"Though Boise State was one spot higher than Ohio State, Ohio State was selected for the money they bring to the table."
And talent-wise and performance-wise, it was obviously the right decision as well.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Your killing my buzz man...
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
I'm great at parties, too.
Zac
· 10 months ago
Well, thavage, I like holding hanthz at moviethz, walking on the beach in the moon light. OOPths, wrong thread...
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
h
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
h
(hate to do it on Zac, but...Dogpile!!!)
Zac
· 10 months ago
I wuz ONLY JOKE'n. (Geez, watta grouch)
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
Was it something I said?
Mars
· 10 months ago
USC is better than Texas (clearly), Oklahoma (clearly), and Florida. They are the most talented team in the nation with the best defense and best coach. Florida is the 2nd-most talented with the 2nd-best coach, but their defense cannot compare to that of the Trojans.
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
That's (clearly) your opinion. Congratulations, but the rest of us will never actually know that, with the exception (clearly) of Oregon State. Now what on earth does your comment have to do with mine?
Zac
· 10 months ago
OO! OO! I got it! Pick me! Pick me!
Ahem...OK, (clearly) USC brings more money to the table than OSU. Hah? Right? How'd I do?
Eh, you're right, Tom. I don't buy it either.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Non BCS conferences can do a lot to get their respective houses in order before they are invited to join the BCS:
1) Grow, join, or secede your conference into 12 teams and play a conference playoff game. No mega-blob conferences like the WAC was before it split back into the WAC and the Mountain WAC...
2) Expand your stadiums and sell them out. Sorry, we SEC'ers don't want to play in a 30k seat stadium outside of Nashville or Starkville...
3) Implore the BCS conferences(Pac10,B10(11) B east who don't do this to start, in order to set a good example
4) Extort, bribe and demand BCS conference schools to engage you in a series, even if you do have to travel 2 to 1...
I'm not saying that this is fair, I'm just saying that it would go a long way...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
What about 45,000 seats like Utah has? 60,000 seats like in Provo? Both have been selling out the last few years.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Not good enough--unfortunately. But it's not just the stadiums, it's the programs themselves. It's no coincidence that most of the teams in the BCS conferences are the ones who have been playing football for 120 years with some success. Most of them are flagship schools of states east of the Mississippi, too (yes, there IS a bias) Football is taken very seriously in these states--even at the high school level. It's a cultural thing that doesn't seem to have taken effect as much in every part of the country.
Eventually, they will include all conferences in the BCS, and I think they should. But don't think for a minute that there still won't be bias. That will exist for another 100 years or so. It'll take decades for parity to appear between the old guard and the new guard. Respect is something that is earned gradually from the haves by the have nots. For every Utah of 2008 that makes us think they belong, we have a Hawaii of 2007 that we know does not.
I'm fortunate that my team has the old school pedigree that lands them in the BCS, but I think about what if they did not. They'd still be my team regardless, just like your team is yours. The tradition and status quo of CFB moves very slowly and will take an awful long time to fix--kinda like fixing social security. I just hope that they still have CFB when I'm old, though...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Yeah, Utah only has 5 perfect seasons, 7 if you allow ties. (1926, 1929, 1930, 2004, 2008; 1928, 1941) These are tied for 17th and 21st nationally.
We are only tied for #34 in all time wins at 606. We only have the #33 best all time record at 606-419-31 (0.58854). Our all time points differential is #28 (24118 PF, 18100 PA, 6018 differential).
We have been a little slack since we starting playing football in 1892. No pedigree here, move along.
The BCS is so Antebellum Southern.
And it is now three Utah/Boise State's to one Hawaii.
Look, it took decades before anyone cared about football in the south, in the beginning. Those Alabama teams that went to the Rose Bowl a few times in the 1920s put us on the map. Before that, it was all East coast and Mid-West, with a sprinkling of USC on the coast. Hell, the Big 10 used to be known as the Western Athletic Conference. The game evolves, slowly, per Darwin...
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
Ben usually, and very conveniently, ignores the SoS argument. It's too damning. I'm somewhat sympathetic, but again, Utah has to develop the Florida State model and play anybody, anywhere, anytime, and concede that there won't be any home-and-home.
Until that happens, it won't change for the SWC or the WAC.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
As would the best of us, TB. But the SOS is key to comparing disimilar teams. Delaware has 635 wins, more than Utah, but that doesn't tell you much until you know that they're a FCS school...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
And a dern good FCS team Delaware is!!
I bet they would place 8th in the PAC 10!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I bet they wish they had copyrighted that whole winged-helmet thingy...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
LOL, indeed they would be the financial VICTORS!
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I would like to see a list of all team all time opponents opponents listing.
Judging by the W-L listing in the same table it uses a more recent performance.
Utah was historically VERY BAD from the 1960's until the 1980's. WE lost any pedigree we may have had from the 20's then. When the in state escalation of athletic funding war with BYU started in the 80's our program began to improve. It has been a slow climb since then.
One must admit the in state funding battle has produced a competitive product.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I provided what I think you are requesting in the link above...
I selected 'all-time' SOS, although you can break it down by quarter century or decade...
For example, if we take only the current, incomplete decade, Utah's SOS bumps up to 68th... 2008 is not factored into that quite yet. Give CFBDW another month or so...
I've sent emails to CFBDW in an attempt to see how they rank SOS, but they've never answered...
BTW: I was in PCB last weekend. I would have sent you an email, but I knew you were in NOLA...
Zac
· 10 months ago
Ben, it stinks, but it's all about the money. Sadly, it always has been. For example: Temple, a quality school, got kicked out of the Big East (of all conferences) because they couldn't consistently attract 25,000 total fans to their football games. Neither the school nor its students would support the team all that well. The Big East began as a basketball power conference. It still is, and Temple had always excelled in that arena. But, that wasn't good enough. I was appalled that the ability to fill seats at football games was among the criterion for membership to the Big East. But, there it is.
What surprises me the most is the alleged disinterest in the "Cinderella Story" that a Non-BCS school lends to the sport. "David Vs. Goliath" has always been a good human interest story. It works during March Madness. However what works for basketball apparently does not work for football when money is on the line. Sad.
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
Temple has had a good basketball program for a long time, but they were not a part of the Big East in basketball, they were and are in the Atlantic 10. All they did was suck football money away from the other schools. If they would have been full-fledged members of the Big East, I don't think they would have been kicked out.
Zac
· 10 months ago
You're absolutely right, and for a school to get into the Big East, it has to be invited. Given Temple's rich basketball history, and given the Big East was originally founded as being a strong basketball conference, I've never understood Temple not being invited in basketball, yet allowed in for football. Its fans supported the basketball team, not the football team.
With Utah, its fans support its sports programs. They sell out their stadium, even in the worst weather. Trust me. If the Big East could figure out an economic benefit to the inclusion of BYU & Utah, not to mention TCU (had once been rumored) they'd do it.
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
I don't think it was that they were not invited, I don't think they wanted to leave the Atlantic 10 and the rivalries they had in that conference.
Ute_fan
· 10 months ago
WEA- I agree almost whole heatedly with your assessment. 1) we have to go to a 12 team conference format, if for no other reason than that it will improve the credibility of the conference and and the SOS of the conference champ. 2)here is where I have a problem. It does mid majors no good to build huge stadiums they cant fill. Utah's stadium should probably be expanded to 60k and it would be easy just by building up the south end. Boise is currently expanding their stadium,. But to expand without being able to fill the seats isn't smart. 3) you are right! 4) It isn't fair but to prove themselves mid majors have to consistently compete with BCS schools any where any time!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Thanks. Just get Ben to sign off first...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
You got any green Jello?
1) Other than Boise State, who else brings BCS credibility? While Fresno State, Nevada, Houston, UTEP, and Tulsa all have a case, they don't have the numbers to back it up.
Hawaii and Tulsa would be the best two by BCS standards.
I used to agree with you, but am convinced that a 10 team format is best at this time for the MWC.
2) I agree, but it is not the mid majors with the huge stadiums that are trying to earn respect. The ones with an attendance problems would be happy to get over 0.500. WEA was clearly talking about non-BCS teams, like us and Boise State, who want to go to the next level.
Where can we find the money for the South End Zone renovations we already have drawn up... Let me check the MWC revenue sharing plan again...
3) We need to start separating BCS teams from BCS conferences in the dialog. Using a cutoff of 0.5000 in the numbers linked above for both would be a very good start. This is certainly much better than conference alignment.
4) That is exactly how FSU and Miami EARNED respect in the 80's. It is really simple though. Utah's problem has not been our schedule, it has been sufficient. If we had 10+ wins every year we would start every year high enough to make a run.
Cougar_Fan
· 10 months ago
You're right, I think one reason the Big East doesn't expand is that talent for those schools is already so scarce. I think the MWC is doing great and should invite Boise State after next season. 2009's gonna be huge for the MWC though! TCU Utah, and BYU are all top 25 preseason, and nobody has any Big East teams ranked in preseason rankings. We'll outpace the Big East again next year and then we just continue to get national attention while they start losing more to the resurgent ACC. The other thing I'm excited for is to see the emergence of Colorado State and San Diego State over the next few seasons. San Diego State's got a great coaching staff and should recruit much better, and we've seen how CSU jumped back this year. If CU continues to flounder CSU could start to steal a lot of talent from them.
Mr2Bits
· 10 months ago
USF at #24
On a side note I'm glad to see the media is back to licking the small dark and curly's of ND with them being at #23. Guess that win over Hawaii really established their dominance.
Ute_fan
· 10 months ago
Ben- With The Cotton Bowl moving to the Cowboy's new stadium they have formally requested admittance as a BCS bowl. If Admitted as a BCS bowl I would assume that the Big 12 would seek to switch affiliation from the Fiesta Bowl to the Cotton Bowl because of the location and the rich history that the Texas schools share with the Cotton Bowl. that would leave an AQ vacancy with the Fiesta Bowl which just happens to be in the middle of the MWC. This is also an opportunity for the BCS to quiet some of their loudest critics by offering AQ status to a 12 team MWC with the top western mid majors in it. I would suggest WEST: Utah, BYU, UNLV, BSU, FSU, Nevada EAST: AFA, CSU, TCU, New Mexico, Tulsa, Houston
I know its a pipe dream, but with the Pac 10 still refusing to expand, as a MWC fan I'm forced to wonder how we can improve our schedules and the Public perception of our strength.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Since the Fiesta Bowl was originally formed from the WAC's desire to have a bowl game in 1971 it is more likely that the Cotton Bowl would replace the Fiesta Bowl, maintaining 4 BCS Bowls and a championship game.
If the Fiesta Bowl loses its BCS status, with the Big 12 Champion moving to the Cotton Bowl, it would make a great venue for the MWC and WAC champions to face each other. Certainly this would be better than the Humaitarian Bowl.
From a BCS value stand point, the only expansion that makes sense is to ten teams with Boise State. While Utah is certainly not in a possition to turn an offer from the PAC 10 down, I am growing cold to the idea of leaving the MWC for the PAC 10. I don't see the PAC 10 thawing any time soon either.
If the MWC can continue to win 2/3 of their out of conference games everything else falls into place. If we can continue to get 10+ wins every year, with wins over top 25 teams, we will earn respect. Boise State and BYU are ahead of us on this count.
What did we do between 2004 and 2008? Won three bowl games, sure, but that is about it.
Ute_fan
· 10 months ago
But from a BCS value as well wouldn't dropping Wyoming and SDSU bring us up statisticly?
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Dropping SDSU or UNLV would increas our value more than adding Tulsa or Hawaii. Dropping a team is just bad politics.
No other additions help, notably Fresno State.
I think SDSU will move up. Where else are they going to go? At least they may win some of their OOC games.
Why drop a team that fires their coach depite a win over Tennessee? They expect more than they have been getting.
Zac
· 10 months ago
Interesting analysis ya got up there. You should read my post below. Look familiar? Well, you know what they say about "great minds". OK, well, at least you got it right.
AUtigerman
· 10 months ago
Ben I for one can see a good argument for Utah. Its not like they didnt schedule a pretty tough out of conference schedule this year.
Michigan right off the bat (Just about any other year that may have pushed them over the top) Oregon State, lets not forget they beat USC. And then beat Bama.
Unfortunately they will likely need perfection again next year to get the nod.
FSU_Ben
· 10 months ago
So if I count correctly you have a 5 team mini playoff? I think designing a playoff that automatically disrespects two undefeated teams (Boise and Utah) would not meet with high regard. Let me know if I am reading that wrong. If we go to a +1 I can see allowing Utah, I can't see allowing Boise. The finished the season with one win over a ranked team that wasn't highly ranked and was probably upset anyways. Boise then lost to TCU proving they aren't ready for the big leagues quite yet. Recall if you will I didn't think Utah was either but the lineup was at least somewhat more difficult for Utah and they proved themselves in the end.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Are you telling me the current system didn't disrespect Boise and Utah?
My (and Regan's) format:
Move the BCS Bowls to New Year's Day or the day after. Include these teams:
1) All undefeated teams 2) All teams above the first gap of 0.06 in the BCS standings
A winning season deserves consideration for a berth in a regional bowl. A conference championship deserves consideration for a berth in a premier bowl.
Only the two criteria above warrant consideration for a national championship.
Rotate the National Championship Game between the four historic venues a week latter. Use a plus one if needed (3 or more teams). Use a Wild Card Game as a semi final, if needed (3-5 teams). Use play in games hosted by the favored teams, if needed (5 or more teams).
For 4+ teams use the BCS Bowl with a tie-in to the #1 team as a semi-final. For 6+ teams use the BCS Bowl with a tie-in to the #2 seed as the other semi-final to maintain 10-11 teams in the BCS games.
The BCS bowls not participating in the systems return to what they originally were. Awards for the champions of the premier conferences. By tying participation in the playoffs with the top seeds the top seeded teams will play in their traditional bowls and bowls would have a vested interest to have tie-ins to the best conference.
Without the claims to crown a national title, the BCS bowls would be under significantly less scrutiny about who they invite to play and all teams would have a road to the national title from the start of the season.
This year the seeds would have been: #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #3 Texas, #6 Utah, #9 Boise State.
Bamalodi
· 10 months ago
Ben Prather I appreciate your article and for Uath I understand your arguement and it is a valid arguement. The system is what it is SOS has so much to do with what how we name a national champion.
Yes Utah did everything they could do be considered winning against BCS opponents but your conference hurts your chances period. The SUPERCONFERENCEs go into the year knowing that 1 or 2 of their teams or going to be considered for a national title based on SOS.
The only real way for the Utahs of the world to get enough respect is to do what Pat Hill has done from Fresno St and schedule the SUPERCONFERENCES and beat them.
I know that isn't exactly fair but it what it is.
Again I appreciate what Utah did but I am not convinced they desreve a share of MNC
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
My argument was simple.
This has been a banner year for the so called Mid Majors, making several inroads into the national perception, above and beyond any national championship debate.
I think, at this point, Utah has more respect than Fresno State. Just call it a hunch.
Wardboy3
· 10 months ago
I think it is just to easy to say all UTAH has to do is schedule a team from a SUPERCONFERENCE.
What team from a SUPERCONFERENCE do you think would actually schedule a UTAH now? I don't think anyone will b/c the chance to lose is to great.
AUtigerman
· 10 months ago
I thought Michigan and Oregon State were from super conferences
Wardboy3
· 10 months ago
As I said...who will do it NOW.
Bamalodi
· 10 months ago
I agree and I wasn't comparing Utah to Fresno St. directly. My point was Hill understands that if his team stands a chance it is scheduling teams from the SUPERCONFERENCES! That awas my point.
Regan
· 10 months ago
In an absolutely bizarre case of irony, here is a question for all concerned about Utah....
What about going the other way, back to the 80's, by becoming an FBS Independent?
Don't get me wrong, there are a HUGE number of down-sides that come from being a non-Notre Dame Independent, but this would free up Utah to schedule a much heavier gamut of teams, and also would shed the "non-BCS conference" problem.
Given the fact that there are now 34 Bowl games, and almost every season there are Bowls looking to fill slots when some conferences don't fill all of theirs, if Utah was successful as an Independent, they would always be guaranteed of a Bowl, be it BCS or otherwise.
TV money wise, it might get tricky, but given the obscene number of TV stations in existence nowadays, it might even be....possible....
I know it's out of left field, but....what do yall think? :)
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
The conferences are much stronger now, especially with the bowls.
Lets figure this one out...
The MWC celebrated its tenth anniversary this year. The BCS celebrated its tenth anniversary this year.
The goal of the MWC, from its inception, was to become a BCS conference. Some teams from the WAC were not ready to make the required commitments. Fresno State is still a little sore about not being included.
The MWC is scheduling strong enough. We need to get two or three teams that gets 10 win almost every year. BYU is there. TCU and Utah are close. Boise State is there.
BamaBorn
· 10 months ago
Ben most of us have given props to Utah on their great season and the beatdown of Bama. It is beginning to look like you want to change the rules after the fact. You knew going in that Utah could not win the NC this year but I sense that some Utah fans are now surprised that they couldn't play for a national title.
I would have enjoyed seeing Utah compete for a national title but I knew going in that it wouldn't happen. Somehow I think that ALL Utah fans knew that also.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I am moving past this year.
You are miss reading us and this post. I am actually saying the MWC has not arrived yet and am stating what we will look like when we do.
This year a team in the MWC needed to be in the top 15 to have a whiff of the title. Next year we will need to start in the top 20.
As an undefeated team from a conference without an automatic qualification it is our duty to campaign for a change in the system, but that is for the future.
We are VERY happy with the outcome. Two teams have gone undefeated before, one of them us, but never have a quarter of the AP voters taken a stand. We made our appeal to the AP and they have answered. We accept their vote.
Never has it even been a consideration that two non BCS teams could be in BCS bowls, until Boise State this year was higher than Fiesta Bowl losing Ohio State in the BCS standings.
Though Utah is #1 in 4 of the 6 official BCS computers (Anderson and Hester, Massey W-L, Sagarin ELO and Peter Wolfe), Utah fans know the crystal trophy was out of reach.
(Did I mention I think the BCS formula is just fine the way it is, especially the computers? I am not just saying this now, I have known how they rely too much on W-L record for a while)
This thread was a toast to the other BCS outsiders for a year well done.
Zac
· 10 months ago
Let's talk about next year. How many starters will the Utes return on both sides of the ball? Of those graduating, how many are significant or impact players? Are there able back-ups returning to step up and aptly fill these holes? What does the recruiting class look like? Are there any among them who could make in impact right away next season? Do you have the answers for Air Force, BYU, CO St, or TCU? Now, based upon the answers, what are the chances of either Air Force, BYU, CO St, TCU, or UT being ranked in the Top 20 at the start of next season? While we're at it, are there any other teams in the MWC who may have what it takes to step up and provide a little more competition/credibility next season?
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I have not really look that far ahead yet...
A QB change is coming, but we have a few in waiting and our backup has been outstanding.
Really the biggest questions looked to be in our defensive secondary.
The recruiting class looks a lot better than it did a month ago, other than that I don't know.
The conference should be close. It usually is.
At least two of Utah, TCU and BYU should be ranked in the top 20 at the start.
Air Force and New Mexico have been close to credible for some time.
UNLV, Wyoming, CSU are in a wait and see mode. As long as they go 2-2 or better in OOC we will be fine. This means beating the teams they are supposed to and maybe one they shouldn't.
SDSU is the wild card. It would be near impossible for them to get worse. While they might not be competitive in conference play they should at least win more OOC games over the likes of Cal Poly.
My WAY TO EARLY projection has the MWC taking a slight step backwards (Say 0.4000 in the BCS numbers, .5200 with Boise State)
I don't think anyone from the MWC will go undefeated, but a 1 loss team would be in the top 12 to end the season. Our 28-13 OOC record might be difficult to maintain, but 26-15 would achieve the results listed above. 10-5 vs BCS conference members was nice but I am not sure it is maintainable.
Regan
· 10 months ago
That's cool, Ben, I really am not in command of much info when it comes to the MWC and, as a student of CFB history, the D-IA Independent route has worked for Miami, FSU, and a few others over the last 30 years or so.
Heck, the Big East Conference (in football) was nothing more than the collection of all the old major Eastern Independents (minus FSU, SCAR, ND, and for some reason PSU).
I am actually a fan of the days of the old Eastern Independents, and TBH, the way things are going, I forsee a day in CFB when they will once again have large numbers (if things keep going the way they are.)
Given the way that the BCS Conferences have now maxed out their willingness to expand (for the time being), that option is out, so it's either go Independent or hope for the MWC's inclusion into the BCS.
The latter would be best for all parties, but SOMEONE had to ask the question.... :-)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
An anachronism, for sure. The old Miami model. Stay independent and coast on a weaker schedule as long as you can.
Don't think it would work, Regan. Let's roll play here: Would you like to take the guaranteed TV and Bowl revenue that comes from being in a conference, or choose what's behind door #2?
Only three teams are making it as independents: Notre Dame, because they're Notre Dame, and Army and Navy, because they don't need the money...
Regan
· 10 months ago
"The old Miami model. Stay independent and coast on a weaker schedule as long as you can."
The Old Miami Model? Regansaywha?
During the last 10 years (1981-1990) of Miami's days as an Eastern Independent, they played 34 games against teams that ended with 9+ Wins. The 'Canes went 5-3 in Bowl Games during the stretch, ending it with a 46-3 win over 10-2 Texas in the Cotton Bowl.
During that stretch, Miami went 8-0 vs. the Big 8 (12), 10-1 vs. the SWC, 8-1 vs. the Big Ten, 5-2 vs. the ACC, 2-1 vs. the Pac-10, and 10-5 vs. the SEC.
They were also 41-8 vs. other Div. I-A Independent teams that would later be counted among BCS Conferences and Notre Dame (like FSU, VT, PITT, BC, etc.)
No games were played against non Div. I-A opponents.
Okay, my question/supposition of Utah becoming a Div. I-A Independent is a bad idea...
...But when the author of the Fanblogs Glossary has the wrong impression about the decade that made Miami Football what it is and postulates a TERM, Regan MUST set the record straight.... :-)
Feel free to call it the "Notre Dame model" if you want, since in the last few years it isn't particularly innacurate....but don't make me dig through Stassen ...:-)
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
Salt Lake City also has to become the hotbed for high school football talent in the country. If you can field a top notch football program with the players in a forty mile radius of SLC like Miami did, then there's more talent there than anyone ever knew. I....don't think that's going to happen.
Zac
· 10 months ago
Personally, I think UT going independent would be suicide. Joining a stronger conference, on the other hand, or working toward improving the existing conference makes more sense.
Kevin posted a thread a few moons back on the possibility of the PAC-10 expanding to 12 teams. Two of the possible candidates were BYU & UT. Such a move would not only strengthen the PAC-10, but it would certainly lend the credibility apparently needed by BYU & UT.
Kevin also posted a thread discussing Big Televen expansion. MO was among those considered to round them out to 12. This would leave a hole in the Big 12, which UT might fill. However, this scenario compromises an established rivalry with BYU.
What may prove more beneficial would be to expand the conference to 12. Three candidates come to mind: Boise St is the most obvious. However, consider Houston & Tulsa. Both of these not only help to round out a natural MWC South or SE Div., but also provide geographic rivalry potential with TCU. Now, Houston has been inconsistent over the past 7 seasons, but they have won at least 8 games over the past 3 years, including one 10 win season. Tulsa has been far more consistent having won at least 8 games in 5 of the last 6 seasons including last season at 10-4 & this season at 11-2.
By including Boise St, Houston, & Tulsa into the Mt West, this could result in a solid, competitive conference, the likes of which the BCS can't ignore. As an ancillary benefit, it expands the MWC's market base, not to mention recruiting territory.
The NW Div. would likely consist of Boist St, BYU, S.D.St, UT, UNLV, & WY; the SE Div. would then consist of Air Force, CO St, Houston, NM, TCU, & Tulsa. If they play an 8 game mandatory format (5 from their respective div., 3 from the other) that leaves 4 slots open to play nothing but BCS teams, provided of course that there are 4 out there brave enough to do so. (You can bring a horse to water, but, well you know the rest.)
Oh yeah, well, well, just you remember; it's Jedi Donahue who allows us to exercise the force on this site. Mlah!!! (This is what happens to me when I'm too lazy to look it up.)
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 10 months ago
Pretty sure I'm more of a Sith Master.
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
“FSU is the path to the dark side. FSU leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Ummm. Logical advice you give...
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
To me listen you will.
jake
· 10 months ago
THE BCS: AMERICA'S SPORTS COUNTRY CLUB
I've been reading through this thread quite thoroughly and making observations. The most obvious commonality is this:
- Ben Prather makes an argument for a playoff (or defends his positions) and then a BCS-school fan makes a counter-argument for why a playoff won't work, a team like Utah isn't deserving, etc.
Most of you aren't going to like hearing this but THIS LOOKS LIKE A COUNTRY CLUB. You BCS-school fans don't think "lesser" schools should get the same opportunities because they don't have the same SOS, tradition, national championships, money, etc. You know what? I don't see any Duke, Indiana, Arizona, or Miss. State fans on here making the same arguments against Ben! Those teams are simply grateful to be the in position they are presently - ie in a BCS conference. They get beat up year after year while a team like TCU, Boise, or Utah would likely be at least competitive in any BCS conference.
The bottom line: Schools like Fl. State, Bama, Auburn, Ohio State (yes, you know who I'm talking about) are all top teams in the nation year in and out. But why and how? Yes, they pump tons of money into their programs and generate fan support. They also happen to get fan support and gain money simply by their BCS TV contracts. Obviously, there is a double standard. More importantly, those teams (mentioned above) were all lucky enough to get into the now-BCS conferences, which have put them in the positions they have now. What's the difference between a Buckeye and Hoosier? Well...money, winning, politics, support, and good amount of luck.
Utah (and several others) have all of those attributes except one: the politics. It is on the outside looking in and using the only political strategy it knows of. I'm sick of hearing the "that's just how it is" argument about the BCS. The CFB nation has spoken and dominantly supports a playoff system because this is America and everyone deserves a chance. So you upper-echelon BCS program, please drop the country club mentality!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I can't argue with the Country Club analogy, Jake. Sometimes I feel like Ted Knight trying to keep Rodney Dangerfield out...
But let me break your argument down. You say that some teams "were all lucky enough to get into the now-BCS conferences, which have put them in the positions they have now". So what you're really saying is that BCS teams just won some lottery they held last week, and that the other teams were merely 'less fortunate'? Is that what it is to you, the luck of the draw? I'm betting that you vote Democrat...
What do you think would happen if every BCS school ceased and desisted the playing of football next year and only the non-BCS schools were left? What do you think that would do for ad revenue for TV? What kind of ratings would the bowls have next season? Slightly better than high school games, my friend. Somebody has to swing the big stick. Without ordinance, the Air Force would just be a gentleman's flying club...
Look at it like a business. The BCS schools draw better, thus they get more consideration. Why do they draw better? Because they've been around long enough, that's why. Would you expect to make as much at a job at the entry level as a guy that's about to get his gold watch? Or was he just luckier than you?
This is life, man. Some people are up and others are down. There are winners and there are losers. You can always improve your situation. You try. You do something about it, like what I suggested above, rather than sitting around moaning about it.
Okay, the meeting of blue bloods will now come to order over in the open thread...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
We all saw how well Cincinnati and Virginia Tech draw, unless we skipped the Orange Bowl altogether. And why not, since the Poinsettia Bowl was a much better match up.
jake
· 10 months ago
WEA, first, I'm not trying to play the "less fortunate" card by any means. If anything, I'm positing that most of the BCS schools used politics (and a bit of luck) to secure their positions in a BCS conference - and that's not a bad thing. From that position, the benefits of being in those conferences has given them an even greater advantage - one that teams like Utah do not. So now Utah has risen above the odds and basically done everything it needs to validate its credibility. And so I believe at this point Utah is in a similar position in which it is using politics to rise to the next level of CFB. Unfortunately, the BCS is playing the country club mentality, but maybe Utah will join the Pac-10 and get its shot at a title. But then what about the TCUs and Boises? It will be an everlasting escalation of arms for the non-BCS teams until eventually the BCS breaks.
Second, in response to "What do you think would happen if every BCS school ceased and desisted the playing of football next year and only the non-BCS schools were left? ...Slightly better than high school games, my friend." The cause and affect would be similar to the BCS debacle we see now. So, in your scenario, we remove all BCS teams altogether and people would still watch CFB. Why? From what I have seen in various polls, about 75% of CFB fans dislike the BCS system, yet fans still watch the games. Also, most fans agree that the ridiculous quantity of bowl games has dampened the post-season, yet fans still watch. In your scenario, the MWC, WAC and MAC become the upper echelon, and fans will still watch (despite Utah being the best team in the country) games because they love CFB.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I think the audience would desert in droves, but it would eventually come back. Americans would buy tickets to two guys flinging a cow pie at each other in a pasture. Naturally, Texas high schools would play it on Friday nights...
Playing politics isn't going to cut it. As good as Utah was this year, their only hope would be to be good next year, starting off in the top 10 and going undefeated again. Then they may get a shot. That's simply the way it's going to be until we get a playoff.
Maybe within 20 years, we'll get a 4-team playoff, but that will be the max numer of teams in it. Conference championships will serve as the de facto first rounds, then the four best will still be CHOSEN for the real playoff.
I'm convinced now that we will never see more than a 4-teamer in my lifetime. I'm a man, I'm 41--to give you an idea of how much longer you have to wait.
jake
· 10 months ago
You're right. That's just how it is unfortunately. But at least we can both agree we need a playoff for fairness sake.
.....and all that was from memory....I still have a whole 'Playoffs Suck' folder stocked full of articles, etc. that can back me up that I haven't even touched, and I am just neurotic enough this time of year to use it!
Ben Prather and I did come up with a system that I think has a great chance of: + Working on Paper + Proving to be actually feasible + Preserves the chaos and richness of CFB as it is now (Regular Season) + Gives us an undisputed Champion
Ben called it the "The Regan-Prather Wishbone Triple Option post season" Check it out, let us know what you think! :-)
jake
· 10 months ago
I would LOVE IT if a playoff ruined CFB as we know it. CFB as I know it disgusts me. If a playoff would knock the whole thing down, then it can be built back up in better form. That's fine by me.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Jake.....are you going there?
Here's my opening shot from The "Playoffs Suck" Folder:
My playoff proposal has been brought up in four thread now, once the details are unleashed, as above, no other arguments are ever presented.
Their has been a significant amount of talk about how significant Utah is, especially when the OP was about how the Mid-Majors as a whole did significantly better this year than they ever had before.
Think about it. The PAC 10, Big 12 and Big East were all way down this year. OK, the Big 12 south was up a bit, but where did the rest of the zero sum ranking games go?
To East Carolina, Boise State, Utah, TCU, BYU, Ball State and Tulsa. All in unprecedented fashion.
It was a good year for the little guy.
Unbiased
· 10 months ago
Apparently, President-Elect Obama agrees that Utah has a "Good claim" to the MNC:
The biggest problem with your plan is the complexity. Any playoff system should be able to be described in one or two sentences. Once people hear "a gap of .06 in the BCS standings" their brains shut off. It's too much. No one wants to get in an argument with you about it.
11 conference champions and 5 at-large teams chosen by committee, hosted at the bowl sites. Anything that happens on the way to that system (which I happen to disagree with, BTW) or something similar is just foreplay. Until pollsters stop determining who gets to play, controversy will continue to grow. The term "BCS" will need to be erased from the face of the earth.
Of course, this may destroy the regular season as we have come to know and love it, but that's another issue.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 10 months ago
Not to mention destroy the tradition of the bowl games. There's nothing I love more than a team that hasn't been on the top finally getting to & winning a bowl game. You can't put assign words to the emotions those kids have at that moment. And this type of system would remove that completely, relegating bowls games to just extended season games.
Skip1
· 10 months ago
It's notable that some of the loudest media voices for a playoff are those who don't appreciate or even like college football in the first place. The bowls are no big loss because they never cared about the bowls in the first place. They don't get why a Big 10 team playing a Pac 10 team in the Rose Bowl is a big deal. It's just another game. Just once I would love to hear ESPN explain why I should care what Mike Lupica and Mitch Albom think about this issue and why they get a platform to rail about college football on Sports Reporters every week.
Of course, there are MANY true fans who desperately want a playoff. But the media narrative that has helped build this budding consensus has NOT come from people who love the game or have college football's best interest at heart.
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Skip1 I totally disagree- I love CFB and do not see P-10 vs B/10 in the Rose Bowl as a big deal.This matchup futher insolates or isolates these two from the others- The Media-Keith Jackson etc etc have always overhyped this particular game to serve their purpose as a big event, as to promote the grandaddy of them all etc etc to help with ABC/Espn's ratings and garner veiwers who might otherwise not watch because its usually USC vs insert team-whatever?? Hookem-Horns
Regan
· 10 months ago
Tomcat, you are one of many CFB fans that want a Playoff, but Skip1 hit the nail on the head when it comes to the MEDIA backing of a Playoff.
The "bandwagon" is a powerful thing, especially when Mass Media is on board. 48% of the country thinks a President was just elected that way.
I guarantee you that the full-time CFB people out there, be it Mandel, Hayes, or our very own Kevin Donahue are all very leery of a Playoff in CFB, whereas it's always NFL or 'general sports' commentators that say absolutely nothing about CFB all season only to appear like clockwork every December and January to decry CFB's postseason and demand a Playoff....
Some CFB people (like you) do support a Playoff, but the percentage of CFB-only people that want a Playoff is NOT the 90% that shows up on all these news-media polls....
....and the Truth Must Be Heard! :-)
Skip1
· 10 months ago
Just so you know, it's 47%... ;)
Regan
· 10 months ago
Where did you get that figure? Must Add to Folder....
Regan
· 10 months ago
Skip1: >>>>It's notable that some of the loudest media voices for a playoff are those who don't appreciate or even like college football in the first place.<<<<
THIS IS THE SMARTEST THING I HAVE HEARD ALL YEAR.
I know, it's only January, but PROPS!!!!!
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
The regular season has already been destroyed by the BCS The BCS system was used in determining the B-12 champ hence during the regular season OU lost to Texas by 10 points so the regular season was already destroyed so that OU could lose to Fla by 10 points I unlike other fans like 34 bowl games does a 6-6 team deserve a bowl bid? The existing bowls could be utilized as a format for a playoff senerio and everybody could argue over who's number 16 or 8 instead of who's number 2 or 3? the Utah's, USC's and UT's would have a shot at a title instead of media darlings and consistantly overhyped so-called national powerhouses. Unlike 07 when a two loss team gets to go in 08 an undefeated and some good 1 loss teams are left out- How giving the parity that exist, were just about anybody can beat anybody- is it realisic to imagine that- two teams will emerge at the end undefeated- 2000 and 2005 are the only two years in recent yhistory every other year as is the case with 04 and 08 there will be contraversy Hookem-Horns
Regan
· 10 months ago
>>>>The regular season has already been destroyed by the BCS<<<<
Not to the Nielsens. The Post-Season wasn't determined until the last RS games were played. Just like the '07 drama that made LSU and OHST fans watch PITT knock off WVU, every game still matters.
Texas just got bit by the Winds of Fate.
>>>>The BCS system was used in determining the B-12 champ hence during the regular season OU lost to Texas by 10 points so the regular season was already destroyed so that OU could lose to Fla by 10 points<<<<
That is not on the BCS. That is on the Big 12. The BCS voters cannot be blamed for not changing their whole process to benefit Texas. The SEC has a tiebreaker rule that takes the Head-to-Head result of the highest 2 ranked teams - had the Big 12 had that, the Longhorns would have gone.
>>>>I unlike other fans like 34 bowl games does a 6-6 team deserve a bowl bid?<<<<
I say go for it. It doesn't hurt anyone. If a fans and a sponsor want to pay for it and the kids want to play, I say let 'em...
>>>>The existing bowls could be utilized as a format for a playoff senerio and everybody could argue over who's number 16 or 8 instead of who's number 2 or 3?<<<<
The Bowls cannot be used in a Playoff System. They would wither and die, since no one would spend a week vacation to fly for a Round 1 or 2.
>>>>the Utah's, USC's and UT's would have a shot at a title instead of media darlings and consistantly overhyped so-called national powerhouses.<<<<
Utah has a legit claim. SCAL and TEX each lost a game, throwing their destiny to the Winds of Fate. That, and, trust me - SCAL...not a media darling?
>>>>Unlike 07 when a two loss team gets to go in 08 an undefeated and some good 1 loss teams are left out- How giving the parity that exist, were just about anybody can beat anybody- is it realisic to imagine that- two teams will emerge at the end undefeated- 2000 and 2005 are the only two years in recent yhistory every other year as is the case with 04 and 08 there will be contraversy<<<<
Only in recent years have the "mid-majors" realistically belonged in the BCS. No one honestly would have put Tulane up against Tennessee in 1998.
Sure, it works out well when you have a 1999, 2002, or 2005 year, but that's no reason to scrap it all. CFB is a fundamentally Chaotic sport; trying to fit it into a neat little box will just not work...
>>>>Hookem-Horns<<<<
Ever since VY finally ended the most overwhelming volume of sheer and unadulterated Hype that has ever existed in the History of Mankind (the SCAL 2004-2005 Seasons), I swore no less than Five years rooting for Texas in honor of being able to hear about anyone else succeeding at CFB.
...and thus, concur.... :)
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Regan Enjoyed reading your post, we really agree on a lot of issues. It is a chaotic sport and perhaps thats why these boards are fun. I wasn't referring to USC as media darlings they are a great team, I was using it in general or perhaps in reference to a really good team that runs up ridiculous offensive numbers against opponents. Only to lose another BCS bowl game. The best part of the MNC game was after it was over one of the commentators wasn't grinning or smiling and that kinda made my day. Regan no neat little box- I know that these things take time, but a little tweaking now & then and learning not to except the status quo. The old saying if its not broke dont fix it- well there's some repairs to be made-IMO
Regan
· 10 months ago
There is no doubt, it is broke. I fervently defended the BCS until 2004, when a worthy undefeated team was left out.
I just feel that the best solution is:
When you have 3 legit-claim teams, have #2 play #3 and the winner play #1.
1998: FSU vs. TENN 2000: FSU/MIA vs. OU 2001: ORE/NEB vs. MIA 2002: OHST vs. MIA 2003: LSU/SCAL vs. OU 2004: AUB/OU vs. SCAL 2005: TEX vs. SCAL 2006: LOU/FLA vs. OHST 2007: 3 Syllable word beginning with Cluster 2008: UTAH/OU vs. FLA
In my old system, this year would have turned into a 6-team bye-playoff of:
SCAL/BSU vs. FLA & UTAH/PSU vs. OU
Winners then face each other.
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Utah was also undefeated in 04 The Conf champ thing needs to be excluded in your senerio Texas is not included- Weve already had this discussion-no point in rehashing it. I had a previous post prior to the CCG games that still would have left Bois St an undefeated out Fla Bama UT OU Utah USC PSU TTech The 16 team idea would include Ohio St,Bois St,TCU etc etc- while it still not be perfect, it would be better than what exist currently BTW polls have never made much sense to me For example Missu ranked higher than KU KU beat Missu ?? I understand Fla being higher than Ole Miss because of losses, but KU was clearly a better team than Missu KU lost to OU and UT so did Missu KU beat Missu head to head
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Bowl Championship System Eligibility:
1) All undefeated teams 2) All teams above the first gap of 0.06 in the BCS standings
A winning season deserves consideration for a berth in a regional bowl. A conference championship deserves consideration for a berth in a premier bowl.
Only the two criteria above warrant consideration for a national championship.
The rest is details that would need to be addressed.
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Ben I do not understand, could you explain .06 ? BTW congrats on a great year Utah beat Bama worse than Fla did Fla beat OU by the same margin as Texas 10 points Both OU and OSU played real hard during their bowl games TCU also had a great year only two losses both top teams Utah and OU OU had an outstanding year only losses both top teams Fla and Texas not to take anything away from Fla, but it was kinda hard for me to watch knowing that some really good teams were kinda left out of consideration and that polls & computers once again determined the MNC
Skip1
· 10 months ago
What does .06 mean and why that number? Why are we still using pollsters and the BCS standings? People will not get behind this. We need to think of a system that takes pollsters out of the equation completely.
As for all undefeated teams qualifying--doesn't this reduce the incentive for mid- and low-majors to play a tough OOC schedule? Just get through your crappy conference and in flow the big bucks for playing in a "premier bowl." Why risk it by traveling to Georgia or Michigan to play?
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
What does .06 mean and why that number? Why are we still using pollsters and the BCS standings? People will not get behind this. We need to think of a system that takes pollsters out of the equation completely.
Why 0.0600 was selected goes much farther into the 6 pages of detail I have prepared.
Using the standard deviations of the computer rankings for the top 5 teams a gap of 0.0600 in the BCS standings represents a 70.2% consensus that the higher team is perceived to be better than the lower team.
It also represents an average ranking difference of 1.5, indicating that the teams are closer to two ranking spots apart than one ranking spot apart.
The controversy over the formula is usually isolated to cases where the rankings are close. By using the gaps we use the formula to its strenghts making it a much stronger asset to the system.
As for what components should be used and the relative weights they should have, the BCS bowls are better suited to determine that than I am. I will say, as a Utah fan, I have no problem with the current formula. I love the computers they use.
As for all undefeated teams qualifying--doesn't this reduce the incentive for mid- and low-majors to play a tough OOC schedule?
AN ACTUAL ISSUE!!! Thank you!
Utah will get 4.5 million more than their default conference pot for their BCS appearance this year. They got 0.8 million for their road trip to Ann Arbor.
Unless a team has better than 1 in 6 chance of going undefeated without them, they are better off with the guaranteed payout by playing Michigan. Going undefeated in any conference a team finds themselves in is tough.
Boise State and Utah are the only teams who have demonstrated that level of success but they have higher goals than just a payout. Most MWC and C-USA teams, and a select few elsewhere, want to push for a spot on the brighter side of the BCS line. This will require improving their perception. This requires beating good teams on a regular bases. You can't do this if you don't play them on a regular basis.
The low majors already lack incentive to schedule competitively under the current system. Utah State is reducing its number of games with Utah and BYU, ending decade old series, to schedule lower competition. Not that I am complaining too hard, we replaced them with Notre Dame.
No team is going to schedule worse than Hawaii did in 2007 and they got a BCS bowl and a 4.5 million payout with the current system for an undefeated season.
Skip1
· 10 months ago
I think .06 is an actual issue. First, you have to sit there explaining to Bubba in Opelika, Alabama, that spiel about standard deviations. Not gonna happen. Second, and more important, any system that relies on pollsters to determine playoff spots, especially coaches' polls, is corrupt and skirts the problem. Even if the criteria to choose among the ranked teams were perfectly fair, the rankings are most surely not. Current coaches should not have a say who gets in--period. The AP and Harris polls are little better; many of them admitted to never having seen Utah play one game before the Sugar Bowl. Polls need to be taken OUT of the process completely. Giving undefeated teams a free ticket avoids part of the problem but doesn't get to the core of the issue.
Maybe we will see a plus-one, or some system like yours, within the BCS before a Final Four-style system with automatic qualifiers and a committee to choose at-large bids. But it will only be a way station.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I think .06 is an actual issue. First, you have to sit there explaining to Bubba in Opelika, Alabama, that spiel about standard deviations. Not gonna happen.
Ok, I can agree with that.
I should present my second argument as my primary argument.
The formula could be presented as follows(without any real change):
Take the polls used and devide the total points by the number of voters to get an average ranking.
Take the average rank of the computers after the highest and lowest are thrown out.
Take the average of these values to get an overall average ranking for each team.
The 1.0000 - 0.0000 would be linearly transformed to a 1.000-26.000 scale psycologically understandable as a top 25 ranking.
A difference of 0.06 would became an average difference of 1.5 ranks, indicating that the teams are closer to two ranking spots apart than one ranking spot apart.
Thank you again, this time for inspiring improvements.
I am updating the 6 page plan to include this linear tranformation of the formula and change the 0.06 value in the current scale of the formula to an average difference of 1.5 in the rankings used.
I will now present the second criteria as:
2) All teams above the first gap in the average top 25 ranking of 1.5 (A value of 0.06 in the current formula.)
Second, and more important, any system that relies on pollsters to determine playoff spots, especially coaches' polls, is corrupt and skirts the problem.
Idealogically I agree. It would be significantly harder, however, for a small group of voters to significantly change the location of a gap than it is to change the order of two closely ranked teams.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Skip1, I understand your concerns about our system, but the 'complexity' is merely a criteria.
Basically it is a slight variation of my two criteria for NC Candidates: + Must have 0-losses or 1-loss. + Must be a Conference Champ
The Conference Champ Clause remains an outside modification possibility "tweak" to prevent two teams from the same conference from winding up in the NC Game, like MICH and OHST almost did in 2006, but seems unneeded given Ben's .06 Gap Criteria.
The genius of the plan is that it has a Contingency Scale, pre-determined in advance to allow for up to as many candidates as qualify based on their performance in the Regular season.
In other words, there could be a 4-team playoff one year and a fully legit 2-team (traditional) match-up like the ones in 2002 and 2005 the next year.
The Drama of the Regular Season (which honestly matters to me more than Split Titles) will continue because no one knows what the Post-Season will look like until the last Regular Season games are played....just as it should be.
Basically, in most years, there are only 2-3 teams with legit Title Claims. Even in the last two wacky years, there are no more than 5.
There is no need for an 8- or 16- team Playoff, just a system with enough flexibility to fit each unique season like a glove and give the chances to the teams that deserve them, with all apologies to the 7-4 Sun Belt Champs...
Skip1
· 10 months ago
If you can get the powers that be on board for a postseason that could range from 1 to 5 games on undetermined dates in massive stadiums with unpredictable fan bases buying tickets, then go for it. That sounds like a logistical nightmare in the making. Additionally, think of the foregone profits in the case of a 2-team year. If they're going to get rid of the bowl system as we know it now, at the very least they will want to guarantee themselves a revenue stream.
I guess you'd want the 'playoff' teams to play in NFL stadiums and leave the rest of the bowls to do their own thing? What would the dates be?
I agree that the SEC champion shouldn't have to beat a 7-4 Sun Belt winner in the postseason though.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
The details of the plan, unlike most play off proposals, answer most of those logistical questions.
First, adjustments to the criteria are suggested for the unlikely cases of 1 team or more than 8 teams to get 2-7 teams.
Maintaining the four BCS bowls, restored to New Year's Day, and the National championship game rotating among the four venues at least a week later uses the logistics already in place.
For cases involving 4+ teams the BCS Bowl with a conference tie in to the #1 team would be used. For cases with 6+ teams the BCS bowl with a conference tie-in with #2 seed would be used, unless it is the same bowl then the #3 tie-in would be used.
For all cases the total number of teams participating in the playoffs and the BCS Bowls not used to determine the champion would always be 10 or 11, leaving the pool of teams constant for the rest of the bowl games.
One additional semi-final site would potentially be needed for the most common cases involving 3-5 teams. It also would be New Year's Day or the day after. This would have been used 4 of the last 5 years showing that the reservations usually gets used.
For cases involving more than 4 teams (2 out of the last 5 years, both involving two undefeated non-BCS teams) play-in games are required.
By making these home games for the favored team, each team would be responsible for having a plan to host such a game. These would be scheduled the first days of the bowl season, usually around December 20th, giving teams and venues two weeks to prepare for them. For most teams this would simply be a matter of using their own stadium or a larger one near by.
The most significant games would be maintained and held every year. The dates and locations of all games would be determined the day the final BCS standings are released, except possibly the exact venue of potential play-in games.
If they're going to get rid of the bowl system as we know it now, at the very least they will want to guarantee themselves a revenue stream.
I am VERY particular about this part of my idea:
A winning season deserves consideration for a berth in a regional bowl. A conference championship deserves consideration for a berth in a premier bowl.
Only the two criteria above warrant consideration for a national championship.
I am a huge fan of the bowl system, it would be a huge travesty to the sport to undermine it.
The case of the two team year would be exactly like 2005. It would have been a two team year, and the system default to the current system in that case.
Regan
· 10 months ago
The Logistics sound difficult, but what you must remember is that:
1) There would be no 'undetermined dates'. Models would be set up in advance to take into consideration how each record and ranking could wind up.
2) We aren't talking about huge numbers of games. This basically is a glorified "Plus-One" System that accounts for years like 2002 and 2005 when there is no need for the top 2 teams to play inferior teams.
Realistically, there are few years when the "problem" with the BCS is bigger than 3 teams for 2 spots. I know 2007 and 2008 were rough, but just because we have 2 years like that doesn't mean that the whole sport changed overnight.
3) Ideally, if you had 3 teams worthy, #2 vs. #3 could take place at the beginning of the Bowl Season, in mid-December, and the winner has plenty of time to prepare for an early-January date for #1. Same deal for 4 teams; with just 1 more game.
4) Certainly the "powers that be" in the postseason stream would want more games and would lament the foregone profits for 2 team matchups. Just as they do now when they get a dud matchup between CINC and VT.
5) The current system has put the 5th Bowl Game at the same site as one of the 4 BCS Bowls already. Dolphin Stadium had VT/CINC and FLA/OU one week apart.
It seems at first glance that it might be a logistical nightmare, but when you compare it to what is currently done, it really isn't that bad...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Ben Good thread and good year for the little guy. Since the abolishment of the SWC- two of the top teams from that conference had really bad years with new HC's Arkansas-SEC and Texas A&M- B-12 Others did extremely well Houston, Rice, TCU and Texas all won their bowls Texas Tech had an outstanding year 11-2 BU ended up 4-8 with several real close ones- new HC and great QB everything looking up for the Bearswho had close ones with TTech,Missu and UConn SMU has never recovered from their downfall During the old SWC days TCU did not have the successs that they have enjoyed in the WAC, C-USA and MWC. They had to play the big dogs Texas,Arkansas,Texas A&M every season and both Houston and SMU had really good teams in the 70's & 80's and Texas Tech has always been competitive. I really like to watch the Frogs and I'm glad that they schedule games against B-12 teams and they can knock off a OU or TTech on occasion, but unfortunatly they dont face those type of teams week in and week out during the season, they had an outstanding year and their only two loses were to top 10 teams Utah and OU, while nobody really wants to see a rematch, I for one would like to see a system that gives good teams a shot at a championship, because realistically the Utes,Frogs,Horns, Trojans were just as deserving a shot at a title as the Sooners/Gators IMHO 16 team format or 8 team format would be benifitial to CFB as a hole After the 08 season look at the really great teams some of which had only two loses like TCU,OU,PSU,Bama,TTech that all had remarkable seasons and would have made a playoff format interesting throw in Ohio st,Utah, Texas,USC and Florida into the mix Wow
Regan
· 10 months ago
Hey Tomcat, how many teams do you root for? Just curious. :-)
OU_Ron
· 10 months ago
Everyone in the state of Texas plus Ole Miss, except when they're playing the Horns ;-)
OU_Ron
· 10 months ago
Oh I forgot, he's a fan of any team playing the Sooners...
Regan
· 10 months ago
Thanks; I just wanted to know for the sake of my banner.... :)
OU_Ron
· 10 months ago
There's not enough room on a banner for all of TC's teams...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Your Right and I like Mike Gundy and I'll pull for the pokes against OU & TTech
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
He is right, my buddy from OU hit the nail on the head. My Dad is a UT grad and I've always been a Horns fan So I pull for Texas in every game Got some family ties to Texas A&M- so I pull for them in every game except two I always like to pull for the underdogs- Baylor & Rice old SWC teams I always pull for whoever is playing OU, unlike SEC fans we do not pull for OU just because they belong to the same conference In order Texas Baylor Rice Texas A&M TCU Ole Miss Teams I do not pull for- Oklahoma- no explanation needed Arkansas- I liked them with Nutt, but the fans hate Texas bitter rival Colo They dont like us either Nebraska- maybe in a bowl or against USC , Mich etc etc Texas Tech Houston I might pull for Houston in a bowl or against Tulsa or something never liked Texas Tech, but if they are playing Minnesota or something- maybe
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I'd feel better if Auburn was in your top 20 list of teams that you pull for, TC...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Sorry WEA I got yall in my top twenty right below NTU but above UTEP and UAB-LOL
OU_Ron
· 10 months ago
TC, good news for the horns huh, McCoy,Kindle and " i'm always open Shipley " coming back next year.....I don't think Bradford will be back, but if he does, should be another great game in October, I think it's our turn to win this year, right???
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Na Ron yall will have trouble in Dallas and Lubbock and good thing yall got Baylor at home-LOL
hrposon
· 10 months ago
Ben, keep up the good fight. It won't be long before Utah will have the opportunity to sit in the front of the bus.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Low....very low....
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
How is the BCS not the last major holdout of the antebellum southern way of thinking?
Funny thing is Utah sided with the south, but entitlement for false nobility will fall again.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Didn't say 'wrong'.....just said 'low'....
As being a white southerner who has had the opportunity to travel over much of America and overseas, I have had a glimpse of just how much the south has suffered from having racial divisions for so long, especially when compared to other regions.
Guess I just don't like analogies comparing real-world major issues and Bowl lineups.
Not getting preachy; I'd just expect that on a good episode of Family Guy, not Fanblogs... :-)
hrposon
· 10 months ago
Segregation in America was unjust. The BCS is currently unjust. A racial analogy is something that college presidents can understand. It's no longer just about football.
The BCS colleges receive billions in federal funds annually and the two biggest BCS conference winners are the PAC 10 and the Big 10 as long as they adhere to Equal Opportunity guidelines. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is on the right track.
My fear is that Utah would accept a special Notre Dame type inclusion into BCS Country Club because they finished in the top 5 and leave their buddies to still play at a municipal course. That would only delay the inevitable and make them more hated than the Irish.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Notre Dame sold out the Hawaii bowl. Utah had 5000 tickets left in New Orleanse.
We won't get a ND like free ride.
I actually sent an E-Mail to Mark Shurtleff's office suggesting that ESPN's sports center top 25 coverage might have anti-trust issues as well.
hrposon
· 10 months ago
After the beating the Utes put on Bama, they will fill any stadium they play in next year. Winning does that. BTW, I picked Bama in the office pool with highest confidence factor. It didn't hurt me as everyone else did the same. I'm convinced.
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
I'm an Oklahoma fan, and I want a playoff.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Maybe Discus could put a line leading up to the post you responded to. What is it? three pages up at least...
Maybe even a link...
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
Must be a popular topic. On the topic of your playoff idea, it is good, but I don't think anyone will ever go for a playoff that changes the number of teams each year based on your criteria or any other criteria. That's why I think it has to be 16. I know you could do it with 12 and give the top four a bye, but I think those schools would rather have the revenue or shared revenue with the NCAA of another home game against an opponent they should be able to beat. Economics, you gotta have economics in the whole deal.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
A plus one format adds another game but does not address the underlying problems of the BCS system. Teams near the cut off feel left out, a plus one just pushes this issue down a level. Undefeated teams ranked lower than #4 are still excluded. Why would the university presidents accept a proposal that does not address the perceived problems?
Playoffs are too rigid to meet the unique needs of college football and a fixed number of participants will always produce disagreement at the cutoff. The more teams that are included the greater the magnitude of disagreement at the cutoff; therefore a small number of teams is desirable. Deep playoffs also throw out a century of bowl tradition which would be an enormous travesty to college football.
The only way around the impasse is a national championship system flexible enough to adjust to each year's individual circumstances.
As for economics, I don't know much about it. I do know the bowls are a known commodity and to change to anything drastically different would be a tremendous risk.
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
Ben, sometimes I wonder if you've ever read my proposal. The bowls are very much a part of it. Read this: http://www.highplainsleader.com/index.php?optio..., and ask me any questions about it you may have.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Why eliminate the conference championships and the twelth game?
How are you going to convince the university presidents to extend the format two rounds into January?
While the BCS bowls might be willing to be a semi-final, lower than this would put them at too much risk of getting a bad matchup worse than this year's Orange Bowl.
Before the bowls Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Utah and Boise State were the teams that I thought should have had a chance. USC only proved their merit after their bowl win. At least Utah was undefeated prior to the Sugar Bowl. Bosie State was out of the discussion only because they lost to TCU.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Yes, conference CGs will be that all-important 1st round of the playoffs. Nobody gets a bye!
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
a. I eliminated the 12 game and CCGs because of the argument that a playoff would make for too many games. I'm fine with a 12th game, just trying to appease those who think 15 games for the two Champ. game participants would be to much. b. I don't know how you convince a university president to do anything other that raise tuition cost. Most universities don't start the spring semester until about the 20th anyway. I know the students were not back from break at OU last night. c. These five bowls would NEVER be lower than semifinals. They would rotate between that and the final four host. Also adding the Cotton is bringing back a traditional big bowl. Hosting a semi on NYD would be Huge! d. Yes, a 16 team tourney would allow some teams in that don't deserve a chance, but if they can go on the road and win at one of the other schools who have had a great year they would have proven themselves worthy. But this system makes sure everyone who should be in, is in. I could cut it to 12 and give a bye to the top four, but I think the top four schools would rather have another home game against a quality opponent and the revenue it would bring instead of a bye. I think in my way USC is deserving of a shot. I don't understand your logic that by USC beating a team in a bowl game that you don't mention as deserving somehow becomes deserving, especially when it was a virtual home game. Also, I think you would have just as hard of a time as my plan would in trying to convince U presidents and TV executives to accept a flexible playoff format.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
b. So we need to write to our state legilature not to allow any tuition increases until a playoff is created... Genious...
c. A semi-final is equal to the final four. These bowls would rotate between beein quarter finals and semi finals.
d. USC, like Utah was not in the national discussion until they got an impressive BCS bowl win. Unlike Utah they were not undefeated. Their exclusion is close to the problem case for my system.
With mose of the games at fixed locations the logistical issues are not as bad as the first impression gives. The TV executives would get a few more games between top teams with real meaning, and a significantly bigger presentation the day the final BCS standings come out.
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
My error saying semi instead of quarter final. But on your part, If you are going to use the word genius, it is imperative that you spell it correctly, or it's not...genius. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Perhapse I was quoting the beer commertial...
or maybe too much Guinness...
or maybe I can't splle!!
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
I've enjoyed reading your posts- bet its cold in no mans land
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
Thanks. Yes, it's bitter cold, and was very windy yesterday. We have terrible weather her, but great people. On another note, I was watching OU-UT b-ball last night and this thought hit me. Why didn't OU take Blake Griffin down to Miami. 3rd & Goal from the 2, same formation Tebow runs out of - Do you think anyone is stopping that athletic 6-10 250lb. dude? NO WAY!!!
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Ya man- shoulda- coulda- woulda I seen yalls game and thought to myself look you got four shots at getting it in- okay that didnt work lets do the same thing only this time around the end- shoot youve got a passing QB- fake the run and dump it off overhead or to the corner- they were keying run anyway. Well right before the half I was thinking that it was a shame for yall to make two long drives inside the 2 yard line and come away empty handed. Well just got to regroup and get ready for next season. The weather here, while not ner as cold is really strange- one day 85 degrees next morning 29 then it warms up again- BTW no rain annual rainfall here 17 inches- terrible drought, my son is in High school and never seen snow in his life. Hookem-Horns
BamaBorn
· 10 months ago
Ben, I feel your pain.
befootballfan
· 10 months ago
I've watched Boise State play 2-3 times this year and they are better than half of the BCS teams that will be playing in BCS bowls this year including whoever comes out of the ACC or Big East and the PAC 10's, SEC's, and Big 12's #2 teams. /Cool widgets at statbeast.
BamaBorn
· 10 months ago
they are better than half of the BCS teams that will be playing in BCS bowls this year
Guess you didn't get the memo. The college bowl season is over.
:-)
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Bama Born so now its uniform threads? Congrats on a great year
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Boise State vs. Utah would have been a heck of a game.
I ain't gonna lie...
The national consensus had Boise State better than Utah 8 of the last 10 years. We got the two that mattered most. They have a 3 game winning streak over us going.
They need to be in the MWC.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Probably because of Utah's year in 2008, I'm pretty sure it's going to happen.
I Googled "Boise State MWC invite" and got 41,200 articles:
I would argue it is going to happen becasue of Boise State's year in 2008. And 2006, and 2004 ...
When was the last time they did not get 10 wins? Even if they get two more losses in the MWC they still get 10 wins in 2004, 2006 and 2008.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Well, the bottom line is that to the 'powers that be' in the BCS, the "Everyone Else" category is now 3-1 in BCS Bowl games, with two of them (07 Fiesta and 09 Sugar) being monumentally huge wins over traditional BCS powerhouses.
BSU joining the MWC is best: > For Boise State (joining a more prestigious conference) > And for the MWC (giving a much better shot at an automatic BCS Berth)
It's a win-win for almost everybody (save the WAC)...
WarEagleFan
· 10 months ago
NEWS UPDATE Auburn has hired TRACY ROCKER as there D-line coach away from Ole Miss. Rocker one of the best D-linemen ever played at AU during the 80's. Nice to see CGC bring him back home. Even though I was not happy at first with the hire of CGC he has made all of the right hires in his staff. And this one maybe on of the best.
The old line coach got promoted to Defensive coordinator when Gary Anderson left to be HC at Utah State.
With 19 years NFL experience, and a second residence in Jacksonville Florida, one has to wonder if he was hired partly to try to expand Utah's recruiting west of the Mississippi?
Kyle Whittingham: "As a defensive line coach, the experience and expertise that he brings to our program is second to none."
ksuwild
· 10 months ago
Ben, I have been calling for a new "system" for quite a while now but yes... Utah's shellacking of Alabama does confirm that the current BCS format is insufficient to say the least.
Here is what my proposed BCS Playoff would have looked like in 08' based off of the week 15 BCS rankings released on December 7th. My idea would actually be to require all conferences to play a championship game (or get rid of them all together) which would have changed this quite a bit but her we go.
That's right... Utah receives an automatic bid for being one of the top four BCS rated teams who won their conference and deservingly so. The strength of schedule point doesn't argument against UTAH doesn't hold much water with me. Especially when the BCS has a strength of schedule component and still had Utah in the top 4 before all bowl games were played.
The top 4 BCS rated conference champs receive automatic bids as well as a home game in the first round.
#1 OU vs. #8 Penn State @ OU in Norman #2 Florida vs. #7 Texas Tech @ UF in Gainsville #5 USC vs. #4 Alabama @ USC in Los Angeles #6 Utah vs. #3 Texas in @ Utah in Salt Lake City
Make whatever conclusion you would like about how that would shake out but this formula would decide an undisputed champion and would do it without bias towards any conference or team.
Regan, chime in whenever. I'm ready.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
1) Adding requirements to the conferences is an instant kill. Besides, a full round robin using a head to head tie breaker is as good at a title game, and both fail just as bad if the season comes down to a three way tie.
2) I would be interested in your answer to the logistics argument I defended the Prather-Regan structure above. We use the current structure to a maximal level. The BCS bowls are used as buffers to keep the number of teams in the entire championship system constant.
How do you schedule all these games in several unknown locations in a manner of a few weeks? How do the fans do it?
3) You ignore the bowls entirely. I specifically define their purpose and place.
4) Why not Boise State? They were undefeated. All teams should have a chance at the title. TCU, Utah and Boise State are all about equal this year.
Regan
· 10 months ago
Tomcat and I were wondering where you were, ksuwild. >:-)
Good to know you're ready to joust!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Did you guys hire a coach yet?
Sorry for not knowing. We had our own coaching tragedy/comedy of sorts...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Thanks KSUwild I like your proposal, but I would love to see a Texas vs Bama matchup
40AcresOfBurntOrange
· 10 months ago
Hello to all! Missed you guys especially tomcat, bevoboy, and even ole lennie collins. was deployed to iraq to defend the nations freedom, and im finally back in the greatest state in the country to start getting ready to get back in police mode. Really proud of the way my horn's performed this year in my absence(other than mack's whining) i don't know whats better seeing texas win or seeing OU get beat in another title game! Take care everyone
HookEmHorns!
Bama_Babe
· 10 months ago
Glad you made it back to the US safely. One team we all root for is the Red White and Blue! Thanks for all you do!! :)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
Okay, someone else tell him. I just can't. Not after he's been through so much...
Bama_Babe
· 10 months ago
About Lennie??
Clemson_Joe
· 10 months ago
I'm all over this one...
Lennie's gone man. He couldn't seem to act like a big boy and was asked to leave. Disrespect and abrasiveness won't get you very far.
I have nothing but the opposite for you my man. Thanks for what you do. Do you have tapes of some of the games, or are you just going to be watching ESPN classic?
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
Thank you for your willingness to defend our nation, and welcome back to Oklahoma! : D
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
He's in the Big D, and I don't mean divorce...
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
I was kidding with him because he said, "im finally back in the greatest state in the country ".
OU_Ron
· 10 months ago
That birthday must have been rough on you.......your usually the first one around here to catch on.......remember, your mind is usually the second thing to go ;-)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I used to know the first one, but I forgot it...
Yea, TE sent me some of his absinthe...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Welcome Home glad your back- good to hear from you God Bless our Troops Hookem-Horns If Lennie is reading this- I loved seeing Switzers face after the game- He wasnt grining-LOL I actually have a lot of respect for the guy, but just cant help but not like him and most of the burnt Orange nation would agree.
OU_Ron
· 10 months ago
Lennie or Switzer ??? BTW, no need to troll, no fish big enough to bite...
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
Thanks Ron your right- no more big fish to fry I understand that coach Switzer has a book out and I'm going to check the local library for it. BTW could perhaps a coondawg or someone else in the fanblogs crossbar motel escape from their chains with a new handle and address? perhaps just wishful thinking on my part-Hookem
ksuwild
· 10 months ago
The Legendary Bill Snyder himself has been re-hired. I'm not sure if we'll be a whole lot better than we were last year (although very optimistic) but we will certainly improve on the defensive side of the ball. Even in Snyders final years when we started to slip (04 & 05) we still fielded tuff defensive football teams.
As to the playoff discussion... I'm going to opt out until tomorrow when I will have a full keyboard at my disposal... not my tiny blackberry keypad.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Just a simple request...
Please wait a day or two, another thread might be on the way.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I knew that! And had forgot. Yea, kinda underwhelming, like Chizik was to most Auburn fans initially...
ksuwild
· 10 months ago
Your wish has been granted. :)
ksuwild
· 10 months ago
Good to hear from you Regan, WEA, and the rest of the fanblogs faithful. I'm itching to have our yearly playoff discussion. :)
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Just to prepare yourself, we already had round one of this discussion.
Please review the concept Regan and I developed.
Porcine
· 10 months ago
I almost rather they go back to the old bowl system when everyone was champion, but that sounds like a 0-0 soccer win. A 8+ playoff system may require shortening the regular season back to 9 or 10 games.
Tom22
· 10 months ago
2 more games for 2 teams, only one more game for 2 others. The winners of the 4 BCS bowls held New Years in traditional bowl season...basically the winner of the 6 bcs conferences and 2 at large picks by the current criteria (which this year would have put in Utah and Texas).
Its not as important that the best 8 teams are included but that you're given a straight shot if you win a division or are the highest ranked usually undefeated non BCS team. There would even be room for a consolation pick or a top 8 ranked ND.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 10 months ago
I read somewhere that this Hitler video is like telling the Aristocrats joke. You know the template. The beauty lies in the details that are added by the teller.
Evidently, Der Fuhrer was quite the Utes Fan/ Cougar hater...
Utah should feel honored that some BYU fan went to the trouble of making this...
All Comments
And talent-wise and performance-wise, it was obviously the right decision as well.
(hate to do it on Zac, but...Dogpile!!!)
Ahem...OK, (clearly) USC brings more money to the table than OSU. Hah? Right? How'd I do?
Eh, you're right, Tom. I don't buy it either.
1) Grow, join, or secede your conference into 12 teams and play a conference playoff game. No mega-blob conferences like the WAC was before it split back into the WAC and the Mountain WAC...
2) Expand your stadiums and sell them out. Sorry, we SEC'ers don't want to play in a 30k seat stadium outside of Nashville or Starkville...
3) Implore the BCS conferences(Pac10,B10(11) B east who don't do this to start, in order to set a good example
4) Extort, bribe and demand BCS conference schools to engage you in a series, even if you do have to travel 2 to 1...
I'm not saying that this is fair, I'm just saying that it would go a long way...
Eventually, they will include all conferences in the BCS, and I think they should. But don't think for a minute that there still won't be bias. That will exist for another 100 years or so. It'll take decades for parity to appear between the old guard and the new guard. Respect is something that is earned gradually from the haves by the have nots. For every Utah of 2008 that makes us think they belong, we have a Hawaii of 2007 that we know does not.
I'm fortunate that my team has the old school pedigree that lands them in the BCS, but I think about what if they did not. They'd still be my team regardless, just like your team is yours. The tradition and status quo of CFB moves very slowly and will take an awful long time to fix--kinda like fixing social security. I just hope that they still have CFB when I'm old, though...
We are only tied for #34 in all time wins at 606.
We only have the #33 best all time record at 606-419-31 (0.58854).
Our all time points differential is #28 (24118 PF, 18100 PA, 6018 differential).
We have been a little slack since we starting playing football in 1892. No pedigree here, move along.
The BCS is so Antebellum Southern.
And it is now three Utah/Boise State's to one Hawaii.
Look, it took decades before anyone cared about football in the south, in the beginning. Those Alabama teams that went to the Rose Bowl a few times in the 1920s put us on the map. Before that, it was all East coast and Mid-West, with a sprinkling of USC on the coast. Hell, the Big 10 used to be known as the Western Athletic Conference. The game evolves, slowly, per Darwin...
Until that happens, it won't change for the SWC or the WAC.
I bet they would place 8th in the PAC 10!
Judging by the W-L listing in the same table it uses a more recent performance.
Utah was historically VERY BAD from the 1960's until the 1980's. WE lost any pedigree we may have had from the 20's then. When the in state escalation of athletic funding war with BYU started in the 80's our program began to improve. It has been a slow climb since then.
One must admit the in state funding battle has produced a competitive product.
I selected 'all-time' SOS, although you can break it down by quarter century or decade...
For example, if we take only the current, incomplete decade, Utah's SOS bumps up to 68th... 2008 is not factored into that quite yet. Give CFBDW another month or so...
I've sent emails to CFBDW in an attempt to see how they rank SOS, but they've never answered...
BTW: I was in PCB last weekend. I would have sent you an email, but I knew you were in NOLA...
What surprises me the most is the alleged disinterest in the "Cinderella Story" that a Non-BCS school lends to the sport. "David Vs. Goliath" has always been a good human interest story. It works during March Madness. However what works for basketball apparently does not work for football when money is on the line. Sad.
With Utah, its fans support its sports programs. They sell out their stadium, even in the worst weather. Trust me. If the Big East could figure out an economic benefit to the inclusion of BYU & Utah, not to mention TCU (had once been rumored) they'd do it.
I agree almost whole heatedly with your assessment.
1) we have to go to a 12 team conference format, if for no other reason than that it will improve the credibility of the conference and and the SOS of the conference champ.
2)here is where I have a problem. It does mid majors no good to build huge stadiums they cant fill. Utah's stadium should probably be expanded to 60k and it would be easy just by building up the south end. Boise is currently expanding their stadium,. But to expand without being able to fill the seats isn't smart.
3) you are right!
4) It isn't fair but to prove themselves mid majors have to consistently compete with BCS schools any where any time!
1) Other than Boise State, who else brings BCS credibility? While Fresno State, Nevada, Houston, UTEP, and Tulsa all have a case, they don't have the numbers to back it up.
Hawaii and Tulsa would be the best two by BCS standards.
I used to agree with you, but am convinced that a 10 team format is best at this time for the MWC.
2) I agree, but it is not the mid majors with the huge stadiums that are trying to earn respect. The ones with an attendance problems would be happy to get over 0.500. WEA was clearly talking about non-BCS teams, like us and Boise State, who want to go to the next level.
Where can we find the money for the South End Zone renovations we already have drawn up... Let me check the MWC revenue sharing plan again...
3) We need to start separating BCS teams from BCS conferences in the dialog. Using a cutoff of 0.5000 in the numbers linked above for both would be a very good start. This is certainly much better than conference alignment.
4) That is exactly how FSU and Miami EARNED respect in the 80's. It is really simple though. Utah's problem has not been our schedule, it has been sufficient. If we had 10+ wins every year we would start every year high enough to make a run.
2009's gonna be huge for the MWC though! TCU Utah, and BYU are all top 25 preseason, and nobody has any Big East teams ranked in preseason rankings. We'll outpace the Big East again next year and then we just continue to get national attention while they start losing more to the resurgent ACC.
The other thing I'm excited for is to see the emergence of Colorado State and San Diego State over the next few seasons. San Diego State's got a great coaching staff and should recruit much better, and we've seen how CSU jumped back this year. If CU continues to flounder CSU could start to steal a lot of talent from them.
On a side note I'm glad to see the media is back to licking the small dark and curly's of ND with them being at #23. Guess that win over Hawaii really established their dominance.
With The Cotton Bowl moving to the Cowboy's new stadium they have formally requested admittance as a BCS bowl. If Admitted as a BCS bowl I would assume that the Big 12 would seek to switch affiliation from the Fiesta Bowl to the Cotton Bowl because of the location and the rich history that the Texas schools share with the Cotton Bowl. that would leave an AQ vacancy with the Fiesta Bowl which just happens to be in the middle of the MWC.
This is also an opportunity for the BCS to quiet some of their loudest critics by offering AQ status to a 12 team MWC with the top western mid majors in it. I would suggest WEST: Utah, BYU, UNLV, BSU, FSU, Nevada
EAST: AFA, CSU, TCU, New Mexico, Tulsa, Houston
I know its a pipe dream, but with the Pac 10 still refusing to expand, as a MWC fan I'm forced to wonder how we can improve our schedules and the Public perception of our strength.
If the Fiesta Bowl loses its BCS status, with the Big 12 Champion moving to the Cotton Bowl, it would make a great venue for the MWC and WAC champions to face each other. Certainly this would be better than the Humaitarian Bowl.
From a BCS value stand point, the only expansion that makes sense is to ten teams with Boise State. While Utah is certainly not in a possition to turn an offer from the PAC 10 down, I am growing cold to the idea of leaving the MWC for the PAC 10. I don't see the PAC 10 thawing any time soon either.
If the MWC can continue to win 2/3 of their out of conference games everything else falls into place. If we can continue to get 10+ wins every year, with wins over top 25 teams, we will earn respect. Boise State and BYU are ahead of us on this count.
What did we do between 2004 and 2008? Won three bowl games, sure, but that is about it.
No other additions help, notably Fresno State.
I think SDSU will move up. Where else are they going to go? At least they may win some of their OOC games.
Why drop a team that fires their coach depite a win over Tennessee? They expect more than they have been getting.
I for one can see a good argument for Utah. Its not like they didnt schedule a pretty tough out of conference schedule this year.
Michigan right off the bat (Just about any other year that may have pushed them over the top) Oregon State, lets not forget they beat USC. And then beat Bama.
Unfortunately they will likely need perfection again next year to get the nod.
My (and Regan's) format:
Move the BCS Bowls to New Year's Day or the day after. Include these teams:
1) All undefeated teams
2) All teams above the first gap of 0.06 in the BCS standings
A winning season deserves consideration for a berth in a regional bowl.
A conference championship deserves consideration for a berth in a premier bowl.
Only the two criteria above warrant consideration for a national championship.
Rotate the National Championship Game between the four historic venues a week latter. Use a plus one if needed (3 or more teams). Use a Wild Card Game as a semi final, if needed (3-5 teams). Use play in games hosted by the favored teams, if needed (5 or more teams).
For 4+ teams use the BCS Bowl with a tie-in to the #1 team as a semi-final. For 6+ teams use the BCS Bowl with a tie-in to the #2 seed as the other semi-final to maintain 10-11 teams in the BCS games.
The BCS bowls not participating in the systems return to what they originally were. Awards for the champions of the premier conferences. By tying participation in the playoffs with the top seeds the top seeded teams will play in their traditional bowls and bowls would have a vested interest to have tie-ins to the best conference.
Without the claims to crown a national title, the BCS bowls would be under significantly less scrutiny about who they invite to play and all teams would have a road to the national title from the start of the season.
This year the seeds would have been: #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #3 Texas, #6 Utah, #9 Boise State.
Yes Utah did everything they could do be considered winning against BCS opponents but your conference hurts your chances period. The SUPERCONFERENCEs go into the year knowing that 1 or 2 of their teams or going to be considered for a national title based on SOS.
The only real way for the Utahs of the world to get enough respect is to do what Pat Hill has done from Fresno St and schedule the SUPERCONFERENCES and beat them.
I know that isn't exactly fair but it what it is.
Again I appreciate what Utah did but I am not convinced they desreve a share of MNC
This has been a banner year for the so called Mid Majors, making several inroads into the national perception, above and beyond any national championship debate.
I think, at this point, Utah has more respect than Fresno State. Just call it a hunch.
What team from a SUPERCONFERENCE do you think would actually schedule a UTAH now?
I don't think anyone will b/c the chance to lose is to great.
What about going the other way, back to the 80's, by becoming an FBS Independent?
Don't get me wrong, there are a HUGE number of down-sides that come from being a non-Notre Dame Independent, but this would free up Utah to schedule a much heavier gamut of teams, and also would shed the "non-BCS conference" problem.
Given the fact that there are now 34 Bowl games, and almost every season there are Bowls looking to fill slots when some conferences don't fill all of theirs, if Utah was successful as an Independent, they would always be guaranteed of a Bowl, be it BCS or otherwise.
TV money wise, it might get tricky, but given the obscene number of TV stations in existence nowadays, it might even be....possible....
I know it's out of left field, but....what do yall think? :)
Lets figure this one out...
The MWC celebrated its tenth anniversary this year.
The BCS celebrated its tenth anniversary this year.
The goal of the MWC, from its inception, was to become a BCS conference. Some teams from the WAC were not ready to make the required commitments. Fresno State is still a little sore about not being included.
The MWC is scheduling strong enough. We need to get two or three teams that gets 10 win almost every year. BYU is there. TCU and Utah are close. Boise State is there.
I would have enjoyed seeing Utah compete for a national title but I knew going in that it wouldn't happen. Somehow I think that ALL Utah fans knew that also.
You are miss reading us and this post. I am actually saying the MWC has not arrived yet and am stating what we will look like when we do.
This year a team in the MWC needed to be in the top 15 to have a whiff of the title. Next year we will need to start in the top 20.
As an undefeated team from a conference without an automatic qualification it is our duty to campaign for a change in the system, but that is for the future.
We are VERY happy with the outcome. Two teams have gone undefeated before, one of them us, but never have a quarter of the AP voters taken a stand. We made our appeal to the AP and they have answered. We accept their vote.
Never has it even been a consideration that two non BCS teams could be in BCS bowls, until Boise State this year was higher than Fiesta Bowl losing Ohio State in the BCS standings.
Though Utah is #1 in 4 of the 6 official BCS computers (Anderson and Hester, Massey W-L, Sagarin ELO and Peter Wolfe), Utah fans know the crystal trophy was out of reach.
(Did I mention I think the BCS formula is just fine the way it is, especially the computers? I am not just saying this now, I have known how they rely too much on W-L record for a while)
This thread was a toast to the other BCS outsiders for a year well done.
A QB change is coming, but we have a few in waiting and our backup has been outstanding.
Really the biggest questions looked to be in our defensive secondary.
The recruiting class looks a lot better than it did a month ago, other than that I don't know.
The conference should be close. It usually is.
At least two of Utah, TCU and BYU should be ranked in the top 20 at the start.
Air Force and New Mexico have been close to credible for some time.
UNLV, Wyoming, CSU are in a wait and see mode. As long as they go 2-2 or better in OOC we will be fine. This means beating the teams they are supposed to and maybe one they shouldn't.
SDSU is the wild card. It would be near impossible for them to get worse. While they might not be competitive in conference play they should at least win more OOC games over the likes of Cal Poly.
My WAY TO EARLY projection has the MWC taking a slight step backwards (Say 0.4000 in the BCS numbers, .5200 with Boise State)
I don't think anyone from the MWC will go undefeated, but a 1 loss team would be in the top 12 to end the season. Our 28-13 OOC record might be difficult to maintain, but 26-15 would achieve the results listed above. 10-5 vs BCS conference members was nice but I am not sure it is maintainable.
Heck, the Big East Conference (in football) was nothing more than the collection of all the old major Eastern Independents (minus FSU, SCAR, ND, and for some reason PSU).
I am actually a fan of the days of the old Eastern Independents, and TBH, the way things are going, I forsee a day in CFB when they will once again have large numbers (if things keep going the way they are.)
Given the way that the BCS Conferences have now maxed out their willingness to expand (for the time being), that option is out, so it's either go Independent or hope for the MWC's inclusion into the BCS.
The latter would be best for all parties, but SOMEONE had to ask the question.... :-)
Don't think it would work, Regan. Let's roll play here: Would you like to take the guaranteed TV and Bowl revenue that comes from being in a conference, or choose what's behind door #2?
Only three teams are making it as independents: Notre Dame, because they're Notre Dame, and Army and Navy, because they don't need the money...
The Old Miami Model? Regansaywha?
During the last 10 years (1981-1990) of Miami's days as an Eastern Independent, they played 34 games against teams that ended with 9+ Wins. The 'Canes went 5-3 in Bowl Games during the stretch, ending it with a 46-3 win over 10-2 Texas in the Cotton Bowl.
During that stretch, Miami went 8-0 vs. the Big 8 (12), 10-1 vs. the SWC, 8-1 vs. the Big Ten, 5-2 vs. the ACC, 2-1 vs. the Pac-10, and 10-5 vs. the SEC.
They were also 41-8 vs. other Div. I-A Independent teams that would later be counted among BCS Conferences and Notre Dame (like FSU, VT, PITT, BC, etc.)
No games were played against non Div. I-A opponents.
Okay, my question/supposition of Utah becoming a Div. I-A Independent is a bad idea...
...But when the author of the Fanblogs Glossary has the wrong impression about the decade that made Miami Football what it is and postulates a TERM, Regan MUST set the record straight.... :-)
Feel free to call it the "Notre Dame model" if you want, since in the last few years it isn't particularly innacurate....but don't make me dig through Stassen ...:-)
Kevin posted a thread a few moons back on the possibility of the PAC-10 expanding to 12 teams. Two of the possible candidates were BYU & UT. Such a move would not only strengthen the PAC-10, but it would certainly lend the credibility apparently needed by BYU & UT.
Kevin also posted a thread discussing Big Televen expansion. MO was among those considered to round them out to 12. This would leave a hole in the Big 12, which UT might fill. However, this scenario compromises an established rivalry with BYU.
What may prove more beneficial would be to expand the conference to 12. Three candidates come to mind: Boise St is the most obvious. However, consider Houston & Tulsa. Both of these not only help to round out a natural MWC South or SE Div., but also provide geographic rivalry potential with TCU. Now, Houston has been inconsistent over the past 7 seasons, but they have won at least 8 games over the past 3 years, including one 10 win season. Tulsa has been far more consistent having won at least 8 games in 5 of the last 6 seasons including last season at 10-4 & this season at 11-2.
By including Boise St, Houston, & Tulsa into the Mt West, this could result in a solid, competitive conference, the likes of which the BCS can't ignore. As an ancillary benefit, it expands the MWC's market base, not to mention recruiting territory.
The NW Div. would likely consist of Boist St, BYU, S.D.St, UT, UNLV, & WY; the SE Div. would then consist of Air Force, CO St, Houston, NM, TCU, & Tulsa. If they play an 8 game mandatory format (5 from their respective div., 3 from the other) that leaves 4 slots open to play nothing but BCS teams, provided of course that there are 4 out there brave enough to do so. (You can bring a horse to water, but, well you know the rest.)
I've been reading through this thread quite thoroughly and making observations. The most obvious commonality is this:
- Ben Prather makes an argument for a playoff (or defends his positions) and then a BCS-school fan makes a counter-argument for why a playoff won't work, a team like Utah isn't deserving, etc.
Most of you aren't going to like hearing this but THIS LOOKS LIKE A COUNTRY CLUB. You BCS-school fans don't think "lesser" schools should get the same opportunities because they don't have the same SOS, tradition, national championships, money, etc. You know what? I don't see any Duke, Indiana, Arizona, or Miss. State fans on here making the same arguments against Ben! Those teams are simply grateful to be the in position they are presently - ie in a BCS conference. They get beat up year after year while a team like TCU, Boise, or Utah would likely be at least competitive in any BCS conference.
The bottom line: Schools like Fl. State, Bama, Auburn, Ohio State (yes, you know who I'm talking about) are all top teams in the nation year in and out. But why and how? Yes, they pump tons of money into their programs and generate fan support. They also happen to get fan support and gain money simply by their BCS TV contracts. Obviously, there is a double standard. More importantly, those teams (mentioned above) were all lucky enough to get into the now-BCS conferences, which have put them in the positions they have now. What's the difference between a Buckeye and Hoosier? Well...money, winning, politics, support, and good amount of luck.
Utah (and several others) have all of those attributes except one: the politics. It is on the outside looking in and using the only political strategy it knows of. I'm sick of hearing the "that's just how it is" argument about the BCS. The CFB nation has spoken and dominantly supports a playoff system because this is America and everyone deserves a chance. So you upper-echelon BCS program, please drop the country club mentality!
But let me break your argument down. You say that some teams "were all lucky enough to get into the now-BCS conferences, which have put them in the positions they have now". So what you're really saying is that BCS teams just won some lottery they held last week, and that the other teams were merely 'less fortunate'? Is that what it is to you, the luck of the draw? I'm betting that you vote Democrat...
What do you think would happen if every BCS school ceased and desisted the playing of football next year and only the non-BCS schools were left? What do you think that would do for ad revenue for TV? What kind of ratings would the bowls have next season? Slightly better than high school games, my friend. Somebody has to swing the big stick. Without ordinance, the Air Force would just be a gentleman's flying club...
Look at it like a business. The BCS schools draw better, thus they get more consideration. Why do they draw better? Because they've been around long enough, that's why. Would you expect to make as much at a job at the entry level as a guy that's about to get his gold watch? Or was he just luckier than you?
This is life, man. Some people are up and others are down. There are winners and there are losers. You can always improve your situation. You try. You do something about it, like what I suggested above, rather than sitting around moaning about it.
Okay, the meeting of blue bloods will now come to order over in the open thread...
Second, in response to "What do you think would happen if every BCS school ceased and desisted the playing of football next year and only the non-BCS schools were left? ...Slightly better than high school games, my friend." The cause and affect would be similar to the BCS debacle we see now. So, in your scenario, we remove all BCS teams altogether and people would still watch CFB. Why? From what I have seen in various polls, about 75% of CFB fans dislike the BCS system, yet fans still watch the games. Also, most fans agree that the ridiculous quantity of bowl games has dampened the post-season, yet fans still watch. In your scenario, the MWC, WAC and MAC become the upper echelon, and fans will still watch (despite Utah being the best team in the country) games because they love CFB.
Playing politics isn't going to cut it. As good as Utah was this year, their only hope would be to be good next year, starting off in the top 10 and going undefeated again. Then they may get a shot. That's simply the way it's going to be until we get a playoff.
Maybe within 20 years, we'll get a 4-team playoff, but that will be the max numer of teams in it. Conference championships will serve as the de facto first rounds, then the four best will still be CHOSEN for the real playoff.
I'm convinced now that we will never see more than a 4-teamer in my lifetime. I'm a man, I'm 41--to give you an idea of how much longer you have to wait.
See http://www.fanblogs.com/bcs_poll/007825.php for many, many, many reasons why.
.....and all that was from memory....I still have a whole 'Playoffs Suck' folder stocked full of articles, etc. that can back me up that I haven't even touched, and I am just neurotic enough this time of year to use it!
Ben Prather and I did come up with a system that I think has a great chance of:
+ Working on Paper
+ Proving to be actually feasible
+ Preserves the chaos and richness of CFB as it is now (Regular Season)
+ Gives us an undisputed Champion
Ben called it the "The Regan-Prather Wishbone Triple Option post season" Check it out, let us know what you think! :-)
Here's my opening shot from The "Playoffs Suck" Folder:
http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/matt-hayes/... (Feb 14, 2005)
Don't be a Communist, dude.... :)
Their has been a significant amount of talk about how significant Utah is, especially when the OP was about how the Mid-Majors as a whole did significantly better this year than they ever had before.
Think about it. The PAC 10, Big 12 and Big East were all way down this year. OK, the Big 12 south was up a bit, but where did the rest of the zero sum ranking games go?
To East Carolina, Boise State, Utah, TCU, BYU, Ball State and Tulsa. All in unprecedented fashion.
It was a good year for the little guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqPLtDqNQuk
11 conference champions and 5 at-large teams chosen by committee, hosted at the bowl sites. Anything that happens on the way to that system (which I happen to disagree with, BTW) or something similar is just foreplay. Until pollsters stop determining who gets to play, controversy will continue to grow. The term "BCS" will need to be erased from the face of the earth.
Of course, this may destroy the regular season as we have come to know and love it, but that's another issue.
Of course, there are MANY true fans who desperately want a playoff. But the media narrative that has helped build this budding consensus has NOT come from people who love the game or have college football's best interest at heart.
Hookem-Horns
The "bandwagon" is a powerful thing, especially when Mass Media is on board. 48% of the country thinks a President was just elected that way.
I guarantee you that the full-time CFB people out there, be it Mandel, Hayes, or our very own Kevin Donahue are all very leery of a Playoff in CFB, whereas it's always NFL or 'general sports' commentators that say absolutely nothing about CFB all season only to appear like clockwork every December and January to decry CFB's postseason and demand a Playoff....
Some CFB people (like you) do support a Playoff, but the percentage of CFB-only people that want a Playoff is NOT the 90% that shows up on all these news-media polls....
....and the Truth Must Be Heard! :-)
>>>>It's notable that some of the loudest media voices for a playoff are those who don't appreciate or even like college football in the first place.<<<<
THIS IS THE SMARTEST THING I HAVE HEARD ALL YEAR.
I know, it's only January, but PROPS!!!!!
The BCS system was used in determining the B-12 champ
hence during the regular season OU lost to Texas by 10 points so the regular season was already destroyed so that OU could lose to Fla by 10 points
I unlike other fans like 34 bowl games does a 6-6 team deserve a bowl bid?
The existing bowls could be utilized as a format for a playoff senerio and everybody could argue over who's number 16 or 8 instead of who's number 2 or 3?
the Utah's, USC's and UT's would have a shot at a title instead of media darlings and consistantly overhyped so-called national powerhouses.
Unlike 07 when a two loss team gets to go in 08 an undefeated and some good 1 loss teams are left out- How giving the parity that exist, were just about anybody can beat anybody- is it realisic to imagine that- two teams will emerge at the end undefeated- 2000 and 2005 are the only two years in recent yhistory every other year as is the case with 04 and 08 there will be contraversy
Hookem-Horns
Not to the Nielsens. The Post-Season wasn't determined until the last RS games were played. Just like the '07 drama that made LSU and OHST fans watch PITT knock off WVU, every game still matters.
Texas just got bit by the Winds of Fate.
>>>>The BCS system was used in determining the B-12 champ hence during the regular season OU lost to Texas by 10 points so the regular season was already destroyed so that OU could lose to Fla by 10 points<<<<
That is not on the BCS. That is on the Big 12. The BCS voters cannot be blamed for not changing their whole process to benefit Texas. The SEC has a tiebreaker rule that takes the Head-to-Head result of the highest 2 ranked teams - had the Big 12 had that, the Longhorns would have gone.
>>>>I unlike other fans like 34 bowl games does a 6-6 team deserve a bowl bid?<<<<
I say go for it. It doesn't hurt anyone. If a fans and a sponsor want to pay for it and the kids want to play, I say let 'em...
>>>>The existing bowls could be utilized as a format for a playoff senerio and everybody could argue over who's number 16 or 8 instead of who's number 2 or 3?<<<<
The Bowls cannot be used in a Playoff System. They would wither and die, since no one would spend a week vacation to fly for a Round 1 or 2.
>>>>the Utah's, USC's and UT's would have a shot at a title instead of media darlings and consistantly overhyped so-called national powerhouses.<<<<
Utah has a legit claim. SCAL and TEX each lost a game, throwing their destiny to the Winds of Fate. That, and, trust me - SCAL...not a media darling?
>>>>Unlike 07 when a two loss team gets to go in 08 an undefeated and some good 1 loss teams are left out- How giving the parity that exist, were just about anybody can beat anybody- is it realisic to imagine that- two teams will emerge at the end undefeated- 2000 and 2005 are the only two years in recent yhistory every other year as is the case with 04 and 08 there will be contraversy<<<<
Only in recent years have the "mid-majors" realistically belonged in the BCS. No one honestly would have put Tulane up against Tennessee in 1998.
Sure, it works out well when you have a 1999, 2002, or 2005 year, but that's no reason to scrap it all. CFB is a fundamentally Chaotic sport; trying to fit it into a neat little box will just not work...
>>>>Hookem-Horns<<<<
Ever since VY finally ended the most overwhelming volume of sheer and unadulterated Hype that has ever existed in the History of Mankind (the SCAL 2004-2005 Seasons), I swore no less than Five years rooting for Texas in honor of being able to hear about anyone else succeeding at CFB.
...and thus, concur.... :)
It is a chaotic sport and perhaps thats why these boards are fun.
I wasn't referring to USC as media darlings they are a great team, I was using it in general or perhaps in reference to a really good team that runs up ridiculous offensive numbers against opponents.
Only to lose another BCS bowl game.
The best part of the MNC game was after it was over one of the commentators wasn't grinning or smiling and that kinda made my day.
Regan no neat little box- I know that these things take time, but a little tweaking now & then and learning not to except the status quo.
The old saying if its not broke dont fix it- well there's some repairs to be made-IMO
I just feel that the best solution is:
When you have 3 legit-claim teams, have #2 play #3 and the winner play #1.
1998: FSU vs. TENN
2000: FSU/MIA vs. OU
2001: ORE/NEB vs. MIA
2002: OHST vs. MIA
2003: LSU/SCAL vs. OU
2004: AUB/OU vs. SCAL
2005: TEX vs. SCAL
2006: LOU/FLA vs. OHST
2007: 3 Syllable word beginning with Cluster
2008: UTAH/OU vs. FLA
In my old system, this year would have turned into a 6-team bye-playoff of:
SCAL/BSU vs. FLA & UTAH/PSU vs. OU
Winners then face each other.
The Conf champ thing needs to be excluded in your senerio Texas is not included- Weve already had this discussion-no point in rehashing it.
I had a previous post prior to the CCG games that still would have left Bois St an undefeated out
Fla
Bama
UT
OU
Utah
USC
PSU
TTech
The 16 team idea would include Ohio St,Bois St,TCU etc etc- while it still not be perfect, it would be better than what exist currently
BTW polls have never made much sense to me
For example Missu ranked higher than KU
KU beat Missu ??
I understand Fla being higher than Ole Miss because of losses, but KU was clearly a better team than Missu
KU lost to OU and UT so did Missu
KU beat Missu head to head
1) All undefeated teams
2) All teams above the first gap of 0.06 in the BCS standings
A winning season deserves consideration for a berth in a regional bowl.
A conference championship deserves consideration for a berth in a premier bowl.
Only the two criteria above warrant consideration for a national championship.
The rest is details that would need to be addressed.
BTW congrats on a great year Utah beat Bama worse than Fla did
Fla beat OU by the same margin as Texas 10 points
Both OU and OSU played real hard during their bowl games
TCU also had a great year only two losses both top teams Utah and OU
OU had an outstanding year only losses both top teams Fla and Texas
not to take anything away from Fla, but it was kinda hard for me to watch knowing that some really good teams were kinda left out of consideration and that polls & computers once again determined the MNC
As for all undefeated teams qualifying--doesn't this reduce the incentive for mid- and low-majors to play a tough OOC schedule? Just get through your crappy conference and in flow the big bucks for playing in a "premier bowl." Why risk it by traveling to Georgia or Michigan to play?
Why 0.0600 was selected goes much farther into the 6 pages of detail I have prepared.
Using the standard deviations of the computer rankings for the top 5 teams a gap of 0.0600 in the BCS standings represents a 70.2% consensus that the higher team is perceived to be better than the
lower team.
It also represents an average ranking difference of 1.5, indicating that the teams are closer to two ranking spots apart than one ranking spot apart.
The controversy over the formula is usually isolated to cases where the rankings are close. By using the gaps we use the formula to its strenghts making it a much stronger asset to the system.
As for what components should be used and the relative weights they should have, the BCS bowls are better suited to determine that than I am. I will say, as a Utah fan, I have no problem with the current formula. I love the computers they use.
As for all undefeated teams qualifying--doesn't this reduce the incentive for mid- and low-majors to play a tough OOC schedule?
AN ACTUAL ISSUE!!! Thank you!
Utah will get 4.5 million more than their default conference pot for their BCS appearance this year. They got 0.8 million for their road trip to Ann Arbor.
Unless a team has better than 1 in 6 chance of going undefeated without them, they are better off with the guaranteed payout by playing Michigan. Going undefeated in any conference a team finds themselves in is tough.
Boise State and Utah are the only teams who have demonstrated that level of success but they have higher goals than just a payout. Most MWC and C-USA teams, and a select few elsewhere, want to push for a spot on the brighter side of the BCS line. This will require improving their perception. This requires beating good teams on a regular bases. You can't do this if you don't play them on a regular basis.
The low majors already lack incentive to schedule competitively under the current system. Utah State is reducing its number of games with Utah and BYU, ending decade old series, to schedule lower competition. Not that I am complaining too hard, we replaced them with Notre Dame.
No team is going to schedule worse than Hawaii did in 2007 and they got a BCS bowl and a 4.5 million payout with the current system for an undefeated season.
Maybe we will see a plus-one, or some system like yours, within the BCS before a Final Four-style system with automatic qualifiers and a committee to choose at-large bids. But it will only be a way station.
Ok, I can agree with that.
I should present my second argument as my primary argument.
The formula could be presented as follows(without any real change):
Take the polls used and devide the total points by the number of voters to get an average ranking.
Take the average rank of the computers after the highest and lowest are thrown out.
Take the average of these values to get an overall average ranking for each team.
The 1.0000 - 0.0000 would be linearly transformed to a 1.000-26.000 scale psycologically understandable as a top 25 ranking.
A difference of 0.06 would became an average difference of 1.5 ranks, indicating that the teams are closer to two ranking spots apart than one ranking spot apart.
Thank you again, this time for inspiring improvements.
I am updating the 6 page plan to include this linear tranformation of the formula and change the 0.06 value in the current scale of the formula to an average difference of 1.5 in the rankings used.
I will now present the second criteria as:
2) All teams above the first gap in the average top 25 ranking of 1.5 (A value of 0.06 in the current formula.)
Second, and more important, any system that relies on pollsters to determine playoff spots, especially coaches' polls, is corrupt and skirts the problem.
Idealogically I agree. It would be significantly harder, however, for a small group of voters to significantly change the location of a gap than it is to change the order of two closely ranked teams.
Basically it is a slight variation of my two criteria for NC Candidates:
+ Must have 0-losses or 1-loss.
+ Must be a Conference Champ
The Conference Champ Clause remains an outside modification possibility "tweak" to prevent two teams from the same conference from winding up in the NC Game, like MICH and OHST almost did in 2006, but seems unneeded given Ben's .06 Gap Criteria.
The genius of the plan is that it has a Contingency Scale, pre-determined in advance to allow for up to as many candidates as qualify based on their performance in the Regular season.
In other words, there could be a 4-team playoff one year and a fully legit 2-team (traditional) match-up like the ones in 2002 and 2005 the next year.
The Drama of the Regular Season (which honestly matters to me more than Split Titles) will continue because no one knows what the Post-Season will look like until the last Regular Season games are played....just as it should be.
Basically, in most years, there are only 2-3 teams with legit Title Claims. Even in the last two wacky years, there are no more than 5.
There is no need for an 8- or 16- team Playoff, just a system with enough flexibility to fit each unique season like a glove and give the chances to the teams that deserve them, with all apologies to the 7-4 Sun Belt Champs...
I guess you'd want the 'playoff' teams to play in NFL stadiums and leave the rest of the bowls to do their own thing? What would the dates be?
I agree that the SEC champion shouldn't have to beat a 7-4 Sun Belt winner in the postseason though.
First, adjustments to the criteria are suggested for the unlikely cases of 1 team or more than 8 teams to get 2-7 teams.
Maintaining the four BCS bowls, restored to New Year's Day, and the National championship game rotating among the four venues at least a week later uses the logistics already in place.
For cases involving 4+ teams the BCS Bowl with a conference tie in to the #1 team would be used. For cases with 6+ teams the BCS bowl with a conference tie-in with #2 seed would be used, unless it is the same bowl then the #3 tie-in would be used.
For all cases the total number of teams participating in the playoffs and the BCS Bowls not used to determine the champion would always be 10 or 11, leaving the pool of teams constant for the rest of the bowl games.
One additional semi-final site would potentially be needed for the most common cases involving 3-5 teams. It also would be New Year's Day or the day after. This would have been used 4 of the last 5 years showing that the reservations usually gets used.
For cases involving more than 4 teams (2 out of the last 5 years, both involving two undefeated non-BCS teams) play-in games are required.
By making these home games for the favored team, each team would be responsible for having a plan to host such a game. These would be scheduled the first days of the bowl season, usually around December 20th, giving teams and venues two weeks to prepare for them. For most teams this would simply be a matter of using their own stadium or a larger one near by.
The most significant games would be maintained and held every year. The dates and locations of all games would be determined the day the final BCS standings are released, except possibly the exact venue of potential play-in games.
If they're going to get rid of the bowl system as we know it now, at the very least they will want to guarantee themselves a revenue stream.
I am VERY particular about this part of my idea:
A winning season deserves consideration for a berth in a regional bowl.
A conference championship deserves consideration for a berth in a premier bowl.
Only the two criteria above warrant consideration for a national championship.
I am a huge fan of the bowl system, it would be a huge travesty to the sport to undermine it.
The case of the two team year would be exactly like 2005. It would have been a two team year, and the system default to the current system in that case.
1) There would be no 'undetermined dates'. Models would be set up in advance to take into consideration how each record and ranking could wind up.
2) We aren't talking about huge numbers of games. This basically is a glorified "Plus-One" System that accounts for years like 2002 and 2005 when there is no need for the top 2 teams to play inferior teams.
Realistically, there are few years when the "problem" with the BCS is bigger than 3 teams for 2 spots. I know 2007 and 2008 were rough, but just because we have 2 years like that doesn't mean that the whole sport changed overnight.
3) Ideally, if you had 3 teams worthy, #2 vs. #3 could take place at the beginning of the Bowl Season, in mid-December, and the winner has plenty of time to prepare for an early-January date for #1. Same deal for 4 teams; with just 1 more game.
4) Certainly the "powers that be" in the postseason stream would want more games and would lament the foregone profits for 2 team matchups. Just as they do now when they get a dud matchup between CINC and VT.
5) The current system has put the 5th Bowl Game at the same site as one of the 4 BCS Bowls already. Dolphin Stadium had VT/CINC and FLA/OU one week apart.
It seems at first glance that it might be a logistical nightmare, but when you compare it to what is currently done, it really isn't that bad...
Since the abolishment of the SWC- two of the top teams from that conference had really bad years with new HC's Arkansas-SEC and Texas A&M- B-12
Others did extremely well
Houston, Rice, TCU and Texas all won their bowls
Texas Tech had an outstanding year 11-2
BU ended up 4-8 with several real close ones- new HC and great QB everything looking up for the Bearswho had close ones with TTech,Missu and UConn
SMU has never recovered from their downfall
During the old SWC days TCU did not have the successs that they have enjoyed in the WAC, C-USA and MWC. They had to play the big dogs Texas,Arkansas,Texas A&M every season and both Houston and SMU had really good teams in the 70's & 80's and Texas Tech has always been competitive.
I really like to watch the Frogs and I'm glad that they schedule games against B-12 teams and they can knock off a OU or TTech on occasion, but unfortunatly they dont face those type of teams week in and week out during the season, they had an outstanding year and their only two loses were to top 10 teams Utah and OU, while nobody really wants to see a rematch, I for one would like to see a system that gives good teams a shot at a championship, because realistically the Utes,Frogs,Horns, Trojans were just as deserving a shot at a title as the Sooners/Gators IMHO
16 team format or 8 team format would be benifitial to CFB as a hole
After the 08 season look at the really great teams some of which had only two loses like TCU,OU,PSU,Bama,TTech that all had remarkable seasons and would have made a playoff format interesting throw in Ohio st,Utah, Texas,USC and Florida into the mix Wow
My Dad is a UT grad and I've always been a Horns fan
So I pull for Texas in every game
Got some family ties to Texas A&M- so I pull for them in every game except two
I always like to pull for the underdogs- Baylor & Rice old SWC teams
I always pull for whoever is playing OU, unlike SEC fans we do not pull for OU just because they belong to the same conference
In order
Texas
Baylor
Rice
Texas A&M
TCU
Ole Miss
Teams I do not pull for-
Oklahoma- no explanation needed
Arkansas- I liked them with Nutt, but the fans hate Texas bitter rival
Colo They dont like us either
Nebraska- maybe in a bowl or against USC , Mich etc etc
Texas Tech
Houston
I might pull for Houston in a bowl or against Tulsa or something never liked Texas Tech, but if they are playing Minnesota or something- maybe
It won't be long before Utah will have the opportunity to sit in the front of the bus.
Funny thing is Utah sided with the south, but entitlement for false nobility will fall again.
As being a white southerner who has had the opportunity to travel over much of America and overseas, I have had a glimpse of just how much the south has suffered from having racial divisions for so long, especially when compared to other regions.
Guess I just don't like analogies comparing real-world major issues and Bowl lineups.
Not getting preachy; I'd just expect that on a good episode of Family Guy, not Fanblogs... :-)
The BCS colleges receive billions in federal funds annually and the two biggest BCS conference winners are the PAC 10 and the Big 10 as long as they adhere to Equal Opportunity guidelines.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is on the right track.
My fear is that Utah would accept a special Notre Dame type inclusion into BCS Country Club because they finished in the top 5 and leave their buddies to still play at a municipal course.
That would only delay the inevitable and make them more hated than the Irish.
We won't get a ND like free ride.
I actually sent an E-Mail to Mark Shurtleff's office suggesting that ESPN's sports center top 25 coverage might have anti-trust issues as well.
BTW, I picked Bama in the office pool with highest confidence factor. It didn't hurt me as everyone else did the same. I'm convinced.
Maybe even a link...
Playoffs are too rigid to meet the unique needs of college football and a fixed number of participants will always produce disagreement at the cutoff. The more teams that are included the greater the magnitude of disagreement at the cutoff; therefore a small number of teams is desirable. Deep playoffs also throw out a century of bowl tradition which would be an enormous travesty to college football.
The only way around the impasse is a national championship system flexible enough to adjust to each year's individual circumstances.
As for economics, I don't know much about it. I do know the bowls are a known commodity and to change to anything drastically different would be a tremendous risk.
How are you going to convince the university presidents to extend the format two rounds into January?
While the BCS bowls might be willing to be a semi-final, lower than this would put them at too much risk of getting a bad matchup worse than this year's Orange Bowl.
Before the bowls Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Utah and Boise State were the teams that I thought should have had a chance. USC only proved their merit after their bowl win. At least Utah was undefeated prior to the Sugar Bowl. Bosie State was out of the discussion only because they lost to TCU.
b. I don't know how you convince a university president to do anything other that raise tuition cost. Most universities don't start the spring semester until about the 20th anyway. I know the students were not back from break at OU last night.
c. These five bowls would NEVER be lower than semifinals. They would rotate between that and the final four host. Also adding the Cotton is bringing back a traditional big bowl. Hosting a semi on NYD would be Huge!
d. Yes, a 16 team tourney would allow some teams in that don't deserve a chance, but if they can go on the road and win at one of the other schools who have had a great year they would have proven themselves worthy. But this system makes sure everyone who should be in, is in. I could cut it to 12 and give a bye to the top four, but I think the top four schools would rather have another home game against a quality opponent and the revenue it would bring instead of a bye. I think in my way USC is deserving of a shot. I don't understand your logic that by USC beating a team in a bowl game that you don't mention as deserving somehow becomes deserving, especially when it was a virtual home game. Also, I think you would have just as hard of a time as my plan would in trying to convince U presidents and TV executives to accept a flexible playoff format.
c. A semi-final is equal to the final four. These bowls would rotate between beein quarter finals and semi finals.
d. USC, like Utah was not in the national discussion until they got an impressive BCS bowl win. Unlike Utah they were not undefeated. Their exclusion is close to the problem case for my system.
With mose of the games at fixed locations the logistical issues are not as bad as the first impression gives. The TV executives would get a few more games between top teams with real meaning, and a significantly bigger presentation the day the final BCS standings come out.
or maybe too much Guinness...
or maybe I can't splle!!
Well right before the half I was thinking that it was a shame for yall to make two long drives inside the 2 yard line and come away empty handed.
Well just got to regroup and get ready for next season.
The weather here, while not ner as cold is really strange- one day 85 degrees next morning 29 then it warms up again- BTW no rain
annual rainfall here 17 inches- terrible drought, my son is in High school and never seen snow in his life.
Hookem-Horns
Guess you didn't get the memo. The college bowl season is over.
:-)
Congrats on a great year
I ain't gonna lie...
The national consensus had Boise State better than Utah 8 of the last 10 years. We got the two that mattered most. They have a 3 game winning streak over us going.
They need to be in the MWC.
I Googled "Boise State MWC invite" and got 41,200 articles:
( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=3593&fsd... )
In this age, that's a good sign....
When was the last time they did not get 10 wins? Even if they get two more losses in the MWC they still get 10 wins in 2004, 2006 and 2008.
BSU joining the MWC is best:
> For Boise State (joining a more prestigious conference)
> And for the MWC (giving a much better shot at an automatic BCS Berth)
It's a win-win for almost everybody (save the WAC)...
http://www.fanblogs.com/auburn/007973.php
Utah also hired a d-line coach.
The old line coach got promoted to Defensive coordinator when Gary Anderson left to be HC at Utah State.
With 19 years NFL experience, and a second residence in Jacksonville Florida, one has to wonder if he was hired partly to try to expand Utah's recruiting west of the Mississippi?
Kyle Whittingham: "As a defensive line coach, the experience and expertise that he brings to our program is second to none."
Here is what my proposed BCS Playoff would have looked like in 08' based off of the week 15 BCS rankings released on December 7th. My idea would actually be to require all conferences to play a championship game (or get rid of them all together) which would have changed this quite a bit but her we go.
1. Oklahoma* (#1 BCS rank) (Big XII Champion)
2. Florida* (#2 BCS rank) (SEC Champion)
3. USC* (#5 BCS rank) (PAC 10 Champion)
4. Utah* (#6 BCS rank) (MWC Champion)
5. Texas (#3 BCS rank)
6. Alabama (#4 BCS rank)
7. Texas Tech (#7 BCS rank)
8. Penn State (#8 BCS rank)
That's right... Utah receives an automatic bid for being one of the top four BCS rated teams who won their conference and deservingly so. The strength of schedule point doesn't argument against UTAH doesn't hold much water with me. Especially when the BCS has a strength of schedule component and still had Utah in the top 4 before all bowl games were played.
The top 4 BCS rated conference champs receive automatic bids as well as a home game in the first round.
#1 OU vs. #8 Penn State @ OU in Norman
#2 Florida vs. #7 Texas Tech @ UF in Gainsville
#5 USC vs. #4 Alabama @ USC in Los Angeles
#6 Utah vs. #3 Texas in @ Utah in Salt Lake City
Make whatever conclusion you would like about how that would shake out but this formula would decide an undisputed champion and would do it without bias towards any conference or team.
Regan, chime in whenever. I'm ready.
2) I would be interested in your answer to the logistics argument I defended the Prather-Regan structure above. We use the current structure to a maximal level. The BCS bowls are used as buffers to keep the number of teams in the entire championship system constant.
How do you schedule all these games in several unknown locations in a manner of a few weeks? How do the fans do it?
3) You ignore the bowls entirely. I specifically define their purpose and place.
4) Why not Boise State? They were undefeated. All teams should have a chance at the title. TCU, Utah and Boise State are all about equal this year.
Good to know you're ready to joust!
Sorry for not knowing. We had our own coaching tragedy/comedy of sorts...
HookEmHorns!
Lennie's gone man. He couldn't seem to act like a big boy and was asked to leave. Disrespect and abrasiveness won't get you very far.
I have nothing but the opposite for you my man. Thanks for what you do. Do you have tapes of some of the games, or are you just going to be watching ESPN classic?
Yea, TE sent me some of his absinthe...
God Bless our Troops
Hookem-Horns
If Lennie is reading this- I loved seeing Switzers face after the game- He wasnt grining-LOL
I actually have a lot of respect for the guy, but just cant help but not like him and most of the burnt Orange nation would agree.
I understand that coach Switzer has a book out and I'm going to check the local library for it.
BTW could perhaps a coondawg or someone else in the fanblogs crossbar motel escape from their chains with a new handle and address? perhaps just wishful thinking on my part-Hookem
As to the playoff discussion... I'm going to opt out until tomorrow when I will have a full keyboard at my disposal... not my tiny blackberry keypad.
Please wait a day or two, another thread might be on the way.
Please review the concept Regan and I developed.
Its not as important that the best 8 teams are included but that you're given a straight shot if you win a division or are the highest ranked usually undefeated non BCS team. There would even be room for a consolation pick or a top 8 ranked ND.
Evidently, Der Fuhrer was quite the Utes Fan/ Cougar hater...
Utah should feel honored that some BYU fan went to the trouble of making this...