We're going to have a college football playoff

by spakajewia on Nov 16, 2008 11:05 PM EST Comment 35 comments

Not sure how many of you caught 60 minutes' interview with Barack Obama tonight, but he spoke again about wanting to create a college football playoff.

He got more specific, saying that it should be 8 teams. And he said, "I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

If you're not too familiar with Obama, you should check out the 60 minutes interview, probably on cbs online, because its pretty good. In any event, it seems to me that his willingness to "throw his weight around a little bit" make it fairly inevitable that a college football playoff happens, probably sooner rather than later.

And, though it seems to just be a genuine act of a sports fan, this could prove to be political genius. If he manages to use the President's "bully pulpit" to get a college football playoff, millions of college football fans, who might now be ambivalent about him, are going to have a reason to like him.

Here's an si story about it: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/ncaa/11/15/ap.fbc.obama.footballpl.ap/index.html

Thanks for the fanpost! Please do not post any content from a premium site that requires a subscription. Also, if you just want to share a link consider using fanshots instead. Thanks.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

"if you're not too familiar with Obama"

You probably should be familiar with him, he will be president of our country in 2 months….

by JoePaPa on Nov 16, 2008 11:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That reminds me

Several days ago Tom Brokaw and some other media type guy were blathering about how “We don’t really know who Barack Obama is” or something like that. If that’s true, nice job, media, nice job.

by ReadingRambler on Nov 17, 2008 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I caught that and here's to hoping

he gets it rolling. Almost anything is better than what we have now.

If you can smile when things go wrong, you have someone in mind to blame.

by TheMightyErik on Nov 17, 2008 12:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh hey, sure

Yeah let’s get the new President working right away on a college playoff. It’s not like there aren’t any more pressing matters to handle or anything.

Political pandering is cool because I can say whatever I want and then not deliver.

Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.

by 06Lion on Nov 17, 2008 7:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

he doesn't have to personally do anything

just say it is an issue of worth, and put the magnifying lens on top of the people in charge. Things tend to sort themselves out pretty fast when you have that, even without direct intervention.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not touching this issue any further.

It’s absurd and will likely end in me getting the boot from this blog.

Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.

by 06Lion on Nov 17, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't blame me!

I voted for Kodos.

by gumbercules on Nov 17, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

lol

I personally voted for Kang…if I had known the mess it would have gotten us into, though…I still wouldn’t have voted for a third party.

now where did I put my board with a nail in it?

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Careful guys

I don’t like to mix politics in here. But since this involves discussion about a playoff I’ll allow it. Just keep the discussion related to a playoff and don’t get into other political stuff.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Nov 17, 2008 7:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

He and Jay Paterno are pretty close

so maybe we can get a playoff that works out in our favor.

by NJ lion on Nov 17, 2008 8:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe.....

he can talk Jay into being the guy to run this thing and get him outta PSU!! Anyone have an email for Obama?

by PSU Jen on Nov 17, 2008 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Still not sure

a playoff is the greatest thing. A playoff pretty obviously rewards the team playing the best at the end of the season, and I’d rather reward the team that had the best overall season. Suppose Alabama and Texas Tech finish undefeated this year. They will be #1 and #2 and play for all the balls at the end. With an 8-team playoff, Oklahoma or Florida (which would both have 2 losses if Tech and Bama finished undefeated, and both may finish ranked in the top 8) could get hot and win the whole thing in the 8-team playoff format.

I’m not sure there is a perfect solution out there. I know I’m really in the minority on this but I don’t mind the way things are handled currently.

by jimbo2psu on Nov 17, 2008 9:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Don't waste your time on this

Obama has no more power to create a college football playoff than you or I do. The government has some say in sports like MLB and the NFL because of the collective bargaining agreements. But what is he going to do about college football? Is he going to call all of the Bowl committees together and tell them they have to redistribute the wealth?

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Nov 17, 2008 9:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

isn't the NCAA tax exempt or something like that?

and yet the schools and bowls and organizations grab money by the fistfull. The BCS is pretty anti-trust when it comes to the non-BCS school.

There is a LOT the government can do about the sport if they wish to keep their tax exempt status, and keep raking in the dough like they are.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the NCAA is kind of irrelevant here

There isn’t, and never has been an NCAA Division I football championship. The bowl system is independent of the NCAA. And Mike is right. The president is an observer with no particular power to do this. The BCS bowls, league comissioners, etc. have such a profitable commodity (500 million bid from ESPN) that they do not want to mess with it.

If a playoff does happen, it will be because the real powers that be think it will make more money for them than the current system, not because the fans (whether they fly on Southwest or Air Force One) think it’s a good idea.

by pjk on Nov 17, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

correct, but

if the NCAA does create a playoff system for Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision, then I think the BCS would become pretty irrelevant. Just because the NCAA basically says “we’ll step back and let you folks work out out” doesn’t mean they don’t profit from it, or have any say in it. Also, isn’t the BCS made up of the 6 BCS conference commisioners? Does that mean that if the presidents of 5 of the top…say…cellular phone companies got together and were like, “hey, we aren’t going to merge our companies, but let’s all agree that we won’t give service to the midwest” that it would be legit? I thought that was basically the definition of anti-trust.

While the president has no direct say in it, anything the president does say can carry a lot of weight behind it. If the president can influence some sort of change, then I’m all for it.

Besides, as patriotic as J Leman is, can’t he force the issue? He is the ultimate power in college football, right?

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

J Leman could do it, but

Aside form his intervention, I don’t see it.

I’m not sure if this is what you’re suggesting, but the NCAA would not decide to do it’s own playoff and hope the bowls just fold bcause they would be irrelevant.

The antitrust argument is not completely invalid, but the BCS is managed by the commissioners of all 11 conferences, plus the Notre Dame AD, so who would bring the complaint?

by pjk on Nov 17, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Obama has a lot more power than you or I do

He might not have any direct influence over the guys who dominate the BCS, but the president can influence a lot of things through “soft power.” Let’s supposed that JoePa was going to bring together Pete Carrol and 75% of the other division 1a coaches to collectively sign a petition and send it to the BCS chairman (and cc sports illustrated, espn, new york times, etc). That might be pretty effective.

What would be more effective is if that petition is an enclosure to a letter signed by the President of the United States (written by some staffer).

Also, for as much as some people complain about academia being all liberal, you would think that the college presidents—presumably all liberals—would, to a certain extent, be at the beck and call of Obama.

I don’t think anyone’s bringing together any committees or investigations, etc. This isn’t steroids in baseball (which was still a bs issue for Congress to be involved in), but the president’s got a lot of power. It’s harder for the BCS to continue saying it’s “better for all involved,” when the leader of the country publicly disagrees.

I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.

by spakajewia on Nov 17, 2008 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you are probably wrong about them being liberals

since they all have a fairly large amount of money, and that tends to be mutally exclusive with being a liberal ;-)

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It can't hurt

Who knows what’s possible when you strike while the iron is hot.

by millzners on Nov 17, 2008 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

President-elect Obama

is like a 120 lb weakling taking on the 800 lb heavy weight champion of the world BCS.

He has a better chance of getting re-elected as a Republican than he does of creating a college football playoff.

by DrDetroit on Nov 17, 2008 12:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why the BCS will Win

Colleges want it to.

From Gregg Easterbrook:

Still keeping with the natural-selection metaphor, remember that the BCS evolved to prevent destructive forms of competition. Before the BCS, which began in 1998, and the somewhat similar Bowl Alliance that existed a few years before, every bowl committee was in it for itself — each trying to render all the others extinct, just like micro-organisms at the dawn of time. Bowl committees often jumped the gun by inviting teams in mid-November or even early November. If you think the BCS-generated matchups this year leave something to be desired, you’ve forgotten that before the Bowl Alliance and the BCS, college football fans hated bowl pairings. Many years, there was no bowl that paired two top-five teams, and lopsided walkover outcomes were the bowl norm. Are the best teams this season Ohio State and LSU? I don’t have the foggiest notion. But certainly those are two elite teams and they’re likely to play a monster game. Is Virginia Tech versus Kansas the second-best pairing? No one knows. But they are both fine teams and likely to play an exciting game. With the old system, Ohio State might be playing Arkansas and LSU might be playing Florida State. (I am picking disappointing pairings at random, which is pretty much how the old system worked.) The BCS system might not produce a clear champion — it’s not designed to! — but its track record of producing attractive pairings is quite good. And attractive pairings maximize revenue and exposure.

Let’s think about the money for a moment, then end by lamenting This Year’s BCS Foul-Up: namely, Missouri finishing sixth yet getting shut out. The BCS system has proved highly attractive to the football-factory schools because it operates on a socialized premise, replicating the socialized revenue sharing that makes the NFL so strong financially. In the NFL, television revenue, the primary source of income, is simply divided 32 ways — each year, the worst team receives exactly as much television money as the best team. In the BCS format, the bulk of the money is divided equally among conference teams, the worst team of the year receiving as much as the bowl-bound teams.

This year, every team in the six football-factory conferences (the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-10) will receive about $1.5 million in BCS television-rights payments. North Carolina State and Syracuse had bad seasons and probably cleaned out their locker rooms by Thanksgiving, yet they’ll receive a hefty check from the BCS nonetheless. Every team in any conference that sends a BCS-max two entrants to the prestige bowls gets a bonus payment, raising the revenue sharing to about $2 million per school. So Minnesota and Baylor laid eggs this season, but they’ll get the same $2 million BCS revenue-sharing payment as Ohio State and Oklahoma. Notre Dame also gets an annual BCS revenue-sharing check, about $1.3 million this year — essentially for agreeing not to use its leading-independent status to challenge the BCS structure. Basically as a goodwill gesture, teams from mid-major conferences such as the MAC will each get roughly $200,000 this year from the BCS, and Division I-AA football gets a goodwill payment of about $2 million.

This socialized system helps all big-college football participants normalize their athletic budgets; it means every football-factory school benefits from the BCS; and it ensures the lesser schools in the major conferences won’t be shut out of bowl revenue. The financial structure of the BCS is progressive! The socialized revenue sharing makes it in the interest of most colleges to cooperate with the BCS. Previously, big universities jockeyed to stab each other in the back regarding who went to the best-paying bowls. Now, the big schools work together on postseason scheduling (Missouri is heartbroken, yet not whining) and the result is a stable system that benefits everyone — or at least everyone in the big conferences. Big-college football has been really good in the past decade, and the TV ratings show it. The revenue-sharing aspect of the BCS is one reason why. The improved quality of postseason pairings that the BCS system mainly, though not always, provides also helps. Few schools are bucking the BCS because they realize cooperating is in most schools’ best interest.

Link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071204

by DrDetroit on Nov 17, 2008 2:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I normally like Easterbrook's writing

but this one had plenty of flaws in it.

1) I know this was written pre-MNC game, but obviously the OSU-LSU matchup didn’t give him the game he wanted.
2) if OSU didn’t go to the NC game, and the BCS didn’t exist, then OSU would never have played Arkansas. They would have played USC in the Rose Bowl. :-p

OK, so those things were just nitpicks, and not really a flaw in his logic. I did want to point them out, though. The things I find flawed:
3) the NFL has socialized profit sharing, so all teams have a stable, normalized source of income. College football has that in the BCS bowl structure, therefore a playoff is infeasable.

Why would a playoff format generate less money than the BCS bowl format? If you argue that there would be less games, because then you would only have 7 (for an 8 team) or 15 (for a 16 team) or 11 (for a 12 team) games under a playoff system is ridiculous. They could even still have the profit sharing agreements that they do now, and under the more reasonable of playoff formats, the conference champions would be entering the playoff, then the conferences would get just as much $$.

Are you saying that a meaningless matchup of conference champions that didn’t make it to the national championship game will generate more money than a meaningful game between those same teams, only now they still have a shot at the title? Also, there would be more “playoff” games than there are currently BCS games, while utilizing the ~ sameame number of teams.

Do people fear that the currently meaningless non-BCS bowl games would disappear, because a playoff would make them meaningless? I don’t see why if the minor bowls can exist in the BCS era with a national championship game that they couldn’t have just as much success in a playoff era.

I really am trully and honestly at a loss as to why people think that the playoffs would generate less money than the BCS currently does. If the Fiesta Bowl gane bring in money even when it isn’t the National Championship game, wouldn’t the Fiesta National Championship Semi-Final Game be able to sell just as much advertising, especially since this matchup would be more meaningful?

Argh, anyway. As for other things: I didn’t know that ND got an automatic $1.3 million from the BCS. I thought they only got money in a rain or drought fashion, since I thought they get to keep their entire BCS payout when they do go to a game, and not share it with conference members. If it is the case that they get either $17.5 million if they go, and $1.3 million if they don’t, then that is one more reason I hate Notre Dame.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I normally dislike Gregg

but I thought he was right here. Unfortunately its been a year so I can’t recall all the reasons why.

All of the other bowls would die because they would most likely have to compete against the playoff games. Plus, for all the minor teams that go, would fans actually care anymore if their team was at the Meinke Car Care Bowl instead of in the playoffs? If you are not sure, know that the attendance for the NIT basketball tournament sucks. So yes, fans reject the games that aren’t part of the actual playoffs. Also, all of the talking heads would only discuss the playoffs and no bowl games. Also like the basketball tournament versus the NIT. No one talks about the NIT.

I think another reason I heard was actually from Spanier. Penn State is against it because it would most likely cost them a home game and $3.5 million. If the NCAA went to a playoff, the season would probably drop back to 11 games. So Penn State would get just as much money from the playoffs as the BCS, but would actually lose overall. Also, Penn State gets money from every Big10 team that plays in a bowl game. They would also lose out on that.

Now I remember why. Its about who the BCS generates money for. The BCS generates money for all of the Bowls in addition to the schools. A playoff would be sponsored by the NCAA. There would be no Rose, Fiesta or Sugar bowls. Just the NCAA playoff. And most likely the NCAA would choose all of the teams and where they play, ala the basketball tournament. All of the bowl organizations would be screwed.

Lastly, I didn’t post what Easterbrook said to be a reason for no playoff. I just wanted to point out the good the BCS actually does. Basically because of the BCS everyene gets a pile of cash.

And of course, its always great when you have another reason to hate Notre Dame. I’ve enjoyed the last two years.

by DrDetroit on Nov 17, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I still don't see it

while I do agree the good the BCS has over the prior system, that is like saying, “well the horse and buggy are a big improvement over walking, so let’s stop there”

as for your assessment of the minor bowls: how would their status change under a playoff system than it is now? Right now we have a series of “meaningful” BCS bowls, and the National Championship game. The Meineke Car Care Bowl is not a part of that. The fans still go. Under a playoff: the Meineke Car Care Bowl would still not be a part of that. Also, anyone have numbers on ratings and attendance for these minor bowls (on TV there always looks like a lot of empty seats…that is when I’ve actually ever turned on any game before Christmas)? I’d bet in respect to the BCS games they mirror that of the NIT with respect to the NCAA tournament already. And when have you actually heard the talking heads discuss anything other than the BCS bowls and some of the other big bowls (cotton, Capital One/Citrus, etc)? In fact, they still pretty much just talk about the National Championship game matchup, with some commentary on the other BCS bowls.

As for the NCAA taking over the tournament…perhaps that should be incentive for the BCS to create their own playoff system, so they can retain control. You could still use the rotating bowl sites as the locations for the championship and semi-final games. You could hold the earlier round(s) there, or at other major bowl sites.

I can understand the logic behind not wanting to drop back to 11 games, hence losing another home game. Perhaps if there were no bowl games at all, we could go to a 13 game season for every team, and get another home game, or even 2! And they wouldn’t even necessarily have to move to an 11 game regular season. They definitely wouldn’t need to do it to schedule a playoff in. The only other “negative” then would be that 2 teams would end up with 15 game seaons (in 2002-3 OSU went 14-0 that year…you didn’t hear anyone screaming about how ridiculously long their season was). Only 4 teams would have 14 game seasons, and 8 teams would have 13 game seasons (plus all the other minor bowls).

Then there is the argument that more teams going to the bowls generates more money for the conferences. Well you’d still have the possibility of multiple teams going to the playoffs as you do teams going to BCS bowls, plus all the minor bowls, which would be just as viable under that format as they are now (as described above). There would still be revenue sharing, and in fact, now a team would potentially have a shot at more $, since they would be able to play in up to 3 playoff games, instead of just 1.

Right now you have 5 BCS bowls, with 10 teams. Each team gets I think $17.5 million. That equates to $175 million in BCS bowl payouts from 5 games. An 8 team playoff would have 7 games. I would like to think that each game, on average, could still generate the $35 million for payouts, so now you have $245 million in your pool. Now you could split it so each team/conference in the playoffs gets $30.6 million, or you could do it by appearancesin games, so the 2 teams/conferences in the championship game would get $52.5 million, while the teams eliminated in the first round just get the $17.5 million. Or you could split it some other way. Even if you assume that no extra money is generated, then you could still have the 8 teams splitting the $175 million, for nearly $22 million a team…or some other way of splitting.

So it comes down to whether or not they could sell and market a playoff as much as they market the BCS. Could they get people more excited about seeing their team compete for a shot at the National Championship game, or will people be more excited to see their team play in a bowl game that determines nothing?

Obviously the people that stand to “lose” the most money would be the fans of the championship teams, assuming that they travel to all 3 of their playoff games. Then you’d have the problem of people “holding out” on going to the earlier rounds in hopes of going to the next round, but I find a hard time believing that the games still wouldn’t sell out…they just might have to charge less than the $175/ticket, but considering TV deals likely make up more $ than ticket sales, it could still even generate more $.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you don't see it I won't convince you

Right now from Dec 26 to Dec 31 the talking heads really do discuss the bowl games of that day. There is a lot of time spent on who is playing.

If there was an 8 team playoff, all of those games would die. The talking heads would just discuss the upcoming playoff games. And the playoff games would have to run Dec 26, Jan 1, and Jan 8. Right thought the biggest stretch of bowl games.

Plus, would you care about a bowl game if there was a playoff game? I doubt it. If next year Penn State was 7-5 and in the Motor City Bowl would you go if there was a college playoff? It would really kill the bowl season. People are complaining the Rose Bowl doesn’t have value now because of the BCS. What would the value of a minor bowl be with a playoff?

With no playoff, I’d bet Penn State fans would go in droves to Detroit for the Motor City Bowl. With a playoff, I doubt anyone would go. The minor bowls depend on schools like Penn State that have killer fan bases that are willing to travel to go to bowl games. Without that they will all fail.

I would prefer a 4 team playoff that preserves the Bowl system. Have the top 4 in the BCS play a playoff game on Dec 13. I would also want a two week break from the season to the playoff game, so the season would have to end in November. Either being one game or one week shorter. Make it a home game and the two winners play in the BCS NC. The two losers are put 3 and 4 in the polls and play in other BCS games. That would ensure that there is no playoff games opposite Bowl games and that the basic current format remains.

I really enjoy all of the bowl games and would like to see them all remain.

by DrDetroit on Nov 18, 2008 7:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

I meant to say “they don’t talk about the minor bowls, except on that day” but I guess I left that part out. They still talk about the upcoming National Championship and BCS bowls on those days as well. If there were playoff games, those could be on the Saturdays, and the other bowls could be either earlier in the day, or on other days during the week, like many are now.

As for the Motor City Bowl. I live about 90 minutes from Detroit, and even then I don’t know if I would go to that bowl. Part of what bowls I go to are economic, some are tied to the “meaningfulness” of the bowl game. I would be pretty disappointed in Penn State’s season if we wound up going there, and don’t know how willing I would be to take time out of the busy holiday season and pay the money to go. Sure I’ll still watch it, and the thought of going will cross my mind, but in the end I still think I’d pass (except again that it is only 90 minutes away, so for this particular case it wouldn’t be that big of an investment for me)

For me (obviously everyone is different) any BCS bowl or playoff game is pretty much an automatic “yes”. The other New Years bowls I still give strong consideration to (though usually have to pass cuz the stupid girlfriend had to go and be born on January 1st, and thinks something called “family” is more important…pssh). Any bowl games before those and I pretty much have to pass (for the reasons cited above). I love Penn State, and I love watching them play, but I’m content with watching certain games on TV. Just like I was willing to drive to Purdue, Wisconsin, Penn State (Michigan), Ohio State, Iowa, and Penn State again (Micghian State), I was just as willing to stay home and watch Indiana on TV. I have the same feeling with respect to bowl games…in fact I probably would be more willing to drive the 7 hours to Penn State for the Indiana game than I would to go to some of these bowl games.

Again, that’s me. If you honestly do appreciate the Meineke Car Care Bowl, the Motor City Bowl, the Champs Sports Bowl, New Mexico Bowl, etc, then more power to you.

If people are complaining about the Rose Bowl not having value because of BCS, then think of the value the minor bowls have with the BCS. Do you think it could really be any less under a playoff?

I would prefer an 8 team playoff that preserves the Bowl system. Have the 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at large teams play a playoff game on Dec. 26 (yes, I know, in direct competition with the Motor City Bowl…I think the world will go on). Then on the 27th-31st the other minor bowls can play, get their daily airtime where the talking heads can talk about them, and split time talking about the playoff. They already do that with the BCS games, so it won’t be much different. On Jan 1st play either the second round of the playoffs, or to preserve tradition, let the New Years Bowls play that day, and have the second round on the 2nd. Then have the Championship game on the 8th. You could still ensure there is no playoff game opposite a bowl game (some bowls might have to move forward or back a day…again, I think the world will go on), and the basic current format remains.

I enjoy about 60% of the bowl games, and wouldn’t shed a tear if some of them disappeared.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 18, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for what it's worth

I thought The Progress Paradox was an excellent book with real takeaway value. Easterbrook is excellent at highlighting absurdities in complex systems like corporate upper management or NASA’s funds allocation. I feel the TMQ points that football readers often find odious, which as a Michigan fan I’m sure ring true for you, are those where he attempts to paint football games and seasons with higher-order narratives such as “Rich Rodriguez is a weasel and Michigan deserves its misfortune”. This I think (and maybe I’m giving him a free pass here) is a function of being an older writer who grew up in a time where football in general was not watched as heavily and column writers felt compelled to describe seasons in terms of overarching story lines.

by gumbercules on Nov 17, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

TMQ on Football

I used to read TMQ all the time, but I had to quit. I eventually started watching all of the games he did and found that my observations were drastically different than his. Its like he has no idea what is going on on the field. He’ll take a single play and say “that is bad coaching” when there was a reason for that play.

He has no idea what zone coverage is or how its designed. He’ll say stupid things like, “why did you let the WR run right by you.” Uh, its zone. The DBs job is to cover an area of the field, he is supposed to let the WR go deep. That is when the safety picks him up. But TMQ blasts the corner for standing around doing nothing.

It just got really old. He also has really simple stupid ideas that never pan out because all of the facts aren’t covered. He used to say never blitz. Then he had to change it to say never blitz on short yardage or never blitz on obvios passing downs. Then his BS comment of when you have a huge lead, just run up the middle and punt to protect it. Somehow he can’t account for blocked punts in that scenario. The MSU NW biggest comeback ever was one of the scenarios he blasted NW on. State had the comeback because of a blocked punt. Somehow TMQ couldn’t comprehend that.

He should also never discuss college football because he can’t comprehend it. He thinks the big schools have infinite talent and players. He laughs that Michigan and Arkansas are having down years after coaching changes. Somehow he doesn’t get when really really good people graduate, you don’t replace them.

It was eventually to much aggrevation for me to handle so I stopped reading him.

by DrDetroit on Nov 18, 2008 7:30 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

lol, best, most accurate description of TMQ I've ever read

I stopped reading him bascially because of the same reasons. He has these “simple” rules, that yes, sound pretty simple and sound, until you realize that if you always go by those rules then the other team will anticipate your every play and you won’t succeed.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 18, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2nd that, bro

If you can smile when things go wrong, you have someone in mind to blame.

by TheMightyErik on Nov 18, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and my rebuttal to the "best regular season in all sports" rhetoric everyone likes to spew

Tell me how a playoff system would make the regular season games, on average, less meaningful. The best case scenario for describing that would be a team has locked up it’s conference championship with a week or so left in the season, and so the “let up on the gas” a bit at the end. Yes, this would likely happen, but that’s perhaps the beauty of “rivalry” weeks at the end of the year. Do you think Ohio State is going to play soft on Michigan, or Alabama is going to play soft on Auburn in their upcoming games, even though as it stands right now, neither game will really affect either team’s bowl chances? People are already saying that the National Championship will be between the winner of the SEC (Alabama or Florida) and the winner of the Big 12, and the game vs Auburn won’t affect their chances at winning the SEC one bit.

I understand how people think “every game matters”, and so if you lose 1 or 2, then you might very well not deserve to go to the national championship. Look at past years. There have been plenty of instances of 1 loss (and even last year a 2-loss) teams going to the National Championship game, and then other years (Auburn in 2004 I think? or 2003?) where undefeated teams have still been left out. Without a playoff it still has come down to “guessing” which 1-loss team (or undefeated team, or 2 loss team) deserves to go to the MNC game more.

And even with a playoff, pretty much every regular season game will still matter, depending on how the slots get filled. Either you still have to win your conference, in which case every conference game matters, or you have to finish in the top 8 or so, in which having more than 1 or 2 losses will pretty much eliminate you anyway. And then seeding will still presumably take this into account, so finishing with a better season/record will give you an easier path to the championship. And for every regular season game that becomes meaningless (involving a team that has already locked up it’s playoff spot) you’d generate 4 more teams with suddently meaningful games for teams fighting their way for a chance at the playoffs.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 17, 2008 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This. Thread. Needs. Sparknotes.

Yes – I am that lazy. And yes I am ignoring my laziness to still apply to grad schools.

by IcersGuy on Nov 18, 2008 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

SparkNotes version:

DrDetroit: A playoff would render all the traditions and bowls meaningless. If people complain that the Rose Bowl is meaningless under the BCS, think of what hte minor bowls would be like under a playoff. They would get rid of all the bowls under a playoff since no one would want to go. There is a lot of money in the current bowl/BCS scenario with revenue sharing.

The JuggerNitt: Most of the bowls before January 1st are already meaningless (except to teams who never go bowling, and jump at the opportunity to go to Detroit in the middle of winter). A playoff wouldn’t change much, except for the reason that people don’t watch the bowls that they aren’t already watching. The bowls can still exist alongside the playoffs, with scheduling efforts, and even making some bowls the sites of the playoff games. Meaningless bowls wouldn’t become any less meaningless. The money could still be made, and perhaps even more money could be made. Revenue sharing doesn’t need to be abandoned under a playoff.

Everyone: TMQ/Gregg Easterbrook doesn’t know football past the Pop Warner level he coaches for his sons, where his basic theories hold true, but they don’t hold true in the Pros or college levels. Also, Notre Dame sucks, and everyone loves reasons to hate them (such as all their guaranteed money, even when they suck).

I think that’s pretty much the gist of it all.

by The JuggerNitt on Nov 18, 2008 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Players

We are forgetting one group that also has power: The Players. I don’t know if it would happen, but what if the players just decided not to play in these bowl games and BCS games to try to get more support for a playoff. These presidents have the money, but, ultimately, the players have power. If there came a day where they decided that they wanted a playoff and would boycott these stupid BCS and Bowl games, and they weren’t played, that would have a big effect because the fans are there for them, not Jim Delany or that dork Myles Brand who said that “we need to keep the tradition of the bowls”(what a moron). The likelihood isn’t great, because they are brainwashed by their coaches to uphold their team’s “tradition” and all that jazz(you know, the coaches who don’t have any real loyalty to them, like Nick Satan and Rich “Sellout” Rodriguez), but it is a possibility to consider.

by PABroncofan on Nov 19, 2008 4:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs