The Rest of College Football

[*JD*]

I know we nebraska fans don't have the emotional tie to the Rose some of you do.. but the BIG lost a huge opportunity here. There are enough competitive disadvantages. When a potential advantage presents itself, you have to take it, not give it away.

Yes. Those dumb-dumbs.

[Hannibal]

Its most certainly is NOT a zero sum game, Hannibal... Rutgers playing in the Big East vs Big East teams gets little ratings...

Rutgers when the play PSU, Ohio, M, Nebraska brings in tons of ratings, not just an increase from the team they are playing, but Rutgers fans want to watch the Scarlet Knights play the Buckeyes, Wolverines, Cornhuskers & Nittany Lions...

TV Ratings work the same way, M vs Indiana doesn't draw in the casual fan but put M vs ND and the game is suddenly a national event with everyone watching; even people without interest in either team...

No, right now I don't have any interest in the B10 adding Rutgers, Maryland, VT... B10 imo will only expand unless it involves ND or as I said above, the ACC implodes (FSU, Clemson leaves for SEC/Big XII).

Michigan or PSU vs Rutgers would replace Michigan or PSU vs Indiana or Minnesota. You're not adding any big games for shit teams without sacrificing at least that same level of quality from another game. That's why it's a zero sum game. When Nebraska joined the conference, you simply replaced Michigan vs. Penn State with Michigan vs Nebraska. You replaced Nebraska vs Texas with Nebraska vs OSU. No value added. Just redistributed. The only non zero sum game aspect to conference expansion is the conference championship game. Expansion doesn't put butts into seats. It's a purely redistributive process, and probably a negative proposition in the long run, as destroying the regional identitiy of conferences as well as long time rivalries like Missouri vs Kansas and Texas vs Texas A&M could not possibly do anything besides reduce interest in the game.

[hack]

I still think its silly to even try to crown a "champion". There's just too many teams and not enough games.

Furthermore I don't see the point of keeping score anymore either. Programs should be judged by their athletic departments' profit-and-loss statements (recruiting slush funds can be off the balance sheet), by the occupany rates of hotels within a 20-mile radius of the stadiums, and by the quantifiable boost in sales at gas stations and convenience stores in cities hosting bowls in the three days leading up to and including game day.

[Hannibal]

I still think its silly to even try to crown a "champion". There's just too many teams and not enough games.

This.

People want something that isn't practical.

[whodean]

This.

People want something that isn't practical.

And whine when the results are predictably not what they favor.

[Tony G]

I still think its silly to even try to crown a "champion". There's just too many teams and not enough games.

Bullshit. Take the top four and finish it in two weekends.

[lineygoblue]

I think a 16 team playoff with the top 8 hosting the first round would be really great.

That being said, a 4 team playoff is better than the popularity contest that we have now.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Have to agree with Tony here. Hack, you remend me of me ..... black and white, all or nothing (i.e., if you can't quantify a teams value wiithout using the human factor, you can't call it a championship .... if I have your position on this right???).

After sifting through all the dialogue on this subject (a CFB Champion), it seems to me, when its put in black and white terms like many do, sure, grabbing the ring in CFB amounts to nothing more than picking the homecoming queen.

If you take a step back, CFB is entertainment and has been that way, at least for M, since Don Canham became AD. I suspect most tradtional programs can identify one guy that took their respective CFB programs from an intercollegiate activity for student athletes that students could watch to a way to make money and market stuff.

So, what's coming is just an extension of what CFB has become ..... entertainment. It's a way to make money and market stuff, still. The only idffernce between the Canham days and now is that were talking about billions not hundreds of thousands. Guys like me can whine and cry all they want about it, and I've done my share, but doing something about it is an excercise in futility.

The deciders are left with trying to figure out a way to optimize the entertainment value of thier product while making sure that the money earned gets divied out in proportion to the value of the various independent participants in the show. There's a lot of ways to do that and Delaney, Slive and Larry Scott are all doing their part with the bowl poo-bahs doing thier usual wining and dining of the deciders. Nothing new here.

I guess the bottom line is that we should all just sit back and watch the show. It's not all that bad, all things considered.

[hack]

Fair enough. Thing is, football is a sport. Can't call it anything else, really. But any sports league worth paying attention to has a central authority that sets rules, makes schedules, ensures uniform conditions and conduct, etc. This is either stuff that's done or stuff that isn't done. There aren't shades of grey here -- either it's a level playing field or it's not.

CFB obviously isn't run this way now and never will be. So, I guess, yeah -- this is sports as entertainment, ultimately. You're right. Sometimes, since it looks so much like a sport in so many ways, it's easy to slide into having expectations for it in line with that. But, acceptance is better than denial. Acceptance probably also mandates not wanting to bother with a 4-game playoff that has the appearance of real competition without its reality.

[Tony G]

Alabama fan indicted on sex charge


Updated: May 17, 2012, 4:18 PM ET
Associated Press

• 536
• 146
• 1K
• Email
• Print

NEW ORLEANS -- An Alabama fan has been charged with sexual battery after authorities say he was captured on video performing a simulated sex act on an unconscious LSU fan after the BCS Championship Game.
An Orleans Parish grand jury on Thursday handed up an indictment against 32-year-old Brian H. Downing. It charges him with one count each of sexual battery of a male victim and obscenity.
A video that went viral on the Internet is believed to have been taken at a fast-food restaurant in New Orleans after Alabama defeated LSU on Jan. 9.
A man wearing Crimson Tide attire appears to be performing the simulated act on the LSU fan. Authorities say that was Downing of Smiths Station, Ala.
The court set bond at $50,000.

[entropy]

Well, at least it wasn't a sheep

[*JD*]

Well that's just a guess, but when BS gets repeated frequently enough people tend to believe it's the truth. The SEC understands this very well.

As does FOX news.

[*JD*]

I think a 16 team playoff with the top 8 hosting the first round would be really great.

That being said, a 4 team playoff is better than the popularity contest that we have now.

Yep. It will still be a popularity contest but each increase diminishes that.

[Jeff Buchanan]

This is a good Diary entry from mgoblog. Nicely summarizes where we are with the post season stuff and gives a pro-con view of the obvious choices the college presidents will be making. I agree with and like the outcome the diarist is making.

Political reality probably did dictate the outcome of "no home-field play-off games." I can't believe Delaney didn't have a clear understanding of that. Still I suspect he made purposeful statements suggesting that is where he and has ADs were on the matter and therefore turned it into a bargaining chip to obtain concessions from other participants. That is, he got agreement that "only the top ranked 6 teams, will be eligible for a berth in the 4-team playoff" and a Conference Champ trumps all comers within the top 6. While I think this might leave ND at some perceived disadvantage, maybe Swarbrick agreed to it.

All of the key players (conference commissioners, bowls, TV) seem now to agree that some kind of four-team playoff is coming to college football. The challenge now turns to exactly how the four participants will be selected.

Three main options have emerged: 1) Polls; 2) A Selection Committee; or 3) Autobids for the four best conference champions. I'd like to explore the pros and cons of these options and suggest the likely outcome.

There are also hybrid options, which I'll get into below.

Polls would be the most straightforward extension of the system we have now: instead of the top two qualifying, the top four would qualify. This is not to say that the BCS standings would be computed as they are today, only that some combination of computer and human polls would determine who gets in.
A Selection Committee would be a system similar to basketball, where a small group of experts would weigh the candidates and choose the best four.

Autobids would take the decision almost entirely out of human hands: the four best conference champions would qualify for the playoff. Of course, you'd still need polls to decide the four best, but the influence of the polls would be greatly minimized. For instance, last season the rankings of the six BCS league champions were 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, and unranked. I doubt that any rational observer would have had a serious argument with that order.

A few Hybrid proposals have been widely circulated. For instance, Jim Delany has suggested autobids for conference champions, but only if they're ranked at least sixth. This system would enhance the value of winning your conference, but would eliminate weak champions from playoff consideration. (Last year, UCLA had a shot at winning the Pac-12 with a 6-6 regular-season record.)
The pure "Autobid" option seems to me highly unlikely to be selected, because it would allow weak conference champions into the playoff. One could argue the relative merits of Oklahoma State and Alabama last year. But in a system where four teams qualify, could anyone but a Wisconsin fan really claim that the Badgers, despite winning the Big Ten in a down year, had a better season than the Crimson Tide? Seriously?

A playoff that fails to select the four best teams is not credible. Conference champions aren't necessarily the best, except perhaps in their own league (and sometimes not even there). And in any event, the SEC would never agree to that—and no proposal will be adopted that the SEC doesn't support. That's the political reality.

Another political reality is that you need a system that accommodates Notre Dame. Irish-haters may say, "Let 'em join a league." But no one with any actual authority in the matter is trying to freeze the Irish out: ND Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick is a full voting member in the BCS negotiations. And the various interested parties (bowls, television) won't accept a system in which the Irish can't qualify. Whatever you think of them, the Irish are a big draw. So there needs to be a system that accommodates highly-ranked teams that didn't win a conference.

The pure "Polls" option is the easiest to understand: reach the top four, and you're in. But it can lead to some anomalies. Last year, for instance, Stanford was #4 in the BCS standings, but the Pac-10 champion Oregon Ducks, who beat Stanford in the regular season, were #5. The Delany proposal, which gives priority to conference champs, as long as they're in the top six, would correct for that. So would a rule that allows conference runners-up only if the conference champion also qualifies.

Wisconsin Athletic Director Barry Alvarez favors a selection comittee, which he feels is more transparent: if you don't like the result, you'd know exactly who was responsible. This differs from the current BCS standings, where most people don't even know what algorithms the computers are relying on.
But where would you find a committee of manageable size, whose loyalties wouldn't be in question. Alvarez is apparently unaware of the irony, when he suggests Kirk Herbstreit as an ideal member of the committee, saying the former Buckeye "is neutral, is on top of it, [and] talks to coaches around the country."

Can you imagine the uproar if there's a close call between #4 and #5, and Ohio State is one of the two teams? Or if it's Michigan? No one would believe that Herbstreit was neutral in that transaction. And of course, as ESPN's #1 booth analyst, he'd be helping to decide the participants in the very game he was going to broadcast. It's hard to imagine a more obvious conflict of interest.
This is not to single out Herbstreit. I can't imagine who you could put on that committee, who would be accepted as truly neutral. There is hardly anyone in college football who doesn't have some allegiance (real or perceived) to a particular school or conference.

I do realize that the NCAA has a selection committee for basketball, but it's a completely different situation. The lowest seed ever to win the tournament was #8 Villanova in 1985. The lowest seed ever to reach a Final Four was #11 (which has happened twice). So none of the teams that get left out, the so-called bubble teams, have any realistic shot at winning it. Narrowly missing the tourney is no doubt frustrating to the fans of those particular schools, but the rest of the country doesn't care.

In a four-team football playoff, the difference between #4 and #5 is immense. You might not like the BCS standings (Barry Alvarez clearly doesn't), but there are so many inputs to them that there is no one person you can blame if you don't like where your team is ranked. On any committee, there invariably would be a backlash in close cases.

That doesn't mean the BCS formula is perfect. For instance, the coaches' poll ought to be dropped: it's a clear conflict of interest. And the computer rankings that participate today are not the best ones. But the basic idea of a ranking based on some combination of computers and human polling is the right way to go.

There's a lot of talk in college football about "honoring" the regular season. It's a bunch of hooey. Under any of the suggested formats, your team will have to have a very good regular season to qualify for the playoff. Either you'll have to win your conference, or be ranked in the top four to six, or some combination of the two.

In short, what I think we'll wind up with is some kind of hybrid qualification model, which will favor conference champions, but with a provision for wild cards, and/or a requirement that conference champs be rated at least sixth. And I think the rating mechanism is more likely to be a combination of polls and computers, not a committee.

[whodean]

A playoff that fails to select the four best teams is not credible. Conference champions aren't necessarily the best, except perhaps in their own league (and sometimes not even there).

This. Get the four best teams in there.