New BCS Qualifying Standards

[Spence]

I heard Akron is in on Ben Martin with Ohio State, Notre Dame, West Virginia and Illinois. That is some good recruiting company.

[colorado_loves_football]

Sorry man, I have always given real facts. I can back up every one of them. If I haven't checked it out I always follow it with "i think" or something of that sort. You on the other hand accuse me of not having my facts straight and then tell me that a sellout is 80% capacity. Then after that you tell me that Fort Worth, Texas is in a smalller TV market then Ohio. The Fort Worth/Dallas market is the seventh largest market in the United States. Columbus, Ohio is 32 or 34 depending on which source you use. I suggest that you have some clue to what the facts are before you call me on "blanket statements" and false facts.

Attendence and television(mostly television) are the reason why there are bowl games(or playoffs). Without this money none of the schools would be able to fund their programs. You "not caring" about that fact changes nothing.

Yes, Spence you make a lot of 'blanket' statements and your 'facts' such as they are are questionable at best.
Look again at your Fiesta Bowl figures. My numbers show a 7.4 rating for last year's Fiesta Bowl, and 12.9 for this year's. I suppose maybe my data is unreliable I don't know where they were tabulated, but barring more reliable data I'll trust mine over yours.
You're losing the war of averages, my friend, by a substantial margin.

[Spence]

I used dallas/fort worth because that is how the ratings service groups them . That is the name of the market. The Columbus market is grouped by itself.
TCU may not be as poplular in their TV market as Ohio State is in theirs, but the people are there for them to be highly rated if they were.

Television ratings pays for D-1 sports. Like it or not that is a fact. It is part of the over all revenue when figuring how much the bowls can pay out to teams.

All that aside. If they were to inistall a play-off system in D-1 CFB, why would you think that their method of determining who plays would be any different then it is right now? They same people will be in charge.

[colorado_loves_football]

I used dallas/fort worth because that is how the ratings service groups them . That is the name of the market. The Columbus market is grouped by itself.
TCU may not be as poplular in their TV market as Ohio State is in theirs, but the people are there for them to be highly rated if they were.

Television ratings pays for D-1 sports. Like it or not that is a fact. It is part of the over all revenue when figuring how much the bowls can pay out to teams.

All that aside. If they were to inistall a play-off system in D-1 CFB, why would you think that their method of determining who plays would be any different then it is right now? They same people will be in charge.

My point is you are using a lot of questionable numbers to support your argument, and most of them aren't working, including the television rating one, which actually was a lot closer than you implied, this year vs. last year, assuming my data is reliable, which I assume it to be.
A rating isn't the only way, however to measure the 'success' or lack of it, in any respect, unless you work for the networks.
Why do you think Fox was able to buy the BCS from ABC? It's partly about money, but I think it's more about what sells. ABC wasn't 'buying' what the BCS was 'selling' and I don't entirely blame them. Fox, likely thought the advantages outweighed the inherent flaws, of which there are many. But it doesn't fall entirely on ratings. The BCS games, typically have fairly large audiences, otherwise they wouldn't be BCS games.
As far as the playoff argument, that's never been my position. I simply wanted an 'alternative' way to pair teams together, than simply following a ranking. It works, fairly well even, this year, but not very well in general. Ranking ought to have been applied with TCU but it wasn't, unless you believe an Iowa St. pairing was an 'equivalent' pairing, I don't, despite the final score. TCU dominated from the beginning, it was similar to the Sugar Bowl, they got ahead, got comfortable, and had to rally to win. That's what good teams do, regardless. Had they lost to Iowa St. I'd have to eat my words, but they didn't, neither for that matter did OSU.
TCU plays in Ft. Worth. I don't know what their market-share is and quite frankly I"m not sure I really care, either, since I live in Colorado.
My point was, and is, that nobody really knows for sure what a game will draw in terms of attendance and/or ratings until it happens. You can speculate all you want but your speculations thus far haven't held up to scrutiny, including the one applied to the Fiesta Bowl. 12.9 vs. 7.4 isn't substantially better in my view. That's the rating I see listed, maybe you have a better source, but I doubt it. But it is 5% points, roughly in line with the increased attendance figures. Its' your math, Spence, that doesn't add up, not mine. And I'm not even a mathematician.

[Spence]

The ratings for this years Fiesta Bowl was 12.2. Last years Fiesta Bowl was 4.1. My source for this was ABC Sports. They should really know. According to my math that is a change of about 60%. 8 points or even 5 points as you suggest is a huge number in terms of ratings dollars.

ABC let the BCS go because they were trying to get a plus one play off and the BCS committee was having none of it. So ABC pulled out of the race. This was big news when it happened, I'm surprised you didn't know about it.

[mountainman]

Hey colorado, let's get a few things straight.

First, the head-to-head scenario wasn't something I dreamed up or concocted. That was an issue that had to be addressed by the BCS committee back in 1997 before the BCS came on line in 1998. That issue has been around for a long time. This may be the first you've heard of it, but it was considered and is one of the reasons a playoff wasn't implemented back then. You are just behind the curve on that one.

Next, any statistical analysis you attempt when it comes to probability is nothing more than a guess. Even if by some chance it happened to be accurate it's only a guess. Not a good foundation for something like college football and here's why. There is just too much at risk. You say something will happen only once every 50 years. What you don't say is when it will happen. Do you realize that it could happen 3 consecutive years and then not happen again for 150 years using your figures?

One needs to consider all the facts and circumstances when making their arguments to support a position. Taking things out of context won't help one to prevail upon further examination. For example, you have, several times, brought up the Pitt - vs - Utah game in the Fiesta Bowl. Pitt even being in that game was an anomaly due to the raid of the Big East by the ACC. The ACC got Virginia Tech and Miami and Pitt got stuck with the bill. Telling the whole story is better and if one is indeed about striving to be on the right side of an issue then it is much better.

[Spence]

One needs to consider all the facts and circumstances when making their arguments to support a position. Taking things out of context won't help one to prevail upon further examination. For example, you have, several times, brought up the Pitt - vs - Utah game in the Fiesta Bowl. Pitt even being in that game was an anomaly due to the raid of the Big East by the ACC. The ACC got Virginia Tech and Miami and Pitt got stuck with the bill. Telling the whole story is better and if one is indeed about striving to be on the right side of an issue then it is much better.

This is exactly right. None of these bowls wanted Pitt. Everyone new they didn't belong in the game, but it really can't be used as an example of anything given the circumstances involved. The Big East has represented well in the BCS every year but that year. They represented well this year in the BCS.

Saying that TV ratings andd attendenc doesn't matter in these games is foolish because they have everything to do with how D-1 sports are paid for. Ohio State funds 36 varsity sports for men and women. Almost none of them make money. Football and Men's basketball make money. Women's basketball breaks pretty close to even, no one else makes money. Ohio State's operating budget for athletics is over 90 million dollars.

There are over 10,000 D-1 football players on scholarship with 119 teams in the country. Most of these kids count on their scholarships to get an education for a career. A lot of them wounld get the chance to even go to school if it were not for these scholarships. Try telling them it isn't important to make money(as much as possible) for the schools. The goal behind the bowl system is to feed the monster, to give the schools money to fund all over their athletic programs. Football and some places basketball are the sports that fund the whole system.

Play offs would make a lot of money, but they wouldn't make as much money as 28 bowl games. Play offs wouldn't be any more fair as far as how teams are selected, as the BCS bowls are currently selected. So end the end it is about which system will pull in the most money. Which system can be used to foster alumni donations(alumni of 28 teams are happy each year). Which programs interfere the least with academics.

The search for the one, true D-1A College football national champion, isn't something that is of a major concern to the college presidents. They leave things like that to the fans to argue about.

[colorado_loves_football]

Here's another site about playoffs that I've studied, rolltide:

http://www.sportsfansofamerica.com/Fans ... yoffs1.htm

Mountainman, thank you for including this proposal among those already studied, it comes closest, I think, to approximating mine, but mine is still superior, in nearly every respect (not to brag, but it's a fact).

Here's what I understand to be the biggest problems with the BCS, historically:
1) There's really no 'solid' way to select the #1 and #2 team every year.
Some years, this year included, there is some agreement, but in general, there are typically 3 or 4 teams with a legitimate claim on those two spots. The proposal you mention, addresses that by having those teams (#1, #2, #3, #4) play each other. The 'winners' then play in the NC. My proposal, allows every team (#1 to #10) equal opportunity, it's better.

2) One 'advantage' this proposal has, over mine, is with respect to representation. Two bowls, the Violet Crown and Magnolia, are added mostly to allow for 'greater' participation within the bowls. My proposal, on the other hand, relies upon the BCS ranking to select teams, but could be 'modified' to make the conference championship the primary selector, thereby allowing every conference a representative.

3) This proposal, in effect, is the "Plus-one" scenario, applied to the BCS.
It only requires 6 games, total, but that's a disadvantage in my opinion.
The top four teams are strategically paired together, the two 'best' face off in the BCS 'title' one week later (not that unlike how it's going to be, next year), but it doesn't address impartiality, or in other words, only those teams sufficiently good enough are represented. My proposal, allows for every team, to be equally represented.

Now, as applied to the BCS, I've already shown how my proposal honors traditional pairings. I didn't have to 'create' two bowls, the Magnolia and the Violet Crown, I stated that the Holiday and Liberty would make excellent 'preliminary' bowls, utilizing their 'traditional' pairings. In fact, they do such a good job, all the BCS really needs to do, is make them BCS games, and allow them the 'luxury' of selecting the teams most 'representative' to each bowl. That way, tradition isn't compromised, but likely that wouldn't happen.

Finally, for those who argue my proposal would take too long, 9 games is all required, beginning to end. That's better than the 15 game (16-team) playoff, and only 3 more than what this proposal requires. It would require additional money, and resources, but I think the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. It won't 'guarantee' a #1 vs. #2 'pairing' but it will assure one team emerges 'national champions'.
It's the 'Thunderdome' model. Throw two teams together in 9 games, eventually only one will come out on top. Mad Max would be proud.

[Spence]

The current system requires that one team comes out as national champions. No matter how many teams are included, someone will feel slighted. This doesn't accomplish anything but to add more teams to the mix. As a matter of fact, if you want the best team to be champion the less games they play the better. Injuries, illnesses, and fatigue are all factors in a playoff.

Even in basketball the B-10 crowns a conference champ and a tourney champ. They are usually not the same team.

[colorado_loves_football]

Hey colorado, let's get a few things straight.

First, the head-to-head scenario wasn't something I dreamed up or concocted. That was an issue that had to be addressed by the BCS committee back in 1997 before the BCS came on line in 1998. That issue has been around for a long time. This may be the first you've heard of it, but it was considered and is one of the reasons a playoff wasn't implemented back then. You are just behind the curve on that one.

Next, any statistical analysis you attempt when it comes to probability is nothing more than a guess. Even if by some chance it happened to be accurate it's only a guess. Not a good foundation for something like college football and here's why. There is just too much at risk. You say something will happen only once every 50 years. What you don't say is when it will happen. Do you realize that it could happen 3 consecutive years and then not happen again for 150 years using your figures?

One needs to consider all the facts and circumstances when making their arguments to support a position. Taking things out of context won't help one to prevail upon further examination. For example, you have, several times, brought up the Pitt - vs - Utah game in the Fiesta Bowl. Pitt even being in that game was an anomaly due to the raid of the Big East by the ACC. The ACC got Virginia Tech and Miami and Pitt got stuck with the bill. Telling the whole story is better and if one is indeed about striving to be on the right side of an issue then it is much better.

Mountainman, I know that the probability surrounding your proposal isn't 1/50 that's a conservative 'estimate', but either way it's not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever, should my proposal be adopted.

With respect to how Pittsburgh was selected, to the BCS, I still believe that in general they were 'fairly' represented. Don't try to complicate the issue because two teams were gone (Virginia Tech & Miami). They were likely the best of the Big East, but they were also the 'best' of the ACC that year, so it should have 'evened'-out somewhat. Combine that with the fact that Boston College choked, losing an opportunity to win the Big East outright, and it's fair to conclude that Pittsburgh was a 'deserving' representative, to the BCS. That they weren't very competitive might have had as much to do with the fact Utah was probably superior to them, as the Fiesta Bowl demonstrated. And I believe that was a 'good' example of how an 'at large' pairing of teams might work, if adopted.
The Fiesta Bowl, by-and-large would make an excellent 'host' of an 'at large' grouping of teams, but I prefer that it remain in the BCS 'championship' rotation. The Big East champion has traditionally played in the Fiesta Bowl, they have a fairly strong 'connection' and it might even be tighter than the one enjoyed by the Big XII. Big East typically 'saves' the Fiesta Bowl, every time the Big XII champion 'bows' out, which is frequently.
How a 'hypothetical' pairing of 'non-BCS' teams might do still is something of a guess, but I believe that if admitted, the Fiesta Bowl might serve as the 'at large' championship. Still, it has already served itself well as a BCS 'championship', including the Utah vs. Pittsburgh debacle. Chalk that one up to not allowing Louisville in the BCS.

Now, Spence, you maintain that a team shouldn't have to play an 'excessive' number of games, and I agree with you on that point.
That's why I support having a limited number of playoff games, thereby assuring the BCS of a legitimate champion. Teams admitted, wouldn't necessarily have to be conference champions, but that might help make it more selective. What the conference championship games do, in effect is 'select' a ten-team field, without having to rely on an arbitrary ranking. To me, that's an advantage over the 'traditional' model that ranks teams. And if a team ranked as low as Pittsburgh and FSU are admitted, really what difference does it make how high the 'at large' conference representatives are ranked? A standard needs to be applied, maybe top-25 to assure quality of play, but really, it seems hypocritical to admit FSU but deny Tulsa, when FSU is 7-4 and Tulsa is 8-3. That being said, I would have likely 'accepted' the traditional model utilized by the BCS and not included Tulsa, for competitive reasons.