It seems to me like this year there has been more public disdain for the BCS in the sports media and among coaches than in previous years. Back in '03, everyone heard the hue and cry over USC getting "screwed" over not getting in the BCS NC game, though that was mitigated by ahem, "winning" the AP championship. Then again, in '04 no one batted an eye when undefeated AU got screwed out of an opportunity to compete for the NC. But now fast-forward to '06, and Mich. got screwed, IMO, for their chance at a NC b/c they lost a popularity contest among voters who didn't want to see a rematch. (Of course, getting shelacked by USC didn't help their claim). NOW there's an uproar in the national sports media about the unfairness of the system, and coaches are publicly complaining about the system that fans have been disgusted with for years, when in past seasons, all they would say in response were "coachspeak" responses like, "We gotta concentrate on our next opponent" and "we still have a really good football team." Now with BSU beating OU in a spectacular game, the announcers wondered on live national television why a dark horse team like BSU shouldn't get a shot at the NC and furthered the case for a playoff. It seems to me like a lot of momentum is building for a playoff sytem that hasn't been there in recent years. Now I'm a realist and acknowledge the fact that the BCS has contractual commitments until 2010, but now it feels like there's a much better shot of getting a playoff system in my lifetime than there has been in the past, especially if UF pulls off the upset.
I keep hoping that we get some sort of playoff system beyond the lousy 2-team system we have now. Here's what we are most likely to get sooner than anything else: "The +1 System": Normal bowl games would happen, with the only restriction being that the #1 and #2 teams would NOT play each other. Then, approximately a week after the bowls, the then-#1 and #2 teams would play in a championship game. A better system (in my opinion) would be one of the following: "4-team playoff": Simple - #1 vs. #4 on January 1st, and #2 vs. #3 also on January 1st (great double-header there!). The winners play about a week later for the championship. "6-team playoff": Base this off of the NFL's conference playoff system - top two teams get a bye week, the other 4 play around Christmas in existing bowl locations, then the winners advance to face #1 and #2 on January 1st (following the 4-team playoff above). "8-team playoff": Just like the 6-team playoff, with games around Christmas, except no bye weeks for any team. So #1 vs. #8, etc. Then follow the 4-team playoff system above. "16-team playoff": I'd play the first round at the home field of the higher-ranked teams (#1-#8). Then follow the 8-team playoff above. One thing I'd do no matter what (even if we don't get anything better than what we have now) is to change the BCS ranking system to get rid of the human voters completely. Put a bunch of smart/knowledgable computer and football people in a room and hash out the most unbiased way of ranking teams based on what happens on the field, and use that system. A team's pre-season ranking shouldn't mean anything - how well they play, and who they beat, should determine their ranking.
I never understood why they went to the current format after the '03 season where human polls account for 2/3 of the total ranking. Not that the old format was perfect, but with enough tweaking something decent could have been hammered out. The coaches' poll isn't exactly reputable with reports of assistants doing the actual voting/not watching all the games, etc. I don't think I need to get into how the Harris poll is a joke. Now look at what we got for the BCS NC picture: computers can't figure out who #2 is, so voters ultimately had the final say. If humans have that much say in the final results, why have the BCS at all? Why not just go back to the old poll system to determine a NC? To be honest, I'm doubtful that any computer system, much less the aggregate system in place that often comes up with absolutely outlandish rankings, can get everything right. For the time being, I'd be perfectly happy with a hybrid BCS/playoff system, where the BCS is used to establish the top 4, 6, 8, 16, or however many teams you want, and assigns the seeds. Then you take those teams and stick them in a playoff scenario. The groundwork has already been laid for a +1 system with the extra BCS bowl, and while I don't think this is the ideal scenario, I think progress will have to be made incrementally, as long as the BCS in its current form is abandoned forever.
I think we need a system where there are no freaking polls. Any system where some human not participating in the game itself has any say so on who plays who and when in the playoffs will be fraudulent and biased at best. Any system where a computer decides who deserves to go and who doesn't is deeply flawed and in need of immediate replacement. A +1 would not work more often than it would. First off, the "BCS" schools would never allow schools like Boise a legit shot at it, so in years like this one you would end up with: OSU (0 losses) Fla (1 loss) UM (1 loss) then, LSU, USC, ND, Louisville, OU, WVU, all have 2 losses. who ya gonna take?
I agree that it's a problem, and it's certainly not my ideal playoff situation. What I'm saying is that a decisive step should be taken now to sever ties with the current BCS system. It may take several years before the necessary infrastructure for a full Div I-A (at least 16 teams) playoff is put in place, assuming that the people in power are all on board with a playoff system. After all, as it is now, a 16-team playoff would require 4 additional games to the 12-game regular season. That would be absolutely grueling for the players. This means that fundamental schedule changes would have to take place, such as the elimination of conference championship games. Hell, the NCAA can't even implement consistent nationwide standards for instant replay in the course of ONE year. But in the interim, a smaller-scale playoff like the +1 can, at the very least, eliminate a situation as in '03, where the #1-ranked team is kept out of the NC game. I don't see how a +1 could actually make things worse, since the Boise State's of college fb will never have a BCS NC shot under the present system unless there were extremely freaky circumstances. If college fb adopted an all-or-nothing scenario, where no playoff can take place until it includes a 16+ team bracket, it would be even more likely that we'd be stuck with the BCS rather than a playoff, since it's the status quo, no one wants to invest the time or money to establish a full-scale playoff, undermine the value of the bowls, academics, or any other BS argument that the BCS backers give.
I don't think the BC$ will be replaced with $ome type of playoff $y$tem for the $imple fact that there'$ too much too loo$e for certain affiliate$......
I think I $ee what you're getting at. :lol: Actually, I would think a playoff would generate a huge amount of money for the schools involved. Conferences can also stick their hands in the cookie jar by getting a cut of the schools' earnings. Also, the traditional big BCS bowls could host 2nd or 3rd round games (in a 16 team system), and the quality of teams in the 2nd-3rd tier bowls wouldn't be horribly compromised unless a very large number of teams were involved in the playoff (like 32, or 64), which would be a logistical nightmare anyway. Bowl sponsors are happy, TV's happy with extra games, schools are happy with $$$ and exposure since the silly conference restrictions and at-large bid politics are gone. The only big money-loser I can think of is getting rid of conf. championship games, but conferences come out winners with the extra games IMO, not to mention the extra money and publicity that would come about if there were say, an all-SEC championship game, or if 2 of the 4 semi-final teams were out of the Big East.
I don't know the details of the current computer polls, but it would seem to be possible to come up with an unbiased, understandable algorithm that could be used to rank teams. What I come up with is a system where a team gets a point for winning at home, 1.5 points for winning on the road, loses a point for losing on the road, and loses 1.5 points for losing at home. Then at the end of the season, if you have beaten a team with a better final record, you get an extra point for those games, and if you lose to a team with a worse record you lose an extra point. Or instead of that last part, you'd compare your team's point total with each of your opponent's point totals, and you'd get or lose points based upon whether their point total is higher or lower than yours. Throw in something that factors in your opponents' opponents somewhat, and I'd bet it'd be a good starting point for an unbiased ranking system. I'd give zero points for beating a Div I-AA team, and losing to such a team would mean you'd have zero chance of making the playoffs. This would hopefully cut out teams scheduling such opponents completely.
I figured you'd get it. :thumb: I've never cared enough to read who gets the money and all that but I'm like you and would think the top schools would still benefit but I guess with only, let's say, 8 teams it would cut a lot of schools out. Even the lesser bowl payouts are a lot of money for the smaller schools.
It's a nice start, but there are still a lot of intangibles that wouldn't factor into your algorithm. For instance, the 1-1.5 point drop for a loss makes no distinction between, say, a tight game that ends 43-42 in OT or a 50-0 blowout. Others, like the horrendous officiating that costs games that we're all familiar with, wouldn't be considered by any algorithm. That's the double-edged sword of human polls: human beings CAN take the non-quantifiable factors into account, BUT they're susceptible to bias, as we know. IMHO, it would be exceptionally difficult for a single algorithm to take most of the relevant circumstances surrounding a W or L into account. I do like that under your system, winning or losing on the road is weighted differently than home wins/losses.
