New BCS system shaping up

[Kyle T. Jones]

Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.

No home field for the higher seeds (boo).

Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).

I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even
drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
Belt?

This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about
leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's
stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next
expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to
8/12 teams).

Cheers.

[Kyle T. Jones]

Oh, yeah - possibility that the semis take place in the rose and sugar,
with the sugar representing the new SEC/BIG12 alliance, and the final
game rotating in some manner (possibly just between the sugar/rose).

Idea would be that it'll still be SEC/BIG12 sugar and PAC12/Big Ten rose
if those happen to be the four teams - and replace those slots if those
conferences don't have a qualifying team with the teams that do qualify.

Big holdout likely and predictably Big Ten/PAC12, who see it as
sacrificing a great prize for their second-best teams the years their
conference champ qualifies for the semis.

Cheers.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:39:00 PM UTC-7, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.

Probably going to be Rose Bowl vs. New Bowl (Big XII vs. SEC).

Winners play a week to 10 days later.

> No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
>
> Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
> conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
> champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).

I find that hard to envision with the New Bowl I referred to above. It's one of the reasons I believe we are heading to four true BCS conferences, with the rest being shifted to, at best, an FBS-II if not outright FCS.

> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even
> drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
> top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
> Belt?

Because that don't make no munneh.

Mar-kee Val-you.

Mike

[That Don Guy]

Kyle T. Jones wrote:

>Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
>
>No home field for the higher seeds (boo).

You want to play a game in Ann Arbor in January? How about Seattle?

>Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
>conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
>champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).

Except that Notre Dame won't be guaranteed a spot - they'll have to
earn it like everybody else. It's there to prevent a repeat of the
arguments of the 1960s and early 1970s when the #2 basketball team was
left out of the tournament because it was conference champions only
and they happened to be in the same conference as the #1 team.

As for rankings, who decides them - the current BCS System? Will AP
talk its way back in? And can a conference champion get the wild card
spot?

>I still like all four slots to require conference champs

Maybe it is more of a "Notre Dame rule" than I thought...

>And they could even drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just
>make it the four top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if
>they're from the Sun Belt?

You can't leave too many schools out, or they'll block the whole thing
at the NCAA Convention. The bylaws still say that FBS teams can't
play more than one non-conference postseason football game per season.

Another possibility; the outcasts team up with FCS to reform a single
Division I football division, with all of the schools sharing at least
half of the tournament money. Oops!

>This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
>12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome.

Except that there's no way the NCAA will let the schools run the
tournament and make all of the money. The schools need the NCAA more
than we think; otherwise, they would have left over the basketball
money issue years ago.

-- Don

[Kyle T. Jones]

On 5/31/12 8:28 PM, That Don Guy wrote:
> Kyle T. Jones wrote:
>
>> Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
>>
>> No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
>
> You want to play a game in Ann Arbor in January? How about Seattle?
>

Sure.

>> Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
>> conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
>> champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
>
> Except that Notre Dame won't be guaranteed a spot - they'll have to
> earn it like everybody else. It's there to prevent a repeat of the
> arguments of the 1960s and early 1970s when the #2 basketball team was
> left out of the tournament because it was conference champions only
> and they happened to be in the same conference as the #1 team.
>
> As for rankings, who decides them - the current BCS System? Will AP
> talk its way back in? And can a conference champion get the wild card
> spot?

Likely will be the current BCS system. Yes, a CC can get the wild card
spot.

The way it'll likely shake out - top three ranked of the six BCS
conferences are in - wildcard goes to the highest ranked team setting
those three aside - if that team is a conference champ, BCS or non, cool
- if not, cool - if it's a second team from a conference that has a
qualifying conference champ, also cool (might as well call it the
Alabama rule).

>
>> I still like all four slots to require conference champs
>
> Maybe it is more of a "Notre Dame rule" than I thought...
>
>> And they could even drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just
>> make it the four top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if
>> they're from the Sun Belt?
>
> You can't leave too many schools out, or they'll block the whole thing
> at the NCAA Convention. The bylaws still say that FBS teams can't
> play more than one non-conference postseason football game per season.
>

Yep.

> Another possibility; the outcasts team up with FCS to reform a single
> Division I football division, with all of the schools sharing at least
> half of the tournament money. Oops!

Don't see that many teams being left out, under a four conference champ
system - just a couple independents for a couple years while they
secured spots.

Not gonna happen anyways - it'll be three and a wildcard.

>
>> This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
>> 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome.
>
> Except that there's no way the NCAA will let the schools run the
> tournament and make all of the money. The schools need the NCAA more
> than we think; otherwise, they would have left over the basketball
> money issue years ago.
>
> -- Don

They'll figure something out. Lots of money to go around.

Cheers.

[michael anderson]

On May 31, 11:14 pm, "Kyle T. Jones" >
> The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two other >champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. Another team from the sec will >probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are easily the best >teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.

IFYPFY

[Kyle T. Jones]

Lame.

Cheers.

[Seapig]

On May 31, 3:39 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> much weight if it's the top four conference champs.

I don't agree with this. An OOC loss would carry more weight than an
OOC win. An OOC loss might be what drops a team out of the top 4.
Any team that goes undefeated OOC, regardless of the quality of
competition, is likely to be in the top 4, if they pair that with
winning one of the major conferences. They'd have more to lose than
to gain by scheduling good OOC games. I'm thinking of the big boys
here; a good OOC win could help get somebody from one of the little
conferences in.

Having the one wild card slot gives teams more of a reason to schedule
tough OOC opponents, because that could provide the marquee win that
separates them from the pack; it could even give them the chance to
beat one of the teams they're battling for the wild card.

[michael anderson]

On Jun 1, 12:24 am, "Kyle T. Jones"

perhaps, and yet also pretty accurate


>
> Cheers.

[Kyle T. Jones]

Lame.

Cheers.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

A team from the Big TEAT and one other than the Rubbers (Trojans) from
the 1 PACK is

Lame.

Cheers.

You left out a cupla lines, Kyle.

Hugh

[Dennis J]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:45:43 -0700 (PDT), Seapig
<sea...@altavista.com> wrote:

>On May 31, 3:39 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
><onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>
>> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
>> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
>> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
>> much weight if it's the top four conference champs.
>
>I don't agree with this. An OOC loss would carry more weight than an
>OOC win. An OOC loss might be what drops a team out of the top 4.
>Any team that goes undefeated OOC, regardless of the quality of
>competition, is likely to be in the top 4, if they pair that with
>winning one of the major conferences. They'd have more to lose than
>to gain by scheduling good OOC games. I'm thinking of the big boys
>here; a good OOC win could help get somebody from one of the little
>conferences in.
>

Big Boys like Cupcakes for OOC schedules... the exception seems to the
Domers...

>Having the one wild card slot gives teams more of a reason to schedule
>tough OOC opponents, because that could provide the marquee win that
>separates them from the pack; it could even give them the chance to
>beat one of the teams they're battling for the wild card.

--

"The omnipotence of clairvoyance is dreadfully dualistic in its agnosticism" MISC Quote
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.

[michael anderson]

On Jun 1, 3:21 pm, Dennis J <drjud...@frontier.SCRAPE.COM> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:45:43 -0700 (PDT), Seapig
>
>
>
>
>
> <sea...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >On May 31, 3:39 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> ><onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>
> >> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> >> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> >> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> >> much weight if it's the top four conference champs.
>
> >I don't agree with this.  An OOC loss would carry more weight than an
> >OOC win.  An OOC loss might be what drops a team out of the top 4.
> >Any team that goes undefeated OOC, regardless of the quality of
> >competition, is likely to be in the top 4, if they pair that with
> >winning one of the major conferences.  They'd have more to lose than
> >to gain by scheduling good OOC games.  I'm thinking of the big boys
> >here; a good OOC win could help get somebody from one of the little
> >conferences in.
>
> Big Boys like Cupcakes for OOC schedules... the exception seems to the
> Domers...

there is no such thing as an "ooc game" for ND......

[unclejr]

If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.

I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get little to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit than a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.

If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some honesty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...

-Junior

[Kyle T. Jones]

I think you're getting worked up about nothing. Scan back through the
years, assume the top 3 ranked BCS CCs are in, and tell me there is
controversy over that forth wildcard spot, using either the BCS or AP
ratings.

This is my thinly veiled attempt to get you to do homework I can't be
bothered to do.

Cheers.

[That Don Guy]

Kyle T. Jones wrote:

> unclejr wrote:
>>
>> If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
>>
>> I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get little to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit than a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.
>>
>> If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some honesty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...
>>
>> -Junior
>
>I think you're getting worked up about nothing. Scan back through the
>years, assume the top 3 ranked BCS CCs are in, and tell me there is
>controversy over that forth wildcard spot, using either the BCS or AP
>ratings.
>
>This is my thinly veiled attempt to get you to do homework I can't be
>bothered to do.

2008 - the top four are Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and Alabama.
Under the "3 and a wild card" system, USC gets Alabama's spot.

2006 - Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU. Once again, an SEC team
gives up its top four spot to USC - this time, LSU.

-- Don

[Kyle T. Jones]

I don't think that's very controversial. Those USC teams were both
@#$%ing monster. In both cases, the majority of CF fans would have
preferred them in the four team playoff (admittedly tougher argument for
06 after that inexplicable UCLA loss to end the season).

Cheers.

[J.C. Watts]

On Jun 1, 4:46 pm, unclejr <wats...@kenyon.edu> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:39:00 PM UTC-5, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> > Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
>
> > No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
>
> > Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
> > conference champ won't keep you out.  Three highest rated conference
> > champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
>
> > I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> > consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> > likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> > much weight if it's the top four conference champs.  And they could even
> > drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
> > top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
> > Belt?
>
> > This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
> > 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome.  One thing about
> > leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's
> > stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next
> > expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to
> > 8/12 teams).
>
> > Cheers.
>
> If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
>
> I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking.

--


You do realize, that RPI in college basketball is hardly a universally
accepted measure right? And that is the inherent problem with
computer rankings, etc. Someone is going to be unhappy that computers
took "common sense" out of the equation.

[J.C. Watts]

Here is a good article that details the problems with RPI in college
basketball and how controversial it is...

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/02/17/seth-davis-thinks-rpi-is-for-inefficient-winners-while-ken-pomeroy-rankings-are-for-efficient-losers/

[darkst...@gmail.com]

I'll agree to that when they basically remove all pre-declared unfit programs from the rankings entirely.

Mike

[Eric Ramon]

if two SEC teams are in and then win their way into the title game
then fine. I have no problem with that.

[Seapig]

To college basketball's credit, they only use RPI as a tool to help
the process, they haven't taken common sense out of the equation. I
hope the BCS formula dies along with the BCS, and the new playoff uses
a committee similar to what basketball has.

[Seapig]

On Jun 1, 2:50 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"

<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

> This is my thinly veiled attempt to get you to do homework I can't be
> bothered to do.

You found another sucker to do your work for you - me. For each year,
I've listed who would be in, and who would be out, under the 3 champs
plus 1 format, using the BCS standings. For conferences with co-
champions, I've used whatever tiebreaker was used to determine the
conference's automatic BCS qualifier. I've listed the top 6 from each
season, plus the fourth-ranked champion, if they were outside the top
6.

1998
IN
1. Tennessee (12-0, SEC)
2. Florida State (11-1, ACC)
3. Kansas State (11-1, WC)
5. UCLA (10-1, P10)
OUT
4. Ohio State (10-1)
6. Texas A&M (11-2, B12)

1999
IN
1. Florida State (11-0, ACC)
2. Virginia Tech (11-0, BE)
3. Nebraska (11-1, B12)
4. Alabama (10-2, SEC)
OUT
5. Tennessee (9-2)
6. Kansas State (10-1)

2000
IN
1. Oklahoma (12-0, B12)
2. Florida State (11-1, ACC)
3. Miami (10-1, BE)
4. Washington (10-1, B10)
OUT
5. Virginia Tech (10-1)
6. Oregon State (10-1)

2001
IN
1. Miami (11-0, BE)
2. Nebraska (11-1, WC)
3. Colorado (10-2, B12)
4. Oregon (10-1, P10)
OUT
5. Florida (9-2)
6. Tennessee (10-2)
8. Illinois (10-1, B10)

2002
IN
1. Miami (12-0, BE)
2. Ohio State (13-0, B10)
3. Georgia (12-1, SEC)
4. USC (10-2, WC)
OUT
5. Iowa (11-1)
6. Washington State (10-2, P10)

2003
IN
1. Oklahoma (12-1, WC)
2. LSU (12-1, SEC)
3. USC (11-1, P10)
4. Michigan (10-2, B10)
OUT
5. Ohio State (10-2)
6. Texas (10-2)
7. Florida State (10-2, ACC)

2004
IN
1. USC (12-0, P10)
2. Oklahoma (12-0, B12)
3. Auburn (12-0, SEC)
4. Texas (10-1, WC)
OUT
5. California (10-1)
6. Utah (11-0, MWC)

2005
IN
1. USC (12-0, P10)
2. Texas (12-0, B12)
3. Penn State (10-1, B10)
4. Ohio State (9-2, WC)
OUT
5. Oregon (10-1)
6. Notre Dame (9-2)
7. Georgia (10-2, SEC)

2006
IN
1. Ohio State (12-0, B10)
2. Florida (12-1, SEC)
3. Michigan (11-1, WC)
5. USC (10-2, P10)
OUT
4. LSU (10-2)
6. Louisville (11-1, BE)

2007
IN
1. Ohio State (11-1, B10)
2. LSU (11-2, SEC)
3. Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC)
4. Oklahoma (11-2, B12)
OUT
5. Georgia (10-2)
6. Missouri (11-2)

2008
IN
1. Oklahoma (12-1, B12)
2. Florida (12-1, SEC)
3. Texas (11-1, WC)
5. USC (11-1, P10)
OUT
4. Alabama (12-1)
6. Utah (12-0, MWC)

2009
IN
1. Alabama (13-0, SEC)
2. Texas (13-0, B12)
3. Cincinnati (12-0, BE)
4. TCU (12-0, MWC)
OUT
5. Florida (12-1)
6. Boise State (13-0, WAC)

2010
IN
1. Auburn (13-0, SEC)
2. Oregon (12-0, P10)
3. TCU (12-0, MWC)
4. Stanford (11-1, WC)
OUT
5. Wisconsin (11-1, B10)
6. Ohio State (11-1)

2011
IN
1. LSU (13-0, SEC)
2. Alabama (11-1, WC)
3. Oklahoma State (11-1, B12)
5. Oregon (11-2, P12)
OUT
4. Stanford (11-1)
6. Arkansas (10-2)
10. Wisconsin (11-2, B10)

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 31, 10:13=A0pm, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:14=A0pm, "Kyle T. Jones" >
>>
>> > The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two =
>other >champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. =A0Another team from the sec=
> will >probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are eas=

>ily the best >teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
>>
>> IFYPFY
>
>if two SEC teams are in and then win their way into the title game
>then fine. I have no problem with that.

But you seem to have a problem proving you are not a lying SoB about
my statements on military service. If you just admitted you were wrong
it would save me some time.

Hugh

[J.C. Watts]

Do you need a committee to determine four teams?

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:46:20 -0700 (PDT), unclejr <wat...@kenyon.edu>
wrote:

>If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly =
>based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a=
> beauty contest. =20
>
>I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quali=
>ty of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking=
>. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, =
>if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get lit=
>tle to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit t=
>han a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.

I don't think the SEC would see a problem with that. The problem is
not whether the four best teams should play (up yours Delaney) but how
to pick them. Fine tune what you said and it works.

>If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some hon=
>esty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work=

> on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...

Why - when your earlier suggestions take care of the problem. obomma
should love Bama since they give one or two little schools their
biggest payday in history each year. "They ain't heavy, Father, they
are our brothers." That's the kind of socialism that works -
voluntary.

The Big TEAT and PAC whatever play patsies each year but they are in
the same conference and not little schools. Buncha bullies.

Hugh

[Kyle T. Jones]

Thanks for the info - I don't see much controversy across the board, do
you? I mean, there's always gonna be someone left out - even in a 68
team NCAA basketball tourney, someone #@$%^es about not making it - but
I don't see any huge controversies like we've had with the straight
BCSCG a couple times.

Cheers.

[Seapig]

I'd prefer it - have people talk it out to determine whether it really
makes sense to have Team A ahead of Team B, rather than just blindly
following some formula. The committee probably wouldn't have to be as
big as what they have for basketball, and wouldn't run up as big a
room service bill, with fewer teams to look at.

[Seapig]

On Jun 2, 5:54 am, "Kyle T. Jones"

My pleasure, it was fun to take a little walk down memory lane.

I think the controversy gets turned down a bit when it becomes an
argument between #4 and #5, rather than between #2 and #3. The
distinctions become fuzzier when we're comparing 1 and 2 loss teams
instead of 0 and 1 loss teams, but I think there will be less outrage
when it's a slightly lower quality of team getting the shaft.

One thing I noticed is that this format wouldn't have done much for
the non-AQ conferences, aside from a couple of appearances by TCU.
Utah and Boise still would have been on the outside looking in.

[That Don Guy]

J.C. Watts wrote:

> Do you need a committee to determine four teams?

Yes - and see men's volleyball for an example of how heated the
discussions can get, although that was mainly because they were
arguing over which three powerhouses at the time (USC, UCLA,
Pepperdine) got the two spots not guaranteed to "eastern" teams.

You also need the committee to seed the teams. If there is a definite
drop between the 3 and 4 seeds, it could be very important.

Then again, you already have two committees playing a major part in
deciding who gets into the BCS Championship Game - the coaches in the
USA Today poll, and the voters in the Harris poll.

-- Don

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:38:33 AM UTC-7, J.C. Watts wrote:

> Do you need a committee to determine four teams?

Current state of college football?

Yes.

Mike

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:02:00 PM UTC-7, Seapig wrote:

> One thing I noticed is that this format wouldn't have done much for
> the non-AQ conferences, aside from a couple of appearances by TCU.
> Utah and Boise still would have been on the outside looking in.

Then get rid of them. Create an FBS-II if you have to, but if they're never going to play for the title in any reasoned scenario, there is no use ranking them.

Mike

[Antonio Veranos]

[darkst...@gmail.com, darkst...@gmail.com]
[Sat, 2 Jun 2012 20:54:26 -0700 (PDT)]

: > One thing I noticed is that this format wouldn't have done much for
: > the non-AQ conferences, aside from a couple of appearances by TCU.
: > Utah and Boise still would have been on the outside looking in.
:
: Then get rid of them. Create an FBS-II if you have to

Try not to be quite so ridiculous. There are dozens of teams who
wouldn't have made it into the championship final four in any given
format... just as there are in the basketball tournament, etc.

Your thirst for drama really makes you look foolish a lot of the time.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

You know what it is, and your blind acceptance of the way sport is makes you an idiot, like most sports fans.

Never again will a team outside the chosen conferences (however many or few there are) play for the national title without the NCAA stepping in on FBS football.

Mike

[Antonio Veranos]

[darkst...@gmail.com, darkst...@gmail.com]
[Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:14:16 -0700 (PDT)]

: Never again will a team outside the chosen conferences (however many or few there are) play for the national title without the NCAA stepping in on FBS football.

*snicker*

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:14:16 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com wrote:

>Never again will a team outside the chosen conferences (however many or few there are) play for the national title without the NCAA stepping in on FBS football.
>
>Mike

Hit Delaney on the head with a 2 x 4 and recognize the top 4 teams.
That way the Boysy, Utah, Michigan, Ohio State teams might be selected
to play in a meaningful bowl once or twice a decade.

No system is perfect but if you want to watch the best teams play, the
choice is easy. If you don't want to watch the best teams play (well,
there are too many ways to say "stick it" to post them all here).

No, Bama won't be one of the four every year, but they were the best
last year.

Hugh

[Antonio Veranos]

[J. Hugh Sullivan, Ea...@bellsouth.net]
[Sun, 03 Jun 2012 13:36:05 GMT]

: No, Bama won't be one of the four every year, but they were the best
: last year.

They might have been, but we weren't allowed to find out.

[Wolfie]

"Antonio Veranos" wrote

> [J. Hugh Sullivan, Ea...@bellsouth.net]

>: No, Bama won't be one of the four every year, but they were the best
>: last year.

> They might have been, but we weren't allowed to find out.

Nah, we already know they weren't good enough to
win their division, so they couldn't have been the
best last year.

THE REGULAR SEASON IS THE PLAYOFFS!!!!!! (Or
so they say...)

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

That's what you get when you allow the experts to pick the teams. It's
just not fair to let people who know what they are talking about pick
the teams.

Hugh

[Antonio Veranos]

[J. Hugh Sullivan, Ea...@bellsouth.net]
[Sun, 03 Jun 2012 16:03:10 GMT]

: >: No, Bama won't be one of the four every year, but they were the best
: >: last year.
: >
: >They might have been, but we weren't allowed to find out.
:
: That's what you get when you allow the experts to pick the teams. It's
: just not fair to let people who know what they are talking about pick
: the teams.

You could at least admit that the experts couldn't agree. If they could
have, there'd have been no controversy at all. Given that there was a
good bit of controversy, and Alabama came out ahead within it, one might
normally expect that you could at least not deny that it existed.

[michael anderson]

I don't recall that much controversy......the controversy that was
there centered around "but it's a rematch" or "but they didnt win
their conference"......seeing as how Alabama was FAVORED in the game
against LSU, I don't think there was a lot of disagreement over who
the best teams were to be in the bcs title game.

One could say, even with a 16 team playoff or whatever, that we really
never "know" who the best team truly is. Whatever. You play within
the system you have.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

What I saw was both polls agreeing. That's my answer to any
"controversy" that existed - other than the outcome (absolute
domination) of the game, that is.

The coaches of several schools who had not seen Bama play, out of
loyalty to their school, but no data, said before the game their
school should play LSU. They combined with several Bama haters to tout
other teams.

Two people who went to different schools create controversy. Was the
situation unusual? Yes! Was it unique? Probably!

Hugh

[darkst...@gmail.com]

At this point, we really don't need the BCS (nor five of it's conferences, at this point) to see the best teams play. They either play in the regular season or in Atlanta.

Three years out of the past four or five, both of the top two have been SEC.

Mike

[darkst...@gmail.com]

Laugh it up, fuzzball, but I just stated the entire actual intent of the BCS and all succeeding non-NCAA title scenarios.

Mike

[Antonio Veranos]

[darkst...@gmail.com, darkst...@gmail.com]
[Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:07:02 -0700 (PDT)]

: > : Never again will a team outside the chosen conferences (however many or few there are) play for the national title without the NCAA stepping in on FBS football.
: >
: > *snicker*
:
: Laugh it up, fuzzball, but I just stated the entire actual intent of the BCS and all succeeding non-NCAA title scenarios.

No, you just shared a look into your deluded fantasy world.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

Fantasy world? What -- the games are legitimate and the athletes play fairly??

You get the same offer I gave MG.

Mike

[addre...@invalid.invalid]

"J.C. Watts" <jone...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> You do realize, that RPI in college basketball is hardly a universally
> accepted measure right? And that is the inherent problem with
> computer rankings, etc. Someone is going to be unhappy that computers
> took "common sense" out of the equation.

That would be a better argument if there were any common sense in the
football rankings.

--
GS Rider

[Thomas R. Kettler]

In article
<340028942360981054.850301...@news.eternal-septem
ber.org>,

There is certainly common cents (as well as dollars) in the football
ratings.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.