preseason rankings for next season

[Spence]

The BCS computers have no teeth to do anything. After goofing with the formula's every year for the last 2 years. They have done nothing but make it stamp for the opinion polls. There are hardly no differences between them.

The reason the computer polls have no teeth is that the people who run the BCS(conference commissioners) bow down under pressure instead of telling everyone to deal with it. Taking out the SOS component was the silliest thing I ever heard of. SOS counteracted the human polls love affair with certain schools. If you play a tough schedule and win, you should be rewarded for it. If you play 1-AA schools during the OOC schedule you should have to pay for it. That is why Auburn was on the outside looking in last year. If that would happen enough, you would start seeing the big boys playing each other on a regular basis.

[Spence]

It can not be a set in stone thing, so SOS would be a constantly adjusted number on both sides. Hope I have not confused anyone unduely

Only mildly confused.

SOS would have to be adjustable. I believe the computers adjust SOS as the season goes.

There would still be room for the mid-majors to take their shots in OOC games. One top end team a year OOC is all you need for comparison. Just please no 1-AA teams. Ohio State has Youngstown St. on their schedule in a couple of years and I think that is totally absurd. The scout team would make for a better game. It is nice to spread the money around the state, but I Ohio State wants to spread some money around in state play at least a MAC team. They at least can be competitive.

[Spence]

I don't see what your saying. If Oklahoma would have won a couple more games, TCU's SOS would have gotten better. I'm not sure that you should get points for losing. I can see it being taken into account, but it shouldn't be an over riding factor. Ohio State got to much respect in the polls for losing to Texas and Notre Dame almost beating USC was given far more weight then it should have been given.

[colorado_loves_football]

I believe the BCS is inching closer to a playoff, and I'll explain why.
At present there are 8 'bids' to the BCS occupied, nearly entirely, by the six major conference representatives, and I support that.
What I would like to see is a more inclusive way to select 'at large' teams. And that's possible through conference title games.
Allowing every team fair opportunity would give the BCS some leverage in orchestrating a legitimate national championship game, every year, which I beieve is what everyone wants, anyway.
All the hype was about the Rose Bowl, so if every game was as critical toward selecting a national champion, I think that would serve to make the BCS stronger, overall, in terms of competitiveness.

[Howdy]

With respect to the BCS, the 5 bowl format was a 'compromise' between teams that are given 'priority' status and those that aren't.
Teams traditionally not part of it have been excluded, by-and-large.
The BCS was organized to make money and also to give fair opportunty to a deserving team of a national title.
A playoff would be a better way to select a national champion, but tha'ts not being considered at the moment.
The five bowl format does allow a team 'fair' opportunity to play for a national title, provided they are ranked #1 or #2, overall.
For the BCS to be 'fair' every team ranked sufficiently high, ought to qualify. That's why I support how it will be done next year. At least it's fair with respect to how teams are selected.

A playoff will never happen.
At least not in my life time.
Football is to demanding and can not play at least two game a week like basketball can do.
To have a mini playoff who would decide what teams would be in it.
There would be bickering there also.

[Spence]

A playoff will never happen.
At least not in my life time.
Football is to demanding and can not play at least two game a week like basketball can do.
To have a mini playoff who would decide what teams would be in it.
There would be bickering there also.

Howdy, you are a wise man.

[colorado_loves_football]

One of the objections to the BCS, thus far has been that it does give 'priority' to teams from major conferneces.
That's ok, but it would be a lot better if teams were selected through conference affiliation across the board, and that's probably a big reason a playoff isn't being considered, since it would deny 55/119 teams opportunity to participate.
I believe it's possible to keep the BCS competitive, while also allowing for a 'concensus' national champion, through existing bowls.
The Liberty Bowl is already a 'championship' pairing of sorts, and it could be utilized for selection purposes, in a 'championship' field of teams.
The other 'at large' bid could be either awarded directly, as it has been, traditionally, or it could also be divided between two eligible teams, should that become an option, which is why I refer to the Holiday Bowl.
Utilizing bowls within the playoff structure would complement the BCS and would keep history and tradition in place.

[Derek]

You guys had a GREAT year (exposed a fraud SEC def) but take it from a Mich fan,be careful about assuming a great freshman year (staton & white) translates into a great soph year.Henne and Hart's soph season were disappointing to say the least.Also it's one thing to come out of nowhere to become league champ/bcs bowl winner and quite another to start in the top 5 and stay there.What is WV schedule like next year?

Fraud SEC defense????????

So LSU is a fraud?? Seeing as how they beat Miami???

Your facts are WAY off.

[Spence]

It is about money, there is no question about that. The lower divisions can have a play off because they don't draw very well. They don't even have good TV ratings. D-1A makes a lot of money on the bowls. They help fund the athletic programs of 119 schools. The presidents aren't going to give that up for a national championship. The bowls generate 93 million dollars shared among all schools.

[Howdy]

A playoff will never happen.
At least not in my life time.
Football is to demanding and can not play at least two game a week like basketball can do.
To have a mini playoff who would decide what teams would be in it.
There would be bickering there also.[/quote]

how does division 2, 3 and 1AA have a playoff - i don't believe they play 2 games in a week. bickering. if you are selecting the top 16 teams to be in a playoff how much should we care if the

#17 team is bickering because they were left out . it's like #65 in basketball who has 10 losses and

they're whining because they weren't let in . i say a playoff could be done , if , the college presidents/bowl people wanted it to. i believe the real reason is the money. all about the money . they would lose so much money if they were to go to a playoff system. suddenly a $750,00 check for making it tothe mpc computer bowl would be missing for 2 teams. i believe that's the real problem . again, count me in as one who would welcome a playoff.[/quote]

If Norte Dame this year got left out Had we had a 16 team play off
who would be doing the bickering.

[Spence]

i understand what you're saying howdy . if you get down to #17 and you're not let in to the playoff - who do you really have to blame other than yourself. that's why i find it comical on the ncaa hoop tourney selection show when they interview the coach of a team that was left out with 10 or so losses. take care of business yourself.

So what would be the difference between #17 whining and #3 whining. If you take care of your business, more often then not you will find yourself in a good position at the end.

[mountainman]

That whole Auburn thing has a veil and folks need not forget that the defining issue was about Auburn's schedule that year. I believe Auburn playing a weaker schedule was the deciding factor.

There is no denying that the BCS has a problem whenever more that two teams are 'equally' qualified to play in the championship game.

I believe it was Lubbock that reminded me of that when I read one of his posts.

[Guest]

i understand what you're saying howdy . if you get down to #17 and you're not let in to the playoff - who do you really have to blame other than yourself. that's why i find it comical on the ncaa hoop tourney selection show when they interview the coach of a team that was left out with 10 or so losses. take care of business yourself.

So what would be the difference between #17 whining and #3 whining. If you take care of your business, more often then not you will find yourself in a good position at the end.

spence - i'm talking about an hypothetical 16 team playoff and having #17 complaining because they didn't get in. chances are if this were to ever happen in my lifetime , which it will not, the #17 team would 3 losses or somewhere there about as opposed to #3 who would have 0 or 1 loss. hope that clears it up.

[Spence]

I agree that you make your own way. I heard a lot of people at the enf of the year saying Ohio State was better then both Texas and USC(i do live in Ohio). My response was that we didn't prove it. When you have the chance thaat Ohio State did last year and let it slip away, you have no one to blame, but yourself.

[mountainman]

I was one of those and said it on this forum. Notre Dame ran into one heck of a college football team in the Fiesta Bowl. Once the Buckeyes found their offense they were really good.

If I can inject something into your exchange, one of the problems with a playoff is that it just moves the problem from 3 & 4 spots to the 5 & 6 spots in a 4 team playoff and to the 9 & 10 spots in an eight team playoff and to the 17 & 18 spots in a sixteen team playoff. The problem is never "fixed", just moved to what some may consider an acceptable place.