I know how to solve all the BCS mid-major inclusion problems

[Eric]

Im my opinion, you actually do get the 2 best teams in the country. Having a playoff only makes room for upsets which doesn't give you the best teams! Look at the NHL and the NBA, for instance.

Is San Antionio the best team in the West?

Yes.

Is Detroit the best team in the East?

Yes.

Are the Senators the best team in the East?

Yes.

Are the Red Wings the best team in the West?

Yes.

As you see, the 2 top seeded NHL teams are eliminated now because Detroit ran into Edmonton and Ottawa ran into Buffalo. The Spurs are about to be toast, and the Pistons are in a dead-lock with Cleveland. The best 2 teams don't make it to the finals all too often. Not that they don't deserve to be there, because they did what they needed to do, but are they the best? Absolutely not.

Imagine if a team like, let's say, Kansas hooks up with USC in the second round. If the Jayhawks pull of the upset of the century, does that mean they're better, or just played better in that game? The second reason makes more sense to me. If you did a playoff, there might not be a USC vs. Texas national championship, and that would be a travesty.

[Eric]

I should've added this in there:

Sometimes the top teams are up for dispute, but usually the polls agree with eachother and it is in the public's mind, the 2 best teams.

I should say the chances of 1 vs. 2 hooking up is much better if you do it the way that college football does it.

[billybud]

The primary problem with the current system, as I see it, is the preseason and early season rankings....

It is difficult to move past a preseason top 5 team until they have a loss...a team that begins in the high teens in ranking may have a great season and still not move past the top ranked teams with the same record...the Auburn phenomenom.

I do wish that there were no rankings until game 9....but then, what would we talk about?

[billybud]

The last 15 seasons....

The team that ended up #1 in the AP...

Preseason Ranked:


Preseason
AP #1-5....9 teams

AP #6-10...3 teams

AP #11-15..2 teams

AP #16-20..1 team

AP #20-25...none

unranked..none

As one can see, the odds of ending the season at AP #1 get tougher when you begin out of the Top 5 and are insurmountable if you start out of the Top 20.

Twelve of the fifteen teams began in the Preseason AP Top 10.

[ktffan]

The last 15 seasons....

The team that ended up #1 in the AP...

Preseason Ranked:


Preseason
AP #1-5....9 teams

AP #6-10...3 teams

AP #11-15..2 teams

AP #16-20..1 team

AP #20-25...none

unranked..none

As one can see, the odds of ending the season at AP #1 get tougher when you begin out of the Top 5 and are insurmountable if you start out of the Top 20.

I don't like pre-season polls but insurmountable? Come on, you're reading this wrong. The teams that started ranked high are ranked high because they deserved to be ranked high. You can't produce a long list of teams that missed finishing #1 because they weren't ranked high in the pre-season.

In the last 15 years teams that started ranked in the following positions finished with the listed winning percentage:

01-05 0.803
06-10 0.755
11-15 0.683
16-20 0.651
21-25 0.607
Unranked 0.489

The rankings don't do that bad.

[Spence]

The primary problem with the current system, as I see it, is the preseason and early season rankings....

It is difficult to move past a preseason top 5 team until they have a loss...a team that begins in the high teens in ranking may have a great season and still not move past the top ranked teams with the same record...the Auburn phenomenom.

I do wish that there were no rankings until game 9....but then, what would we talk about?

I agree that the preseaon rankings make it hard. Iowa 2002 is another example. Well until USC undressed them in the Orange bowl.

Still that is part of what is good about the rankings. They make you prove over time that you belong.

[billybud]

Ktffan...are you just being argumentative or did you read something into my post that was not there?

I made no value judgement about the worthiness of teams that are ranked high nor did I say that the rankings, as a whole do not have a factor of validity.....but I did say that if you aren't ranked or if you are ranked above #20 in the Preseason, it will be awfully difficult to end up #1. You disagree with that? If so, present your findings.

Occasionally a team will come along that, argumentably, might have been considered a contender but is disadvantaged because of initial ranking.
Auburn '2004...preseason #17...if Auburn had opened at preseason #2, they might have been a National Champ.

In the 2003 season LSU was 13-1 and USC 12-1....USC finished #1 in AP and started 6 places higher than LSU...I submit, had LSU been ranked 6 places higher than USC, the positions might have been reversed.

In 2005, WVU lost one game, beat a solid SEC champ, and polled in behind Penn State (1 loss), and Ohio St. (2 losses)....while schedule may have influenced voters, WVU was coming from way behind the field in terms of preseason rankings. WVU was #11 on the last regular season (Dec 4, 2005) AP.., while PSU and Ohio St. were #3 and #4. WVU was coming all the way up from Preseason unranked. Had WVU not started so far down, they had a good chance to be ranked above a two loss Ohio State.

[Spence]

[quote="billybud']A team that is a killer, but a one hit wonder in terms of having a great season without a sufficient build up to warrant preseason rankings[/quote]

That is true. The current system makes you have a good program instead of a good team.

[billybud]

The primary difference between WVU in 2005 and WVU in 2006 is that WVU won't play VT and wll start in the Top 6 rather than unranked.

WVU's difference in ranking between starting unranked last year and starting Top 6 this year is not a true reflection of a major shift in team strength...but recognition that they were under ranked last year.

WVU last year, IMHO had no shot at the title. (they would have had to have a better record than the top two teams)..If they had run the table last year, WVU would have been an Auburn...this year, if they run the table, they are in position.

[Spence]

WVU last year, IMHO had no shot at the title. (they would have had to have a better record than the top two teams)..If they had run the table last year, WVU would have been an Auburn...this year, if they run the table, they are in position.

I agree. This year they will start higher and that will help, but the big thing that lended credibility to the Mountaineers was beating Georgia. That is what got the ball rolling for a title run. If it hadn't been for that they wouldn't be getting the same respect.

[ktffan]

Ktffan...are you just being argumentative or did you read something into my post that was not there?

I made no value judgement about the worthiness of teams that are ranked high nor did I say that the rankings, as a whole do not have a factor of validity.....but I did say that if you aren't ranked or if you are ranked above #20 in the Preseason, it will be awfully difficult to end up #1. You disagree with that? If so, present your findings.

It you are in a major conference and go undefeated, odds are very good that you will be #1 or #2 no matter where you start ranked.

Occasionally a team will come along that, argumentably, might have been considered a contender but is disadvantaged because of initial ranking.
Auburn '2004...preseason #17...if Auburn had opened at preseason #2, they might have been a National Champ.

I don't think so. They made #2 in the AP poll and then dropped with a bad showing at Alabama. People perceived them to not be as good as the other two undefeateds in front of them. Whether that might have been affected by the pre-season rankings or not is unknown.

In the 2003 season LSU was 13-1 and USC 12-1....USC finished #1 in AP and started 6 places higher than LSU...I submit, had LSU been ranked 6 places higher than USC, the positions might have been reversed.

LSU was ranked 3 places higher than USC in October. You can argue that when they lost mattered, but where they started didn't.

Since 1991, 14 teams of the 17 major conference teams that went undefeated and untied ended up winning a share of the title. Two of those failed to win the AP. Of those 5 teams that didn't finish #1 in the AP, three of them were either tied or ahead of the team that beat them in the AP poll at some point in the season. History has proven that, even if you start low, it's not "insurmountable" to win a title if you play a major schedule and go undefeated. Six teams have started unranked and ended up winning the AP.

[billybud]

So, in 70 years of AP polling, 6 teams have reached #1 from unranked?...looks pretty tough to me...any in the last 25 years?

[colorado_loves_football]

It you are in a major conference and go undefeated, odds are very good that you will be #1 or #2 no matter where you start ranked.

Unless that conference is traditionally 'outside' the BCS.

I don't think so. They made #2 in the AP poll and then dropped with a bad showing at Alabama. People perceived them to not be as good as the other two undefeateds in front of them. Whether that might have been affected by the pre-season rankings or not is unknown.

yeah, but what about Utah?

LSU was ranked 3 places higher than USC in October. You can argue that when they lost mattered, but where they started didn't.

yet they didn't meet to decide the national title.

Since 1991, 14 teams of the 17 major conference teams that went undefeated and untied ended up winning a share of the title. Two of those failed to win the AP. Of those 5 teams that didn't finish #1 in the AP, three of them were either tied or ahead of the team that beat them in the AP poll at some point in the season. History has proven that, even if you start low, it's not "insurmountable" to win a title if you play a major schedule and go undefeated. Six teams have started unranked and ended up winning the AP.

It's not 'insurmountable' but it's next to impossible if you aren't in a 'major' confernece. It's not all about ranking, since the AP obviously isn't part of the BCS, anymore.
It's time the BCS adopted a more 'competitive' format to select a 'true' national champion. You apply what I consider to be a very 'slanted' argument, that favors your point-of-view, it says nothing, whatsoever about a team, outside the BCS, playing for a national title, should I be surprised?

[Eric]

Let's say USC played in the WAC. People might become convinced that they are one of the best teams in the nation if they beat their opponents 66-7 week in and week out. But that BCS team that is also undefeated might get the nod.

Let me tell you though, nobody has come along that good. Utah's defense didn't show me that they were #1 because it seemed that those MWC schools could score 20 on them pretty consistently, not to mention the 42 or 35 or whatever points that Air Force scored on them. Utah just wasn't the best team in the nation in 2004, okay?

[ktffan]

So, in 70 years of AP polling, 6 teams have reached #1 from unranked?...looks pretty tough to me...any in the last 25 years?

It's not tough because they are misranked, it's tough because they weren't ranked in the pre-season because they weren't any good to start with. Rarely do we have 3 major teams that are undefeated. In the last 25 years, three teams have started unranked and finished #1 in the AP, Clemson 81, Miami 83, and BYU 84.