Down with college football polls!

[drapg]

please tell me this is a joke!

Anyone glance at the AP poll this week?

17. Colorado (0-1)
456 points
previous rank: #7
Last week: Lost to Colorado State 19-14
This week: vs. San Diego State (0-1)

19. Colorado State (2-0)
437 points
previous rank: NR
Last week: Def. Colorado 19-14
This week: at UCLA (0-0)


unfreaking believable! How are the Buffaloes, with their only game played and loss to the Rams, ranked 2 spots ahead of them? How can anyone logically explain this ranking?

And the BCS uses these polls to determine a national championship game?

Ugh, gimme a playoff system, NOW!



:mad:

[Major]

I don't see a problem here. If Texas had lost to North Texas, I don't think anyone would expect North Texas to be ranked higher than UT either. Or more realistically, if Iowa State had beaten Florida State, that doesn't mean ISU should have been ranked higher yet. Those teams that weren't expected to be great have to prove themselves over the long run first. The polls are supposed to estimate how good people think the teams are. I think most people still believe Colorado is a better team in the long run than Colorado State.

[drapg]

If this victory happened in the middle of the season, when CU was, say 7-1, and CSU was, say 4-3, I'd understand.

but after playing one game and having a direct defeat of another team, how can you not be ranked higher than the team you defeated? How not? Well it goes back to the nonsense of preseason rankings... i think the fact that polls are started before a single snap is played is ridiculous... i don't think the first polls should be released until mid-October... this would be sufficient time for people to judge teams and their talent... a team that starts out with a preseason ranking of #25 has virtually no chance to climb up the ladder... but if the first poll comes out in mid-October and that team is undefeated, they may be ranked at #15 and have a chance to sneak into the top 10 or BCS if they go undefeated...

i'm just down on the poll system as a whole.

[Puedlfor]

Inertia.

It takes a lot to push a team out of the polls, or up in the polls as the case might be.

Even if they shouldn't have been nearly that high, or low, to being with.

[Major]

i don't think the first polls should be released until mid-October... this would be sufficient time for people to judge teams and their talent...

I agree with that - these initial September polls are really useless except to give people something to talk about. I used to also think that an unranked team had no shot of really getting ranked where they should be simply because they wouldn't move up unless other teams lost. But then OU 2000 happened - they went from something like 20th to 1st in 3 weeks after beating UT, NU, and KSU (deservedly so).

I think if CSU wins a couple of more games to prove their status, they'll shoot up faster than CU, but I dunno.

[BrianKagy]

I think the networks would pitch a fit if the polls were pushed out that far. They love being able to sell a game as "#9 Washington at #10 Michigan!".

[Rockets34Legend]

They just don't make any sense at all....JUST GO W/ THE DAMN PLAYOFF FORMAT AND NOT THIS COACH/NEWSPAPER/TV RANKING CRAP!

[Refman]

It has become PAINFULLY clear that the polls are not a good measure of who the best team is...and the BCS is s small, yet irritating mitigating factor. Last year there were 4 teams who had LEGITIMATE claims to be in the title game. Out of those...Oregon REALLY got screwed over. It showed FINALLY that not even the mighty BCS gives us the 2 best teams in the title game. The only way to settle this is a 16 team tourny ON THE FIELD. You could have 1 round per week...during the 4 weeks of Christmas break.

Everybody joins a conference...estimated 12 conference winners and 4 at large bids (which could be based on BCS).

Teams not good enough for the tourny could still have some traditional bowl games so that their fans have something to look forward to...hell basketball has the NIT so why not?

[Major]

Last year there were 4 teams who had LEGITIMATE claims to be in the title game. Out of those...Oregon REALLY got screwed over. It showed FINALLY that not even the mighty BCS gives us the 2 best teams in the title game.

I assume the 4 teams you're referring to are Miami, Oregon, Nebraska, and Colorado. In this case, I disagree that the BCS / Polls didn't work. There's a problem with the system in that only 2 teams can compete for a national title, certainly, and a playoff would be better.

But given that we don't have that, the Polls / BCS job is to pick 2 out of those 4 teams, and there's no "right" answer. The only team with a legitimate case was Miami - they went undefeated and did their job. All the other teams stumbled once (twice in the case of Colorado) and have no claim to deserving a chance to compete for the title. One of them gets it because someone has to go, but all of those teams deservedly lost control of their own destiny when they lost a game. At that point, they left it up to the polls and computers.

No matter who was picked to face Miami, someone would think it's wrong - that's the weakness of the system. However, that's not really a weakness of the polls or the BCS.

[BrianKagy]

There was no need for a "national title game" last year. You had Miami, and several teams with pretty weak claims to being the "rightful" challenger.

Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon-- you name the team, there was a damned good reason they didn't deserve a "shot" at the national title.

[Refman]

and there's no "right" answer.
Thank you for making my point. This is an inherently flawed system. They had heralded the system as giving us the absolute best game for the national title every year. It was supposed to take the guess work out of it. That obviously is impossible to do...so decide it on the field.

All the other teams stumbled once (twice in the case of Colorado) and have no claim to deserving a chance to compete for the title.
In what other sport does losing 1 game disqualify you from title hopes? NONE!!! Not even the NFL!!!! It is that mentality that gives us games like Florida vs. The Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind. There is too much to lose to schedule teams that would provide an actual (gasp) exciting college football game.

[Kam]

If I had my way, I would have a six team playoff.


the top two teams would have byes, while team 3 plays 6, and team 4 plays 5. the winner of 3 and 6 would play 2 and the winner of 4 and 5 play team 1

and then so on and so on. Five games right there in three weeks.

[mav3434]

this is why they don't decide the national championship after week 1.

[Refman]

ooops...double post.

[Major]

Thank you for making my point. This is an inherently flawed system. They had heralded the system as giving us the absolute best game for the national title every year. It was supposed to take the guess work out of it. That obviously is impossible to do...so decide it on the field.

The BCS title game was designed to try to avoid the possibility of a split national championship. Before that game, the top teams in the nation did not play each other. If the best two teams were Big 12 and PAC 10, then one would play in the Fiesta Bowl and the other would play in the Rose Bowl. This solves that problem if there are two clear top teams.

If there are MORE than two clear top teams, there is no solution outside of a playoff. Of course that would be a better option, but the point of the BCS was to provide something better than what we had, given that there was not going to be a playoff system. It was a result of things like Penn State going undefeated and not winning a national title, or Michigan & Nebraska splitting a national title. I think it's certainly done that - we have had a single champion each of the past 4 or 5 or whatever years.

In what other sport does losing 1 game disqualify you from title hopes? NONE!!! Not even the NFL!!!! It is that mentality that gives us games like Florida vs. The Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind. There is too much to lose to schedule teams that would provide an actual (gasp) exciting college football game.

1 loss doesn't disqualify you here, either. Nebraska wasn't disqualified last year. In fact, Colorado (with 2 losses) almost had a shot as well. However, each loss does reduce your chances. That's no different than any other sport where it lowers your playoff seeding or your likelihood of making the playoffs.

It's just that college football's playoff only includes 2 teams in a much larger league, so the margin of error is smaller.

As for scheduling good games, most of the top teams play some good opponents. Texas played top-15 teams like Virginia, Notre Dame, UCLA and Colorado (pre-big 12) in the 90's. They'll be playing Ohio State in a few years. OU plays Alabama this year. Miami is playing Tennessee and Florida. Florida / Florida State. VaTech is playing A&M. Washington and Michigan. Most of the top teams are starting to play at least one (out of 3) high-quality non-conference opponents now because it helps their strength of schedule more -- having SOS matter is one huge benefit of the BCS system.

[mav3434]

Originally posted by Refman
Thank you for making my point. This is an inherently flawed system. They had heralded the system as giving us the absolute best game for the national title every year. It was supposed to take the guess work out of it. That obviously is impossible to do...so decide it on the field.


In what other sport does losing 1 game disqualify you from title hopes? NONE!!! Not even the NFL!!!! It is that mentality that gives us games like Florida vs. The Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind. There is too much to lose to schedule teams that would provide an actual (gasp) exciting college football game.

wow, we don't agree about Iraq or college football! IMO that's the beauty of college football. Thaty's why we DON'T have Florida v. Sisters of Mercy this weekend, why we have Florida vs. Miami this weekend, Texas v. OU next month, Florida v. Miami next month, Florida v. FSU in November.

It's the only regular season, outside of the English Premiership, that matters. When was the last time the whole country was pumped about a regular season college basketball game?

[Refman]

My point is simple. If FSU had lost to Iowa State, FSU fans would be saying thins like: "There goes the season." What??? You've played ONE GAME!!!! They'd be acting like the rest of the season was MEANINGLESS. You can't possibly be in favor of generating that sentiment.

[mav3434]

Originally posted by Refman
My point is simple. If FSU had lost to Iowa State, FSU fans would be saying thins like: "There goes the season." What??? You've played ONE GAME!!!! They'd be acting like the rest of the season was MEANINGLESS. You can't possibly be in favor of generating that sentiment.


I do like the tension, teams manage to go undefeated despite it all anyway. THat never happens in any other sport.

[Major]

My point is simple. If FSU had lost to Iowa State, FSU fans would be saying thins like: "There goes the season." What??? You've played ONE GAME!!!! They'd be acting like the rest of the season was MEANINGLESS. You can't possibly be in favor of generating that sentiment.

The fans could say that, but they'd be wrong. (just as us UT fans were last year after the OU game) Personally, I love the fact that Texas vs. OU actually means so much. That's what makes the game so much fun. If the outcome really didn't matter, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting.

[Refman]

Originally posted by Major
My point is simple. If FSU had lost to Iowa State, FSU fans would be saying thins like: "There goes the season." What??? You've played ONE GAME!!!! They'd be acting like the rest of the season was MEANINGLESS. You can't possibly be in favor of generating that sentiment.

The fans could say that, but they'd be wrong. (just as us UT fans were last year after the OU game) Personally, I love the fact that Texas vs. OU actually means so much. That's what makes the game so much fun. If the outcome really didn't matter, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting.
You could enact a 16 team playoff next season and the Texas-OU game will still mean so much due to 1) pride and 2) position in the Big XII South. It could be the difference between getting to the Big XII title game and then the playoffs or sitting at home come December.

[Major]

You could enact a 16 team playoff next season and the Texas-OU game will still mean so much due to 1) pride and 2) position in the Big XII South. It could be the difference between getting to the Big XII title game and then the playoffs or sitting at home come December.

Agreed, but its certainly not as meaningful in the overall scheme of things. If we accept that these are both top 10 teams, they are most likely gonna make the playoffs anyway. It would be like the NFL -- yeah, Washington / Dallas is a big rivalry game, but if both teams were good and likely to make the playoffs anyway, it doesn't really matter. If its the game that decides if you make it or not, it's huge. With college football, every game is like that.

I guess its just a different philosophy. I like the high-stakes nature of every game, but I can see why its less likely to find the two best teams since one silly mistake can cost a team their chance.

[SirCharlesFan]

If you think the dispute to get into the championship game between teams saying they are #2 is hard to figure out, imagine when teams are saying "NO! WE ARE #16!!"


You'd have fans of about 10 teams saying they deserve to be in the playoffs.

[drapg]

Originally posted by SirCharlesFan
If you think the dispute to get into the championship game between teams saying they are #2 is hard to figure out, imagine when teams are saying "NO! WE ARE #16!!"


You'd have fans of about 10 teams saying they deserve to be in the playoffs.

I'd rather have the problem of figuring out who's #16 than who's #2... The #16 seed has a much smaller chance of making it to the championship game, while the current BCS and its ability to choose a #2 ranked team is a direct reflection of who plays in the championship...

[TheFreak]

The best solution is to have the top 4 teams in a playoff. 1/4 and 2/3 play on New Year's Day, then the winner plays the week after. The regular season doesn't lose any of its significance. 16 teams is WAY too much for my tastes.

To Refman's scenario -- who gives a **** what FSU fans might think? Seriously, that's one college that MAY be upset. Boo hoo. That would not affect the level of excitement for the sport as a whole one bit. Fans are always going to be upset no matter what the system is.

Btw...I stole this idea from Phil Steele, and probably many others.

[Refman]

To defend my 16 team playoff scenario...there are roughly 12 significant Division 1-A conferences. The champion of each conference would get in...and 4 at large bids.

Sure there would be teams that didn't get in who would say they deserved to be in...but how is that different from the basketball field of 64????

[drapg]

would your 16 team tourney implement bowls? unfortunately, bowls and their sponsors arent' going away... so there would have to be 15 bowl games involved in the tournament... the big 4 of the BCS would be in there of course, but how would the other 11 be chosen? I like your idea, but I wonder how to implement bowl games... i don't think the Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl will settle for a #17 vs. #24 type game... they will want the top teams... (maybe you already mentioned this, but i couldn't find it in the back posts)

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Refman
there are roughly 12 significant Division 1-A conferences.
Really? The Sun-Belt conference champ (or the MAC, or WAC, or Mountain West, or CUSA) deserves a guaranteed spot in a national playoff? A 3rd or 4th place team from a major conference has a better shot of winning a playoff than the usual (great teams from those conf's are exceptions, not the annual norm) champ from a mid-level conference. Why not just use the BCS formula to determine the 16 teams?

[Manny Ramirez]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
Really? The Sun-Belt conference champ (or the MAC, or WAC, or Mountain West, or CUSA) deserves a guaranteed spot in a national playoff? A 3rd or 4th place team from a major conference has a better shot of winning a playoff than the usual (great teams from those conf's are exceptions, not the annual norm) champ from a mid-level conference. Why not just use the BCS formula to determine the 16 teams?

If the Sun Belt winner is Middle Tennessee, then you are damn right they deserve a spot! (I had to plug the alma mater there..:p ).

I hate the current system, and I have been saying there should be a playoff for years. However, as much money that the bowls bring in for the conferences & the fact that college football loves the controversy, we are probably doomed with this BCS crap. The best thing that could have happened would have been in 2000 if FSU had beaten Oklahoma to get the Coaches' poll and Miami was voted #1 in the AP poll thus forcing a split champion, the one thing that the BCS is trying to prevent. Alas, it didn't happen and the BCS lucked out. They also lucked out again when Miami (thankfully for me) won. If Nebraska had upset Miami, then where does Oregon finish in the AP Poll?? I would have to believe that they would have been ranked #1.

The great news is that the AP poll, unlike the Coaches' poll, has no contractual right to give the winner of the "BCS National Championship Game" its number #1 ranking. Eventually, this scenario will happen and could happen this year.

BTW - someone mentioned earlier about how losing 1 game can effectively knock you out of the running for the NC. A classic example of this was in 1989. Florida State lost their 1st 2 games to Southern Miss (led by a young Brett Favre) and Clemson. They then won their next 10 games in a row including a 24-10 win against Miami. However, Miami beat Notre Dame (who later beat unbeaten Colorado in the Orange Bowl) in the last game of the regular season and then beat Alabama (in a game that was not as close as the score indicated) in the Sugar Bowl to become the National Champion. Yet, it was FSU that was generally considered the best team that year, but they had lost 2 games and finished ranked #3 behind Miami and Notre Dame, both 1 loss teams.

[BrianKagy]

I think FSU's 1997 team was better than Nebraska and Michigan both.

And I think Ohio State's 1998 team was better than Tennessee's.

So, yeah, it happens.

[Refman]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
Really? The Sun-Belt conference champ (or the MAC, or WAC, or Mountain West, or CUSA) deserves a guaranteed spot in a national playoff? A 3rd or 4th place team from a major conference has a better shot of winning a playoff than the usual (great teams from those conf's are exceptions, not the annual norm) champ from a mid-level conference. Why not just use the BCS formula to determine the 16 teams?
Because that way winning your conference championship isn't significant other then winning another game to increase BCS ranking. In ALL other sports, the conference (or division in the pros) champion gets into the playoffs. Also, maybe the competition level of college football would be increased if these smaller conferences got an auto bid...then they could compete for top level talent.

[Refman]

Originally posted by drapg
would your 16 team tourney implement bowls? unfortunately, bowls and their sponsors arent' going away... so there would have to be 15 bowl games involved in the tournament... the big 4 of the BCS would be in there of course, but how would the other 11 be chosen? I like your idea, but I wonder how to implement bowl games... i don't think the Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl will settle for a #17 vs. #24 type game... they will want the top teams... (maybe you already mentioned this, but i couldn't find it in the back posts)
The big 4 bowls could host the later round games...with the title game rotating. The other games could be chosen based on location, etc. Any smaller bowls that aren't included can play their game as normal with non-playoff teams.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Refman
Because that way winning your conference championship isn't significant other then winning another game to increase BCS ranking. In ALL other sports, the conference (or division in the pros) champion gets into the playoffs. Also, maybe the competition level of college football would be increased if these smaller conferences got an auto bid...then they could compete for top level talent.
I thought the purpose of your system was to determine the best team in college football by having the top 16 teams play head to head. Your selection criteria precludes that.

[Refman]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
I thought the purpose of your system was to determine the best team in college football by having the top 16 teams play head to head. Your selection criteria precludes that.
The conference champion in each conference is presumably the best team in the conference. If you can't win your conference you can't be national champion. What's wrong with having the best team in each conference and a couple of at larges battle it out on the field for the title?

[Buck Turgidson]

Outside of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big XII, SEC & PAC-10, no conference champ should be guaranteed inclusion in a playoff (or in the BCS). As a general rule (there are exceptions of course) the smaller conf's play an inferior quality of football.

Also, in one sentence you say that a team that can't win it's conference doesn't deserve to be in a playoff, then in another you say there should be at-large spots (one, of course will be reserved for the Domers, assuming they can win 7 games)...which is it?

[Refman]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
Outside of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big XII, SEC & PAC-10, no conference champ should be guaranteed inclusion in a playoff (or in the BCS). As a general rule (there are exceptions of course) the smaller conf's play an inferior quality of football.

Also, in one sentence you say that a team that can't win it's conference doesn't deserve to be in a playoff, then in another you say there should be at-large spots (one, of course will be reserved for the Domers, assuming they can win 7 games)...which is it?
Actually...if I had my druthers EVERY team would join one of 16 conferences...then each champ would make the playoffs.

Assuming that does not happen...the at large bids could go to those teams who did not win their conference but have been deemed to be a big draw with a legitimate chance at winning (Nebraska, Texas, OU..etc).

All of that being said I wouldn't be upset if they did use the top 16 BCS teams. I do find it bad to say: "You just won the Mountain West conference, so enjoy a day in San Diego...oh wait, the Holiday Bowl is in the tournament. So enjoy your big bag full of nothing."

[drapg]

i gotta agree with the idea of having each conference champ getting an automatic inclusion into a 16 team playoff tourney...

without that, we would be stuck with some sort of equation to figure out which teams deserve to enter the tourney besides the conf. champs of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, SEC, Big XII, and Pac-10... we'd be right back where we started and finding ourselves looking at a problem (figuring which teams deserve entry) that this solution is supposed to avoid.

[BrianKagy]

The problem I have with automatic bids is that a given conference champion isn't necessarily anywhere near one of the best 16 teams in the country.

Northwestern woin the Big Ten title in 1995 and shared it in 1996 and 2000. In their bowl games, they lost 41-32 to a mediocre USC team, 48-21 to SEC also-ran Tennessee, and 66-17 to a Nebraska team that finished 2nd in the Big 12 North. There's no way any of those Northwestern teams belonged in the national championship playoff.

Last year, the Big 12's four best teams (NU, CU, OU, UT) were all better than the Big Ten champion (Illinois).

[Refman]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
The problem I have with automatic bids is that a given conference champion isn't necessarily anywhere near one of the best 16 teams in the country.

Northwestern woin the Big Ten title in 1995 and shared it in 1996 and 2000. In their bowl games, they lost 41-32 to a mediocre USC team, 48-21 to SEC also-ran Tennessee, and 66-17 to a Nebraska team that finished 2nd in the Big 12 North. There's no way any of those Northwestern teams belonged in the national championship playoff.

Last year, the Big 12's four best teams (NU, CU, OU, UT) were all better than the Big Ten champion (Illinois).
The Big 10 champ gets automatic inclusion in the 4 BCS bowls...so what's changed?

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
The problem I have with automatic bids is that a given conference champion isn't necessarily anywhere near one of the best 16 teams in the country.

Last year, the Big 12's four best teams (NU, CU, OU, UT) were all better than the Big Ten champion (Illinois).
Illinois finished 7th in both polls & 8th in the final BCS rankings, it's not like they were 7-4 or anything. I understand your point, but there's no way the major conf's would agree to a proposal that didn't give their champs an auto bid.

Drapg, there's always going to be a subjective element to whatever system is used. The 17th team can gripe, but so can the 66th team in the NCAA tourney field and March Madness turns out fine each year.