I might be talkin’ out my ass, but Mizzou looks like they should beat Oklahoma at this point in the season. They look better to me. (But, like Oregon, somewhat “one dimentional” with the QB being all they have)
With only one loss, Kansas needs a shot at something big for what they did this season. I wouldn’t mind kicking thier ass in the Rose Bowl but don’t want to see Ohio go any farther than that.
Eh. Whatever. I’ve been drinking. Since Wednesday.
How do we know that Hawaii is better than LSU, Georgia, Oklahoma, Kansas, or any number of other teams?
That’s astorian’s point. We don’t know, the coaches don’t know, the AP doesn’t know and the BCS’s computers don’t know. If a playoff system were instituted then the contenders would be eliminated by losing their playoff game and not by the whims of human polls and computer algorithms.
It feels like Hawaii is the Ron Paul of college football. It’s funny to watch all the hate they get in the threads over on the news Fark and DSYoungEsq. Seems like every week they were just about to be blown out. Anyway, certainly finding the best team isn’t the number one goal for the current system.
I would really like to see a playoff system though. Or turn the entire regular season into one large playoff designed so everyone plays at least 12 games. Reward teams for the game they play, not the ones people think they could have played.
I don’t think the Bobcats are going to be going to a bowl game this year.
Sorry, pet peeve.
It would be interesting to see a poll system which incorporated more knowledge than just that of computers, sports writers and coaches.
What I mean is, Missouri is ranked 1, and Oklahoma is ranked 9 in the BCS. However, OU is favored in the game next week on a neutral field. Clearly, this means that the OU is considered a better football team.
Gambling lines represent the most efficient and complete aggregation of knowledge.
Just for the sake of argument, how about this as a model for a play-off system:
–at the end of the regular season, take 16 teams for the play-offs;
–the 16 teams will consist of the 11 that win their conferences and 5 at-large picks chosen according to their BSC rankings;
–the teams will be weighted 1 to 16 according to the BSC so that in the first round the #1 team will play #16, the #2 team will play #15, #3 will play #14, etc.;
–the 8 winners would advance to the second round the following week, then the third round with 4 teams, then the fourth (championship) round with the final two teams;
–15 of the already existing bowl games would be incorporated into the play-off system so that each individual game will be a bowl game. Just like now, the championship game would be rotated among the top tier bowl games (e.g., the Rose or the Sugar). However, due to the way the system breaks down, I’m not sure whether it should be the top 3 bowl games or the top 7 bowl games.
Of course, I’m not saying this system is perfect. For one thing, it would mean every team having to cut back on the number of non-conference games they play. It would also reward teams with only above-average records that win “lesser” conferences like the MAC. Also, because the play-offs would likely occur around late November and December, there’s the thorny problem of the student athlete’s semester/quarter finals. Still, it would offer more clarity into determining who the national champion would be than the status quo.
Yeah, but unless you have a 16 team playoff Hawaii wouldn’t get in.
This is where the playoff plan breaks down. Bowl games are tourist attractions geared toward traveling alumni, students and fans, and there aren’t enough of those with the disposable income to go to 3 tiers of playoff games. The only way a 16 team playoff works is if the first two rounds are at campus sites.
Not necessarily. A gambling line is the way the house tries to ensure that relatively equal amounts get bet both sides of the wager. That way, the house doesn’t stand to lose big depending upon outcome.
Now, for games where the money will be split relatively evenly based upon relative team skills, that would mean wager line equals pretty good understanding of actual ability. But when the house knows that more money is likely to be bet on one side of the wager, regardless of how relatively skilled the team is, the line will be adjusted to reflect same.
As long as you say “win your conference and you’re in” you’ve got my vote. I’ll even let the ACC, SEC and Big 12 pretend they’re two conferences and send the winner of each division leaving only 1 at large bid.
I wonder if there’s a way to encourage good teams to play other good teams?
The play-off games are going to cost much more than the regular season games anyway. Also, each round of the NCAA tournament in basketball is played at different neutral sites throughout the country so I don’t think that for football it would be much more different in terms of travel difficulty for the schools’ students, fans, and alumni.
The hoops tournament opening rounds are held in arenas that seat 15,000-20,000, of which each of 4 schools gets an equal number of seats. It is one thing to sell 4,500 seats to a basketball arena and quite another to sell 40,000 to a football stadium.
I don’t think it would make much difference if the neutral playoff stadiums were full, half full, or empty. The gate is going to be peanuts compared to the television revenue. I’d take the champions of every conference plus at-large teams as per the BCS rankings to round out the top 16. Anyway, on the second Saturday in December, teams 1-8 play host as per normal seeding (1 v 16, 2 v 9, etc). Play the 4 traditional major bowls (Orange, Sugar, Rose, Cotton) as quarterfinals on New Years Day. Let the semis be in Fiesta Bowl and one other neutral site the next weekend. Then the finals could alternate between Pasadena, New Orleans, and other warm weather/domed sites. Let the minor bowls go on as usual between teams not in the top 16. Conference titles become a lot more meaningful, we have a truly recognized champion, and everybody makes a boatload of money.
I seem to recall you saying the same thing 2 years ago, before a certain Sugar Bowl against the All-Mighty SEC ™ champion that was basically in a home game…how’d that turn out?
(Before you bring up “Ohh, they scored early and barely held on”, think about the scoring early, as in 28 points in the first quarter, with White and Slaton as freshmen…and you’ll probably see how WVU is not overrated, especially now with a defense that is miles above the one back in the Sugar Bowl 2005.)
Incidentally, I’d look at the Sagarin rankings that place the Big East as the 3rd best conference and the Big 10 as the 5th before I rate the Big East as junk.
All I can say is Let’s Goooooooooooooooo Mountaineers!!! I’ve already got my ticket for Saturday night, and it’s going to be a great time seeing Pitt get crushed even worse than UConn did…I can’t wait 
I think you could do it with an 8 team playoff, all conference champions. If you can’t even win your conference, you have no reason to bitch about being left out.
The 6 BCS conferences should have 12 teams each and a conference championship game (which sorta adds a round to the playoffs). The 4 of 5 non-BCS conf champs play each other for the 2 “at large” bids (lowest ranking of the 5 teams sits out).
Matchups can then be determined by rankings or a rotating conf vs conf system. The 2 “at large” teams could never play each other in the first round.
Comments/critiques? This is my first cut at this, I’m sure it could use some improvements, or things I just didn’t think of.