May 19, 2008
Why an eight team playoff won't work
Good buddy, good pal Paul Westerdawg has a great post up today looking at the prospect of a college football playoff over at his Georgia Sports Blog.
PWD has one big concern about a playoff, but it might not be what you expect. While everyone is concerned with "mission creep" (the needless expansion of a playoff from 4 teams, to 8, to 16, to 32, and so on), PWD highlights one of the biggest obstacles to a successful college football playoff: the backroom.
My issue is related to the NCAA's fundamental inability to develop a system whereby the "Best" eight teams make the playoffs. To architect a playoff system for college football today would require so much compromise, consensus building and caveats to get sign off, avoid Anti-Trust Law Suits from small conferences and to include all the appropriate TV Partners that it would create a dramatically more frustrating system than what we have today.
PWD is spot-on and anyone that doesn't recognize the kind of posturing that would go into setting up a playoff either hasn't paid attention during the sixteen year evolution of the BCS or is simply naive.
The BCS conferences are not going to put their teams fate into the hands of poll voters. Conference champions are going to be seeded. To get the TV partners on board, Notre Dame is going to have to be in the mix. And... to avoid the white-hot anti-trust spotlight, the system is going to have to be open to mid-major conferences teams... somehow. And let's not forget the lesson the BCS has learned: no conference should have more than two teams represented.
So... hypothetically, would the back room deals and compromises create a good playoff? PWD says no.
Everyone likes to point to 2004 and say, "See. We need a playoff because undefeated Auburn didn't get to play for the title." I'd like to point you to 2006 and show a playoff won't work.The final regular season poll from 2006 was:
Bowl Champ. Series Poll 2006:
1. Ohio State (Big 10 Champ)
2. Florida (SEC Champ)
3. Michigan
4. LSU
5. USC (Pac 10 Champ)
6. Louisville (Big East Champ)
7. Wisconsin
8. Boise State (Top Non-BCS Champ)
9. Auburn
10. Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)
11. Notre Dame
12. Arkansas
13. West Virginia
14. Wake Forest (ACC Champ)
Assumptions:
- For the sake of argument, let's swap Oklahoma and Notre Dame.- Let's also assume that Notre Dame gets a waiver for the playoffs that ensures they make the 8 team bracket if they finish in the Top 10. For TV reasons, this is a VERY likely scenario.
- Let's also assume that a Top 8 non-BCS conference team gets an automatic bid into the playoffs. This is another likely scenario to avoid lawsuits, and to get the non-BCS conference teams to vote for the tournament.
That means your seeds from the 2006 season would be:
#1 Seed Ohio State as Big 10 Champ
#2 Seed UF as SEC Champ
#3 Seed USC as Pac 10 Champ
#4 Seed Louisville as Big East Champ
#5 Seed Oklahoma as Big 12 Champ
#6 Seed Boise State as top non-BCS team
#7 Seed Notre Dame by virtue of finishing in Top 10 poll
#8 Seed Wake Forest as ACC ChampLook at who doesn't make the playoffs in that scenario. Michigan (#3), LSU (#4) and Wisconsin (#7) are left out of that bracket. That's a better system than what we have now? One that excludes better teams who are fully capable of winning from participating?
This is an outstanding, real-world example of the difficulties any playoff system faces: there's no valid argument for excluding #3 Michigan, #4 LSU, and #7 Wisconsin, but that's exactly what would happen. So... why should we be pushing for this?
And PWD isn't just cherry-picking a scenario to fit the hypothetical, either.
In 2004, the at-large teams in a playoff would've been #4 Texas and #6 Utah. Cal (#5) and UGA (#7) would've been left out of the bracket in favor of #21 Pittsburgh and #13 Michigan (conference champs of their respective leagues). In 2005, #5 Oregon would've been shut out of the playoff system in favor of #22 FSU. And, there are other examples of a #6 or #7 team being shut out of the system for a team ranked sub-10 team.
PWD is right: A college football playoff isn't going to happen without the same back room deals that created the BCS. Unfortunately, the one group that will never get a seat at the table is the fans.
Now... tell me again why we should be excited about a college football playoff?
Comments:
posted on May 19, 2008 12:08 PM — 68.211.170.52 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta
said:
I'm convinced that we will not have a playoff involving conference champions in my lifetime. The minimum number of teams under such a scenario would have to be 16, if you were to attempt to involve all conferences, along with deserving at-large teams and the ubiquitous third wheel, Notre Dame. (and assuming that you don't plan to BYE any teams in the first round, which would be a nightmare) Any inaugrual playoff is going to have to have a lot fewer teams than 16.
Although involving conference champions is a logical step, the logistics will just be too daunting for the current system to integrate any proposal like that smoothly. The only way to compensate for the correct seeding of a small number of teams is to allow the polls to continue.
Besides, I've never been a proponent of eliminating the polls from the equation entirely. If we had a four team playoff, I'd wager that the polls could determine who's deserving with four chances a lot better than they could with only choosing two. To make it fair, we'd require that all teams be in conferences and play a conference championship game. That way we'd still have some concept of 'winning it on the field' and all teams would have an equal shot of getting 'eaten by their own'.
The mission creep is a real possibility, but I think under the rules I propose above, leaving it at four teams might be workable for a long time.
Regan said:
posted on May 19, 2008 2:25 PM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Since War Eagle Atlanta has sponsored me as the 'voice of the BCS' by recognizing my superhuman ability to whine about how a (true) Playoff will ruin CFB, I'll weigh in on this as soon as I have a free hour or two.
For now, I have been moving for the last week, and humbly apologize for my absence. I see the last Playoff Thread is no longer in the most heated discussions. I accept full responsibility.
A shame. However, one I sense is likely to be short-lived, thanks to Kev and this latest wonderful thread. :)
FYI - This is the kind of analysis that I want to have on the BCS/Playoff discussion - actual examples, analysis, and evidence-backed discussion of the specifics of why things are the way they are and how they could be made better, instead of "pie-in-the-sky" ideas that cannot possibly be instituted. (ie: forcing every conference to have 12 teams, etc).
I'll be back, I owe it to all of you.. :-)
Samurhino said:
posted on May 19, 2008 2:35 PM — 198.6.33.13 — link — abuse?
This should be fairly easy...and all of the points made below add to the regular season's importance which eliminates the main argument I hear about why there shouldn't be a playoff.
Two weeks after the final regular season game the playoffs begin and take place over four consecutive Saturdays.
16 team playoff...the 11 conference champions plus 5 at large teams.
The top 8 teams get their first round game at home. The second round would be played at four of the five current BCS bowls. For the most part the BCS conference champions would likely get a home game for round one. so more than likley if you didn't get a home game for round one then win your conference. Also if you don't like your seeding then improve your out of conference schedule. Under this system its no longer more attractive to teams to schedule three or four patsies.
The Final four and Championship game would all be played at the fifth BCS bowl and would be the same venue on consecutive Saturdays making logistics pretty easy and allowing for fans of all four teams a week to hang out and enjoy the festivities.
The interest level and draw would be astronomical. This could conceivably eclipse the Superbowl in popularity.
To those that get their panties in a bunch about how much school these players are missing I would point out that every other athlete at the unversity is missing as much if not more school as it is. I would also point out that at least part of the playoff time would fall during winter break.This also legitimately gives every D1 school the chance to be national champion. As Boise State proved in 2006 they have no shot as it stands. How fair is that?
posted on May 19, 2008 3:40 PM — 68.211.170.52 — link — abuse? said:
GH: I'm only 40. I don't think you trail me by much, but maybe a lot could happen in that few years. Realism has beaten me down enough to the point where I would be happy with a 4-team'er seeded by the polls.
Come on! Bring out that riding crop for the sake of all the new guys on here. Conventional wisdom may tell us that the issue is dead until TV contracts come back up for negotiation in 4 years, but that doesn't mean we have to listen.
Regan: I appointed you fanblogs' playoff czar, which means you can either reign with an iron grip, or get toppled in a bloody coup, so govern accordingly... :-)
posted on May 19, 2008 4:40 PM — link — abuse? said:
I think we may have a playoff sometime after 2015, but... I don't think it's going to resemble what some would call a perfect system.
I don't agree that we shouldn't debate what is realistic vs optimal, as RegUser suggested. I think it's much more practical to debate what is LIKELY to happen and how to shape it rather than what an optimal playoff would look like.
Anything less is naive.
posted on May 19, 2008 4:45 PM — link — abuse? said:
@ Samurhino - There are 800 billion proposals that replace the bowl structure/season with a playoff. Yours seems to fall into that category, as well.
Why would the conferences voluntarily give up all that bowl money... err, I mean bowl atmosphere?
If you can do a four team playoff (which would likely take three weeks in January) and still keep the bowl money... err... atmosphere, why wouldn't you?????????
posted on May 19, 2008 4:58 PM — 68.211.170.52 — link — abuse? said:
800 Billion proposals perhaps, but only ONE by the Amazing Samurhino!!! Sorry. Just thought that his name sounded better with 'Amazing' in front of it. Not to degrade what he was saying, mind you, just that Amazing Samurhino sounds like a circus sideshow or something...
And for his next trick, the Amazing Samurhino will assume the persona of the Pac 10 and the Big 10(11) and will attempt to free himself from the bonds of the Rose Bowl all while dangling head first over the clutches of the BCS and the rest of college football...
Samurhino said:
posted on May 19, 2008 6:07 PM — 198.6.33.13 — link — abuse?
Wow...the Amazing Samurhino...I like it.
Unfortunately being a PAC-10 guy I know all to well how unlikely these scenarios are.
Tom Hansen (the PAC-10 commissioner) has repeatedly talked about maintaining the tradiiton of the grandaddy Rose bowl and all the pomp and circumstance that entails. Of course the tradition of the Rose Bowl died with the BCS so Tom Hansen is more or less Anthony Perkins from Psycho still believing his long dead withered corpse of a mother is alive.
All that said I see not less money but even more given the huge exposure this would have. (Imagine December Madness football office pools).
The only people worried here are the bowl committes and they must have some pretty damning photos of some university presidents and conference commissioners because their hold on all of this is completely out of line with the amount of real power they have.
posted on May 19, 2008 7:31 PM — 68.211.170.52 — link — abuse? said:
Like I'm fond of saying, Samurhino, how can you be the grandaddy of them all if you don't accept the red-headed stepchildren of the cfb world?
Both Hansen and Delaney of the Big 10(11) seem like obstructionists to most of us. I can see wanting to preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl, but if it gets in the way of real progress for a playoff, something's gotta give. A little sacrifice for a playoff would be appreciated and eventually rewarded. If it means you only get the traditional matchup in Pasadena every four years or so, is that so hard? Tradition does die hard--especially in cfb...
So what's up with the Pac-10 going to a 9-game conference schedule but still splitting the conference title the last two years? They don't really care about the head-to-head competition?
GA DAWG said:
posted on May 19, 2008 9:18 PM — 68.184.132.158 — link — abuse?
Playoff? Come on fanbloggers,
Who can't say that they weren't happy with the way last year turned out? Mizzou and Kansas can't complain, if they win they are in. They didn't so they were sittin. WVA? Gimme a break-you can't lose to Pitt and think you are getting in. GA and USC blew it too early. The Sooners couldn't have beat LSU or Ohio State. The Hokies lost head to head with LSU. So who else would you have put in last year? Hawaii? Good lord they didn't even deserve to take up a place in a playoff if there was one. Yeah, AU got hosed in 2004 for at least a shot but that is bound to happen from time to time. I like what we have now. A playoff would just make it where we would have to hear about how a #9 or #13 team thinks they should be in.
Give me a preseason top 3 ranking this year for the DAWGS, and we are going to ride this steamrolling BCS train all he way to MIAMI on Jan 8th.
GO DAWGS!Regan said:
posted on May 19, 2008 10:37 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Great Article, based on actual evidence and sound reasoning, rather than wishful thinking that fails to recognize the landscape of the forces that make CFB the way it is.
Objectively, there are two fundamental issues that are behind the Postseason issues:
#1: CFB fans are not of one mind regarding which two teams should play each other in a NC game. Some claim the "two best teams" should play. Others say it's the "two most deserving teams". Then, there's fan/conference bias, and it goes on from there.
#2: CFB is by definition, a chaotic sport that defies uniformity. This chaos results from it being the ironic mixture between the purest form of sports and the conflux of corporate mindsets. This chaos is part of the beauty of the sport, and most of the powers that be understand it - hence why change comes slow to the sport (for better or worse).
Now for the IMHO part:
I believe a (true) playoff could solve many of the BCS' flaws (which after 2004 even I saw...). My point is, however, that though a (true) playoff would solve several problems, it would create just as many new problems and controversies, and the uniqueness of the sport would be lost in translation. The end result, IMHO is Win, Lose, then Lose Big.
Also, I think that personally believe far too many people want a playoff for the sake of having a playoff, and do not truly understand the effects it would have on the sport.
For the record, I am not 'anti-change' per se; I am anti-(true) Playoff. That's pretty much it. I could easily support any system that is proposed that ensures the following two conditions. When it comes down to the final game between the final two teams, both of the two teams MUST (in order of importance):
Condition #1: Be either a 0-Loss or a 1-Loss team.
Condition #2: Be Conference Champions.The reasons why:
#1: For over a century, CFB has crowned its NC based on the week-to-week success of its performance in the Regular Season. Whoever gets through unscathed (or as close as possible) against quality competition gets a shot at the Title. Win, and you're in. If you lose one game, you throw your destiny to the winds of fate. You could make it in if you win out, but if you don't make it in, you can't complain because you lost. Lose twice, and the NC Game is out of reach. You've still got great things to play for, BCS Bowls, Conference Championships, etc, but this isn't the NFL - Win Out or Go Home.
Yes, in 2007, a 2-loss LSU won the NC. This upset me, because I honestly don't believe they deserved to be there. I can deal with it, though, because it is virtual consensus that 2007 was an anomoly of a year that defied conventional wisdom from the very beginning to the very end.
The "2-Loss Bubble", however, isn't burst when a 2-Loss team wins the NC. It is burst when it becomes commonly believed that a 2-Loss team can and should get a chance to become the National Champion, because that will truly cheapen the sport.
Unlike NCAA Basketball, which is about getting hot at the end, CFB is (and always has been) about the entire body of work of a season. It's an endurance trial. Great players might get injured, but Great Teams have reserves that step up. If this ever changes, the sport has been gutted, and will never be the same.
#2: For reasons inherent to the fabric of the game itself, the best two teams in CFB must be Conference Champions. It might sound complicated, but there is sound reasoning behind it that I'll get to later if needed...
Before continuing on, however, I'll post my oft-posted concept that no one ever reads. :)Regan said:
posted on May 19, 2008 11:10 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
My proposal addresses virtually all issues, because it allows for flexibility in the way each unique season plays out. It has a few flaws, but could potentially keep the uniqueness of the sport intact while ensuring that a clear, undisputed champion stands alone in the end (which is supposed to be the goal of a Playoff). I welcome input.
It’s called “Plus-One Contingent on Basis of Need”.
I have it saved (in a big folder called ‘Playoffs Suck’) along with multiple logical arguments against a Playoff for CFB.
Here it is:
>>>>>>>>>>
ANY POST-SEASON MUST BE CONTINGENT UPON AN INDIVIDUAL YEAR'S OUTCOMES TO ADDRESS ALL CONCERNS. BLUEPRINT RULES:1) Only Conference Champions can compete for the Title.
2) Only Undefeated or 1-Loss Teams can compete for the Title.
3) Non-BCS Conference Champions posting an undefeated record count as 1-Loss Teams for the purposes of inclusion, thus getting a legit shot at the NC Game in any year except when there are more than two undefeated BCS-Conference Teams. (ie: 2005, 2004, 2002, 1999)
4) If only one Round is needed, the game takes place at the traditional time. If two rounds are needed, the first should take place early in the Bowl Season and the second at the traditional time. If needed, additional rounds would take place at a reasonably spread-out pace throughout December and early January.
5) The BCS rankings will be used to ensure that SoS does enter into the equasion (albeit not as much as it should, perhaps).
UN = Number of Qualifying 0-Loss Teams
1L = Number of Qualifying 1-Loss Teams> UN=2 (regardless): The two Undefeated Teams play.
> UN=1, 1L=1 or UN=0, 1L=2: The top two teams play
> UN=1, 1L=2 or UN=0, 1L=3 or UN=3 (regardless): ROUND A: #2 vs. #3; ROUND B: winner plays #1
> UN=1, 1L=3 or UN=0, 1L=4: Playoff of four
> UN=1, 1L=4 or UN=0, 1L=5: ROUND A: #2 vs. #5, #3 vs. #4; ROUND B: #2/5 vs. #3/#4; ROUND C: winner plays #1
> UN=1, 1L=5 or UN=0, 1L=6: ROUND A: #1 vs. #6, #2 vs. #5, #3 vs. #4; ROUND B: #2/#5 vs. #3/#4; ROUND C: winner plays #1/#6
> UN=1, 1L=6 or UN=0, 1L=7: ROUND A: #2 vs. #7, #3 vs. #6, #4 vs. #5; ROUND B: #1 vs. #4/#5 winner; #2/7 winner vs. #3/#6 winner; ROUND C: #1/#4/#5 winner vs. #2/#7/#3/#6 winner
> UN=0, 1L=8: Playoff of eight
...and so forth. If this sounds complicated, I give you Exhibit A: the BCS Computers…
Here’s how it would have looked in the past few years:
2006:
0-Loss Teams: 1 (#1 OHST)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (#2 FLA, #3 LOU, #4 BSU)
ROUND A: OHST vs. BSU; FLA vs. LOU
ROUND B: OHST/BSU vs. FLA/LOU2005:
0-Loss Teams: 2 (#1 SCAL vs. #2 TEX)2004:
0-Loss Teams: 3 (#1 SCAL, #2 OU, #3 AUB)
ROUND A: OU vs. AUB
ROUND B: OU/AUB vs. SCAL2003:
0-Loss Teams: 0
1-Loss Teams: 3 (#1 OU, #2 LSU, #3 SCAL)
ROUND A: LSU vs. SCAL
ROUND B: LSU/SCAL vs. OU2002:
0-Loss Teams: 2 (#1 MIA vs. #2 OHST)2001:
0-Loss Teams: 1 (#1 MIA)
1-Loss Teams: 3 (#2 ORE, #3 MARY, #4 ILL)
ROUND A: MIA vs. ILL; ORE vs. MARY
ROUND B: MIA/ILL vs. ORE/MARYSee? Everybody Wins. The Playoff people AND the Regular Season Fans...
>>>>>>>>>>The logic of the plan is that no one even knows what the post-season will look like until the last week has been played. As you can see from the examples, rarely have more than 3 teams had a chance to play for the Title; the big problem in the years the BCS has failed has been where there were 3 “deserving” teams for 2 NC spots. Also, only under truly bizarre circumstances (we haven't seen a year that would lead to this in recent memory) would a Postseason require more than two Rounds. (ie: more than 4 teams)
The one and only 'big' problem with this plan is that in 2007, according to my plan, Ohio State would have faced Hawaii in the NC game. Honestly though, I have no problem with that. Those teams made it through their regular seasons with 1-loss and 0-losses respectively, which is what CFB has used for it’s NC criteria for over a century now.
LSU didn’t make it through the regular season unscathed, and lost their last home game to an unranked opponent. No offense to LSU, but the fact that a 2-loss NC has been crowned has utterly cheapened college football.
Either way, I’ll go out on a limb and say that 2007 was just a bizarre year that won't happen for another 100 years; so it’s not that big of a problem.
But a true Playoff will ruin this sport. If you look at the fabric of the sport itself, you will see it.
Sorry, that’s the way it is, and always has been in this most glorious sport. My advice for people who love playoffs is: enjoy watching the NFL...scream for George Mason and Seton Hall in March Madness - and appreciate CFB for what it really is, instead of trying to make it fit into a commonplace one-size-fits-all orderly box in which it was never meant to fit.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 19, 2008 11:22 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
#5 Regan The pie in the sky ideas that cannot possibly be instituted? is a negative statement.
While realistic positive renforcement and the ability to think outside the box- so to speak is what breeds inovation and to reject any possibilities however outlandish they seem is to stifle and hold back solutions that could possibly improve the greatest sport in the world while retaining traditions and Bowls.
For example it wont work because XXXX reasons is a cop out. It will work and we can do it against all odds. I could probably give alot of different examples of inovative ideas that were shot down over and over because of folks resistance to change.Though through perseverance and dedication and a possitive attitude these ideas have changed the world and made huge impacts upon progress.
These same technics that have changed the world can be applied to determining a CFB and I support any and all ideas that show a desire for improvement over the current system.
#9 & #10 Kev
I honestly do not beleive in an optimal or perfect senerio, however changes are happening.
# 6 Samurhino Welcome onboard and I like you imput senerio # 801 million
#15 WEA I agree that some compromizes concerning some traditions particularly the Rose Bowl are a hard pill to swallow for a large part of the country.
Hookem-Horns
2 Rose Bowl apperances- 2 wins
The old system only allowed 19 to 21 teams to participate in the Grandady of them all.
Adios Tomcat
Tomcat said:
posted on May 19, 2008 11:46 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
#17 & #18 The Amazing Regan Thats more like it. #802 Million O.K.
If the negotiators in the "back room" had the ability to share ideas and proposals like the folks on this forum, we would all be closer to determining the true Champ.
The process is evolving and the folks with the playoff sux notebooks are not dinosaurs afterall.
Cheers TomcatZac said:
posted on May 20, 2008 12:03 AM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
Regan, I can’t speak for anyone else. I’m not interested in a playoff for the sake of having one. I’m interested because I think it’s the right thing to do. Now, I do agree with you on one point. If there’s a chance the continuity of the sport would be impacted, if those teams not involved in the playoff were lost in the shuffle, or just plain ignored, I couldn’t back it. However, I maintain it can be done; it can be done with reasonable objectivity; it can even be profitable.
I don’t agree with the conference champion idea. As with the system we have now, in most cases, this would work. However, there will always be the occasional FSU anomaly. While this lends some glamour to the occasion, personally, I’m not interested in “Cinderella”. When it comes to a play-off, I’m interested in the best 4, 6, 8, or 10 teams. (I agree, once you get beyond 10, it gets cumbersome.)
This is not to say I would not be interested in “lesser” teams playing in “lesser” bowls. I’m the type who likes to see good match-ups, and that usually (I admit, not always.) involves 2 teams with equal or similar records. Heck, when ESPN 1st started airing CF games mid-week, prime-time, it usually involved teams with losing records. I started watching those games and had a ball!! They turned out to be that entertaining. So, OK, Kevin; if someone wants to hold a “Subterranean Playoff” featuring Army, Duke, NW, & Syracuse, I’ll watch it. But, I digress.
The point is this: The current system is still tainted with too much bias. In 2004, Auburn got robbed. In 2006, #7 WI wasn’t even allowed to go to a BCS bowl. Last year, there were arguably NO deserving playoff candidates. What will make a playoff nearly impossible lies in the fact that who ever sets it up will be unable to do so with complete and total objectivity; the ideology of “honest & fair” will be tentatively applied at best. I don’t want to hear conferences being limited in their participation. If there’s going to be a playoff, I want the best 4, 6, 8, or 10 teams in it. If a conference winds up with 4 in there, that’s a credit to their strength. Besides, as I’ve already said in another thread; only when it is believed it will make money, will it happen. Till then, we’ll be debating as we have.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 20, 2008 3:50 AM — 195.189.142.215 — link — abuse?
It's very easy to create a mock playoff system that is insufficient and biased (which is not a valid arguement for another biased system by the way) and then point out the reasons why it wouldn't be an efficient effective way of deciding a champion.
The notion that Notre Dame should be given special access because of the ratings they can bring is complete shit and anyone who says "that's just the way it is so deal with it" is miguided and ultimately condones unfair treatment. That's a really fair system for deciding a champion.......include teams that don't deserve to be in the mix because they can draw ratings. BS. I've got news for the ND brown nosers.......if CF went to a 8 team playoff they wouldn't have to worry about any unfair inclusions because they would draw in unpresidented astronomical ratings by matching the 8 best teams. Batteries (& ND) not included. The system is biased now for the big 6 conferences and ND and those conferences do not want to lose that power.......that' why the playoff scares them. They choose what is best for them over what is best for CF.
I am not for any system that punishes a conference for having multiple stong teams (SEC & Big 12 in 07') as that is unfair and simply bad logic. What record would MU, KU or UG have had if they played in the WAC with Hawaii? Giving the big 6 automatic bids for their conf. champions is the wrong way to go because invariably one of them, or more than one of them will have a down year and produce an unworthy champion in the same year that one or more conf. would have mutiple powehouses that same year.
If you configured the ground rules with automatic bids and at large bids that were given based off of the final BCS rankings (regardless of conf.) how could any non BCS conf. cry foul. They would have no argument. If they finish ranked high enough they're in.......if they don't they're out. Same thing goes for ND. The system doesn't have to be biased, and it doesn't need to be made into something that is too complicated or something that throws out CF as we know it.
Lets take the same 2006 scenario that was butchered earlier and change the formula.
1) The top 4 BCS ranked Conference Champions once the final polls are released recieve automatic bids and home field advantage (in the first round, others will be on neutral sites).
2) The next 4 at large spot go to the next 4 highest BCS ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation or whether they won their conference or not.
3) I personally would also like to see all conferences play championship games which would weed out the pretenders from the contenders but we wilk leave that out since no one knows what would have happened had they actually been played.
This is what it would have looked like in 06'
1) Ohio St. (Big 10(11) Champ
2) Florida (SEC Champ)
3) USC (PAC 10 Champ)
4) Louisville (Big East Champ)
5) Michigan
6) LSU
7) Wisconsin
8) Boise St. (WAC Champ)5 of the 8 teams in are still conference champions and mind you that if all conferences were required to play a championship game there is no way in hell the Big 10(11) would have got 3 teams into an 8 team playoff. The 3 schools (Michigan, LSU & Wisconsin) the original article complained were left out of the 8 team playoff are mysteriously now in...........WOW, how did that happen? It happened because the formula used was not biased towards any conference or team. There's a novile idea. Create a system that is fair for every team and every conference. No.......we can't do that.
If all conferences did have conference championship games they would bring in even more money.........but whether they did or didn't an 8 team playoff (with or without ND) would absolutely blow the ratings charts out of the water. That is a fact.
WEA called it on another thread, conference championship games are not going away and it is becoming more and more likely every year that teams that win conferences by winning a championship game are going to finish with AT LEAST one loss if not two or even three. Parody is increasing and the playing field within coaching and recruiting is leveling. Regan said another 2007 won't happen for another 100 years (which gave me a good chuckle)........I would be very surprised if another similar scenario DOESN'T happen WITHIN the next 10 years. It's eather going to be multiple no loss, multiple one loss, or multple two loss teams and it doesanat matter which of those you pick because there is no system out there that can fairly and effectively handle that scenario...........except one.
A PLAYOFF
U. of S. C. 1978 said:
posted on May 20, 2008 9:49 AM — 97.82.175.124 — link — abuse?
I say again, why not weed out the pretenders, in season? Preserve the bowls, let them give us results we can feel good about? Plus one = a champion that earned it, deserves it.
Reiterated formulae, weeks 5 and 7, or 8 and 9, are left open and unscheduled. The AP poll for these weeks is utilized. # 1 plays number two, #3 versus #4, all the way down the list. The hotel rooms are all there, boosters have a little fun scrambling at the last minute, instead of years ahead to make arrangements,
Samurhino said:
posted on May 20, 2008 10:25 AM — 198.6.33.13 — link — abuse?
Just to be clear the VAST majority of PAC-10 fans that know who Tom Hansen is want him gone about ten years ago....count me in that bucket. Our tv deal (Fox Sports) and our bowl tie ins after the Rose Bowl are crap and Hansen could care less.
Hansen also seems to be stuck in about 1965 and can't seem to bring himself into this century.
Overall the PAC-10 is innovative, creative and strives to be cutting edge...it would be great to have a commissioner that mirrors that.
It's not about the money, it's not about the student athletes, it's not about anything but the bowl committees and a fear of change. A 16 team playoff...or any good playoff system for that matter would bring in huge amounts of money and the student athletes aren't going to miss much more school than other sports (including lower division football with their playoffs). With 16 teams...or even 8 we're not going to see an undefeated Auburn get left out...we're not going to see a #2 ranked 10-1 Oregon get left out in favor of the number two team from the Big 12. Sure the number 17 team or the number 9 team will bitch but you could have a 50 team tournament and the number 51 team would complain.
The regular season would still have HUGE significance BUT if your star QB is injured one game against a highly ranked opponent and you lose a close one...you could still make it. Maybe with that player you are the best team in the country but you lost one game becuase they were injured.
What I like about the system I proposed is the first round home games for the top eight seeds; putting further emphasis on winning against quality opponents during the regular season and rewarding that teams fans. Last year that likely would've been Hawaii playing at Georgia...same result but the Georgia fans don't have to travel and they still have a shot at the NC as they move on to the Elite Eight against maybe USC...how great would that be? Imagine those matchups. Imagine how many people would suddenly become interested in all these other games (much like in March Madness).
We shouldn't be shying away from talking about how great this would be just because the presidents and commissioners seem to be stuck in the stone age.
I like the "you should be happy with $10,000 since you used to only have $1000" analogy...that's great but we could have a millions dollars. This is not like Churchill's quote about democracy because a playoff is very obviously far superior to what they have now. It would be great if someone would just step up and say..."Yeah a playoff would be way better than what we have and basically everyone but a small handful of people want a playoff but we're not going to do it because that small handful is very influential".
Samurhino said:
posted on May 20, 2008 10:34 AM — 198.6.33.13 — link — abuse?
One other point then I'll hand off the soap box to someone else.
I don't really care that much if a team goes undefeated while playing the New Jersey Institute of Milking Machine Technology and Sister Mary's College for Blind Nuns in their out of conference schedule. Give me a team with one or two losses playing a hard schedule. That's what we should be seeing. Better matchups week in and week out. This the regular season is like a playoff is BS as long as teams schedule as many patsies as they can to pad their records.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 20, 2008 9:49 PM — 195.189.142.221 — link — abuse?
I agree Samurhino,
Especially with your feelings about Hansen and with the last paragraph about mid-majors and how their strength of schedule compares to the major conferences. I still believe they deserve a system that gives them a legitimate shot at winning it all even if it's a slim one. An 8 team playoff (if set up correctly) allows a dominant mid-major to make it if they have the right strength of schedule as my last post shows that Boise St. made the 4th at large spot available.
As far as a 16 team Playoff goes I think I speak for most of us on this thread (atleast the one's who have posted thus far) when I say that taking the 16 best teams from a pool of 64 eligible teams hurts the integrity of the bowl system. Many of those who are against a playoff think that those who are for a playoff are wreckless and want change for the sake of change........this couldn't be further from the truth. I would consider a 10, 12, or even 16 team playoff but I would need to see the exact layout and what it all entails. I have put a lot of thought into a 16 team playoff and I can say that a 16 team playoff would be able to handle anything CF could ever possibly throw at it but again the question is.......what would be left over? It's debatable.
Out of curiosity I put my 8 team playoff formula to the test for the 07' season and this is what I got. Again, bare in mind that my formula would work optimally if all conferences were required to organize and play a championship game as this would help significantly to filter out the pretenders from the contenders leaving the very best of the best.
Here we go based off of last years final BCS Rankings:
1) Ohio St. (Big 10(11) Champs)
2) LSU (SEC Champs)
3) Virginia Tech (ACC Champs)
4) Oklahoma (Big XII Champs)
5) Georgia
6) Missouri
7) USC (Pac 10 Champs)
8) KansasThe obvious question is "What about undefeated WAC champion (#10 BCS ranked) Hawaii?" and another would be "What about Big East champion (#9 BCS ranked) West Virginia?" Both are legitimate so let's examine.
Due to the fact that my formula gives the power to the BCS formula (not the BCS conferences) the polls and SOS are a MAJOR factor. To the BCS's credit (& the polls that help to form it) it recognized that as good as #10 Hawaii's record looked on paper the few times it came across quality opponents it stuggled to win during the regular season. That is a crucial crucial point. Georgia proved (at least to me) that Hawaii did not deserve to make a playoff even if they did finish undefeated but before the bowls happened and they were exposed they had a very very strong argument.
As far as WVU is concerned the injury to Pat White and subsequnt loss to Pitt obviosly killed them and I wish it wouldn't have happened because they were obviously a better team than what their final BCS ranking showed. Same goes with what happened to Oregon when Dixon got injured. Tell me the regular season doesn't matter in this playoff formula though? That one loss at the end of the year get's them out of my playoff.......that proves the regular season DOES MATTER in a playoff formula. Was WVU (with a healthy White) better than Kansas? That's debatable but ask #3 ranked Virginia Tech (& any team in the Big XII) if KU was for real and see what answer you get.
Possible changes to my formula that I would be up to debate would be to have a rule that limits any conference to a max of 2 teams in a playoff. Again, I'm really not in favor of punishing a conference for having multiple strong teams and that is basically what that rule does.
If you implemented that rule the 8 teams would be the exact same as the list above with WVU swapped out for KU in the #8 spot. I'm actually OK with that but that rule tweek is still up in the air for me.
The other debatable rule would be to give automatic bids to the top 6 BCS rated conference champions only and I mean ONLY if ALL conferences were required to play a championship game.
Things would have been severely shaken up if conference championships were played in every conference last year but here is what the last tweek would have done to my formula in 07'.
1) Ohio St. (Big 10(11) Champs)
2) LSU (SEC Champs)
3) Viginia Tech (ACC Champs)
4) Oklahoma (Big XII Champs)
5) USC (PAC 10 Champs)
6) West Virginia (Big East Champs)
7) Georgia
8) MissouriHawaii is left out of all the scenarios but just barely although the same formula included Boise St. in 06'. This proves strength of schedule is of the utmost importance in a playoff. Had Hawaii played a tougher non-conference schedule and still won out the BCS would have had them rated higher and they would have made it in. The regular season is HIGHLY important in a playoff, which is somthing playoff haters always seem to tout in the faces of those who push for playoffs.
In conclusion, there are many viable ways of configuring a fair and balanced playoff system to decide a true champion in college football. The rules don't have to be biased towards any conference or team and those who love college football and want a playoff don't want change for the sake of change, they want a system that can handle the crazy scenarios that happen every year in college football. The BCS is an improvement over the old system and is a great system/formula for ranking teams but is fundimentally flawed in that it assumes there will be to cleae cut teams standing at the end of every season which we all know is a giant stretch of the imagination (04' anyone?).
Tomcat said:
posted on May 20, 2008 11:54 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
KSUwild,Samurhino
I really enjoyed reading your posts and totally beleive that playoffs could be insituted using the bowls as a format.Main topic of this discussion is how a eight team playoff wouldnt work and I'm inclinded to beleive that not based upon the reasons stated in the main article.
As Samurhino pointed out, its all about the math.
Right now with the current system you have what
1 Champ Game 4 BCS bowls and 27 other bowls
3 major Conf Champ games and what a CUSA game and MAC or Sunbelt- I dunno
The way it stands now that is 32 bowls
A 16 team playoff would be 8 big bowls
followed by 4
followed by 2
followed by the Biggest game ever invisioned 1
Thats 15 huge bowl games $$$$$
32-15 = 17 lesser bowls
You could still have those teams not making it to the big bowls continue with those other lesser bowls- which is what they are anyway
So you still have 32 bowls
Now determining who gets in the big ones is entirley a different debate, but I'd rather see folks argue over who's 15 or 17 than who's 8 or 9 ?
As far as the extended season arguement goes wasnt there like a 6 or 7 week layoff for some schools inbetween the last regular season game and their Bowl? yes OK so that doesnt wash
With this 16 game format the Boise St 06 and Hawaii 07 would have had their shot, so would Utah 04 and AU 04. The 1 loss KU 07 team would also be included, thus agreeing with KSUwilds argument about strong conferences with more than 1 or 2 strong teams. This would also make the regular season games more important than they are now, because teams from other conferences would have to schedule tough teams in order to be included, so winning your conference might not be enough like a 4 loss FSU conf champ might get left out over a 1 or 2 loss team that is not a conf champ.
I kinda liked part of gatorhipps idea because it included the teams from non-BCS conferences, However with the 16 team format based on the final BCS polls, those BYU's & TCU's etc would just have to schedule tough OOC games and win, making fair for those guys to get a shot.
I also beleive that we are going to see alot more 2007 type years.
We have bi district games- regional games and divisional games- state champ games in High school
WTF- why not CFB ??
Its gonna happen-playoffs- not for the sake of having them, but to have a true champ crowned instead of 2005 every year there are split champs, teams left out, etc. etc.
Hookem-HornsRegan said:
posted on May 21, 2008 1:00 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Sorry everyone, I have to head out of town for 2 days, will be back to answer the charges of heresy on Thursday or Friday. :)
I will quickly answer Tomcat (#20) about the 'pie-in-the-sky arguments that cannot possibly be instituted' being a negative statement.
Truthfully, yeah, it was a 'negative statement'...my bad. One that was bluntly honest, however:
If you actually look at the various factors that have been with CFB for decades and how they have developed along with it, along with the 'powers that be', their interests, etc., you have a much greater appreciation for how potential post-season concepts (including playoffs) COULD possibly work.
For example, you cannot force conferences to to anything, you cannot force teams to schedule any team they don't want to, etc. These truths (among others) are inherent to the sport and are all to often forgotten when certain playoff scenerios are put forth by fans that aren't as familiar with CFB as they think.
Stewart Mandel's book "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls" describes the situation to a tee, and I strongly recommend it, whether you are a Playoff Fan or not. If you want a Playoff, I recommend it because it will help you understand how potential scenerios might be worked around the machinery of the sport so that it could happen...
And if I plug the guy's book one more time, I'm going to want some money... :)
Finally, for all the 'controversy' surrounding the CFB postseason, the "powers that be" know full well that no matter how mad people may get at "not having a Playoff", they will still watch the games, still spend the money, and thus will still support the BCS (financially).
In all honesty, posting what we think makes us feel like our point was made, but there is only one way to force "big financial interest-types" to come around to your way of thinking - a boycott...
...which will absolutely never happen in College Football. :)
Tomcat said:
posted on May 21, 2008 4:38 AM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
Reagan #29 We have seen alot of change over the years and yes the conf comm,A.D.'s, presidents, coaches, Alumi, bowl committees etc.etc. and the NCAA , all have their own agendas and like politics these guys try to do whats best for the entities that they represent.
I just dont ever want to hear "it wont work"
Sure establishing some changes in the way champions are determined will take alot of time.
Forget about football for one moment.
Thats the way weve always done it.
It will never work because of XYZ etc etc.
Its real easy to be negative and make excuses.
It takes hard work, sacrifice, commitment, dedecation and a we can do it attitude to bring about change in anything.
You have to break the paradigm and learn to look at the big picture.
Im sure people told Newton,Colombus,Edison,Wright Bros,Fulton and others that same thing. They didnt listen, its easy to quit and give up- they continued with their persuits and succeeded.
I understand that you have to work inside what has already been established and there will be many obstacles to overcome.
Remember Swiss watches?They dominated the world in watch production was dang near a monopoly, the market was cornered- best in the world, you cant compete-What happened?--little batteries,quartz movements, digitals etc etc
Get a chance read Pancho Villas memoirs
Battle of Juerez
No way a small rag tag army of peasants and volunteers with no money,no training and out dated mismatched weapons could whup the federal troops.The trained, organized federal troops were intrenched with the latest weapons including Mauser rifles & machine guns. Villa's troops were greatly outnumbered going against troops that had ammuntition, food etc. etc. and had built fortifications and prepared for the attack.
No way it will never work,
Thats the same thing they told Colombus before he sailed
Villa was a great stategest
His tactics were brilliant, but simple
Nothing is carved in stone, everything is flexable to a certain degree
Dont tell me that it will never work
Adios Tomcat
posted on May 21, 2008 5:58 PM — 68.211.170.52 — link — abuse? said:
Speaking of the devil, someone who is obviously very pro playoff edited Big 10(11) commissioner Jim Delany's wiki entry, calling him a douchebag for opposing a playoff. The entry got re-edited today, but not before it ended up on the Michigan Zone.
And before you ask, under advise of counsel, I invoke my 5th amendment priviledge...
AUtigerman said:
posted on May 22, 2008 1:04 PM — 129.61.46.60 — link — abuse?
Once again ill just have to disagree with the post.
Most peoples arguments are based on who finishes where in the polls.
If you want to implement a playoff youll need to forget the stupid polls.
Id just as soon go back to the old way of just extra football that dosent really count when it comes to bowl games.
How many teams are truly 100% ready to play after a 6-8 week layoff anyway?
How many kids looking to go in the draft are willing to put it all out there and risk injury?
A playoff that uses a poll system to pick teams could never be completely unbias.
So if your going to use a poll at all, just use it to pick the teams that writers and coaches think are the best and forget about a playoff, crown them #1 and lets move on.As for me ill continue to look at an SEC title as a more legit title then i ever will a national title.
VTBobb
posted on May 22, 2008 3:49 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
"...there's no valid argument for excluding #3 Michigan, #4 LSU, and #7 Wisconsin..." you mean besides the fact that they didn't win their conferences, of course?
Some folks are arguing mutually exclusive points of view. They say a playoff will ruin the excitement of D-1 (or whatever it's called) football by diminishing the importance of the regular season games. What's more important, keeping the excitement of every regular season game, or letting the champ be decided on the field? Wouldn't a limited sized playoff keep the excitement of the regular season? LSU, Michigan and Wisconsin all lost at least one of those "ALL IMPORTANT AND EXCITING" regular season games during the year.
Allowing them into a playoff would have diminished the importance of the regular season. If you can’t win your own conference, you can’t scream too loud for being left out of the playoffs!
TE
posted on May 22, 2008 4:39 PM — 204.68.245.11 — link — abuse? said:
My eyes typically glaze over when we start a "CFB Playoff" thread in the offseason, personally, but I also can tell there's a lot of passion and opinion on the subject...
I guess I worry about the things I can control, and as a fan, I can't control that situation in the least little bit...
Having said that, perusing the thread, I noticed where WEA is 40...
WEA, if its any consolation, I figured you for not a day past 35...36 at the most...
posted on May 22, 2008 5:43 PM — 68.211.170.52 — link — abuse? said:
Yes, TE, I turned the big four-O in January with nary a whimper. Where was my party?
I'm looking at the positive side. At least I'm not as old as Zac...
VTBobb: @33 Good point. I'm assuming that first point you were quoting was about the 2006 season. I looked to see from whom you got it but didn't see.
Tomcat: Don't go idolizing Villa too much. He had american blood on his hands...
Tomcat said:
posted on May 22, 2008 7:47 PM — 70.248.25.176 — link — abuse?
#35 WEA na man no idolizing intended, just an example of thinking outside the box or dont tell me it will never work.What does the Mexican revolution have to do with CFB? absolutley nothing. I guess I should have used the Trojan horse battle-because it was the same stategy.
#33 By using the polls those teams you mentioned would have been included.VT Bob remember KU was 12-1 they didnt win their conference, so a 2-loss LSU or 1 loss Ohio st who didnt play a ccg game gets a shot because they are a conf champ right.A 2 loss Missu woulda gave USC a better game than ILL. Conferences like the B12 could have several teams qualify for a shot-reminder the 12 champ had 3 losses in 07 and the two teams in the 12 champ game in 06 both loss to Texas.
With a playoff senerio using the top 16 teams all this would be setted on the feild, and the Bois st-Hawaii's whatever woulda had their shot as well.
#32 AUtigerman under my senerio, there would be no 6 week layoff. It would have also include AU 04 and then we could crown a real champ instead of MNC. The polls would actually work better than the Conf Champ automatic thing.In the history of CFb over 100 years there has only been 1 year were two teams were conf champs and undefeated in the Nat Champ game 05- every other year there have been teams left out, split titles and 2 loss teams getting a shot over more deserving teams.
Hookem-Horns
God bless our Troops
VTBobb
posted on May 22, 2008 9:29 PM — 71.248.25.106 — link — abuse? said:
WEA & Tomcat, I was actually referring to the original post. (I'm a little late. Work’s been busy).
Tomcat, leaving the bowl selection strictly to the polls is still going to make it a beauty contest. By giving the 6 conference champs automatic bids with 2 at-large teams:
#1 - The conference champs will have had to earn their tickets by winning their conference
#2 - Sure, there will be teams that feel like they were left out, but better 3-4 teams than 9-10 teams.
#3 - By assuring the champ of the "major" conferences gets automatic bid, it diminishes the disincentive of scheduling quality non-conference opponents. Think about it. If you knew losing a game to a big name non-conference opponent didn’t all but destroy your chances of playing for the NC, wouldn’t coaches be willing to schedule those games more? Yet you don’t know if you were going to win your conference or who could get an at-large, so every game is still important.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 22, 2008 11:26 PM — 69.150.213.9 — link — abuse?
VTBobb I too truly dislike polls,especially sports writers, but under what was mentioned in post #28 however using the BCS formula or Coaches would be better than the automatic Conf Champ thing. I agree with your last paragraph conserning playing tough OOC opponents.A team like KU 07 for example never really got any respect because of their schedule no OU, no UT and the OCC games werent against powerhouses.
They did finish in the top ten however and would of had a shot.
This is real simple 16 team playoff using the bowls as a format, this may exclude Conf Champs in some cases, for example a 4 loss FSU .
With this senerio its not argument over who's #2 or who'#3,right now- but who's # 16 or #17
So conf champ or not the top 16 would compete for the title, some years, some conferences may be left out entireley and some others may have 4 qualifing teams.
2007 was a great year and a playoff senerio would have been in order, same for 06 and 04
Hookem-Horns
God Bless our TroopsRegan said:
posted on May 24, 2008 1:46 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Zac (#22):
>>>
Regan, I can’t speak for anyone else. I’m not interested in a playoff for the sake of having one. I’m interested because I think it’s the right thing to do. Now, I do agree with you on one point. If there’s a chance the continuity of the sport would be impacted, if those teams not involved in the playoff were lost in the shuffle, or just plain ignored, I couldn’t back it. However, I maintain it can be done; it can be done with reasonable objectivity; it can even be profitable.
>>>I agree that such a system could be possible, and made such a suggestion on how, with a request for feedback. :)
Criteria must be used to ensure that the current system’s flaws are dealt with in such a way that they are not replaced with new ones and little (if anything) is lost in translation.
>>>
I don’t agree with the conference champion idea. As with the system we have now, in most cases, this would work. However, there will always be the occasional FSU anomaly. While this lends some glamour to the occasion, personally, I’m not interested in “Cinderella”. When it comes to a play-off, I’m interested in the best 4, 6, 8, or 10 teams. (I agree, once you get beyond 10, it gets cumbersome.)
>>>The “FSU anomaly” wasn’t a one-time phenomenon. 3- and 4- loss teams have gotten BCS berths 9 times. All but Illinois 2007 were conference champions. Focusing on Conference Champions as the main criteria for an NC game is thus, very problematic. Only if it is coupled with the more important criteria of 0-loss and 1-loss records does it matter; and IMHO, then, it is critical.
Copied from the last playoff thread:
>
As far as my criteria about Conference Championships mattering, it is based on the observation that 0-loss and 1-loss teams that would be considered for the NC Game most often are the Conference Champs. Ordinarily, it would be an inherent product of producing the “2 best teams”. It’s a “safety valve”.The Conf. Champ. Game that the Big 12, ACC, and SEC play occasionally throws this one to the wind, however, as a team that can’t win their division can somehow get a shot at the NC game. You’re right about this, and I will concede that not relying on Conference Champ status would help keep OOC strength-of-schedules honest.
The case-in-point I’ll use is 2001, when after a truly bizarre weekend left a 10-1 Nebraska (who couldn’t win the Big 12 North (to a Colorado team that put 62 on them back when that just did not happen…) to face Miami (12-0) over Pac-10 Champ Oregon (10-1). One could easily argue that Nebraska may have been the better team, but I will stick to the point that Oregon deserved to be there more than Nebraska because it went out and won it’s conference.
The issue primarily devolves down to my core belief that teams need to “Win or Go Home”. The core logic of the BCS was (until ’04 when Auburn got hosed) that if you win out, you’re in the NC Game. If you drop the ball and lose a game, you throw your destiny to the Winds of Fate; you still have a slim chance, but you can’t complain if you don’t make it in, because it’s your fault you didn’t take care of business that one game when you needed to prove you were a team that could overcome any obstacle.
Lose twice, and you’re out of the NC game, but there is still a lot to go out and play hard for. You can still make a big-time BCS Bowl, or at least a New-Years Day bowl. My Conference Champ argument is based on this reasoning. That and, I never, ever, ever want to see Michigan and Ohio State play each other for the National Championship...
>However, you say that you want “the best 4, 6, 8, or 10 teams” in a playoff. Some people believe that “the two best teams” should play in the NC game (whatever the system).
A Playoff precludes the possibility of ensuring the “best 2 teams” in CFB reach the NC game due to having to play extra games against “inferior” teams that beat them in the “Any Given Saturday Clause”. Just pointing that out.
Regan said:
posted on May 24, 2008 1:51 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
Sorry, had more:
Zac (#22):
>>>
The point is this: The current system is still tainted with too much bias. In 2004, Auburn got robbed. In 2006, #7 WI wasn’t even allowed to go to a BCS bowl. Last year, there were arguably NO deserving playoff candidates. What will make a playoff nearly impossible lies in the fact that who ever sets it up will be unable to do so with complete and total objectivity; the ideology of “honest & fair” will be tentatively applied at best. I don’t want to hear conferences being limited in their participation. If there’s going to be a playoff, I want the best 4, 6, 8, or 10 teams in it. If a conference winds up with 4 in there, that’s a credit to their strength. Besides, as I’ve already said in another thread; only when it is believed it will make money, will it happen. Till then, we’ll be debating as we have.
>>>I agree that the current system is flawed. Never said otherwise.
I agreed with Wisconsin being excluded in ’06 because no matter what conference, I don’t believe the 3rd best team in a conference belongs in a BCS Bowl. That’s my opinion. It’s Win or Lose, not Win or Whine. It really doesn’t matter, because Wisconsin wasn’t up for the NC game and shouldn’t have been to begin with for the same reason.
Last year, there were two teams that won their conferences and had 0- or 1- loss. Those teams were Ohio State and Hawaii. IMHO, no one else deserved to play for the NC, however if push came to shove on it, I could swallow throwing 10-1 Kansas in there because they only had one loss.
You are spot-on about the problems of objectivity in a Playoff; however people agree that a Playoff will make more money. For reasons other than money (shockingly) the powers that be still fend off a Playoff…it is actually quite interesting.
Regan said:
posted on May 24, 2008 1:55 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
ksuwild (#23):
>>>
It's very easy to create a mock playoff system that is insufficient and biased (which is not a valid arguement for another biased system by the way) and then point out the reasons why it wouldn't be an efficient effective way of deciding a champion.
>>>I will knock any system that does not use the following requirements for the 2 teams arriving at the NC Game:
#1: The 2 teams in the final NC game must be either undefeated or only have 1-Loss.
#2: The 2 teams must be Conference Champions.I will, however, support any system that ensures these conditions.
If you can come up with a Playoff System that ensures these conditions, I will support it.
These conditions have proven over 100 years to be the instrumental (one way or another) in naming CF national champions. Changing the criteria is to change the very soul of the sport, which the tremendous importance of the frantic nail-biting Regular Season.
>>>
I am not for any system that punishes a conference for having multiple stong teams (SEC & Big 12 in 07') as that is unfair and simply bad logic. What record would MU, KU or UG have had if they played in the WAC with Hawaii? Giving the big 6 automatic bids for their conf. champions is the wrong way to go because invariably one of them, or more than one of them will have a down year and produce an unworthy champion in the same year that one or more conf. would have mutiple powehouses that same year.
>>>Winning a Conference Championship should matter. Take away the automatic berths and it doesn’t.
However, it’s simple math and fairness: there are only 10 Slots. Some conferences will get 2, others will get 1. The notion that any Major conference deserves 3+ while another Major conference only gets 1 is unfair, and opens the door for the bias that you don’t like.
I fail to understand why the 3rd best team in a conference has any right to whine. Had they won instead, they’d be fine. They didn’t. I say “Man up!”
You are spot-on about down years and sub-par Conf. Champs getting to the BCS/Playoff spots, however, all that really matters about this entire discussion is the National Championship Game and the 2 teams that play in it. And in this regard, keeping Sub-Par teams away from the Title matters.
IOW, you just helped me prove a point. Thanks! :)
>>>
If you configured the ground rules with automatic bids and at large bids that were given based off of the final BCS rankings (regardless of conf.) how could any non BCS conf. cry foul. They would have no argument. If they finish ranked high enough they're in.......if they don't they're out. Same thing goes for ND. The system doesn't have to be biased, and it doesn't need to be made into something that is too complicated or something that throws out CF as we know it.
>>>Unless 2 Major undefeated teams play in the NC Game, someone ALWAYS cries foul. In NCAA BB, the 65th team cries foul, for crying out loud.
The reason is: There is Subjectivity in CFB. And, barring 119-game seasons, there ALWAYS will be.
>>>
Lets take the same 2006 scenario that was butchered earlier and change the formula.
1) The top 4 BCS ranked Conference Champions once the final polls are released recieve automatic bids and home field advantage (in the first round, others will be on neutral sites).
2) The next 4 at large spot go to the next 4 highest BCS ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation or whether they won their conference or not.
3) I personally would also like to see all conferences play championship games which would weed out the pretenders from the contenders but we wilk leave that out since no one knows what would have happened had they actually been played.
This is what it would have looked like in 06'
1) Ohio St. (Big 10(11) Champ
2) Florida (SEC Champ)
3) USC (PAC 10 Champ)
4) Louisville (Big East Champ)
5) Michigan
6) LSU
7) Wisconsin
8) Boise St. (WAC Champ)
5 of the 8 teams in are still conference champions and mind you that if all conferences were required to play a championship game there is no way in hell the Big 10(11) would have got 3 teams into an 8 team playoff. The 3 schools (Michigan, LSU & Wisconsin) the original article complained were left out of the 8 team playoff are mysteriously now in...........WOW, how did that happen? It happened because the formula used was not biased towards any conference or team. There's a novile idea. Create a system that is fair for every team and every conference. No.......we can't do that.
>>>Perfect system. For 2006. Plugging it into 2005, however, we have:
1.USC (12-0)
2.Texas (12-0)
3.Penn State (10-1)
7.Georgia (10-2)
4.Ohio State (9-2)
5.Oregon (10-1)
6.Notre Dame (9-2)
8.Miami (9-2)Explain to me how Southern California and Texas should have to play anyone else when it was clear to everyone and their cousin that the two undefeated major conference teams were the 2 best teams AND the 2 most deserving teams in CFB.
Much less, of the last 3 teams on the list:
- Oregon lost to BCS-UNRANKED Oklahoma
- Notre Dame was roundly criticized for not deserving the Fiesta Bowl berth against OHST.
- Miami lost to BCS #12 LSU…40-3.If you’re going to claim that sub-par teams don’t deserve a chance to play for a NC, then I give you the 2005 season - using your system.
>>>
If all conferences did have conference championship games they would bring in even more money.........but whether they did or didn't an 8 team playoff (with or without ND) would absolutely blow the ratings charts out of the water. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that barring a miracle, it will never, ever happen. Conferences have no obligation to bring in new teams, institute CC Games, etc if they don’t want to.
This is what I was referring to “pie-in-the-sky” arguments. Learn why things are the way they are, and you’ll be far more prepared to offer arguments that are realistically possible.
Those ‘realistic’ possibilities are the only thing that the ‘powers-that-be’ will ever consider, and the only ones that will ever happen.
Also, “facts” are things that can be proven as such. Despite the fact it looks reasonable, there is no way to prove that it would, especially when you factor in the diminished importance of either the regular season or the CC Games (ie: sometimes it won’t matter who wins them).
>>>
WEA called it on another thread, conference championship games are not going away and it is becoming more and more likely every year that teams that win conferences by winning a championship game are going to finish with AT LEAST one loss if not two or even three. Parody is increasing and the playing field within coaching and recruiting is leveling.
>>>When I examine trends, I try to not base my presumptions on what happened last year, or even the past 2 years. I examine the whole landscape, and it doesn’t reflect this at all:
CC Game Winners with 0- or 1- Loss:
2007: 0- or 1-loss teams: 0
2006: 0- or 1-loss teams: 1 (FLA 12-1)
2005: 0- or 1-loss teams: 1 (TEX 12-0)
2004: 0- or 1-loss teams: 2 (AUB 12-0, OU 12-0)
2003: 0- or 1-loss teams: 1 (LSU 12-1)
2002: 0- or 1-loss teams: 1 (UGA 12-1)
2001: 0- or 1-loss teams: 0
2000: 0- or 1-loss teams: 1 (OU (12-0)
1999: 0- or 1-loss teams: 1 (NEB 11-1)
1998: 0- or 1-loss teams: 1 (TENN 12-0)
>>>
Regan said another 2007 won't happen for another 100 years (which gave me a good chuckle)........I would be very surprised if another similar scenario DOESN'T happen WITHIN the next 10 years. It's eather going to be multiple no loss, multiple one loss, or multple two loss teams and it doesanat matter which of those you pick because there is no system out there that can fairly and effectively handle that scenario...........except one.
A PLAYOFF
>>>My statement was regarding the sheer volume of upsets, which is absolutely unprecedented. It was not regarding the situation at the end of the Regular Season, which ended with a 1-loss Conference Champ, a 0-loss Mid-Major Conf Champ, and a handful of 2-loss Conf Champs, etc.
2007 was an anomaly due to the volume of upsets and the craziness at the end when numerous teams that should have won and ended up with 1-loss didn’t win.
If you honestly believe this will become the norm in CFB, feel free – I for one, study the history and trends of it and know better…but we can just wait and see, if you want.
And I still await your criticism of my proposal (#18), because it will handle the system more effectively than even your precious playoff.
Your arguments are improving however...my compliments for forcing me to turn to Google. :)
Regan said:
posted on May 24, 2008 2:07 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
U. of S. C. 1978 (#24):
We are pretty much on the same page, I agree with your statement on weeding out the pretenders in the Regular Season...that's pretty much what it's for, if you think about it.
I could easily live with a Plus-One, but the two issues I have with it are:
1) In some years ('99, '02, '05), it would be unfair to force additional games when the 2 best teams are established.
2) It doesn't ensure the National Champion is a 0- or 1-loss Conference Champ.
However, I like the idea behind a plus-one, and could easily live with it.
Regan said:
posted on May 24, 2008 2:26 AM — 75.182.53.208 — link — abuse?
[The Amazing] Samurhino (#26):
Good argument about SoS; however, you do realize that the current system is set up in such a way with SoS being factored in to the BCS rankings.
There must be a balance between:
a) having as few losses as possible
b) against teams with a pulseHowever, one must be careful on the SoS argument to allow for the Mid-Majors, in order to allow them to participate in the process as well.
No matter what anyone says, BCS #10 Hawaii did deserve their shot in the Sugar Bowl, since no one could say beforehand how good they were with certainty. They could have been as good as Boise State 2006 or as bad as...well...Hawaii 2007.
ksuwild said:
posted on May 27, 2008 1:50 PM — 170.35.224.65 — link — abuse?
Regan (41)
You continue to say that you will knock any system that allows a team with more than one loss to play for the NC yet in 2007 the group of teams with 2 losses were the best teams in the country. Does that not pose a problem for you? Your system puts Ohio St. against Hawaii in the NC and I'm sorry but that Title game would have been a big pile of hog wash regardless of who won.
How many losses would Hawaii have had if they played in the SEC or the Big XII last year? More than the 1 your system would give them for being an undefeated mid-major. If all conferences were equal from top to bottom your system would be perfect, but we all know the Sun Belt conference is a little different than the SEC, and Conference USA is slightly worse than the Big XII. The BCS ranking system factors in SOS and many other factors that put a mid-majors record in perspective.
My problem with your system is that it really doesn't recognize the conference SOS difficulty for teams who play in the very toughest conferences in the nation. Like Samurhino said, give me a battle tested 2 loss team over an undefeated team who struggles to win it's games against quality opponents.
Don't get me wrong, I want the elite mid-majors to have a chance to win it all as long as they prove they deserve it. As I pointed out before Boise St. made my 8 team playoff in 06' and Hawaii did not make it in 07'. Boise St. whooped a very good Oregon St. team that beat USC in 06', and Hawaii struggled to put away a mediocre (no offense UW fans) Washington team in 07'. Both were undefeated but only Boise St. really deserved a chance to make my 8 team playoff and have a chance to play for the NC out of those two IMO.
Because the BCS factors in SOS and uses the polls (that factor SOS with the human element) it is a great ranking system and a good way to judge whether a mid-major deserves a shot or not. I do agree with the other thread that the coaches poll either needs to be changed or replaced with a less biased poll........and so does my boy Joe Paterno. He also says the reasons touted against a playoff in CF are a bunch of bogus excuses. Atta Boy Joe!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3408761
As far as my 8 team playoff in 2005, if you are truly the best of the best you should have no problem PROVING it on the field. What do they have to worry about, they're obviously the 2 best teams in the nation right? Well, put your money were your mouth is and prove it ON THE FIELD. It's not a bad thing for the fans is it? Watching a playoff between the best teams in the nation. If all conferences would have played CC games in 2005 the final 8 would have looked much different. But, we'll never know how that would have shaken out becasue we can't reverse history.
You said "Learn why things are the way they are, and you’ll be far more prepared to offer arguments that are realistically possible"
I understand that you cannot force conferences to do anything, but it is not unheard of for conferences to re-align on their own and form CC games. Financially it makes a TON of sense. The SEC, Big XII, and ACC all went to a CC games not because anyone wanted them to, but because it was the smart thing to do. I guess they were eating "pie in the sky" when they made the decisions to re-align and form CC games. My 8 team playoff formula is really pretty simple and it would work whether conferences re-aligned or not (it would just work better if they did).
You act as if the ideas of conference re-alignment and a post season playoff are some sort of mythical untested theories. Playoff's are more battle tested than ANY other post season method that has ever been created. You can take that statement to the bank and cash it in. They are used in every sport from little leagues all the way through professional sports of all types. If you want to talk "pie in the sky" then I would have to offer your proposed method of a system that would dock mid-majors (only) one game for going undefeated, exclude 2 loss teams (which were the best in the nation in 07' by the way) and change every year by it's very nature. That's "pie in the sky" for you.
Financially, CC games and a playoff are needed in CF. Remember the other thread that showed that only 19 of the 119 FBS athletic departments were self-sufficient financially in 2006. Among the 99 departments that showed a deficit that year, the average deficit was a little more than $8.9 million. That's not chump change and it's also not a small ammount of teams. The majority are struggling financially and something needs to change in a hurry. Teams will move to CC games and become more friendly to the idea of a playoff as they open their eyes to what these changes can do for them financially.
I too study history and trends, and the trend is an increasing ammount of parody in CF that is going to make years like 2007 happen with much more frequency IMO. But, I guess we will both have to wait and see.
Regan said:
posted on June 3, 2008 1:39 AM — 68.59.3.170 — link — abuse?
ksuwild (#47):
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya, bud, have finally moved into my new place and have a bazillion things to do, but I made ya a promise, so here it is in all its verbosity… :)>>>
You continue to say that you will knock any system that allows a team with more than one loss to play for the NC yet in 2007 the group of teams with 2 losses were the best teams in the country. Does that not pose a problem for you? Your system puts Ohio St. against Hawaii in the NC and I'm sorry but that Title game would have been a big pile of hog wash regardless of who won.
>>>As I mentioned earlier, it is pretty much the consensus that 2007 was an anomaly.
As far as the Ohio State – Hawaii matchup, that is definitely one of the issues that has come up with my system. I will say that for my part, I would have had no problem with a Buckeye/Warrior matchup because they honestly deserved to be there more than a 2-loss LSU that lost its last home game to an unranked team.
However, I could have (for 2007) been willing to consider an Ohio State – Kansas matchup, since the Jayhawks were the only other major conference team to have one loss.
IF Kansas would have been considered, my system would have actually looked like a “Plus-One” of Kansas vs. Hawaii in early December, and the winner getting Ohio State in January.
Of my 2x Criteria, the “0-loss or 1-loss” clause is far more important than the “Conference Champion” clause, since if everyone thinks you can lose 2 games and still get to the NC Game, big games will be nowhere near as intense.
I’ll try to figure out a way to allow for this in my system...
Lastly, you should remember that in this aspect, post-season match-ups MUST be looked at from the “pre-game” mindset rather than the “hindsight” glasses because in the future, since ANY system that involves choosing teams for the post-season can only judge them based on what they do before the post-season, not afterwards.
However, as I said earlier, 2007 was an anomaly (never happened before), and I don’t really believe ANY system would really have worked well in it. Even you pointed out earlier that there “weren’t actually any deserving teams” in ’07, and that is something I think I can agree with you on. :)>>>
How many losses would Hawaii have had if they played in the SEC or the Big XII last year? More than the 1 your system would give them for being an undefeated mid-major. If all conferences were equal from top to bottom your system would be perfect, but we all know the Sun Belt conference is a little different than the SEC, and Conference USA is slightly worse than the Big XII. The BCS ranking system factors in SOS and many other factors that put a mid-majors record in perspective.
>>>Likely true. The reason that I have the “undefeated mid-major treated as a 1-loss BCS conference team” clause is to open up the door of the NC to those mid-majors to give “Cinderella” her shot, a la Boise State ’06 and Utah ’04.
Had my system been in place in ’07, Hawaii would have lucked in due to a rule in the system allowing undefeated teams to get in.
I do admit that the other major weakness of my system is that it could de-emphasize SoS. I have several ideas on how to mitigate this, possibly by having a SoS criteria to be used as a “weed-out” factor as well, but I’m still working on it.
In my system’s defense, however, notice how rarely mid-majors go undefeated compared to BCS conference teams. In the history of the BCS, there have been:
13x BCS-Conference teams [’98 TENN, ’99 FSU, VT, ’00 OU, ’01 MIA, ’02 MIA, OHST, ’04 SCAL, OU, AUB, ’05 SCAL, TEX, ’06 OHST]
to only
5x Mid-Major teams [’98 TUL, ’99 MAR, ’04 UTAH, ’06 BSU, ’07 HAW]
…that have gone undefeated.
>>>
My problem with your system is that it really doesn't recognize the conference SOS difficulty for teams who play in the very toughest conferences in the nation. Like Samurhino said, give me a battle tested 2 loss team over an undefeated team who struggles to win it's games against quality opponents.
>>>As noted earlier, the SoS component is a weakness of my system (currently) that I am working on fixing.
So far, I only have one real idea:
+ A possible additional requirement that a minimum SoS or BCS ranking should me met to be eligible for the NC Game. This would eliminate teams from consideration that intentionally play weak schedules, but could open up a new can of worms too.
The Conference Championship clause often works hand-in-hand with the “Losses” clause because by definition, the 2 best teams MUST be Conf Champs.
>>>
Don't get me wrong, I want the elite mid-majors to have a chance to win it all as long as they prove they deserve it. As I pointed out before Boise St. made my 8 team playoff in 06' and Hawaii did not make it in 07'. Boise St. whooped a very good Oregon St. team that beat USC in 06', and Hawaii struggled to put away a mediocre (no offense UW fans) Washington team in 07'. Both were undefeated but only Boise St. really deserved a chance to make my 8 team playoff and have a chance to play for the NC out of those two IMO.
>>>Sadly though, as much as we want to claim otherwise, no one was qualified to claim Hawaii was a fraud until Georgia exposed them as such. It has happened many, many times in CFB that a team plays tight games no matter the opponent, barely dodging landmines against cellar dwellers and narrowly nipping powerhouses.
Thus, it isn’t really fair to claim that Boise St. ’06 was so much better than Hawaii ’07 until AFTER the two teams got their chance to prove themselves.
In a really fun case of irony, we can’t think “after the fact”, because we are trying to determine a system to determine who should play “BEFORE the fact”.
>>>
Because the BCS factors in SOS and uses the polls (that factor SOS with the human element) it is a great ranking system and a good way to judge whether a mid-major deserves a shot or not. I do agree with the other thread that the coaches poll either needs to be changed or replaced with a less biased poll........and so does my boy Joe Paterno. He also says the reasons touted against a playoff in CF are a bunch of bogus excuses. Atta Boy Joe!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3408761
>>>Agreed on all points.
>>>
As far as my 8 team playoff in 2005, if you are truly the best of the best you should have no problem PROVING it on the field. What do they have to worry about, they're obviously the 2 best teams in the nation right? Well, put your money were your mouth is and prove it ON THE FIELD. It's not a bad thing for the fans is it? Watching a playoff between the best teams in the nation. If all conferences would have played CC games in 2005 the final 8 would have looked much different. But, we'll never know how that would have shaken out becasue we can't reverse history.
>>>I use the “if you’re the best team, prove it” often in my arguments, and I respect it. However, I argue against it when it is used in the context of playing 2-4 additional games than normal.
I believe in the “Win, or Go Home” mindset regarding the Regular Season games. Going undefeated week-to-week for 12-13 games is TOUGH.
Taking that same mentality (and the injuries and fatigue that come with it) to justify success against lesser teams they don’t really need to play.
Take 2005 – would the NC Game have been anywhere near what it was had a tough Miami (who didn’t deserve the NC Game) defense injured Vince Young in round 1 and he wasn’t able to make the difference vs. Southern California?
The difference is that these games don’t need to be played – more often than not, we already know who the “best / most deserving” teams are. Sometimes there’s one, two, even three and possibly four, but there are NEVER eight.
more to come...
Regan said:
posted on June 3, 2008 1:43 AM — 68.59.3.170 — link — abuse?
ksuwild (#47) [continued]:
>>>
You said "Learn why things are the way they are, and you’ll be far more prepared to offer arguments that are realistically possible"I understand that you cannot force conferences to do anything, but it is not unheard of for conferences to re-align on their own and form CC games. Financially it makes a TON of sense. The SEC, Big XII, and ACC all went to a CC games not because anyone wanted them to, but because it was the smart thing to do. I guess they were eating "pie in the sky" when they made the decisions to re-align and form CC games. My 8 team playoff formula is really pretty simple and it would work whether conferences re-aligned or not (it would just work better if they did).
>>>You’re right – but the conferences have to decide this for themselves. The Big Ten and Pac-10 want no part of CCGames. The Big East could expand to 12 teams and have one, but the Conference would be so diluted by the teams they would likely have to take that it wouldn’t make sense for them to do so.
As it has turned out, the ACC hasn’t really benefited much from the CCGame; certainly not in the way they had wanted. Thus, the CCG works well in some places, and not so well in others.
Oh, BTW, I admit the “pie-in-the sky” comment probably wasn’t the best choice of words; sorry if it came across negatively (I try to be positive here). Often times, people just want a playoff and don’t even bother with logic. They will want to re-structure the conference framework, putting this team here and that team there, based on geography, rivalries, etc. without even explaining how the conferences would voluntarily disband and who forces the schools to fit into their “perfect framework”.
IOW – you put thought into your ideas, and I can tell you take some time to research. That’s all I want. :)
>>>
You act as if the ideas of conference re-alignment and a post season playoff are some sort of mythical untested theories. Playoff's are more battle tested than ANY other post season method that has ever been created. You can take that statement to the bank and cash it in. They are used in every sport from little leagues all the way through professional sports of all types. If you want to talk "pie in the sky" then I would have to offer your proposed method of a system that would dock mid-majors (only) one game for going undefeated, exclude 2 loss teams (which were the best in the nation in 07' by the way) and change every year by it's very nature. That's "pie in the sky" for you.
>>>For now, I believe the dust has settled for the foreseeable future. There was a big round of Conference Expansion in the early ‘90’s as almost all the old Eastern Independents joined conferences (and even formed the Big East).
Equilibrium settled in, and lasted even through the creation of the BCS, until the ACC began acting in 2003, due to seeing the benefits of the SEC & Big 12 CCG’s, etc.
Had it not been for the ACC’s foresight/greed/whatever, there is no reason to believe any teams would have changed conferences.
NCAA rules say 12 teams are the minimum for having a CCG, and no conference would want to split Bowl money more than the minimum number of ways (12); so conferences with more than 12 teams don’t make sense (no, we don’t know why the MAC went with 13 either…).
So, outside of kicking out the teams not pulling their weight (a la Temple and the Big East), there is no reason the SEC, ACC, Big 12, or any of their individual member teams will change their membership status in the near future.
The other 3 conferences could, of course, but they either have no desire to or just don’t have logical candidates to.
IF, however, the NCAA changed the rule from a 12 team minimum to a 10-team minimum, you’d be right in a HUGE way…
>>>
Financially, CC games and a playoff are needed in CF. Remember the other thread that showed that only 19 of the 119 FBS athletic departments were self-sufficient financially in 2006. Among the 99 departments that showed a deficit that year, the average deficit was a little more than $8.9 million. That's not chump change and it's also not a small ammount of teams. The majority are struggling financially and something needs to change in a hurry. Teams will move to CC games and become more friendly to the idea of a playoff as they open their eyes to what these changes can do for them financially.
>>>The financial aspects are not something I really worry about, because it falls to the individual schools to deal with their own accounting concerns. The Big East saw it was in their financial interests to dump Temple back in 2004, so they did so.
Also, as I said earlier, though, if you look at the benefits to the ACC and SEC get from their CCG’s, the difference is staggering; so it isn’t guaranteed to be the same money-maker for everyone as it is for the SEC.
[I am a bookkeeper/financial analyst by trade, so I place a lot of emphasis on self-accountability when it comes to a school/business; they should manage their funds logically, not alter the fabric of the sport because they want to have more tenured professors than the school on the other side of the state].
>>>
I too study history and trends, and the trend is an increasing ammount of parody in CF that is going to make years like 2007 happen with much more frequency IMO. But, I guess we will both have to wait and see.
>>>Hey, perhaps it will, although I really hope not. Parity is good for the sport, but every non-pro sport has its powerhouses. The NFL, NBA, etc. have parity enforced with Drafts, etc., but in college sports, it is Recruiting that determines talent levels.
Parity from reduced scholarship numbers has resulted in the allowing of the rise of talented Boise State-type-teams, as well as allow for upsets to be possible everywhere, but outside of 2007 alone, upsets have always been a huge part of CFB, and nothing I saw changed to make 2007 any different…it was just how the absurd things just kept coming.
But, true enough, we’ll have to wait and see...
Football Picker
posted on June 5, 2008 9:56 AM — 208.18.85.28 — link — abuse? said:
The key question in the article is "tell me how that's better than what we have now" - simple....ANYTHING is better than we have now. Are you kidding me. The BCS is a joke.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Registered User
said:
posted on May 19, 2008 10:01 AM — 98.215.255.124 — link — abuse?"tell me again why we should be excited about a college football playoff?"
Because, if done properly (PWD starts from the assumption that this is impossible and then proposes a ridiculous system... typical strawman nonsense), the players can win national championships on the field instead of in the court of popular opinion.
That's the only reason that should matter. This is FOOTBALL.
Any argument that starts with 'this will never happen because...' fails because we're not talking about what will probably happen, we're talking about what SHOULD happen, and conflating those two is the kind of thing done by people who don't really understand logic or are purposefully trying to dilute the argument because they realize how weak their own position is.
Besides... what's better, arguing over the 8th team in or the 3rd?