Complaining about the polls (or discrepancies therein) is dumb

[HoyaSooner]

Okay, I'll start off by saying that I get Bluehen's point that just because you're rated high doesn't mean you're a good team. Witness Alabama in 2000, when they began the season at #3 and finished with only 3 wins. Polls don't make you good. A win over a #1 team is only worth anything if that team happens to be worth a crap.

However, many of the common fan complaints about polls are just as rock-stupid as the pro-poll arguments they look down upon. There are three glaring problems I see happen most often.

1) Too many fans look at the previous week of games as though they should be the determining factor in any and all rankings.

2) Too many fans think that their own personal style of rankings should be used and that all others are wrong.

3) Too many fans don't realize that the polls are an aggregate of dozens of individual votes from across the country, and they expect a single poll with a unified thought process instead of an average.

For instance, Steve Spurrier always votes Duke #25 to start the season. It's his tip-of-the-hat to the school that gave him his first job. Many fans are angered to learn he does such a thing. This is an example of #2. Since they don't think Duke is any good, they feel Steve obviously doesn't deserve his vote. Similarly, people want to rate the previous national champ at #1, as they "have earned it and deserve to be rated there until they lose". That's a perfectly legit way to view things, but it's not THE ONLY WAY to do it.

Some voters rank teams based on how "good" they are. Some rank them based on how easy their schedule is. Neither of these is "wrong", but they will give different results. Two voters could believe that USC is better than Oklahoma, but that OU has such an easy schedule that they're certain to finish unbeaten, while USC's schedule will probably give them a loss. This may cause the first voter to rank USC first (they're better, and would win 7 out of 10 on a neutral field). Another might rank OU first (they will finish the regular season with no losses, and will end up in the MNC game, while USC will drop one and be edged out by LSU, even though they are the strongest team). Is the poll attempting to find the "best" team, or to predict the team that will finish #1? Those are two different questions and different pollsters will give them different weight.

If Marty McFly were to buy a sports almanac in the future (reference Back to the Future II, the weakest of the 3 movies), and were to travel back in time to, say, 2000, and become a voter in the AP poll, his poll would look a lot different than anyone else's. Someone who could perfectly forecast the season would have a nearly nonsensical ballot. Oklahoma began the season #18. Marty would start them at #1. Alabama started at #3. Marty would start them unranked. In fact, someone with perfect abilities of prediction would have the exact same poll every single week. Imagine Michigan loses to App State, then Oregon, and then proceeds to tear through the rest of its schedule, even sneaking into the MNC game (as other schools drop like flies and everyone picks up at least two losses, with the exception of Kansas who remains unbeaten). So Michigan beats Kansas for the national title, and Marty here knows it will happen before the beginning of the season. So right now, Marty has Michigan rated at #1 and Kansas at #2. Think the fans would call for his head? Teams lose and don't drop. Teams win and don't rise. Because he's got it right the first time. Imagine a poll voter where every single ballot is the exact same as the previous, and only at the end of the year does it actually look accurate.

Now, I'm not saying that any of the voters out there have such a mighty grasp of football that they can predict the outcome of every game, but I am saying that people who have Georgia rated above South Carolina may not be as dumb as the fans think. If Georgia finishes with 10 wins, and South Carolina finishes with five, the guy who left Georgia high in his polls will look pretty smart.

[Blue Hen]

How do you feel about the pre-season poll complaints ? We've got the only team sport on planet Earth in which teams are, basically, seeded before ever playing a game.

[AJBuckeye]

1) Too many fans look at the previous week of games as though they should be the determining factor in any and all rankings.

2) Too many fans think that their own personal style of rankings should be used and that all others are wrong.

3) Too many fans don't realize that the polls are an aggregate of dozens of individual votes from across the country, and they expect a single poll with a unified thought process instead of an average.


Regarding point 1, I think most fans and posters on this board look at the entire season as opposed to the last game and pre-season ranking. That is probably the biggest complaint. Just because a team like Texas starts off in the Top 10 the fact that they win the tend to lose very little ground. When I look at a team like UCF taking them to the wire it makes you wonder why they are above a team like Oregon.

Regarding point 2, we all have our biases and it affects how we look at the polls. I am a Big 10 fan and when I look at the polls I don't tend to look at a team like Wisconsin and say they are rated to high considering they struggled against the Citidel. On the other hand when I see Florida going down to the wire against Mississippi I start to question why the are rated ahead of Oklahoma and West Virginia.

Regarding point 3, most fans realize that it is an aggregate of many individuals across the country. My take is that many of the fans don't think the voters (especially the coaches poll) don't take the time to formulate an accurate poll.

I am a Ohio State fan and certainly have a bias. At this point based on the way they played I could have a reasonable argument that they should be in the top 4. In fact if they started the season as the number 2 team in the country that may very well be the case. But bottom line is that the polls should be taken more for entertainment purposes and talking point discussions. The only poll that matter is the final poll prior to the Bowl games and if you have issues with those polls then you may have a legitimate complaint.

[EvilVodka]

If Marty McFly were to buy a sports almanac in the future (reference Back to the Future II, the weakest of the 3 movies), and were to travel back in time to, say, 2000, and become a voter in the AP poll, his poll would look a lot different than anyone else's. Someone who could perfectly forecast the season would have a nearly nonsensical ballot. Oklahoma began the season #18. Marty would start them at #1. Alabama started at #3. Marty would start them unranked. In fact, someone with perfect abilities of prediction would have the exact same poll every single week. Imagine Michigan loses to App State, then Oregon, and then proceeds to tear through the rest of its schedule, even sneaking into the MNC game (as other schools drop like flies and everyone picks up at least two losses, with the exception of Kansas who remains unbeaten). So Michigan beats Kansas for the national title, and Marty here knows it will happen before the beginning of the season. So right now, Marty has Michigan rated at #1 and Kansas at #2. Think the fans would call for his head? Teams lose and don't drop. Teams win and don't rise. Because he's got it right the first time. Imagine a poll voter where every single ballot is the exact same as the previous, and only at the end of the year does it actually look accurate.


So Michigan is going to beat Kansas for the National Championship?

Damn, who wouldda thunk it :D

[CJHawkeyes]

Using opinion polls at all is the dumbest thing ever. BTW, it is wrong to rank a team higher than another for being a better team. Being better doesn't entitle you to place higher in a competition.

[CJHawkeyes]

BTW, as long as these worthless things are being used, why don't they actually establish a standard by which pollsters are to adhere by? For example, teams are to be ranked based on whose resume is more impressive. Using 2006, is going 12-1 versus Florida's schedule or 11-1 versus Michigan's schedule more impressive. Or perhaps, which record versus which schedule is the more difficult accomplishment.

[buckeyejim]

Let's be honest here. By the end of the regular season, the polls ARE pretty close to accurate in most peoples minds. Are they 100% accurate? No, but they do guage the strength pretty good if you ask me. As for the preseason polls? What does it matter? The preseason polls had USC and LSU #1 and #2. The first Harris Poll was released this past Sunday and it had USC #1 and LSU #2. Most people I've talked to believe that USC is #1 and LSU #2. The polls currently represent what most people believe which is that USC and LSU are the two best teams in college football right now.

[CJHawkeyes]

Let's be honest here. By the end of the regular season, the polls ARE pretty close to accurate in most peoples minds. Are they 100% accurate? No, but they do guage the strength pretty good if you ask me. As for the preseason polls? What does it matter? The preseason polls had USC and LSU #1 and #2. The first Harris Poll was released this past Sunday and it had USC #1 and LSU #2. Most people I've talked to believe that USC is #1 and LSU #2. The polls currently represent what most people believe which is that USC and LSU are the two best teams in college football right now.

Accurate with respect to what? Guage the strength of what? Most people believe USC and LSU are 1-2 according to what standard?

Polls are the primary tool used to determine the WINNERS of two playoff berths. Pretty close according to an arbitrary and unknown standard is no better than a coin flip.

What I don't understand is why anyone continues to defend polls when using objective rules is such a simple solution. By the end of the regular season, objective rules are absolutely accurate with respect to their own standard.

[Don]

Accurate with respect to what? Guage the strength of what? Most people believe USC and LSU are 1-2 according to what standard?

Polls are the primary tool used to determine the WINNERS of two playoff berths. Pretty close according to an arbitrary and unknown standard is no better than a coin flip.

What I don't understand is why anyone continues to defend polls when using objective rules is such a simple solution. By the end of the regular season, objective rules are absolutely accurate with respect to their own standard.


Just what exactly are the "objective rules" that you are proposing WITHOUT conference re-alignment that would maked this thing "fair"?

[CJHawkeyes]

Just what exactly are the "objective rules" that you are proposing WITHOUT conference re-alignment that would maked this thing "fair"?

I'm not suggesting anyone share the same preference regarding what objective rules to use. I also don't think objective rules can eliminate the unfairness that results from a limited playoff.

That said, I would like to see all FBS teams play 12 regular season games versus FBS competition only. Based on the rules I devised, teams would be ranked most to least power points (games won opponents' wins - games lost opponents' losses), net wins (wins -losses), schedule strength (opponents' power points), and net points (points for - points against). Of course, I recognize what obstacles would prevent this format from being adopted.

[Don]

I'm not suggesting anyone share the same preference regarding what objective rules to use. I also don't think objective rules can eliminate the unfairness that results from a limited playoff.

That said, I would like to see all FBS teams play 12 regular season games versus FBS competition only. Based on the rules I devised, teams would be ranked most to least power points (games won opponents' wins - games lost opponents' losses), net wins (wins -losses), schedule strength (opponents' power points), and net points (points for - points against). Of course, I recognize what obstacles would prevent this format from being adopted.


What would the rankings look like for last year prior to the bowl games for a small selection of teams, say your top 10 teams?.

[CJHawkeyes]

What would the rankings look like for last year prior to the bowl games for a small selection of teams, say your top 10 teams?.

Below are the standings prior to bowls with I-AA wins and losses equal to least valuable I-A wins and losses. Teams that played more games have a competitive advantage under these rules which is why I favor all teams playing an equal number of regular season games.


1 -Florida
2 -Ohio State
3 -Michigan
4 -Louisville
5 -Boise State
6 -Southern California
7 -Oklahoma
8 -Louisiana State
9 -Auburn
10 -Notre Dame

[buckeyejim]

Accurate with respect to what? Guage the strength of what? Most people believe USC and LSU are 1-2 according to what standard?

Polls are the primary tool used to determine the WINNERS of two playoff berths. Pretty close according to an arbitrary and unknown standard is no better than a coin flip.

What I don't understand is why anyone continues to defend polls when using objective rules is such a simple solution. By the end of the regular season, objective rules are absolutely accurate with respect to their own standard.

"Poll–noun 1. a sampling or collection of opinions on a subject, taken from either a selected or a random group of persons, as for the purpose of analysis."

The above is the defination of poll. The AP and USA Today polls are the "opinions" of media and coaches as to the best college football teams in their "opinions". This is the system we have in 2007 like it or not.

[Blue Hen]

The fundamental flaw of polls :

The voters don't get to see the teams play !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...the teams they are ranking !!!

The coaches poll is a complete joke. The only teams those voting coaches see play are their next week's opponents. Many of these guys also vote with a bias...inflating their opponents and fellow league members. Common knowledge.

The AP poll voters are mostly beat writers and have to spend their time covering their assigned local team.

The Harris ???......well, all these retired guys probably have an opportunity to actually see more CF than the voters in the other polls, but who knows how much time and effort they actually spend on watching and evaluating ?

Name brand recognition, W-L records, and maybe checking scores is still what drives these posters.

Determining a national champion with this system ? Dumbest thing in the history of sports.....hands down. Even dumber than the 'designated hitter'.

[buckeyejim]

The fundamental flaw of polls :

The voters don't get to see the teams play !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...the teams they are ranking !!!

The coaches poll is a complete joke. The only teams those voting coaches see play are their next week's opponents. Many of these guys also vote with a bias...inflating their opponents and fellow league members. Common knowledge.

The AP poll voters are mostly beat writers and have to spend their time covering their assigned local team.

The Harris ???......well, all these retired guys probably have an opportunity to actually see more CF than the voters in the other polls, but who knows how much time and effort they actually spend on watching and evaluating ?

Name brand recognition, W-L records, and maybe checking scores is still what drives these posters.

Determining a national champion with this system ? Dumbest thing in the history of sports.....hands down. Even dumber than the 'designated hitter'.

Hen,
What would your top 10 look like right now. Just curious.

[Blue Hen]

A Blue Hen top 10 ? Don't have one.....out of character for me, especially in September. HOWEVER, BJ, if a D1 National Championship was to begin next week, this is how I'd view the favorites based on what I've seen so far :

Favorites) USC,LSU,OU & UF. These seem to be the most balanced, powerful teams.

Tier B ) Cal, Oregon, WVU. These impress me as 'half' great teams with their super offenses and decent 'Ds'.

Tier C) OSU, Texas, Cincy, BC, Missouri, Kentucky, Wisconsin & Az St. reasonable longshots if a playoff started tomorrow.

The case of Rutgers - RU could fit in any of these 3 catagories but the schedule has been too weak, so far, for me to formulate an opinion on this team.

[Don]

....but actually, I was hoping for the breakdown on your system as I'm unclear what your criteria mean.

.... most to least power points (games won opponents' wins - games lost opponents' losses), net wins (wins -losses), schedule strength (opponents' power points), and net points (points for - points against)...

By the way...
Below are the standings prior to bowls with I-AA wins and losses equal to least valuable I-A wins and losses. Teams that played more games have a competitive advantage under these rules which is why I favor all teams playing an equal number of regular season games.


..do you mean that teams that play more games have a mathematical advantage in your system or a competitive advantage (on the field)? If it is a mathematical advantage, shouldn't a team that played more opponents HAVE some advantage after all they did "gamble" on the games outcome and therefore risked their ranking by playing the game?

[Bucs90]

BuckeyeJim, I agree, by seasons end, they are fairly accurate as a grouping of the 25 best teams. Most would agree with that. I'd also say the polls are pretty good at listing the top 10 teams as a group. The problem comes with determining the order. Who among 5 one loss teams should be ranked 1,2,3,4,5?? That is almost completely opinionated. There are so many variables to consider. It's impossible without a playoff. I'd say an 6 or 8 team playoff would settle all our ills. How many times, in the polls, have we argued a team ranked 9th or lower "shoulda" been the National Champion? Never. So, an 8 team playoff or my personal 6 team plan would work.

[CJHawkeyes]

....but actually, I was hoping for the breakdown on your system as I'm unclear what your criteria mean.



By the way...


..do you mean that teams that play more games have a mathematical advantage in your system or a competitive advantage (on the field)? If it is a mathematical advantage, shouldn't a team that played more opponents HAVE some advantage after all they did "gamble" on the games outcome and therefore risked their ranking by playing the game?

Yes, teams that play more games have a mathematical advantage which I referred to as a competitive advantage. That said, I'm not saying they shouldn't have this advantage as a result of playing more games, I just think all teams should play an equal number of games so that everyone is competing under equal circumstances. Of course, if everyone had the opportunity to earn an extra game such as a CCG, that would be fair too.

As for the criteria, it is rather simple. A win is worth one point for every win accumulated by the defeated opponent and a loss is worth minus one point for every loss accumulated by the opponent defeated by.

[CJHawkeyes]

"Poll–noun 1. a sampling or collection of opinions on a subject, taken from either a selected or a random group of persons, as for the purpose of analysis."

The above is the defination of poll. The AP and USA Today polls are the "opinions" of media and coaches as to the best college football teams in their "opinions". This is the system we have in 2007 like it or not.

I know what a poll is, but the definition does not indicate the standard used by every pollster. That said, if the standard is "best college football teams" then it would appear the dictionary is missing definitions: 2. an inherently worthless tool used to arbitrarily rank college football teams according to a standard unrelated to the purpose of determining the winner(s) of a competition. 3. A tool that does nothing to distinguish winners from losers in an athletic competition but is mostly accurate with regard to the irrelevant standard used.

[HoyaSooner]

How do you feel about the pre-season poll complaints ? We've got the only team sport on planet Earth in which teams are, basically, seeded before ever playing a game.

They don't look like a big problem to me right now. We've seen lots of movement in the top 10, even when teams didn't lose. USC dropped from #1 even before they lost. Ohio State has rocketed up the charts. Changes in the polls take a few weeks, but they do happen.

[Bucky]

They don't look like a big problem to me right now. We've seen lots of movement in the top 10, even when teams didn't lose. USC dropped from #1 even before they lost. Ohio State has rocketed up the charts. Changes in the polls take a few weeks, but they do happen.

I find it crazy that people want to abolish polls.

Polls are a part of what make college sports so much fun. Sure, they are purely opinion driven, but what else would everyone talk about and how else could we categorize teams?

Thankfully, polls as they are, are here to stay.

[CJHawkeyes]

I find it crazy that people want to abolish polls.

Polls are a part of what make college sports so much fun. Sure, they are purely opinion driven, but what else would everyone talk about and how else could we categorize teams?

Thankfully, polls as they are, are here to stay.

Polls are the dumbest idea in sports history. Nothing ruins college sports more than the use of subjectivity to place teams. I find it crazy that debating who should rank where makes it fun. It means nothing to win or "earn" a higher ranking when nothing distinguishes a higher ranked team from a lower ranked team. How sad for this great sport if fans couldn't find something to discuss if #1 is #1 for a definitive, transparent, and objective reason.

[Blue Hen]

No team drops out of the top 2 unless it looses. It's never happened in the BCS era. In the case of multiple undefeated teams, mythical NCs are dertermined in August.

[Bucky]

No team drops out of the top 2 unless it looses. It's never happened in the BCS era. In the case of multiple undefeated teams, mythical NCs are dertermined in August.

So untrue...

in 2003 the defending champions, Ohio State beat then #20 NC State at home and dropped form #2 to # 4......

[Bucky]

Polls are the dumbest idea in sports history. Nothing ruins college sports more than the use of subjectivity to place teams. I find it crazy that debating who should rank where makes it fun. It means nothing to win or "earn" a higher ranking when nothing distinguishes a higher ranked team from a lower ranked team. How sad for this great sport if fans couldn't find something to discuss if #1 is #1 for a definitive, transparent, and objective reason.

Last time I checked, the NFL didn't have any polls....

you might enjoy it....they have uniforms and everything...very entertaining....check them out on Sundays on your local station.

[Blue Hen]

Well, actually OSU dropped from 2 to 3 after beating SDSU and then to #4 after beating NC ST 44-38....but I was very wrong.

What I meant to say was that no team that was given the free #1 or#2 preseason ranking ...and went undefeated, has failed to miss the BCS champ game. (BCS era, of course)

[buckeyejim]

Well, actually OSU dropped from 2 to 3 after beating SDSU and then to #4 after beating NC ST 44-38....but I was very wrong.

What I meant to say was that no team that was given the free #1 or#2 preseason ranking ...and went undefeated, has failed to miss the BCS champ game. (BCS era, of course)

Of the #1 and #2 preseason teams that did go undefeated, which ones should have dropped? Maybe we should give credit for the pollsters for being so accurate instead of complaining that the #1 and #2 preseason teams that went undefeated did not drop. Maybe, just maybe the people who voted did their homework and correctly "predicted" the best two teams in August.

[Blue Hen]

Team A ( pre ranked #1) team B (pre ranked #2) team C (pre-ranked # 20) and team D ( unranked) can all have identical seasons and perform at the same level vs similar opposition, yet Teams A&B will always make it to the BCS pretend NC game...guaranteed. The mythical system is stupid and very unfair. Teams A & B have only to tread water. Teams C & D have to swim up stream. No fair at all.
If Auburn started the 04 season with the free #1 ranking and OU & USC started unranked, who do you think makes it to the BCS PNC game ?

[CJHawkeyes]

Last time I checked, the NFL didn't have any polls....

you might enjoy it....they have uniforms and everything...very entertaining....check them out on Sundays on your local station.

Nice rebuttal. Last I checked, college football's conferences use objective rules. Do you have difficulty finding something to discuss about conference races because placement isn't determined by subjectivity? If subjectivity is so great, why not employee judges to award different point values for TDs and FGs for whatever reasons? How is that any worse than doing the same for wins and losses?

[Bucky]

Nice rebuttal. Last I checked, college football's conferences use objective rules. Do you have difficulty finding something to discuss about conference races because placement isn't determined by subjectivity? If subjectivity is so great, why not employee judges to award different point values for TDs and FGs for whatever reasons? How is that any worse than doing the same for wins and losses?

You know, winning a national championship, or as you like to say a mythical national championship, is not what college football is all about.

There is so much more to the sport than simply being #1. We seem to devalue the value in winning a conference championship anymore. All that matters is who wins the BCS.

To so many fans and so many programs, winning conference titles, getting to bowl games, and being as high in the rankings as possible is what makes college football so great.

You are so eager to eliminate so many of the fundamental elements that make college football speical to millions of supportive fans from across this country.

[buckeyejim]

Team A ( pre ranked #1) team B (pre ranked #2) team C (pre-ranked # 20) and team D ( unranked) can all have identical seasons and perform at the same level vs similar opposition, yet Teams A&B will always make it to the BCS pretend NC game...guaranteed. The mythical system is stupid and very unfair. Teams A & B have only to tread water. Teams C & D have to swim up stream. No fair at all.
If Auburn started the 04 season with the free #1 ranking and OU & USC started unranked, who do you think makes it to the BCS PNC game ?

Personally, I thought that Oklahoma was better than Auburn. If Auburn makes it in against USC, the Trojans probably kill Auburn and then everyone would be saying, "I think Oklahoma would have given USC a better game". Obviously this is an opinion and we'll never know. Actually, in my opinion, I don't think an all-star team made up of the best Auburn and Oklahoma players would have been able to beat USC that night. Again, we'll never know. Back then USC actually had a QB who was good as opposed to the 2006 and 2007 USC teams.

[Blue Hen]

Worshipping polls is 100x dumber than complaining about them.

[buckeyejim]

Worshipping polls is 100x dumber than complaining about them.

I certainly don't worship the polls but I have come to the realization that the polls have meaning and are relevant. Complaining only gets people mad and upset.

Nobody would like to see a 16 team playoff system more than me. Until that happens I WILL accept the current system of polls, bowls and votes. It's what is in place and I'll accept it as factual until it's changed. That's why I refuse to call any of the past voted champions "mythical" and why I believe bowl games are not "exhibition" games (which I don't think you, Hen, really believe to be the case deep down inside even when you say it).

[Blue Hen]

The powers that run this system have to hear people screaming for change if it ever has a chance to happen.......don't you think.

Any voted / opinionated championships will always be mythical.

[CJHawkeyes]

You know, winning a national championship, or as you like to say a mythical national championship, is not what college football is all about.

There is so much more to the sport than simply being #1. We seem to devalue the value in winning a conference championship anymore. All that matters is who wins the BCS.

To so many fans and so many programs, winning conference titles, getting to bowl games, and being as high in the rankings as possible is what makes college football so great.

You are so eager to eliminate so many of the fundamental elements that make college football speical to millions of supportive fans from across this country.

I'm only eager to eliminate the use of polls. And I fail to see how my disdain for their use devalues winning a conference title. Furthermore, if Iowa is ever in position to win a national title, I don't want it to be to due to subjectivity. Most of the arguments used by fans on various boards that Team A should be arbitrarily ranked this or that offend my sensibilities. I don't ever want to see Iowa win a national title because a majority of pollsters think something about the Hawkeyes that has no relevance to whether or not they should win a competition. Even if Iowa never wins or seriously competes for the national title again, I want the teams that do to win for reasons I can respect. Voting teams into a championship game when using objective rules is such a simple solution disgusts me. I think it is sad if polls are among the "fundamental elements" that make college football special.

[Bucs90]

The polls gain a bit more legitimacy as the season goes. Preseason polls are the spawn of Satan. IF polls must be used, they should not come out until at least week 5. An unequal starting point for each team is simply unfair.

[CJHawkeyes]

The polls gain a bit more legitimacy as the season goes. Preseason polls are the spawn of Satan. IF polls must be used, they should not come out until at least week 5. An unequal starting point for each team is simply unfair.

Polls are never legitimate. They are arbitrary and unaccountable nonsense. Team A and Team B finish 11-1, Team A's opponents are 20 games better than Team B's, Team A is 4-1 versus the polls' top 12 whereas Team B is 2-1 versus the polls' top 20, Team A beat the team that beat Team B, Team B wins the national title. What about this scenario allows anyone to know WHY Team B won the national title?

[buckeyejim]

Polls are never legitimate. They are arbitrary and unaccountable nonsense. Team A and Team B finish 11-1, Team A's opponents are 20 games better than Team B's, Team A is 4-1 versus the polls' top 12 whereas Team B is 2-1 versus the polls' top 20, Team A beat the team that beat Team B, Team B wins the national title. What about this scenario allows anyone to know WHY Team B won the national title?

If the polls are nonsense, then you wouldn't pay attention to beating ranked opponents since they are not worthy of paying attention to.

My opinion is sometimes, the best team might have under achieving opponents. You can not control what your opponents might do. Normally when Notre Dame is on the schedule, you know that you're going to play a good and ranked opponent. I refuse to fault a school for scheduling Notre Dame because it's not their fault that the Irish are down. However, if you schedule Temple, you pretty much "know" what you're getting once the game is played 4 or 5 years down the road. The same applies to scheduling a school like Miami (FL), UCLA, Alabama or Penn State. They might not be ranked when you play them or they may be having a down year but you should not be penalized for that.

[CJHawkeyes]

If the polls are nonsense, then you wouldn't pay attention to beating ranked opponents since they are not worthy of paying attention to.

My opinion is sometimes, the best team might have under achieving opponents. You can not control what your opponents might do. Normally when Notre Dame is on the schedule, you know that you're going to play a good and ranked opponent. I refuse to fault a school for scheduling Notre Dame because it's not their fault that the Irish are down. However, if you schedule Temple, you pretty much "know" what you're getting once the game is played 4 or 5 years down the road. The same applies to scheduling a school like Miami (FL), UCLA, Alabama or Penn State. They might not be ranked when you play them or they may be having a down year but you should not be penalized for that.

While I would love it if there were some way for everyone to play "equal" schedules, as long as schools are responsible for their schedules, rewarding or penalizing their teams for opponents is a necessary evil. If schools are concerned about down years for typically successful opponents, then they might be inclined to schedule more than one typically good team. Besides that, the point isn't necessarily to punish teams that schedule Notre Dame and get this year's team as an opponent. It is simply to distinguish to between resumes. Using my example, I think it is more impressive to go 11-1 versus opponents that are 20 games better than another team's opponents regardless of how much control teams truly have over their schedules. I think it is better to reward Team A in my example for that reason than to arbitrarily reward either team for all the reasons pollsters have ever used.

Furthermore, I only care about the best team insofar as it deserves to control its destiny regardless of its schedule, but you don't reward the performer, you reward the performance. The best team is the best team if it goes 12-0 versus the 12 worst teams, but being the best team isn't why any team should win a competition or be ranked higher than another.

Finally, I only paid attention to ranked teams in my example to demonstrate the illegitimacy of polls, In the example, pollsters awarded the national title to the team that actually did less according to their own votes.

[ZOOMBAG]

Of the #1 and #2 preseason teams that did go undefeated, which ones should have dropped? Maybe we should give credit for the pollsters for being so accurate instead of complaining that the #1 and #2 preseason teams that went undefeated did not drop. Maybe, just maybe the people who voted did their homework and correctly "predicted" the best two teams in August.

Had Auburn and Utah started the 2004 season #1 and #2, respecitively, nothing USC or Oklahoma could have done would have dislodged those two and thus the MNC game was decided in August the season had no competative purpose at all. As it was USC and OU started #1 and #2 and stayed there all year. Season was over (in so far as the national championship goes) before it started.

No team starting #1 or #2 that has gone undefeated has ever been dislodged from those positions by year end. Meaning if three teams start 1,2 and 3 and all three run the table, there is no point in #3 ever playing a game. That's just gross poor stupidity which makes Bowl Division college football a gross poor stupid "sport". Actually it's nothing more than entertaining exhibition, you have go down one level to find true football as a sport....

[ZOOMBAG]

You know, winning a national championship, or as you like to say a mythical national championship, is not what college football is all about.

There is so much more to the sport than simply being #1. We seem to devalue the value in winning a conference championship anymore. All that matters is who wins the BCS.

To so many fans and so many programs, winning conference titles, getting to bowl games, and being as high in the rankings as possible is what makes college football so great.

You are so eager to eliminate so many of the fundamental elements that make college football speical to millions of supportive fans from across this country.

Doesn't say much for the overall mental state of those "millions" of supportive fans....

[Bucky]

Had Auburn and Utah started the 2004 season #1 and #2, respecitively, nothing USC or Oklahoma could have done would have dislodged those two and thus the MNC game was decided in August the season had no competative purpose at all. As it was USC and OU started #1 and #2 and stayed there all year. Season was over (in so far as the national championship goes) before it started.

No team starting #1 or #2 that has gone undefeated has ever been dislodged from those positions by year end. Meaning if three teams start 1,2 and 3 and all three run the table, there is no point in #3 ever playing a game. That's just gross poor stupidity which makes Bowl Division college football a gross poor stupid "sport". Actually it's nothing more than entertaining exhibition, you have go down one level to find true football as a sport....



OK??

How many teams that have started #1 or #2 since 1998 have gone undefeated???? Can't wait for that one. Seems to be a fact that is convienently ignored.


The BCS, despite all of it's faults, is WAY ahead of what we had pre 1998. At least in the VAST majority of seasons, we have a matchup of the two most believed to be top teams.

There has been much fluidity in the polls when they are looked at by the end of each season.

[Bucky]

Doesn't say much for the overall mental state of those "millions" of supportive fans....


Right..and you as an AFU fan should know......there is a lot more to college football than winning a BCS title.

Like I said, there are millions of college football fans who are devoted to their local team and could care less about who's #1 in the BCS.

They support their team and the sport because of what it is, not what you think it should be.

[CJHawkeyes]

Right..and you as an AFU fan should know......there is a lot more to college football than winning a BCS title.

Like I said, there are millions of college football fans who are devoted to their local team and could care less about who's #1 in the BCS.

They support their team and the sport because of what it is, not what you think it should be.

Those that do not care about who is #1 in the BCS shouldn't care whether or not those like myself advocate for a different method for determining #1. That said, what is so noble about supporting a sport for what it is when what it is is extremely flawed? You act as if there is something wrong with being an advocate for positive change. Of course, if you don't think ideas like those favored by myself represent positive change, that is your perogative. However, there is no reason I can't support my team and advocate ideas that I think will make my favorite sport better than the anti-competitive sport that it is.

[Bucs90]

You both are making good points. But, saying the BCS is better than what we had in 1998 is like saying Iraq is better than what it had during Saddam. Yeah, it's less f'd up, but it's still f'd up.

What we had pre-98 was awful. My problem with the BCS is that it is an attempt to right the pre-98 mess, but that attempt was not whole-hearted. It was an attempt to silence the whining fans wanting a playoff while still keeping a guarantee payday for the big schools. When those people could just have easily approved a 6-8 team playoff. But didn't.

[Bucky]

You both are making good points. But, saying the BCS is better than what we had in 1998 is like saying Iraq is better than what it had during Saddam. Yeah, it's less f'd up, but it's still f'd up.

What we had pre-98 was awful. My problem with the BCS is that it is an attempt to right the pre-98 mess, but that attempt was not whole-hearted. It was an attempt to silence the whining fans wanting a playoff while still keeping a guarantee payday for the big schools. When those people could just have easily approved a 6-8 team playoff. But didn't.

Very true, it is far from perfect, but at least better than what we had.

The thing I can't understand is why the BCS and conference comittees cant' adopt a plus 1 game in the case of controversy.

I don't see how such a clause would adversly affect the current BCS and bowl systems.

[EvilVodka]

That said, what is so noble about supporting a sport for what it is when what it is is extremely flawed? You act as if there is something wrong with being an advocate for positive change. Of course, if you don't think ideas like those favored by myself represent positive change, that is your perogative. However, there is no reason I can't support my team and advocate ideas that I think will make my favorite sport better than the anti-competitive sport that it is.

There's nothing wrong with college football

If you don't like it, go watch the NFL

[EvilVodka]

You both are making good points. But, saying the BCS is better than what we had in 1998 is like saying Iraq is better than what it had during Saddam. Yeah, it's less f'd up, but it's still f'd up.

What we had pre-98 was awful. My problem with the BCS is that it is an attempt to right the pre-98 mess, but that attempt was not whole-hearted. It was an attempt to silence the whining fans wanting a playoff while still keeping a guarantee payday for the big schools. When those people could just have easily approved a 6-8 team playoff. But didn't.

The BCS was primarily created to break the lock on the Rose Bowl and deliver a definate National Championship game...

All the nonsense about the Big 6 conferences hoarding $$$ is false...there are now objectives rules that are clearly stated, allowing mid-majors the opportunity to get in the BCS...they never had that chance in pre-BCS years

The BCS has made the sport more exciting IMO, and the fact that it continues to change and accomadate the problems inherent in the system is a good thing, not a bad one as most media idiots portray it

[Blue Hen]

Completely disagree, Evil, on why the BCS was formed. The real reasons :

1) To lock up 90% of post season revenue for 50% of the leagues (counting Indys)
2) To preserve the Post Season Exhibition Game structure and 'prevent' an NCAA championship. (Want BCS founding father, Roy Kramer's statement of this ? )


All this matching up of #s 1 & 2 stuff is how the BCS was 'sold'. Greed is why it was formed.

[Bucs90]

Hen, you couldn't be more right, or more simple. Some like to cloud the debate with theories and explanations of the BCS and why it is better and so forth.

But it is very, very plain and simple. They wanted to stop the whining from the fans, and accomplish #1 and #2 that you listed. And the BCS was the answer. An insult to the intelligence of the fans for the BCS creators to think we would actually believe this is the best possible solution when a 4-8 team playoff would be so, so easy to create.

[CJHawkeyes]

There's nothing wrong with college football

If you don't like it, go watch the NFL

Besides the fact that I can watch college and pro football both, this has to be the lamest argument ever. I can't want something better (from my POV) for a sport a like?

Nothing wrong? A two-class system that limits parity and prevents nonBCS teams and fans from dreaming like BCS schools. National championships decided by opinions rather than.............um, wins and losses. I-A teams preferring to play I-AA opponents rather than the best I-A teams.

[Bucs90]

Cant agree more CJ. The fact that going undefeated does not guarantee you a chance to earn your way into the championship game is disgraceful. Utah, Auburn 04, Boise 06= all 3 teams started their season with NC dreams, and went undefeated, and were told "Sorry, you were undefeated enough." What a disgrace to the idea of competition. But, I still love college football- 1-AA football in particular.

[CJHawkeyes]

The BCS was primarily created to break the lock on the Rose Bowl and deliver a definate National Championship game...

All the nonsense about the Big 6 conferences hoarding $$$ is false...there are now objectives rules that are clearly stated, allowing mid-majors the opportunity to get in the BCS...they never had that chance in pre-BCS years

The BCS has made the sport more exciting IMO, and the fact that it continues to change and accomadate the problems inherent in the system is a good thing, not a bad one as most media idiots portray it

Of course, it is about hoarding money. Even the easier access granted to nonBCS schools was about preventing a lawsuit. It certainly wasn't done due to a sense of fairness on the part of BCS schools. For nonBCS schools, easier access is all about the money too. It doesn't really help their teams compete for a national title as they are now inclined to schedule for an unbeaten season to get the BCS money.

Objective rules? Simply telling teams if they finish in the top six means nothing when the system is predominately subjective, non-transparent, and unaccountable. I guarantee that BCS schools are not interested in transparent objective rules because they would undermine their ability to control this sport.

[EvilVodka]

Hen, you couldn't be more right, or more simple. Some like to cloud the debate with theories and explanations of the BCS and why it is better and so forth.

But it is very, very plain and simple. They wanted to stop the whining from the fans, and accomplish #1 and #2 that you listed. And the BCS was the answer. An insult to the intelligence of the fans for the BCS creators to think we would actually believe this is the best possible solution when a 4-8 team playoff would be so, so easy to create.

if it is so easy to create, why hasn't it been done?

You can't just discount how conferences like the PAC 10 and Big 10 feel towards the post season format based on what you would like to see...that's not realistic

[ZOOMBAG]

There's nothing wrong with college football

If you don't like it, go watch the NFL

I do. And in many ways it is much better than college football. In many ways it is not. But at least there a team has to make the postseason and win the championship on the field. It is also why I follow Div II and the Nebraksa-Omaha Mavericks so closely. They have playoffs. If I had a choice between Div II football on TV and what we have now, I'd watch Div II....

[EvilVodka]

Completely disagree, Evil, on why the BCS was formed. The real reasons :

1) To lock up 90% of post season revenue for 50% of the leagues (counting Indys)
2) To preserve the Post Season Exhibition Game structure and 'prevent' an NCAA championship. (Want BCS founding father, Roy Kramer's statement of this ? )


All this matching up of #s 1 & 2 stuff is how the BCS was 'sold'. Greed is why it was formed.

let me rephrase the above criteria without the biased content:

1) Maximize profit...of course the conferences with the longest longevity, most success, and largest amount of fans in the country are going to find what works for them best...
2) Preserve the bowl system, and prevent a large NCAA tournament from destroying this unique tradition
3) Integrate the PAC 10 and Big 10 into the National Championship game by breaking the lock on the Rose Bowl

you can try and demonize as much as you want, but the BCS is way better than what we had before

[EvilVodka]

Besides the fact that I can watch college and pro football both, this has to be the lamest argument ever. I can't want something better (from my POV) for a sport a like?

Nothing wrong? A two-class system that limits parity and prevents nonBCS teams and fans from dreaming like BCS schools. National championships decided by opinions rather than.............um, wins and losses. I-A teams preferring to play I-AA opponents rather than the best I-A teams.

you complain about college football constantly...if you don't like it, spare yourself the pain and watch something else

Most college football fans are surprised at the parity this year

And National Championships have always been decided by resumes of W/L records, the logical basis behind the large average of opinions...the BCS tried computer polls and that recieved a huge backlash, so now 2/3rds of the current BCS poll are opinion polls, like it or not

If there's a lame argument here, its your constant harping on a sport that most fans enjoy

[EvilVodka]

Of course, it is about hoarding money. Even the easier access granted to nonBCS schools was about preventing a lawsuit. It certainly wasn't done due to a sense of fairness on the part of BCS schools. For nonBCS schools, easier access is all about the money too. It doesn't really help their teams compete for a national title as they are now inclined to schedule for an unbeaten season to get the BCS money.

Objective rules? Simply telling teams if they finish in the top six means nothing when the system is predominately subjective, non-transparent, and unaccountable. I guarantee that BCS schools are not interested in transparent objective rules because they would undermine their ability to control this sport.

Well, without those objective rules, based on whatever means possible, Utah '04 and Boise State '06 have to worry if they look pretty enough to get in the Fiesta Bowl...you cannot deny that the BCS has given non-BCS schools a greater chance to get to big-name bowls by creating a permanent concrete window for them to make...that is pure fact

[Blue Hen]

That makes more sense to me. It might be a little better than the bowl match-ups being arranged in early November, but this 'unique tradition' you mention ( PSEGs).....that's unique all right.... the only team sport on planet Earth without a championship. Good unique or bad unique ?

[EvilVodka]

I do. And in many ways it is much better than college football. In many ways it is not. But at least there a team has to make the postseason and win the championship on the field. It is also why I follow Div II and the Nebraksa-Omaha Mavericks so closely. They have playoffs. If I had a choice between Div II football on TV and what we have now, I'd watch Div II....

That's great and all, but most people would still watch IA football...

[EvilVodka]

That makes more sense to me. It might be a little better than the bowl match-ups being arranged in early November, but this 'unique tradition' you mention ( PSEGs).....that's unique all right.... the only team sport on planet Earth without a championship. Good unique or bad unique ?

But there is a championship game...the BCS championship game...

It exists whether you like it or not

You can disagree with how those teams are chosen, but there is a championship game that the majority of college footall fans recognize

[ZOOMBAG]

It's about control. With a playoff the major conference college presidents fear loss of direct control over the sport as the NCAA would gain control. They lack that control over Div I basketball. Control is more important to these arrogant pinheads than money as it has been shown time and again to be much more lucrative than the BCS ever could be. They hide their desire for control behind the nonsensical arguments they make, but it is control of the sport that is at the heart of the issue.

[EvilVodka]

It's about control. With a playoff the major conference college presidents fear loss of direct control over the sport as the NCAA would gain control. They lack that control over Div I basketball. Control is more important to these arrogant pinheads than money as it has been shown time and again to be much more lucrative than the BCS ever could be. They hide their desire for control behind the nonsensical arguments they make, but it is control of the sport that is at the heart of the issue.

Well, conferences want what's in their best interest...can you blame them?

The PAC 10 and Big 10 don't want a playoff...they don't want anything to do with a playoff...they barely agreed to the BCS deal in the first place, and might even bail out if a +1 was forced on them...the Rose Bowl is a "Post Exhibition game" that they're not willing to give up

Hokiehen and CJHawkeye seem to think the BCS is a well-oiled business with a firm agenda of stomping on the little guy to rake in tons of cash...and its simply not that...

The BCS is a dumb animal, a conglomeration of the conference commissioners and bowl representatives, which try and appease the college presidents...


"The conference commissioners and the Notre Dame athletics director make decisions regarding all BCS issues, in consultation with an athletics directors advisory group and subject to the approval of a presidential oversight committee whose members represent all 117 Division 1-A programs."
http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/definition

It wouldn't matter if the BCS was completely pro playoff, and had a 16 team playoff outlined and ready to go...they've still got to get the college presidents to sign the dotted line, and that's just not going to happen

The BCS isn't in control...its just the extent of what will be allowed by the college presidents

[Bucs90]

Calling it a championship doesn't make it a championship. If every team doesn't have equal access to it, it's not a true championship. And anytime a team can go undefeated, and not have access to that championship, it's not a true championship. Boise, Utah, Auburn all have done that.

[ZOOMBAG]

In the end, money overcomes all. Right now we have a number of BCS conference presidents that have turned the corner but the PAC 10 and Big 10, as usual, are holding out. All 11 of 12 Big 12 presidents now tacitly support the "plus one" arrangement with only Harvey Perlman of Nebraska remaining opposed, about half the SEC Presidents support moving to a plus one, since Auburn's snubbing two seasons ago.

Eventually a network and a marketing agency will throw so much money at it that the cash starved feeding frenzy that is BCS football will force their presidents to accpet (with the noted exception of the hidebound greybeards of the PAC 10 and Big 10). They've completely maximized revenue streams now, since stadiums are mostly as big as they can get, ticket prices as high as the market will sustain, TV deals as high as that market will sustain...they have only one more untapped revenue stream left....playoffs. They will eventually cave. And like the BCS, the Big 10 and PAC 10 which were not a part of the original Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance, will be financially forced to join after opting for a few years.

[CJHawkeyes]

you complain about college football constantly...if you don't like it, spare yourself the pain and watch something else

Most college football fans are surprised at the parity this year

And National Championships have always been decided by resumes of W/L records, the logical basis behind the large average of opinions...the BCS tried computer polls and that recieved a huge backlash, so now 2/3rds of the current BCS poll are opinion polls, like it or not

If there's a lame argument here, its your constant harping on a sport that most fans enjoy


Computer polls received a huge backlash because those used are not transparent and BCS officials do not how to sell them to a hugely ignorant fanbase. And I have yet to figure out why I can't like college football and still complain about its format. I guess it makes me a bad fan because I don't appreciate teams ranked according to irrelevant standards and because I'd rather see top 25t teams be encouraged to play each other rather than I-AA opponents. If there are fans that enjoy such things, I guess they will have to put up with my constant complaining.

[Bucs90]

I'm optimistic. I believe the 85 scholarship rule started the parity snowball. And, just like the NFL, eventually it will be IMPOSSIBLE to select 2 teams as above the rest. Already tough. Within 15 years I see parity getting to the point that the norm is going to be most top 10 teams having 2 losses, with very few teams having 10-12 losses, and lots and lots of teams with 5-8 wins. When that happens, a playoff is the only possible solution. The parity in the top 10 will be so developed, as it almost is now, that selecting 2 teams without letting them play it out on the field will be impossible. Either the prez's can keep pissing the fans off, or they can just let it happend- and get the extra money from a playoff.

[CJHawkeyes]

I'm optimistic. I believe the 85 scholarship rule started the parity snowball. And, just like the NFL, eventually it will be IMPOSSIBLE to select 2 teams as above the rest. Already tough. Within 15 years I see parity getting to the point that the norm is going to be most top 10 teams having 2 losses, with very few teams having 10-12 losses, and lots and lots of teams with 5-8 wins. When that happens, a playoff is the only possible solution. The parity in the top 10 will be so developed, as it almost is now, that selecting 2 teams without letting them play it out on the field will be impossible. Either the prez's can keep pissing the fans off, or they can just let it happend- and get the extra money from a playoff.


The lack of parity is the only reason a two team playoff is even acceptable. The same teams always seem to win with an occasional exception here and there. I think I remember figuring that six schools accounted for half of the top two finishes in the AP poll since I-A was created in 1978. Some like to criticize the NFL's regular season, but NFL teams play 16 games versus opponents that are no worse than 14 point underdogs whereas those type of spreads exist between top 25 teams because the limited playoff does not encourage parity. Recruits pick the same handful of schools over and over again because the system doesn't encourage them to do otherwise.

[GatorGrad]

A 4-team BCS Playoff is coming in 2010 IMO...it won't 100% satisfy everyone, but it will be a step in the right direction.

[EvilVodka]

Computer polls received a huge backlash because those used are not transparent and BCS officials do not how to sell them to a hugely ignorant fanbase.

There was no "selling" involved...fans could not understand how an undefeated team (#1 Oklahoma) lost their final game and still remained #1, while a team that won its conference got locked out of the game, especially when human polls moved them to #1...losing ugly late in the season may not count in computer polls, but humans definately take notice...I don't find anything ignorant about this

...and I like how this argument turned into a long diatribe about how you have the right to complain, right after calling my arguments lame...lol

[EvilVodka]

A 4-team BCS Playoff is coming in 2010 IMO...it won't 100% satisfy everyone, but it will be a step in the right direction.

some people just won't be satisfied no matter what happens...a 4 team playoff would make the regular season extremely exciting IMO...

with the top 4 as a window to make the playoff, it would be wild trying to get in each year...Bowl championship series would actually mean something

[GatorGrad]

some people just won't be satisfied no matter what happens...a 4 team playoff would make the regular season extremely exciting IMO...

with the top 4 as a window to make the playoff, it would be wild trying to get in each year...Bowl championship series would actually mean something

I agree that a 4-team playoff would make the regular season very exciting. Opening up 2 more slots would pretty much guarantee that any unbeaten team from a BCS Conference gets in. No more Auburn '04 situations. It wouldn't solve the Utah '04 or Boise St '06 situations, but I think you could see voters do what they did with Florida vs Michigan in 2006 and "bump" a team like Utah '04 into their top four to include them. It would be interesting. And you could use 3 BCS Bowl Games...2 for the semis, 1 for the title game. You are right...it would actually be a "series." If the Rose Bowl doesn't want in, they don't need them. Just roll with the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange like they did from 1992-1997 during the Bowl Alliance / Bowl Coalition era.

[Blue Hen]

A 4 team NCAA playoff would be a great first step. A 4 team BCS playoff would still be fraudulent crap......simply because 6 leagues (out of 11) and 66 teams (out of 120) would be making all the rules in a very self serving manner. A true D1A championship has to be for the entire D1A membership and designed by the entire D1A membership......NCAA style !...not Baloney and Cheese Sandwich style.

[Bucs90]

A 4 team playoff would be better, still not good enough, but better. If that were the compromise, then, well, we've never argued a #5 team got robbed in the BCS era and that a #5 should've been in the BCS game.

I like my 6 team proposal as the ultimate compromise. Keep the BCS formula, to keep them happy. The top 2 get a bye week. 3-6 fight it out in Round 1. Winners play 1 and 2 in Round 2. Then, the NC game. 3 rounds, 6 teams, = 5 total games- the same amount of BCS games we have now, so each bowl still gets it's huge payday. The ultimate compromise.

[GatorGrad]

I agree that a larger playoff with more than 4 teams, especially if run by the NCAA would be better. But the reality is that we're not even close to getting there. It is my understanding that the 4-team BCS Playoff IS a possibility starting in 2010 or 2014 and a lot of it will depend on the Rose Bowl / Big Ten / PAC 10. Personally, if that trio declines to be a part of it, I hope the other 4 BCS Conferences move forward with it without them. It would be just like 1992-1997 when #1 matched up with #2 in either the Fiesta, Sugar, or Orange Bowls on a rotating basis. Everyone but the Big Ten & PAC 10 participated as they continued to be stubborn and send their champs to the Rose Bowl. Well, after Penn St '94 went 12-0 with no MNC and Michigan could only win a co-MNC in 1997, the pressure finally helped get the Big Ten, PAC 10, and Rose Bowl to give in and join what is now the BCS.

What if that scenario happened again with the SEC, BIG 12, ACC, & BIG EAST all signing off on the 4-team BCS Playoff using the Fiesta, Sugar, and Rose as the three playoff games? The title game would rotate with the other two hosting the semi-final games. And the best part is that since only 4 conferences would be participating, you could just make it the 4 conference champs. It wouldn't be a true National Championship since the Big Ten, PAC 10, and mid majors wouldn't be included. But hey, we don't have a true championship now so what's the difference? It would basically be a separate 4-conference league with its own playoff. I know it's a crazy idea...but you never know. The goal would be to get the Rose/PAC 10/Big Ten to see what they are missing out on and eventually include them and everyone else in the party.

[CJHawkeyes]

There was no "selling" involved...fans could not understand how an undefeated team (#1 Oklahoma) lost their final game and still remained #1, while a team that won its conference got locked out of the game, especially when human polls moved them to #1...losing ugly late in the season may not count in computer polls, but humans definately take notice...I don't find anything ignorant about this

...and I like how this argument turned into a long diatribe about how you have the right to complain, right after calling my arguments lame...lol

Exactly, ignorant fans can't understand how objective rules might favor a team with a better record, opponents' record, opponents' opponents' record, and average MOV over another team that simply is the poltically correct result because fans don't like seeing a team lose its last game badly and still qualify for a two team playoff.

Long diatribe? The only argument, if it can called an argument, that I labeled as lame was your suggestion that I could watch the NFL if I didn't appreciate college football as is. I certainly have no problem with people defending what they like about college football or what changes they might like to see.

[Bucky]

I am not criticizing any particular person, but here is what I found to be so ironic and in my opinion ignorant.

By creating a 16 team playoff, we only hurt the mid-major schools and traditional non-powers like Cincinatti or USF.

USF, for instance, has a much greater chance of reaching a BCS title game under the current system. If there were a a massive playoff, the odds that USF could run the table against better competition than is currently in the Big East is much smaller.

Does anyone really think that a 10th seeded Boise State would have won 4 straight games last year in a fictitious 16 team playoff??


A playoff of that size benefits the big time schools and conferences. People who are so euphoric when fantasizing about a playoff that they fail to realize what the consequences would be.

It's kind of like how many golf courses on tour tried to "Tiger-proof" some of the classics about 10 years ago, with the intent of leveling the playing field. Looking back, it is a given now that those modifications of lengthening the courses only played into Tiger's stregnth's and helped him widen the talent gap.

[EvilVodka]

I am not criticizing any particular person, but here is what I found to be so ironic and in my opinion ignorant.

By creating a 16 team playoff, we only hurt the mid-major schools and traditional non-powers like Cincinatti or USF.

USF, for instance, has a much greater chance of reaching a BCS title game under the current system. If there were a a massive playoff, the odds that USF could run the table against better competition than is currently in the Big East is much smaller.

Does anyone really think that a 10th seeded Boise State would have won 4 straight games last year in a fictitious 16 team playoff??


A playoff of that size benefits the big time schools and conferences. People who are so euphoric when fantasizing about a playoff that they fail to realize what the consequences would be.

It's kind of like how many golf courses on tour tried to "Tiger-proof" some of the classics about 10 years ago, with the intent of leveling the playing field. Looking back, it is a given now that those modifications of lengthening the courses only played into Tiger's stregnth's and helped him widen the talent gap.

get ready...

now you're going to get bombarded with long posts on how mid-majors will benefit from recruiting when the playing field is supposedly leveled with a playoff..."now mid-majors can play with the top dogs if given the chance"...

which won't happen of course, because athletes will still want to be on the programs with the most success and tradition

Central Michigan isn't all of the sudden going to become as good as Michigan, just won't happen

[Blue Hen]

I don't know about that, Evil. Recruits like opportunities to play for National Championships. An all inclusive, NCAA style, National championship would allow some hot recruits to stay home , sign with their local 'off brand' name team, win a conference championship, and then have the NC opportunity.....and also important....play earlier. I don't see how an all inclusive National Championship couldn't improve the talent distribution....over time, of course.

[CJHawkeyes]

I am not criticizing any particular person, but here is what I found to be so ironic and in my opinion ignorant.

By creating a 16 team playoff, we only hurt the mid-major schools and traditional non-powers like Cincinatti or USF.

USF, for instance, has a much greater chance of reaching a BCS title game under the current system. If there were a a massive playoff, the odds that USF could run the table against better competition than is currently in the Big East is much smaller.

Does anyone really think that a 10th seeded Boise State would have won 4 straight games last year in a fictitious 16 team playoff??


A playoff of that size benefits the big time schools and conferences. People who are so euphoric when fantasizing about a playoff that they fail to realize what the consequences would be.

It's kind of like how many golf courses on tour tried to "Tiger-proof" some of the classics about 10 years ago, with the intent of leveling the playing field. Looking back, it is a given now that those modifications of lengthening the courses only played into Tiger's stregnth's and helped him widen the talent gap.

I will say that I don't care if a mid-major or non-traditional power ever wins the national title. The opportunity to win is the most important thing and I think a 10th seeded Boise State has a better chance with a 16 team playoff than a 10th ranked Boise State does under the BCS. Whenever a team like Boise State goes unbeaten and still misses out on a opportunity to play for the title by a long shot, it only reinforces the idea that nonBCS schools cannot win the national title. However, I think a Boise State that wins the WAC five straight years and earns five consecutive playoff berths can do a better job building off of that where recruiting is concerned than winning a glorified consolation game. While I'm not convinced that a playoff would ever completely eliminate the gap between BCS and nonBCS schools, I do think the champions of nonBCS conferences will be as good as 2004 Utah and 2006 Boise State as a rule rather than an exception. I also think transparent objective rules are needed too. From there, who knows?