NCAA Playoff Blog

Printable bowl schedule

Here.

Harris poll: How they voted

Clicking here will get you a PDF of the team-by-team rankings by voter.

Fun with coaches: how they voted

Here's how each coach voted in the final poll of the regular season.

BCS "mess" no more

Anyone else notice the announcers suddenly quit using the term "mess" to describe the BCS? It's almost as if the network folks have been asked to quit bashing the current system. Hmmmmmm.

Coach's Poll

Here is the coach's poll.It's tough to argue against Florida and Oklahoma, but how do you say, at the very least, that Texas and Alabama don't belong in the mix, too? And what about Penn State and USC? Or Utah? Or Texas Tech. Or . . .

Printable NCAA Tournament Bracket

The season's not too long. The students are able to keep up with their studies. The fans are able to watch. And the NCAA can host a real tournament, where rankings matter but playing well matters more. Here's a printable tournament bracket for the 2008 NCAA basketball tournament.

Super Bowl XLII

Two quick points:

* The NFL chooses its champion on the field. Too bad college football's best team is not crowned the same way.

* Any commercial that includes Justin Timberlake getting the crap beat out of him gets an automatic five star rating.

Why are we subjected to the BCS?

According to Berry Tramel's article (newsok.com), it's because the schools don't want to jeopardize attendance during the regular season games, and the post-season revenue couldn't offset the loss of regular season revenue. Really. The article does remind us that while the NCAA controls college basketball, college football is controlled by the university presidents. But the piece doesn't explain how a small (4-to-8 team) playoff would ruin the regular season any more than the current roster of 32 bowls games does. Or could do any more damage to the sport and its revenues than is done by have the champion crowned by a vote of panelists rather than earned on the field.

Welcome to the silly season

AP sports columnist Jim Litke explores the "real reason for college football's" bowl season here, concluding with this gem:

Worst of all, at the end of the whole "silly season," we could still be left with a half-dozen, two-loss teams jabbing their index fingers into the air — "We're No. 1" — and a computer could wind up picking among them. If that doesn't sound like a scam somebody cooked up to make money, well ...

Bump: Printable bowl schedule

Here.

Brand: Fans are unhappy, but that's not a problem

NCAA president Myles Brand sure sounds arrogant when he describes the current BCS mess:

"Certainly, the media is unhappy and a number of the avid fans are unhappy, and they express it. But their unhappiness is not translating to a lack of interest. So I don't think it's as major a problem as some people think it is."

Huh? Brand suggests that because there's some interest in college football, it's not possible to have MORE interest in college football by fixing the post-season nonsense called the BCS. And even if you buy his argument, you're saying it's okay that fans are unhappy and that the national championship is decided by a vote rather than on the field. M'kay, so we'll stay tuned for Brand's next big statement:

"Let them eat cake."

Monkeyshines at the BCS: The Orange Bowl you won't see

In case the BCS system wasn't ripe enough for shenanigans, here's a lovely story about the Orange Bowl match-up that could've been, derailed for unknown reasons, denying us a chance to see #3 play #4. Could it be this was done to keep us from having a split national championship? Wasn't the BCS suppose to help ENCOURAGE top-ranked match-ups? Hmmmmm. Well, you won't get an answer from Mike Slive, as he won't even say who blocked the game or why it was blocked.

College football brackets

2007 Football Championship Subdivision tournament bracket? Here.

2077 NCAA Division II football tournament bracket? Here.

2007 NCAA Division III football tournament bracket? Here.

2007 Bowl Championship Subdivision bracket? Move along. Nothing to see here.

If we had a playoff, we could settle all this on the football field (video)

James Carville rants about the BCS. He's nuts. But he's correct. And he gets extra credit for using the term "mental midgets."

Pssst: Playoff wouldn't kill bowls (it's a secret)

Don't tell anyone, but it appears that the notion that a playoff would automatically kill all of the bowls is hogwash, according to this CNNMoney.com commentary by Chris Isidore. While he's primarily focused on the impact of a "plus-one" model, we know that there are other options, too, that take advantage of the weeks of idle time between the regular season and the January bowls, and the open home fields of top teams.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I was going to post this yesterday, but was laughing so hard I couldn't keep my fingers from shaking. Without a smiley face icon or anything of the sort, USA TODAY has a headline that reads: Man behind creation of BCS pleased with results. No kidding!

In related news, historians have discovered Lincoln's last words were: I'm pretty pleased with the security tonight here at the theatre.

So, in the story, BCS godfather Roy Kramer said: "I might be a little prejudiced, but I thought this was a tremendous year for college football. One issue we talked about when the BCS started was making every game important, and I think that played out this year." Kramer continued, "The fact that the bowl season is again irrelevant and we won't finish the post season with any better idea of who the best team is, well, that's not my problem."

Okay, so I made up that last part.

Who Vegas would favor in the championship game

VegasInsider.com handicappers take a crack at identifying the top two teams in college football. Hint: They suggest the BCS didn't get it right.

What is the BCS trying to answer?

Kevin of thebandisoutonthefield.com has this to say about the current system for the Football Bowl Subdivision. Key question:

What is the BCS trying to answer? I don't know. You don't know. They don't know.

Additional juicy tidbits on the coaches poll

Tony Barnhart of ajc.com gives us his perspective on the latest coaches poll.

(EDIT: Sorry, link broken. Fixed now.)

More vote tattling: Top 10 interesting votes

SportingNews.com runs down their top 10 most interesting votes in the latest coaches' poll.

Blame the game, not the system?

Associated Press national sports columnist Jim Litke takes it directly to BCS coordinator Mike Slive, who once expressed a willingness to consider a "plus one" format, but when asked recently, said, "We have to put this one in the mix and look at it. If you go to a plus-one, you're going to have years in which it is just very, very appropriate. You're going to have years where it may not be so appropriate. ... The only way to solve that is to have a flexible format and just make sure that we look at the standings and then decide how to finish the year."
Says Jim:

Translation: We ain't changing any time soon. We like things exactly the way they are and as long as we have the TV rights and the backing of the university presidents from the power conferences, we'll keep making it up as we go along.

If the truth-in-advertising laws applied to college football this season, the BCS would just go-ahead and cancel the title game.

Worth a read.

Analysis of the coaches' votes

Dan Steinberg of washingtonpost.com posts this blog report, taking a peek inside the coaches' poll. Wackiness, bias, ignorance, agendas -- all the stuff you want most from your college football rankings!

How the coaches voted

Here's a link to show you how every coach voted over the weekend.

BCS computer rankings: They did what?

The AndersonSports computer poll, which is part of the BCS computer rankings, can be seen here. They've managed to rank as follows:

1. Ohio State
2. Missouri
3. Kansas
4. Virginia Tech
5. LSU
6. Georgia
7. Arizona State
8. Oklahoma
9. USC
10. West Virginia

VT, which handily lost to LSU (48-7), is ranked ahead of LSU?

Even though LSU is ranked 2 by the coaches and 2 in the Harris Poll and 2 in the total computer rankings, AndersonSports gives 'em a 5?

They put Missouri at 2, even though they were just spanked, FOR A SECOND TIME, by Big 12 Champion Oklahoma, which they've ranked at 8?

Oh, the lack of humanity!

Chaos doesn't legitimize ignorance or stupidity

Gene Wojciechowski (ESPN.com) once again makes the obvious point: the current system is broken, a new system is possible, and this season underscores the problem at hand. Gene writes about the absurdity of Mike Slive's "NFL-style playoff" tome, and drills into the statement that they are looking "very, very hard" (copyright, BCS talking points) at tweaking the broken system we currently have.

The regular season is over. Dead. Done. Gone. Meaningless from this point on. And, from this point on, we know that half of the bowl teams will be winners and half will be losers and none of us will know which team was the best.

Fun with poll voters

Okay, so Missouri beats Kansas, and then Oklahoma beats Missouri. Kansas only lost to Missouri this season. Missouri's only losses this season were to Big 12 Champion Oklahoma.

How do you rank these three BCS teams? If you're AP voter B.G. Brooks of the Rocky Mountain News, you rank 'em like this:

6. Kansas
7. Oklahoma
8. Missouri

Over in Iowa, Steve Batterson of the Quad City Times voted this way:

2. Kansas
6. Oklahoma
8. Missouri

And just for fun, here's how Neal McCready (Mobile (AL) Press-Register) answered the same question:

5. Oklahoma
6. Kansas
9. Missouri

The fun continues with AP voter Joe Person at The State (Columbia, SC), where he ranks the three teams like this:

3. Kansas
6. Oklahoma
8. Missouri

And not to be outdone, Tommy Trujillo of The New Mexican voted this way:

7. Kansas
8. Oklahoma
9. Missouri

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you "the voters!" Let their whims be your guide to choosing a national champion!

(EDIT: Yes, we know the AP poll is not part of the BCS. You think those polls are less foolish? Less political? Less ignorant? Less corrupt? You think the eventual AP champion won't have a trophy in their athletic offices? As long as we let voters decide our champions instead of letting the teams earn it on the field, we'll continue to deserve this kind of nonsense.)

(EDIT AGAIN: The computers didn't do any better. They have Oklahoma ranked behind Missouri and Kansas.)

Final BCS standings

Here.

The odds

Looks like LSU opens as a six-point favorite for the upcoming title game.

(EDIT: Maybe less.)

The matchups

Rose: USC - Illinois
Fiesta: OU - West Virginia
Orange: VT - Kansas
Sugar: Hawaii - Georgia
Title Game: OSU - LSU

Printable bowl schedule.

Notre Dame has a longer winning streak than OSU or LSU

- Brad Edwards

BCS selection policies and procedures

The conferences have developed athematical standards of performance which be applied [sic] to determine the number of conferences whose champions will automatically qualify for a BCS game after the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons.

Oh, that's how it works.

A sampling of college championship opinions

Now what? by Dan Wetzel (Yahoo! Sports) asks which two flawed teams emerge from this flawed system to meet in the BCS title game. The best quote: "Sadly, somewhere a BCS suit will lie and claim this makes perfect sense, that this was the plan all along." Ouch.

We will never know who was really No. 1 by Bob Hunter (Columbus Dispatch). Of course, we WOULD know who was number one if we had a playoff.

Missouri, West Virginia Lose to Likely End National Title Hopes by Dan Bollerman (Bloomberg). Bob's headline reminds us that, in truth, NONE OF US know who will be in the BCS title game at this moment. It's a travesty that, with such a great sport as college football, the players and coaches can enter, play and conclude a season without a reasonably clear set of rules for actually winning the title on the field.

Two more upsets further muddy dirtiest BCS picture ever seen by Dennis Dodd (CBSsports.com) underscores that we really don't know who the best two teams are today, although he valiantly attempts to make a case for a couple.

Oklahoma, USC should emerge from BCS rubble by Matt Hayes (SportingNews.com) delves into this "fortuitous mess" to note that "all we can do is use the two eyes the good Lord gave us and make a well-educated stab." I worry that somewhere, there's a giant binder of BCS procedures, and that specific quote can be found. It would explain a lot.

A case for the Tigers by Stewart Mandell (CNNSI.com). Here, he quotes Kirk Herbstreit saying "The BCS is going to implode." I'd like to believe that. I think it'll eventually happen. I don't think we're there yet. And maybe I'm just concerned that Kirk's sources on this are the same ones that said Miles was heading to Michigan.

Backing into a national championship

ESPN.com's Ivan Maisel:

Ohio State moved from No. 5 to No. 3 last week by not playing. It's possible the Buckeyes will move from No. 3 to No. 1 this week by not playing. The Buckeyes might be hoping not to play Jan. 7 in order to win the national championship.

Football Championship Subdivision tournament bracket

Here ya go.

(EDIT: Please note that polls are not incorporated into the scores for these games. If the NCAA thinks the BCS process is so great, why don't they use it for the other subdivisions?)

A poll about the polls

Okay, so these polls don't really change anything, but in case you want to participate, remember, the answer to question four is "Yes."

They say it'll always work itself out

So, did it?

Listen to the lobbying

Do you hear that sound, like fingernails on a chalkboard to sports fans? The lobbying for who should play in the BCS championship game is sickening. Why do we have a system that leaves it all up to who can best plead their case to a panel of voters and computer programmers?

If you like having your champion chosen by lobbying, secret ballots and off-field fortunes, you must love the BCS system.

If you like having your champion chosen on the field of play, it's time we get serious about doing what we know will inevitably be done. It's time for a playoff.

Slive: The BCS is based on subjective polls

Okay, BCS coordinator Mike Slive publicly acknowledges that the BCS is based on subjective polls in this Atlanta Journal Constitution Q&A. Now if we can just get him to acknowledge that it would be better to have the title game teams chosen on the field rather than through subjective polls.

It's popular, so don't fix it?

In today's "BCS better than a playoff," Chicago Tribune columnist Teddy Greenstein tries to convince us that college football is a great game as it is, so we shouldn't have a better system than the currently abomination that is the BCS.

I don't know if he wrote this with a straight face, but I dare you to read it with one.

The premise of his argument is that because college football has never been more popular, and this season has been so wild, that somehow leads us to the conclusion that we don't need to fix the broken BCS process. Then he branches off:

And amid all the fun, we have people yelling that the sport has to change. It needs a playoff system. Why? So the casual fans who are confused by the BCS and the angry columnists who write about college football three times a year can get finality.

Let's deconstruct that paragraph using a few relics from high school debate class: when you want to discredit someone, say they are "yelling" or "wild-eyed" or "angry" or the like, so your audience will more readily dismiss them as raving lunatics rather than calm, rational thinkers. Then say your opponent is confused. ("Don't take it personally, opponent. I am wise and see the truth; you would be wise enough to see the truth, too, if you weren't confused.") And finally, marginalize the issue as being about a small number of these angry, confused people, rather than a bigger issue of fairness, equity, justice or some other noble cause or logical purpose. Of course, we can't all be licensed, trained sports journalists, so I, for one, am grateful that Teddy understands the limits of the feeble-minded fan.

Teddy then adopts the "NFL-style playoff" argument (copyright, BCS), that we've been hearing lately here and here from SEC Commish Mike Slive. Why do these folks keep arguing against an NFL-style playoff, when there are much better options available? After all, you could argue that the BCS has provided a one-game playoff, compared to the pre-BCS world. Most of us are only asking for a slightly expanded playoff to reduce the chances that the best team will be left out of that one-game result, and to reduce the chances that our national champion will be so dependent on the polls rather than on-the-field performance.

Then Teddy skips right over the four-to-eight team playoff suggestions that have been floating around so long, and argues against a 16-team format, declaring that a team can't play six football games in 18 days. Teddy, why do we have to use 16 teams? And why does any team have to play six games in 18 days just to fix the broken BCS system? Just like in high school debate class: If you can't successfully argue against your opponent, create a faulty straw man argument and debate against that.

Teddy is correct, of course that college football is popular and that there's a "do-or-die component to every one involving a title contender." But that hasn't nothing to do with the illegitimacy of the BCS system. In fact, it just makes it that much more of a letdown that the greatness of the college football regular season is diminished by championship process that is largely a popularity contest, rather than having the championship more deservedly earned on the field.

Conference championships aren't meaningless. And they are earned on the field. A well-designed playoff could be as meaningful and, new to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the champion could actually earn the crown on the field!

And arguing against a playoff because it's difficult (impossible, says Teddy) to pick the best eight teams at the end of the season is humorous. In fact, it undermines his support of the BCS. If you can't find the two best teams by picking from a pool of eight, you expect me to believe you can find the best two out of a pool of two? A pool of two is our current system. A pool of four or eight is not flawless, but you've dramatically increased the chances that you've included the best team in the country by expanding the pool only slightly.

It seems a pool of four-to-eight could be a nice solution for such a clear problem. The college game is wonderful. Think how much better it could be if the Football Bowl Subdivision had a playoff just like EVERY OTHER FOOTBALL SUBDIVISION AND COLLEGE SPORT.

The people's choice: a college football playoff

Dan Wetzel rides again (Yahoo! sports), reflecting on the emails he received in response to his recent column stating the obvious: we need a playoff for the rest of college football. His plan isn't as good as ours, but we're talking about the differences between a red Ferrari and a black Ferrari -- we all have preferences on the details, but the basic idea is the same. Worth a read.

The BCS PR machine is underway

In case you haven't noticed, BCS apologist and SEC commish Mike Slive continues to bloviate about not wanting an "NFL-style playoff" and tells us how open-minded he is ... but that we're stuck with the current system with, at best, tweaks. How open-minded of you, Mike.

Then, he tells us how he's looking "very, very hard" (copyright, BCS talking points) at the so-called "plus one" concept.

Mike, why are you looking so very, very hard? Is it so very, very difficult to figure out?

And is it an accident we're seeing the very, very same NFL-style comments from Slive in two different USA TODAY articles as of late, just when folks are getting all worked up again about the failure that is the BCS system?

I think not.

And when might a USA TODAY reporter ask Mr. Slive why a playoff is so objectionable for one subdivision of college football, but works fine-and-dandy for every other football subdivision plus EVERY OTHER COLLEGE SPORT?

I hope USA TODAY hasn't made a Faustian bargain with the BCS gods, supporting the current system in exchange for being part of the poll.

Wocje ... Wozci ... Woh... Gene!

Okay, for writing this piece, he deserves to have us learn to correctly spell his name. WOJCIECHOWSKI.

Not the two best teams in the country

Danny Sheridan notes that the two most important things determining which teams reach the BCS title game are "a good schedule and no conference playoff.”

Playing "what if?" for the second spot

ESPN's Ivan Maisel sets the stage for one possible scenario, where a crowd of two-loss teams would argue for the second spot in the BCS title game. Wouldn't that be fun!

Gambling is wrong. Very, very wrong.

But for entertainment purposes, here are the lines for this week's games.

Bowl projections of the moment

Looking at these projected match-ups get us all excited about the long-awaited Poinsettia Bowl. And let's not even dare to dream about the R&L Carriers Bowl! How many more of these "Others Receiving Votes" bowl games do we need? And why can't they all go home winners?

D1 playoff continues

The Football Championship Subdivision playoff continues, with some interesting results. The second and third seeds fell, setting up some intriguing contests for December 1.

Pretending it's a playoff: OU vs. Missouri

The upcoming Missouri vs. Oklahoma contest for the Big 12 title feels a bit like a playoff. Kinda. MU wins and they proceed to the national BCS championship game. OU wins (again) and they don't. West Virginia gets in by beating 4-7 Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh! Ohio State may be best served by not playing at all. And on and on it goes.

(If you're interested in the Big 12 game, it's recommended you watch in person. It's the only way you can be spared about 28 showings of this. Some find it creepy. I just find it tiresome. For creepy advertising, I've gotta go with this.)

Time travel: October 24, 2000

Chris Suellentrop of Slate (remember Slate?) wrote this piece calling for "a college football playoff that works." Best quote:

The BCS rankings let the media, the coaches, and eight computers determine which two teams play for the national championship. It's like letting The McLaughlin Group and a cabal of social scientists decide who runs for president.

I picture Beano "Don't Call Me Carroll" Cook in the roll of Morton Kondracke.

NCAA Football Subdivision Championship (um, playoff)

Yesterday, ESPN showed Delaware dismantle Delaware St. 44-7 in the first game of the 1-AA Football Subdivision Championship. The NCAA has "subdivisions" in football (no other sports) so that they can help justify having a playoff for some member schools, but not others.

Today's slate of playoff games looks like this:

Fordham (8-3) at Massachusetts (9-2) (ESPNU at Noon ET)

James Madison (8-3) at Appalachian St. (9-2)

New Hampshire (7-4) at No. 1 UNI (11-0)

Eastern Ill. (8-3) at No. 4 Southern Ill. (10-1)

Eastern Wash. (8-3) at No. 2 McNeese St. (11-0)

Wofford (8-3) at No. 3 Montana (11-0)

Eastern Ky. (9-2) at Richmond (9-2)

Notice how they are able to get 16 teams into the playoff, including more than two with undefeated records? Notice how all of them are at one team's home field, so it's not a "burden" on the fans? Notice how ESPN even manages to televise a couple of the games? I suspect these players are even able to meet all of their classroom obligations. Now, if someone could just figure out how to do this with the Football Bowl Subdivision.