the amount of the other qualifying bowls to higher revenues. in 1968, i believe the rose bowl was paying out about $6 mil and the closest in dollar value was the orange bowl at about $3.5 mil.

all the other bowls paid substantially less. today we see the BCS bowls pay out about the same, no matter who or where. i dare say, if the rose bowl left the mix, it would again be a higher paying bowl than the other BCS bowls, and according to your plan, the pact between the big 10[11] and pacific 10 would remain in tact. a major plus for the rose bowl participants, but the other teams in the other bowls might again be licking their chops, so to speak as they will once again not be able to touch the biggest payout bowl, being the rose bowl.

i like your idea about their being 2 champions, as i know when some of the big 10[11] teams go to pasadena from the harsh cold and snow, and land in 70 degree weather where they actually see the sun, they sometimes forget why they are in southern california. i have won a few bets taking the pac 10 team and point against the big 10[11] team, and i am a big 10[11] supporter, but i also recognize the reality of the situation. as you may have also noticed is that generally most conferences were complete with their scheduels by thanksgiving weekend, and then stretched it out another week or 2 to include playoff. so now the college football season has gone about 16 or 17 weeks, not that every team plays every weekend, since some teams have a bye weekend or two in their schedule.

so now your plan has decided to encompass the Chick-fil-A, Outback, Capital One, Cotton Bowl, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls. a total of 7 bowls. this means that 8 teams will suck up ALL the proceeds from 7 bowls. and with all due respect, do you think that the teams fans will follow to 3 different bowls? do you think there may be less dollars acquired by the hosting cities that sponsor these bowl via tourism dollars?

now remember. . . it is STILL all about the money. . . and you know, we are still going to see a team that hasn't played since the thanksgiving weekend play a team that hasn't played since the first [or second] weekend of december.

the best idea that i have seen in your plan is eliminate the conference title games.

so let's back this up with another perspective before the bowl games are picked. let's limit all teams to an 11 game schedule. all teams will have a predetermined schedule, and all games will cease by thanksgiving weekend. and on the first weekend of december, all the teams, 64 or all 120 for sake of arguement, but at least 4 teams more than bowl slots available. since we all want to see the best play the best, while all are still in top seasonal form, let's have #1 host #2, #3host #4, #5 host #6, and so on up to #69 hosting #70. then we pick who plays who in what bowl, and we keep the BCS in tact, and #3 texas may not be left out of the mix. . . that will have been settled. . .

so ok hosts fla, and texas hosts alabama, and so. cal hosts utah, and texas tech hosts penn st, and bosie hosts, ohio state, and tcu hosts cinn, and ok st hosts ga tech, and georgia host byu, and ore hosts mich st, and va tech hosts pitt. with these first ten matches, we will certainly see a 'first round' of the contenders.

this also eliminates the arguement of " well they don't play anybody [of stature]".

this pits equals against equals, and gets right to the crux of the situation. and still leaves all the bowls in tact.

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