Ben, it could be a result of my having just watched Louisville beat WVU in BB, but this read just like a Dick Vitale tirade. Gotta get real, BABY!!!
I don't know. We've seen so many ideas, so many proposals. The biggest reason none of them take root lies in the fact that no one is running with any of them. It's like, "Hey I got an idea." "Great! Let's hear it." It's proposed; we pick it a part; come to a consensus, and it gets filed for posterity. Nothing happens beyond debate.
In this case, rightly or wrongly, at least the MWC is trying to do something. They're stepping up to the plate and taking some serious swings. We may not take the MWC seriously, in light of their proposal, but at least they've shown the courage to try.
As for this far better idea that's available. You know...we've been slamming the BCS right and left about how they do their business. Yet, here's a proposal that would only make them stronger. Strange as it may seem, that may be just the ticket. Instead of a body depending upon computers to do its job, the BCS would become more engaged in college football; actually take an active role, as opposed to a passive one.
Of course, the problem with that logic is this: In their current non-committal, take little responsibility condition, they're reaping all this wealth. Why would we expect they would actually want to work for a living, as the "better idea available" would have them do? Well, I suppose we can dream.
Interesting article, Ben; interesting indeed.
Porcine
· 9 months ago
So it's come to this.
Regan
· 9 months ago
Game On. :)
Tom22
· 9 months ago
Jeeze the 12 person committee idea was stupid
Tom22
· 9 months ago
Ben, as for guaranteeing that an undefeated team have a shot, the current 10 team BCS selection pretty much does that (well only Utah OR Boise state gets a shot not both, but thats ok with me).
If you were to take polls after those 5 BCS bowl games and select the best 4 you'd be including the best prospects.
Its not whether the last team you included was better than the one that just missed it , but that you had enough room to include the 3 , 4, 5 or 6 standouts in a system., not knowing how many you'd have in any given year.
Some people might get a shot they didn't deserve but at least you've given those who deserve a shot, a shot.
Ben Prather
· 8 months ago
Yes the current system affords Utah and Boise State a shot at a top team like Pittsburgh (2004).
It does not give them any kind of path to the title.
To maintain the current Bowl window only one round after the 4 BCS bowls is possible. The BCS bowls can be at most semi-finals.
1Tomcat
· 8 months ago
Ben Yes with a plus 1 using the current bowls as elimination games- woulda had a Utah,USC,Texas & Florida- next round then the big one= true 08 Nat Champ
Tom22
· 8 months ago
I'm not a big fan of the plus 1 . Either its a tourney or its a beauty contest. The plus one solves a few years but it makes it two beauty contests a great many other years. Who gets to play who in the BCS bowl games would be incredibly political too ( a third voting hot potato).
I'd rather just have one vote to complain about than 3.
But maybe two more weeks are impossible in which case I think we're stuck with what we got.
If we could go with 8 teams, The MWC proposal of doing so by leaving one of the 5 BCS bowls out is interesting. (thats the part of this thats on topic) It would primarily prevent weak conference champions from getting an automatic qualifier. Its could still bite non bcs conference schools who get no respect for their record while squeezing in with current rules but many years you'd have two BCS conf champs that didn't look so good.
As you've said many times, the only way the very good non BCS conference teams are going to get any respect is by continuing to win non conference games and have the lower teams in their leagues also make reasonable showing.
I think that they have done well enough so that one at large BCS pick could go to the highest ranked Non BCS team each year even with one loss. Not everyone would agree and they've got a way to go to qualify 2.
I don't think those 8 teams would really need to be seeded... they're usually all in the same league of quality. The matchups could be based on tradition, conference rivalry, economic motivations of TV or Bowls. A slightly harder first round won't really make a difference and even if it seemed slightly tilted, the teams would still get to prove it on the field.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 8 months ago
You still hear Bert Parks singing even if you have 64 teams, Tom. We'll never be able to avoid it completely.
If you took 6 conference champs and 2 at-larges, it would be the equivilant of at least a 32-team field,or more--assuming that you think that conference championships are equal to playoffs.
Sorry I've been AWOL, guys. Had some roundball rooting to do...
Ben Prather
· 8 months ago
My proposal (liked to above) allows for two New Year's Day semi-finals, likely a Wild Card Game but often a BCS bowl, and a final the second Monday of January.
The BCS bowls maintain their conference tie-in identities and sometimes are selected to be semi finals depending on which BCS Bowls are tied to the top teams in the BCS standings.
2004 showed that any plus one is not enough. For years like 2004 and 2008 where more than 4 teams deserve consideration Play In Games hosted by the favored teams could be played on December 19th or 20th to start the bowl season.
The seeds of this flexible tournament structure was planted by Regan but the concept dates back to the NFL championship system from 1933-1967. That system had a championship game and divisional games if needed to break a tie at the top of the standings. The 34 year success of this system demonstrates that a flexible tournament structure provides long term stability that not fixed structure has been able to achieve.
The proper number of teams is typically between 2 and 5, usually 3. This proposal can handle up to 8.
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
You'll never find a statue of a committee in any city's park.
Zac
· 9 months ago
Which one, Tom, mine from the other thread, or theirs here?
hrposon
· 9 months ago
You don't fix the BCS, you scrap it. Call the playoff of the eight best conference champions, "January Justice".
Mars
· 9 months ago
Serious or not, the vast majority of college football fans agree with the MWC criteria. So they're the good guys here. The heroes. The joke is college football itself, specifically the BCS, the BCS commissioners, the BCS Presidents, the Rose Bowl, the PAC-10, and the Big Ten. Everyone agrees- they're stupid. The MWC may not be serious, but they are right.
thebuckstopshere
· 9 months ago
I think you've brought me out of hibernation, as I'm compelled to respond.......
No wait I think this is just a period of euthermic arousal. Let me self access real quick.
CFBFMR: low CFBFBR: slow/shallow ATACFBF: nowhere near warm
Yeah this is all wrong.....yawn......way to early..yawn.......... back to my slumber..........
(Anyone looking for extra credit, go ahead and try to decipher those acronyms.)
Regan
· 9 months ago
CFBFMR: College FootBall Financial Management Regulation CFBFBR: College FootBall Formula-Based Regulation ATACFBF: Accumulated Time Analysis of College FootBall Fanaticism
Hey, gave it a shot. :)
Porcine
· 9 months ago
CFBFMR: Calculated Fecal Base From My Rump CFBFBR: Constipation From Basketball Forgetables Because Rawwwrrr. . . . ATACFBF: Anything That Arouses Columbus Fever By Fanblogs
Regan
· 9 months ago
Then don't like it.
Regan
· 9 months ago
The Economy is pretty screwed up right now.
I think we should just print more money and give everyone a million dollars to fix everything. Why? because I could really use a million dollars...
In Other Words...just because it's something means it's anywhere near a good idea. The fact that people are giving the MWC an "A for Effort" is...disappointing...
Zac
· 9 months ago
Crazy as it sounds, Regan, I wouldn't know what to do with a $1M. Now, $60,000-$100,000.00 I can wrap my arms around. $1M? I'd wind up giving most of it away in taxes. Good try on the acronyms, by the way. Looks logical to me.
Regan
· 9 months ago
Dude, buy a million dollars worth of Lottery Tickets! :)
I do think the poll themselves need some guidelines when it comes to voting. 1. When top 25 teams play each other, their should be a limit on how far the losing team drops. 2. When a Division 1 team plays a subdivision team, no movement up in the polls should be allowed.
You like to encourage top teams to play each other and not reward soft schedules. It seems soft schedules which typically the WAC, MWC and occasionally Big East teams do have are rewarded in the current system.
All Comments
I don't know. We've seen so many ideas, so many proposals. The biggest reason none of them take root lies in the fact that no one is running with any of them. It's like, "Hey I got an idea." "Great! Let's hear it." It's proposed; we pick it a part; come to a consensus, and it gets filed for posterity. Nothing happens beyond debate.
In this case, rightly or wrongly, at least the MWC is trying to do something. They're stepping up to the plate and taking some serious swings. We may not take the MWC seriously, in light of their proposal, but at least they've shown the courage to try.
As for this far better idea that's available. You know...we've been slamming the BCS right and left about how they do their business. Yet, here's a proposal that would only make them stronger. Strange as it may seem, that may be just the ticket. Instead of a body depending upon computers to do its job, the BCS would become more engaged in college football; actually take an active role, as opposed to a passive one.
Of course, the problem with that logic is this: In their current non-committal, take little responsibility condition, they're reaping all this wealth. Why would we expect they would actually want to work for a living, as the "better idea available" would have them do? Well, I suppose we can dream.
Interesting article, Ben; interesting indeed.
If you were to take polls after those 5 BCS bowl games and select the best 4 you'd be including the best prospects.
Its not whether the last team you included was better than the one that just missed it , but that you had enough room to include the 3 , 4, 5 or 6 standouts in a system., not knowing how many you'd have in any given year.
Some people might get a shot they didn't deserve but at least you've given those who deserve a shot, a shot.
It does not give them any kind of path to the title.
To maintain the current Bowl window only one round after the 4 BCS bowls is possible. The BCS bowls can be at most semi-finals.
I'd rather just have one vote to complain about than 3.
But maybe two more weeks are impossible in which case I think we're stuck with what we got.
If we could go with 8 teams, The MWC proposal of doing so by leaving one of the 5 BCS bowls out is interesting. (thats the part of this thats on topic) It would primarily prevent weak conference champions from getting an automatic qualifier. Its could still bite non bcs conference schools who get no respect for their record while squeezing in with current rules but many years you'd have two BCS conf champs that didn't look so good.
As you've said many times, the only way the very good non BCS conference teams are going to get any respect is by continuing to win non conference games and have the lower teams in their leagues also make reasonable showing.
I think that they have done well enough so that one at large BCS pick could go to the highest ranked Non BCS team each year even with one loss. Not everyone would agree and they've got a way to go to qualify 2.
I don't think those 8 teams would really need to be seeded... they're usually all in the same league of quality. The matchups could be based on tradition, conference rivalry, economic motivations of TV or Bowls. A slightly harder first round won't really make a difference and even if it seemed slightly tilted, the teams would still get to prove it on the field.
If you took 6 conference champs and 2 at-larges, it would be the equivilant of at least a 32-team field,or more--assuming that you think that conference championships are equal to playoffs.
Sorry I've been AWOL, guys. Had some roundball rooting to do...
The BCS bowls maintain their conference tie-in identities and sometimes are selected to be semi finals depending on which BCS Bowls are tied to the top teams in the BCS standings.
2004 showed that any plus one is not enough. For years like 2004 and 2008 where more than 4 teams deserve consideration Play In Games hosted by the favored teams could be played on December 19th or 20th to start the bowl season.
The seeds of this flexible tournament structure was planted by Regan but the concept dates back to the NFL championship system from 1933-1967. That system had a championship game and divisional games if needed to break a tie at the top of the standings. The 34 year success of this system demonstrates that a flexible tournament structure provides long term stability that not fixed structure has been able to achieve.
The proper number of teams is typically between 2 and 5, usually 3. This proposal can handle up to 8.
Call the playoff of the eight best conference champions, "January Justice".
No wait I think this is just a period of euthermic arousal. Let me self access real quick.
CFBFMR: low
CFBFBR: slow/shallow
ATACFBF: nowhere near warm
Yeah this is all wrong.....yawn......way to early..yawn.......... back to my slumber..........
(Anyone looking for extra credit, go ahead and try to decipher those acronyms.)
CFBFBR: College FootBall Formula-Based Regulation
ATACFBF: Accumulated Time Analysis of College FootBall Fanaticism
Hey, gave it a shot. :)
CFBFBR: Constipation From Basketball Forgetables Because Rawwwrrr. . . .
ATACFBF: Anything That Arouses Columbus Fever By Fanblogs
I think we should just print more money and give everyone a million dollars to fix everything. Why? because I could really use a million dollars...
In Other Words...just because it's something means it's anywhere near a good idea. The fact that people are giving the MWC an "A for Effort" is...disappointing...
It is sad that I actually Googled the acronyms (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FMR).
Tried to choose the best one.
Looking for a job sucks. :(
1. When top 25 teams play each other, their should be a limit on how far the losing team drops.
2. When a Division 1 team plays a subdivision team, no movement up in the polls should be allowed.
You like to encourage top teams to play each other and not reward soft schedules.
It seems soft schedules which typically the WAC, MWC and occasionally Big East teams do have are rewarded in the current system.