Nitt Picks Isn't Quite Sure It Would Be That Simple
There is no better time to be complaining about the BCS then right now. College football took an extended break starting last Saturday and, as fans, you'd of thought we almost forgot what the offseason feels like. We immediately revert to the old standbys. At the top of that list, is complaining about the BCS.
When In Doubt, Legislate. This is old news, but still stupid news:
[T]here was another one of these anti-BCS things in Congress today, this time in the form of an actual bill, an outraged bill that would force college football into a playoff system. Three guesses which state two of the three Congressman who sponsored the bill are representing
Congress isn't going to fix college football, and between the steroid grandstanding, probes into the NFL, and now re-runs of the above mentioned stunt, I'm not sure what's going on anymore.
What's that Domer? But some people like the idea.
One way to diffuse the BCS is to take away its ability to directly crown a champion, and this measure seems like an effective way of doing so. Mandating the use of "Mythical" in front of "BCS Championship Game" seems like the best way to embarrass the whole damn institution out of existence.
First of all, incredibly nonsarcastic credit to a Notre Dame fan for hating on a BCS system that they can sleep walk in to. In regards to the content, though, I don't think that ship floats.
The national championship in college football has always been "mythical", and I'm confident that even sports fan who doesn't frequent the many great blogs of SBN understands this.
The NCAA doesn't even count them in their bragging rights total (yes, that's Penn State T8 all time), and between the Irish and the Tide they can't mathematically; those two schools have awarded themselves something like a combined 249 titles in the last 80 years (estimate).
Everyone knows it's "mythical" and if you made them spell it out on the advertisements it wouldn't change one singe aspect of how the BCS is perceived.
But what about this playoff thing. Brian at mgoblog refutes the argument that a playoff might damper the regular season:
[W]hen more teams have access to the playoff at the end of the year—the BCS is a playoff—there are more compelling games. This is another reason for a playoff to omit autobids: if Cincinnati had already locked up a spot by winning the Big East their game would have indeed been kind of meaningless. No one should be safe.
Keeping his last sentence true is absolutely the most important thing if/when a playoff happens. I'm not sure it's practical to think that a playoff, once approved, will actually be able to pull that off, though.
To stray here for a second: the worst thing, by far, about the NFL, is the anti-climatic ending to the regular season. The final week is virtually meaningless for all but four or five teams as everyone is either in or out. This leads to situations where, for example: Cleveland needs Tennessee to lose to Indianapolis, but Indianapolis has a spot locked up and will be pulling their starters after the first quarter. Tennessee is playing for their lives, with their starters, against the Colts third string; Cleveland is helpless.
Certain formats guard against this, but I'm not sure we will ever see those exist. A playoff is likely to mutate out of the current structure and I don't see a situation where the ADs would be ok with giving away guaranteed money. For the record, I'm a playoff fan, but an unconditional move to the "best" possible structure isn't likely; it's important to stop and think about what we are getting ourselves into when we ask the BCS to turn their games into a four or eight team bracket.
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Comments
My 3 guesses for the state they're from
Alaska, Maine, and North Dakota
I’ve met nothing but uppity people from there, always coming out with their useless new legislation regarding Division 1 FBS football
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 12, 2008 2:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
my guesses....
…..texas, california, pennsylvania
WE ARE.......PENN STATE!
by Nick7 on Dec 12, 2008 2:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Two are from texas
I forget the third.
Kevin @ Black Shoe Diaries
by Kevin HD on Dec 12, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be surprised if it was PA
Arlen Specter really likes his sports legislation
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 12, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
National titles
The NCAA doesn’t even count them in their bragging rights total (yes, that’s Penn State T8 all time),
Actually PSU is now in 8th all by themselves, above UNC and Michigan. The results are through Spring 2007 (for some reason, the NCAA hasn’t updated it with last year’s championships) and we won two NC’s last year (women’s and men’s volleyball) while UNC only won one and Michigan won none.
by Laaaaazzz on Dec 12, 2008 3:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
so what you are saying is
Penn State nearly won as many National Championships as the Michigan football team won games?
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 12, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No games would have to be meaningless.
In my playoff format, the teams with a higher ranking play a first, and possibly a second round game on their home field before leaving town for the final rounds. Leaving town, that is, to play in the traditional bowls. You don’t think a team like us, the Fuckeyes, Florida, etc. that have distinct home field advantages would keep trying to win to get a playoff game or two on their home field?
by Ab4PSU on Dec 12, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
also, those late season games are typically rivalry games
like Brian at MGoBlog said:
Michigan played Ohio State to beat Ohio State. That is all. Sometimes there are bonuses like the Rose Bowl or a national title or something on the line, but Michigan plays Ohio State to beat Ohio State.
Pretty much the only games that would be rendered meaningless with a playoff would be ones that are already rendered meaningless under the current format.
If a team is in the hunt for one of the top 2 BCS spots currently, then yes, currently all their late season games are “meaningful”. If you took a top 8 team format, if any of those teams loses, they still risk a chance of dropping out of the top 8, unless they are one of the top 2 or 3 teams playing against another top 10 or so team. Outside of conference championships, those games don’t commonly appear at the end of a schedule. So you still have 6 or so teams fighting hard just to keep their spot in a playoff, meanwhile you have another significant number of teams that are hovering just outside of the top 8 that are playing meaningful games to jump into tha top group.
So if anything I see a playoff as creating more meaningful regular season games AND creating a number of very significant, very interesting playoff matchups.
I would be very interested in an analysis over the past years to see the number of games that would become more meaningful vs the number of games that would become “meaningless” between the BCS system and an 8 team playoff (let’s just keep things as similar to the BCS system and take the 6 BCS conference champions plus the top 2 at large teams, max 2 teams per conference). And since meaningless and meaningful are relatively subjective words, let’s define meaningful as “has direct implications (at the time the game was played) on a team getting into the playoffs or championship game” and meaningless as “has no direct implication (at the time the game was played) on a team getting into the playoffs or championship game”
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 12, 2008 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Your points are very valid. I also love that every argument against the playoff system has very simple and reasonable solutions. Why doesn’t everyone just call a spade a spade and say people in power are stubborn and don’t want to risk dolla bill ya’lls. (Even though I fail to see how a playoff would bring in less cash)
by Roland86 on Dec 12, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well you just said it right above
it will risk $$$
Right now they make a lot of $$$
They might make more $$$ with a playoff, but probably not a significant amount more.
They also run the risk of not making as much, and therefore losing $$$
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 12, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet another sad commentary in this country how the love of money is
the root of all evil. A playoff would mean more money because you know a playoff is for real and teams don’t have to worry about getting fucked by computers, polls, and suits protecting their bowl games.
by Ab4PSU on Dec 12, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Money, money, y'all
Some be callin it feti.
Money, money, y’all
And when I got it, I’m jetty.
pax et amor
by jtothep on Dec 16, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My playoff format calls for conference champions, period.
No at large bullshit (Take that, Notre Dame!!). And include all the FBS conferences (MAC, WAC, Mountain West, and whatever other minor conferences there are) then that way it’s not a power grab by the power conferences trying to ram two teams in for money. All you need is one team from your conference. If they advance past each round, that’s more money for that school and that conference.
by Ab4PSU on Dec 12, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then what decides the in-conference tie-breakers?
You’d only take Oklahoma OR Texas, and not both? You’d take Cincy over Texas this year? That doesn’t seem logical. You’d really take Troy over the Big 12 #2?
I bleed Blue and White.
by Horse N Buggy on Dec 12, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Each conference decides their own tiebreaker.
I’d take Cincy over Texas. I’m not saying Cincy is better. If you want in, win your conference. If you can’t even win your conference, you don’t deserve to be in. Don’t lose and start this crying shit of “Well, we beat so-and-so, who beat so-and-so, who lost to so-and-so.” Conference champions. Period.
by Ab4PSU on Dec 12, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
scenario for you
pretend Penn State and Northwestern went undefeated this year. Northwestern I think would have won the conference tiebreaker (I think it is based on who represented the Big 10 last, but if not, let’s just assume whatever tiebreaker Northwestern the nod).
You would take 11-2 Cincinnati (or 8-4 Troy) over undefeated PSU (or even undefeated Northwestern)?
I am a fan of conference champs getting in, but unless there are better tiebreakers (and/or conference championships so that you can’t have 2 undefeated teams in a conference) then I also feel you need a couple at-large bids, since almost every year there’s at least one major conference that has multiple teams that are potentially the best, and especially when you have a conference like the Big 10 where it is theoretically possible for there to be multiple UNDEFEATED teams you need to have some way to bring them both into a playoff.
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 13, 2008 7:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then the Big Ten would have to change their procedure.
Because if you start picking second place teams from a power conference over a conference champion from a smaller conference, then you have what you have now: Polls, politics, cronyism, and money corrupting the system. I’m not saying what I propose is perfect. In your scenario, the Big Ten would maybe have to have every team play every other conference team, get them assholes in South Bend to join and have two divisions and then a championship game. But to me, conference champs only need apply. Then you eliminate having seven or eight teams with identical records, but only two getting to play for all the marbles.
by Ab4PSU on Dec 13, 2008 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well I agree on conference champions going
but also think there should be “at large” spots as well.
an 8 team playoff is impossible to do with conference champions, unless you just use the 6 BCS conferences. The 2 at larges could be filled by either minor conference champs, or major conference “second place” teams.
In a 16 team format you could have the 11 conference champions, as well as 5 at large spots, which would pretty much get everyone from the BCS top 8, as well as all the conference champions in.
by The JuggerNitt on Dec 13, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll go along with the 16 team format.
Leaves room for 5 at-large teams. That way, every conference is represented. No more of the BCS schools hogging all the money and eliminating the rich get richer problem permeating every aspect of our society. And the hypocritical powers that be saying that a playoff would take time out from classes can stop overlooking two inconvenient facts:
1. A 16 team playoff would result in only four extra games. If you leave a full 12 game regular schedule, that’s 16 games (17 if a conference has a championship game). Or you could cut the regular season back to 11 games. Unlike the NFL, where there’s meaningless exhibitions and then playoffs, a 16 game slate where every game matters is not too much for 19-22 year old kids.
2. Since the playoffs would be over the universities Christmas break’s, there would be a minimal loss of classroom time. Unlike March Madness, where teams that advance to the Final Four have to miss up to 6 days worth of classes, where is this hurting the “student” part of student athelete? They can’t be missing classes that aren’t in session. The answer is: Since March Madness has proven to be a financial orgy, nobody wants to fuck with that. A football playoff could provide as much, if not more money, due to a school getting a first and second round game at home, plus all the ratings. Look at it now: Who in the fuck is going to watch Cincinnati and Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl? Maybe about 27,491 total US households. A number for a game involving those two schools may double ( lots of sarcasm here!) if the game means something like the winner moves on and the loser goes home. I mean, if we were to play the winner of that game, wouldn’t that make you watch it?
The bottom line: there is no playoff because people are afraid to upset the apple cart and risk losing a ton of money. And I’ll say it again: The love of money is the root of all evil.
by Ab4PSU on Dec 13, 2008 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How to better the current system
College basketball teams often play early (pre?)season tournaments the Maui Invitation for example. These feature marquee teams and serve to both boost RPI, and when push comes to shove on selection Sunday say that this team/conference is better than that team/conference because of head to head matchups.
College football doesnt have the luxury of playing 30 games, and you always have the argument of “we need home games to make money”, but…..
What about an early season “tournament” of marquee schools from multiple conferences playing labor day weekend. If you got corporate sponsors (I mean Dr. Pepper loves sponsoring football games), then you can make money, and satisfy the number one problem with the current BCS system which is inability to cross reference teams and conferences.
I think that this is the only way to keep our current system viable, to force big out of conference games in order to “create a pecking order” of teams and conferences.
by JoePaPa on Dec 12, 2008 6:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That would be awesome
if the college football season was 30 games. I would move to State College.
I bleed Blue and White.
by Horse N Buggy on Dec 12, 2008 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

























