(04-24-2012 03:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 09:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  actually- would have taken about 66 harris voters or 34 coaches to switch their votes. So it wasn't real close at all..

The thing that would have been interesting would have been if Sagarin or Wolfe had OSU at #2 and Alabama at #3. If so, the gap would have been only needing 9 harris or 5 coaches to switch their votes. That would have gotten extremely close there.

You forget that Ok. St. was rated overall higher in the computer polls and so were only .0086 behind. They didn't even need to be equal in the polls to end up ahead (they were 69 behind in Harris and 32 behind in coaches-so to catch up in the coaches would only take 16 switching, not 32). If noone had voted Ok. St. below 3rd, about half of that .0086 margin would have gone away.

You have to multiply the .0086 that they were behind in the BCS ratings by 3. That gets you the gap of .0258...

I mispoke- it would have taken about 67 votes in harris to switch or 38 coaches votes to change the outcome. So either 34 harris voters or 19 coaches voters to change their votes. Or a combination of the two.

If sagarin or Wolfe had changed- that would have lessened the difference dramatically. Would have needed a 17 vote in harris swing or 9 coaches vote swing. Or a combo of the two.

It probably sounds like a smartass comment, and perhaps it is: but if you're going to let in also-rans from conferences with a conference championship game, why have them in the first place? (OK, I know that the answer is $$$$$, but it strikes me as ludicrous).

(04-24-2012 04:02 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  It probably sounds like a smartass comment, and perhaps it is: but if you're going to let in also-rans from conferences with a conference championship game, why have them in the first place? (OK, I know that the answer is $$$$$, but it strikes me as ludicrous).

Being from KU, I'll give you a Big 12 answer-Big 12 South 2008. Texas and Texas Tech lost out on tie-breaks to OU. All were 11-1 and 7-1 in conference. Texas beat OU on a neutral field by 10, Tech beat Texas by 5 in Lubbock, OU beat Tech big in Norman. OU won the tie-break since they were #1 in the BCS, Texas #3 and Tech #7. So Texas and Tech were also-rans by tie-break. OU beat Missouri in the Big 12 title game. Missouri had already lost big to Texas.

A proposal to play the semifinal games at the home stadiums of the higher-seeded teams is all but dead, according to the source. The semifinal games will either be hosted by the existing BCS bowl games or opened for bidding. The source said it seemed almost certain that the national championship game will be opened to bidding by the existing BCS bowl sites and other cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and Indianapolis.

The conference commissioners have reached a conclusion that some FBS schools' stadiums aren't large enough to host a national semifinal game and that many college towns don't have enough hotel rooms to accommodate bigger crowds.

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland? As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

The source said a proposal that would require teams to win their respective conferences to participate in a playoff is also all but dead. Under that proposal, Alabama, which didn't win the SEC last season but defeated No. 1 LSU 21-0 in the Jan. 9 Allstate BCS National Championship Game, wouldn't have been eligible for the playoffs.


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...off-format




I guess that we will have to wait and see what the official announcement is.

However, the bolded statements (if true) are not surprising, at least to me.

(04-24-2012 10:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 09:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The thinking surrounding this issue is skewed for many reasons, but chief among them is trying to match #1 in public opinion (however that is determined) with #2. This idea is bogus. A true national champion may only be selected from among championship teams. Period!

If you are #2 in the greatest conference ever assembled, you are still not a champion. You may be better than everyone else's #1, but you are not a champion.

The concept of pitting a mythical #1 against a mythical #2 is just a smoke and mirrors parlor trick by those who fear not being able to make as much money out of a matchup they can't control and so control the argument by shifting everyone's focus to a counterfeit idea. And I might add it has worked beautifully.

One champion emerging victorious over other champions (no matter their strength, or lack thereof) is the true champion.

What ticks off the sportswriters is that they don't get a powerful say over the matter. What matters to the commissioners is that they can't guarantee a particular payout every year. What matters to the networks is advertising dollars lost if the championship game is a blowout. What doesn't matter to any of them is who is the true national champion!

Wake up and get this point! JR

I get the point. I just COMPLETELY disagree with it. There are going to be times where the two best teams in college football are in the same conference or even the same division of the same conference. We can choose to put blinders on and ignore it or we can acknowledge it. One of the most predominant arguments in favor of a college football playoff is that every single other sport, whether college or pro, uses a playoff. That's fair enough, but every single other sport also allows teams that did NOT win their respective conferences or divisions into their playoffs, too.

In your argument, the idea of a "true champion" is based on the false assumption that all conferences are created equal. Not only are not all conference created equal in terms of strength, but they aren't even the same sizes, don't have the same tiebreaker rules for determining such "true conference champions", don't have the same number of conference games (could be 8 or 9 depending upon the league) and some have conference championship games while others don't. So, how the heck are we supposed to compare conference champs on an equal basis where they aren't even structurally set up the same way (much less taking into account how strong they are)? If all conferences were set up with the same tiebreaker rules and sizes in the same manner that NFL conferences and divisions are set up, then I could get on board with a conference champs-only rule, but that's simply not the reality (and won't ever be the reality).

My problem is that many people are applying their disdain for Alabama's inclusion in a #1 vs. #2 game, where such disdain is justifiable, with thinking that it's OK or even desirable to exclude them in a 4-team playoff, which I don't find justifiable at all. I can't believe I'm a Big Ten guy arguing about this with an SEC fan. One would think it ought to be the other way around. On this point, I agree with Mike Slive - I want to find out who is the best team with a playoff, NOT merely the winner of a tournament. There's a difference.

You don't have to agree with me Frank and I understand your perspective. But you still labor under the two best teams idea which is not about champions or championships. It doesn't matter if there are equal numbers of teams in conferences, or that they determine champions by different methods, or that there is no standard to follow for all, what does matter is that they put forth a champion. A champion out of champions affirms the regular season, respects all of those who earned their conference's recognition to be there and is not designed to pick the two best teams, just the best champion of the champions. The so called best teams don't always win. We call that an upset rather than say that our perceptions about the reality of teams' abilities are limited.

If we only had four power conferences it would still be wrong to give second place teams a do over against a team that vanquished, or out performed them, in order to be there. It is simply about power conferences making more money. To hell with the polls and pollsters. Too many deserving schools in my lifetime have been denied by those hacks. And not everyone in the SEC thinks in lockstep any more than they do in any conference.

I had hoped that realignment would pare down the number of conferences, increase the number of each conference's divisions, and teams, and enable some order out of chaos. Instead what we are getting, hopefully for just the time being, is more excuses to pick the teams that bring the most tourists, spend the most money, have the best market share of viewers, and then find a way to hand one of them the crown so that a larger group of people are happy. It's a total sham! And then the pollsters and BCS execs and presidents of the leading universities wonder why the ratings are down. Denial, denial, denial!

I'm just curious did you play the game at any level? I am assuming that you have. Didn't you want to win it on the field? Having to beat a great team twice is tough to do. And, it is something that Michigan and Ohio State should not have been faced with, and neither should L.S.U. have had to face it with Alabama. And I would have said the same thing if Alabama had won their first meeting. The rematch may have earned our conference more money, but it shafted L.S.U. for having had the best season, and a victory over Alabama, that in the end meant ...NOTHING! JR

(04-24-2012 04:02 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  It probably sounds like a smartass comment, and perhaps it is: but if you're going to let in also-rans from conferences with a conference championship game, why have them in the first place? (OK, I know that the answer is $$$$$, but it strikes me as ludicrous).

To me, it's flipped around. If all we care about is conference champs, then why not just have an unseeded plus-one? What's the point of a seeded top 4 playoff if you're not going have a team that's ranked #2 and then let in a team that's ranked #10?

Bowls are about giving bids to conferences. That's why they exist. A playoff, though, should be about figuring out who is the best team, even if it means if the 4 best teams are from the SEC (and believe me, I have no love at all for the SEC). That's personally how I'd do it, but at least I believe that the 3 best conference champs plus 1 wild card is a solid compromise. If we're throwing away the Rose Bowl and other traditions, then do the playoff right so that we're not going to be b*tching about how a #2 team didn't get to play and a #10 team did in a few years (which WILL happen if we don't provide a provision to prevent that).

Bowls exist because way back in the day, it was a great way to ensure at least one tourist boom per year for some towns...

(04-24-2012 05:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Bowls exist because way back in the day, it was a great way to ensure at least one tourist boom per year for some towns...

The bowls have outlived their usefulness IMO. They used to be exhibitions to match up schools that would normally never play each other during the regular season. It used to be a remarkable concept to see a team from the east coast traveling to the Rose Bowl in the early part of the 20th century. Travel was obviously much different, so the regular season schedules were much more regional - especially with the highly concentrated CFB that used to reside in the northeast (Army, Navy, Columbia, Fordham, etc used to be FB powers).

Today, the usefulness of the bowls have not effectively kept up with the times. Simply, the best set up would be to have a 10 or 12 team playoff with the top 5 or 6 conferences only. All champs get in plus one wild card from each conference (unless a conference does not have a worthy 2nd team ranked high enough). Use the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and Cotton bowls to host the playoff games. Almost forgot, as much as I would love to see ND join the ACC, I think it would be unfair to force them to give up independence. Let them have one of the wildcard slots if they are in the top 10 rankings or something like that.

(04-24-2012 06:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 05:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Bowls exist because way back in the day, it was a great way to ensure at least one tourist boom per year for some towns...

The bowls have outlived their usefulness IMO. They used to be exhibitions to match up schools that would normally never play each other during the regular season. It used to be a remarkable concept to see a team from the east coast traveling to the Rose Bowl in the early part of the 20th century. Travel was obviously much different, so the regular season schedules were much more regional - especially with the highly concentrated CFB that used to reside in the northeast (Army, Navy, Columbia, Fordham, etc used to be FB powers).

Today, the usefulness of the bowls have not effectively kept up with the times. Simply, the best set up would be to have a 10 or 12 team playoff with the top 5 or 6 conferences only. All champs get in plus one wild card from each conference (unless a conference does not have a worthy 2nd team ranked high enough). Use the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and Cotton bowls to host the playoff games. Almost forgot, as much as I would love to see ND join the ACC, I think it would be unfair to force them to give up independence. Let them have one of the wildcard slots if they are in the top 10 rankings or something like that.

There is something to be said though for the tradition that comprises the 10 historic bowl games.

Rose
Orange
Sugar
Fiesta
Cotton
Capital One (Citrus)
Holiday
Sun
Chick-a-Fil (Peach)
Gator

Comparatively, the other bowls are all Johnny Come Lately games and could all be done without or forced out with a 7-5 rule.

Tradition can also be an anchor denying the future...

Disagree about the bowls. I would hate to see them all go.

They are great ways to get national match-ups you rarely see. They usually pit competitive teams. They usually feature good teams (moreso if they get rid of 6-6 teams). They give many teams a chance to end the season with a win. In NCAA basketball, 319 teams end with a loss and 1 ends with a win. Lots of extra practice time in December. Travel destinations to nice places (usually).

A small playoff can DEFINITELY co-exist with bowls. Pare down the ESPN-garbage bowls, for sure, but don't throw them all out.

The B1G and Pac can keep the Rose Bowl. The rest of us will have a playoff without you...

(04-25-2012 07:18 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The B1G and Pac can keep the Rose Bowl. The rest of us will have a playoff without you...

I don't know why they are so hell bent on keeping it in the B1G vs Pac form. TCU and Oklahoma have played in the Rose, so that killed the every year matchup. How hard is it to have the Rose as one of the semis or the title game? If the Semi has a Pac or a B1G then the rose could host that semi, even better if it's a pac vs B1G semi or title game.

OU and Nebraska don't play, UT and A&M don't play, BSU, SDSU are in the BE. Times have changed, they need to just join the playoff.

It's TRADITION, Fresno. But IMO the TRADITION of the Rose Bowl has become an albatross around the neck of the college football world. I hope they tell the Rose Bowl, and all those who want to keep it in its current form, to get bent...

If those 2 conferences are so tied to the Rose Bowl, let them play amongst themselves for the honor of going there. The rest of us can have a playoff, ignore the B1G and Pac, and get on with the future. They can stay in the past with their TRADITION...

(04-26-2012 08:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It's TRADITION, Fresno. But IMO the TRADITION of the Rose Bowl has become an albatross around the neck of the college football world. I hope they tell the Rose Bowl, and all those who want to keep it in its current form, to get bent...

If those 2 conferences are so tied to the Rose Bowl, let them play amongst themselves for the honor of going there. The rest of us can have a playoff, ignore the B1G and Pac, and get on with the future. They can stay in the past with their TRADITION...

Bit, the problem is if every other conference goes forward with a playoff system of some sort, but the Pac & B1G do their own Rose Bowl thing; then we still won't have a true national champ. There will be some polls selecting a Ohio State or a USC as a mythical champ competing with whoever wins the playoff championship.

I realize that, TO. But a man can dream, damn it. A man can dream...