Author Topic: College Football Title game  (Read 2369 times)

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
College Football Title game
« on: November 26, 2007, 12:44:11 PM »
What a cluster for the college corporations who keep blocking a playoff system.

Missouri wins the Big 12 Champ game vs Okla and West Virginia beats Pitt and the title game is set, right?

Oklahoma 10-2 may well beat Missouri 11-1.  In fact i think Oklas qb staying healthy last week would have put Okla in the title game. I would in turn love to see Pitt beat rival West Virginia 10-1, so that only two teams would remain with one loss.
That being Ohio State 11-1 and idle gets in by default?  Vs idle Kansas 11-1, except that Kansas just got beat by Mizzoui.

Only Joe V would let Hawaii in as an undefeated.

Playoffs, playoffs!  Even if only a 4 teamer.

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2007, 02:51:03 PM »
Being from Columbia, living with the mediocrity of Mizzou football year after year and then the unprecedented year in school history they're having this year is kind of crazy.  Everyone is excited, I mean my Mother-in-Law is sending me Sports News clips and websites.  And guess what . . . I STILL think we should have a playoff system in college football -- its the only fair thing. 

I do fully expect the Sooners to CRUSH us in the Big 12 championship game.  Hey man, if you were a Mizzou Tigers fan, you'd understand.
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline Lurker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2007, 03:07:30 PM »
There is ONE good thing about the big 12 championship...it is in San Antonio this year.  ;D

Mizzou's only loss is to Oklahoma.  Should be an interesting rematch.  WVa should be in the title game...only real "intrigue" will be if Mizzou loses.

And you can add me to the long list of playoff proponents.  And I agree with Joe...an undefeated Hawaii deserves a shot at the title.
It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.  Keep on thinking free.
-Moody Blues

Offline Derek Bodner

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3040
    • AOL Instant Messenger - dbodner22
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - dabodz
    • View Profile
    • http://www.phillyarena.com
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2007, 03:43:17 PM »
I hate the BCS.  It literally just sucks the intrigue of college football out of me to the point I almost don't care.

Offline ziggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1990
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ziggythebeagle
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2007, 07:37:49 PM »
There is ONE good thing about the big 12 championship...it is in San Antonio this year.  ;D

Mizzou's only loss is to Oklahoma.  Should be an interesting rematch.  WVa should be in the title game...only real "intrigue" will be if Mizzou loses.

And you can add me to the long list of playoff proponents.  And I agree with Joe...an undefeated Hawaii deserves a shot at the title.

I am not a big fan of the BCS, but the notion that a championship series is going to solve all of college footballs ills is poppycock.  And Hawaii doesn't deserve shyte.  If they want to play a real schedule then fine.  Their schedule was
 Date                        Opponent                 Result         SI Ranking
September 2   Northern Colorado (1-11)   W 63-6   1-AA School
September 8   at Louisiana Tech (5-6)       W 45-44   SI power rank 92
September 15   at UNLV (2-10)                 W 49-14    SI power rank 113
September 23   Charleston Southern (5-6) W 66-10     1-AA School
September 29   at Idaho (1-11)                 W 48-20     SI Power rank 118
October 7   Utah State (2-10)              W 52-37      SI Power rank 112
October 12   at San Jose State (5-7)     W 42-35   SI Power rank 95
October 28   New Mexico State (4-8)     W 50-13     SI Power rank 87
November 10   Fresno State (7-4)           W 37-30    SI Power rank 51
November 16   at Nevada (5-6)               W 28-26    SI Power rank 72
November 23   No. 19 Boise State (10-2)  W 39-27   SI Power rank 21
December 1   Washington   (4-8)                            SI Power rank  71

So their opponents have a combined record of 51-89 or .364, and that includes 2 Division 1-AA with a combined 6-18 record.  The average power rank of the 1-A teams they played is 83.2, or in other words the average team they played every week was rated 83rd in the country.  Best way to describe that is PATHETIC.  They played 2 teams with winning records, and only 1 team rated higher than 51.  They don't deserve to play for a national championship. 

Neither does Kansas, and Missouri showed us why.  Kansas scheduled to make it to the Alamo bowl, and that is where they deserve to go.  Florida with 3 losses deserves it much more, considering the schedule they played.  The loser of Mizzou and Oklahoma deserves it more, even if they have both end up with 2 losses. 

A national championship tourney would promote Hawaii and Kansas type of scheduling because the key is to get into the 16 team tourney, so schedule cupcakes, so you have as few losses as possible.  The BCS promotes winning against good competition because there are only 2 slots, which makes the regular season better.  Kansas and Hawaii don't deserve to play for a national title.  Kansas played 1 tough game all year and they lost it.  You have a tourney and everyone will schedule just like Kansas.  If every conference gets an automatic berth then the "mid-majors" will schedule just like Hawaii.
A third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. A second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. A first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself.

AA Mil

Offline Reality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2007, 11:01:39 PM »
While I agree mostly with you zig, a playoff system would at least make Hawii or any other weak scheduler earn it in the end.
By seeding, this year Hawii as the lowest seed would get matched up with #1 initially, then as they advance they would have to play the tougher teams.

Anyone scheduling reg season patsies would eventually have to play the tough team(s) to advance.  Even an 8 team tourney would require 3 wins to Title.  Plus the tough conferences already have tough games vs each other, so even IF they scheduled patsies for non conference games, they would have to play tough teams.  The biggest rip would be your Hawaii types who have such a soft reg season but again, they'd have to go 3-0 to title.

It's a vast improvement over the BCS in determining who really is the best team.
Remember the really good undefeated teams that got jobbed, ie Penn State a couple years?
The one year Lou Hotlzs Irish were fantastic, beat like 8 bowl teams.  However they lost in the reg season by getting nipped by Miami thus Miami got the title game vs ___?  I believe Miami had a super cupkake schedule other then ND.

Think you will all get a kick of espns headline re the current setup:
"The No. 1 team is an underdog this week. The only unbeaten might not make the BCS. A team that won't play for its conference title could play for the national title."
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 11:07:27 PM by Reality »

Offline ziggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1990
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ziggythebeagle
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2007, 01:46:13 AM »
By seeding, this year Hawaii as the lowest seed would get matched up with #1 initially, then as they advance they would have to play the tougher teams.

Anyone scheduling reg season patsies would eventually have to play the tough team(s) to advance.  Even an 8 team tourney would require 3 wins to Title.  Plus the tough conferences already have tough games vs each other, so even IF they scheduled patsies for non conference games, they would have to play tough teams.  The biggest rip would be your Hawaii types who have such a soft reg season but again, they'd have to go 3-0 to title.

It's a vast improvement over the BCS in determining who really is the best team.
Remember the really good undefeated teams that got jobbed, ie Penn State a couple years?
The one year Lou Holtz's Irish were fantastic, beat like 8 bowl teams.  However they lost in the reg season by getting nipped by Miami thus Miami got the title game vs ___?  I believe Miami had a super cupkake schedule other then ND.


The 2 teams you refer to were before the BCS, and under the BCS they would have played for the title in all probability.  If you go with 8 teams in a season like this how do you choose who are the 8?  It is all a crap shoot and they would end up using RPI, computers, rankings, strength of schedule, all of what they use today. 
There is no real difference between #1 and #12 this year, so same thing happens, and if you pull a Kansas, then a team that could easily win it like  Florida doesn't get in, while a pretender like Kansas does.  It really is no different than what we have today, it just makes everybody feel better, while they get duped.

Again I am not a big fan of the BCS, but I have yet to see anyone come up with a real tournament proposal, that really makes the situation that much better, and more often than not those with the big grand plans are being intellectually lazy in their approach.  In the last 5-7 years how many times has the best team in the country ***NOT*** won the title.  I think you can make the case that happened only once with Auburn and USC, but that was a split National title anyway.  Name me another time where the belief was that the best team did not win the national title?  Only one time did the clear #2 not get to play, and that was Oregon, and nobody believes they would have beat Miami that year (except a few of us U of O homers).
A third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. A second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. A first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself.

AA Mil

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2007, 09:34:24 AM »
Wetzel has always been a fan of the playoff system and here's his yearly column calling for one.  I tend to agree with a lot of the points he brings up. 

===============================================================================

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=ApoyNQOnPsSenk0uO58miaY5nYcB?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The Wetzel plan
 
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
November 27, 2007


A playoff is coming to college football, not eventually but probably sooner than the moneyed-establishment wants to admit.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, the Vladimir Putin of college sports and the key figure preventing a playoff, can stem the tide for only so long.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with the current Bowl Championship Series for the time being. But that doesn't mean we can't dream about what a real playoff would entail and the magic it would produce each December and January.

If you think you like Saturdays now, understand that this is just college football lite; one day to be looked back on as a quaint and confusing era.

Here's how the playoff will eventually work ? and this isn't just my idea, it's essentially the exact scenario the NCAA (which will eventually run it) uses to run the football playoffs at the former Division I-AA, II and III.

We even made up a mock bracket for you to salivate over.

(Please note, whereas some conference title games still need to be played, for the sake of argument we assigned victory to the higher rated team in the current BCS standings to place and seed the field).

A 16-team field

Just like in what used to be Division I-AA, the tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men's basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) earn an automatic bid to the field.

Yes, all 11. Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the winner of the Mid-American Conference is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.

First is to maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd, there should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.

The chance for an easier first-round opponent ? in this case No. 1 Missouri would play No. 16 Central Michigan or Miami (Ohio) ? is a big reward for a great regular season. Earning a top-three seeding would present a school a near breeze into the second round. Drop to a sixth-seed in this year's scenario and you are dealing with Florida.

On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that Central Florida could beat Ohio State? Of course not, but as the men's basketball tournament has proven the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.

Last season the most memorable college football game was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn't supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became arguably the most popular team in America.

But it had no shot at a national title because the system says Boise can't be any good in 2007 because it wasn't any good in 1967. As illogical as this is, that's the system.

For even lower-rated conferences ? the Sun Belts, the MACs ? allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country.

With the bigger conferences, a championship would take on greater value. Does anyone without direct rooting interest really care if USC wins the Pac-10 Saturday? How about the Virginia Tech-Boston College ACC title game? You would now.

MOCK BRACKET

Left Side
(1) Missouri v (16) Central Michigan
(9) Oklahoma v (8) USC
(12) Hawaii v (5) Kansas
(13) Brigham Young v (4) Georgia

Right Side
(2) West Virginia v (15) Troy
(10) Boston College v (7) LSU
(11) Florida v (6) Virgina Tech
(14) Central Florida v (3) Ohio State

At-large bids

In addition to the 11 automatic bids, there would be five at-large selections made by a basketball-like selection committee. Most years, those would come from the power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC).

While the selection process would still draw complaints from the teams left out, those schools often would have two or three losses or significant flaws. Gone forever would be the days of an unbeaten Auburn in the 2004 season not getting a chance at the title or the bizarre 2003 season where nearly everyone thought USC was the best team but got left out anyway.

Home games for higher seed in first three rounds

The strangest part of the BCS is that outside businesses ? the people who own the bowl games ? get a cut of the revenue. It would be unfathomable for a league such as the NFL or NBA to allow independent promoters to stage its playoffs.

College football is leaving millions on the table by staging top games in far-off locales. Ohio State, for instance, earns an estimated $5 million-plus for each home game. And that is just direct revenue. Forbes estimates Buckeye football games generated $42 million for the Columbus area in 2005.

The 14 hugely profitable home games from the first three rounds would create a huge revenue stream.

There is simply no need to include the current bowl structure. Obviously no fan base can afford to travel week after week to neutral-site games. But they wouldn't have to. In what used to be Division I-AA, the playoffs are home field until the title game. That's the way it should be.

The competitive value of home-field advantage would also help maintain the importance of the regular season because the higher the seed, the more home games.

This would also be a boon to teams in the Midwest, which build their teams to deal with the predictably harsh weather only to play postseason games in generally warm, calm environs.

So how would say, USC fare if it didn't get a Big Ten opponent in Pasadena each January, but rather had to slip and slide around Ann Arbor or Columbus for a change? And who wouldn't want to see the Trojans invade one of those historic old stadiums, snow falling, and proving they have grit not just skill?

Competition

That's the best part, of course, the games. As heart-thumping and pulse-stopping as college football is and always has been, we aren't even scratching the surface in our plan. We currently have nothing even close to this. Week after week of building excitement, tension and stakes.

A byproduct of the BCS has been a devaluing of competitiveness in college football. There is no longer an incentive to play games against other big-time opponents. It's not just intra-regional games that are all but gone but most non-conference games of any significance. Teams just load up on patsies to grab the home gate and maybe play one local rival.

Amazingly, the BCS rewards them for this.

Because of human voters' tendency to favor record over all else ? unless the school is from outside the BCS ? the goal of the season is simply not to lose. The easiest way to do that is to play as few teams as possible that are capable of beating you.

The BCS favors teams that load up on cupcakes early and play in a weaker BCS conference that ideally doesn't have to deal with a 13th game (for the league title).

Consider Kansas, which is rated No. 5 in the BCS (and was No. 2 last week) despite owning wins over opponents with a combined record of 45-63 record (.417 winning percentage). Maybe the Jayhawks are a great team that was capable of beating other great teams. But no one really knows. And the BCS didn't care.

The playoffs return the big-time games between teams from different conferences. Even better, it puts them on campus ? not some far-flung NFL stadiums ? in historic venues with all the pageantry.

Oklahoma-USC in the Coliseum in the first round? Florida-Ohio State in the Horseshoe in the second? How about the Buckeyes at West Virginia in a national semifinal? Every week of every year would be incredible.

Bowl games could still exist

Understanding that there really isn't anything wrong with most bowl games ? it's not like innocent people are dying because the Meineke Car Care Bowl exists ? we'll allow them to stick around.

One bowl could serve as the championship game, giving college football its neutral, Super Bowl-style site to conclude the tournament.

As for all the other bowls, they can go on as they wish. The NIT still operates, doesn't it? It's not like most bowl games have any direct bearing on the championship now.

There is value to the smaller bowls in smaller communities. If the Sun Bowl in El Paso, Texas, still wishes to stage a game, it by all means should. It just won't have access to the 16 playoff teams. But it doesn't have access to teams of that quality now. It still can host a meaningless game between two moderately successful schools. For most bowls, nothing changes.

The lack of 16 "bowl-qualified" teams would filter down, of course, and run a couple of minor bowls out of business since there won't be enough bowl-eligible clubs. But if the reason college football is not staging a playoff is the need to save the International Bowl in Toronto, then the current system is more corrupt than we think.

The schedule

While the former Division I-AA plays all four rounds in four weeks and stages the title game before Christmas, football?s top division might be better served playing the first one or two rounds in December, breaking for final exams and staging the semifinals just after Christmas and the title game in early January.

The schedule is a minimal concern. Something can be worked out. Whatever it is, it would allow teams and stars to become familiar to the American public, for momentum to build and excitement to grow.

The college football playoffs would have a chance to rival the NFL playoffs (Super Bowl included) as the biggest sporting event in the country. Fans would love it, players live for it and a game deserving of a real playoff finally enjoying it. It would capture the imagination of the nation.

Right now it's only a dream, but the day is coming. There is only so long the dictators can stop it.
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline Lurker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2007, 10:16:40 AM »
Good article, Skander.  I saw a piece on ESPN last year that examined the control the big 12 and pac 10 commissioners have.  Just because the original BCS was so desparate to pull in the Rose Bowl and those 2 conferences.

IMO a playoff field should start at 24.  And the top 8 get a first round bye which would keep the "regular" season meaningful.  That conference championship or 1 loss season would go a long way towards earning a bye. There would be a total of 23 games in 5 weeks to crown a champion.  Currently the bowl season runs 3 weeks (Dec 20- Jan 8).  Also ther eare currently 32-33 bowls.  You could rotate the first round games among the smaller bowls and the mid-size bowls would get the second round games.  The biggest controversy will be which 2 additional bowls get added to the Big 5 for the 3rd round games (round of 8).  You could even use the current BCS ranking to get the top 24 teams.  In essence you combine a "selection committee" (the coach/media polls) as well as a quantitative measure (computers).  Teams like Hawaii or last year's Boise State have thge chance to prove that their schedule wasn't the only reason thewy go undefeated.  Maybe they ARE the best team...at least they should get a chance to decide it on the field.
It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.  Keep on thinking free.
-Moody Blues

Offline JoMal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2007, 11:46:31 AM »
I would like to see a true regional seeding as well, and breaking up the country into four regions, like they do with the NCAA. Just not so many teams, maybe with just the top 16 teams devided amongst them regardless of their location, so if one region is loaded, they all get into the playoffs.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.....We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.....We are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular....We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Offline ziggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1990
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ziggythebeagle
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2007, 02:25:22 PM »
Wetzel has always been a fan of the playoff system and here's his yearly column calling for one.  I tend to agree with a lot of the points he brings up. 


A 16-team field

Just like in what used to be Division I-AA, the tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men's basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) earn an automatic bid to the field.

Yes, all 11. Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the winner of the Mid-American Conference is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.

First is to maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd, there should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.

The chance for an easier first-round opponent ? in this case No. 1 Missouri would play No. 16 Central Michigan or Miami (Ohio) ? is a big reward for a great regular season. Earning a top-three seeding would present a school a near breeze into the second round. Drop to a sixth-seed in this year's scenario and you are dealing with Florida.

On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that Central Florida could beat Ohio State? Of course not, but as the men's basketball tournament has proven the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.

Last season the most memorable college football game was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn't supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became arguably the most popular team in America.

But it had no shot at a national title because the system says Boise can't be any good in 2007 because it wasn't any good in 1967. As illogical as this is, that's the system.

For even lower-rated conferences ? the Sun Belts, the MACs ? allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country.

With the bigger conferences, a championship would take on greater value. Does anyone without direct rooting interest really care if USC wins the Pac-10 Saturday? How about the Virginia Tech-Boston College ACC title game? You would now.

MOCK BRACKET

Left Side
(1) Missouri v (16) Central Michigan
(9) Oklahoma v (8) USC
(12) Hawaii v (5) Kansas
(13) Brigham Young v (4) Georgia

Right Side
(2) West Virginia v (15) Troy
(10) Boston College v (7) LSU
(11) Florida v (6) Virgina Tech
(14) Central Florida v (3) Ohio State

Home games for higher seed in first three rounds


This would also be a boon to teams in the Midwest, which build their teams to deal with the predictably harsh weather only to play postseason games in generally warm, calm environs.

So how would say, USC fare if it didn't get a Big Ten opponent in Pasadena each January, but rather had to slip and slide around Ann Arbor or Columbus for a change? And who wouldn't want to see the Trojans invade one of those historic old stadiums, snow falling, and proving they have grit not just skill?

Competition

That's the best part, of course, the games. As heart-thumping and pulse-stopping as college football is and always has been, we aren't even scratching the surface in our plan. We currently have nothing even close to this. Week after week of building excitement, tension and stakes.

A byproduct of the BCS has been a devaluing of competitiveness in college football. There is no longer an incentive to play games against other big-time opponents. It's not just intra-regional games that are all but gone but most non-conference games of any significance. Teams just load up on patsies to grab the home gate and maybe play one local rival.

Amazingly, the BCS rewards them for this.

Because of human voters' tendency to favor record over all else ? unless the school is from outside the BCS ? the goal of the season is simply not to lose. The easiest way to do that is to play as few teams as possible that are capable of beating you.

The BCS favors teams that load up on cupcakes early and play in a weaker BCS conference that ideally doesn't have to deal with a 13th game (for the league title).

Consider Kansas, which is rated No. 5 in the BCS (and was No. 2 last week) despite owning wins over opponents with a combined record of 45-63 record (.417 winning percentage). Maybe the Jayhawks are a great team that was capable of beating other great teams. But no one really knows. And the BCS didn't care.


INTELLECTUALLY LAZY and DISHONEST

I quote
Just like in what used to be Division I-AA, the tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men's basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) earn an automatic bid to the field.

Yes, all 11. Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the winner of the Mid-American Conference is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.


So he wants us to believe this is all about the best teams playing for the title, but then he makes this argument.  He automatically puts in 5 teams from MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, WAC, Mtn West.  Of the 65 teams in the Big 6 conferences, I think it is safe to say that 50 of them could win at least one of these conferences.  The top 6 teams in the SEC could win every one of them.  The top 5 teams in the Pac 10 could win every one of them.  The winner of the Sun Belt does not ***Automatically Deserve*** a chance to win a title, just because they won some arbitrary grouping of teams.

The notion that there would be this great rising up from the heartland as Troy played West Virginia and CMU played Mizzou insults my intelligence.  Troy would get slaughtered.  Mizzou would beat CMU by something approaching 70-10.  This is a good thing?????  All the closet CMU fans would rise up and through the force of their collective karma carry their team to this great David vs Goliath matchup.  ROTFLMAF  No one would care, and no one would watch, but this grand display of fairness and egalitarianism will raise the level of college football to dizzying heights never before reached.  Poppycock!!!!!

I quote again
That's the best part, of course, the games. As heart-thumping and pulse-stopping as college football is and always has been, we aren't even scratching the surface in our plan. We currently have nothing even close to this. Week after week of building excitement, tension and stakes.

A byproduct of the BCS has been a devaluing of competitiveness in college football. There is no longer an incentive to play games against other big-time opponents. It's not just intra-regional games that are all but gone but most non-conference games of any significance. Teams just load up on patsies to grab the home gate and maybe play one local rival.

Amazingly, the BCS rewards them for this.

Because of human voters' tendency to favor record over all else ? unless the school is from outside the BCS ? the goal of the season is simply not to lose. The easiest way to do that is to play as few teams as possible that are capable of beating you.

The BCS favors teams that load up on cupcakes early and play in a weaker BCS conference that ideally doesn't have to deal with a 13th game (for the league title).

Consider Kansas, which is rated No. 5 in the BCS (and was No. 2 last week) despite owning wins over opponents with a combined record of 45-63 record (.417 winning percentage). Maybe the Jayhawks are a great team that was capable of beating other great teams. But no one really knows. And the BCS didn't care.


This is the height of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.  He says the BCS favors teams that play cupcakes schedules while his system doesn't.  He uses Kansas as the poster boy.  Kansas played an Alamo bowl schedule, and they will not play for the BCS championship, but they will play for his championship.  Hawaii played a pathetic schedule and they don't play for the BCS championship, but they do play for his.  I am sorry but it seems to me he has this argument backwards.

The Pac-10 and the Big East are the only conferences which require that teams play every other conference opponent, and the Big East has 8 teams, so they play 7 conference and 5 non-conference games.  That Pac-10 is the only conference that ***requires*** everyone play 9 conference games. 

The Pac-10 non conference games included games scheduled 4  or more years ago against the following teams from the big 6 conferences
Notre Dame (3 times)
Nebraska
Michigan
Ohio State
Tennessee
Colorado
Cincinnati
Syracuse
Wisconsin
that is nearly 40% of their non-conference games, plus they also schedule 5 games against the only 3 mid-majors to ever make the BCS (Utah, Boise State, and Hawaii)

The Big 12 non-conference games included the following
Iowa
Auburn
USC
Wake Forest
Arizona State
Florida State
Illinois
Georgia
Miami of Florida (Twice)
Central Florida
That is 23% of their non-conference games

So the Pac-10 teams played 10 more conference games than the Big 12, and played a Big-6 conference school in non-conference games almost twice as often.  So who does this great playoff system reward????  It rewards the Big-12 with 3 berths, while the Pac-10 gets one berth.  I thought the BCS reward playing cupcake schedules, while this playoff system would promote a dynamic and challenging schedule???
A third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. A second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. A first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself.

AA Mil

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2007, 10:18:09 AM »
With regards to this one particular issue, you just can't see the forest through the trees.

Quote
The notion that there would be this great rising up from the heartland as Troy played West Virginia and CMU played Mizzou insults my intelligence.  Troy would get slaughtered.  Mizzou would beat CMU by something approaching 70-10.

I would like for the game to be played out and for everyone to FIND OUT if this is actually what would happen.  Plus, aren't you of the group of people that said Boise State didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating Oklahoma.  Because you say it doesn't make it so.  I don't care if the team is a 90 point underdog, no one knows for sure what will happen until it HAPPENS.  Plus you DID say the Reg. Season needs to mean something, right.  Lots of wins on a tougher schedule guarantees you a higher seed and a chance to meet up with Southeastnorthwest Middle Tennessee State.  Reward the outstanding Regular Season performers, right?

Quote
He says the BCS favors teams that play cupcakes schedules while his system doesn't.

This is true.  Teams load up on patsies before the conference games.  Mizzou played Illinois, Miss, Western Michigan, Illinois state.  Come on.  WVU played Western Michigan (seems like a popular cupcake), Marshall, Maryland, and East Carolina.  PATSIES.  Ohio State played Youngstown State, Akron, and Washington.  Ooo, 1 legitamate opponent in there.  Georgia played Okla State, Western Carolina, and Troy.  Another single legitemate opponent.  There's your #1 through #4 ranks right there.  And amongst 14 possible non-conference games for those schools, you have 2, maaaaybe 3 legitemate threats.  The BCS is made for Power schools in Power conferences to load up on cupcakes for their non-conference schedule because all that matters is record.     

Quote
INTELLECTUALLY LAZY and DISHONEST

It'll take more than this declaration for your argument to tread water.  Something like a viable alternative.  Me personally I don't see how a system that lets a team, ANY team, play until they lose is worst than one soiled with corporate interest and good 'ole boy politics.  You don't like the BCS, fine.  You don't like the playoff system, fine.  What then?

 
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
The People's Voice
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2007, 11:31:06 AM »
Reader Reaction to Wetzel's column.

=========================================================================
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AtHW3AuhP0.StnG4F0JBQnQcvrYF?slug=dw-voice112907&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The People's Voice: College football playoffs
 
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
November 29, 2007


I expected the reaction for my column on a playoff for college football to be nuts, but I didn't expect how nuts. Nearly 3,000 emails have poured in and the column's been read by well over a million people.

The most amazing thing is that 95 percent of the emails were positive. Do you know how hard it is to get a million people to agree on anything? Radio hosts around the country have had me on to agree with me.

Which ought to tell the powers that be in college football ? yes you, Jim Delany ? that the public is dying for change.

Many of the letters I chose to run are critical, mainly because those are worth addressing and a bunch of notes saying, "great idea" wouldn't be particularly compelling.
 
But let me get a couple of things out of the way before we delve into an extremely detailed discussion ? I wanted to keep the original column as clear and concise as possible. Here, we'll get serious.

The plan I have is both reasonable and doable (and will one day happen) because it is ? reasonable and doable. Trust me, I've discussed this with scores of NCAA types through the years.

A lot of the proposals people float out are impossible. A 64-team tournament? A 128-team tournament? Shortening the regular season? Kicking some of the teams out of the top division? None of those would ever happen. I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for change, but you have to give all parties something, as my proposal does.

For instance, why a 16-team playoff? Why not four? Why not byes for the top seeds? Because more games means more revenue ? both in gate receipts and with television deals. College football doesn't want fewer playoff games, it wants more. That's why 16 teams can work. Understanding the NCAA, you have to include all conferences.

You have to give the business side something, the networks something, even the academic folks something ? like a two-week break for finals so universities can continue to graduate 43 percent of the players.

This plan isn't perfect, but it is damn near close. And it is much better and more likely than anything else out there.

So, without further ado, on to the People's Voice ?

Playoffs? You're talking about playoffs?

I am in absolute agreement with you ? every word. But for me the issue is that nasty T-word, Tradition. Baseball "purists" run it out all the time in regards to the wild card, and even divisional play. It is the single most abused word in sports, and in particular NCAA football. Tradition. As you have pointed out, most teams have stopped loading their schedule with good teams. My question is how does Notre Dame figure into this?

Jeff Chew
Palamos, Spain

It's actually the P word ? Power. The Big Ten and the Pac-10 don't want to give it up, even if there is more money involved. They run the show. But times will change.

As for Notre Dame (or any independent) they can get in as an at-large selection.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


While I appreciate your consistent harping on the Bowl Exhibition Series (call it what it is), you have to think smaller, at least at first. It's already a 12-game regular season now. Then there are the conference championship games.

A16-game field makes the college football season almost as long as the pro season. So, how about an eight-team tournament? Only conference champs get in.

Neil Tardy
Rochester, Minn.

I'm not blaming Neil for bringing this up, but this is one of the great water-muddying arguments that proponents use. Too many games? Suddenly, the establishment cares about the health of the players?

Just a couple of years ago they extended the season from 11 regular-season games to 12 for the sole purpose of making more money. That meant a net of an additional 120 games. A 16-team playoff is a net of just 15 games.

The real issue, however, isn't the number of games a player is exposed to, but the number of actual plays where bodies go in motion. Statistically, the more plays you are in, the more likely there is an injury.

Due to college football's rule to stop the clock after every first down, its overtime system and other quirks that prolong things, college games have more plays than NFL games. The college season may be shorter in games, but in total plays it is actually pretty close.

Last weekend there were 16 NFL games and 17 college games involving teams ranked in the AP top 25. On average, the pro games featured 127.3 plays from scrimmage. The college games averaged 147.9. That's 20.6 more plays, or an additional 16.2 percent.

A college team that competes in 14 games (12 regular season games, a conference title game and a bowl game) are exposed to the same number of plays as 16.3 NFL games, or a little more than a full NFL season.

In some extremes, it is even greater, especially when understanding that fatigue often leads to injury. The Tennessee-Kentucky quadruple overtime game featured a ridiculous 192 plays. To take it to the comparative extreme, Monday's Miami-Pittsburgh NFL game featured just 106 plays from scrimmage. So that's 81.1 percent more plays for the college guys, almost two games in one. Did you hear anyone crying about that?

In the interest of safety, the NCAA should adopt NFL clock rules to shorten the games. They did this partially for the 2006 season, but quickly reverted due to complaints from control freak coaches.

But by doing just that, a 17-game college season (the most possible under this playoff plan) would equal, in terms of plays from scrimmage, 14.6 current college games, a far more reasonable deal for college kids' knees.

Of course, guess who also likes all those extra breaks in the action? Television networks, naturally.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's funny how the toughest questions are dealt with the simplest solutions. Your plan works. Playoff system and bowl games.

Kevin Sidell
St. Petersburg, Fla.

The easiest way to stop a movement like this is to confuse the facts and argument so much that it seems impossible to solve. It isn't. In fact, it is simple. The NCAA already runs this system at its other levels.

Unfortunately, the smoke screen stuff has worked. Many people give up and claim it'll never happen because the argument is so convoluted with misinformation, faux arguments and broad-based blame at faceless "presidents." While it has been effective, little of it is true.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I couldn't agree with you more. I heard a couple of commentators during the Michigan-Ohio State game briefly bring up the controversy of a college playoff system and they ended it by saying something along the lines of "with a season full of so many upsets and surprises we have a playoff system ? it occurs each Saturday".

I was disgusted. I hope you will not waver or be intimidated. I hope others will join you. Terry Bowden seems to deeply favor a playoff system as well. Good luck and thanks for trying to make things more equitable and exciting for the fans as well.

William Rogers
Mobile, Ala.

Announcers work for two groups, the conference (in that case the Big Ten) which is staunchly in favor of the current bowl system. And ESPN, which broadcasts tons of bowl games and has contracts with the conferences and, in the most ridiculous of conflicts, even owns five bowl games (Las Vegas, Hawaii, Armed Forces, New Mexico and Papajohns.com).

It's not a real shock they'd spew the propaganda. Neither is it a shock that ESPN's myriad outlets won't tackle this issue ? the one fans overwhelming care about the most ? in any in-depth, significant or intelligent manner.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with you 100 percent, a playoff is the way to go. There is no way that teams like Hawaii or BYU or any other school from a small conference shouldn't be able to play for the right to be a National Champion. In the BCS if you're not a major powerhouse school you might as well not play at all.

Brian White
St Clair Shores, Mich.

The ridiculous thing is ? as I mentioned in the column ? it isn't about how good your team is in 2007, but how good it was back in 1957 or 1967 or 1977. Back then you could stockpile recruits with 150 scholarships and much of the west was still lightly populated.

These days with scholarship limits, the spread offense that eliminates the effectiveness of size and depth in the trenches and vast media exposure, it is asinine to hold to the old standards.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I enjoyed your article on a college football playoff system. Why not make the bowl games part of the playoffs? Still have the Big Games ? Rose, Sugar, etc. and make them part of the playoff system.

Rob West
Nashville, Tenn.

I think the question isn't why not, but why?

The bowl committees spend a lot of money promoting themselves. But including the bowls ? other than for a Super Bowl-style title game ? makes no sense, there are no advantages.

Why would the NCAA take the games out of facilities they own, share revenue with outside promoters and make fans and teams travel relentlessly to smaller venues so they can play in a stadium that most likely adds absolutely nothing to the experience?

In most cases, the games won't be sold out. The neutral-site ticket market is virtually impossible to pull off in sports, which is why it is rarely attempted. Very few bowl games are sellouts. Three years ago, USC and Oklahoma met for the BCS title in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. and there were plenty of empty seats. You can get a ticket to the men's basketball final for face value on the street most years.

Besides, other than the Rose Bowl, the BCS venues are quite forgettable ? two of them are vapid, suburban NFL facilities. For the less prestigious bowls, it gets even worse. Meanwhile, college football boasts many of the most historic and breathtaking sporting environments in the country. Why not use them?

I commend the bowl folks for marketing themselves so well that it is ingrained in the minds of fans and the media that they are an essential part of this. But I've yet to hear a single sensible argument why that is actually true.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd like to point out that maybe teams that lose in the first round or second round can still get invited to bowls. There is likely going to be some big schools that lose in those rounds and I am sure the Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl (etc.) would be happy to have these teams play in one of their bowls.

Michael Przybylowski
Toronto

I failed to make that clear enough in the original column. Depending on when you stage the tournament, as many as 12 playoff teams could be placed back into the bowl pool and make those games better. As far as I'm concerned, the bowls can do anything they want as long as they aren't interfering with a real playoff. They should be just like the NIT.

The bowls should serve college football; college football should not serve the bowls. I'm suspicious of those who argue otherwise.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your NCAA football playoff proposal is ridiculous. Four additional games is absurd. The great thing about college football, the thing that sets it apart from the boring NFL is that EVERY game is essentially a playoff game.

Yes, a school may lose a game and still qualify as the "champion" after the bowls have been played, and occasionally may even lose two. That hardly ever happens. For nearly a century the champion was determined like a beauty contest. This allowed for argument amongst fans as to who the real champion should be, but that was part of the charm.

Alex Ferguson
Portland, Ore.

First, the "every week is a playoff" argument is as tired as it is untruthful. Three weeks ago Ohio State lost one of those "every week is a playoff" games and yet could still back into the title game. Even LSU might still make it.

What playoff works like that? It's just not accurate no matter how many times it is repeated.

Does that mean that if there is a playoff, the Arkansas-LSU game would carry the same sense of urgency? No. I'll concede that. Although, there would still be some urgency due to the seeding and home games at stake that would significantly alter national title chances.

But conversely ? and this is the part that is never discussed ? so many additional games would take on "playoff" implications. This weekend's ACC title game, the UCLA-USC game, the Florida-Florida State game last Saturday, even the MAC title game (and so on and so on) would suddenly take on great importance. The number of games that would matter would increase, not decrease. The excitement of the regular season would be enhanced and expanded, not ruined.

Second, as for the oft-repeated comparison to the NFL season ? where regular season games obviously matter less, this doesn't add up for three reasons.

First, rivalry games in college football can't be duplicated at the pro level. Alabama and Auburn played for nothing and everything last week.

Second, and more to the point, the NFL season is 16 games long, not 12. That alone devalues each game.

Third, the NFL invites 12 of its 32 teams to the playoffs, or 37.5 percent of the league. Division I-A has 120 teams. A 16-team college tournament would include just 13.3 percent of them and even that is a bit skewed since some are locked up by automatic bid (Florida can't win the Sun Belt).

The Flat Earth Folks of Delany argue this one relentlessly but unless we expanded the season to 16 games and held a 45-team tournament, then this isn't a logical comparison.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As a D-I football official, I have been fortunate enough to officiate four games in the I-AA playoffs, including a national semifinal, and the excitement and urgency as each round progresses is awesome. I hope that in my officiating career (as also because I am a great fan) that the NCAA finally steps in and fixes the current mess. I enjoy your columns!

Randy Jackson
Demorest, Ga.

It's funny, I don't know anyone associated with the playoffs at the other divisions of college football who don't love it. And I don't know anyone in college football?s top division ? at least anyone who isn't directly profiting off its system ? that is remotely satisfied with what they have.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What can college football fans do to show their support for a college football playoff? How can we make the bigwigs listen and see the benefits of such a playoff? Thanks and Gig'em

Tim Holder
Houston, Texas

There isn't much. You can harass your school's athletic director and conference commissioner. That can't hurt. And as I pointed out in January, the value of the Rose Bowl needs to be diminished for the Big Ten and Pac-10 to ever waver.

Considering the breadth and intensity of the movement for a playoff, if fans actually spread the word and organized, they could hurt the Rose Bowl immediately. I doubt that will happen, but that's the best advice I can offer.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I like your plan! However, I think this alternative better embraces the tradition of college football. Check it out:

1. We say all Big Ten teams with winning records get auto-bids to a 12-team bracket.
2. We play all games at rotating Big Ten venues.
3. Big Ten schools get 50 percent of all TV revenue and 100 percent of ticket sales.
4. The commissioner of the Big Ten gets a 10 percent cut of any revenue that would have gone to a non-Big Ten school under the old system.
5. The SEC can secede from the NCAA, play its regular season and championship game.
6. The SEC winner can then challenge the winner of the NCAA/Big Ten bracket to a home-and-home series that will not get played because the Big Ten winner will complain that it's too hot in September below the Ohio River.
7. Then we fire on Fort Sumter.

Casey Dalton

Good to see Vladimir Delany checking in from Moscow.

 
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Offline ziggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1990
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - ziggythebeagle
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2007, 03:11:43 PM »
With regards to this one particular issue, you just can't see the forest through the trees.

Quote
The notion that there would be this great rising up from the heartland as Troy played West Virginia and CMU played Mizzou insults my intelligence.  Troy would get slaughtered.  Mizzou would beat CMU by something approaching 70-10.

I would like for the game to be played out and for everyone to FIND OUT if this is actually what would happen.  Plus, aren't you of the group of people that said Boise State didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating Oklahoma.  Because you say it doesn't make it so.  I don't care if the team is a 90 point underdog, no one knows for sure what will happen until it HAPPENS.  Plus you DID say the Reg. Season needs to mean something, right.  Lots of wins on a tougher schedule guarantees you a higher seed and a chance to meet up with Southeastnorthwest Middle Tennessee State.  Reward the outstanding Regular Season performers, right?

Quote
He says the BCS favors teams that play cupcakes schedules while his system doesn't.

This is true.  Teams load up on patsies before the conference games.  Mizzou played Illinois, Miss, Western Michigan, Illinois state.  Come on.  WVU played Western Michigan (seems like a popular cupcake), Marshall, Maryland, and East Carolina.  PATSIES.  Ohio State played Youngstown State, Akron, and Washington.  Ooo, 1 legitamate opponent in there.  Georgia played Okla State, Western Carolina, and Troy.  Another single legitemate opponent.  There's your #1 through #4 ranks right there.  And amongst 14 possible non-conference games for those schools, you have 2, maaaaybe 3 legitemate threats.  The BCS is made for Power schools in Power conferences to load up on cupcakes for their non-conference schedule because all that matters is record.     

Quote
INTELLECTUALLY LAZY and DISHONEST

It'll take more than this declaration for your argument to tread water.  Something like a viable alternative.  Me personally I don't see how a system that lets a team, ANY team, play until they lose is worst than one soiled with corporate interest and good 'ole boy politics.  You don't like the BCS, fine.  You don't like the playoff system, fine.  What then?

 

Well Skander I may be blind in one eye, and can't see with the other, but it is not I who is so wedded to an idea that I am blind to it's foibles and fallacies.  That is simply my point in all of this.  I am not the one who is making the case that the present system is a crime of mammoth proportions, and that if we just went to a playoff system then karma in the universe will now be in harmonic balance, YOU ARE.

As far as Boise State, I never said they couldn't beat Oklahoma.  Go look it up my friend.  I made my statements after the Fiesta Bowl.  I saw Boise State crush OSU, I knew they were good, and I was rooting for them, and I believed they had a chance to win.  I never complained that they should have been kept out of BCS Bowl game.  I just called out everybody who made the leap of faith that this one win was proof positive that they (or by some leap of faith every other mid-major conference champ) could win a national championship, and that the Ogres of the BCS are keeping it from happening, because it is all about the big bucks and the big schools.  That is the worst kind of sophomoric populism that is irrelevant to the issue, and is used only as a way to create a villain to deflect attention from the weakness of your own idea.

My point is simple.  If you are going to do a playoff then do everything you can possibly do to make sure that the 16/24/32 teams in are the 16/24/32 BEST TEAMS.  Do not base your selection process on winning some conference that is nothing more than an arbitrary grouping of teams in some geographic proximity.  How do you determine the best teams???  Probably the same way the BCS does it, but OH GOD NO THE BCS IS THE DEVIL.

As far a Mizzou's schedule.  First off I give them credit.  They scheduled TWO non-conference games against Big 6 conference schools.  They have 10 games against Big 6 conference schools. which is TWO more than Kansas, and 11 more than Hawaii.  The fact that Mississippi sucks this year is the way it goes, at least Mizzou bellied up to the bar and schedule a program that is competeing in the toughest conference out there..  USC scheduled Nebraska and Notre Dame for this year 4-5 years ago.  Both of those teams sucked this year, but when USC scheduled them they didn't and NOBODY would have expected both teams to be this bad this year.  If this whole thing was about scheduling to get to get at least one of the 5 at large bids (and that is how everybody would schedule), then the probability is USC would not have scheduled 11 Big 6 Conference Games.  USC did it, because they are scheduling to get 1 of 2 spots, so they have to schedule tough to get one of those 2 spots.
Wetzel is the one who said the present system rewards cupcake schedules, but once again, read this slowly so you get it

KANSAS IS NOT PLAYING FOR THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP EVEN WITH ONE LOSS, BUT UNDER WETZEL'S PLAN THEY ARE.  HAWAII IS NOT PLAYING FOR THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE UNDEFEATED, BUT UNDER WETZELS PLAN THEY ARE.  Arizona State played 10 games against Big-6 conference schools, and their 2 losses were to #3 and #9, and they are not in Wetzel's playoff system, but Kansas and Hawaii are.  Wetzel makes the argument that the BCS rewards cupcake schedules, while his system doesn't and that is INTELLECTUALLY LAZY and DISHONEST.

The BCS was set up to get the 2 best teams to play for the National Championship.  At this point it has done that pretty well, just as well if not better than a playoff system would.  Just because a team wins one playoff game doesn't mean that the playoff system worked and the BETTER TEAM won.  I am not against a playoff system, I just don't buy into the notion that it will be infinitely better, and will make the regular season better, and will assure and reward teams who play tough schedules that they will get in, and that teams like Hawaii, or Troy, or Central Michigan deserve something just because they won some conference.  If the NCAA went to a 24 team playoff and used the same basic system as we use today under the BCS, to determine the 24 best teams that is fine with me.  If that is what everybody wants fine.  Just don't try and convince me with the same old lame arguments.
A third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. A second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. A first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself.

AA Mil

Offline Skandery

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
    • MSN Messenger - skandery27@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football Title game
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2007, 03:50:17 PM »
Quote
Well Skander I may be blind in one eye, and can't see with the other, but it is not I who is so wedded to an idea that I am blind to it's foibles and fallacies.  That is simply my point in all of this.  I am not the one who is making the case that the present system is a crime of mammoth proportions, and that if we just went to a playoff system then karma in the universe will now be in harmonic balance, YOU ARE.

Never said you were. 

And my point isn't that its celestial, divine perfection upon the world of college football, just that its better than what we have.

Quote
That is the worst kind of sophomoric populism that is irrelevant to the issue, and is used only as a way to create a villain to deflect attention from the weakness of your own idea.

What you call sophomoric populism I call an overwhelming majority.  Just that the overwhelming minority seem to have all the power in decision-making.  Otherwise, by popular demand, the system would have been scrapped years ago. 

Quote
USC did it, because they are scheduling to get 1 of 2 spots, so they have to schedule tough to get one of those 2 spots.

That's right, USC decided to go through the gauntlet, there reward from the BCS -- NO SHOT AT THE CHAMPIONSHIP!!  Maybe they'll learn from this and schedule patsies for their non-conference games. 

Quote
KANSAS IS NOT PLAYING FOR THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP EVEN WITH ONE LOSS, BUT UNDER WETZEL'S PLAN THEY ARE.

If Mizzou loses to Okie, they might be!

Quote
HAWAII IS NOT PLAYING FOR THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE UNDEFEATED, BUT UNDER WETZELS PLAN THEY ARE.

. . . and they should, because THEY HAVEN'T LOST, YET!

Quote
The BCS was set up to get the 2 best teams to play for the National Championship.

If did even a half-way decent job at this simplest of charges, why is there a CONTROVERSY every year.  Why are journalists and fans and NCAA officials and players and coaches calling for the whole thing to be scrapped EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  Its the only championship system that is scrutinized ON A YEARLY basis whether the best team actually won.

Quote
Just because a team wins one playoff game doesn't mean that the playoff system worked and the BETTER TEAM won.

Ah, but the beauty of sports is that the esoteric, philosophical notion of which team is better GETS ANSWERED ON THE SCORE BOARD!!! . . . . . . . if you allow the game to happen.
"But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."