Tom started a topic entitled This Year Would Be A Success If... and Sid started one entitled Let's Have A Discussion About College Football. They seem highly related and I have taken the liberty of merging them. I'm going to put the posts as they stand below then close the other two. First Tom made this post 8 Team Playoff proposal Sid started his topic this way Replies to Tom's topic were Gator Bill MCG said and Gator Bill said On Sid's topic MCG said and Gator Bill said I think that brings us up to date, I hope we can have a good discussion and live up to Sid's ideal. Gator Bill
Here's one or two things to keep in mind. First, as you may recall, the number of BCS bowls was expanded a couple of years ago. This allowed teams such as Boise St. and Hawaii to participate in the big money games. By going back to the 4 major bowl game schedule, you probably remove them from the equation and may very well have threatened litigation as a result. Second, I can see the semi and final venues being like the Final Four ie rotated to various sections of the country. Certainly, Indy, St. Louis, Detroit, and Minny could host the semis or finals. These are not holiday bowl games with people going for a week or so during the slow holiday period. These are quick lead time games that can be played anywhere. Third, I wonder if this type of arrangement will result in reduced demand for major bowl game tickets. Instead of the final game of the season, these games will be nothing more than the quarter finals of the playoffs. I'm not sure the demand for tickets, expecially at some schools will approach what it currently is. The best part is that if the only thing a team needs to do is win to move on, we won't have to watch displays like Georgia stickingn it to Hawaii just to prove how poor their sportsmanship is. In fact, you'll see the opposite as teams in that situation will try to run out the clock and get their starters out.
This is very true! As for the playoff and the P10/B10 etc. I think, in the case of the pac10, they were leery to join a system established by the super conferences that appeared, on the surface, to favor those conferences. Since selling their soul, they have not received the 'benefits of doubt' or preferred treatments that they believed they'd be getting by joining the ole boys country club. They are getting what they deserve now. They never should have joined this side show. I cannot express to you how much I sympathize with Gip's statements about protecting the bowls.. but I am left wondering, have we let the genie out of the bottle and are merely in the process of protecting a dying vine now? I think SOS should be included back into the equation. I also think that, at some point, the super conferences (SEC, ACC and Big12 etc) are going to have to take a look at what they are doing. The reason they are enjoying success has largely to do with the fact that they are playing in a system that is designed to benefit them at every turn. In the one season the SEC can claim they were 'hosed' (Auburn), that was an Auburn team beaten silly in the two previous years by basically the same exact USC team and it appeared that the consensus was Oklahoma looked better. Coming into that game, Oklahoma was unbeaten and whacked everyone on their schedule. With the exceptions of two games that were close on the scoreboard (Texas A&M and Okie State) Oklahoma blew out everyone else that year.. While revisionists play it out like Auburn got hosed, they are forgetting the context of that actual setting. I just don't see what everyone is afraid of... put everyone on an equal starting block and let them race to the prize. its hard enough winning, or even contending for an NC, why should more than half of college football have to fight a system and 12 opponents on the field? Anywho, I'm just not sure if keeping the BCS is 'moving forward' at this point.
Gip brings up an interesting point re: attendance. I'm sure every team has its fans who would go to both the so-called semi-final game and the final game if their team made it that far. The question is, would there be enough of those well-heeled fans to make a representative showing at both games? Another issue is venue. Isn't there a 5th major bowl coming on the scene next year? That would provide a perfect setup for the plus-one scenario. In a 4-team playoff, two of the four non-final bowls would host the plus-one hopefuls on an every other year rotating basis. It would seem to me that the Rose Bowl could keep its current arrangement intact with the Pac 10 and Big 10 in the alternate years when it would not host a semi-final game. OR....if it insisted, it could remove itself from the plus-one group, leaving the two semi-final games to rotate among the three remaining non-final major bowls. In years when a Pac 10 or Big 10 champ would be in the final four, the Rose Bowl would host the conference runner-up like it did this year with Illinois.
I would agree with Corey's emphasis on SOS and I'm sure the SEC folks would agree also. I also would make a provision for awarding points toward qualifying for the "final four" for winning a conference championship, the objective being to neutralize as much as possible the subjective factor in season-end voting similar to what happened this year. I would structure the point calculation to take into account the conference's overall SOS rating. It would not be a major factor in the ranking of the final four but it would have some impact and possibly could be a tiebreaker between teams with the same records.
Terry, I think the SOS was taken out because the Computer polls had a component for SOS. I also think they way they calculated the SOS for the BCS was not a real SOS. It calculated wins and losses for your opponents and a smaller amount for wins and losses of your opponents opponents. The problem with that is when you play a conference schedule there is always one win and one loss, so for the teams record in the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10 and Big 12 meant no more than the records of the Big East for instance when they basically had one or two decent teams. It was really not very meaningful. As much as I don't care for the computer polls they at least have a much better record of calculating SOS.
Gipper, you bring up some really valid points one of the biggest being how to handle the mid majors being shut out, that would take some planning I have to agree. I kind of got the idea though that in the proposal by the Georgia President that the four major bowls would host the 8 teams with two weeks to go beyond that. I don't know how it would work to have one or two bowls beyond that for the best of the rest so to speak. But your thoughts would definitely require some major thoughts. Corey, let me first say that I never really felt that Auburn got screwed all that much. Like you say then had been wiped out the previous two years by S. Cal and started the year ranked low. It was an anomaly that we had 3 unbeaten teams. In thinking back that year if I had to objectively pick one of those three to leave out it would have had to be Auburn. As to S. Cal not getting a fair shake I don't quite buy that. The year that LSU and Oklahoma played, if I recall correctly Oklahoma was number three and the computer polls jumped them to number one. I thought that was unfair to S. Cal, but hey they got a real silver lining that year when the AP rightfully refused to buy off on the computer polls and voted S. Cal number one so we had a split championship. The next two years S. Cal was in the game, then last year they having passed Michigan the week before all they had to do was beat UCLA and they didn't resulting in Florida in the game. We thank them for that! :wink: :wink: This year, sorry but I don't agree this year they weren't even in the top four of the voting, no scenario would have gotten them in except an 8 team playoff. So all in all they did get screwed the one year but came out as a split champion. I also think year in and year out S. Cal will be highly ranked and if they lose none or one game would most years be in the game.
I think a plus one is the best....after the 4 major bowls are all played on New Year's Day or maybe by the 2nd at the latest. Then the plus one game is on the following Monday a week later or maybe two weeks later to allow for ticket sales and airfares to be bought economically for traveling fans. The two teams are determined by their BCS ratings after the bowls. Schedules....bowl performance and general public voter opinion is incorporated into the mix. USC and Ga each could have surpassed either OSU or LSU with their bowl performances especially if OSU lost to USC in a traditional Rose Bowl...which I think should still be the case. Otherwise you could seed 8 teams and play the 4 bowls and then have a 4 team semi-final the next week but that's problematic and will never get passed IMHO. I say shoot for the plus one format....that may just get implemented by the school presidents.
I tend to agree Bill <t>But this is now the second time a Pac10 team has been told "National Championship teams don't lose to Stanford."<br/> <br/> The argument was bunk then, and its bunk now.<br/> <br/> It would appear to someone on the outside looking in on those super conference teams as if they are saying 'a loss in a super conference is worth -.5 points, while a loss in other conferences is -1.5 points.<br/> <br/> Maybe that is a lame way to attempt to quantify it, but that is most certainly the reality of it in practical application.</t>
Corey you can't sugar coat that USC lost at home to Stanford...it was the biggest upset (point spreadwise) in NCAA history. I don't think that loss to Oregon on the road with Dennis Dixon hurt them much at all, but the Stanford loss shoved them down the rankings too far for them to make it all up and get ahead of UGA and LSU. I won't argue with you that at the end of the season maybe USC was one of the best teams in the country, we don't know. Sure they had injuries but this is a USC team that has 5 straight years of top 5 recruiting classes a couple of them #1, They replaced Booty with the #1 QB of his class who's been on campus for 3 years...I don't feel sorry for them, they have talent out the wazzoo. Terry
well <t>as I said elsewhere...<br/> <br/> Stanford wasn't the last place team in the Pac10, Washington was.. While not OSU's fault, that was still the toughest noncon game OSU played..<br/> <br/> Stanford also beat Cal...something that is also lost in translation.<br/> <br/> While everyone likes to point to Cal sucking.. Who beat them outside of the Pac10? I thought you guys were all into conference games being tough?<br/> <br/> Why isn't the real story that it may well have been the worst points spread ever laid down by Vegas? It was certainly the laziest effort they've ever given..<br/> <br/> Like I said before, get you a copy of that game and watch it. Injuries are a part of the game no doubt but USC was gutted along the line, the defensive backfield, LB corp, RBs and had a QB playing with broken fingers.. It still took a pick 6, a miracle conversion and a play of the year TD for that miracle to happen..<br/> <br/> Should USC have been favored in the game? yes. Should the point spread have been so incredibly high? No. More than anything, the only thing that quantifies this loss as being something truly horrendous is the fact that VEGAS laid a turd in putting their line out there. The game was an upset, but I wouldn't honestly list that in my top 5 upsets in the history of the Pac10. Only you guys who don't follow the conference think it was an 'all time' shocker.<br/> <br/> For any further questions/comments refer to my post previous to this one</t>
You know Corey you give the distinct impression that unless there is a West Coast team in the BCS Championship game it's not legit. I'm not going to argue that point with you any more. The only reason that S. Cal wasn't in the game three years in a row was the last game loss to UCLA last year, they win, they go instead of Florida even though we only had one loss also. I will only say this one time to try and stay within what Sid requested. A number of teams have had complaints as to why they were not in any one particular game, the West Coast teams haven't had that happen more than anywhere else. Dwell on it if you want.
my last post on the board <t>Your assumption is totally false. It has not happened every year, but its happened way more than it ever should, especially given on-field results. But when one is getting screwed, I will speak up.. even if its the dreaded Trojans. But just like when Oregon whacked Colorado, as soon as the game is over, the news is 'so last year.' The BCS was suppose to remove these problems and give you a real NC. Instead, all the BCS has done is reduce the credibility of anyone who doesn't agree with their 'proclaimed' NC.<br/> <br/> USC lost to UCLA and I am not contending that last season they should have gone.<br/> <br/> Oh, and as to the other subject. ND has 28. 3 early enrolled students and 25 signed in that class... 25+3=28.<br/> <br/> And as for being 'testy' on the other subject, I posted something with no agenda whatsoever. I threw it out there hoping to discuss something that has to do with on-field action. I included my line about 'not caring' about those OOC games because, as has been made quite clear over the years, that fans of certain teams or certain conferences just don't give a damn about that stuff. In fact, they think its insane that people put themselves at risk like that.. But I thought I'd toss it out there to start a topic about games that will actually be played next year, as opposed to some writer's opinion about the trends of the game (and said writer is usually some guy who spent his first 27 years on the planet with his underwear up his ass resenting those damned jocks, but quietly wanting to be one)...And for bringing up a topic, i get called 'testy' and asked 'whats your point' by TWO different moderators...<br/> <br/> <br/> Buck this, I'm out.<br/> <br/> /rant<br/> <br/> ps your book will be mailed to your NC address</t>
OK... lets all take a deep breath. I need to know what I've missed that has caused this EXPLOSION in the O'Connor clan. I admit that I have not been reading the boards regularly with the 2.5 week vacation and preparing to leave for Singapore. What put the burr under their saddle?
Pretty good take: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/01/08/mailbag.ap/index.html Interesting that Fla-Mich had better TV ratings than 3 BCS Bowls....
That's a pretty good article MCG. His point about this being a really unusual season with so many teams that are close in ability, his point is well taken. We might also remember that the year we had three unbeaten teams was an unusual year on the other end of the spectrum. A more typical year is one or none unbeaten teams and several once beaten teams. What I also think we can all think about is that this stuff is not life and death, we may not have a perfect system, and I doubt we have one in my lifetime or most of our lifetimes. So what I choose to do hope we improve the system, but in the meantime I enjoy college football and instead of being in agony about the shortcomings of the system, enjoy the moment and the games that are played.
That's an interesting and balanced article. I especially like this passage describing why he picked Ohio State at #2 in his first preseason 2008 poll: I also am not surprised at the TV rating of the MI-FL game. Besides being an interesting game, its placement in the TV schedule was favorable.
Sid, If the Big Ten turns out better than expected next season OSU can receive title consideration from the voters without issue. However, if the Big Ten is not that competitive nationally and OSU loses to USC then there will plenty of controversy at the end of the season when it looks like an 11-1 OSU is again in position to play for the NC. We have to see how it plays out but with 20 returning starters you have to assume OSU will be in the hunt. Michigan looks like it is starting over on offense and the rest of the Big Ten doesn't shake out all that well except for maybe Illinois.