John Antonik: Bowlsby says Big 12 fine at 10 for now

[43rd Parallel]

AN EXCERPT:

“It is my understanding at the present time that the majority of our presidents and chancellors believe 10 is the right number for us. There are those who believe we should get larger, and they feel strongly about it. There are those who believe we should stay at 10, and they feel strongly about it. And there are probably four or five in the middle who are persuadable one way or another.”

LINK

 

[43rd Parallel]

MAX OLSON: Bowlsby says no "critical mass" to add schools

AN EXCERPT:

"I don't believe we are at a disadvantage relative to the playoff," Bowlsby said. "I don't think one year makes a trend. We were very close to having two teams in last year. You really don't have to have much of an imagination to see how that might've worked out."

LINK

 

[LowFatMilk]

The Big East (football) was 'fine for now' twice before it wasn't.....and where is it now ?

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers_rivals]

I agree with Bowsley that there's no need to panic because TCU and Baylor were shut out through unusual circumstances. If Ohio State has a tough title game, TCU probably would be been in the national playoffs. If the wrong team wins the conference titles, TCU and Baylor both would have made it. Then there's be NO dispute. The problem with the current national playoffs is that FOUR teams get in and there are FIVE Power conferences so the math says at least one conference champ will be left out EVERY year. That eventually will create the inevitable push for EIGHT teams, or at least a play-in game between No. 4 and No. 5, which is what the NCAA did in basketball. Remember, the NCAA tournament didn't start out with 64 or 68 teams, whatever the current number is. It was only 8, I believe, at one time. Then more and more colleges clamored to get into the club, and TV threw more money at them.

I still think the wisest solution would be to have FOUR 16-team conferences, 2 divisions per conference, and have the EIGHT division champs in the national playoffs, and NOT SEC vs. SEC but my rankings or some such system (which is being done now).

 

[LowFatMilk]

The BCS formula wasn't horrible. People just wanted it expanded to 4 (or more) teams. So what does the NCAA do...? Expand AND start a playoff committee...bringing BACK obvious bias to the selection process. Horrible addition to the new playoff system.

Bring back the BCS rankings and rid ourselves of a playoff committee that looked bias IN YEAR ONE.

 

[topdecktiger]

Bring back the BCS rankings and rid ourselves of a playoff committee that looked bias IN YEAR ONE.

You mean the BCS formula that used the media and coaches' polls? You mean we should trade a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors........for a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors?

 

[torontoeers]

You mean the BCS formula that used the media and coaches' polls? You mean we should trade a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors........for a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors?

Was the BCS formula not drawing from a larger audience than the selection committee? I would think this should allow for less bias...I could be wrong....

 

[topdecktiger]

Was the BCS formula not drawing from a larger audience than the selection committee? I would think this should allow for less bias...I could be wrong....

Right, it would allow for less bias. That's why the BCS ended up with Alabama vs LSU in the title game, instead of Oklahoma St. It did a great job of alleviating the bias.

 

[torontoeers]

Right, it would allow for less bias. That's why the BCS ended up with Alabama vs LSU in the title game, instead of Oklahoma St. It did a great job of alleviating the bias.

Uh....Bama's only loss was to LSU 9-6...as opposed to Okie St losing to The mighty Cyclone's who ended up 6-7...you're being silly if you think there was no logical argument for Bama to be in the NC...and we KNOW what happened in the end anyway...don't we...

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

I agree with Bowsley that there's no need to panic because TCU and Baylor were shut out through unusual circumstances. If Ohio State has a tough title game, TCU probably would be been in the national playoffs. If the wrong team wins the conference titles, TCU and Baylor both would have made it. Then there's be NO dispute. The problem with the current national playoffs is that FOUR teams get in and there are FIVE Power conferences so the math says at least one conference champ will be left out EVERY year. That eventually will create the inevitable push for EIGHT teams, or at least a play-in game between No. 4 and No. 5, which is what the NCAA did in basketball. Remember, the NCAA tournament didn't start out with 64 or 68 teams, whatever the current number is. It was only 8, I believe, at one time. Then more and more colleges clamored to get into the club, and TV threw more money at them.

I still think the wisest solution would be to have FOUR 16-team conferences, 2 divisions per conference, and have the EIGHT division champs in the national playoffs, and NOT SEC vs. SEC but my rankings or some such system (which is being done now). [/QUOTE

CFE - I think you are right that we should be in no real rush to add two teams - but I would say we need to before 2020. But I think you had the wrong team for the B12 in the playoff - Baylor would have been that team. Yes TCU was #3 the week before but like the WV HS playoff system - Baylor beating a good KSt team did more for them than TCU crushing last place ISU. (Movement like that does happen in the WV high school system)

 

[dogeered_again]

MAX OLSON: Bowlsby says no "critical mass" to add schools

AN EXCERPT:

"I don't believe we are at a disadvantage relative to the playoff," Bowlsby said. "I don't think one year makes a trend. We were very close to having two teams in last year. You really don't have to have much of an imagination to see how that might've worked out."

LINK

We had our "own" man on the committee and still couldn't get it done. I think Oliver actually voted for Ohio State anyway.

 

[topdecktiger]

Uh....Bama's only loss was to LSU 9-6...as opposed to Okie St losing to The mighty Cyclone's who ended up 6-7...you're being silly if you think there was no logical argument for Bama to be in the NC...and we KNOW what happened in the end anyway...don't we...

Yeah, there is a logical argument for Alabama not being in the championship game.....They already played LSU and lost.

 

[pressvirginia]

You mean the BCS formula that used the media and coaches' polls? You mean we should trade a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors........for a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors?

the AP removed itself from determining and crowning champs after the USC-LSU split championship ordeal. 2004. the current selection committee consists of one sportswriter out of 13 members, a 30-year veteran from the USA Today.

I believe the coaches poll remained a factor throughout the BCS era. & yes, no doubt the coaches (or the ones who actually vote on the coaches behalf) inflate that poll based on who they are playing & on conference affiliation. it's like if we rank our opponents real high, then beat them, we look even better.

my gripe with the BCS was many times there was controversy surrounding deserving one-loss and even undefeated teams. Boise State went undefeated twice. Utah went undefeated twice -- '08 season they went 13-0, defeated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl and got zero consideration for the title. TCU went undefeated in 2010, so it's no surprised they weren't surprised at being snubbed again last year.

the football "final four," which is funny to even try to justify calling it that compared to the real Final Four, would seem to erase scenarios like those above by giving not 2 but 4 teams an ultimate chance at the title. typically there are not more than 4 arguable teams.

last year was not typical though -- 5 deserving one-loss teams + undeserving, but undefeated Fla State. there was no way to service 6 teams with 4 spots.

rare, yes, but not impossible to happen again.

for what it's worth, the final AP poll from last season indicates the true final four:
1. Ohio State
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Alabama

 

[tigeer]

If there were two schools to add, then they would've been added. No added value from what is available. I'd like to have 12 but I can't name the two to add that don't water everything down. I could pick two from other P5 conferences but I don't think anyone is interested in that right now. Just gonna have to wait.

 

[topdecktiger]

the AP removed itself from determining and crowning champs after the USC-LSU split championship ordeal. 2004. the current selection committee consists of one sportswriter out of 13 members, a 30-year veteran from the USA Today.

I believe the coaches poll remained a factor throughout the BCS era. & yes, no doubt the coaches (or the ones who actually vote on the coaches behalf) inflate that poll based on who they are playing & on conference affiliation. it's like if we rank our opponents real high, then beat them, we look even better.

my gripe with the BCS was many times there was controversy surrounding deserving one-loss and even undefeated teams. Boise State went undefeated twice. Utah went undefeated twice -- '08 season they went 13-0, defeated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl and got zero consideration for the title. TCU went undefeated in 2010, so it's no surprised they weren't surprised at being snubbed again last year.

the football "final four," which is funny to even try to justify calling it that compared to the real Final Four, would seem to erase scenarios like those above by giving not 2 but 4 teams an ultimate chance at the title. typically there are not more than 4 arguable teams.

last year was not typical though -- 5 deserving one-loss teams + undeserving, but undefeated Fla State. there was no way to service 6 teams with 4 spots.

rare, yes, but not impossible to happen again.

for what it's worth, the final AP poll from last season indicates the true final four:
1. Ohio State
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Alabama

The AP poll was replaced by the Harris poll, which was just another media poll. That did nothing to lessen the bias.

 

[pressvirginia]

gotcha. good point, Tiger. just my two cents here. not trying to be correcting, prickly or debaty.

to me, by nature media is required to be unbiased & it's my opinion the AP is certainly far less biased than those directly involved IN the game that have stakes to gain by results. this would more so be the sports writers; coaches & TV guys have a ton to gain by pumping up their own games & games they broadcast. conflict of interest.

the AP -- print press, not for large profits TV -- removing itself from the ability to determine champions is the ultimate show of hands off the game unbias. they recognized the problem & fixed what they could.

the Harris was one part of the bcs formula & not as influential as the AP poll was because the Harris didn't crown national champs all by itself.

Harris apparently was made up of former players, coaches, administrators and media. so plenty of blame to go around.

 

[LowFatMilk]

You mean the BCS formula that used the media and coaches' polls? You mean we should trade a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors........for a system based on the opinions of sportswriters and athletic directors?

I'm saying that we should have continued with a BCS system that used multiple polls and computer rankings from hundreds (if not thousands) of people (and bytes) before putting a small group of people in a room who mostly have an obligation or agenda that could hardly be considered unbiased.

 

[topdecktiger]

I'm saying that we should have continued with a BCS system that used multiple polls and computer rankings from hundreds (if not thousands) of people (and bytes) before putting a small group of people in a room who mostly have an obligation or agenda that could hardly be considered unbiased.

Or we could just have a real playoff system where teams qualify on the field.

 

[topdecktiger]

to me, by nature media is required to be unbiased

In that case, I have a bridge in New York to sell you. Real cheap.

the Harris was one part of the bcs formula & not as influential as the AP poll was because the Harris didn't crown national champs all by itself.

Not true. There was no "influence" in the BCS formula. It was purely mathematical. In fact, the Harris poll had a greater impact on the BCS than did the AP. Before the AP left in 2004, there were 3 components: the average ranking in both the AP and Coaches' polls, the average ranking of the computer polls, and strength of schedule.

After the Harris poll joined, there was a new formula: the Harris poll ranking, the Coaches poll ranking, and the average computer ranking. The Harris poll accounted for a higher percentage of a team's score than did the AP under the old formula.

the AP -- print press, not for large profits TV -- removing itself from the ability to determine champions is the ultimate show of hands off the game unbias. they recognized the problem & fixed what they could.

No, it is no such indication at all. The AP removed itself because it's champion, Southern Cal, didn't get to play in the BCS title game, and wasn't awarded the BCS championship. That's got nothing to do with a lack of bias. That's actually self-interest.

 

[pressvirginia]

In that case, I have a bridge in New York to sell you. Real cheap.



Not true. There was no "influence" in the BCS formula. It was purely mathematical. In fact, the Harris poll had a greater impact on the BCS than did the AP. Before the AP left in 2004, there were 3 components: the average ranking in both the AP and Coaches' polls, the average ranking of the computer polls, and strength of schedule.

After the Harris poll joined, there was a new formula: the Harris poll ranking, the Coaches poll ranking, and the average computer ranking. The Harris poll accounted for a higher percentage of a team's score than did the AP under the old formula.



No, it is no such indication at all. The AP removed itself because it's champion, Southern Cal, didn't get to play in the BCS title game, and wasn't awarded the BCS championship. That's got nothing to do with a lack of bias. That's actually self-interest.

sheesh.

since I am being corrected rather vehemently, the Harris poll as I mentioned above was made up of former players, coaches, administrators & media. & as you are correcting me in saying the bcs accounted for the coaches poll too, then there indeed was a human element being factored into the BCS. thus, it was subject to human bias & was not purely mathematical.

in any event, as I also previously wrote the BCS had controversey plenty of times because it subjectively left undefeated teams out of the BCS title game. it was flawed & replaced.

I do agree with a champion being determined on the field as in basketball, it happens on the court.