lsu? Are they division 1?

[arkansasbob]

the polls were flawed first, which garanteed that the bcs would be flawed because they use the polls. the one consensus national championship that usc DID win, they didn't get a chance to play the best team in the country, either. auburn was probably the best team in the country that year, but the only reason they weren't in the bcs championship is because they started out off the poll. of course the computers aren't any better, they probably made it even worse.

the best way to determine a champion is obviously a tournament. but if you want to determine a champion in the polls, the best way would be to make a few changes to the ap poll:

1) make the number of ap voters each state gets perportional to the number of d1a football teams in that state, and try to spread them out accross the state. you could have 2 voters per dia school, which would give you 234 total voters. ten sports writers from louisiana would have votes, 18 in texas, six in mississippi, 14 in california, etc. this might swing the bias a little toward schools with more teams in their state, but that would be better than a bias toward schools with more tv coverage, or a bigger population base.

2) don't allow any voting until the 5th or 6th week of the season. as i mentioned above, auburn's low start in the polls in 2003 quite possibly cost them a national championship. this would make it a little more fair for the teams that might get overlooked in the preseason.

3) do not, under any circumstances, allow a team to play for a national championship that did not win its own conference.

[dhussdawg]

the polls were flawed first, which garanteed that the bcs would be flawed because they use the polls. the one consensus national championship that usc DID win, they didn't get a chance to play the best team in the country, either. auburn was probably the best team in the country that year, but the only reason they weren't in the bcs championship is because they started out off the poll. of course the computers aren't any better, they probably made it even worse.

the best way to determine a champion is obviously a tournament. but if you want to determine a champion in the polls, the best way would be to make a few changes to the ap poll:

1) make the number of ap voters each state gets perportional to the number of d1a football teams in that state, and try to spread them out accross the state. you could have 2 voters per dia school, which would give you 234 total voters. ten sports writers from louisiana would have votes, 18 in texas, six in mississippi, 14 in california, etc. this might swing the bias a little toward schools with more teams in their state, but that would be better than a bias toward schools with more tv coverage, or a bigger population base.

2) don't allow any voting until the 5th or 6th week of the season. as i mentioned above, auburn's low start in the polls in 2003 quite possibly cost them a national championship. this would make it a little more fair for the teams that might get overlooked in the preseason.

3) do not, under any circumstances, allow a team to play for a national championship that did not win its own conference.

Those are good suggestions. I have always liked the not vote until the fifth or sixth week argument because everybody knows that put Auburn on the outside looking in. It didnt matter how well they played, OU would have to lost for them to get a shot. The voter structuring definitely needs to be restructured without a doubt.

[Champ967]

I like your suggestions, Bob. But I disagree with your assesment of why AU was not in the NC game that year.

There were 3 undefeated teams, but 2 of them had stronger skeds. Auburn chose to play Citadel for their 11th game. While the Tigers may have been one of the best 2 teams that year, their decision to play a 1AA game kept them from being one of the most deserving teams.

SOS is a HUGE part of college football, and nobody who plays a 1AA opponent should be allowed to grouse about where they end up in the post season. And I dont want to hear about how tough the $ec is either. The numbers show that the $ec was down that year, and even the conference championship game was not enough to mitigate the impact that Citadel had on Auburn's SOS.

If you're of the opinion that the NC game exists to match up the 2 best teams, then I see why Auburn was slighted. But I would maintain that the NC game should be for the 2 teams that did the most to EARN it. Just my .02.

[dhussdawg]

I like your suggestions, Bob. But I disagree with your assesment of why AU was not in the NC game that year.

There were 3 undefeated teams, but 2 of them had stronger skeds. Auburn chose to play Citadel for their 11th game. While the Tigers may have been one of the best 2 teams that year, their decision to play a 1AA game kept them from being one of the most deserving teams.

SOS is a HUGE part of college football, and nobody who plays a 1AA opponent should be allowed to grouse about where they end up in the post season. And I dont want to hear about how tough the $ec is either. The numbers show that the $ec was down that year, and even the conference championship game was not enough to mitigate the impact that Citadel had on Auburn's SOS.

If you're of the opinion that the NC game exists to match up the 2 best teams, then I see why Auburn was slighted. But I would maintain that the NC game should be for the 2 teams that did the most to EARN it. Just my .02.

Well, I think AU got kind of bufu'ed on that because they were supposed to play Bowling Green (much higher RPI) but they pulled out and played guess who? OU. Isnt it ironic? Dont you think?

[arkansasbob]

I like your suggestions, Bob. But I disagree with your assesment of why AU was not in the NC game that year.

There were 3 undefeated teams, but 2 of them had stronger skeds. Auburn chose to play Citadel for their 11th game. While the Tigers may have been one of the best 2 teams that year, their decision to play a 1AA game kept them from being one of the most deserving teams.

SOS is a HUGE part of college football, and nobody who plays a 1AA opponent should be allowed to grouse about where they end up in the post season. And I dont want to hear about how tough the $ec is either. The numbers show that the $ec was down that year, and even the conference championship game was not enough to mitigate the impact that Citadel had on Auburn's SOS.

If you're of the opinion that the NC game exists to match up the 2 best teams, then I see why Auburn was slighted. But I would maintain that the NC game should be for the 2 teams that did the most to EARN it. Just my .02.

i agree on the 1aa game. i really think auburn was the best team that year, but i don't think 1aa games should count for anything at all. but the ONLY reason they weren't ranked higher in the polls was because of where they started the season, not because of their one weak opponant.

[DocMarvin362]

I like your suggestions, Bob. But I disagree with your assesment of why AU was not in the NC game that year.

There were 3 undefeated teams, but 2 of them had stronger skeds. Auburn chose to play Citadel for their 11th game. While the Tigers may have been one of the best 2 teams that year, their decision to play a 1AA game kept them from being one of the most deserving teams.

SOS is a HUGE part of college football, and nobody who plays a 1AA opponent should be allowed to grouse about where they end up in the post season. And I dont want to hear about how tough the $ec is either. The numbers show that the $ec was down that year, and even the conference championship game was not enough to mitigate the impact that Citadel had on Auburn's SOS.

If you're of the opinion that the NC game exists to match up the 2 best teams, then I see why Auburn was slighted. But I would maintain that the NC game should be for the 2 teams that did the most to EARN it. Just my .02.

Good arguement, but I have to disagree. Didn't Auburn start OUTSIDE the top 25?? Oklahoma wasn't one of the top 2 that year. I know that you don't want to hear about the SEC, but you have to agree that the SEC EVEN in a down year is better top to bottom than the PAC-10 and the Big 12. OU got to play Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas, etc. SEC's weak ones are Vandy...... can't really think of any other ones at the moment. Auburn did hurt themselves by not playing a D1 school there, but would there really have been a difference if they would have played ULM and beat them 77 - 3?? Not really.

MY problem with the SOS arguement is that there is nothing that would include last years records.. or something like that. For example, this year, let's say that we beat Nebraska, and they end up having a 4-8 record, perform just piss poor. Well, NOBODY at the beginning of the year would think so. Last year, I think that they finished in the lower half of the top 25. WHEN WE SCHEDULED THEM, they were expected to be good, and were fairly good last year. Well just because they didn't perform well this year, that would kill our SOS. It should go the other way too. We didn't think that Nevada would even be top 5 in the WAC... I can't think of anyone that did think so. Well they have a hell of a year and finish first. The teams that thought that they were getting a push-over would get a boast this year. It's all luck of the draw. If you schedule a weak team for a "guarantee win" and they end up being really good, then your getting a boast for their performance. I'd like to see SOME adjustment that would include the last year's SOS or rank, schedule... something.

Does that make sense?? 3 hours of sleep and 12 hour shifts all week are taking a toll! :c)

[GatorDawg]

Good arguement, but I have to disagree. Didn't Auburn start OUTSIDE the top 25?? Oklahoma wasn't one of the top 2 that year. I know that you don't want to hear about the SEC, but you have to agree that the SEC EVEN in a down year is better top to bottom than the PAC-10 and the Big 12. OU got to play Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas, etc. SEC's weak ones are Vandy...... can't really think of any other ones at the moment. Auburn did hurt themselves by not playing a D1 school there, but would there really have been a difference if they would have played ULM and beat them 77 - 3?? Not really.

MY problem with the SOS arguement is that there is nothing that would include last years records.. or something like that. For example, this year, let's say that we beat Nebraska, and they end up having a 4-8 record, perform just piss poor. Well, NOBODY at the beginning of the year would think so. Last year, I think that they finished in the lower half of the top 25. WHEN WE SCHEDULED THEM, they were expected to be good, and were fairly good last year. Well just because they didn't perform well this year, that would kill our SOS. It should go the other way too. We didn't think that Nevada would even be top 5 in the WAC... I can't think of anyone that did think so. Well they have a hell of a year and finish first. The teams that thought that they were getting a push-over would get a boast this year. It's all luck of the draw. If you schedule a weak team for a "guarantee win" and they end up being really good, then your getting a boast for their performance. I'd like to see SOME adjustment that would include the last year's SOS or rank, schedule... something.

Does that make sense?? 3 hours of sleep and 12 hour shifts all week are taking a toll! :c)

Weak SEC teams a few years ago...hmm. Off the top of my head Ole Miss, Miss State, South Carolina, Arkansas, and like you said Vandy. Big 12 and Pac 10 have weak teams but lets not forget we live in SEC and Big 12 country so therefore we will always view these conferences as miles ahead of the Pac 10 (not that they aren't). Outside of USC we simply don't know anything about the Pac 10 because we never see them on tv.

[Champ967]

Doc, I agree that starting the polls in the preseason is pretty unfair, and I'm not going to defend that practice. But, in this case, Auburn still got what they deserved.

If you look at the numbers Doc (and I mean RPI, not the silly polls) the sec was only the 5th strongest conference that year. So I disagree ... the sec is quite capable of slipping below the Pac10 in a given year.

And I would also maintain that even ULM blowout still would have been better than Citadel, b/c ULM, in fact, had some wins over 1A competition. Citadel had none. In fact Citadel had boo-coo 1AA losses (maybe 8?) to severely bring down AU's SOS.

(Now you've got me thinking. Hypothetically, would a win over ULM have earned Auburn a spot in the NC game? I'll have to do the numbers on that ... hmmm ....)

Finally, I will agree with you that it sucks about never knowing what kind of team you'll be playing when you schedule the game years in advance. But I would argue that that's just part of the sport of college football. And yeah, maybe the luck of the draw is part of it.

But I firmly believe that each season should stand on its own merit. To take into account the previous year's results would be almost as bad as the preseason polls (in my mind anyway.) So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Thanks for the great reply! Enjoying the discussion!

[arkansasbob]

(Now you've got me thinking. Hypothetically, would a win over ULM have earned Auburn a spot in the NC game? I'll have to do the numbers on that ... hmmm ....)

didn't they actually play ulm that year, too? i seem to remember ulm being part of what brought down their sos.

[firedog]

yep

[Champ967]

OH YEAH! That's right. Ok ... now i wont have to satisfy my curiosity with (blech) math. Thanks!

Anyway, here's a timely article from CFN -- http://www.cfbnews.com/2006/Columnis...scheduling.htm

[firedog]

I wouldn't mind playing Arizona, but he thinks we should give up another home game.

[Champ967]

In fact, we CANT give up our 5th home game. My only point in posting that link is that I strongly dislike 1AA games.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

In fact, we CANT give up our 5th home game. My only point in posting that link is that I strongly dislike 1AA games.

The Nichols game most likely will be the difference between a 7-6 record and a 6-7 record and being bowl eligible once again. If those games count towards bowl eligibility, let's play one every year. It guarantees a home game and an almost assured win. Makes for some fun tailgating.

Of course, I'd trade it for a home and home against Southern Miss, SMU, Tulsa, Rice, Memphis, Houston, Ole Miss, State, UCF............

[Champ967]

Agreed ... I'd like take any of those over Nicholls or Arizona. (Dang Clyde, maybe we need to try talking politics.)

Personally, I think SJSU will be the pivotal game this year. That road trip will be the difference between late season momentum, and a downward spiral.