1. SEC (5.036)
2. Big XII (4.739)
3. Big Ten (4.696)
4. Big East (4.663)
5. Pac 10 (4.598)
6. ACC (4.580)
7. Mountain West (4.126)
8. WAC (3.747)
9. C-USA (3.300)
10. Sun Belt (3.167)
11. MAC (2.921)
Friday, December 7, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Anyone Have an Idea for a Playoff?
It seems every year about this time there is no shortage of ideas and opinions about how to implement a playoff or how to integrate one into the current system.
The problem is there’s no one with a voice or the power to make that change who actually wants to see a playoff for college football. The best chance for that came earlier this year when Florida’s athletic director, Bernie Machen, was clamoring for a playoff and had a proposal to support it.
For his efforts, he was swatted away like an annoying nat and forced to issue a statement in support of the BCS as if he had a gun pointed to his head. For anyone hoping the debacle of the BCS this season will have any impact on a playoff I don't recommend that you hold your breath.
In all likelihood the best we will see is yet another bowl game under what they will call the Plus One model. It appears the “next tweak” in the system will be to keep adding games under the BCS umbrella. Perhaps after 15 or 20 more years of these fiascos we’ll eventually have enough games after the BCS bowls to actually call it a playoff.
Since everyone seems to have an idea for a playoff, why not here as well? The opinion here is that any playoff that doesn’t include all 11 conference champions lacks two of the overarchign principles of collegiate athletics: equality and opportunity. The equality equation doesn’t need expanding upon except possibly for those powers that be who believe that good football only resides in the conference in which they are affiliated.
The opportunity factor is an important consideration; however, if and when we ever actually get to a playoff. If Presidents are truly concerned about the academic nature of the so called “student” athlete then a playoff that includes each conference champion is a good place to start in support of their own position. Why restrict the opportunity for young men to play for a championship and compete in a playoff atmosphere by limiting it four or even eight teams? It could be a once in a lifetime opportunity lost for a number of kids and for what reason? It’s hard to understand some of these recommendations - not the least of which is the Plus-One model.
If the concern is to avoid the creation of a NFL-style playoff that’s all about the bottom line then any playoff recommendation that doesn’t include the conference champions - whether by a coach, journalist, president, or anyone else – should be considered a non-starter. The system should be inclusive not restrictive which is what baffles the mind when you peer deep into the BCS.
From there, the debate can begin on what it should look like. The preferred method for this site would be to see five at-large teams after the 11 conference champions. Sixteen is the perfect bracket number and anything larger than that might take the season longer than it needs to be.
Of course the debate would be similar to the NCAA basketball tournament on the teams that just barely got in and the ones who were on the bubble that didn’t. The only difference here is that you would still need to have such an incredibly fabulous season that your five at-large teams would almost always come from a pool of the remaining top 15 ranked teams that probably have no more than two or three losses at the most. You wouldn’t have at-large teams getting in that were barely over .500 like you do in basketball.
This is also where the BCS system could actually be used. It’s not that the BCS from a modeling perspective is a terrible design. The BCS is worthless in its current state, because it’s simply not a playoff. The BCS could be used to take the highest rated programs after the conference champs were pulled out. Any arguments from those left out would fall on deaf ears, because each team will have had the opportunity for inclusion by winning their conference. That’s the added benefit of allowing all 11 conference champs, because there would be no excuses. You don’t win the conference title; you don’t get the guaranteed playoff appearance. The BCS could also be used for seeding the teams. Using the rankings from the D-I20 Register here’s what the first round would look like.
#16 Central Michigan at
#1 Ohio State
#9 Kansas at
#8 USC
#12 BYU at
#5 Georgia
#10 West Virginia at
#7 Missouri
#14 UCF at
#3 Virginia Tech
#11 Arizona State at
#6 Oklahoma
#13 Illinois at
#4 Hawaii
#15 Florida Atlantic at
#2 LSU
Using the Register you will note only one of the at-large teams had more than two losses and less than 10 wins.
#4 Georgia (10-2)
#7 Missouri (11-2)
#9 Kansas (11-1)
#11 Arizona State (10-2)
#13 Illinois (9-3)
Using the BCS, the playoff would look like this…
#16 Florida Atlantic at
#1 Ohio State
#9 West Virginia at
#8 Kansas
#12 Florida at
#5 Georgia
#10 Hawaii at
#7 USC
#14 UCF at
#3 Virginia Tech
#11 Arizona State at
#6 Missouri
#13 BYU at
#4 Oklahoma
#15 Central Michigan at
#2 LSU
The problem is there’s no one with a voice or the power to make that change who actually wants to see a playoff for college football. The best chance for that came earlier this year when Florida’s athletic director, Bernie Machen, was clamoring for a playoff and had a proposal to support it.
For his efforts, he was swatted away like an annoying nat and forced to issue a statement in support of the BCS as if he had a gun pointed to his head. For anyone hoping the debacle of the BCS this season will have any impact on a playoff I don't recommend that you hold your breath.
In all likelihood the best we will see is yet another bowl game under what they will call the Plus One model. It appears the “next tweak” in the system will be to keep adding games under the BCS umbrella. Perhaps after 15 or 20 more years of these fiascos we’ll eventually have enough games after the BCS bowls to actually call it a playoff.
Since everyone seems to have an idea for a playoff, why not here as well? The opinion here is that any playoff that doesn’t include all 11 conference champions lacks two of the overarchign principles of collegiate athletics: equality and opportunity. The equality equation doesn’t need expanding upon except possibly for those powers that be who believe that good football only resides in the conference in which they are affiliated.
The opportunity factor is an important consideration; however, if and when we ever actually get to a playoff. If Presidents are truly concerned about the academic nature of the so called “student” athlete then a playoff that includes each conference champion is a good place to start in support of their own position. Why restrict the opportunity for young men to play for a championship and compete in a playoff atmosphere by limiting it four or even eight teams? It could be a once in a lifetime opportunity lost for a number of kids and for what reason? It’s hard to understand some of these recommendations - not the least of which is the Plus-One model.
If the concern is to avoid the creation of a NFL-style playoff that’s all about the bottom line then any playoff recommendation that doesn’t include the conference champions - whether by a coach, journalist, president, or anyone else – should be considered a non-starter. The system should be inclusive not restrictive which is what baffles the mind when you peer deep into the BCS.
From there, the debate can begin on what it should look like. The preferred method for this site would be to see five at-large teams after the 11 conference champions. Sixteen is the perfect bracket number and anything larger than that might take the season longer than it needs to be.
Of course the debate would be similar to the NCAA basketball tournament on the teams that just barely got in and the ones who were on the bubble that didn’t. The only difference here is that you would still need to have such an incredibly fabulous season that your five at-large teams would almost always come from a pool of the remaining top 15 ranked teams that probably have no more than two or three losses at the most. You wouldn’t have at-large teams getting in that were barely over .500 like you do in basketball.
This is also where the BCS system could actually be used. It’s not that the BCS from a modeling perspective is a terrible design. The BCS is worthless in its current state, because it’s simply not a playoff. The BCS could be used to take the highest rated programs after the conference champs were pulled out. Any arguments from those left out would fall on deaf ears, because each team will have had the opportunity for inclusion by winning their conference. That’s the added benefit of allowing all 11 conference champs, because there would be no excuses. You don’t win the conference title; you don’t get the guaranteed playoff appearance. The BCS could also be used for seeding the teams. Using the rankings from the D-I20 Register here’s what the first round would look like.
#16 Central Michigan at
#1 Ohio State
#9 Kansas at
#8 USC
#12 BYU at
#5 Georgia
#10 West Virginia at
#7 Missouri
#14 UCF at
#3 Virginia Tech
#11 Arizona State at
#6 Oklahoma
#13 Illinois at
#4 Hawaii
#15 Florida Atlantic at
#2 LSU
Using the Register you will note only one of the at-large teams had more than two losses and less than 10 wins.
#4 Georgia (10-2)
#7 Missouri (11-2)
#9 Kansas (11-1)
#11 Arizona State (10-2)
#13 Illinois (9-3)
Using the BCS, the playoff would look like this…
#16 Florida Atlantic at
#1 Ohio State
#9 West Virginia at
#8 Kansas
#12 Florida at
#5 Georgia
#10 Hawaii at
#7 USC
#14 UCF at
#3 Virginia Tech
#11 Arizona State at
#6 Missouri
#13 BYU at
#4 Oklahoma
#15 Central Michigan at
#2 LSU
Monday, December 3, 2007
BCS: What's Different 10 Years Later?
The D-I20 Register may have produced the exact same one versus two match-up as the BCS, but I can tell you that it takes no joy in that finding. But it has – perhaps even better than last year – shown that any knuckle-head can come up with something that replicates the BCS and do it so simplistically that even the Cave Men could do it.
If you’re reading this you know by now that the D-I20 Register was created more to illustrate and define the BCS’ ineptitude for determining the participants for the national championship, but there is great pride in ridiculing it as well.
With that said, the question everyone needs to ask is, if some guy with an excel spread sheet can come up with the same one versus two match-up adding some “5’s” and “2.35’s” together haven’t they exhausted every angle with the tweaking and the nudging? The bottom line is that no matter what formula you adjust there’s always going to be an overlooked scenario that leaves the computers fried and smoking.
It really does baffle the mind that the powers that be believe this is the best system for crowning a champion. Like those before it, the Bowl Coalition and the Bowl Alliance, the BCS will eventually collapse upon itself and we can only hope when it does that those same powers that be do not force yet another inept system that mocks us back.
Perhaps the most revealing irony to this whole BCS and computer formula non-sense is they were completely irrelevant this year. The pollsters, voters or whatever you want to call them are the ones who decided it was LSU instead of Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, USC or even Hawaii (heaven forbid they let someone play for a national championship who is not esteemed to be a member of the chosen conferences). Virginia Tech finished third only .01 points behind LSU, but almost no one voted them that high. Had voters placed Virginia Tech number three they would have finished ahead of LSU in the BCS standings. So, we're all left scratching our heads wondering in the end how this season was any different than the pre-BCS years and why we have to be left once again with such a let down after this magnificent of a season.
To See the Final 2007 Rankings click here
Tomorrow, I will look at where a BCS-style system might actually be useful.
If you’re reading this you know by now that the D-I20 Register was created more to illustrate and define the BCS’ ineptitude for determining the participants for the national championship, but there is great pride in ridiculing it as well.
With that said, the question everyone needs to ask is, if some guy with an excel spread sheet can come up with the same one versus two match-up adding some “5’s” and “2.35’s” together haven’t they exhausted every angle with the tweaking and the nudging? The bottom line is that no matter what formula you adjust there’s always going to be an overlooked scenario that leaves the computers fried and smoking.
It really does baffle the mind that the powers that be believe this is the best system for crowning a champion. Like those before it, the Bowl Coalition and the Bowl Alliance, the BCS will eventually collapse upon itself and we can only hope when it does that those same powers that be do not force yet another inept system that mocks us back.
Perhaps the most revealing irony to this whole BCS and computer formula non-sense is they were completely irrelevant this year. The pollsters, voters or whatever you want to call them are the ones who decided it was LSU instead of Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, USC or even Hawaii (heaven forbid they let someone play for a national championship who is not esteemed to be a member of the chosen conferences). Virginia Tech finished third only .01 points behind LSU, but almost no one voted them that high. Had voters placed Virginia Tech number three they would have finished ahead of LSU in the BCS standings. So, we're all left scratching our heads wondering in the end how this season was any different than the pre-BCS years and why we have to be left once again with such a let down after this magnificent of a season.
To See the Final 2007 Rankings click here
Tomorrow, I will look at where a BCS-style system might actually be useful.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Final D-I20 Register Rankings
Perhaps no other year has exposed the inadequacy of the BCS than the 2007 season. As this college football season has unfolded, programs ranked either #1 or #2 lost ELEVEN times. There is no clear cut #1 nor is there a clear cut #2. The top 10 is filled with teams that are equally righteous for having an opportunity to compete for a national championship but only two teams will be handed that right. With no playoff, the D-I20 Register remains to illustrate the BCS' ineffectiveness to determine college football's postseason, as the final rankings for the 2007 season are unveiled.
Team Score
1. Ohio State (6.667)
2. LSU (6.371)
3. Virginia Tech (6.251)
T-4. Hawaii (6.238)
T-4. Georgia (6.238)
6. Oklahoma (6.229)
7. Missouri (6.227)
8. USC (6.202)
9. Kansas (6.106)
10. West Virginia (5.879)
11. Arizona State (5.875)
12. BYU (5.785)
13. Illinois (5.738)
14. Florida (5.704)
15. Tennessee (5.687)
16. Virginia (5.640)
17. Boise State (5.550)
18. Texas (5.523)
19. Wisconsin (5.506)
20. Boston College (5.452)
21. Connecticut (5.402)
22. South Florida (5.379)
23. Clemson (5.352)
24. Oregon State (5.306)
25. Cincinnati (5.302)
26. Florida State (5.250)
27. Arkansas (5.235)
28. Wake Forest (5.221)
29. Oregon (5.169)
30. Auburn (5.150)
31. Kentucky (5.117)
32. Michigan (5.069)
33. Utah (5.065)
34. UCF (5.027)
35. Texas Tech (5.017)
36. Air Force (4.900)
37. Penn State (4.885)
38. Miss State (4.865)
39. Texas A&M (4.850)
40. Michigan State (4.800)
41. New Mexico (4.733)
42. Fresno State (4.698)
43. South Carolina (4.621)
44. Troy (4.619)
45. TCU (4.592)
46. Tulsa (4.567)
47. Bowling Green (4.554)
48. Rutgers (4.546)
49. Oklahoma State (4.519)
50. Georgia Tech (4.481)
51. Colorado (4.410)
52. Florida Atlantic (4.373)
53. Indiana (4.365)
54. Navy (4.355)
55. Alabama (4.348)
56. Houston (4.329)
57. Purdue (4.294)
58. East Carolina (4.292)
59. UCLA (4.263)
60. Maryland (4.231)
61. Louisville (4.152)
62. Ball State (4.150)
63. Central Michigan (4.123)
64. Vanderbilt (4.090)
65. California (4.079)
66. Arizona (4.065)
67. Pittsburgh (4.052)
68. Iowa (4.038)
69. North Carolina State (4.029)
70. Northwestern (3.983)
71. Nebraska (3.958)
72. Washington State (3.931)
73. Louisiana-Monroe (3.873)
74. Kansas State (3.865)
75. Southern Miss (3.852)
76. Nevada (3.848)
77. Miami (3.681)
78. Memphis (3.677)
79. Miami OH (3.663)
80. Washington (3.608)
81. Ohio (3.558)
82. Wyoming (3.528)
83. Stanford (3.485)
84. Middle Tennessee (3.435)
85. Louisiana Tech (3.415)
86. San Jose State (3.400)
87. San Diego State (3.383)
88. North Carolina (3.342)
89. Western Michigan (3.333)
90. Buffalo (3.277)
91. Western Kentucky (3.265)
92. Iowa State (3.179)
93. Toledo (3.065)
94. Notre Dame (3.050)
95. Akron (3.033)
96. Arkansas State (3.023)
97. Ole Miss (3.008)
98. Baylor (2.988)
99. UTEP (2.881)
100. Temple (2.858)
101. Colorado State (2.785)
102. Eastern Michigan (2.723)
103. Tulane (2.698)
104. Army (2.630)
105. Syracuse (2.588)
106. New Mexico St. (2.558)
107. Louisiana-Lafayette (2.519)
108. Marshall (2.508)
109. Kent State (2.435)
110. Rice (2.396)
111. UNLV (2.367)
112. Utah State (2.360)
113. Minnesota (2.308)
114. UAB (2.060)
115. Duke (2.033)
116. North Texas (1.906)
117. Northern Illinois (1.754)
118. Idaho (1.656)
119. SMU (1.515)
120. Florida International (1.492)
Team Score
1. Ohio State (6.667)
2. LSU (6.371)
3. Virginia Tech (6.251)
T-4. Hawaii (6.238)
T-4. Georgia (6.238)
6. Oklahoma (6.229)
7. Missouri (6.227)
8. USC (6.202)
9. Kansas (6.106)
10. West Virginia (5.879)
11. Arizona State (5.875)
12. BYU (5.785)
13. Illinois (5.738)
14. Florida (5.704)
15. Tennessee (5.687)
16. Virginia (5.640)
17. Boise State (5.550)
18. Texas (5.523)
19. Wisconsin (5.506)
20. Boston College (5.452)
21. Connecticut (5.402)
22. South Florida (5.379)
23. Clemson (5.352)
24. Oregon State (5.306)
25. Cincinnati (5.302)
26. Florida State (5.250)
27. Arkansas (5.235)
28. Wake Forest (5.221)
29. Oregon (5.169)
30. Auburn (5.150)
31. Kentucky (5.117)
32. Michigan (5.069)
33. Utah (5.065)
34. UCF (5.027)
35. Texas Tech (5.017)
36. Air Force (4.900)
37. Penn State (4.885)
38. Miss State (4.865)
39. Texas A&M (4.850)
40. Michigan State (4.800)
41. New Mexico (4.733)
42. Fresno State (4.698)
43. South Carolina (4.621)
44. Troy (4.619)
45. TCU (4.592)
46. Tulsa (4.567)
47. Bowling Green (4.554)
48. Rutgers (4.546)
49. Oklahoma State (4.519)
50. Georgia Tech (4.481)
51. Colorado (4.410)
52. Florida Atlantic (4.373)
53. Indiana (4.365)
54. Navy (4.355)
55. Alabama (4.348)
56. Houston (4.329)
57. Purdue (4.294)
58. East Carolina (4.292)
59. UCLA (4.263)
60. Maryland (4.231)
61. Louisville (4.152)
62. Ball State (4.150)
63. Central Michigan (4.123)
64. Vanderbilt (4.090)
65. California (4.079)
66. Arizona (4.065)
67. Pittsburgh (4.052)
68. Iowa (4.038)
69. North Carolina State (4.029)
70. Northwestern (3.983)
71. Nebraska (3.958)
72. Washington State (3.931)
73. Louisiana-Monroe (3.873)
74. Kansas State (3.865)
75. Southern Miss (3.852)
76. Nevada (3.848)
77. Miami (3.681)
78. Memphis (3.677)
79. Miami OH (3.663)
80. Washington (3.608)
81. Ohio (3.558)
82. Wyoming (3.528)
83. Stanford (3.485)
84. Middle Tennessee (3.435)
85. Louisiana Tech (3.415)
86. San Jose State (3.400)
87. San Diego State (3.383)
88. North Carolina (3.342)
89. Western Michigan (3.333)
90. Buffalo (3.277)
91. Western Kentucky (3.265)
92. Iowa State (3.179)
93. Toledo (3.065)
94. Notre Dame (3.050)
95. Akron (3.033)
96. Arkansas State (3.023)
97. Ole Miss (3.008)
98. Baylor (2.988)
99. UTEP (2.881)
100. Temple (2.858)
101. Colorado State (2.785)
102. Eastern Michigan (2.723)
103. Tulane (2.698)
104. Army (2.630)
105. Syracuse (2.588)
106. New Mexico St. (2.558)
107. Louisiana-Lafayette (2.519)
108. Marshall (2.508)
109. Kent State (2.435)
110. Rice (2.396)
111. UNLV (2.367)
112. Utah State (2.360)
113. Minnesota (2.308)
114. UAB (2.060)
115. Duke (2.033)
116. North Texas (1.906)
117. Northern Illinois (1.754)
118. Idaho (1.656)
119. SMU (1.515)
120. Florida International (1.492)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)