The W
Views: 100869512
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.11.07 0917
The 7 - Football - AP Pulls out of the BCS
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(531 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
Mayhem
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 1494/3648
EXP: 14335059
For next: 73873

Since: 25.4.03
From: Nashville, TN

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#1 Posted on 21.12.04 1711.18
Reposted on: 21.12.11 1711.23

The already shaky BSC system took a big hit, as the Associated Press college football poll will no longer be a part of it, beginning next season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1951112
Promote this thread!
Broncolanche
Sujuk
Level: 63

Posts: 439/1008
EXP: 2072727
For next: 24436

Since: 2.6.03
From: Littleton, CO

Since last post: 1198 days
Last activity: 450 days
#2 Posted on 21.12.04 1732.32
Reposted on: 21.12.11 1732.53
This hopefully means we're one step closer to a playoff system.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 65

Posts: 339/1091
EXP: 2214847
For next: 120793

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2875 days
Last activity: 2603 days
#3 Posted on 21.12.04 2012.56
Reposted on: 21.12.11 2015.52
    Originally posted by Broncolanche
    This hopefully means we're one step closer to a playoff system.


But then the "student-athletes" won't be able to "study" for "exams". My prediction is that they'll just revamp the thing again because of the TV contracts already being in place and so forth.
Packman V2
Bratwurst
Level: 71

Posts: 199/1331
EXP: 3035192
For next: 131937

Since: 16.3.04
From: Albuquerque, NM

Since last post: 82 days
Last activity: 17 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on 21.12.04 2020.30
Reposted on: 21.12.11 2020.33
The BCS is dying a slow, miserable death...there is a god. LOL
Dutchie
Boerewors
Moderator
Level: 42

Posts: 171/386
EXP: 519046
For next: 2320

Since: 29.1.02
From: PA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#5 Posted on 21.12.04 2306.33
Reposted on: 21.12.11 2306.42
The AP, as quoted by this article: "This unauthorized use of the AP poll has harmed AP's reputation and interfered with AP's agreements with AP poll voters. To preserve its reputation for honesty and integrity, the AP is asking the BCS to discontinue its unauthorized use of the AP poll as a component of BCS rankings."

Underlying message: The BCS is a sham... but we're not telling you anything you didn't already know.

The idea of going to a selection committee may have some merit, as the people who profit from individual bowl games would theoretically have less say in the teams they get. Since in college basketball, the selection committee is just really for region and seedings, perhaps they would somehow assign an overall seeding to bowl-eligible teams? It would be nice to do away with this conference agreements; how many times do we have to watch the CapOne (nee Citrus) Bowl featuring the Big Ten #2 vs the SEC #2? There's only so many permutations of those teams. Having something totally random would possibly draw more interest than, as has been addressed in this forum, Hawaii being bound to the Hawaii Bowl whenever they've got a winning record.

Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the playoff boat. }Tangent{
But the argument from the BCS, coaches, university presidents, etc., about a playoff system interfering with finals is ridiculous. Other sports are able to travel for tournaments and games across semester breaks, and there's no uproar about final exam conflicts. But to stick to football, of the fifty-six teams playing in bowl games this postseason, only twenty-nine* will see more than half of their football players graduate.

Tops:
T1. Syracuse and BC, 78%
3.Notre Dame, 77%
4. Virginia, 75%

Cellar:
1. Pittsburgh, 31%
2. UTEP, 34%
3. Louisville, 35%

Average football student-athlete graduation rate of bowl teams*: 50.85%

That's right, let's not have a playoff system because the athletes would miss finals. Let's have them play in bowl games that, in 26 of 27 games, have absolutely no implication other than money earned and then graduate (on average) about half of these guys. Taking finals on time is so much more important than graduating. These rates do probably take into account the players who leave early for the pros, which I would expect to be higher atthe more "successful" schools. However, do more than half of these guys leave early? That seems a little high to attribute it all to that. I really hope the Coaches' Poll follows suit and starts this whole BcS thing toppling.

*Navy doesn't release graduation rates and is therefore not included in the math.

Sources: Click Here (bus.ucf.edu) (PDF) and Click Here (sports.espn.go.com)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4406/4700
EXP: 21665422
For next: 171240

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1303 days
Last activity: 1100 days
#6 Posted on 22.12.04 0629.54
Reposted on: 22.12.11 0633.05
With the BCS extended until 2010, there won't be a playoff until at least that time.

Tell you the truth, the computers may have more credibility than the writers anyway...
Mayhem
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 1496/3648
EXP: 14335059
For next: 73873

Since: 25.4.03
From: Nashville, TN

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#7 Posted on 22.12.04 0736.19
Reposted on: 22.12.11 0737.12

But doesn't this almost render the AP Poll irrelevant? Who's going to really pay attention to it anymore?
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 1535/2781
EXP: 9954750
For next: 45285

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 223 days
Last activity: 69 days
#8 Posted on 22.12.04 0758.10
Reposted on: 22.12.11 0759.01
    Originally posted by Mayhem

    But doesn't this almost render the AP Poll irrelevant? Who's going to really pay attention to it anymore?


The AP poll has been around a helluva lot longer than the ridiculous BCS. It's like how USC was voted nat'l champs last year, but LSU won the Big Gold Belt...er, Crystal Football awarded by the BCS.

Two champions, two titles...college football is SCREAMING for a unification match...er, game.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 132/2178
EXP: 6388278
For next: 4521

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 25.12.04 2328.44
Reposted on: 25.12.11 2328.44
You are all insane if you think this puts us closer to a playoff. It just pushes it farther away. The BCS may not be perfect, but it was changing and it was a step toward a playoff(that probably wouldn't have happened anyway).

Before the BCS we didn't even get number one vs number two that often. But then again, we didn't really care because the Rose Bowl was a more important goal to say a Pac Ten team than even a national title was. Or at least it was on equal ground. The BCS just made people crave a true champ, but you can't run a playoff like they other sports do because this isn't the same as those sports. They don't feel like listing all the reasons why, so they use the silly "finals" argument. At least I think that's what they are doing.

So let's deal with the real reasons it won't be the perfect solution everyone seems to think it will.

1. This isn't the NFL. The NFL has what 32 teams? They all play repeat games, 16 in total, against certain teams and enough other top and bottom teams that by the seasons end there really isn't a doubt about the few top teams in the league. Plus it makes it easy to divide into small divisions and set winners as playoff teams. NCAA Division 1 college football has over 114 teams. There is no way in hell with them all playing only 11 or 12 games that you can figure out how most teams really stack up against each other. Sure you can get a decent idea, but you can't do divisions because you don't have much interdivision play so it's not a good barometer. Which leads to the next point.

2. How are you going to pick playoff teams. Again, divisions don't work. You'd have teams from crap conferences with no chance in hell having to play the best team in the nation for no good reason. It's somewhat ok in basketball when number one plays number 16, but the chance of injury is much greater in football and it's a risk that shouldn't be taken for a game where the outcome would never, ever be in doubt. You know the saying, "that's why they play the games!". There would be no reason to play a game like that. So you have to use polls to pick the team. You think you get controversy this year with Auburn being left out? What about if you had to pick eight teams? Which would you pick and how many teams would have a legit claim to being left out? A hell of a lot more than one, that's for sure. Sixteen teams? The problem just gets worse.

3. I know what you're thinking. Well the other college football divisions do it and it works just fine. Yes, but who gives a rip if NorthWestEast New Carolina State gets left out of the division II playoffs? There's no money involved, no fans involved, no media caring. The uproar in division one would be huge, and the bitching would match if not exceed what we have now. College basketball solves this by picking 64 teams. No one cares what team 65 thinks. That's just not realistic for football. Way too many teams, way too many pointless games, way too much time.

4. The regular season is what makes college football what it is. We get names for every weekend these days it seems. We get them because every weekend there are huge games, rivalry or just great matchups, and one loss can be devastating for a season. The regular season is our playoffs, and the games mean so much more than regular season games in say the NFL. If we have a playoff, your favorite team losing a game doesn't really affect you as much cause hey they've still got a great shot at a playoff spot. It's that week to week, you can't slip up once so let it all hang out, attitude that makes college football great.

5. Back to the number of teams. Currently in the NFL or other divisions of college football, one team goes home a winner. The rest consider the season a failure for the most part. Not that there's anything wrong with that, especially in the NFL where they get paid to do this for a living. But with 114 plus college teams, most of these players are kids that will never play another down of football after they graduate. Allowing for the bowl system gives so many more of them a wonderful note to go out on. Maybe you don't care because you want that definitive number one. I do because I want the sport to be about fun and sport for sports sake. I know that's not really realistic, but we're close to that with bowls than we would be with playoffs. Back in the day that was all that mattered. Getting to a bowl game. It was a great thing for your team, no matter what bowl game. Do you realize out of the thirty some NFL teams there are still some that have not ever won the SuperBowl? It's like that in all major sports I think. With the much greater number of college teams, it's just ungodly for most of these schools to even dream about sniffing a national title, ever. But they can dream about a bowl game. That's attainable. That's wonderful. The more we focus on a national title, the less all the other bowl games mean.

I hear people complain about the BCS all the time, and no it's not perfect. I like the old way as I've said when there was no slice of any pie to fight over. But when these people complain and present their playoff ideas, they never truly address any of the above issues. They are all real and substantial.

As people that know me are well too aware of, I love FSU and always have. I think of what people would look back on their teams in the 90's as if we had a playoff then. The streak of 10 win seasons and top four finishes that was simply amazing. But only one national title. Would I still hold them in the same regard as it being such an amazing run? Or would it be like Atlanta Braves fans, always getting close but not winning it all often enough? If you change the focus, you change too much about the sport I love. Leave it be. Well at least revert it back to what it was before the BCS.

Oh and to end on a more cynical, can't get around it no matter how much you try note, there will be no change in college football because no matter how much you all complain, you haven't stopped watching or going to games. Ratings haven't gone done, money hasnt' stopped coming in. If those things don't happen, why the hell would they be motivated to make any changes?

Good God I feel like an old fogey now. Back in my day we blah blah blah. Anyway, think about it some more instead of just joining the "playoffs cause everyone else does it!" bandwagon.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1793/2108
EXP: 6639849
For next: 10841

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#10 Posted on 26.12.04 1548.57
Reposted on: 26.12.11 1550.58
YOu makle some good points in the above post, but I say you've either got to go back to the old way (which seems to make the most sense based on that post), or to a playoff system. My playoff system:

The winner of each of the big six conferences plus two wild cards. That way you can also go back to the Jan 1 rivalries, with set Division vs. Division bowl games on Jan 1. Rose Bowl would always still be Pac 10 vs. Big 10. Yes, that sometimes means you'd get #1 vs. #2 right way, but a) I think that's worth it to get the division rivalries back, b) you still come out with an Ultimate #1, and c) 1-8 in College Football isn't like 1-8 in the NFL. It's a lot more subjective, and as a result, making steady matchups takes away another layer of potential controversy, making up the 1-8 ranks.

You could have the Semis the weekend after the following weekend, and the Championship game be in the bye week between the NFL Division Championship and the Super Bowl.

With the big 6 Conference winners in there, that's probably going to be at most a #5 seed left out. I can't imagine 3 non big-6 conference teams having a legit claim to play for the National Championship after the regular season.

Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 2491/5229
EXP: 25952208
For next: 472482

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#11 Posted on 26.12.04 1932.26
Reposted on: 26.12.11 1934.31
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    So you have to use polls to pick the team. You think you get controversy this year with Auburn being left out? What about if you had to pick eight teams? Which would you pick and how many teams would have a legit claim to being left out? A hell of a lot more than one, that's for sure. Sixteen teams? The problem just gets worse.


I couldn't disagree more. The more teams in the playoffs, the less griping there can be.

One can make an argument for the #3 team being out of the two-team playoff. Same for the #9 in a eight-team playoff, but when you get to 16 teams, and more, you start running into three and four loss teams. It's hard to make an argument.

In the basketball field, has there EVER been a stink from the #66 seed for not getting in the field of 65??? I think not.

Look at the mock playoff selections that JayJayDean and I have setup. You start running into some middle-ground teams around the 16th seeds.

The BCS has always had a legitimacy problem, and with the AP pulling out they have a bigger problem. The selection committee is a good idea, because it's looking more like the basketball model, something the school presidents sued many moons ago to try and avoid.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1613/3428
EXP: 13775912
For next: 183778

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#12 Posted on 26.12.04 2018.10
Reposted on: 26.12.11 2022.43
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      So you have to use polls to pick the team. You think you get controversy this year with Auburn being left out? What about if you had to pick eight teams? Which would you pick and how many teams would have a legit claim to being left out? A hell of a lot more than one, that's for sure. Sixteen teams? The problem just gets worse.


    I couldn't disagree more. The more teams in the playoffs, the less griping there can be.

    One can make an argument for the #3 team being out of the two-team playoff. Same for the #9 in a eight-team playoff, but when you get to 16 teams, and more, you start running into three and four loss teams. It's hard to make an argument.

    In the basketball field, has there EVER been a stink from the #66 seed for not getting in the field of 65??? I think not.

    Look at the mock playoff selections that JayJayDean and I have setup. You start running into some middle-ground teams around the 16th seeds.

    The BCS has always had a legitimacy problem, and with the AP pulling out they have a bigger problem. The selection committee is a good idea, because it's looking more like the basketball model, something the school presidents sued many moons ago to try and avoid.


See, the number 66 team in college basketball will beat the number one team MAYBE once in a hundred billion years of playing each other three times a day every single day. The number 17, 18, 19, etc., teams in football, however, have a very good chance of beating the number one team. They have a much more legitimate gripe than a basketball team. And when you start widening the field to, say, 32 teams, you lessen the problem but now your playoffs are too big.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 133/2178
EXP: 6388278
For next: 4521

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 26.12.04 2133.08
Reposted on: 26.12.11 2137.32
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      So you have to use polls to pick the team. You think you get controversy this year with Auburn being left out? What about if you had to pick eight teams? Which would you pick and how many teams would have a legit claim to being left out? A hell of a lot more than one, that's for sure. Sixteen teams? The problem just gets worse.


    I couldn't disagree more. The more teams in the playoffs, the less griping there can be.

    One can make an argument for the #3 team being out of the two-team playoff. Same for the #9 in a eight-team playoff, but when you get to 16 teams, and more, you start running into three and four loss teams. It's hard to make an argument.

    In the basketball field, has there EVER been a stink from the #66 seed for not getting in the field of 65??? I think not.

    Look at the mock playoff selections that JayJayDean and I have setup. You start running into some middle-ground teams around the 16th seeds.

    The BCS has always had a legitimacy problem, and with the AP pulling out they have a bigger problem. The selection committee is a good idea, because it's looking more like the basketball model, something the school presidents sued many moons ago to try and avoid.


You're not thinking right here. Yes you run into a lot of three and four loss teams as you reach the middle teens in the rankings. But that's where more controversy comes in. Because there are usually a whole heck of a lot of teams with those records, and all of them would have a right to complain as all would have a much better chance of beating number one than number 66 would in basketball. In the Auburn example, they are the only team with a legit gripe, based on being undefeated and playing a tough schedule. There are rarely more than two or three teams undefeated at seasons end. Thus far fewer teams to complain about being left out than under a playoff.

As was said before, number 66 in basketball can't complain because 65 has never won, ever. But you can be damn sure 17 in football can beat number one sometimes. How is this taking care of the problem? It's not, it's just making it bigger.
Battlezone
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 466/696
EXP: 1202605
For next: 31272

Since: 27.2.03
From: Seattle, Washington

Since last post: 2179 days
Last activity: 230 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 26.12.04 2156.49
Reposted on: 26.12.11 2159.01

    One can make an argument for the #3 team being out of the two-team playoff. Same for the #9 in a eight-team playoff, but when you get to 16 teams, and more, you start running into three and four loss teams. It's hard to make an argument.

    In the basketball field, has there EVER been a stink from the #66 seed for not getting in the field of 65??? I think not.


Perhaps not, but with more teams, you run into the same problem in college hoops-teams getting in on reputation. I remember a situation a few years ago when North Carolina, a team with a sub-.500 conference record, got into the tournament over several other deserving teams. And the rationale was, well, they play in the Big Bad ACC, therefore they're better than Louisville, or whoever.

It might not be a situation where No. 66 is complaining, but it could create a situation where a 7-4 Notre Dame team gets in over an 11-1 Boise State, or whoever.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 2493/5229
EXP: 25952208
For next: 472482

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#15 Posted on 27.12.04 0057.03
Reposted on: 27.12.11 0059.01
A 7-4 ND would NEVER get in over an 11-1 Boise State.

Using the basketball model, conference champions get an automatic bid, and then the RPI formula is used to guide a selection committee to select the rest of the field. Look familiar?

Boo-whooo, a 25 seed is left out and they just have as many losses as the 24. If they make the BCS look like the RPI, they will see just why they were left out.

The RPI is an index of the team's team's winning percentage (1/4th of the formula), the opponents' average winning percentage (1/2), and their opponents' opponent's average winning percentage.

When the BCS has the SoS section, it was looking like a RPI-lite. But now that the computers take that into account, there was no reason to keep it. The NCAA adjusts the RPI for teams that have a big win or bad loss.

If there was a formula like that, then any team left out of the reindeer games can see just why.

And that's all I'm going to say on it other than JJD and I need to take over the BCS in a bloodless coup.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 134/2178
EXP: 6388278
For next: 4521

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 27.12.04 0131.50
Reposted on: 27.12.11 0136.06
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    A 7-4 ND would NEVER get in over an 11-1 Boise State.

    Using the basketball model, conference champions get an automatic bid, and then the RPI formula is used to guide a selection committee to select the rest of the field. Look familiar?

    Boo-whooo, a 25 seed is left out and they just have as many losses as the 24. If they make the BCS look like the RPI, they will see just why they were left out.

    The RPI is an index of the team's team's winning percentage (1/4th of the formula), the opponents' average winning percentage (1/2), and their opponents' opponent's average winning percentage.

    When the BCS has the SoS section, it was looking like a RPI-lite. But now that the computers take that into account, there was no reason to keep it. The NCAA adjusts the RPI for teams that have a big win or bad loss.

    If there was a formula like that, then any team left out of the reindeer games can see just why.

    And that's all I'm going to say on it other than JJD and I need to take over the BCS in a bloodless coup.


This might make sense if the football regular season in any way compared to the basketball one. How many games do the basketball teams play? Compare that to the 11 or 12 games a football team plays. These compairisons to how college basketball works are not apples to apples. You just said Notre Dame wouldn't get in over Boise State. Yet Notre Dame beat two top 25 teams and Boise State beat....ummm.
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 1084/1164
EXP: 2725374
For next: 3440

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3591 days
Last activity: 3591 days
#17 Posted on 27.12.04 0946.59
Reposted on: 27.12.11 0951.31
I agree there needs to be a playoff system, so what they need to do is just take confrence champions even if that means ND has to finally find a confrence. They would probably go big ten anyway since they play three teams from the confrence on a regular biasis, (Michigan, MSU and Purdue). So, you play in your seven confrence games and three out of confrence games. You take the confrence teams, everyone gets a week off, so if there is a tie for the confrence title, they can play a winner takes all game. Then, you take the confrence champs go via strenght of schedule, record and whatever mindless things set-up the NCAA Basketball Tournament, then play till New Years Day and end it. The playoff games will be called bowl games ie first round 1 vs. 16 is called the Holiday Bowl and so on. The big five, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Cotton and Orange Bowl will rotate who gets the final game every year. At least, thats how I would do it.

Also, ND 6-5 before they fired Ty would be Boise State hands down. The teams Boise State played to get to be undefeated should be considered Division I teams.

(edited by A Fan on 27.12.04 0747)
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1390/2159
EXP: 6366021
For next: 26778

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2326 days
Last activity: 2323 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on 27.12.04 0958.16
Reposted on: 27.12.11 0959.01
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    But only one national title [for FSU].


There were two titles in that decade if you count 1999 as being part of it. :)
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 135/2178
EXP: 6388278
For next: 4521

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 27.12.04 1221.16
Reposted on: 27.12.11 1222.44
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      But only one national title [for FSU].


    There were two titles in that decade if you count 1999 as being part of it. :)


Yeah I know, but half the time it's listed as 2000 instead so I didn't include it.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 2495/5229
EXP: 25952208
For next: 472482

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#20 Posted on 27.12.04 1433.18
Reposted on: 27.12.11 1435.57
    Originally posted by wmatistic
      Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
        Originally posted by wmatistic
        But only one national title [for FSU].


      There were two titles in that decade if you count 1999 as being part of it. :)


    Yeah I know, but half the time it's listed as 2000 instead so I didn't include it.


It was the 1999 regular season but some people refer it to the 2000 bowl season because the game was played after the new year.

Some list it as the former, others as the latter. It would be less confusing if people just listed it as the 1999-2000 season.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Packers/Vikings
Next thread: Reggie White dead at 43
Previous thread: Week 15 Playoff Seedings (Post-Fin win)
(531 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Related threads: No BCS Here: Div. I-AA, II, and III playoffs - I hate the Big 12 and the BCS - NCAA Div I-A Week 14 BCS Bowl Projections - More...
The 7 - Football - AP Pulls out of the BCSRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.242 seconds.