okjhok (anonymous) says...

This has to be one of the strangest columns I've ever read. I've seen tons of "BCS sucks" pieces, but this is the first that went to a bball team for the answer. And please, can we stop asking "why?" with regard to the final ranking. If KU had beaten more than two ranked teams, they would've received more love. Ohio State beat four, West Virginia beat four, including a thrashing of OU, and USC also beat four. It's pretty obvious, and probably a fair ranking. The bottom line is, KU can't claim to be better than any team ranked ahead of them because they didn't beat any team ranked ahead of them. Are we really at the point where an end-of-season #7 ranking isn't good enough? Didn't think so.

January 9, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1977kufan (anonymous) says...

Excellent article, Tom. I agree with you. The reply by okjok has to be one of the "stangest replies that I've read". Here are some points okjok might want to consider. First, it is a good idea to go to a basketball player who has football experience (Sherron Collins) and get his reply or for okjok's benefit his "take" on this situation. Second, college football had a Big 10 team rise 8 places in the polls (without playing a game and coming off a loss at home) to number 1 (??? where did that come from and okjok you should have at least mentioned that). Third, the newly "crowned" number one team lost at "their field" to an unranked team (who cares if it was triple overtime, it is a loss at home). That same team "jumped" to number 2 (after shuffling on wins and losses among teams in the top 5 occurred) so a number 1 vs. number 2 national championship game could be played on January 7th (wow is that majic or is that magic -- purposeful change in spelling just like the change in the rankings). Fourth, at the time of the Orange Bowl, Virginia Tech was either #3 or #5 (depending on which poll). KU soundly defeats VT and moves up from #8 to #7! Where is the neocortical function (the word logic might help you) in this? Yes, I do agree with you "an end-of-season #7 ranking" is good enough if it is appropriate to the other rankings in the polls. The other rankings are not, so the #7 is not appropriate. The only thread that seems to tie this together is "the bottom line", the money that is made or lost from college football, not that "KU can't claim to be better than any team ranked ahead of them". rock chalk jayhawks!!!

January 9, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Ranger35 (anonymous) says...

I wonder what Allen Iverson would say about this?

"We're talking about rankings. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about rankings, not a championship, not a championship, not a championship, but we're talking about rankings. Not the championship that I go out there and die for and play every down like it's my last but we're talking about rankings man. How silly is that?"

Unless you are ranked number one, which Kansas does not deserve to be, it is a worthless arguement.

Personally, I endorse a 12-team playoff (where the 6 BCS conference champs and the top 2 "wildcards" each get a home game and the Semis and Championship played on predetermined neutral sites, such as bowls), but it is nothing more than a pipe dream. The best we can hope for is this "Plus-one" model getting pushed through in a couple seasons and then we get a four-team playoff. Hopefully after a few more years there will be enough pressure to expand that to eight teams.

I know for a fact that a college football playoff would dominate the ratings if it was played in December. It would rival ratings of the NFL over the same period.

January 9, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

albraun (anonymous) says...

Or how about shorten the regular season by 1 game and use a 24-team bracket the way division 2 does? It seems to work for NCAA division 2, division 3 and the NAIA, so why can't it work for D-I? Here's a sample of how it went this year in D-2:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default....

January 9, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

okjhok (anonymous) says...

I considered your points, 1977kufan. Thank you for offering them. They are valid, but none of them do anything to disprove the point that I made, which was to say that the final ranking should reflect the whole season and KU simply didn't have enough bang to support a top-5 ranking, and that the teams I mentioned beat more quality opponents. That takes nothing away from KU, nor does it say that KU couldn't have beaten any of those "quality opponents." It was a great year. We all new going in the schedule was weak and it was taken full advantage of. Also you shouldn't assume by my comments that I don't appreciate Keegan's work. I do (most of the time). I just thought this piece took a strange approach.

Thanks for once again pointing out that the "system" is flawed. Got it, although I'm not sure throwing in "neocortical function" made you sound any more authoritative, just more like an arrogant blowhard.

January 9, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justanotherfan (anonymous) says...

I attended a D-II school in college, so I can say that the playoff format CAN work in college football. The arguments against it are made by college presidents that don't want to give up the multi million dollar bowls and the coaches that want to be able to tout that their mediocre 6-6 season was a success because they won the No-Name bowl over another 6-6 team to go 7-6. I realize that just a few years ago we were that 6-6 team, but the argument is still true.

Right now, 32 teams can announce to the world that they are bowl game champs and that, as a result, their season was a success. If there was a playoff, 6-6 wouldn't cut it, just like 16-14 doesn't get it done in hoops. With a playoff, only a handful of teams (teams that exceeded expectations like KU) and the champ could really point to their season as a big success. That would mean that this years success were KU, MU, Illinois, Boston College and LSU. That's it. Everybody else either underachieved or did what was expected. That means that a coach like Bob Stoops (who is a very good coach) would be under more pressure than ever because its not about winning the conference and getting to a BCS game, but winning the big tournament at the end.

In the end, though, the money train will prevent a playoff. Colleges, coaches and conferences know that they stand to make more money in the current system than they would in a playoff.

Furthermore, teams would have to change the way they scheduled. In D-II teams play tough non con schedules all the time. Why? Well, you have to be ready to play big time teams. There is no schedule the weakest comp available because its not just about getting to a bowl. You have to be able to beat three or four good teams to be considered a threat to go all the way. Tough scheduling would exist to prepare your team for a potential road playoff game (since only the top 4 teams would not have to play in a hostile environment). D-II regular season is so important because the difference between being ranked 4 or 5 in your region is the difference between playing at your place against a team just as good as you and playing that same team at their place. Coaches don't want that. They want to pencil in wins in the non con against weaker pay for play opponents.

It makes it exciting (in D-II) though because you have early season matchups between top 10 or top 15 teams regularly, especially teams from weaker conferences. A team like Ohio State, in a weaker Big Ten, would have to schedule a team like Arizona State, or Virginia Tech, or Auburn just to compensate. We'd get calls to play teams like Georgia and Rutgers just to prepare for a possible road playoff game at somewhere like USC or LSU, or with the hope of getting a HOME playoff game by having an impressive schedule and a strong record.

January 9, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

niemoth (anonymous) says...

It's easy for everyone to say right now that they would want a playoff, but it would be a trade-off for the regular season. Everyone says that they think you could still have an exciting regular season. I don't think it would be near the same. You are on the edge of your seat each week because normally 1 loss means your out of the title picture. With a playoff system, 1-loss isn't the end of the world and people just wouldn't follow it until it gets closer to the end. It just wouldn't be that big a deal for a big name team to lose in the middle of the season because they would know they still had a title chance. I doubt I'd watch undefeated teams from other conferences until they had 1-loss and had everything to lose in an upset. Nobody seems to see that and just says that it would still be exciting. Would we have had the game of the year over Thanksgiving weekend between LSU and Arkansas if there was a playoff and LSU already had their division wrapped up and would know that they would be playing for the playoffs the following week no matter what. Would OSU-Michigan have meant nearly as much last year when both would know that they would make the playoffs no matter what instead of loser goes home. I like the bowl system also because teams like Kansas, Missouri, USC, Georgia, West Virginia get to end the season on a win. With a playoff, Kansas probably doesn't get in because of their schedule and that they were the 3rd highest ranked team in the big 12 and Hawaii was undefeated, even though they had 1-loss in a BCS conference. We would then never have known how good Kansas was because they wouldn't have gotten the chance to play a top team in a bowl game. There would still be bickering about who gets in, because every year there is an argument for someone. And playoff people say that it is better to have people arguing about the 8th and 9th best teams rather than 2nd and 3rd best teams, but college football officials know that would be a horrible trade-off to just gain that and make their regular season much less exciting. The NFL regular season stays exciting for most people because of fantasy and gambling. I normally watch a lot of games on Sunday, and this year I didn't play a fantasy team and watched 1 entire game (NE-Baltimore on Monday) the entire season. I just didn't care that much about the regular season. I am watching all the playoff games though. And that's exactly what would happen to college football.

January 9, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jackhawk (anonymous) says...

We are ranked number 7 in all the land. Let's rejoice in that. What a great season.

January 9, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oldalum (anonymous) says...

One change they might make is to require all those who vote on the rankings to actually WATCH the teams play during the season so their decision is an informed one. I'd be willing to bet that most of them have never seen 90% of the teams that they pass judgment on. They just go by numbers, their favorites, and past years performance. No doubt that's why there were so many "upsets" this year. It's the polls that are flawed. If they are going to rely that heavily on polls, the polls should have some value.

January 9, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

niemoth (anonymous) says...

agreed oldalum, that is why the traditional programs are always ranked higher and have a little bit of an advantage. People rank teams because they are storied programs. And since many voters use the drop so far when you lose and stay where you are when you win, it makes it tough to climb to the top if you weren't predicted to do well. You have to be perfect like Kansas had to be this year. If OU had played our exact schedule and had a 11-1 record going into the polls, my guess is that they would have been playing for the national title, (which is exactly what happend to Nebraska when they went to the Rose Bowl in 01 after not even playing in the Big 12 championship). By the way, the Sagarin ratings have KU #2 now after the bowls.

January 9, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

niemoth (anonymous) says...

agreed oldalum, that is why the traditional programs are always ranked higher and have a little bit of an advantage. People rank teams because they are storied programs. And since many voters use the drop so far when you lose and stay where you are when you win mentality, it makes it tough to climb to the top if you weren't predicted to do well. You have to be perfect like Kansas had to be this year. If OU had played our exact schedule and had a 11-1 record going into the bowls, my guess is that they would have been playing for the national title, (which is exactly what happend to Nebraska when they went to the Rose Bowl in 01 after not even playing in the Big 12 championship). By the way, the Sagarin ratings have KU #2 now after the bowls.

January 9, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

actorman (anonymous) says...

Niemoth, although your point about the regular season is somewhat valid, that same argument could be made for college basketball--in fact, even more so. In basketball a team can lose 11 games (a la KU in '88) and still have a chance to win the championship. Does it make the regular season less exciting? Absolutely. Is it worth it? Absolutely. The same could be applied to football. And if they had a 16-team playoff (which would be the right number to include all realistic possibilities), KU would have made it this year, even being third in the Big XII. If you eliminate all conference championship games, go back to an 11-game regular season and don't make exceptions like trips to Hawaii not counting as an extra game, the most any team could play would be 15 games, which is possible even with the current system. I realize that getting rid of the conference championships is unrealistic, so maybe two teams would have to play 16 games. Either way it's not a lot more than teams are playing now, and it would be a much better system.

January 9, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawkee84 (anonymous) says...

Hey folks, check out the poll on USA Today regarding a playoff system for Div-I football....

Please DO vote!!!!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colleg...

Fantastic season Jayhawk football squad & coaches!

Looking forward VERY much to the 2008 season!!!

January 9, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1977kufan (anonymous) says...

okjhok, thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, not one item in your initial set of comments nor in your second reply convinces me of your point of "rankings should be based on the entire season". There were too many vacillations in the teams above #7 KU and too much juggling of the rankings to justify your stance.

Unfortunately, I take umbrage at your comment about an "arrogant blowhard". Neocortical function (actually dysfunction) specifically relates to the decision to move Kansas from #8 to #7 after defeating VT in the Orange Bowl. You didn't make that decision, you just support that decision through both sets of your comments. If I wanted to be an "arrogant blowhard", I could have chosen one or more of the tabooed triliterals (sometimes these are abbreviations), tabooed quadriliterals, tabooed pentiliterals, or monosyllabic terms that are so frequent on many other sites (not on this KU website). I believe that we should just agree to disagree and leave the issue at that. Again, thank you for your comments, it was nice writing to and discussing with a fellow Jayhawk. Have a wonderful 2008!!!

January 9, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hawkman1031 (anonymous) says...

Stay with bowls.
Playoff is over-rated, and benefits only one.
The rest lose.
Playoffs would:
1. extend season too long. If you go past two weekends you have to shorten the season, costing every team, its school and its town.
2. Send everyone home a loser instead of 26 home as winners.
3. Probably do away with most bowl games, I would assume, costing fans the chance to see many teams.

Too much is made of win at all costs, and name one champion by playing. It wouldn't always prove it, as shown by the injury to the QB from Oregon this year.
Sportsmanship means give it all you can, but it is still how you go about it and not whether you win. I love to see KU win, but I have watched them closely and usually at every game for 30 years, thus proving my point. We usually did not win. The game is always a chance to feel nostalgic on the hill, gather with friends, have fun, take a break from whatever stresses you, have a beer at the Wheel, etc. The Orange Bowl was great and the victory was euphoric, but I do not care who was the champ. I am fine with LSU. If you want to fix something, make the Big 10 have a championship game along with everyone else, or no one, and have the top 10 play in the BCS games, and not 13 Illinois. I personally don't care how much Ga and USC bark about it. They lost games. Missouri lost 2 against OU. If they can't win their games, who cares whether they are not crowned the greatest of the great. The bowls are a wonderful tradition and getting better. More opportunities abound. I think that if the majority thought and then spoke, they would appreciate what we have, with some rule changes about the BCS opportunities. There would still be some cry-babies, but there are the same in basketball with seedings, which regional they are in, whether they get in the tournament. Can't please everyone, but the bowls are a pleasing institution which should not be undermined or dilluted at all.
In 2005 I went to the Fort Worth Bowl and that was a great team with the greatest defense. We would not have made any playoff, and would have been very unlikely to be the champ if we did make a playoff. We would have lost somewhere. But the Fort Worth Bowl was glorious. We beat 'em like they were Nebraska (who we killed that season... so sweet), and anyone who was at that game will forever remember the unison answers to the commercial questions emanating from the scoreboard and sound system, including the answer to the final question, "who died?" Whover was there knows what I'm talking about.

And further, in 1971, the top 3 in the country from winning their respective bowl games were NU, OU and CU. How awesome for the Big 8. I kind of doubt that could happen in the playoff system, but if we have three deserving teams now, they should be in the BCS bowls without the 2-team limit, and no preference for lowly Illinois by the punk Rose bowl.

January 9, 2008 at 8:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

niemoth (anonymous) says...

actorman,
I agree that a playoff would be more exciting this time of year, but don't agree that it would be worth it. College football doesn't want to become the amateur NFL. They basically have a year long playoff right now that keeps everyone watching on the edge of their seats. If you tell all the playoff proponents to quit watching college football so that ratings aren't as good and force them into a playoff, they won't quit watching because it is too exciting. I could care less about the NFL each week, and just care about Saturdays. They won't trade a season long of high ratings for a few weeks of more excitement at the end. Plus, if a playoff comes, there is no way it would include 16 teams. At most, it would include 8. And shortening the season would hurt all the teams in Div. 1 except the teams that make the playoffs. They will never shorten the season to accomodate for the top 16 teams. Plus, it does make 15 losers out of the top 16, where I would rather have just 8, like we do now. I couldn't be happier with KU's finish. I'm not bummed they didn't get a chance to go to the playoffs and possible with the title. Plus, teams that go to smaller bowls will hate it because who is going to watch the smaller bowls if there are playoffs on. Right now, many people watch all the bowl games, even if you don't even know the teams. That won't happen if the top 16 teams are playing. Do you watch the NIT, unless you are a fan of the school playing. The smaller bowls would become the NIT. A playoff will probably only get to 4 teams, so that it only takes 2 weeks, and then we will still have people who think they deserve to get in, so there will always be bickering. I think 4 teams may be good because then you're not guaranteed to get in with 1-loss, which would keep the regular season exciting. With it only taking 2 weeks, you won't have to shorten the season, and you won't make other bowl teams unhappy taking up all the ratings, and you at least stay away from the years of 3 or more undefeateds (which with the diversity now, I don't know if that will havppen again, so they may never go to a playoff). It will probably take another year of 3 undefeateds before a playoff is formed.

January 10, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

100 (anonymous) says...

RE: Final Rankings for NCAA football top 5: Since the rest of the poll is less important, a system needs to be developed, similar to the BCS to finalize a fair final ranking, especially considering everyone has played such a different schedule, and everyone has so many losses this year. The premise of this method needs to be based on games won and lost versus top 5 competition, to be considered with losses outside the top five (considered a bad loss). To be considered for the top 5, the team in question must have at least one quality win against the top 5. Additionally, to go with this formula, a point system needs to amplify the loss if it was at home. If it is on a neutral field, it is half as deflating, and away, much less deflating. The loss becomes even more deflating, the more points that team lost by. The top 5 wins are treated in the same manner, although the points are subtracted. Thus, the lowest tally receives the final #1 ranking and so on. I have such a point system drawn out, and no matter how many times the numbers are crunched, each and every time, KU ends up a resounding number 1 every time with LSU a distant #2 for losing twice outside of the top 5 (although perhaps a special exception should be made for OT games, that would put KU at #2). Since KU lost only once inside the top 5 on a neutral field, and by 8 points, they vault everyone else. Since VT was # 3 in the final BCS rankings, the Orange Bowl was essentially a national championship game using this final top 5 ranking system.

January 10, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )