March 7, 2009

Are you serious?

The MWC has officially launched their BCS proposal.

Do we read this as satire? A ploy to gain a spot light? One thing is certain, it can't be a serious proposal.

I get it. The MWC is the leading edge of the at large conferences. I admire the stand that one can't advocate for a change without some type of plan. If one reads this as an attempt to produce a plan as biased towards the MWC and the BCS is perceived to be against them it is actually rather comical.

But this proposal and the recent hesitation regarding signing the BCS contracts smacks more of a conference trying to cash in from an exceptionally good year than a conference that believes they are headed for the top of the pack.

Let's give this playoff proposal the Fanblogs treatment.

AQ criteria: Using records vs BCS conferences to warrant BCS eligibility.

Which is the better OOC schedule:
1) Duke, Syracuse, Washington and Baylor
2) Bosie State, Utah, Tulsa and Northern Illinois

The MWC has pushed to get home and home games against teams from BCS conferences. This insistence leads to games against the lower teams from these conferences that pads the MWC's stats in this regard.

I agree with this scheduling because as long as the MWC is beating teams from automatic qualifying conferences it drives home the point that conference membership should mean less than who the individual teams are that are played. This is a sharp contrast to the automatic qualifying conference's presumption to be better because they are.

Selection committee
You think a formula based on coaches, Harris voters that don't watch all the teams and computers is biased, wait until we get a selection committee of the conference representative. This new conference representative unbiased poll would be used to seed the tournament and fill the fifth BCS bowl.

Championship system
Take the top 10 teams, but the #9 and #10 teams in a new BCS consolation bowl and the top 8 teams in the BCS bowls, now quarter finals.

Semi fiinals would be played a week later and the national championship game a week after that. This extends deep into January.

Where to begin. This was the outline of a plan I advocated 8 years ago, even sitting down with Utah's Chris Hill to discuss how I should go about promoting it.

It does nothing to address the issues with the current system. There is no guarantee an undefeated team would be ranked in the top 8. The ability to find a consensus at the cutoff decreases as more teams are included making an 8 team system worse in this regard than the current system.

So they want to add games going into January that do not guarantee the issues are resolved? Isn't that what the plus one tried, and failed to get past the NCAA? A BCS selection committee is just plain comical.

As a media ploy this has blown up in the MWC's face. As satire it is entertaining. As a BCS proposal it is a joke. It takes more than 2.5 pages to fix the BCS. A far better idea is available.

Comments:

Are you serious?
The MWC has officially launched their BCS proposal. Do we read this as satire? A ploy to gain a spot light? One thing is certain, it can't be a serious proposal. I get it. The MWC is the leading edge of the at large conferences. I admire the stand that one can't advocate for a change without some type of plan. If one reads this as an attempt to produce a plan as biased towards the MWC and the BCS is perceived to be against them it is actually rather comical. But this proposal and the recent hesitation regarding signing the BCS contracts smacks more of a conference trying to cash in from an exceptionally good year than a conference that believes they are headed for the top of the pack. Let's give this playoff proposal the Fanblogs treatment. AQ criteria: Using records vs BCS conferences to warrant BCS eligibility. Which is the better OOC schedule: 1) Duke, Syracuse, Washington and Baylor 2) Bosie State, Utah, Tulsa and Northern Illinois The MWC has pushed to get home and home games against teams from BCS conferences. This insistence leads to games against the lower teams from these conferences that pads the MWC's stats in this regard. I agree with this scheduling because as long as the MWC is beating teams from automatic qualifying conferences it drives home the point that conference membership should mean less than who the individual teams are that are played. This is a sharp contrast to the automatic qualifying conference's presumption to be better because they are. Selection committee You think a formula based on coaches, Harris voters that don't watch all the teams and computers is biased, wait until we get a selection committee of the conference representative. This new conference representative unbiased poll would be used to seed the tournament and fill the fifth BCS bowl. Championship system Take the top 10 teams, but the #9 and #10 teams in a new BCS consolation bowl and the top 8 teams in the BCS bowls, now quarter finals. Semi fiinals would be played a week later and the national championship game a week after that. This extends deep into January. Where to begin. This was the outline of a plan I advocated 8 years ago, even sitting down with Utah's Chris Hill to discuss how I should go about promoting it. It does nothing to address the issues with the current system. There is no guarantee an undefeated team would be ranked in the top 8. The ability to find a consensus at the cutoff decreases as more teams are included making an 8 team system worse in this regard than the current system. So they want to add games going into January that do not guarantee the issues are resolved? Isn't that what the plus one tried, and failed to get past the NCAA? A BCS selection committee is just plain comical. As a media ploy this has blown up in the MWC's face. As satire it is entertaining. As a BCS proposal it is a joke. It takes more than 2.5 pages to fix the BCS. A far better idea is available.