Posted on: June 23, 2010 8:55 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 12:49 pm
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.
Posted on: February 10, 2010 9:17 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 12:56 pm
Tuesday, February 9, 2010www.bbotw.com available in paperback $10.95.
I am the Author of this book, and it may just be the most comprehensive plan for the next step of the BCS [Bowl Championship Series] to further amend the Bowl selection process.
Many of the suggested playoff formats have one or two things in common: a bracketed process where teams are seeded with the highest playing the lowest; and the other item is using the Bowl Games for this playoff system.
The Total Bowl payout has been over One Quarter of a BILLION Dollars the last few years. I do not think any playoff system will have a chance using the Bowls. It is simple really, if any one team has multiple Bowl games, it will be denying other teams, who could have enjoyed that spot, from earning the dollars paid for their participation in the Bowl. The Bowls are the 'sacred cows', or in this case the 'cash cows'.
To 'seed' the teams with the lowest playing the highest is, in my opinion, a total waste of time and energy. Let's face it, football is not basketball where a team can play 2 or 3 games per week.
On another note, how did these teams earn their rankings? Two thirds of the pollsters are persons with their opinions. Since these rankings are subjective at best, let's have some head to head immediate competition. Why not have #1 hosting #2, #3 hosting #4, etc. all the way to #119 hosting #120, or at least as many teams playing as there are Bowl berths to fill.
The key points to my format are:
If you think these points are well worth reaching, than maybe you should read the book and then I ask you to petition the Schools, The Presidents of the Schools, The Board of Directors of these Schools, and everyone you think may lobby for this radical change that would be in ALL parties best interest..
Posted on: January 15, 2010 4:35 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 1:01 pm
There have been several good ideas posted on this topic, but one item that has not been addressed is the ranking of the teams. The computers are one third of the vote. The Harris poll and the Coaches poll are the other two thirds of the vote. The computers have fixed variables, while the human pollsters may have their own agendas for the placing of their votes. . . maybe to support another team in their conference to a higher position than maybe they deserve, or past affiliation with a team one may have playd with in their college football days. YES! I am out right saying that humans have prejudices. Some may be well know by the individual, some may just be habit, and some humans act on their prejudices without even knowing they are being prejudical.
As long as we are relying on human pollsters to make the decision, we are basing the rankings on OPINION. . . and sometimes the facts get in the way. Two thirds of the final BCS polls are Opinion.
Now that we have that out of the way, lets be realistic. . . The Bowls were started to feature top rated teams. There was never any push on these Bowls to have a meaning for a Natonal Champion. These Bowls were started as a reward for the winning team of a conference or just because one of the bowls wanted to have their best local team play the top team from another part of the country with a very good winning record.
The BCS wanted to get the Rose Bowl as a part of their package so the other conferences could get a piece of the Rose Bowl's purse. Yes, the Rose Bowl before BCS always paid more than any other Bowl, [1997 Rose 10m, Orange 8.5m, Sugar 8.2m, Fiesta 8.2m] and it was exclusive to Pac 10 and Big 10 teams. Bowls have flourished as a way for the sponsoring cities to make additional gains in their local economic environment. A lot of the dollars gained are used to support United Way projects and other social programs that could not exist with out these Bowls providing the economic impact to their respective areas.
And let's take some history lessons here and note that the Proclaimed National Champion was always named at the end of the regular season, before the Bowls were played. 1965 was the first time the AP decided to hold their final poll until after the Bowls. And this was not done again until the 1968 season/ Bowls were played.
I have taken all of this into consideration. I recognized that there is no way to really, physicall speaking that is, have a playoff per se. The Bowls are the 'sacred cows' or in this case, the 'cash cows', and I don't think they are going to change.
Since I do feel that humans are the majority of the rankings voters, I do think we need some justification of the rankings. I have written my scenario here many times. . . Last game of the regular season pits #1 vs #2, #3 vs #4, #5 vs #6, etc. all the way down to #119 vs #120, or at least as many teams as there are bowl berths. This is the best way to prove which teams really earn a spot in the BCS Bowls, not just the National Championship game.
This proves that opinion is just that, opinion. Having teams of perceived equal strength will take it's toll on the pretenders by the contenders. Then we can schedule the Bowl matchups. If we get truer rankings by letting the teams play, wouldn't that justify the rankings to be more legitiment?
I guess I could write all the details here, but I think you should just buy my book for the full explaination at www.bbotw.com December Dreams . . . Qualifying for the BCS Final Rankings.
Posted on: January 8, 2010 5:04 pm
Yes! I have finally been published and you may view my book at http://www.buybooksontheweb.com/pro
December Dream . . . Qualifying for the BCS Rankings is about a playoff system. I am mystified how everyone who wants a playoff also wants to use the bowls. The bowls are the 'sacared cows' or 'cash cows' as it were.
This is why I do believe my plan will be a very viable alternative to using the bowls. My plan let's the teams PLAY THE GAME!
And these are the games we could only hope to see. . . man! what a Dream!!!
only $10.95 in paperback. . .