Would you guys like to see a 16 team playoff, and then ahve the rest of bowl eligible teams play their nomal bowls? I think that sounds pretty damn good.
I'm just disgusted by this year's dibacle. Broken computer system.
I think you need to check out <a href='http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/mac/invision/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7909' target='_blank'>this post.</a>
Right now! Do it fast! :fast: :cop: :jet:
Hey TKT -
The only way that I personally (yeah, like that matters in the big picture!!) could be behind a playoff is a 16 team scenario like you suggest. I think it would have to include the champions of each of the 1A conferences plus a handful of at large bids. It could work, but it won't happen.
Personally, I would prefer to go back to the way things were pre-BCS than to deal with this BCS garbage that we have to endure now!
I just realized something. Right now it seems as though the human polls and the computer polls have canceled themselves out, giving us this horrible sham of a system. So....basically its humans vs. comuters in college football.
Here we all thought that we were trying to determine a national champion, but we're really trapped inside a Terminator movie!!! Run, here comes Arnold!!!
This will not be a popular opinion, but it is the human polls that are incorrect. The computer polls, with the exception of the NY Times Poll, is based upon power ratings that are mostly unbiased. Look at Sagarin and Massey. These were devised by Mathematicians, not biased sportwriters. They are based on different mathmatical algorithms, but the results are very close. Mia O is truly a top 10 team as the computer verifies. The Biased coaches and media will not give certain teams a fair rating and that is the problem. The computer does not know any better.
If anyone believes this to not be true, just study the people who put money on the games week in and week out. I am talking of the guys in Las Vegas. They know more about the system that gives them the best chance of beating the line. Any serious gambler subscribes to computer generated power ratings. I know this to be true by experience. In fact, sportsbooks now use computerized power ratings in order to set the beginning line.
Having said all this, and hating the BCS, (because of the human polls factor) The 2 teams that should play for the MYTHICAL championship will do so. OK and LSU have the highest power rating. ONE matchup of any 2 teams does not always determine the superior team. It does so only for that day. Think what would happen if the same 2 teams played 10 times. The computer assumes that OK will beat KSU 6-7 times out of 10 and that makes them superior. We just saw one of the 3-4. Even the NCAA BB Tourney does not determine the best team in the country. The closest thing in sports to crowning a true superior team is the World Series. The best of seven is not perfect, but it is much better than a one game matchup.
So, I say kick out the sportswriters and coaches, and let the impartial computer have at it. And BTW, this way the MAC can take care of its self.
Flash, I agree with you. Having a econ and math degree seems to make me think that the computers are unbiased. They are missing one thing though, margin of victory.
That was a huge mistake when they took that out of formula. USC could beat Stanford by 60 and LSU could beat Vandy by 1 and they would mean nearly the same thing. If this component were included we would have a matchup between USC and Oklahoma, which by my eye are the best two teams in the country.
GFlash, I agree with you to a point. The computers can do a better job than any individual sportswriter might be able to do in his pajamas.
BUT I do find the argument that a team should not win a "national championship" if it can't win its own conference compelling.
I agree with those who say we either need a playoff that guarantees a spot for each conference champion OR we should just junk the BCS. I lean toward the latter. Let's try it for a few years and see how it makes us all feel.
I remember liking the old system better. At least back then everyone realized the idea of a national champion truly was mythical. Now, an awful lot of people actually think we have one. We don't. We never did. That's what bothers me most about the BCS ... people actually believe it is a national championship. The NCAA has never sanctioned one and that's enough for me.
VegasFalcon Wrote:Flash, I agree with you. Having a econ and math degree seems to make me think that the computers are unbiased. They are missing one thing though, margin of victory.
That was a huge mistake when they took that out of formula. USC could beat Stanford by 60 and LSU could beat Vandy by 1 and they would mean nearly the same thing. If this component were included we would have a matchup between USC and Oklahoma, which by my eye are the best two teams in the country.
Vegas,
I think the Sagarin still takes margin of victory into effect in it's regular rankings, but in the ELO-Chess ranking (which counts for the BCS), they don't.
Dodo, you are correct re margin of victory. And, that is a very important factor. I would experiment with an algorithem that would give no additional credit for running up the score more than 3-4 touchdowns. Power ratings are pretty accurate towards the end of the season. The best betting opportunities occur during the early season when computer ratings may have holes.
The Knight Time Wrote:Would you guys like to see a 16 team playoff, and then ahve the rest of bowl eligible teams play their nomal bowls? I think that sounds pretty damn good.
I'm just disgusted by this year's dibacle. Broken computer system.
OK so the NCAA goes to a playoff system. That would kill the bowl system as no one wants to watch teams not good enough to make it to the "Big Dance" i.e. in March the NIT.
So the MAC and SBC probably get stuck in a play in game then play a road game against #1. The WAC, MWC, and CUSA swap 13-15 spots and also play opening games on the road. A national Championship playoff for football would be no different the the Bball tourney. The big conferences would control the selection process and get 2 or 3 teams in each year.
So instead of the MAC getting 2 post season games, CUSA getting 4 or 5, they get 1. That doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me.
What is it that we want to accomplish?
A national champion? I think this system does this, and at the same time maintains the absolutely imperative nature of every regular season game. Remember, when judging who the two top teams are this year, you're not supposed to weight a loss at the end heavier than a loss early in the season, yet that is what both human polls invariably do. Like it or not, USC did everything right in scheduling, but those teams didn't live up to their expectations. That and a loss to a mediocre Cal team hurts.
The BCS picked the most deserving two teams, taking out of the equation that one lost this past weekend, while the other two lost two months ago. OU lost to a very good KSU team. LSU lost to a good Florida team. USC lost to a mediocre Cal team that KSU creamed. The Pac 10 was not a good conference this year - Washington lost to Nevada, badly. That's not USC fault, but if you want the most deserving team you have to take into consideration whether the teams they played were any good.
An alternate way to think about OU's loss to KSU - if, like in the PAC 10, this was just another conference game (since OU and KSU didn't play this year during the regular season), OU would be 8-1 in conference. KSU has 2 conference losses, as do all other North teams. UT is the only South team with 1 loss, and that was to OU. That gives the records and the tiebreaker to OU as conference champ.
All this said, USC is actually in the best position to win a national title right now. They play basically at home against the 4th best team, debatably, in America. They should win, and then claim a share of the title.
Are we trying to accomplish more opportunity for the MAC? That won't ever happen with a playoff. It doesn't happen in a 65 team BB playoff, why would it happen with an 8, 16 or even 32 team playoff in FB?
IMO, what needs to be changed is the rest of the bowl system. The BCS is the one part of the bowl system that actually rewards you for being the best team (or at least tries). The rest of it is corrupt as hell and isn't about rewarding deserving teams. It's the humans in the equation that skew things, not the computers.
HuskieDan Wrote:IMO, what needs to be changed is the rest of the bowl system. The BCS is the one part of the bowl system that actually rewards you for being the best team (or at least tries). The rest of it is corrupt as hell and isn't about rewarding deserving teams.
IMO, this is most unfortunate part of this fiasco with the title game. Everyone is so completely focused on the who should or should not be in the Sugar Bowl, they're forgetting about the rampant corruption inherent in the rest of this repugnant system.
Then again, if there wasn't a controversy about the title game, I suppose it's wishful thinking to believe anyone would be writing articles about NIU, UCONN, UT and other shafted teams. :rolleyes:
Margin of victory is important but only up to a point. The reason it was taken out of the equation was to discourage coaches from running up the score to increase margin of victory. In truth, RUTSing doesn't help in the long term because you don't get experience for your #2's and #3's. And, quite frankly, there's not any qualitative difference I can tell from beating Buffalo 42-7 or beating them 55-7. Not that anyone would listen but I'd like to see a system that takes into account margin of victory but only up to 21 points. After 3 touchdowns, it's rather meaningless.
Agreed, Mako. It's many of the same people bemoaning the likes of Oklahoma running it up on Texas A&M (or other schools) that then say that Oklahoma "got killed" by KSU, and that should somehow disqualify them from playing for the national title.
You want a playoff AND increase the opportunities for the current non-BCS teams? How about a hybrid of Torch's 16 team system....
Take the champ from each conference, and fill in with the highest rated (not human polls) teams as the "at large". It's not a sure thing, but it DOES provide a little window of opportunity that doesn't exist currently.
Karl Wrote:You want a playoff AND increase the opportunities for the current non-BCS teams? How about a hybrid of Torch's 16 team system....
Take the champ from each conference, and fill in with the highest rated (not human polls) teams as the "at large". It's not a sure thing, but it DOES provide a little window of opportunity that doesn't exist currently.
Arguably the best team the MAC has had in 30 seasons, if you were to take the BCS rankings alone, would be something like a #11 seed in a 16 team playoff. If it were a 9-3 champ, it'd be the #15 or #16 seed every time, playing on the road against the #1 team in the nation. Sure, it's an opportunity, but not much of one.
<a href='http://www.madison.com/captimes/sports/hart/62995.php' target='_blank'>Nice little rant about the BCS failure</a>