December 29, 2005
Ferentz, Meyer: Playoff, schmlayoff
Iowa football coach Kirk Ferentz and Florida football coach Urban Meyer have let their voices be heard on the notion of a college football playoff:
"I think the whole concept is ludicrous, personally," Ferentz said at Wednesday's coaches news conference for the Outback Bowl. "If they want to do it "plus-one' (adding a national championship game after the BCS games are played), I have no problem with that. I have no problem with two teams claiming to be national champions at the end of the year, either."But that's our society. We're driven to know who the champion is, and heaven forbid we've got two of them."
...
"When you start playing 12 games and an SEC championship game and a bowl game, starting 14, 15, 16 games and with 85 scholarships, you're non-functional," Meyer said. "Competing in the conferences that we compete in, you're down to the bare nubs by the end of the season."
Comments:
Senor Pez said:
posted on December 29, 2005 11:36 AM — 63.162.183.2 — link — abuse?
I have to agree with the coaches: A playoff is ludicrous. Of the 117 teams playing Division I-A, no more than 8-10 have a legitimate claim to be "in the hunt" for a national title. And no more than 2-3 actually take care of buisness to be in a race.
Yes, a playoff would solve some of the issues that arise when a mid-major school goes undefeated, or there are a few top-tier schools at the same level. Yes, there's the Auburn issue. But at least they were the People's Champion, right?
But it won't solve the national champion issue. How many times have we heard talking heads claim that a certain NCAA basketball team should have been the national champs, but for that upset loss in the Elite Eight? Would USC and Texas fans politely nod their head and claim that the better team won the title if Micigan and Florida State ran a series of upsets in the hypothetical football playoff?
Let the flame war begin.
posted on December 29, 2005 12:02 PM — 12.223.203.217 — link — abuse?Pete Holiday said:
Serious logical flaw there, SP:
"How many times have we heard talking heads claim that a certain NCAA basketball team should have been the national champs"
All the time... but you hear that now with college football, too. The biggest question: how many times have you heard a talking head claim a certain NCAA basketball team WAS the national champion unless they ran the table at the tourney? Never.
And, frankly, I'd much rather the championship be decided on the field and not by pre-season rankings and computers. It would answer a lot of questions about the undefeated (or otherwise highly ranked) teams that we see every season who have played nobody of consequence but want all sorts of credit. (see, also: Oregon, 2004 Utah, et al)
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 29, 2005 12:05 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
You make a great point Senor Pez. Your claim that only 8-10 teams actually have shot to be "in the hunt" for a national championship is precisely why some coaches don't want a playoff system. These coaches have a better chance at getting the popular vote and a BCS title game than they do winning out through a playoff system against good teams. This is why we see the majority of BCS conference schools in favor of the BCS system and why the non BCS conference schools have a majority of teams that would like to see some sort of playoff system. Without a playoff system most of the Div. I-A schools are almost completely ruled out of the running for a National Title, before the season even starts. You are correct when you say that there will always be fans who claim they would've been champions if not for an upset in the playoff format. The whole truth is that if you get upset in a playoff format then you dont deserve to be the champion, bottom line. That's the problem and the arguement with the BCS system...fans will continue to argue whether or not a team deserved to be in the BCS NC game. The reality is that becuase of the BCS format decides who deserves to play. The right way would be to let the teams decide who gets to play. As long as college football is controlled by the "Money Factor", we will continue to have to live with our BCS "Paper Champions" and the "what if's".
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 29, 2005 12:20 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Pete...I couldn't agree more. I grew up believing that if you wanted to be a champion then you had to play like a champion and win like a champion. With the BCS format, to be a champion you have to be popular, have a good record and win the BCS title game against an opponent who may or may not be as good as other teams, but are at least as popular. Football is supposed to be a "Man's Game". Blood, snot, sweat, broken bones, acrobatic catches, unbelievable runs and smash mouth hits is why we watch the game. Why should a popularity contest decide who plays for the NC. College football is starting to look more like the tv show "Survivor" where its better to be popular than good. Maybe it should more resemble "Fear Factor" where you win or go home. Or better yet, maybe it should try to resemble "College Football".
J.C. Beeson said:
posted on December 29, 2005 2:47 PM — 84.166.71.248 — link — abuse?
If you guys haven't picked up the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia, do it. WELL worth the money (though I got mine for Christmas from my wife. Wait an minute. She doesn't work, so really I got MYSELF the ESPN CFE. Thank you Me! You're welcome Me!) There is an article in there on pp. 1132-1136 entitled "Getting There from Here: A Practical Guide to a Playoff" by Michael MacCambridge, the book's editor. He outlines how an 8-team playoff would work perfectly. I won't spell it all out here, but well worth the read. It CAN be done people!
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 29, 2005 2:55 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
FOR THE RECORD.... College football and the NCAA allready know how to devise a playoff system that will ultimately decide a national Champion without having a team play 15 games in a single season. The question isn't "how would they do it?", but rather "why should we do it?". The Bowls offer guaranteed money. There would too many what if's in a playoff system for the NCAA to take that risk. What is best for the game is not the most important thing to the NCAA, but what is financially beneficial to the NCAA is. The NCAA took in over 470 million this past year. They also paid a considerable amount out...and to continue doing this they are going to have to side with the guaranteed income that the BCS system and other bowl games provides. Enough experts and fans have found reasonable ways to conduct a playoff system years ago, but its all about the MONEY. Complaining about the BCS isn't going to get rid of it that's for sure. Boycotting the sponsors of these games by a significant number of fans would probably make an economic impact on the system in future years, but most fans are so into the games that they have no idea who all the sponsors are. For example, Nokia isn't the only sponsor of the Sugar Bowl...just the biggest contributor who has paid for the rights to the name. As fans we can express our dissatisfaction with the BCS, but as Americans we financially support the BCS by being consumers. The fact remains...nothing is going to change anytime soon.
Senor Pez said:
posted on December 29, 2005 11:01 PM — 68.113.105.5 — link — abuse?
All the financial and timing issues aside, I would only be in favor of a playoff if the following points were part of it:
1.) No more conference championship games. If you can't win your conference in the regular season, you don't get another shot. It would make it unfair to those teams that already have to play one extra game, only to qualify to play 2-3 more.
2.) Start the games shortly after the regular season. The long layoff before bowl games is good for marketing and hype, but bad for football.
3.) Maybe a 6-team bracket, with the top two getting byes.
4.) Play the games at the home fields of each team, and have the sponsors come to them. It's only fair to the teams, their bands, their fans, their facilities, and their schools.
Aside from that, the only thing I see a playoff doing is shifting the argument from who wins the championship to who got left out of the tourney.
Which brings me another thought, though it would end up being logistically impossible in a real-world implementation: Just take all teams with the lowest number of losses (so, if there are no undefeated teams, all 1 loss teams are eligible), and create an adaptive (or round-robin) bracket. So, for this year, there would only be two teams: USC and Texas. Last year, there would have been four teams, and three games.
Like I said, logistically impossible. :)
K Hat said:
posted on December 30, 2005 12:00 AM — 24.217.145.84 — link — abuse?
The coaches are right, a playoff system just won't happen, and here's the ten reasons why.
1. Too many conferences will be losing too much money. The SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10 and PAC 10 stand to lose the most money since they're involved in the most Bowl Games with the biggest payouts.
2. Too many Universities will be losing too much money. A #3, #4, and #5 teams with good seasons, won't get a chance to make any money.
They would lose out on a recruting trip to El Paso, San Antonio, Las Vegas, etc.
They would lose out on a national televised game. The Conference and University Presidents won't allow that.
3. The cities will be losing too much money. Memphis, San Antonio, Nashville, etc, make a lot of tourist money from these games.
4. The sponser of the games, either through sponser rights or commercials, will be losing out on marketing and advertising their products to a different segment of society.
5. ESPN would lose out on alot of revenue from the corporate sponsers.
6. Regardless what eight or 16 teams would be in this playoff system, someone is going to cry foul. A 17th ranked team with a strong strength of schedule will have a legitimate complaint. An unbeaten team from the WAC, MWC or Conf USA would get in on a weak strength of schedule, they would be the cuase of this.
7. The top seeds will want the games on their home field, the other teams will want a nuetral sight.
8. If all games are played in a nuetral sight, the schools traveling cost will go up greatly. The fans base will only be able to attend so many games.
9. If all games are played in a nuetral sight location, the teams that have to travel the most, will cry foul the loudest.
10. There will be a push to get an automatic bid for winning your conference, and yes they would since it's already happening with the BCS.
The bottom line, the playoff system would make many people complain "it's unfair we have to travel all that way for a game" or "it's unfair we didn't make it with the schedule we had".
The world won't come to an end if college football doesn't have a playoff system. Enjoy the bowl games, they're a big part of college football tradition. If you don't like them, there is always the World Series of Poker.
Regan said:
posted on December 30, 2005 3:18 AM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
My buddy Fan of the Game and I got into a fun little spat on this issue on the '05-'06 Bowl Game thread, so I'll be quick:
I agree with you, Senor Pez, mainly because it is my belief that a CF NC team is a team that wins week-in-and-week-out thru the long haul of the season and takes the cake in the end.
Others believe that a Playoff will allow any team to have the 'any given Saturday' run to enable cinderella teams to win the NC, and that they should be allowed to do so, even if it is a four-loss team and there are one-loss teams out there.
My logic is that:
- the Regular Season games should count. Winning all season long is much tougher than being in the right place at the right time.- Playoffs don't solve all the issues (as Senor Pez pointed out). In Basketball, how many times do the Seton Halls and College of Charlestons win the Tourney? Rarely if ever, as compared to UNC, Duke, and the traditional B-ball powers.
- A 'Plus-One' contingent upon need (year-to-year) would solve the "3 Teams into 2 slots" problem, which is the only problem besides the "Coalition Team" issue, which I'm waiting to see how the 5th BCS game handles it before I make up my mind about.
I understand the logic of the pro-Playoff format people, but I feel that a Playoff will change CF too much just for the sake of having a 'true' NC.
I think the 'Plus-One' system is the best bet for now....just my opinion...
NorthNOLE said:
posted on December 30, 2005 4:03 AM — 24.51.169.157 — link — abuse?
Regan.. i couldn't agree with you more.. the plus one system is really the only way to solve the problem..
the entire season acts as your pseudo-playoff.. thats why Texas and USC are playing this year.. because they are the only teams that are undefeated.. not because of their preseason rankings.. because they were able to last the whole season without losing..
eventually everyone else falls apart at some point.. and if not.. its rare that 3 teams finish undefeated (but it obviously does happen) and i don't think four teams have finished undefeated in the same season ever..
plus this solves the money issue.. everyone still has the meaningless bowls that generate income for bowl cities, the NCAA, and the respective schools.. and really.. who wouldn't pay to see that one extra game!!FURTHERMORE..
without the BCS, USC and Texas wouldn't be playing each other and the national title would most likely come down to a vote of the media and coaches.. and then it truly becomes a popularity contest and Tommy Tuberville has a stroke fighting ESPN for ruining college football by poisoning watchers minds with their propaganda
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 30, 2005 10:09 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Regan.. Once this subject came up I knew I'd be hearing from you. Even if I disagree with you on some of your points, I respect the fact that they are well thought out and not just whims that may change in a day or two. Now, aside from what is practical, plausible, possible, probable and phinancially lucrative( sorry got stuck on the "p's"; The reality is that the BCS with it's new contract extension isn't going anywhere fast. However, I think we will see a "plus 1" type of playoff implemented into the BCS system withn the next 3-4 years. I understand that it's not a true playoff scenario, but its not your typical BCS bowl matchups either. I believe enough interest in a "plus 1" format has been taken by the BCS that they will find a way to make it work. The financial risks are far less than having a full blown playoff system that re-structures the money making bowls, and the financial upside could be worth experimenting with for the BCS. If nothing else, I believe it is a step in the right direction....Good to hear from you again, Regan.
posted on December 30, 2005 10:22 AM — link — abuse?
I think I'm on the record as being against an NFL-style playoff for college football (which has made my partner-in-crime, Pete, roll his eyes and question the number of forks in my family tree, but I digress.)
I'm still a little aprehensive about the plus-one system, too. For example, this season it is clear that USC & Texas deserve the #1-#2 matchup. What's the point of the plus one in a season like this?
Rob said:
posted on December 30, 2005 10:45 AM — 66.0.85.89 — link — abuse?
Kevin,
I think the Plus 1 system should only be in place if necessary. I know that presents logistical problems, but it can be done. Baseball plays the world series not knowing if it will be 4,5,6, or 7 games. College football can not know whether there needs to be one extra game sometimes... As you said, this year it wouldn't be necessary. Last year, there was a good change that there was, because of 5 undefeated teams before the bowl and only 2 playing each other. As it turned out, there were 3 left, USC, Auburn, and Utah.
But then again, the plus 1 wouldn't have worked out in that case, huh?
Rob
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 30, 2005 12:41 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Kevin..you make a great point. If you refer back to some of regan's earlier posts on other blogs, the point is made that a "plus 1" system would only be used if 3 teams were split in the polls as to who #1 and #2 teams should be. In the case this year there would be no need for a "plus 1" system. However, if not for the Penn State default against Michigan, I can see where you could make a case for a "plus 1" system. The same case could be made a few years ago when LSU, OK and USC were split in the polls. A "plus 1" format would have made it possible to eliminate one of the teams and provide for a NC game with a #1 and #2 team. Another alternative would be for the BCS to reserve the right to use the "plus 1" system in any of the potential BCS games to decide matchups. For example, This year the BCS could reserve the "plus 1 game" to determine whether Oregon or Notre Dame receives the BCS bowl. I understand that with Oregon losing to OK that it appears that the BCS may have made the right decision in going with ND. But if ND gets blown out by Ohio State then we're back to where we started and still arguing the BCS decision. I personally, am for a playoff system of some kind and I am more inclined to include at least 8 teams in a playoff system. However, I have debated this in length with Regan and understand that the practicality of a playoff being institued in the BCS lies heavily in favor of the "plus 1" format over and "8-team playoff". Bowl integrity and money wouldn't be compromised under a "plus 1" system and I think that the next step to a playoff will be the "plus 1" system.
Disbeliever said:
posted on December 30, 2005 12:49 PM — 198.187.251.115 — link — abuse?
All this blah-blah gets a little annoying guys. First, the college prezs don't want a playoff system because they're greedy bastards so as long as greed trumps logic, the Bulls__t College System will stay. Two, why is it that ALL the other college football divisions manage a legit playoff system EVERY YEAR and you don't hear any of them whining about "too many games?" Because the money isn't involved. End of story. It isn't that deciding this thing the way everybody else does (i.e. on the field) CAN'T be done, it simply that it WON'T be done because you've got way too damn much money in this thing (come on! this is a damn game for god's sake!) and too many selfish SOBs running it from the shadows.
Personally I will continue to hope that every year there is an odd number of undefeated teams just to show how really ridiculous this whole "system" is.
K Hat said:
posted on December 30, 2005 4:17 PM — 24.217.145.84 — link — abuse?
Disbeliever, is it greed that someone is trying to better themselves finicially? That's the job of the University Presidents, to make money for their schools, some are better at it than others. When people benefit themselves finically it's good, but when University Presidents do it, it's bad?
You're right, the other Divisions have playoffs because no money is involved, and look at those schools sports facilities compared to the Division I-A schools sports facilities.
The finicial gain from the Bowls are used in many ways by these schools. Over the years they improve other parts of the Universities, and other students benefit by that.
As I stated in my last listing, the cities gain from it greatly from the tourist dollars. Many people benefit from the Bowl system, stadiums, vendors, hotels, restaraunts, shopping areas, etc. In some cases, this has been happening for 50-60 years.
The only people I hear complain are those wanting a playoff. The Universities, Conferences, Corporate Sponsers and Mayors aren't going to let the Bowls end so some football fans can be happy with the playoffs. If you were in their position, neither would you.
Jarred said:
posted on December 30, 2005 6:21 PM — 12.178.128.73 — link — abuse?
Too many games: didn't BYU go 14-1 a few years back. shrink the schedule down to 9 or 10 games like it used to be.
Tugh on 85 players.: Some high school teams don't even have 30 players They have a playoff and go to class.tnfan said:
posted on December 31, 2005 7:31 PM — 65.141.115.228 — link — abuse?
What if we were waiting for Tuesday's Ohio St v Penn St game instead of Texas v USC? Not quite as attractive. Or even worse, Miami v Georgia for the NC or even UCLA v Texas Tech. That would be the worst-case scenerio for a 4, 8, and 16 team playoff.
First, its a simple fact a playoff dilutes the importance of the regular season. Need proof? simple - look at the Indy Colts this year. As Dungy said, "they dont give rings for 16-0". Whoop-t-do they've lost 2 and so what. They've rapped up home field advantage. And they are even saying Payton and/or Harrison might not play and James will probably not play. Sure takes the importance away from Fla v FSU, Ga v Ga Tech, Bama v Auburn, even UT v Vandy if the sites are the playoff and not the game.
Next, what you dont realize is that YOU ALREADY HAVE A PLAYOFF!!!!! #1 plays #2 - ta da its a playoff. Actually, for all its faults, the BCS really incorporates the best of both worlds - polls and playoff. First, you must win your division to play for the conference championship. Next, you must win your conference championship to have the right to play for the NC. You win, you advance, you lose, your out. Humm....sounds like a playoff there.Finally, the BCS takes all these winners and picks the BEST two to play for the NC. No worries about a 2 or 3 loss team playing for the NC, only the best 2 go. The best of the best get the crown. The playoff is already there.
Finally, while you might want to put the blame on the NCAA, actually its the chancellors of the schools that do not want a playoff. Gordon Gee from Vandy has publically said that all the chancellors in the SEC voted 12-0 against a NC playoff and when he was associated with the Pac 12, they voted unanimously the same. So, the schools dont even want it. One possible reason is what was previously stated in that going on these bowl games cost alot of money. UT reported that last year after getting their payout and they posting expenses, they netted $50,000. That's for one game and it was a semi high tiered game. They actually lose money in the lower tiered games.
In the end, the bowl system isnt going anywhere. Better get used to it. The system we have now is what makes college football the best in all of college sports.
Robstan said:
posted on January 2, 2006 1:58 AM — 66.157.148.233 — link — abuse?
tnfan,
You make some good points, but bottom line is...
If you have more than one team at the end of the year that is undefeated, there is a problem. A worst problem then when before the BCS existed... At least before the BCS existed, each undefeated team had the same opportunity to be national champion based on poll voters... In 1990, Both Colorado and Georgia Tech won the national championship. So there were 2, who cares? Last year, there were 3 undefeated schools at the end of the season USC, Auburn, and Utah. USC is the only legitimate champion. The coaches poll MUST go with the winner of the BCS.
I'm sorry, but if Auburn goes 13-0 and doesn't win the national champtionship or have the opportunity, something is wrong with the system... This 13-0 includes wins over LSU, Tennessee (2x), Georgia, Va Tech, and more... Plus, most of the wins weren't even close!
One of the main problems with the polls/BCS is preseason rankings... Auburn finished last year ranked #2, and one of the main reasons that they didn't play for the National Championship is because USC was #1 all year and Oklahoma was always ahead of Auburn. Even though Auburn finished #2 last year, they started this year at #18 or something like that... Who was #1 and #2? USC and Texas. Let's say Auburn went 12-0 this year before the bowl game, what bowl would they play in? The Sugar Bowl, not the Rose Bowl. Nobody could deny that USC and Texas are worthy of playing in the National Championship - after all, they were #1, #2 all year long. But Auburn wouldn't get a chance again... This is a huge problem. At least a playoff would make it determined on the field.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on January 2, 2006 10:28 PM — 24.243.124.254 — link — abuse?
TNfan....I could be wrong on this, but didn't OU get beat in its conference championship a few years ago by K-State and still play in the BCS Championship game? Yeah...I thought so. Kinda dilutes the validity of any of the other comments in your post. So if it is possible to play in the NC game without winning your conference, then I guess the BCS has made the regular season just as meaningless as a playoff would. But hey, if the BCS can get it right twice in eight years, then I guess we should be happy with that. As for the years they didn't get it right, I guess anyone who wants can lay claim to the NC. When the system is wrong more times than its right, maybe the system is needs to go. At least a playoff would never be wrong. The results might upset you, but at least its fair.
Wizzy said:
posted on January 3, 2006 11:56 AM — 64.214.85.60 — link — abuse?
Everyone wants a playoff but nobody really has a realistic recommendation. Are you just going to have a committee pick 8 teams at the end of the year?? I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that committee would get death threats from the so-called #9 and #10 teams and their fans not to mention all the mid-major teams like Utah last year that may get left out.
The Polls are a fun way to judge your teams progress but I can tell you next year's preseason poll right now w/o even thinking about it very long. It is the same teams every year or close to it. Why don't you at least let them play awhile before judging them (please see Tennessee this year). I think the BCS at least attempts to do this even though I'm anti-BCS like most of you.
It is not as easy as flipping the switch and saying let's have a playoff!!
Fan of the Game said:
posted on January 3, 2006 2:35 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
TNFan...Also see the 2001 BCS Championship that featured a Nebraska team getting beat by Miami. Not only did Nebraska make the BCS title game without winning its conference, but they didn't even play in the Big12 Conference Championship game.
canes alum said:
posted on January 3, 2006 2:48 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Robstan,
The reason that Auburn didn't get to play for a national championship last year was their weak schedule. SEC team always have a weak nonconference schedule, and this ended up hurting Auburn. If you want to talk about a time that the BCS got it wrong, you should talk about 2000 when Miami beat FSU, but FSU was chosen over them to play in the championship game.canes alum said:
posted on January 3, 2006 4:15 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game I never stated that you should talk about Miami. I was pointing out to Robstan the reason that Auburn didn't deserve the title game last year. Maybe you should start to read the postings that you are going to be responding to. There have been many different postings on this site that you have responded to but only read a couple lines of.
Gerald said:
posted on January 3, 2006 6:08 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
canes alum:
You got it backwards. It was Miami who was left out of the BCS because of the weak schedule by virtue of playing in the Big East. (And by the way, amazing how you Miami fans totally ignore that you guys lost to 10 - 1 Washington, whose only loss was to 10 - 1 Arizona!) That was why you guys left the Big East, remember?
It was Auburn, meanwhile, who got screwed. Despite the well - oiled media propaganda machine designed to get Jason White, Matt Leinart, Bob Stoops, and Pete Carroll in a title game, Auburn actually played a tougher schedule than either OU or USC. A little reported fact - but still a fact nonetheless - was that using ANY of the prior BCS models, Auburn would have been easily ranked #2 and possibly #1. Auburn was left out because the new BCS system basically allows the media to pick the teams no matter the schedule and - as we saw with Notre Dame being chosen over Oregon - no matter the record! OU and USC were going to play in the national title game no matter what because the media liked them better. The fact that Auburn played a I - AA team just gave them an easy out to admit having to admit the truth (although some more honest media members did to their credit). College football fans bought it because A) most people just believe whatever the media tells them and B) everyone outside the SEC hates the SEC anyway.
There was more outrage over one loss USC not being handed the title outright than there was over undefeated Auburn not getting a sniff. That shows how much the media leads everyone by the nose. Well college football fans, unless your team is USC, UCLA, OU, Michigan, Ohio State, ND, Miami, Florida, or FSU ... we will just see how you like it when it happens to you! Just like the very same Oregon fans who were bashing Auburn last year were crying when they got the short end of the "we're the media and we think that ND/OSU makes for a more intriguing matchup ... its the game that everyone wants to see, and Oregon shouldn't be mad at us, they should be mad at how WEST VIRGINIA GOT AN AUTOMATIC BID!" stick. The media will always have an excuse for screwing someone, and as long as it always happen to SOMEONE ELSE'S TEAM, they get away with it.
tnfan said:
posted on January 4, 2006 11:56 PM — 65.142.59.93 — link — abuse?
Folks, the BCS didnt screw Auburn - Auburn screwed Auburn. Three teams were undefeated. Only one of the 3 played a Div I-AA school.....Auburn.
Would it have been fair for Auburn to play in the NC game? No - they, like the other two, played quality opponents except for one. If "quality" opponents don't matter, they why do they have a rule that you can only play so many a year?
In their defense, Auburn did what they needed to do. An opponent backed out of the game and they needed someone. The Citidel stepped up and covered the hole. While no one at Auburn expected this to hurt them, it did. They rolled the dice and crapped out.
Would I like to have seen Auburn play for the NC? Sure, it makes the SEC look better but as the song says, "one of these things is not like the other" and that other was Auburn.
Robstan said:
posted on January 5, 2006 12:42 PM — 66.0.85.89 — link — abuse?
Gerald, very well put.
tnfan, you are missing the point. I'm not saying that Auburn was more deserving than USC or Oklahoma to play in the NC game based on the system that was in place. I AM saying, however, that the system is severly flawed when a school from the SEC goes 13-0 and has no opportunity to win the NC.
The reason Auburn didn't play for the NC is not because they played a I-AA school. That's not it at all. The problem is that USC and Oklahoma were ALWAYS ranked ahead of Auburn in the polls and never lost. I don't blame the pollsters... It's the system that doesn't allow for more than 2 teams and it's the preseason rankings that are absurd.
tnfan said:
posted on January 5, 2006 7:49 PM — 65.138.8.237 — link — abuse?
"I AM saying, however, that the system is severly flawed when a school from the SEC goes 13-0 and has no opportunity to win the NC."
Missing the point? Why is the SEC so high and mighty they should be granted immunity and thrust in the NC no matter who they play?
In your same argument, then the 2003 LSU NC over Ok was a farce since USC (#3), Miami-OH (#11), Boise St (#17), and TCU (#18) did not get the chance to play for the NC. All of the 6 teams above had 1 loss. Instead of LSU v Ok, what if, in a playoff scenerio, it was TCU v Boise St for the NC. Yuuuckk! Who would want to watch that besides Dallas and Idaho?
One (not the main) reason Auburn didnt play for the NC IS because they played an inferior opponent. If its not, why didnt Miami-OH play LSU or OK? If you're gonna argue for one, you got to argue for them all.
Look, its 1 game against 2 teams. It doesnt matter if there are 2 playing, 4 playing, 8, 16, etc... in the end, 2 teams play 1 game for the NC. We have a playoff - #1 plays #2. Until the end of time, #3 will always cry they shut out.
Robstan said:
posted on January 11, 2006 9:53 AM — 66.0.85.89 — link — abuse?
tnfan,
You make good points, but I think things are different when there are teams with a loss. When you never loose through a season, you should have the chance to be the champion. Every other sport at every other level has this.
And no, the SEC isn't so high and mighty that they should be granted immunity - all I'm saying is that they aren't a whole bunch of powder puffs. I would say the same for the ACC, Big 12, and any of the other major conferences.
On the same note, I think Utah and Boise State got screwed too, but since they are not in a major conference such as the SEC, they are ignored.
And so what if TCU and Boise State are playing for the NC - if there were a small playoff and they beat those other teams, then they deserve it. Ft. Worth would be watching...
Anyway, though your points have some validity, it is entirely different when a team never looses vs. has 1 loss. The BCS is just lucky that Va Tech lost and Penn State lost or they would've had the ACC and the Big 10 questioning what the SEC questioned a year ago. And again, I can't fault the pollsters. I would've put USC and Texas in the NC even if Penn State and Va Tech would've gone undefeated as well. But if you finish the football season without a loss and no CHANCE for the national champtionship, then... There's something wrong with that.
I doubt the BCS will continue to be as lucky as this year.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Bryan said:
posted on December 29, 2005 11:03 AM — 152.50.0.194 — link — abuse?Here is how you make it work and not play an "excessive" amount of games. Nobody wants a team reduced to "nubs", do we? :)
Drop the "new" 12 game schedule.
Play 11 games or 12 (for the handful of teams who play in a conference title game).
Have a 4 team playoff.
At the very most, a team like Florida would play 14 games. 11 + SEC Title game + 1st playoff game + Title game = 14. Iowa would play, at most, 13 games.
Ohio St. played 14 in 2002 and I don't remember Tressel crying about his team being "reduced to nubs."