College Football Predicition and Commentary

[Edskin]

I agree with Chip. There will never (yes bold AND underlined ) be a way to elimanate preseason rankings. Some mass-media giant (hmmm ESPN?) would create some sort of de facto preseason rankings, that unfortunately would be used as a guide to the voters. Seriously, you would have to have the official voters in a cave with only access to game footage with no announcers/analysis to create an environment where the teams are truly ranked without preseason ranking bias.

People like ESPN could come up with whatever poll they wanted-- it's just that the "official" poll would be the one linked to the BCS standings.

I do see what you are saying in that even a "for fun" poll may influence voters...but better that than the current system.

[Edskin]

How would a playoff increase the value of the regular season? Every game matters. Ask USC after the Stanford game. Ask WVU after Pitt. Ask Michigan after App. State.

Think about it this way. Remember the Texas vs. USC game? They were clearly the two best teams in the country. Why should some team that lost to Michigan State or Ole Miss have the same chance that they did to play in the BCS title game? How is that fair? Same goes for the OSU vs. Miami game. College Basketball is all about the Cinderella's, but College Football is about the big boys. Why open the door for an underachiever?

Because it is all so arbitrary. How do you decide between two one-loss teams, or four two-loss teams? You could easily make an arguement (just as an example) that a 3 loss Florida team was more impressive than a 1 loss West Virginia team. The only way to solve that is through a playoff. The top 8 or 16 or however many teams are involved have reason to play EVERY game all year.

Technically speaking, I suppose ANY playoff system has the possibility of "rewarding" a team that doesn't belong. Technically, it might be most fair to just have the Cubs and Angels play for the World Series at the end of the regular season.

Playoffs exsist to reward the top teams...not just THE top team. They exsist to generate interest for multiple teams/fans. It works in every other sport.

[Boston Red]

Think about it this way. Remember the Texas vs. USC game? They were clearly the two best teams in the country.

Isn't that the same year that Auburn went undefeated? And Utah for that matter?

Those were probably the two best teams, but I certainly would not have minded a four team playoff that year to be sure that two other teams that did not lose all year were not deserving of #1.

[kaldaniels]

People like ESPN could come up with whatever poll they wanted-- it's just that the "official" poll would be the one linked to the BCS standings.

I do see what you are saying in that even a "for fun" poll may influence voters...but better that than the current system.

For those that have major beefs with college football's ranking system/championship system...there is no perfect solution. Without a playoff there will always be a way for a mid-major/3rd unbeaten team to throw a wrench into the system.

I for one, liked it back when the Big Ten winner went to the Rose Bowl etc. and there was no BCS. The BCS system doesn't bother me much either, because it sure does produce some exciting matchups (spare the UGA/Hawaii example comments). So don't get me wrong, I'm not screaming that I want a playoff, I'm just telling it like it is.

However, there is either a playoff or there is not...all these attempts to crown a legit national champion are futile if you ask me. To crown a legit champion out of 100 plus teams, you would need a playoff system. I'm sorry but I see no way around that.

[kaldaniels]

Isn't that the same year that Auburn went undefeated? And Utah for that matter?

Those were probably the two best teams, but I certainly would not have minded a four team playoff that year to be sure that two other teams that did not lose all year were not deserving of #1.

Different year. Auburn went undefeated in 2004...the USC/OU (1 and 2 in the BCS all year) game for the title.

[improbus]

Because it is all so arbitrary. How do you decide between two one-loss teams, or four two-loss teams? You could easily make an arguement (just as an example) that a 3 loss Florida team was more impressive than a 1 loss West Virginia team. The only way to solve that is through a playoff. The top 8 or 16 or however many teams are involved have reason to play EVERY game all year.

Technically speaking, I suppose ANY playoff system has the possibility of "rewarding" a team that doesn't belong. Technically, it might be most fair to just have the Cubs and Angels play for the World Series at the end of the regular season.

Playoffs exsist to reward the top teams...not just THE top team. They exsist to generate interest for multiple teams/fans. It works in every other sport.

Well, I personally like the English Soccer model. The League Champion is determined solely by their regular season record. Then, they play the FA Cup, a giant playoff that involves every team in the country. Their "playoff" has nothing to do with the regular season.

As far as the Cubs vs. Angels WS, that's the way it worked until 1969. So that's nothing new.

Now, I understand the excitement of the playoffs in all sports. The tension and meaning of the games is ratcheted up. But, every sport with a playoff sacrifices much of the importance of its regular season. You can't tell me that an Colts vs. Pats game in September would mean more than the OSU vs. USC game. If there was a playoff, that game would most likely be meaningless. You can't take any team or any game lightly in CFB. Remember App. St., Stanford, and Pitt last year.

[Boston Red]

Different year. Auburn went undefeated in 2004...the USC/OU (1 and 2 in the BCS all year) game for the title.

That's right. It was the year of USC/Oklahoma. Same idea, though, because USC and Oklahoma were preseason #1 and #2. The New England Patriots could not have won the national title if they had played Auburn's schedule that year.

[improbus]

I agree that the conference system is unfair. But don't we make the same complaints about baseball? In 2006 the Cardinals made the playoffs with 83 wins while the Phillies, Blue Jays, Red Sox, White Sox, and Angels all had more wins and did not make the playoffs. What is the difference? They simply played in different and tougher divisions. The same can apply to the NFL where a team can win its division at 8-8. At least in CFB, the teams from the lower conferences have to go undefeated or at least have a better record than anyone else (like WVU could have done last year had they not lost to Pitt). A team from the Big East will not get a bid over a team from the SEC anytime soon when they have identical records. As far as the Auburn thing, that was an obvious oversight. Voters are often taken by the bigger named and more traditional powers. But, I believe that the BCS title game has pitted the two best teams in the title game more often than any other sport has since it started. It isn't perfect, but it more often than not picks the best teams.

[15fan]

[QUOTE=Edskin;1722863]

Eliminate the Coaches Poll:

I disagree. Think sunshine laws. Open records requests.

Publish the ballots on a public website every week so that we can see how each coach voted. With increased accountability I think you'll get less bias in the voting.

Another angle would be to prevent coaches from voting for teams in their own conference. It would keep the coaches from putting themselves in a precarious position of having to cast a vote when a conflict of interest might be present.


Make Every Conference Play a Championship Game:

As has already been pointed out, the conferences chose to add the layer of a title game for $, $, and more $. Nothing more. If you sold yourself out for the $ associated with a title game, I find little pity for the conference if it makes it "tougher" to get into the national title game.

Quick Predictions:

ACC: Clemson over North Carolina in the Title Game:

Not sure I get all of the love for UNC this year. They went 4-8 last year, losing every single road game they played. The conference schedule is kind in that they don't play Clemson, Wake, or FSU during the regular season. But that's still going to require quite a leap from going winless on the road to winning enough road games to get to the conference title game. And after the opener (McNeese State), they don't really have any non-conference breathers: @ Rutgers, vs. UConn & vs. Notre Dame. All 3 of those programs have enough talent that UNC will have to bring it for 40 minutes to get out w/ a W. They're still a very young team, which means they'll likely struggle with consistency. It also means that there isn't much depth so injuries will be more of an issue for them than the average team.

Personally, I'd go with VT as the pick from their division, though I think that Miami and GT have some interesting talent. If one of those teams gels early, I think they'll make a nice run.

As far as Clemson, I'd hedge and go with the winner of the Wake-Clemson game going to the title game. That game is on a Thurs night in Winston-Salem. Clemson has a ton of talent at the offensive skill positions, but there are ?s on the OLine. Wake brings back a very stout and experienced defense. IMO, the Clemson O vs. the Wake D will be as good of a match-up of O vs. D as any other in the country this year.

[Chip R]

Because it is all so arbitrary. How do you decide between two one-loss teams, or four two-loss teams? You could easily make an arguement (just as an example) that a 3 loss Florida team was more impressive than a 1 loss West Virginia team. The only way to solve that is through a playoff. The top 8 or 16 or however many teams are involved have reason to play EVERY game all year.

Technically speaking, I suppose ANY playoff system has the possibility of "rewarding" a team that doesn't belong. Technically, it might be most fair to just have the Cubs and Angels play for the World Series at the end of the regular season.

Playoffs exsist to reward the top teams...not just THE top team. They exsist to generate interest for multiple teams/fans. It works in every other sport.

Since every other division plus FCS (1-AA) can do it, why can't the brainiacs that run BCS do it?

[BuckeyeRed27]

I posted something last year about this, but I really think that more should be done to change the regular season and leave the BCS alone. I don't like the idea of the playoff because of what some people have said about lessening the importantance of those match ups. But somebody made a good point about the schedules not being balanced. Now there isn't a perfect answer to this, but I think if you required each school to play two games against another BCS conference as thier OCC it would go a long ways to fixing the issue. I think you can let the schools choose their own game for one of the two and the other game is set up like the Big 10/ACC Challenge in college basketball is set up in basketball where you play the team that finished in the same place as you did in your conference the year before. Then rotate which conference plays which each year in a round robin style.

[bucksfan2]

I posted something last year about this, but I really think that more should be done to change the regular season and leave the BCS alone. I don't like the idea of the playoff because of what some people have said about lessening the importantance of those match ups. But somebody made a good point about the schedules not being balanced. Now there isn't a perfect answer to this, but I think if you required each school to play two games against another BCS conference as thier OCC it would go a long ways to fixing the issue. I think you can let the schools choose their own game for one of the two and the other game is set up like the Big 10/ACC Challenge in college basketball is set up in basketball where you play the team that finished in the same place as you did in your conference the year before. Then rotate which conference plays which each year in a round robin style.

I would like to see each team toughen their OCC schedule but how and by how much? Look at OSU's OCC schedule this season; YSU, Ohio, USC, and Troy. YSU is most probably a payday for YSU for Tressel's services. Ohio is another payday to a state institution. Troy is an ok game and year in year out there are a couple of SEC teams that beat up on Troy in the OCC schedule. YSU and Ohio both serve as preseason games as well. Granted every century you will have an Appy St knock off a UM but most early games are played similar to preseason games. The USC game shoud be great this season but when the deal was signed it could have very easily been like Washigton last season. I would imagine that this deal may have been signed pre Carson Palmer at USC.

Last years college football season was one of the greatest in history. All the upsets and movement in the polls made for a very exciting season. I think a playoff will take a little away from the regular season which is something I don't want to see. The best option may be a +1 game but some years a +1 isn't needed.

One thing I would love to see is an SEC team travel north in November. I would love to see a southern team have to deal with the cold of playing at a PSU or OSU. I know its never going to happen but why should a commish of the Big East or Big 10 or Big 12 for that matter agree to a playoff system in which home field is not taken into consideration. Don't get me wrong I am sure the players love playing in the south or our west but if a northern team is #1 where do they have the biggest advantage, in a warm climate or in the cold?

[MaineRed]

As has already been pointed out, the conferences chose to add the layer of a title game for $, $, and more $. Nothing more. If you sold yourself out for the $ associated with a title game, I find little pity for the conference if it makes it "tougher" to get into the national title game.

You don't have to find pity to think it makes some sense for every league to operate the same way. Obviously money is involved and I can promise you that the Big East would love to have some sort of championship game. However they don't have enough teams to justify it. Right now every team in the Big East plays the other teams whereas in the ACC, SEC and B12 that isn't the case. Should the SEC be like the Big 10, just one giant cluster of 12 teams? I think these conferences that split in two and then hold the title game are only operating in a sensible fashion. Its no surprise to see the Big 10 lagging behind.

The Big 10 doesn't want a championship game for one reason, Jim Delaney is a my way or the highway jerk. Look how long he held out on a conference basketball tourney.

The only thing I feel when it comes to championship games is joy because it makes for very exciting stuff and that is the only thing I am looking for from college football, excitement. Waiting six weeks to watch someone play is lame.

[BearcatShane]

The only thing I have to say is Go Bearcats.

[NorrisHopper30]

The only thing I have to say is Go Bearcats.

We gotta prove the doubters wrong once again!