How does Congrove do this?

[Spence]

OK, then lets say that to be BCS bowl eligible you can't play a 1-AA opponent. That would let the Indiana's of the world go a head and pad their schedule a little.

[mountainman]

That might be o.k., but there are a number of issues surrounding scheduling that would also have to be addressed ... such as leveling the playing field on the payouts by the home teams to visiting teams. Some programs are simply putting a play date up for bid and the highest bidder gets the game.

The Mountaineer program has experienced just that for the past two seasons. UCF and Buffalo backed out of contracts, about 6 months before scheduled kickoff, for more bucks while the Mountaineers ended up with Wofford and Eastern Washington .

[Spence]

Yes. I understand that part also. Teams shouldn't be able to back out without penalties, ones that sting.

[mountainman]

There's one thing that becomes abundantly clear when one hangs around national forums ,such as we have here, as opposed to 'homer' or conference or regional forums.

And that is that college football reacts like a spider's web ..... if you pull only one strand the entire web is impacted to one degree or another.

[colorado_loves_football]

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

You can paint it any color you want, it still was an OT game, lost at home by a team that generally-speaking (Marshall) is still pretty good.

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.

If you are going to base your assessment of SMU, don't apply Marshall. We all know (or at least should know) that Marshall is a very good program, relative to the rest of the NCAA. An OT loss to them, isn't a 'sign' of a 'failing' program, by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

I do. For lack of direct competition, it 'suggests' TCU is likely 'better' than Oregon based on 'common' opponents. Oregon failed to beat Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl.

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.

I think it's still 'questionable' how much better Oklahoma was, end-of-year, myself. Good teams shouldn't take a year to get started.

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.

Well, they will be playing against a team 'equally' fatigued, if my proposal is applied, so it should 'even' things out, quite a bit, IMO.

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.

Quite contrary, I can't imagine anything more 'fair' then letting the confernece title games 'select' BCS participants.

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.

I don't know how ESPN applies to this argument, but if they want 15 games, that's coincidentally how many my proposal allows for (generally speaking).

Assuming 32 bowls: 9 would be 'BCS' exclusive (as opposed to 5).

the remaining 23 would be 'occupied' by teams that fall short of the BCS. That equals 46, as opposed to the 54 already allowed (non-BCS).
8 teams would be 'denied' a bowl, to allow my proposal to work, unless 4 more sponsors were to become available.

Of the 64 'granted' a bowl, only 5 would ever play a 14th game.
Of those, only 3 (maximum) would play a 15th game (2 would be 'assured'). And one only could ever play a 16th.
That's the relatively 'unlikely' proposition one of the 'preliminary' teams, advances to the title game.

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.

I think the only way Fresno St ever plays in a NC is if some kind of playoff (as I'm proposing) were to ever be applied.

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.

All I do is write my own thoughts, accept them for whatever you consider their value to be.

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)

I don't work for CFP. Their 'formula' howver is pretty reliable, if results follow their 'predicitions' as they have. 80% reliablity is nothing to 'sneeze' at.

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.

The Associated Press, IMO, can vote for whomever they want, they aren't 'entitled' to vote for a team, simply because they are undefeated.

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?

I'm not a professional, by any stretch of the imagination, I simply 'post' my ideas such as they are. Do you 'assess' ever team in the country? If so, why?

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)

I don't recall saying anything of the kind, about the Volunteers, but they likely weren't that bad, but obviously didn't play very well. That's all I was getting at.

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.

I never said I thought Brady Quinn 'deserved' the Heisman, but he obviously has a lot of talent.

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

Not too often, I'm cutting down on my 'lipids' and 'polyurethane'.

[billybud]

http://www.nerdie.com/deargod.html

My fervent prayer.

[Eric]

[RazorHawk]

Cane from the Bend wrote:
Marshall squeaked out an over-time game, just barely allowing them to finish 4-7, and not 3-8.
Yeah, but for the fact they beat SMU, they were a 3-8 team, so what?

Can from the Bend wrote:

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.
But for that game (Marshall, they are 6-5 and in a bowl). I rest my case.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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. (we've covered this one enough)

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.
Holiday Bowl.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
You have nothing to base that theory on, except triangulation.
It's fairlly reliable, provided the three teams being compared played against one-another, one degree of separation.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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.
Gadzundheit. I think it's debatable, that Oklahoma was 'better' myself, at season's end. Even "if" they were, they still lost to TCU, in Norman.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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.
It is 'fair' from the perspective, that (assuming 'equal' divisions) roughly 48 teams would be represented in the BCS, wheras now, approx. 55 aren't represented at all. One X-tra game isn't going to kill anybody.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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.
My proposal would allow for competition to select BCS participants, and only competition would select them, not a poll.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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.
All that stuff, I have no control over. My proposal would 'provide' ESPN with the 15 games they want. Sounds like 'win-win' to me. By the way here's the 'breakdown' on it, for whoever's interested:

Assuming 32 bowls (as presently is the case): 9 would be 'BCS' exclusive.
the remaining 24 would be 'occupied' by teams 'ineligible' for the BCS. That's 48 teams (non-BCS) in a bowl, compared with 56 now. (a trade-off). In effect, fewer teams would qualify for a bowl, but of those that do, 20 would be 'assured' opportunity for a BCS bid, provided they win.
(ten qualify, but CC games select participants).

5 would 'advance' to play a 14th game. Of those 5, 3 (max)
would 'advance' to a 15th game, of those 3, only one would ever play a 16th game (50% by odds). Most years, 15 games are sufficient.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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.
Frenso St, would have to be undefeated to have a chance, and even then the odds are against them playing for a BCS title.

Cane from the Bend wrote:

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.
No, I simply have my own opioins, as do you, tha'ts not such a bad thing, is it?

Cane from the Bend wrote:

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)
I'm pretty sure the 'official' CFP poll is a 'final' poll.
I'ts based on pre-season assessments, but I could be wrong.

Cane from the Bend wrote:

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.
Whatever, I still think USC was clearly #1 overall, but who knows? Stranger things have happened, one more argument for a playoff, IMO.

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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?
Honestly, I'm operating under what I consider to be 'limited' information, as are most people. Yes, I refer to last year's games, as point of reference, but they aren't the only thing I consider.

Cane from the Bend wrote:

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)
I think you made a valid argument on behalf of any team ranked 'insufficiently' high. I said 'we will see' because Tennessee, IMO wasn't that great, last year. I haven't 'measured' them at all, so you are lying (or delusional).

Cane from the Bend wrote:
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.
We should all have our own 'say' in who we want for the Heisman, that would be 'fun'.

Anyone else interested?

Cane from the Bend wrote:

You may be into LP's, but, how often do you dine on them?
Every night. I have to have my daily allowance for polyurethane. If I don't get it from laquer thinner, I get it from LPs. I'ts to address my 'irregularity'.

What did you mean by all of that?And with the improper use of the quote, I earned more money.

[mountainman]

First since two teams are required to make a game there are only 714 D-1 games scheduled in a season.

That's a matter of semantics and not the issue.

I'll check this out a little further and get back with you.

By the way, a team does not have 118 choices for the first game nor does the same team have 117 choices for the second game. There's other games, as you semantically put it, being played during the same time frame.

[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.

First since two teams are required to make a game there are only 714 D-1 games scheduled in a season.

Second each team has 118 teams available as an opponent in the first game of the season, then 117 teams available the second game since you don't want two teams playing each other twice in the regular season, removing one team from the pool of possible opponents each week until you wind up with 107 unchallenged opponents to play in the 12th game of the season. If you add it up you wind up with 1350 possible opponents for each team to fill out a twelve game schedule. It would take several seasons before you had to schedule the same team for a second game if you wanted to play everyone else in D-1 once before scheduling a regular season rematch with anyone.

To sum things up, there is no reason mathematically why any D-1 school should have to play a 1-AA school ever!

Hey, David ..... have you made any progress on demonstrating how your thoughts would fill out the 12 game schedule for all 119 teams?

[Cane from the Bend]

"The AP didn't think Auburn was wronged, at least before the championshp game."

True, but the AP did make an issue of it, after the Sugar Bowl game.

And, it is not until after the championship is played, that a co-champion can be crowned.

The AP can recognize anyone for a championship.

If they wanted to, they could choose to award Auburn with the Co-national title from 2004, today.

The fact is, they didn't do it when it was an issue. Anissue which they claimed was the final straw, and announced their removal from the BCS.

That is their inconsistancy.

[Cane from the Bend]

Razor Hawk,

Until you can separate posts, and reply with your own arguments (as enfeebled as they may be), I will not respond to you.

It's difficult enough, just having one person misinterpret what I post.

But to have a second person doing it, and leaving in the mixed debate with the other person:

1.) it is almost impossible to tell who I'm addressing.

2.) it is not worth the effort.

So, essentially, you are not worth my time.

No offense, but it's like arguing with a schizophrenic.

Blending two posts into one, and agreeing with some of it, while challenging the rest.

It's confusing the hell outta me.

[Cane from the Bend]

"I never said Bady Quinn deserved the Heisman"...

Stop!

Right there is a pure example of what I am refering to, as misquotaton.

You interpret words into a comment that are not there.

I never wrote that you thought Brady Quinn should win the Heisman.

I simply refered to your words, about Brady Quinn deserving the current attention he is getting.

He has not done anything this season yet. Therefore, he should not get any attention for the Heisman.

>

Marshall finished 4-7 last year. That is a bad record.

By beating a team in overtime, that did not finish with a winning record either, is not impressive.

SMU did not lose to the Marshall teams of the past.

Regardless of what Marshall did in previous years, they still finished with a 4-7 record.

So what if Marshall has (or has had) a good program. That program didn't help them earn a winning record.

And the fact that they were 1-2 going into their ame against SMU doesn't support your argument.

And the 1 game Marshall did win before playing SMU, was against William & Mary. The final score, was 36-24.

If Marshall wasn't that bad, how could they let a Div 1-AA team score 24 points on them?

This also means, in their 4 wins, Marshall only beat 3 Div 1-A teams.

None of which had winning records:

SMU 5-6
UAB 5-6
Tulane 2-9

With a 1 point win over Tulane, a 1 point win over UAB, and an overtime 3 win against SMU.

That is a combined win total of 5 points versus Div 1-A opponents (with losing records).

As for SMU coming within a fieldgoal in overtime of beating Marshall... that's misleading to say the least.

Marshall won by 3 points.

Had SMU made a fieldgoal, they would have taken the game into 2cnd Over-Time, not won the game.

Overall, yep, I'm sill convinced that SMU was not very good. And, Marshall was not a good team either.

Your argument still lacks evidence to the contrary.

>

Oklaoma didn't take all year to get better.

That is another comment of mine you took completely out of context.

You wanted examples, well, here... you did it again.

What I wrote was, that Oklahoma was a better team at the end of the year, than what they started.

If it had taken them the whole season, then they would not have finished with a winning record.

Instead, it was about the 6th game of the year (after he Texas loss) that the Sooners went on a winning streak.

Yes, Oklahoma was a better team at the end of the year than what they started. And the proof is in how they actually performed as a unit, and came together as a team, as the season rolled through.

To say otherwise, is to ignore Oklahoma's overal performance on the season.

And that can be taken as a sign of disrespect for their program.

>

You need to look at your formula again.

If two teams who are equally faigued, play against eacoher one week, then, the winner wil still have to play against a team who has one more week of rest than they do.

So it is still not fair.

Preliminary means prior to. Any team that plays in a bowl game then plays a team who has not played as many games, is going to be suffering more fatigue.

And the fact that their is a preliminary, means that, eventually, someone is going to have to play more games.

Otherwise, it does not equate right.

And we are still talking about extra 'games', in the plural sense of the word.

Even a 10 team playoff would add 4 more weeks to the schedule.

That is nearly half of the current season, now.

You are flagrantly disegarding the Health of the student athletes.

You are still treating them like cash crops.

And you are making their educations take a back seat to sports.

The major issue the NCAA has, is that these kids should be looked at as students first. They are not paid professionals.

Take a look at how you are exploiting the individuals who are going to be involved with this system. And stop looking at it as an ends to a better status quo.

It is selfish on the part of outsiders to think they can come up with a solution that does nothing more than add some entertainment value, for themselves.

>

espn works into everything I have said. It is the media who is really behind the big push towards a playoff. Because espn knows they will get the broadcasting rights to most of the games.

Anything that gives the media more power is a bad thing.

And that is exactly what your proposal does.

>

I'm not sneezing at the CFP. Again, you are disregarding my comments, to pamper your argument.

(and yet another example of your misquotations... ramember, you did ask for them)

I have been posting about the BCS and preseason polls that relate to it.

I do not see hoe your reference to the CFP is relevant to this topic.

You are the one who stated, this is an issue I need to take up with the CFP.

However, this conversation has nothing to do with the CFP, or its preseason poll.

You have yet to show me the connection.

>

The AP being entitled to vote for who ever they want for a national championship argument is a cop out.

Yeah, hey shouldn't feel the need to award Auburn with a co-chapionship honor for finishing undefeated.

However, they also shouldnot feel it be a neccessity to give one to usc in 2003, for finishing with 1 loss, either.

The AP made a lot of noise about Auburn not getting a fair shake.

This was their excuse for being the final reason that solidified their decission to pull out of the BCS.

But, with all of the ruckus they went out of their way to create, they also failed to give Auurn the recognition 'they claimed' Auburn deserved.

I'm not talking about the AP's entitlement.

I'm refering to their inconsistancy.

Something you failed to defend.

>

No, I do not assess teams in the preseason (at least not for ranking purposes).

That is what I have been posting.

However, if I did a true analysis, I would have to consider more than just the teams who appeared in the previous year's bowl games.

Otherwise, you are not factoring in over half of the teams.

This would leave you with a largely incomplete proposal.

Which, coincidentally, ties Tennessee to this debate, seeing as how they are always ranked in the preseaon top 25.

But, using your methodology, Tennessee should remain unranked, because they did not appear in a bowl game.

>

As for Tennessee likely not being that bad last year.

You said it yourself, they didn't play well.

Okay, Tennessee has a lot of very talented players.

Evidently, those players did not apply themselves in a teamwork type of fashion.

The coaches obviously couldn't make the appropriate adjustments needed, otherwise, they would have adapted and won more games.

This means, even with good players, and good coaches, Tennessee did not perform well enough to have a winning record. They did not play well as a team, therefore, they were not a good team (regardless of how good their program is).

You say they probably weren't that bad.

Never-the-less, the evidence clearly shows they weren't that good.

>

[mountainman]

Hey, David ..... have you made any progress on demonstrating how your thoughts would fill out the 12 game schedule for all 119 teams?

I was trying to point out that your math was flawed. I do realize that other teams need to schedule a game on any given week also. I used to know how to use a formula to determine all the possibilities. I used to have the formulas on the top of my head back when Reagan was the president. I had a text book from a statistics class that had a bunch of neat formulas in it but I sold that sucker at semester's end for beer money . By now my math may be flawed as well

I will correct my self and say that each of the 119 teams has a total of 1350 possible schedules in a twelve game season.

I recall those days too ...... Probability & Statistics class, Ronald Reagan, and books for beer money. I still use one of Reagan's quotes, "Trust, but verify".

What do you say to the notion that you and I work this out together and either prove or disprove whether or not 119 teams can put together a 12 games schedule while playing only one another?

I'll kick it off by saying that your statement about it taking 2 teams to make a game is correct. Now, with that in mind, after week 1 of play, all teams except one would have played one game .... would you agreed with that?

[colorado_loves_football]

"I never said Bady Quinn deserved the Heisman"...

Stop!

Yes, officer, was I speeding?

Right there is a pure example of what I am refering to, as misquotaton.

You interpret words into a comment that are not there.

I never wrote that you thought Brady Quinn should win the Heisman.

I simply refered to your words, about Brady Quinn deserving the current attention he is getting.

He has not done anything this season yet. Therefore, he should not get any attention for the Heisman.

I think your point, assuming you are making one, is stupid. Everyone knows, that what you do, throughout your career is pantamount to winning the Heisman Trophy. Maybe it's not predicated on that, but I believe it factors into it, regardless. (and I think to assume it wouldn't is being naive).

Marshall finished 4-7 last year. That is a bad record.

By beating a team in overtime, that did not finish with a winning record either, is not impressive.

SMU did not lose to the Marshall teams of the past.

Regardless of what Marshall did in previous years, they still finished with a 4-7 record.

So what if Marshall has (or has had) a good program. That program didn't help them earn a winning record.

And the fact that they were 1-2 going into their ame against SMU doesn't support your argument.

And the 1 game Marshall did win before playing SMU, was against William & Mary. The final score, was 36-24.

If Marshall wasn't that bad, how could they let a Div 1-AA team score 24 points on them?

This also means, in their 4 wins, Marshall only beat 3 Div 1-A teams.

None of which had winning records:

SMU 5-6
UAB 5-6
Tulane 2-9

With a 1 point win over Tulane, a 1 point win over UAB, and an overtime 3 win against SMU.

That is a combined win total of 5 points versus Div 1-A opponents (with losing records).

As for SMU coming within a fieldgoal in overtime of beating Marshall... that's misleading to say the least.

Marshall won by 3 points.

Had SMU made a fieldgoal, they would have taken the game into 2cnd Over-Time, not won the game.

Overall, yep, I'm sill convinced that SMU was not very good. And, Marshall was not a good team either.

Your argument still lacks evidence to the contrary.

I'm not basing my position on how good (or bad) Marshall was. The fact is, SMU (the team I thought we were focusing on) was 5-6. Yes, they did, in fact lose to Marshall, a team that was 4-7 on the year. Is Marshall 'bad'? Depends on what standard you are applying. 4-7 isn't good, but Marshall wasn't consistent. It's very possible, they were a good team when SMU played them (one of their two losses was to K-State).

Oklaoma didn't take all year to get better.

That is another comment of mine you took completely out of context.

You wanted examples, well, here... you did it again.

What I wrote was, that Oklahoma was a better team at the end of the year, than what they started.

If it had taken them the whole season, then they would not have finished with a winning record.

Instead, it was about the 6th game of the year (after he Texas loss) that the Sooners went on a winning streak.

Yes, Oklahoma was a better team at the end of the year than what they started. And the proof is in how they actually performed as a unit, and came together as a team, as the season rolled through.

To say otherwise, is to ignore Oklahoma's overal performance on the season.

And that can be taken as a sign of disrespect for their program.

If Oklahoma was 'as good' as you are suggesting, they probably do'nt lose to Texas Tech (not that the Red Raiders were a bad team).

But, I will maybe agree that as a team, they played better, generally, end of season. Losses to UCLA, Texas, and Texas Tech, don't necessarily 'equate' to being 'bad'. All are good, in my opinion. So, it's more likely Oklahoma was a good team, all season long.

You need to look at your formula again.

If two teams who are equally faigued, play against eacoher one week, then, the winner wil still have to play against a team who has one more week of rest than they do.

So it is still not fair.

Preliminary means prior to. Any team that plays in a bowl game then plays a team who has not played as many games, is going to be suffering more fatigue.

And the fact that their is a preliminary, means that, eventually, someone is going to have to play more games.

Otherwise, it does not equate right.

And we are still talking about extra 'games', in the plural sense of the word.

Even a 10 team playoff would add 4 more weeks to the schedule.

That is nearly half of the current season, now.

You are flagrantly disegarding the Health of the student athletes.

You are still treating them like cash crops.

And you are making their educations take a back seat to sports.

The major issue the NCAA has, is that these kids should be looked at as students first. They are not paid professionals.

Take a look at how you are exploiting the individuals who are going to be involved with this system. And stop looking at it as an ends to a better status quo.

It is selfish on the part of outsiders to think they can come up with a solution that does nothing more than add some entertainment value, for themselves.

You say, there is 'fatigue'. Not necessarily. We are talking about ten teams, 'fairly' represented, in an arrangement, that allows for competition to select a 'valid' national champion. Nobody is at a disadvanage. If anything, it maybe 'unfairly' gives BCS 'perennials' too much position, but I'm willing to live with it, if you are. 15 games, beginning to end (16 for a 'non-BCS' team) isn't that much to ask for.

espn works into everything I have said. It is the media who is really behind the big push towards a playoff. Because espn knows they will get the broadcasting rights to most of the games.

Anything that gives the media more power is a bad thing.

And that is exactly what your proposal does.

Tell me, is 'positioning' the ten teams, that have justly 'earned' their way into the BCS, necessarily a bad thing? Especially, when nearly every year there are people griping (you're one of them), that some team wasn't 'fairly' treated by the pollsters? I think it's a fairly straightforward to address that problem, head-on, without creating more friction.

As you have stated before, let it be decided on the field. That would happen, if my proposal were implemented. Auburn wouldn't be crying, because, they would have had sufficient opportunity to win a NC, as would have Utah. (Actually, that year, especially, shows how well my proposal would have worked). Ten teams (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange, Liberty) all with teams ranked in the top-ten, BEFORE they were played.

I'm not sneezing at the CFP. Again, you are disregarding my comments, to pamper your argument.

(and yet another example of your misquotations... ramember, you did ask for them)

I have been posting about the BCS and preseason polls that relate to it.

I do not see hoe your reference to the CFP is relevant to this topic.

You are the one who stated, this is an issue I need to take up with the CFP.

However, this conversation has nothing to do with the CFP, or its preseason poll.

You have yet to show me the connection.

I think it's very much applicable to what we are discussing. You stated no pre-season poll is 'valid' or something to that effect. If you are correct, then CFP is in trouble. They do a 'post-season' analysis of teams, in the pre-season, and post it for everyone to see, with 80% reliability, to boot! Now, show me where I'm wrong.

The AP being entitled to vote for who ever they want for a national championship argument is a cop out.

Yeah, hey shouldn't feel the need to award Auburn with a co-chapionship honor for finishing undefeated.

However, they also shouldnot feel it be a neccessity to give one to usc in 2003, for finishing with 1 loss, either.

The AP made a lot of noise about Auburn not getting a fair shake.

This was their excuse for being the final reason that solidified their decission to pull out of the BCS.

But, with all of the ruckus they went out of their way to create, they also failed to give Auurn the recognition 'they claimed' Auburn deserved.

I'm not talking about the AP's entitlement.

I'm refering to their inconsistancy.

Something you failed to defend.

This argument is 'tired' and 'stale'. Give evidence why Auburn 'earned' a NC, other than winning the Sugar Bowl, and maybe I'll listen to you. Utah was undefeated also.

No, I do not assess teams in the preseason (at least not for ranking purposes).

That is what I have been posting.

However, if I did a true analysis, I would have to consider more than just the teams who appeared in the previous year's bowl games.

Otherwise, you are not factoring in over half of the teams.

This would leave you with a largely incomplete proposal.

Which, coincidentally, ties Tennessee to this debate, seeing as how they are always ranked in the preseaon top 25.

But, using your methodology, Tennessee should remain unranked, because they did not appear in a bowl game.

Based on last season's results I likely wouldnt' rank Tennessee as a pre-season top-25.

As for Tennessee likely not being that bad last year.

You said it yourself, they didn't play well.

Okay, Tennessee has a lot of very talented players.

Evidently, those players did not apply themselves in a teamwork type of fashion.

The coaches obviously couldn't make the appropriate adjustments needed, otherwise, they would have adapted and won more games.

This means, even with good players, and good coaches, Tennessee did not perform well enough to have a winning record. They did not play well as a team, therefore, they were not a good team (regardless of how good their program is).

You say they probably weren't that bad.

Never-the-less, the evidence clearly shows they weren't that good.

Whatever. I never said they were good. If you believe otherwise, I think you're likely wrong, at any rate.

Secondly, I don't see where it applies, unless you are making a case for Pittsburgh, 1984. Are you? Seems to me, being ranked #3, beginning of the year, isn't necessarily a 'blessing', if you want to be any good.