How does Congrove do this?

[Derek]

I personally think having a 64 team playoff is silly. The conference championship would then mean nothing.

IMO, a playoff should involve only the Divisional or Conference champions from throughout the country.

Maybe based on the records of each conference winner.....Such as the number #1 ranked team and conference winner would play the C-USA team (almost like a bye week)

The idea being that in the end the two best teams will end up meeting for the championship...

This could still be accomlished using the bowl system.

It is all about money for the schools anyway.

[Spence]

This could still be accomlished using the bowl system.

It could in the current bowl system. Teams would have to travel to different venues over a period of weeks. It would be very expensive and it would have guys out of school for too long.

[Yeofoot]

Bottom line: Play every playoff game at the new stadium in Glendale, so Yeofoot can watch.

[colorado_loves_football]

You are going to have to stick to one of these.

Playoffs - with conference champions.

Playoffs - with 64 team bracket.

You have mentioned them both.

Well, if I have to choose one, I'll go with the conference champions, for simplicity sake.

A playoff system with just the conference champs is a terrible way to choose eligible teams.

In that proposal, 2 teams from the SEC could finish with 1 loss in the regular season (and even the SEC title game), and only one of them be eligible for the playoffs.

At the same time, a team from conference usa could finish the season with 4 losses and have a sure spot.

Not very fair.

A 64 team playoff, runs into all sorts of problems.

Length of season, where games are played, who should be selected, why should this team play that, ect...

You would be giving teams who did not earn their post season appearance, a chance to play for the national title.

And you are neglecting the health of the athletes.

How many kids a year go out due to an injury as the season progresses as it is.

Extending the year is negligible, and risks raising that %.

Remember, it should be about the students first. Not the fans' want for a better system.

Also, allowing for a playoff only plays right into the media's hands.

They don't care about the athletes, or the majority of the programs. They only care about their own interests.

As a matter of fact, they replay, and drool over every injury that takes place on the field.

For them, it's a good story. And they exploit it, until its last value.

The media is only concerned with the mighty $.

The only reason ESPN is pushing so darn hard for a playoff, is because they know they will get at least half of the playoff game broadcasting rights.

The other half would go to their ABC affiliates.

In the end, it's still about the money.

If you want 'fair' then maybe you should consider being a lawyer, I want the matter to be settled on the field of battle, myself.

Simple fact is, it would be a relatively 'simple' matter of putting together a 'field' of ten teams, equally represented among the ten conferences (after MWC & WAC 'reunite'). Each conference would necessarily need a title game, but since 5/11 already do, the remaining 5 would simply need to 'organize' one. WAC, 1998, had a title game, before it 'split' into two confernences. Basically, we are talking about 'awarding' every conference a 'representative' to the BCS, provided they organize one. (conference championship)

The other thing wrong with your 10 team proposal:

Week One -

team 1 vs team 2
team 3 vs team 4
team 5 vs team 6
team 7 vs team 8
team 9 vs team 10

Week Two -

winner of 1 vs 2, against winner of 3 vs 4

winner of 5 vs 6, against winner of 7 vs 8

winner of 9 vs 10, against who?

I've analyzed this repeatedly, it's far more simpler than you are implying.

ten team: 6 receive 'automatic' admission to the BCS (Big East, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-Ten, Big XII). The remaining four (C-USA, MAC, WAC/MWC, Sun-Belt) play in two 'preliminary' bowl pairings, the winners to receive 'automatic' admission to the BCS, as presently organized (four bowls). The four winners then play in semi-final pairings, one title game.

You make your own 'assessment' of my posts, and others'.

That is to interpret someone's post in you own words.

That is not respondind to what they actually wrote.

Yeah, you said it yourself. I don't need to give you any proof.

You just admitted to it.

I simply make 'interpretation's of what I read, and draw what I consider to be fairly intelligent responses, if you disagree, that's your prerogative, but not my problem.

I thought we were talking present day football when refering to teams winning the national championship, not 20 years ago.

How many teams have won a National Championship, in the last 10 years, that have not been in the preseason top 10.

Consistancy runs in cycles. And right now, it would seem that any team ranked in the preseason has an advantage.

As the cycle continues.

Sure, consistency runs in 'cycles' but what if Fresno St, 'runs the table'? Seems to me thats' not being consistent in how you assess a football team, relative to each other.

TCU was only qualified to appear in a BCS bowl, out of opinion.

TCU did not get selected, because they did not finish in the top six.

That was the polls' fault. Though, it was just as much TCU's fault, for not beating SMU.

I'm well aware how TCU wasn't allowed to participate in the 2003 BCS. I'ts possible even if they beat S. Mississippi they are 'awarded' a Liberty Bowl invitation (as S. Miss. was) rather than a BCS bid, due in no small part to how K-State 'upended' #1 Oklahoma.
TCU was 'odd-man-out', but had they been #6, I guess they would have found a place for them, somewhere (they never ranked higher than #8).

The CFP poll regularly changes throughtout the year.

Their 80% reliability is only a parallel to that final BCS rankings. That is where they get their 80% comparison.

Now, show me the % of each team ranked in the CFP poll's preseason selection, that actually finish with the same ranking at the end of the season.

You wanted an example of how you misinterpret what I write.

Look at how you interpreted that, in your last reply.

(so, if you mean weight to your argument, comparable to weight on the moon, maybe)

Im' pretty sure the CFP 'reliability' quotient is at or near 80%. If you don't believe me, ask them. I know it's minimally 75%. You would weigh same as me, on the moon, by the way (unless you weigh more than me on the earth, then you woudl weigh more).

What does TCU coming within a whisker of being selected by the BCS in 2003, have to do with how you gave a hoot, last season?

I don't see the connection.

Unless you are saying that, not being selected last season, was disappointing, and brought back old feelings of missing the cut in 2003.

I could see where your aggrevation might have been coming from.

The proverbial, we have to wait until next season curse.

But that still doesn't change the fact that you more than gave two hoots about the BCS, when TCU wasn't selected for one of their bowls at the end of last year.

(but I can see why you'd be frustrated)

As far as 2005, goes, nobody knows for sure how good TCU was (or wasn't), it's inconclusive.

TCU lost to SMU which suggests Tulsa might have been better, overall than TCU, based on results (beat SMU 20-13). TCU, however, was clearly a better team than Oregon, who lost to Oklahoma, in the Holiday Bowl. Basically TCU likely was as good as their overall ranking suggests.

Had West Virginia gotten more respect in the preseason, it wouldn't have taken them as long to be ranked.

Had Tennessee not been ranked in the preseasn, they would have never cracked the top 25, in any poll.

I don't understand how your example is relevant.

It only shows how many didn't think West Virginia was that good.

And only proves that teams sometimes do not get enough focus in the preseason, if they are not ranked.

Will we see if Tennessee has a good team.

Maybe they do.

But I was talking about last season. They didn't do so good. They finished 5-6. That is a terrible record for them.

And the proof is in the firing of a large portion of their coaching staff.

Obviously the school alumni association did not think the program was doing well. Otherwise, they wouldn't have replaced so many people.

Will we see if Tennessee is good... sure, for this season.

But we already saw, they were not a good 'team' last season.

Why are we talking about Tennessee? They clearly weren't a very good team, last year. They were #3, that should tell you something. It sucks.

Auburn deserved the National Championship in 2004 just as much as usc deserved it 2003.

I did not say I agree with it. It is not my opinion.

It was the consistancy of the Media that was in question. Not my personal feelings.

It was not a simple theorem. Rather, I showed facts to support my claim.

The AP chose usc as their champion in 2003.

The AP did not do the same for Auburn in 2004.

The AP poll was a statistic used in the BCS formula both years.

Auburn ended the 2004 season by winning their bowl game, and finishing with 0 losses. The same as usc.

USC ended the 2003 season by winning their bowl game, and finishing with 1 loss. The same as LSU.

The AP 'chose' to only award usc. And that proves their inconsistancy, and non-credibility.

I belive the AP voters did the right thing, voting USC#1, 2003. There was a difference in opinoin as to which team was better, and for good reason. There isn't any evidence one team was 'clearly' better than the other. I think a 'playoff' was in order,myself

If you agree on that point, then it makes your whole argument in favor of peseason polls invalid.

Preseason polls dont' select a national champion, they are just an 'assessment' of where each team stands, relative to each other, beginning of the year. To suggest tehy somehow 'determine' the NC, I think, is a 'flawed' argument, with little if any basis to it, whatsover.

Assesing a team's progress and competitivenes based on how they played in a bowl game...?

Every team is going to amp it up for the Natioal screen.

Playing in a Bowl game, is just one game.

Emotions are higher, the season is ending, and there is alot more at stake.

However, players will be leaving, coaches might be leaving, and recruiting signings have not yet taken place.

By assessing a team in the preason, based on how that program's previous team did in a bowl game, is to neglect those above stated things.

I think there are a lot of things to consider before ranking a team, and I imagine most, if not all of them are coinsidered, before doing so, by those who make those assessments.

Brady Quinn earned only accalades for last year's performances.

He has done 'nothing' to deserved credit for this season.

He hasn't even played one game yet.

His 2005 total yards wil not be added to his 2006 campaign totals.

So why take what he has done throughout his career and apply it to a trophy awarded for one season's performance?

That isn't fair to somene wo sat out last season because of a redshirt, or an injury.

And I have a problem with that.

You're entitled to have your own 'favorite' I didn't say he 'earned' the right to be front-runner.

I only applied the same logic to Pitt beating Penn St., as you did for SMU beating TCU.

Rivalry games are played more competitively.

If my argument does not make sense to you, then you need to re-assess all of your previous posts in an effort to show the rest of us why losing to SMU was not that bad for TCU.

You are entitled to your opinion as far as SMU (and TCU) is concerned, I think the facts speak for themselves. SMU was likely 'decent', TCU was likely 'good'.

Just because you thought Marshall was good at home last year, doesn't mean SMU lost to a good team.

The herd finished 4-7.

That's a bad record.

Marshall, didn't have a 'banner' year. Doesn't mean they didn't have a 'respectable' team. SMU lost, in OT, in W. VA.

Well...

I guess leather & rubber is better than vinyl & plastic.

Not necessarily, I like vinyl LPs.

[Eric]

If one was to do a playoff, we'd have 4 brackets of 4 teams. I would have the non-BCS teams (should they not be ranked sufficiently) have a play-in game, kind of like Oakland/Alabama A&M, Lehigh/Florida A&M, and Hampton/Monmouth in the college basketball tourney. Say we'd have:

1-USC
vs.
4-Arkansas State/Tulsa

2-Georgia
vs.
3-TCU

This way, we can kill 2 birds with one stone, since the smaller conference champions and a couple 2nd place, non-BCS teams wouldn't really stand a chance against a 1 seed.

[billybud]

The sad thing...the champ of a non BCS conference probably is not as good a team as the #3 team of a BCS conference...I like having the best available teams seeded in a playoff...not just the conference champs....

[mountainman]

Ah, these playoff advocates just want to turn the bowl season into another dag-gum tournament instead of a championship series and as a result devalue the regular season by turning it into an effort to qualify for the tournament instead of becoming a champion by performance.

I can hear it now ..... "Well boys, we're half way through the season and a lock for the tournament so we're don't have to put forth our best effort this Saturday or for the next 6 weeks, and since our opponents are locked out of the tournament and we are locked in they have no incentive to play hard ..... so we've agreed to shorten the game so we can all go home early, therefore there will be no passing of the football today and you runners better keep your butts in bounds. Do whatever you can to keep that clock a rollin' and let's get outta' here as quick as we can"

[colorado_loves_football]

If I were a voter, I'd never, ever, vote for TCU because of the "chinese water torture" of having to see you twist every post into a TCU post.

Wait...a thought...Spence...put me on a group....

All you have to do is say the word.

yeah, but you need to give him, the password, Spence!

the password is: TCU#1in'07

Got it?

For Cane from the Bend:

Here's a link related to where teams finished after season's end:
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/?p=2304

Here's another one (valid through 1999) that shows which of the pre-season teams finished the year ranked #1 overall:
http://www.fansonly.com/schools//acc/sp ... 99aac.html

I also found anohter link which listed the most 'over-rated' teams, in the history of the AP poll, http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2006 ... eams.htm#1 (most over-rated) was Michigan St.

Finally, there's one that references 1984 directly, I'll see if I can find that one for you, and post that link, also.
http://markmaybewrong.blogspot.com/

Here's one that basically echoes your statement:
http://inthebleachers.net/?p=76

Anyway, some stuff for you to chew on.

[billybud]

Thanks CLF for the link/...it substantiates that the two MOST UNDERATED teams in college football are Miami and FSU....thanks again.

[Spence]

Ah, these playoff advocates just want to turn the bowl season into another dag-gum tournament instead of a championship series and as a result devalue the regular season by turning it into an effort to qualify for the tournament instead of becoming a champion by performance.

I can hear it now ..... "Well boys, we're half way through the season and a lock for the tournament so we're don't have to put forth our best effort this Saturday or for the next 6 weeks, and since our opponents are locked out of the tournament and we are locked in they have no incentive to play hard ..... so we've agreed to shorten the game so we can all go home early, therefore there will be no passing of the football today and you runners better keep your butts in bounds. Do whatever you can to keep that clock a rollin' and let's get outta' here as quick as we can"

Exactly. Also you get to see every 3rd team player and the whole scout team play three quarters. That is a good idea.

[Cane from the Bend]

Marshall squeaked out an over-time game, just barely allowing them to finish 4-7, and not 3-8.

That is bad. If their team was good, they would have played better.

SMU lost to that Mashall team (even if it was in over-time) and finished with a 5-6 record.

That is a losing record. And does not suggest they were decent.

TCU lost to SMU.

However, TCU finished 10-1 (regular season).

I do not recall saying TCU had a bad team last year.

Just, TCU lost to a bad team, in SMU.

And that Oklahoma, was not as good of a team as you want TCU to get credit for beating.

However, I do not see any evidence, at all, that would suggest TCU was better than Oregon.

You have nothing to base that theory on, except triangulation.

And, you also neglect the fact that Oklahoma got better as a team as the year progressed.

Which would only suggest, that once they gained actual playing experience, Oregon played a tougher Oklahoma team, than TCU played.

Never-the-less, I wouldn't say that it is completely inconclusive on how 'good' TCU was last year.

A 10-1 regular season record is certainly nothing to sneeze at.

>

How can you say a ten team qualifying field, is equaly matched up, if you have four of the teams playing in a preliminary bowl game?

Two teams entering into the quarterfinals have had to play one extra game, leaving them more fatigued.

That is not an equal playing field.

>

Settling the matter on the field should be fair.

The entire argument in favor of a playoff system is to have a fair consensus determinig a national champion.

The only problem is, there is no fair way to determine who belongs in the playoff brackets.

Especially in view of the conference champion application you propose.

>

You are also still not taking the health of the athletes into consideration.

Putting them through a playoff system is pushing them a bit too much.

Doing this turns these kids into more of a commodity.

They are not paid professionals, and they should not be treated as such. They are supposed to be students first, then athletes.

That is why the NCAA is so against the playoff concept.

These kids already have sports stations (espn) exploiting their potential stock. That station (espn) even did an internet survey, asking whether or not student athletes should be allowed to receive payment for playing. then they broadcasted the results on tv.

Why would the producers of the station have any interest in delegating such a viewer poll?

The simple answer to that question, is, by commercializing the sport, espn would have more control over viewer interests.

The media is there to make profit for itself. They don't give a rat's backside about fairness, or tradition.

They don't care about the athletes, the teams, the programs, or the schools.

The media only cares about, controlling what you care about, and making as much $$$ in the prosses of doing so.

Why else would espn have a College Football Game Plan, in order to bring you upto 15 games per week?

They're attempting to corner the market.

Proof of that, is in how many informercials are on the mainsteam stations instead of broadcasting college football games.

All of those extra games NBC & CBS used to get, are now starting to appear on espn.

>

If there were no preseason polls, then Fresno State would have an increased chance of playing for a BCS bowl, should they go undefeated.

Because, then, there would not be as many teams to jump over during the season.

>

By interpreting what someone writes to fit a conclussion that best suits your perspecive, as apposed to what is actually written, is a bad habit.

It hasn't been so much my perogative to disagree with you, but more so, yours to disagree with me.

In essence, it is your bad habit to 'reinterpret' what others write.

And yes, that is a 'problem' you have.

>

CFP's reliablity quotien is 75-80% accuracy toward the most recent BCS poll.

As the season progresses, teams lose, or win, and the poll rankings change.

The CFP's final poll, is the most accurate in comparison.

However, the CFP poll changes who is ranked where, drastically, as the season rolls through.

And thus, the CFP's preseason poll, is far different than it's final one.

Again, showing how your argument has little to no weight (par the low gravity field of the moon metaphor).

Anyhow, ou still haven't explained what constitutes your validity in bringing the CFP into this topic.

I have been talking about why the BCS human polls should not be released until after week 4 of the current season.

I fail to see how that pertains to the CFP, or your comment, that this is something I need to take up with CFP, and not you.

(also, it was you who responded to my reply on this matter, not the other way around)

>

Preseason polls may not select a national championship, however;

In the preseason of 2004, Oklahoma and usc were both ranked either #1 or #2 in one poll or the other.

Auburn, on-the-other-hand, was not even in the preseason top 15.

And I am sure most of us agree that Auburn would have likely given usc a better game than what Oklahoma did.

I'm not saying Auburn would have beaten usc, although, I do think they had just as much a right to play for the title as the other two teams.

They did all that was required for them to do, by finishing with 0 losses.

What kept Auburn out, was (a.) th media votes to see Oklahoma & usc play (because it was what most wante due to the previous year), and (b.) he preseason polls' ranking of Aburn.

If usc was as good as LSU in 2003, finishing with 1 loss each, then, Auburn was as good as usc in 2004, finish with 0 losses each.

At least, in proving the media's legitimacy, that is.

It does not matter what anyone's opinion was of Auburn.

To show credibility, the AP need to award Auburn with a co-national championship.

Otherwise, it makes usc's AP championship less justifiable.

If the AP was so righteous, and demanded to have their poll removed from the BCS equation, after Auburn went unrecognized. Then why not do the right thing and recognize them.

The ball was in their court. But they threw it away.

And because of that, the associated press holds no merit.

>

Yes, alot of things do go into the assessment of a team. And your imagination is correct, that those who do preseason voting take most of the changes I mentioned into account, before voting.

And, that is the problem.

They are assessing changes made, without seeing how tose changes will be effective.

There is no way to establish any opinion on changes made, if those changes have yet to be applied in competition.

You also stated that ranking a team in the preseason based on their performance in a bowl game is a relatively sound way of assessing that team.

But, what assessment have you made of the changes towards teams who did not play in bowl games, if that is how you gather your preseason information?

>

We were talking about Tennessee, because it was a valid point as to how the preseason polls failed in their early analysis.

But it was you who commented on how they may be a good team.

I again was refering to your measure of them.

It was you who said "Tennessee probably wasn't that bad of a team, we will see".

(again, look back at the previous posts)

>

No, you did not say Bray Quinn dserved to be the fron-runner for the Heisman.

But you did write that he derserves the attention he is getting.

Yes, I am entitled to having my own favorite for the Heisman.

At-the-same-time, I am also entitled to objectify the award, as, there is no basis for a preseason hiesman analysis.

>

You may be into LP's, but, how often do you dine on them?

[Spence]

What kept Auburn out, was (a.) th media votes to see Oklahoma & usc play (because it was what most wante due to the previous year), and (b.) he preseason polls' ranking of Aburn.

Auburn scheduling of 1-AA opponents is what hurt Auburn the most in the computers. There should be a rule that no team that schedules a 1-AA opponent can be considered for the BCS. That would end the extreme cupcake crap.

[Cane from the Bend]

I agree.

No Div A team should be able to play a Div AA team.

However, the media had no problem putting Auburn ahead of Miami & Texas in the polls, before the `Canes or the `Horns had lost a game.

They were all undefeated when the AP poll jumped Auburn from #18, to #12, to #7, to #5, then to #3.

If they felt it was so neccessary to give that much credit to Auburn, during the season. Then why did the AP choose to not give them the same respect after the season?

The AP didn't muster up any reasoning. Just that the BCS was flawed, because it didn't sufficiently settle usc in 2003, and again Auburn in 2004.

If they truly felt that Auburn was wronged, then they should have given them a co-championship as well.

.

I know they only pulled away from the BCS in an attempt to force the playoff issue.

But, they were too big for their britches in that tango, and shot themselves in the foot.

.

Still, it shows how inconsistant they are willing to be, in order to manipulate what viewer emotion they can.

They gave usc the co-championship in 2003 to be fair.

But, they were unwilling to follow suit, and show their fairness to Auburn.

[Spence]

The AP didn't feel that Auburn was wronged, at least before the championship game. The AP is the only poll that can split a championship, the coaches are locked in to agreeing with the championship winner. No matter what they actually think. The AP is bound by no such thing.

[mountainman]

No Div A team should be able to play a Div AA team.

I don't believe that would be possible at this point. As you know, there are 119 D-1 teams and a 12 game schedule. That's 1428 games scheduled (119*12). Since a team cannot play itself (119-1) there are but 1416 games available to be played (118*12).

I think that's right Maybe one of the math guys can verify that.