BCS created this site

[wheaton4prez]

Well, ND plays in the Big East in basketball, the only thing that has kept them independent in football is the NBC contract, which doesn't look so promising for renewal. Frankly their relevance is getting lost, and a conference move may actually help them.

There may or may not be reasons why either party would consider that change. The main point being that there really isn't a way to enforce this type of thing. The ACC recently made major changes switching teams in and out. Other conferences may do the same in the future at their own discretion. No conference is ever going to give up their right to do that on their own time for their own reasons. So, any play-off plan that includes creating some body that has authority over all of the conferences on who is or isn't represented by them would be dead in the water, imo. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have theoretical merit. I just don't think it's something that the powers that be would ever agree to and put in place.

I respectfully disagree. 16 teams works in most other divisions just fine.

Which divisions? You mean other sports?

Also, with there being 6 BCS conferences, as well as other conferences like the WAC, Mountain West, etc, how could an 8 team field possibly work? It couldn't, not with teams like Boise State and TCU undefeated this season.

It would work by seeding the play-offs with the most deserving teams, regardless of whether or not it leaves any conference completely unrepresented. Personally, I think that's the way it should be and it would encourage more fierce competition between all conferences. No team should be in simply because their conference made a sweet deal if it means that a better team is left out.

So who would the 8 teams be this year? Boot either Florida or Alabama and the Oregon/OSU loser and move Ohio State into the last slot? That's not very attractive at all.

If the season were over as of today, my proposal would seed the games like this (maybe slightly different if we weighted points formulas higher than wins):

Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Virginia Tech
Fiesta Bowl: Alabama vs. Boise State
Orange Bowl: Texas vs. Cincinnati
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. TCU

Those all seem like good games to me.

With no conference championship games, who would advance to the playoffs, Florida or Alabama? Or were you talking about having the 8 team field chosen AFTER the conference championship games? Well, if we were going to have those, why not just eliminate them and play a larger field? That way teams from different conferences could match up against the rest of the field in opposite brackets. They could potentially play each other for the national championship that way, if they both win out.

I was meaning after the conference championships for a good reason. How conferences split up, determine champions, etc. is all autonomous and independent of the BCS. No conference is ever going to give up their right to structure that stuff however they see fit.

Similar to moving teams in and out of conferences to make a play-off scheme work, it just makes the idea way less feasible to involve changes that over-ride the authority that conferences have. They just aren't going to agree to it.

My proposal is meant to avoid asking conferences to change anything. It just eliminates all human subjectivity from the process, all conference advantages and any incentive to schedule cupcakes to game the system. Also, it maintains the original bowl game identities so the same people can run them, tradition is maintained, etc. Only two additional play-off games would be needed to settle who plays for the NC game (call them the Eastern and Western Championships). I think it would be fair, unbiased and importantly is feasible given the way the powers that be are set up now.

[SuperDuck]

I still disagree. Virgina Tech? Come on!

[wheaton4prez]

I still disagree. Virgina Tech? Come on!

The numbers don't lie. Point for point, Virginia Tech has scored more points against tougher opponents than those below them.

That's the beauty of removing the human polls. If you don't like the results, it's nobodies fault but the team that didn't score enough points or prevent their opponents from scoring points.

[SuperDuck]

The numbers don't lie. Point for point, Virginia Tech has scored more points against tougher opponents than those below them.

Virgina Tech has three losses and doesn't belong anywhere near a playoff game. I don't buy that at all.

That's the beauty of removing the human polls. If you don't like the results, it's nobodies fault but the team that didn't score enough points or prevent their opponents from scoring points.

Try hitting Mike Bellotti up with that logic. I'm sure he'd throw up too, especially after the computers screwed the #2 ranked Ducks out of a shot at the national championship.

This is going nowhere. You've definitely got an interesting point of view. Fortunately, I'm on the other side of the planet - the RIGHT side.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[wheaton4prez]

Virgina Tech has three losses and doesn't belong anywhere near a playoff game. I don't buy that at all.

When it's objective, there is nothing to "buy". Virginia Tech performed better than teams below them according to the objective Sagarin formula using wins and points.

Who would you put above them? Georgia Tech? While they did beat VT head to head, they then lost to sub-par Georgia and Miami (who Tech spanked). Iowa who lost to Northwestern? Penn State who lost to Iowa and Ohio State? Ohio State with a loss to Purdue?

Anyway, the specific match-ups don't even matter regarding my proposal. I picked the Sagarin rankings because I think they're the most sound. But, if popular consensus wanted to go with a wins-only system or something, that would fit within the play-off plan that I proposed just as well. As long as it doesn't include human votes.

Try hitting Mike Bellotti up with that logic. I'm sure he'd throw up too, especially after the computers screwed the #2 ranked Ducks out of a shot at the national championship.

The computers didn't screw anyone out of anything. They were vulnerable to being gamed by teams running up the score. Win-only systems are vulnerable to being gamed by teams that schedule cup-cakes. A formula like Sagarins factors in both wins and points. So, it can't be gamed in that way and is not comparable to what happened to Belotti.

This is going nowhere. You've definitely got an interesting point of view. Fortunately, I'm on the other side of the planet - the RIGHT side.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I don't think your idea is without merit theoretically. I just think that it doesn't take into account a lot of factors that work against it. If a play-off system is ever established, I'm pretty sure that it will be more similar to my idea than yours. But, you're welcome to doubt that and conclude that you are right.

[Greydrake]

If I were a wagering man I would probably be backing your format Wheaton as the likely model to be adopted. One point that does need to be made is that Sagarins model is unlikely to be adopted as a criteria of choice. I've noted a high number of rebukes on the Sagarin,l especially in SEC oriented fans.

IMO, I doubt a realistic movement could come forward on a playoff model unless all 6 of the current BCS conferences come together. However, none of these conferences would consider a model where there is a chance their conference will be omitted from the equation. Frankly a model with 2 wild berths might find some favor if the playoffs are set with the current BCS bowl picture of BIG10_PAC10 playoff game.

You'll still get a lot of screaming pertaining to the wild berths, but at least there would be playoff to settle the issue between the big boys independent for the most point of polls.

[SuperDuck]

Try hitting Mike Bellotti up with that logic. I'm sure he'd throw up too, especially after the computers screwed the #2 ranked Ducks out of a shot at the national championship.

The computers didn't screw anyone out of anything. They were vulnerable to being gamed by teams running up the score.

What!? Humans had them at #2 in BOTH polls, but the computers didn't screw them?

I don't think your idea is without merit theoretically. I just think that it doesn't take into account a lot of factors that work against it. If a play-off system is ever established, I'm pretty sure that it will be more similar to my idea than yours. But, you're welcome to doubt that and conclude that you are right.

If the human element is removed then the system WILL be screwed. I don't see that ever happening. The computers may be tweaked and the formula modified, but I seriously doubt that humans will ever be totally removed from the equation.

Interesting point of view, Joe. I don't share it, but it's definitely interesting.

Anyway, as I said before, let's just agree to disagree.

[wheaton4prez]

What!? Humans had them at #2 in BOTH polls, but the computers didn't screw them?

No more so than the teams that gamed the formula screwed them by running up scores. I get what you're meaning. But, the computers were set before the season began. So, it's not like the formulas were nefarious. They were the rules. To me, saying that the computers screwed someone is like saying that Oregon got screwed against Cal in 2007 because the rules say fumbling into the end-zone is a turn-over. The rules screwed us!

The rules (and computer formulas) can't screw people. You just know them and play within those defined boundaries. Oregon probably should have realized that and ran scores up when they could like the other teams.

If the human element is removed then the system WILL be screwed. I don't see that ever happening. The computers may be tweaked and the formula modified, but I seriously doubt that humans will ever be totally removed from the equation.

Interesting point of view, Joe. I don't share it, but it's definitely interesting.

Anyway, as I said before, let's just agree to disagree.

I definitely disagree. Subjective polling from humans has been a huge part of the problem ever since they have been used. The horrible logic and bias that the voters have employed has been demonstrated right here on this site by their own words. I will never agree that a human voting system is a good way to determine what teams are best. It's a good way to guarantee that there will always be controversy about their decisions, regardless of how many teams you put in the play-offs.

I think it's possible that we could see a system with human polling removed. But, right now, the focus is more on just having a play-off structure. So, yeah, I think it is a bit of a long-shot right now.

[SuperDuck]

What!? Humans had them at #2 in BOTH polls, but the computers didn't screw them?

No more so than the teams that gamed the formula screwed them by running up scores. I get what you're meaning. But, the computers were set before the season began. So, it's not like the formulas were nefarious. They were the rules. To me, saying that the computers screwed someone is like saying that Oregon got screwed against Cal in 2007 because the rules say fumbling into the end-zone is a turn-over. The rules screwed us!

The rules (and computer formulas) can't screw people. You just know them and play within those defined boundaries. Oregon probably should have realized that and ran scores up when they could like the other teams.

If the human element is removed then the system WILL be screwed. I don't see that ever happening. The computers may be tweaked and the formula modified, but I seriously doubt that humans will ever be totally removed from the equation.

Interesting point of view, Joe. I don't share it, but it's definitely interesting.

Anyway, as I said before, let's just agree to disagree.

I definitely disagree. Subjective polling from humans has been a huge part of the problem ever since they have been used. The horrible logic and bias that the voters have employed has been demonstrated right here on this site by their own words. I will never agree that a human voting system is a good way to determine what teams are best. It's a good way to guarantee that there will always be controversy about their decisions, regardless of how many teams you put in the play-offs.

I think it's possible that we could see a system with human polling removed. But, right now, the focus is more on just having a play-off structure. So, yeah, I think it is a bit of a long-shot right now.

I don't think that human polls should be removed, but I do think they should be overhauled. One idea would be to have a committee hired to do nothing but evaluate teams by watching games during the course of the season. This would be their full time job each week. If they couldn't catch the game live then they'd need to watch a recording before they could vote. The polls could be released around the middle of the week each week instead of Sunday. Of course, they couldn't possibly watch every game, but they'd need to become very familiar with all contending teams.

One idea would be to have teams of pollers assigned to each region during different weeks in order to make sure that they've actually seen each team play at least three times during the year. Each vote would have to pass through a final review team in order to reduce the possibility of personal bias. Rotate these voters from region to region throughout the season. This would eliminate east coast/west coast bias, etc.

This is all just hypothetical, of course, but at least it would remove the idiot voters and put people in there that would be held accountable for their actions.

I'll never be in favor of giving computers 100% control of anything. Computers don't play the games, humans do.

[Greydrake]

Of the existing human polls, the Coaches Poll is by far the worst. There is absolutely no way an accurate and fair assessment of other teams can be made overnight by someone whose job is already demanding. Utilizing the concept of the Legends Polls would be more accurate especially if the poll was released midweek and under controlled circumstances which insure a review of the principle top 40 teams.

Comparative analysis requires that the subjects have some form of comparative schedule, not necessarily playing identical teams, but playing teams of comparable strength to your own. That is something the bulk of teams fail to do.

Simple things can be tweaked to in the current system to equalize the format Start with the issue that FBS schools should only count in terms of wins and bowl eligibility victories over other FBS schools.
The fact is that every other division of football has a playoff, and it seems to work just fine

[wheaton4prez]

I don't think that human polls should be removed, but I do think they should be overhauled. One idea would be to have a committee hired to do nothing but evaluate teams by watching games during the course of the season. This would be their full time job each week. If they couldn't catch the game live then they'd need to watch a recording before they could vote. The polls could be released around the middle of the week each week instead of Sunday. Of course, they couldn't possibly watch every game, but they'd need to become very familiar with all contending teams.

One idea would be to have teams of pollers assigned to each region during different weeks in order to make sure that they've actually seen each team play at least three times during the year. Each vote would have to pass through a final review team in order to reduce the possibility of personal bias. Rotate these voters from region to region throughout the season. This would eliminate east coast/west coast bias, etc.

This is all just hypothetical, of course, but at least it would remove the idiot voters and put people in there that would be held accountable for their actions.

Yeah. I think that some of those things might improve the human polls from where they are now. But, I don't see a reason to have humans make those calls off the cuff. If you can identify a reason why a human should or shouldn't vote a certain way, you can identify a concrete rule that can be decided on and applied for everyone. Using human voting just opens the door to varied interpretations and controversy.

I'll never be in favor of giving computers 100% control of anything. Computers don't play the games, humans do.

I think that is sort of a misconception. Computers wouldn't control anything. Humans would. We would define rules for how we think performance should be measured and they would be applied to all teams equally. Exactly the same way that the rules of the game of football are defined by humans (adjusted some each season) and then applied equally to all teams (except when the human refs mess up ). The computers are simply a tool to make applying the rules easier and faster. Theoretically, you could do the same thing with a bunch of humans crunching the numbers on scratch paper if you really wanted to keep computers out.