Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 13, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

BCS QUERY....I'm just curious: does anyone know when the final BCS rankings are released? Is there some big weekend show where they unveil them or something? The championship game was played five days ago, but the official rankings still show Ohio State as #1. What's up?

UPDATE: The consensus in comments is that the reason I can't find the final BCS rankings is because there are no final BCS rankings. They're updated during the regular season in order to figure out who plays in which bowls, and that's it. After the championship game, the voters in the coach's poll are obligated to vote the winner #1, but the other BCS components aren't updated and the overall rankings don't change.

As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another reason to think the BCS sucks.

Kevin Drum 1:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Well, since they waited a week longer than they should have to play the game, they're waiting a week before announcing the champ.

Also, Boise State's thrilling stunner is Exhibit A in the argument for Div-IA playoffs instead of the current, compromised Bowls + BCS system.

Also, also Nick Saban's Multi-quadrillion dollar contract is Exhibit A in the argument for paying college football players -- in money -- for the money they're earning for everyone else involved.

Posted by: Model 62 on January 13, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Find them at:

http://espn.go.com/abcsports/bcs/rankings_full/index.html

Posted by: BlueMan on January 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Dunno your question, Kevin, but man, was it a horrible, humiliating week for the Big-10!

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on January 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_rankings

Posted by: Phil on January 13, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

1.) Florida Gators

2.) Ohio State

3.) USC

4.) Michigan

and on down the list from there...

Kinda anticlimactic to just sorta know, huh?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

The final BCS rankings are the ones that determine who will play for the Nat'l Championship. A post-game ranking isn't compiled.

Posted by: Joshua on January 13, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Proposal for a revamping of the BCS system:

1. Ditch the human polls. Computers are not to be trusted, but human pollers ARE. NOT. TO. BE. TRUSTED.

2. Let the ten best computer rankings determine the final BCS standings. How do you know which ones are the ten best? Let them compete against each other.

3. That works roughly this way: Anybody can submit a computer-based ranking method that will be tested for three years.

4. After each regular season the final rankings will be used to predict all bowl games. If a method ranks Bumblefuck University ahead of Nincompoop State, the prediction is that Bumblefuck will win the bowl game against Nincompoop.

5. After each bowl season the correct predictions for the last three years will be tallied for all methods. Of the ten methods that were previously used to calculate the BCS, the two worst are ditched and replaced with the two best that weren't used.

6. Instead of letting the bowls invite schools, bowls are only allowed to bid a total purse, to be split 2/3-1/3 between winner and loser.

7. The schools pick bowls in descending order of the BCS rankings. The pick of the first-ranked school is automatically the championship game, and the second-ranked school can decide if it takes the challenge or if it goes to a lesser bowl for a higher chance of winning.

Posted by: ogmb on January 13, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent question Kevin! Is Joshua right in the above post? I did a quick look at Fox Sports, ESPN and a few other sites and found only the final rankings that set the Nat. Championship game and other BCS bowls, just like Kevin noted (i.e. Ohio State number 1). I have some vague recollection that certain participants in the BCS system (coaches?) that determine the participants in the National Championship Game are obligated to vote the winner as Number 1 in a final poll; but that is not necessarily a "BCS" poll. That would comport with what Joshua stated; but I really don't know. Is there anyone else that thought that Boise State deserved a higher ranking in the polls out there that are on record? I thought they deserved higher than 5 or 6, especially in light of how bad Ohio State and Michigan performed.

Posted by: bmaz on January 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing wrong with what you found, Kevin. Even Superman had a a bad day now and again.

Posted by: Keith G on January 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

"...but man, was it a horrible, humiliating week for the Big-10"

As a Univ of Wisconsin grad, I'm not in the least humiliated! 12 - 1 record, beat a ranked SEC team for the second year in a row. 17 of 22 starters coming back (plus both - really excellent - kickers). And I got to watch Ohio State and Michigan lose their games. Its ALL good. I had a great week.

Posted by: Robert Earle on January 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

BlueMan: Those are the 1999-2000 numbers.

Phil: Nothing there for the final rankings.

Global: Where is that from? Michigan seems pretty unlikely to be #4....

Joshua: Well, they've released a final ranking in previous years, so I assume they'll do the same this year. But where is it?

Posted by: Kevin Drum on January 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

It is as it is. Until the entire nation finally believes that the Big Ten is the be all, end all of the entire pigskin world, there should be a continuous re-play of the Chamionship Game - I say, that Florida's win was a fluke - Let's have a best two out of three, three out of five, four out of seven, 142 out of hmmmm, whatever the new math says. Damnable math cutbacks in Ohio.

But, for a really caring and compassionate sport, let us speak of basketball - Now, in football, if a player screws up his eligibility, he can not go to another school (unless he can do a 4.2 forty, or bench press 522 or have a vertical leap of Superman size) However, in basketball, if a youth transgresses over and over and over and is finally kicked off the team for beating up his ex-girlfriend because she will not vacate his pad so the newie can come over, that youth is not sent to the dustbins. No, other schools will readily accept that miscreant in order that they may help redemm his six foot eleven ways. Thus, C. J. Giles gets kicked off Kansas basketball, but is immediately picked up by Oregon State for redemption. Be careful, be very careful young ladies of Corvallis. But he can dunk!!!

Posted by: Marty from Masillon on January 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

bmaz and Joshua are correct. The BCS rankings determine who plays in the national championship game and help shape who plays in the "BCS bowls". #1 and #2 play head-to-head, and from the non-BCS conferences, (those who don't have an automatic tie-in to a BCS bowl), only those ranked in the top 12 are eligible for a BCS bowl. The coaches are obligated to put the winner of the #1 vs #2 matchup at the top of their rankings.

Posted by: Clark on January 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

The BCS doesn't rank after the bowls, rather the winner of the championship game is guaranteed all first place votes in the coaches poll.
The final top 4 in both polls are FL, OSU, LSU and USC.
Some considerations for rankings whether they go towards a revamped BCS or determing playoff seeds: (1) do away with preseason rankings (so the rest of the year isn't dependent on last year's performance and preseason hype); (2) start polls about 5-6 weeks in as everyone is well into their conference, trends are becoming evident and comparisons can be made; and (3) emphasize strength of schedule which would allow 2 and even 3 loss teams to be in the running while reducing the effect of, say, a Texas scheduling one ranked team all season, skating through the Big 12 and Sam Houston State, and ending up in the big game (that said OSU didn't have a tough schedule this year nor was Wisconsin deserving of Top 15 based on who they played).

Posted by: cantonmckinleybulldog on January 13, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

"...but man, was it a horrible, humiliating week for the Big-10"

Better yet, it was another humiliating ass-kicking loss for Notre Dame.

Isn't it time to start referring to it as Exasperated Jesus instead of Touchdown Jesus?

Posted by: Goof Beyou on January 13, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Joshua is correct. Once the final rankings are used for the games distributions, they no longer have any meaning. The final coaches poll reflects the 'BCS' as they name the game winner #1. AP doesn't play with BCS which is why Boise got a vote for #1 in their poll...

Posted by: Richard Taylor on January 13, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

The winners of the BS rankings are at

www.whitehouse.gov

Posted by: olds88 on January 13, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: My husband was my source. When he explained the charts and graphs and standings and the formula, my eyes glazed over. I believe him because he was waving the sports page at me when I asked.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS,

Must have been either The Kansan or USA Today - In the KC Star of the 8th, they listed Michigan at number 8.

Now, can we get back to the Impeachment of King Carl Peterson?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 13, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

No, Joshua is right, there is no post-bowl BCS ranking. Afterward you just get the final polls and the BCS trophy that goes to the winner of the game.

Posted by: Trickster on January 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_rankings

The BCS Rankings and Harris Poll do not vote in a final poll as their sole purpose is to determine who plays in the BCS National Championship Game. Other polls exist and may vote for different schools which causes confusion, especially for split titles. But generally, only the AP and Coaches Polls are used in crowning the National Champion.

Posted by: Phil on January 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

olds88,

Agree with you, but I believe there is a C in that poll - Stands for Creme - BS of only the highest, er lowest?, quality.

Posted by: stupid git on January 13, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

As good a place as any - not just now, but for the entire season - is Yahoo sports

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/polls

You can click back to any given week and watch the progression, or fall, of different teams. One thing thats fun is to look back at the pre-season and early season polls, to see how accurate, or inaccurate, they were. (For example: no mention at all of my Badgers! No respect, I tell ya, no respect at all.)

Posted by: Robert Earle on January 13, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

With all regards to Robert Earle and Wisconsin, who had a very nice year, but played a pushover schedule; how is the big ten given any credence? By far, the two best teams, Ohio State and Michigan, were absolutely humiliated in their bowl games. How did Ohio State end up a consensus number two? They should have plummeted after that pathetic performance. Boise State was more deserving of the number two spot and certainly LSU also; although LSU did have an extremely weak bowl opponent. I admit I am trying to stir the pot here, but seriously, how does the Big Ten and Notre Dame keep getting the respect they do when they rarely earn it. And before Ohio State fans start telling me about the last Ohio State National Championship, please keep in mind that but for the egregious non call on the blatant interference on the Miami receiver in the end zone, Miami wins that game.

Posted by: bmaz on January 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

A horrible, humiliating week for the big-10? Well, certainly for Ohio State, but the Big Ten did just fine otherwise. Go Penn State!

Posted by: Jay Steele on January 13, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

I think they need to forget about finding an objective champion, which they cannot do anyway, and return to the more entertaining original bowl system that provided more exciting games and rivalries.

Posted by: Brojo on January 13, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Proposal for a revamping of the BCS system:

Anything that doesn't include a playoff is dumb. Sorry, but the best argument for a playoff is that teams take off somewhere between 4 and 7 weeks between their last game and the championship game.

Would the NFL hold their conference championships in January, then the Superbowl in March? How about we hold the NCAA basketball tournament in March, then play the championship game sometime in late May. Maybe the MLB playoffs should be in October, but the World Series should be moved to December.

Bowls are an anachronism. They were established 100 years ago as advertisements to get people to move to warm weather spots. It's time to stop lying about worrying about class time and go to an honest to goodness playoff system.

Posted by: Vladi G on January 13, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Nick Saban's Multi-quadrillion dollar contract is Exhibit A in the argument for paying college football players

It is an exhibit for ending professional sports in our publicly subsidized university systems. I write this knowing I would miss the games on TV, but think college sports need to be ended. Universities need to be about academics and I think providing scholarships for athletes should be used for better qualified or underprivileged students.

How did the Planck Institute's football team do this year?

Posted by: Brojo on January 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

I think they need to forget about finding an objective champion, which they cannot do anyway

Sure they can. They may not be able to find an objective "best team", but neither can any other sport. Were the Cardinals the best team in baseball last year? No, but no one argues that they were the objective champions. Was Florida the best team in College Basketball? Not if you asked anyone before NCAA tournament. But playoffs aren't about crowning a "best team", they're about crowning champions. No argument. Florida was the champ. The Cardinals are the champs. The Hurricanes are the NHL's champions. The Heat are the NBA's champions. Who cares whether they were the "best teams".

College football seems to be the only sport that doesn't get it.

Posted by: Vladi G on January 13, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Anything that doesn't include a playoff is dumb.

Actually playoffs are equally dumb because they do nothing but move the arbitrary breakoff point a couple spots down in the rankings. The root evil of the fucked-up-ness of the system is the fact that the championship is decided based on teams playing less than 15% of their division opponents, with unequal numbers of games, arbitrary clustering of opponents into uneven conferences, some of which have championship games and other don't, etc. Playoffs don't solve any of this.

Posted by: ogmb on January 13, 2007 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Criminal cat nabbed,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16594856/


with great photo of wise-guy cat, 'I weren't doing nothing, just trying to get a better look at it. I'll be outta here in no time.'

Posted by: cld on January 13, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

The Planck Institute played Heisenberg Tech and the probability that Planck won is 1/e(ixpi)

Posted by: Bob G on January 13, 2007 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

There is always a degree of uncertainty when Heisenberg Tech is involved.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Global - Is the mascot for Heisenberg Tech Schroedinger's Cat?

Posted by: bmaz on January 13, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

bmaz - It is, but it isn't.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Global - I suppose we would have to kill the cat to really find out...

Posted by: bmaz on January 13, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

The probability approaches 1 that only Kevin's regulars could turn a football thread into a string of physics jokes.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

If you have a big tournament at the end of the year, what gets proven is -- who wins the big tournament at the end of the year. If that winner is a team that also has a reasonable claim to be the best over the full course of the season, you have a true champion. If, as will happen sometimes, it is a pretty good team that was clearly NOT the best over the full course of the season, you have a tournamment winner whose designation as "national champion" is just as artificial as a championship designated by other means. There is no exact science or precise logic to be found here. The big tournament is fun to watch, but it is ridiculous to say that it is some sort of absolute necessity that should outweigh all other considerations.

Posted by: Ken D. on January 13, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Agreed. Sorry for the nonsensical diversion; but I AM watching the Colts/Ravens football game (suddenly getting better by the way) and, as you eloquently stated, where else can you find this level of discourse? It is kind of refreshing compared with all the mindless bloviating out there. Life is good, and so are the participants at Kevin's House of Fun. Cheers to all!

Posted by: bmaz on January 13, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Are you kidding? If there wasn't a possibility of such a thing happening I wouldn't be here.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 13, 2007 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo's onto the real question. Why are universities the minor leagues for the NBA and the NFL, and MLB and the NHL run their own minor leagues?

And since the majority of colleges (on a student basis, not a number-of-institutions basis) are public, the taxpayer is paying for it.

Posted by: Conrad (Con) Sordino on January 13, 2007 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Always nice for a Pittsburgh Steeler Fan to see Baltimore lose.

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 13, 2007 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin

No comment on today's editorial in LA Times , which in trotting out Clinton's ethical lapses for no good reason may have been written by your favorite poster Al here?

Posted by: gregor on January 13, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

There is no exact science or precise logic to be found here. The big tournament is fun to watch, but it is ridiculous to say that it is some sort of absolute necessity that should outweigh all other considerations.

Bullshit. Everyone agrees that the NCAA tournament in college basketball crowns the national champion. That's why we have it. You seem to believe that "all other considerations" should also be used to determine a national champion. That's not the way its done.

It's very simple. We can use the post season to determine one of two things:
1) Who is the best tea; or
2) Who is the national champion.

1) will always be subjective. 2) will only be subjective to the extent that you believe a team who was NC caliber was excluded from the process. Hold a 16 team tournament and that won't happen.

It's not ridiculous to say that the who wins the tournament should outweigh other considerations unless you are devoted to truly determining the "best team", which is virtually impossible. Champions are determined by a playoff in every North American team sport. You need to get past the point where you believe "champion" equals "best team". The two are not synonymous. Don't treat them as if they are.

Posted by: Vladi G on January 13, 2007 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

And since the majority of colleges (on a student basis, not a number-of-institutions basis) are public, the taxpayer is paying for it.

Every university with a division one program that I've ever attended or heard of has a fee tacked on to tuition that covers division one athletics. In fact, UC Riverside, which was division 2 when I attended, put it to a student vote to go D-1, because it would increase student fees. So it's not the public that pays for D-1 athletics so much as the students who attend those institutions. So quite your whining about what taxpayers are paying for.

Posted by: Vladi G on January 13, 2007 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Go Gators!

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on January 13, 2007 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

15-1 againat PSU and Wisconsin in the last ten years. And no harm in losing to the 2nd best professional football team in Ohio, and the best professional football team in California.

You know why Carroll didn't want to go to Miami? Salary Cap!

You know what the biggest concern Troy Smith has about graduating? Pay cut!

Posted by: Justin on January 14, 2007 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

You're certainly not paying for the football or men's basketball programs. More likely it's crew, swimming, croquet or any other sport that offers scholarships and requires facilities but creates no revenue stream.

Posted by: ogmb on January 14, 2007 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Why is there such an urgent need for an undisputed national champion? Why turn the college game into Baby NFL? The argument only really affects a handful of nationally dominant teams, and if their fans can't be satisfied with having consistently great teams, I really could care less about their peace of mind or their egos.

Sure, bowl games are archaic and silly. But college itself is archaic and silly. And being a fan of a team that would hardly ever get to a national championship, I'd much rather win an Alamo Bowl than a first round playoff game. Or, in other words, had Boise State instead won a first rounder and then lost in the semis, the loss would be the thing they'd remember. You're diminishing everyone else's post-season just to please sportswriters and USC fans. Not only that, but the much anticipated conference matchups like the Michigan-Ohio State game become essentially meaningless. (Ohio State wins the pennant! Ohio State wins the pennant! Michigan wins the wildcard!)

And in the rare circumstance that my team made it to a national championship, I'd only have 1-2 weeks to get tickets and make travel arrangements rather than a whole month. Nuts to that.

Posted by: Royko on January 14, 2007 at 7:25 AM | PERMALINK

The NCAA Division 1 champion for 2006 is Appalachian State University. Florida, OSU, and the other BCS teams play in the Bowl subdivision which does not have an official NCAA champion.

I think it is utterly delusional to think that the "BCS" conferences which currently play in the Division 1 Bowl subdivision will switch to a tournement format. In the Tournement Subdivision, the 8 conference champions get an automatic bid and there are 8 at-large teams. In the Bowl Subdivision, there are 11 conferences. Either a 16-team tournement would have 5 at-large teams, or some conference champion would not be invited.

The schools in conferences that suck at football aren't going to go along with a change that creates an official champion but excludes their schools. The schools in conferences that are good and football and have loads of fans don't want to go along with a change that will cut in schools that basically suck at football and don't have fan support. Plus, the power football conferences have lucrative conference championship games, those would have to go away if they moved to a tournament format.

I don't see either side agreeing to changes that would hurt their interests.

Posted by: William on January 14, 2007 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

Well, certainly for Ohio State, but the Big Ten did just fine otherwise. Go Penn State!
Posted by: Jay Steele

Umm...7 teams and 2 wins is 'just fine otherwise'? That's some grade curve.

.286

SEC - 9 teams - 6 wins.

.666

Now which conference is 'over rated'?

Posted by: MsNThrope on January 14, 2007 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINK

Now which conference is 'over rated'?

SEC went 1-2 against the Big11Ten in bowl games this year. .333 ;)

Posted by: Royko on January 14, 2007 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

Royko asks:

Why is there such an urgent need for an undisputed national champion? Why turn the college game into Baby NFL?

To start with, Royko, I think the burden is on those supporting the current system to say why it shouldn't be changed. I can scarcely think of any sport, from Pop Warner football to church league softball to major league baseball, that doesn't have a mechanism for the best teams to play it off and settle the championship on the field. Why should the most lucrative and popular sport in the United States, college football--considering the number of teams, many of which are quite lucrative popular and a fair number of which are ludicrously lucrative and popular--be the only sport where the championship is determined, absurdly enough, by the arguments and votes of professional media observers instead of on the field?

Now I don't wish to give the impression you made no arguments against the tournament system. You simply made no sensible arguments against the system. A 16-team playoff would still allow minor bowls to take place among the 17th-Xth teams, so your precious Alamo Bowl would be unaffected. And while you don't think a first-round victory and second-round appearance would be very exciting for your team, I'm skeptical that many of your fellow fans would agree with you; I cite as an example "Mid-Major" enthusiasm in March Madness. How many "Mid-Majors" actually make it to the Final Four? Win the championship? If you don't know the answers, they are "precious few" and "approaching zero."

And I just don't understand--at all--how traditional matchups would be diminished. The Michigan-Ohio St. loser isn't "knocked out" of anything now, and never has been. No rivalry game is or ever has been an end-all determinant of a season's success that only one team walks away from. In fact, it says right here that rivalry games, at least those occurring near the end of the season (i.e., most of 'em) would be significantly enhanced, because they would much more frequently factor into the national championship picture. Can you imagine the bloodlust in an Auburn player's eye, pre-game, if Bama needed to beat Auburn to quality for the playoffs?

Posted by: Trickster on January 14, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Oh sure, MsNThrope has to rely on math to win an argument. Besides one of those SEC wins accounted for the Whole Pot, .333 be damned. As the Bigwhatever types will say, "Yeah, it may add up, but it doesn't figure". But, Penn State still makes the best ice cream in the land.

But, for a reality check, look at the record of the much maligned Big East.

Posted by: stupid git on January 14, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Trickster has correctly reasoned why rivalry games are among the worst bets in the gambling world. Only zealots and fools bet such games.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 14, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

enjoyed ripping the hearts out of the trojans yet again yesterday, this time at the galen center.

13-9

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on January 14, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Trixter wrote:

"I think the burden is on those supporting the current system to say why it shouldn't be changed."

I fail to see why this is so. The NCAA doesn't periodically re-authorize their lack of a national champion in Division 1 Bowl Football. If the NCAA does nothing, things stay the same. It isn't like they have to take a vote on doing nothing. They just don't change it. "You haven't convinced me that the system needs to be changed" is a perfectly valid response when, in fact, not changing the system requires no action. More basically, if the NCAA Bowl Subdivision schools are happy not having an official national champion, why "should" they change that?

The BCS schools would not want to change the system from one that gives their schools an advantage in post-season play. The non-BCS schools would not agree to an official championship that did not give their conference champion an invite. The conferences that have conference championship games would not want to give up the TV revenue that stays within their conference in favor of a system that would disperse money around the entire subdivsion. That's basic self-interest, might not be pretty but I fail to see why any of those groups would want to adopt a position that would hurt their interests.

The Bowl Sponsors would certainly be leery of changing from a system that gives them substantial autonomy to one that would put them under the thumb of a NCAA tournement committee. Right now, they have agreements as to who they will invite, its complicated, but it involves matching up the number 1 and number 2 team and then matching up the champions of various conferences and a few at-large teams. They don't have to simply take the 2 seed and the 7 seed. The non-BCS bowls would be expected to be leery of the switch too; instead of 10 teams in 5 games, they would be faced with 16 teams in 15 games. A Bowl Division tournament would soak up a lot of available TV time. All of the Bowls have long-standing interests and associations with the conferences (for example, the Continental Tire Bowl is owned by JP Sports, which has for *decades* broadcast ACC sports). The existance of an old-boys network isn't a "should" arguement so much as a "ain't going to happen" arguement, but I think its important to keep it in mind when discussing why or why not changes will be made.

Most basically, any post-season change is going to have to bring in more money. I question whether there really would be more money. Comparisons to March Madness only go so far, since there are 4 times as many teams in that tournement, and production crews can set up in one location to broadcast multiple games on the same day. There are so many games being played that they do not have to broadcast all of them; rather they tailor it to regional interests or to good matchups and cut to games in progress as needed. A 16 team playoff would not allow for that.

For fans, you can buy one ticket to the NCAA tournament that will allow you to see multiple games. Final Four tickets get you into both semi-finals and the final game (you cheer for your team, and then for the team you hate least). Football games sell out football stadiums. That's why non-BCS schools don't get invited to BCS bowls unless they *have* to be invited, because they generally don't bring fans and sell tickets. That's why bowls have been known to pass up higher-ranked teams in favor of better ticket selling teams. You can't sell 1 ticket to see 2 football games on the same day because a good team will sell out the stadium. Its a totally different scale from college basketball, and additionally I question the simple logistics of moving that many fans and teams around the country in a month.

Sorry to ramble and I wish I was more concise, but that's why I think a NCAA Football tournament featuring the Bowl Schools is not likely to happen.

Posted by: William on January 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Late commenting: Although they don't calculate the BCS rankings for the last week, you (or I, since I'm a geek) could do it from the published computer rankings. Here are the hypothetical rankings (doubling the USA today poll results since there isn't a Harris Poll):

   school       poll  avg   sag a/h bil col mas wol avg   rating
1 florida 1575 1.000 25 25 25 25 25 25 1.000 1.000
2 ohio st 1435 0.911 19 23 24 22 24 24 0.930 0.917
3 louisiana st 1418 0.900 23 21 18 19 23 21 0.840 0.880
4 usc 1345 0.854 21 20 20 24 21 20 0.820 0.843
5 boise st 1275 0.810 24 24 22 21 22 19 0.890 0.836
6 louisville 1270 0.806 20 22 23 23 20 22 0.870 0.828
7 wisconsin 1328 0.843 22 17 21 16 17 18 0.730 0.805
8 michigan 1092 0.693 17 19 19 20 18 23 0.760 0.716
9 auburn 1119 0.710 18 18 15 18 19 17 0.710 0.710
10 west va 1012 0.643 16 16 17 17 14 15 0.640 0.642

Posted by: Chris on January 15, 2007 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Now this is an issue the AEI should address.

Posted by: BroD on January 15, 2007 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

Compiled rankings? You want compiled rankings? Welcome to the motherlode: http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Posted by: Ken D. on January 15, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly