College Football creates worst system.

DerekT · 07-18-2004, 02:17 PM

There will now be a new system that college football uses to decide who the number #1 team is.

Now before what they did was have a coach's poll and a media poll and based on those polls that would decide who the number one team is. Of course a problem would arise when who the coach's picked and who the media picked as #1 were different.

Now it is going to go to 3 polls. A coach's pool, a media poll, and a computer poll (I guess they are putting in resuts and the computer will tabulate who is the best team). So now instead of having two teams listed as number #1 we will have 3. Thats just so brillliant isn't it.

swampdragon · 07-18-2004, 11:55 PM

They want to keep the bowls and avoid a multigame playoff. The only way that satisfies anyone is if there are exactly 2 undefeated teams after the season is over. The problem is that if you go to 8 or 16 teams, it will reduce the importance of the regular season. No one cares about the regular season in college basketball. It's all about March Madness. Ditto for college baseball. If you reduce the significance of the regular season, these schools may not fill their 90,000 seat stadiums any more.

jte87 · 07-19-2004, 12:42 AM

And the computers aren't new, anyway. They actually decreased the importance of the computer polls, so that when the humans agree on something, some computer program that has UNLV as the best team in the nation doesn't screw it up.

FAR from perfect, but there is no perfect system without a playoff. And that just ain't happening, so I'll take the small victories.

Skipaway · 07-19-2004, 04:47 AM

I do think college football got the best system among all NCAA sports. As swampdragon said, it's the only one that would actually attract fans in the regular season.

gmo · 07-19-2004, 05:00 AM

Am I the only one who doesn't really care if there is not a supposedly undisputable #1 determined only on the field in college football? I miss the days where teams went somewhere to a bowl, and if #1 & #2 could matchup they did, if a clear #1 was there in the end they were voted #1 in the polls, but if not... The new year did not grind to a halt in its first few days. What's wrong with one big-time sports area where there is ambiguity about who is the best?

swampdragon · 07-19-2004, 08:34 AM

I care only if "the undisputed no.1" team is also likely to be the best team. There are too many times with playoffs where you get ersatz champions who just happened to get hot at the right time. My ideal playoff situation is like the old baseball one-- you don't get there without an outstanding regular season.

goroyals · 07-19-2004, 08:49 AM

Really swampdragon, I can't agree with you on that. I think the BCS, as it showed in 2003, has the ability to nullify the entire regular season. I don't think the casual fan of football is going to care about a season that has the chance to end with a co-champion, especially when they can look at the NFL and say 'Wow, only one team can win, and they have playoffs too!' Now with that said, I think the BCS took some strides to improving by adding that 5th bowl in 05/06.

Skipaway · 07-19-2004, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goroyals

Really swampdragon, I can't agree with you on that. I think the BCS, as it showed in 2003, has the ability to nullify the entire regular season. I don't think the casual fan of football is going to care about a season that has the chance to end with a co-champion, especially when they can look at the NFL and say 'Wow, only one team can win, and they have playoffs too!' Now with that said, I think the BCS took some strides to improving by adding that 5th bowl in 05/06.

I don't think that's what swampdragon means.

With no playoffs, EVERY game counts for contending teams. The bigger the playoff system is, the easier it is to get into the playoffs, and the less important the regular season is, and the less fan interest in regular season games. And as in every sports league with a playoff system, you'd see contending teams resting starters and tanking after a berth is clinched.

Playoff is damaging for the regular season anyway you cut it. It's all about if what's gained by the playoff system can make up for its damage.

jnshmoo · 07-19-2004, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I don't think that's what swampdragon means.

With no playoffs, EVERY game counts for contending teams. The bigger the playoff system is, the easier it is to get into the playoffs, and the less important the regular season is, and the less fan interest in regular season games. And as in every sports league with a playoff system, you'd see contending teams resting starters and tanking after a berth is clinched.

Playoff is damaging for the regular season anyway you cut it. It's all about if what's gained by the playoff system can make up for its damage.

This reminds me of when I was playing rec-league baseball. We played x number of games during the season, but then EVERY TEAM in the league entered the playoffs. It simply used a seeding system like the NCAA Basketball tourney. Every season, my team would consistently end up in the middle to bottom of the standings, but would just as consistently turn it up a notch in the playoffs. Three years in a row we were in the bottom seeded group and won the playoffs. At our awards banquet, both the playoff winning team and the regular season champions would get trophies. Basically, we had co-champions every year.

Personally, I prefer the OLD system. I liked the rivalries that were created by certain conference champions playing the same rival conference champions each year. ie Big Ten vs Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl.

swampdragon · 07-19-2004, 09:36 AM

The entire foundation of college football athletics is built around getting thos 90,000 fans to show up 6 or 7 times to watch a regualar season football game. I just think it's hazardous to mess with the importance of the regular season. Last year was messy, because you needed a three team championship game. But it would really have been no better with an 8 team playoff, because you would have to make arbitrary decisions about who the 7th and 8th teams are. Then there's the possibility that one of them could by a fluke wind up with a national championship with 3 losses. It's happened enough in college basketball.

goroyals · 07-19-2004, 11:30 AM

Good points. But wouldn't it help to add another game after the BCS thats played in the case of a split championship?

Cooleyvol · 07-19-2004, 11:36 AM

DerekT,
Actually, these three criteria (along with others) have been used to determine what two teams go to the 'national championship game for quite some time.

They've just pared it down to ONLY those three factors for the upcoming season.

rangers85 · 07-19-2004, 01:54 PM

Hey, but at least the New York Times computer is gone, that one was always utter trash.

gmo · 07-19-2004, 02:21 PM

Before you can say who should be National Champion, I think you need to set down what the National Champion is supposed to be. I think it is largely presumed, but like an "MVP" award, there is room for lots of discussion and interpretation since college football's #1 is not decided by a playoff like most everything else. Should the Champ be the team that was the best over the season as a whole? If so, emphasize the regular season & computer polls and count losses the same regardless of when they occur. Should the Champ be the team that is the best at the end of the season? If so, emphasize the end of the year including bowls/playoffs and human polls with the mentality of what have you done lately.

Playoffs are fine and I enjoy them in most everything else, but I liked the idea of college football being different where the regular season of 11 (or now 12, 13, 14, whatever) games meant so much. The "what have you done lately" thing I'm not as keen on as if you had two comparable 11-1 team, the 1st losing its first game of the season, the 2nd losing its last, the 1st would always get the nod.

KurtBevacqua · 07-19-2004, 03:42 PM

What I find amusing is the BCS formula was originally created as a means to overcome the human bias of the polls and inject an objective element to the ratings (or at least the was the excuse used at the time). A couple years pass where the computers and humans don't agree and suddenly there is a big uproar to go back to the polls and eliminate the computers. Just shows the BCS was never really about choosing the best teams to play in the title but was about creating enough buzz to sell out games and garner high TV ratings. In this they have hugely succeeded which is why BCS will not go away anytime soon.

matskralc · 07-19-2004, 03:45 PM

Why do people actually think a single-game elimination playoff system will determine the BEST teams, as opposed to, say, the luckiest? (I'm looking at you, 2003 Carolina Panthers and 1994 San Diego Chargers!!1)

matskralc · 07-19-2004, 03:47 PM

And before one of you dopes says it, yes, I KNOW those two teams did not WIN. But I'm hard pressed to believe that there is true consensus that both of them were the second best teams in the NFL those years.

Gastric ReFlux · 07-19-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matskralc

And before one of you dopes says it, yes, I KNOW those two teams did not WIN. But I'm hard pressed to believe that there is true consensus that both of them were the second best teams in the NFL those years.

Besides, we know that in a truly determinant system, Grove City College would come out on top.

DerekT · 07-20-2004, 09:48 PM

Look first off I perfer if some team just got hot as compaired to what we have now.

Second and more importantly, in a sport with only 10 games its hard to agrue a team got lucky. I mean most times I look at that top 25 list its 2 team that are undefeated, 15 or so teams at 9-1 and 6 at 8-2 and 1 maybe at 7-3.

I would agree with not wanting an NHL like situation (where sub 500 teams can make it), but really knowing that even if my team wins and goes to 9-1 it means nothing (a BS bowl, oh wow) doesn't fill me with joy.

GeoWar · 07-21-2004, 12:25 AM

The BCS has regressed with their latest changes. The polls change every week -- win you rise , lose and you drop. The problem is that if team A loses in September to a 4-7 team ; but team B loses in November to a team that finishes 8-3 ---- Team A will without a doubt be rated above team B.

The BCS was to encourage teams to play competitive schedules - Now will teams schedule tough opponents early. Especially since strength of schedule and conference has been de-emphasised.

I can hardly wait for a Boise State vs. Tulane National championship game.

The BCS has matched the top 2 teams "overall" in the nation ... No longer does "The Bear" select his bowl opponent when rated #1 and beat the cupcake.

07-19-2004, 04:47 AM	#4
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	I do think college football got the best system among all NCAA sports. As swampdragon said, it's the only one that would actually attract fans in the regular season. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

07-19-2004, 03:42 PM	#15
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	What I find amusing is the BCS formula was originally created as a means to overcome the human bias of the polls and inject an objective element to the ratings (or at least the was the excuse used at the time). A couple years pass where the computers and humans don't agree and suddenly there is a big uproar to go back to the polls and eliminate the computers. Just shows the BCS was never really about choosing the best teams to play in the title but was about creating enough buzz to sell out games and garner high TV ratings. In this they have hugely succeeded which is why BCS will not go away anytime soon. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

07-19-2004, 03:45 PM	#16
matskralc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,076	Why do people actually think a single-game elimination playoff system will determine the BEST teams, as opposed to, say, the luckiest? (I'm looking at you, 2003 Carolina Panthers and 1994 San Diego Chargers!!1) __________________ Well, they have a saying here in Texas ... but they probably don't have it in California, so never mind. OTBL - Pennsylvania Fightin' Amish ABC - Pittsburgh Puma OCHO - Pittsburgh Pirates EBU - Commissioner

07-19-2004, 03:47 PM	#17
matskralc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,076	And before one of you dopes says it, yes, I KNOW those two teams did not WIN. But I'm hard pressed to believe that there is true consensus that both of them were the second best teams in the NFL those years. __________________ Well, they have a saying here in Texas ... but they probably don't have it in California, so never mind. OTBL - Pennsylvania Fightin' Amish ABC - Pittsburgh Puma OCHO - Pittsburgh Pirates EBU - Commissioner

07-21-2004, 12:25 AM	#20
GeoWar All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 850	The BCS has regressed with their latest changes. The polls change every week -- win you rise , lose and you drop. The problem is that if team A loses in September to a 4-7 team ; but team B loses in November to a team that finishes 8-3 ---- Team A will without a doubt be rated above team B. The BCS was to encourage teams to play competitive schedules - Now will teams schedule tough opponents early. Especially since strength of schedule and conference has been de-emphasised. I can hardly wait for a Boise State vs. Tulane National championship game. The BCS has matched the top 2 teams "overall" in the nation ... No longer does "The Bear" select his bowl opponent when rated #1 and beat the cupcake. __________________ Cal. State Fullerton -- NCAA Champion - Baseball 2004 Texas Longhorns -- NCAA Champion - Baseball 2005 Oregon State Beavers -- NCAA Champion - Baseball 2006 and 2007 With unity comes VICTORY !

07-18-2004, 02:17 PM	#1
DerekT Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 246	College Football creates worst system. There will now be a new system that college football uses to decide who the number #1 team is. Now before what they did was have a coach's poll and a media poll and based on those polls that would decide who the number one team is. Of course a problem would arise when who the coach's picked and who the media picked as #1 were different. Now it is going to go to 3 polls. A coach's pool, a media poll, and a computer poll (I guess they are putting in resuts and the computer will tabulate who is the best team). So now instead of having two teams listed as number #1 we will have 3. Thats just so brillliant isn't it.

07-18-2004, 11:55 PM	#2
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,506	They want to keep the bowls and avoid a multigame playoff. The only way that satisfies anyone is if there are exactly 2 undefeated teams after the season is over. The problem is that if you go to 8 or 16 teams, it will reduce the importance of the regular season. No one cares about the regular season in college basketball. It's all about March Madness. Ditto for college baseball. If you reduce the significance of the regular season, these schools may not fill their 90,000 seat stadiums any more.

07-19-2004, 12:42 AM	#3
jte87 Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 305	And the computers aren't new, anyway. They actually decreased the importance of the computer polls, so that when the humans agree on something, some computer program that has UNLV as the best team in the nation doesn't screw it up. FAR from perfect, but there is no perfect system without a playoff. And that just ain't happening, so I'll take the small victories.

07-19-2004, 05:00 AM	#5
gmo Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 3,472	Am I the only one who doesn't really care if there is not a supposedly undisputable #1 determined only on the field in college football? I miss the days where teams went somewhere to a bowl, and if #1 & #2 could matchup they did, if a clear #1 was there in the end they were voted #1 in the polls, but if not... The new year did not grind to a halt in its first few days. What's wrong with one big-time sports area where there is ambiguity about who is the best?

07-19-2004, 08:34 AM	#6
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,506	I care only if "the undisputed no.1" team is also likely to be the best team. There are too many times with playoffs where you get ersatz champions who just happened to get hot at the right time. My ideal playoff situation is like the old baseball one-- you don't get there without an outstanding regular season.

07-19-2004, 08:49 AM	#7
goroyals All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 930	Really swampdragon, I can't agree with you on that. I think the BCS, as it showed in 2003, has the ability to nullify the entire regular season. I don't think the casual fan of football is going to care about a season that has the chance to end with a co-champion, especially when they can look at the NFL and say 'Wow, only one team can win, and they have playoffs too!' Now with that said, I think the BCS took some strides to improving by adding that 5th bowl in 05/06.

07-19-2004, 09:36 AM	#10
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,506	The entire foundation of college football athletics is built around getting thos 90,000 fans to show up 6 or 7 times to watch a regualar season football game. I just think it's hazardous to mess with the importance of the regular season. Last year was messy, because you needed a three team championship game. But it would really have been no better with an 8 team playoff, because you would have to make arbitrary decisions about who the 7th and 8th teams are. Then there's the possibility that one of them could by a fluke wind up with a national championship with 3 losses. It's happened enough in college basketball.

07-19-2004, 11:30 AM	#11
goroyals All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 930	Good points. But wouldn't it help to add another game after the BCS thats played in the case of a split championship?

07-19-2004, 11:36 AM	#12
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	DerekT, Actually, these three criteria (along with others) have been used to determine what two teams go to the 'national championship game for quite some time. They've just pared it down to ONLY those three factors for the upcoming season.

07-19-2004, 01:54 PM	#13
rangers85 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Fort Worth, TX...home of the mighty TCU Horned Frogs Posts: 909	Hey, but at least the New York Times computer is gone, that one was always utter trash.

07-19-2004, 02:21 PM	#14
gmo Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 3,472	Before you can say who should be National Champion, I think you need to set down what the National Champion is supposed to be. I think it is largely presumed, but like an "MVP" award, there is room for lots of discussion and interpretation since college football's #1 is not decided by a playoff like most everything else. Should the Champ be the team that was the best over the season as a whole? If so, emphasize the regular season & computer polls and count losses the same regardless of when they occur. Should the Champ be the team that is the best at the end of the season? If so, emphasize the end of the year including bowls/playoffs and human polls with the mentality of what have you done lately. Playoffs are fine and I enjoy them in most everything else, but I liked the idea of college football being different where the regular season of 11 (or now 12, 13, 14, whatever) games meant so much. The "what have you done lately" thing I'm not as keen on as if you had two comparable 11-1 team, the 1st losing its first game of the season, the 2nd losing its last, the 1st would always get the nod.

07-20-2004, 09:48 PM	#19
DerekT Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 246	Look first off I perfer if some team just got hot as compaired to what we have now. Second and more importantly, in a sport with only 10 games its hard to agrue a team got lucky. I mean most times I look at that top 25 list its 2 team that are undefeated, 15 or so teams at 9-1 and 6 at 8-2 and 1 maybe at 7-3. I would agree with not wanting an NHL like situation (where sub 500 teams can make it), but really knowing that even if my team wins and goes to 9-1 it means nothing (a BS bowl, oh wow) doesn't fill me with joy.