Just a request, but if you are going to quote something, please do it in a fashion that we are not hit with a wall of text. At least the original article was broken up with paragraphs.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
Apparently line breaks in blockquotes are discarded in the posting tools.
This is now the intended format.
Jason
· 5 months ago
Thanks! That's a lot easier to read.
Zac
· 5 months ago
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin.
I agree, Ben; well said, well said indeed. Arguably the BCS blew it the year Boise St went undefeated. Without question, they blew it last year. AND, as previously stated in another thread, the year a 2-loss school went to the National Championship, was without any doubt the year there should have been some form of play-off. JMHO...
Regan
· 5 months ago
I am one of the exceptionally few who apparently would agree with you on 2007 Zac.
The system I had championed would have pitted OHST vs. HAW that year. The logic being simple: how many losses does the BCS Conference team have to have before a non-BCS team gets a chance to play for the NC?
Given the disastrous losses by OHST and HAW in their games, I had to look at adjusting my system, but in concept...the question remains...
While I have signed on with Ben Prather in support of a newer system, my (overly basic) original system would have set up 2008-2009 with a 6x Team mini-tournament with the following teams: FLA, OU, SCAL, PSU, UTAH, BSU
[These are the teams that both won their Conference Championships and have 0-losses or 1-loss.
Round #1 would have been #4 PSU/#5 UTAH and #3 SCAL/#6 BSU, played at the beginning of the Bowl Season.
Round #2 would have #1 FLA vs. PSU/UTAH and #2 OU vs. SCAL/BSU, and would be on New Years Day.
Round #3 would be the final Championship Game.]
My old system was a big work in progress....that's why it is now my old system. :)
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
I appear to have struck a compromise that Regan and KSU Wild can find tolerable, though with reservation in the latter case. This is no small feat. Its biggest (only known) weakness is that you need to be well versed in the post season discussion to understand it.
The proof is in the elegant results it produces. For all years the remaining BCS automatic qualifying teams would have been placed in the remaining BCS bowls, keeping the total number of participants between 10 and 11.
2008: Utah hosts Boise State for the opportunity to play Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Florida plays Texas in a Wild Card Game. The winners advance to the National Championship Game.
2007: Hawaii plays LSU in a WCG for the opportunity to play Ohio State in the NCG.
2006: Boise State plays Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. Florida plays Michigan in a WCG. The winners meet in the NCG.
2005: USC plays Texas in the NCG
2004: Utah hosts Boise State for the opportunity to play USC in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma plays Auburn in a WCG. The winners meet in the NCG.
2003: LSU plays USC in a WCG for the opportunity to play Oklahoma in the NCG.
2002: Miami(FL) plays Ohio State in the NCG
2001: Miami(FL) plays Oregon in the Orange Bowl. Nebraska plays Colorado in a WCG. The winners play in the NCG.
2000: FSU plays Miami(FL) in a WCG for the opportunity to play Oklahoma in the NCG.
*1999: Alabama hosts Marshall for the opportunity to play FSU in the Orange Bowl. Virginia Tech plays Nebraska in a WCG. The winners play in the NCG.
1998: Tulane plays FSU in a WCG for the opportunity to play Tennessee in the NCG.
*1999 is by far the most complicated year in the 11 year BCS history. Undefeated Marshall was not in the top 10, requiring at least three rounds to prove their worth. No significant gap existed between #4 and #7 so the largest gap was used, between Tennessee and Alabama.
It takes 2 pages to describe the rules to generate these pairings and the tournament structures, another 3 pages to define classifications for conferences and bowls and how to handle changes in classifications, 5 pages of explanation interleaved into all this and two pages of appendices to generate my full proposal.
NMLSooner
· 5 months ago
I think your plan could work, because I take the time to read stuff like that. I don't think the common fan does. That's why I believe you have to have a set number of teams in a playoff tournament. People have trouble stomaching why their team was left out at no.3, no.9, or no.66. I don't think that compares to the frustration people would have when their team in left our at no.4 when no.4 made it last year. You could try to explain it to people, but you'd lose them by the second sentence. It's a good plan, but a PR nightmare even by BCS standards.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
Yeah, a marketing campaign from the time the descision was made until the end of the first season it is used would be needed to push this one point:
All fixed tournaments fill a given number of slots regardless of where observed lines of seperation between teams exist.
The new system will select teams qualified based on rigid standards and find a structure that accommodates all qualified teams.
My qualification criteria for the cutoffs can be expressed as:
Teams above the first gap, representing a 70% consensus that the teams are properly ordered.
All undefeated teams.
Fine print:
If the first such gap exists between #1 and #2 it is ignored.
If an undefeated team is lower then #10 they must play 3 rounds, possibly requiring the next gap to be used.
If the field would be larger than 8 by applying the above rules the largest gap in the range needed would be used.
I tend to agree with your point here NMLSooner here. As well thought out as Ben's plan is I think even with a thorough marketing campaign his idea would go over 90% of college football fans heads. For the majority of the people who frequent this site I'm sure that wouldn't be the case though.
I know Regan and Ben don't agree but I think a fixed field of 8 teams would work the best. With the only exception of more than 8 being the addition of a possible "play in" game if a season is crazy enough to require it. Any way you cut it a fair "playoff" system is going to be fairly complex in order to handle all of the wacky things that can happen in any given season... so in that sense I understand the complexity of Ben's system.
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
Do you think Tulane would have beat Kansas St. in 1998?
The only team that held them under 30 points the whole season was Colorado. They averaged 42.9 points a game vs. their opponents 15.7 per game. They also held over half of the teams they played to 7 points or less.
I don't think so.
They were a double overtime scratch and sniff away from playing in the National Championship and I beleive they would have matched up very well against Tennessee in the NC game (had they beat A&M in the Big XII Championship game).
Either way the point is that it's these sort of questions that would plague a system that didn't have a fixed number of teams to decide it's championship.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
I believe the rankings are more accurate than some give them credit for. Tulane was #10 for a reason. Tulane gets in because they were undefeated.
The gap between FSU and KSU in the polls was significant. Ohio State was ahead of KSU in both Human polls. The computers and the ah hoc measures used then brought KSU to a more proper #3 spot.
I would have expected Tulane to have gotten destroyed by FSU (or KSU) before we got to see the game we (excluding KSU, Ohio State and UCLA fans) all really wanted to see anyways.
Then again, Purdue was not even in the BCS top 15.
Here is where the real complaints would come from:
If FSU had beat Tennessee would Tennessee whine that they had too long off and the extra game helped keep FSU sharp?
If Tennessee had beat FSU would FSU whine because Tennessee had longer to prepare and stay healthy?
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
I am not an excuse maker but their performance against Purdue was less than inspired due to the fact that they went from playing in the NC game to playing in the ALAMO BOWL by losing to a very good team in double overtime. You can't tell me that giant drop didn't effect them in a MAJOR way. The BCS screwed them and they even admitted it by "tweaking" their bowl inclusion rules to make sure something like that wouldn't happen again.
Tulane would have NEVER been undefeated if they played in the Big XII that year. A fixed field of 8 would have included teams like KSU, UCLA, Ohio St. and Tulane and then we would have been able to see if they could hang with the big boys. I tend to think Kansas St. would have railed most teams in 1998... including Tulane.
A good analogy for the Purdue/Alamo Bowl scenario would be to imagine that you are about to shoot a 3 pointer at the half of a basketball game for $10,000 dollars and then right before you go to shoot they go... oh, by the way this is actually for $100 dollars. Good Luck! Do you think you might be just a little deflated???
KSU had a "real" complaint in 1998... especially before all of the bowls were played.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
KSU should have been in a BCS bowl, no doubt. Looking at 1998, with Tennessee, FSU and Tulane in the championship system no BCS bowls have been used.
Rose: UCLA vs. Ohio State Fiesta: Texas A&M vs. Arizona? Sugar: Florida vs. KSU? Orange: Syracuse? vs. Wisconsin?
It gets a little hard to say with the changes in conference alignments and BCS formats since then but I think that is close.
I think having to beat FSU and Tennessee would have been a strong enough test to see if Tulane was really a contender. We both agree they would have failed either test.
Other than that, you are sounding like some of the Alabama fans I know :)
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
The question to me is not whether having to beat FSU and Tennessee would have been enough of a test to see if Tulane was really a contender.
It is whether Tulane should be considered for NC contention over teams (in 1998) like Kansas St. and UCLA based off of the fact that they made it through a mediocre conference undefeated?
This is the point I was trying to get through to Regan in a previous post as well. Any system that values an undefeated final record in a lesser conference over another teams imperfect record in a much better conference is flawed. If those are the teams your formula picked that year it is fundamentaly flawed in that aspect.
I agree Tulane was due consideration that year... but with a VERY carefull look at their level of competition, and another VERY carefull look at the margin of victory they consistently accomplish against this competition. They had better not just be winning in that conference... they should be blowing teams out of the water.
In 2007 I remember watching Hawaii struggle against a mediocre Washington Huskie team late in the year and I knew right then they weren't NC material. Does that mean they should be thrown out of contention? No, because they deserve to be proven unfit on the field. Should they have been picked over a team like Georgia based on the fact that Georgia didn't win the SEC that year? Absolutely not.
I don't agree that teams who play in the toughest conferences should be punished, and taken out of title contention in a playoff format based off of (for instance) a double overtime loss in a championship game. It's not just a matter of whether you lost or won... it's a matter of the manner in which you lost or won.
Formulas tend to fall short in subjective scenarios. Football, just like life is not black and white.
Having a fixed number of 8 teams might include 1 or 2 teams who didn't win their conference... but it would be teams like KSU in 1998... which was the most dominant team in the country throughout the regular season. The argument could easily be made that KSU had 10 times more of a right to be in NC contention in 98' than Tulane.
It's examples just like this where your system falls short IMHO. Going undefeated is all good and well... but against who? You know I agree that teams should not be excluded solely because they don't play in one of the big 6 conferences. That being said, they should also not be picked over teams who have to play a far superior schedule and have 1 or possibly 2 losses.
This is why a fixed field of 8 would be the best system in my opinion. It would be the same year in and year out... consistency and fairness go hand in hand. This would minimize complaints and still leave enough room for the very best teams to prove their worth on the field. I beleive the remaining bowl system would work better with a fixed field year in and year out anyway.
"Other than that, you are sounding like some of the Alabama fans I know :)"
1. Alabama didn't drop all the way to the Alamo bowl.
2. Alabama didn't lose their championship game in double overtime.
Quite a large difference if you ask me :)
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
I suppose that the optimal system would use the first significant gap after the lowest ranked undefeated team. This would require being able to accommodate between 2 and 20 teams. While I have crafted a system that performs well between 2 and 8 teams, the logistical costs of this expanded range become significant.
The reality that schedules will not be equal should not prohibit teams from participating in the championship structure. Rather the structure should be such that a team with a week schedule will be given a sufficient test in the post season.
The #1 and #2 teams are guaranteed to be in by my system. How far down the standings can an undefeated team be to be able to beat #1 and #2 without passing a #3 that beats the #4 team? I estimate this to be #10.
If this is changed to #9 or #8 then 1998 and 2007 would need to be adjusted. If #7 is used 2006 comes into play as well.
1998: December 19th and 20th the following games would have been played: Tulane at Tennessee Arizona at FSU Texas A&M at KSU (Neutral Site, Regional Bowl Game commandeered) Ohio State-UCLA
The top seed to advance would go to either the Sugar or Orange Bowl to play the lowest seed to advance. The other teams would go to the other bowl.
The Rose and Fiesta Bowls would have selected participants from the remaining automatic qualifying champions and eligible at-large teams.
2007:
December 19th and 20th: Hawaii at VT Georgia at Oklahoma
The highest ranked team to advance would play LSU in the Sugar Bowl. The other team would play Ohio State in the Rose Bowl.
The Fiesta and Orange Bowls would have been selected separately as above.
2006: (only for the most restrictive case) Boise State at Ohio State Wisconsin at Florida Louisville at Michigan (Neutral site, regional bowl commandeered) USC vs. LSU
The highest seeded team to advance goes to the Rose or Sugar bowl to face the lowest seed to advance. The remaining teams play in the other bowl.
The Fiesta and Orange bowls are selected separately as above.
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
That's more like it Ben. I like the revised version better.
You said:
"The reality that schedules will not be equal should not prohibit teams from participating in the championship structure."
It should also not catapult them over teams who have to play a superior schedule and have one or possibly two losses.
How many teams from the major conferences would say... hey, give us (for instance) Boise State's schedule and we'll go undefeated too, and gladly take on the burden of playing three rounds for a chance at the NC.
You could potentially have 25 plus teams from the major conferences that would make it undefeated with Boise St., Tulsa, or Hawaii's schedule.
To me it would be an over-compensation to allow any undefeated team to have a chance to play for the NC regardless of their strength of schedule or final ranking.
The point is to make the system fair and allow access for all... not to reward teams who have weak schedules.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
You have also inspired a second change to my proposal with this line of thinking, added last week.
I now require a team to play at least 2 teams who have finished in the top 25 of the BCS final standings in any of the last 4 year to qualify for entry as an undefeated team.
This would only eliminate Hawaii in 2007.
This should be manageable for any team, even one with 8 conference games and an instate rivalry wold have 3 games left. The BCS conferences would have this covered easily with conference games alone.
Regan
· 5 months ago
I agree with most of your points for KSU '98.
I try to steer clear of non-NC issues with the BCS, since that falls more under the choices of the Bowls themselves than anything else...
Regan
· 5 months ago
On a bizarre note, I am a firm believer in unseen factors in the game that others call 'superstition'.
TENN would have beaten FSU in the 99 Fiesta Bowl regardless of circumstance. OHST would have beaten MIA in the 03 Fiesta also. Chalk it up to being a Team of Destiny. I put a lot of stock in that kinda stuff, which is why I had that feeling watching TEX keep creeping back against SCAL in the Rose a few years back.
Sometimes...it just happens, and thinking outside the box is the only way to explain it...
I think of it as the opposite of the "Consolation Bowl Meltdown" that many teams suffer as they lose inexplicably because their mojo got zapped in a Conference Championship game at the end of the Regular Season.
Why? Because it's fun to be a little delusional when it comes to this sport. :)
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
Who were the teams of destiny in 2004 and 2008?
To go further out on the limb...
Maybe Utah in 2008 and Boise State in 2006 where not that good. Maybe someone above tilted the ball bounces to show what they think of the BCS system.
You can slant a system as much as you want, but when you open the door to chance Proverbs 16:33 comes into play.
Regan
· 5 months ago
That's the great thing about superstition; it doesn't always have to go down the same way each time...or even make sense. :)
Going into the superstition, there is not always a ToD. It's a mindset; that 'feeling' one gets when you know you're just "in the zone" and going to come home with the gold.
If anything, BSU 06 and UTAH 08 proved that they deserved shots at the NC because they could have been Teams of Destiny.
TBH, I was a fervent BCS supporter until undefeated teams routinely began to be snubbed by the BCS and were not given the chances to be the Teams of Destiny they may have been.
Could UTAH have gone all the way last year? There are several answers to that question, but the worst possible one is: "who cares, we have two good 1-Loss teams with lots of hype; let's give Utah a consolation prize and be done with it."
...and if you're pulling out The Book, I'm a Job fan; although it's never wise to screw with Proverbs. Point taken. :)
Regan
· 5 months ago
They would plague any system, regardless of whether or not a fixed set of teams plays. The 3rd, 5th, 9th, 17th, 33rd, 65th*** team will always whine.
The beauty of a variable system is that it allows for the chaos by going with the grain of the nature of the sport instead of forcing itself against it.
The point of playing isn't to put yourself into the best arbitrary subjective position to get a nod for a berth (be it one of two or one of eight).
The point is to achieve certain objectives, based on the nature of how each individual season goes down. The bottom line is that the teams can be measured (as) objectively (as possible) compared to others. And isn't that the whole point?
***Whatever...I don't care about NCAABB... :)
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
One of the benefits of my system is that is comes with a mathematical argument demonstrating that the consensus diminishes as the field widens, thus the highest cutoff in the standings is the best cutoff to use.
With 65 teams the consensus is diminished so mush that people don't even agree who was the last team's in or left out. At least with the BCS we have a fair idea of who the teams are that benefit and who got hosed.
Besides, some controversy is good to keep the conversation going. The point is to keep it at a level that prevents people like me from being motivated enough to launch a sustained internet campaign against the system.
All I need is a digital video camera...
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
I was working on a project where I needed (to get a life) the BCS figures and discovered the list for 2005 is wrong.
Penn State was within the required amount of Texas to get in.
So we get:
2005: Penn State would play Texas for the opportunity to play USC in the national championship game.
Now, back to the paper I want to try to publish in the journal: Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports
Regan
· 5 months ago
I absolutely love that Ben Franklin quote BTW; it is one of my longtime favorites. :)
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
Bob Kustra is my new hero... thanks for that Ben.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 5 months ago
MOST RESPECTFULLY... Bob Kustra most certainly does not say it all.
He fails to mention that his school will be playing the 117th ranked schedule this year. He omits the fact that Boise State's attendance averages 5,000+ less than the SEC spring scrimmages.
I'm sorry, Bob, but the reason that you aren't treated as an "equal" is you're small time, small market. If you want "equal" treatment, get your school up to "equal" level.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
First, his main point is not that they should have an equal footing but that they should have some kind of footing.
Bob Kusta is also on record as stating he is very interested in joining the MWC. Adding BYU, TCU and Utah to their schedule would go along way to bringing up that schedule strength. The second best WAC team, Hawaii, does not compare with any of those schools.
The rest of the conferences are fairly equal.
I agree that stadium size is valuable. This is why I feel strongly Utah needs to expand their south end zone.
MWC TCU: 5,470,021 Dallas-Ft.Worth CSU: 3,062,717 Denver SDSU: 2,810,630 San Diego Utah: 1,932,774 Salt Lake City BYU: 1,932,774 Salt Lake City UNLV: 1,415,932 Las Vegas New Mexico: 1,164,173 Albuquerque Air Force: 830,205 Colorado Springs Wyoming: 122,699 Rural Wyoming Total TV Market: 18,741,925
Based only on the primary market each university is in the MWC has 2 million more viewers than the SEC. Vanderbilt is the second most viewed school in the SEC and Florida is second to last, just ahead of Auburn. Clearly this is flawed.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 5 months ago
I didn't realize I had mentioned tv market size, but you're reference essentially highlights the difference between "potential" and "kinetic", if I can borrow a very obscure physics reference.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
You called Boise State "small time, small market." I guess I inserted TV on my own ...
I also conveniently left off: BSU: 568,997 Boise
Despite having 1/5 the target population I am sure Boise State has better viewers than SDSU. This is reflected in them having double the average attendance.
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
What does a teams attendance have to do with how good of a football program it has? aka in 2006 was OU better than Boise St. because they had a higher average attendance that year?
Obviously not.
Attendance has more to do with university location, city population and overall tradition than it does performance on the field. If the National Championship race was about who has the best university location, or the most tradition/attendance then we could start the process to crown the national champion before the season even starts.
The NC race should be about who has the best football team in the FBS that year... not about who has the most tradition, highest attendance, or highest market share.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
More attendance means more fans. More fans mean better marketability. Better marketability means more $$$ for everyone to split.
This is why my system keeps the automatic qualification for the BCS bowls, it just removes most of the BCS bowls from the championship structure.
By tying the BCS bowls and championship systems together one can have a championship that is based on the skill each year and have room to involve a number of historic and popular teams on the side.
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
"More attendance means more fans. More fans mean better marketability. Better marketability means more $$$ for everyone to split."
Right, but all of that put together doesn't necessarily = a better football team.
Isn't that what a playoff/championship system should shoot for? To crown the best team in the nation.
Not the most popular team. Not the team with the best marketability. Not the the team that has most fans or highest average attendance.
The best team.
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
Who can argue with Michigan vs. Tennessee every year for the title?
Maybe Penn State or Ohio State...
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
I vote we lobby to change the BCS formula to only include:
1) Stadium Attendance 2) TV Ratings 3) Popularity Contest Ratings (performed by ESPN & Fox in the form of online & text message polls) 4) Team Apparel Sold (between August 28 and January 9) 5) The Coaches Poll (hidden to the public... of course)
This would give us the beauty queen we've all been looking for... the undisputed FBS champion of the universe!!!!!!
(I think I just got dumber writing that)
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
How about we just use a selection committee.
As an award for winning you get to select a new member for the committee.
ksuwild
· 5 months ago
As long as the selection committee is required to choose a team who:
1) Has an average attendance of over 50,000 (we all know no team could seriously deserve a National Championship if this isn't the case).
2) Has at least 1,000,000 viewers in their respective market (again, no team without this many viewers could possibly be good enough to deserve a NC)
3) Has been voted the most popular by college football fans in online/text message polls (I mean come on, who in their right mind wants a NC who's not a fan favorite? We are talking about a popularity contest after all aren't we?)
4) Has recieved a vote by their own coach to be the # 1 team in the nation within the coaches poll (we -the public- would never no who voted for which team but the people in the committee would... to ensure due bias in the selection process)
5) Has already won a NC in the past (do we really need to complicate things by including all FBS teams... of course not)
These are the requirements needed to preserve a true NC race that includes only the most deserving tradition laden teams. New committee members must agree to abide by these rules before getting their right to vote.
No more than 2 teams can ever be considered for the NC. We all know that in the history of CF no more than 2 teams have ever deserved a chance anyway.
If Notry Dame finishes their season in the top 25 they are automatically in the NC game. They are a fan favorite afterall so you can always count on big ratings if you set it up this way. It would only be fair to set it up this way.
Records are great, and games are fun to watch... but we all know a popular team must ultimately be crowned NC in college football. So regardless of final records we must alway keep in mind the teams that everyone loves. That's just the way it is, right? (shoulder shrug and cheesy smile included)
On a side note... the mid majors must continue to recieve no more than 10% of the post season generated revenue thus ensuring the big 6 recieve at least 90%. This is only fair and has obviously been working well for the NC caliber teams we're trying to keep on top so why on earth would we change it?
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
Letting the committee be a life long appointment by previous champions should suffice to keep the system properly biased. I stand by my original formulation.
[wow, we are getting deep into the sarcasm here]
Zac
· 5 months ago
Regrettably, Kevin, that's what it comes down to: Markets & Money. While it's true that almost everyone loves a "David Vs. Goliath" story, that this would sell big and make for great press, it's also true that getting David in the arena against Goliath is comparable with getting the Arabs & Israelis to sit down at the same table and work out a viable peace agreement.
Furthermore, I disagree with Hawaii in 2007. While I've never been a strong proponent of strength-of-schedule, I do agree it's owed some credence, and in Hawaii's case, in 2007 they were clearly the exception, not the rule. Comparing the 2007 Hawaii team with the 2006 Boise St team, would be similar to comparing an undefeated Div-2 squad with the 2004 Auburn team. They're not in the same league.
Consider the following:
Aggregate Opponent's Record Boise St - 2006: 72-79; including win over OK, 83-82 Hawaii - 2007: 54-88; including loss to GA, 65-90
Regular Season Bowl-Eligible Teams Faced Boise St - 2006: 6 (5-1 bowl record) Hawaii - 2007: 3 (1-2 bowl record)
Number Div 1-AA Teams Faced Boise St - 2006: 1 - Sacramento St (4-7) Hawaii -2007: 2 - N CO (1-11), Charleston S (5-6)
Common Key Non-Conference Opponents 2006: OR St (10-4) - Boise St, L 14-42; Hawaii, W 35-32 2007: WA (4-9) - Boise St, W 24-10; Hawaii, L 35-28
Number of Regular Season "Close" Wins (< 10 Pts) Boise St -2006: 3 (Hawaii 41-34, San Jose St 23-20, WY 17-10) Hawaii - 2007: 5 (Fresno St 37-30, LA Tech 45-44, NV 28-26, San Jose St 42-35, WA 35-28)
Misc. Tid-Bits In 2006 Boise St averaged 37+ pts/gm before dropping 43 on OK in the Fiesta Bowl. In 2007 Hawaii averaged 45+ pts/game before being held to only 10 by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
The 2006, 11-3, Hawaii team was better than the 2007, 12-1 team. They lost at AL (6-7) 27-25, at Boise St (13-0) 41-34, at home to OR St (10-4) 35-32, and beat AS St (7-6) 41-24 in the Honolulu Bowl. Even Colt Brennan had a better year against a tougher schedule in 2006 (broke the all-time record for TD passes - 58), than he did in 2007 against a much weaker schedule.
Zac's Take: The 2007 Hawaii team, though in the same conference, wasn't in the same league as the 2006 Boise St team, and therefore should not have been eligible for BCS consideration.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 5 months ago
The sad reality is that the NCAA did little to control D-IA growth in the 1990s that - unfortunately - diluted the level of play in the mid-major conferences. I don't think we would be having this discussion if more forethought had been exercised a decade ago.
It's presumptuous on my part, but I suspect that Ben agrees. A single, eight team MWC/WAC combo conference would have likely achieved BCS status.
IMO, a 75-80 team DI-A would be much more level playing field. The balance of the 40+ "tweener" teams would likely be better served in DI-AA.
(I may expand on these thoughts in a future post... post-hiatus, of course.)
Ben Prather
· 5 months ago
Let's not forget that Boise State and South Florida are two of those newcomer. Florida Atlantic and Troy have had some success as well.
Now lets take the top 12 MWC/WAC/C-USA west teams:
Boise State, TCU, BYU, Utah, Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno State, Tulsa, Air Force, Houston, New Mexico, Rice
You now have a conference of top contenders, vying for bowl eligibility every year.
This is what the MWC tried to do in 1997 when they went their own way. IMO they made a mistake by inviting SDSU over Fresno State, apparently favoring TV market size.
The problem is that these teams would then all play each other and some would start losing more games. This would then push them down to where the top teams left out in the remnant conferences would excel past them, as happened with the bottom of the MWC.
If major conference realignment (with most conferences going to 12 teams) ever happens, the Sun Belt and remnants of the WAC should return to 1-AA.
Their is room for 108 FBS teams, and maybe 4 independents (Notre Dame, Army, Navy, Hawaii).
I am saving these for the next post on this topic, which won't be until either:
1) The Senate Antitrust Committee meets on this issue (Can I joint, I don't trust the Senate either) 2) The Department of Justice picks up the anti-trust case 3) A conference official or higher promotes a new system.
It looks like there's going to be another "showdown" before the 9th of July. You should get your proposal to Orrin Hatch ASAP (if you haven't already).
Orrin Hatch has an article coming in SI and seems to have a lot of backing.
"I believe there is value to ensuring fairness in our society whenever we can. And while life may not be fair, the moment that we stop caring that it isn't, we chip away at the American dream." -- Orrin Hatch
I have attempted to get it to him. I will be updating on my fight against the BCS in my write-up on this hearing.
This hearing has much more teeth than the one in congress last month, and I might have put a fly in the BCS ointment this week.
businesscards
· 1 week ago
We have a few college students online Boise State University and we love your blog postings, so well add your rss or news feed for them, Thanks and please post us and leave a comment back and well link to you. Thanks Jen , Blog Boise State University
All Comments
Keep the volume down around kids. :)
This is now the intended format.
I agree, Ben; well said, well said indeed. Arguably the BCS blew it the year Boise St went undefeated. Without question, they blew it last year. AND, as previously stated in another thread, the year a 2-loss school went to the National Championship, was without any doubt the year there should have been some form of play-off. JMHO...
The system I had championed would have pitted OHST vs. HAW that year. The logic being simple: how many losses does the BCS Conference team have to have before a non-BCS team gets a chance to play for the NC?
Given the disastrous losses by OHST and HAW in their games, I had to look at adjusting my system, but in concept...the question remains...
While I have signed on with Ben Prather in support of a newer system, my (overly basic) original system would have set up 2008-2009 with a 6x Team mini-tournament with the following teams: FLA, OU, SCAL, PSU, UTAH, BSU
[These are the teams that both won their Conference Championships and have 0-losses or 1-loss.
Round #1 would have been #4 PSU/#5 UTAH and #3 SCAL/#6 BSU, played at the beginning of the Bowl Season.
Round #2 would have #1 FLA vs. PSU/UTAH and #2 OU vs. SCAL/BSU, and would be on New Years Day.
Round #3 would be the final Championship Game.]
My old system was a big work in progress....that's why it is now my old system. :)
The proof is in the elegant results it produces. For all years the remaining BCS automatic qualifying teams would have been placed in the remaining BCS bowls, keeping the total number of participants between 10 and 11.
2008: Utah hosts Boise State for the opportunity to play Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Florida plays Texas in a Wild Card Game. The winners advance to the National Championship Game.
2007: Hawaii plays LSU in a WCG for the opportunity to play Ohio State in the NCG.
2006: Boise State plays Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. Florida plays Michigan in a WCG. The winners meet in the NCG.
2005: USC plays Texas in the NCG
2004: Utah hosts Boise State for the opportunity to play USC in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma plays Auburn in a WCG. The winners meet in the NCG.
2003: LSU plays USC in a WCG for the opportunity to play Oklahoma in the NCG.
2002: Miami(FL) plays Ohio State in the NCG
2001: Miami(FL) plays Oregon in the Orange Bowl. Nebraska plays Colorado in a WCG. The winners play in the NCG.
2000: FSU plays Miami(FL) in a WCG for the opportunity to play Oklahoma in the NCG.
*1999: Alabama hosts Marshall for the opportunity to play FSU in the Orange Bowl. Virginia Tech plays Nebraska in a WCG. The winners play in the NCG.
1998: Tulane plays FSU in a WCG for the opportunity to play Tennessee in the NCG.
*1999 is by far the most complicated year in the 11 year BCS history. Undefeated Marshall was not in the top 10, requiring at least three rounds to prove their worth. No significant gap existed between #4 and #7 so the largest gap was used, between Tennessee and Alabama.
It takes 2 pages to describe the rules to generate these pairings and the tournament structures, another 3 pages to define classifications for conferences and bowls and how to handle changes in classifications, 5 pages of explanation interleaved into all this and two pages of appendices to generate my full proposal.
All fixed tournaments fill a given number of slots regardless of
where observed lines of seperation between teams exist.
The new system will select teams qualified based on rigid standards and find a structure that accommodates all qualified teams.
My qualification criteria for the cutoffs can be expressed as:
Teams above the first gap, representing a 70% consensus that the teams are properly ordered.
All undefeated teams.
Fine print:
If the first such gap exists between #1 and #2 it is ignored.
If an undefeated team is lower then #10 they must play 3 rounds, possibly requiring the next gap to be used.
If the field would be larger than 8 by applying the above rules the largest gap in the range needed would be used.
I know Regan and Ben don't agree but I think a fixed field of 8 teams would work the best. With the only exception of more than 8 being the addition of a possible "play in" game if a season is crazy enough to require it. Any way you cut it a fair "playoff" system is going to be fairly complex in order to handle all of the wacky things that can happen in any given season... so in that sense I understand the complexity of Ben's system.
http://www.kstatesports.com/SportSelect.dbml?SP...
The only team that held them under 30 points the whole season was Colorado. They averaged 42.9 points a game vs. their opponents 15.7 per game. They also held over half of the teams they played to 7 points or less.
I don't think so.
They were a double overtime scratch and sniff away from playing in the National Championship and I beleive they would have matched up very well against Tennessee in the NC game (had they beat A&M in the Big XII Championship game).
Either way the point is that it's these sort of questions that would plague a system that didn't have a fixed number of teams to decide it's championship.
The gap between FSU and KSU in the polls was significant. Ohio State was ahead of KSU in both Human polls. The computers and the ah hoc measures used then brought KSU to a more proper #3 spot.
I would have expected Tulane to have gotten destroyed by FSU (or KSU) before we got to see the game we (excluding KSU, Ohio State and UCLA fans) all really wanted to see anyways.
Then again, Purdue was not even in the BCS top 15.
Here is where the real complaints would come from:
If FSU had beat Tennessee would Tennessee whine that they had too long off and the extra game helped keep FSU sharp?
If Tennessee had beat FSU would FSU whine because Tennessee had longer to prepare and stay healthy?
Tulane would have NEVER been undefeated if they played in the Big XII that year. A fixed field of 8 would have included teams like KSU, UCLA, Ohio St. and Tulane and then we would have been able to see if they could hang with the big boys. I tend to think Kansas St. would have railed most teams in 1998... including Tulane.
A good analogy for the Purdue/Alamo Bowl scenario would be to imagine that you are about to shoot a 3 pointer at the half of a basketball game for $10,000 dollars and then right before you go to shoot they go... oh, by the way this is actually for $100 dollars. Good Luck! Do you think you might be just a little deflated???
KSU had a "real" complaint in 1998... especially before all of the bowls were played.
Rose: UCLA vs. Ohio State
Fiesta: Texas A&M vs. Arizona?
Sugar: Florida vs. KSU?
Orange: Syracuse? vs. Wisconsin?
It gets a little hard to say with the changes in conference alignments and BCS formats since then but I think that is close.
I think having to beat FSU and Tennessee would have been a strong enough test to see if Tulane was really a contender. We both agree they would have failed either test.
Other than that, you are sounding like some of the Alabama fans I know :)
It is whether Tulane should be considered for NC contention over teams (in 1998) like Kansas St. and UCLA based off of the fact that they made it through a mediocre conference undefeated?
This is the point I was trying to get through to Regan in a previous post as well. Any system that values an undefeated final record in a lesser conference over another teams imperfect record in a much better conference is flawed. If those are the teams your formula picked that year it is fundamentaly flawed in that aspect.
I agree Tulane was due consideration that year... but with a VERY carefull look at their level of competition, and another VERY carefull look at the margin of victory they consistently accomplish against this competition. They had better not just be winning in that conference... they should be blowing teams out of the water.
In 2007 I remember watching Hawaii struggle against a mediocre Washington Huskie team late in the year and I knew right then they weren't NC material. Does that mean they should be thrown out of contention? No, because they deserve to be proven unfit on the field. Should they have been picked over a team like Georgia based on the fact that Georgia didn't win the SEC that year? Absolutely not.
I don't agree that teams who play in the toughest conferences should be punished, and taken out of title contention in a playoff format based off of (for instance) a double overtime loss in a championship game. It's not just a matter of whether you lost or won... it's a matter of the manner in which you lost or won.
Formulas tend to fall short in subjective scenarios. Football, just like life is not black and white.
Having a fixed number of 8 teams might include 1 or 2 teams who didn't win their conference... but it would be teams like KSU in 1998... which was the most dominant team in the country throughout the regular season. The argument could easily be made that KSU had 10 times more of a right to be in NC contention in 98' than Tulane.
It's examples just like this where your system falls short IMHO. Going undefeated is all good and well... but against who? You know I agree that teams should not be excluded solely because they don't play in one of the big 6 conferences. That being said, they should also not be picked over teams who have to play a far superior schedule and have 1 or possibly 2 losses.
This is why a fixed field of 8 would be the best system in my opinion. It would be the same year in and year out... consistency and fairness go hand in hand. This would minimize complaints and still leave enough room for the very best teams to prove their worth on the field. I beleive the remaining bowl system would work better with a fixed field year in and year out anyway.
"Other than that, you are sounding like some of the Alabama fans I know :)"
1. Alabama didn't drop all the way to the Alamo bowl.
2. Alabama didn't lose their championship game in double overtime.
Quite a large difference if you ask me :)
The reality that schedules will not be equal should not prohibit teams from participating in the championship structure. Rather the structure should be such that a team with a week schedule will be given a sufficient test in the post season.
The #1 and #2 teams are guaranteed to be in by my system. How far down the standings can an undefeated team be to be able to beat #1 and #2 without passing a #3 that beats the #4 team? I estimate this to be #10.
If this is changed to #9 or #8 then 1998 and 2007 would need to be adjusted. If #7 is used 2006 comes into play as well.
1998:
December 19th and 20th the following games would have been played:
Tulane at Tennessee
Arizona at FSU
Texas A&M at KSU
(Neutral Site, Regional Bowl Game commandeered) Ohio State-UCLA
The top seed to advance would go to either the Sugar or Orange Bowl to play the lowest seed to advance. The other teams would go to the other bowl.
The Rose and Fiesta Bowls would have selected participants from the remaining automatic qualifying champions and eligible at-large teams.
2007:
December 19th and 20th:
Hawaii at VT
Georgia at Oklahoma
The highest ranked team to advance would play LSU in the Sugar Bowl. The other team would play Ohio State in the Rose Bowl.
The Fiesta and Orange Bowls would have been selected separately as above.
2006: (only for the most restrictive case)
Boise State at Ohio State
Wisconsin at Florida
Louisville at Michigan
(Neutral site, regional bowl commandeered) USC vs. LSU
The highest seeded team to advance goes to the Rose or Sugar bowl to face the lowest seed to advance. The remaining teams play in the other bowl.
The Fiesta and Orange bowls are selected separately as above.
You said:
"The reality that schedules will not be equal should not prohibit teams from participating in the championship structure."
It should also not catapult them over teams who have to play a superior schedule and have one or possibly two losses.
How many teams from the major conferences would say... hey, give us (for instance) Boise State's schedule and we'll go undefeated too, and gladly take on the burden of playing three rounds for a chance at the NC.
You could potentially have 25 plus teams from the major conferences that would make it undefeated with Boise St., Tulsa, or Hawaii's schedule.
To me it would be an over-compensation to allow any undefeated team to have a chance to play for the NC regardless of their strength of schedule or final ranking.
The point is to make the system fair and allow access for all... not to reward teams who have weak schedules.
I now require a team to play at least 2 teams who have finished in the top 25 of the BCS final standings in any of the last 4 year to qualify for entry as an undefeated team.
This would only eliminate Hawaii in 2007.
This should be manageable for any team, even one with 8 conference games and an instate rivalry wold have 3 games left. The BCS conferences would have this covered easily with conference games alone.
I try to steer clear of non-NC issues with the BCS, since that falls more under the choices of the Bowls themselves than anything else...
TENN would have beaten FSU in the 99 Fiesta Bowl regardless of circumstance. OHST would have beaten MIA in the 03 Fiesta also. Chalk it up to being a Team of Destiny. I put a lot of stock in that kinda stuff, which is why I had that feeling watching TEX keep creeping back against SCAL in the Rose a few years back.
Sometimes...it just happens, and thinking outside the box is the only way to explain it...
I think of it as the opposite of the "Consolation Bowl Meltdown" that many teams suffer as they lose inexplicably because their mojo got zapped in a Conference Championship game at the end of the Regular Season.
Why? Because it's fun to be a little delusional when it comes to this sport. :)
To go further out on the limb...
Maybe Utah in 2008 and Boise State in 2006 where not that good. Maybe someone above tilted the ball bounces to show what they think of the BCS system.
You can slant a system as much as you want, but when you open the door to chance Proverbs 16:33 comes into play.
Going into the superstition, there is not always a ToD. It's a mindset; that 'feeling' one gets when you know you're just "in the zone" and going to come home with the gold.
If anything, BSU 06 and UTAH 08 proved that they deserved shots at the NC because they could have been Teams of Destiny.
TBH, I was a fervent BCS supporter until undefeated teams routinely began to be snubbed by the BCS and were not given the chances to be the Teams of Destiny they may have been.
Could UTAH have gone all the way last year? There are several answers to that question, but the worst possible one is: "who cares, we have two good 1-Loss teams with lots of hype; let's give Utah a consolation prize and be done with it."
...and if you're pulling out The Book, I'm a Job fan; although it's never wise to screw with Proverbs. Point taken. :)
The beauty of a variable system is that it allows for the chaos by going with the grain of the nature of the sport instead of forcing itself against it.
The point of playing isn't to put yourself into the best arbitrary subjective position to get a nod for a berth (be it one of two or one of eight).
The point is to achieve certain objectives, based on the nature of how each individual season goes down. The bottom line is that the teams can be measured (as) objectively (as possible) compared to others. And isn't that the whole point?
***Whatever...I don't care about NCAABB... :)
With 65 teams the consensus is diminished so mush that people don't even agree who was the last team's in or left out. At least with the BCS we have a fair idea of who the teams are that benefit and who got hosed.
Besides, some controversy is good to keep the conversation going. The point is to keep it at a level that prevents people like me from being motivated enough to launch a sustained internet campaign against the system.
All I need is a digital video camera...
Penn State was within the required amount of Texas to get in.
So we get:
2005: Penn State would play Texas for the opportunity to play USC in the national championship game.
Now, back to the paper I want to try to publish in the journal:
Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports
He fails to mention that his school will be playing the 117th ranked schedule this year. He omits the fact that Boise State's attendance averages 5,000+ less than the SEC spring scrimmages.
I'm sorry, Bob, but the reason that you aren't treated as an "equal" is you're small time, small market. If you want "equal" treatment, get your school up to "equal" level.
Bob Kusta is also on record as stating he is very interested in joining the MWC. Adding BYU, TCU and Utah to their schedule would go along way to bringing up that schedule strength. The second best WAC team, Hawaii, does not compare with any of those schools.
The rest of the conferences are fairly equal.
I agree that stadium size is valuable. This is why I feel strongly Utah needs to expand their south end zone.
I am going to have to disagree on TV market size.
SEC
Georgia: 4,794,930 Atlanta
Vanderbilt: 1,946,109 Nashville
Alabama: 1,634,637 Birmingham
Ole Miss: 1,599,930 Memphis
Tennessee: 1,159,417 Knoxville
LSU: 1,026,325 Baton Rouge
USC: 903,918 Columbus
Kentucky: 829,367 Lexington
Arkansas: 757,265 Fort Smith
Mississippi St: 723,303 Tupalo
Florida: 710,106 Gainesville
Auburn: 613,062 Montgomery
Total: 16,698,369
MWC
TCU: 5,470,021 Dallas-Ft.Worth
CSU: 3,062,717 Denver
SDSU: 2,810,630 San Diego
Utah: 1,932,774 Salt Lake City
BYU: 1,932,774 Salt Lake City
UNLV: 1,415,932 Las Vegas
New Mexico: 1,164,173 Albuquerque
Air Force: 830,205 Colorado Springs
Wyoming: 122,699 Rural Wyoming
Total TV Market: 18,741,925
Based only on the primary market each university is in the MWC has 2 million more viewers than the SEC. Vanderbilt is the second most viewed school in the SEC and Florida is second to last, just ahead of Auburn. Clearly this is flawed.
I also conveniently left off:
BSU: 568,997 Boise
Despite having 1/5 the target population I am sure Boise State has better viewers than SDSU. This is reflected in them having double the average attendance.
Obviously not.
Attendance has more to do with university location, city population and overall tradition than it does performance on the field. If the National Championship race was about who has the best university location, or the most tradition/attendance then we could start the process to crown the national champion before the season even starts.
The NC race should be about who has the best football team in the FBS that year... not about who has the most tradition, highest attendance, or highest market share.
This is why my system keeps the automatic qualification for the BCS bowls, it just removes most of the BCS bowls from the championship structure.
By tying the BCS bowls and championship systems together one can have a championship that is based on the skill each year and have room to involve a number of historic and popular teams on the side.
Right, but all of that put together doesn't necessarily = a better football team.
Isn't that what a playoff/championship system should shoot for? To crown the best team in the nation.
Not the most popular team.
Not the team with the best marketability.
Not the the team that has most fans or highest average attendance.
The best team.
Maybe Penn State or Ohio State...
1) Stadium Attendance
2) TV Ratings
3) Popularity Contest Ratings (performed by ESPN & Fox in the form of online & text message polls)
4) Team Apparel Sold (between August 28 and January 9)
5) The Coaches Poll (hidden to the public... of course)
This would give us the beauty queen we've all been looking for... the undisputed FBS champion of the universe!!!!!!
(I think I just got dumber writing that)
As an award for winning you get to select a new member for the committee.
1) Has an average attendance of over 50,000 (we all know no team could seriously deserve a National Championship if this isn't the case).
2) Has at least 1,000,000 viewers in their respective market (again, no team without this many viewers could possibly be good enough to deserve a NC)
3) Has been voted the most popular by college football fans in online/text message polls (I mean come on, who in their right mind wants a NC who's not a fan favorite? We are talking about a popularity contest after all aren't we?)
4) Has recieved a vote by their own coach to be the # 1 team in the nation within the coaches poll (we -the public- would never no who voted for which team but the people in the committee would... to ensure due bias in the selection process)
5) Has already won a NC in the past (do we really need to complicate things by including all FBS teams... of course not)
These are the requirements needed to preserve a true NC race that includes only the most deserving tradition laden teams. New committee members must agree to abide by these rules before getting their right to vote.
No more than 2 teams can ever be considered for the NC. We all know that in the history of CF no more than 2 teams have ever deserved a chance anyway.
If Notry Dame finishes their season in the top 25 they are automatically in the NC game. They are a fan favorite afterall so you can always count on big ratings if you set it up this way. It would only be fair to set it up this way.
Records are great, and games are fun to watch... but we all know a popular team must ultimately be crowned NC in college football. So regardless of final records we must alway keep in mind the teams that everyone loves. That's just the way it is, right? (shoulder shrug and cheesy smile included)
On a side note... the mid majors must continue to recieve no more than 10% of the post season generated revenue thus ensuring the big 6 recieve at least 90%. This is only fair and has obviously been working well for the NC caliber teams we're trying to keep on top so why on earth would we change it?
[wow, we are getting deep into the sarcasm here]
Furthermore, I disagree with Hawaii in 2007. While I've never been a strong proponent of strength-of-schedule, I do agree it's owed some credence, and in Hawaii's case, in 2007 they were clearly the exception, not the rule. Comparing the 2007 Hawaii team with the 2006 Boise St team, would be similar to comparing an undefeated Div-2 squad with the 2004 Auburn team. They're not in the same league.
Consider the following:
Aggregate Opponent's Record
Boise St - 2006: 72-79; including win over OK, 83-82
Hawaii - 2007: 54-88; including loss to GA, 65-90
Regular Season Bowl-Eligible Teams Faced
Boise St - 2006: 6 (5-1 bowl record)
Hawaii - 2007: 3 (1-2 bowl record)
Number Div 1-AA Teams Faced
Boise St - 2006: 1 - Sacramento St (4-7)
Hawaii -2007: 2 - N CO (1-11), Charleston S (5-6)
Common Key Non-Conference Opponents
2006: OR St (10-4) - Boise St, L 14-42; Hawaii, W 35-32
2007: WA (4-9) - Boise St, W 24-10; Hawaii, L 35-28
Number of Regular Season "Close" Wins (< 10 Pts)
Boise St -2006: 3 (Hawaii 41-34, San Jose St 23-20, WY 17-10)
Hawaii - 2007: 5 (Fresno St 37-30, LA Tech 45-44, NV 28-26, San Jose St 42-35, WA 35-28)
Misc. Tid-Bits
In 2006 Boise St averaged 37+ pts/gm before dropping 43 on OK in the Fiesta Bowl. In 2007 Hawaii averaged 45+ pts/game before being held to only 10 by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
The 2006, 11-3, Hawaii team was better than the 2007, 12-1 team. They lost at AL (6-7) 27-25, at Boise St (13-0) 41-34, at home to OR St (10-4) 35-32, and beat AS St (7-6) 41-24 in the Honolulu Bowl. Even Colt Brennan had a better year against a tougher schedule in 2006 (broke the all-time record for TD passes - 58), than he did in 2007 against a much weaker schedule.
Zac's Take: The 2007 Hawaii team, though in the same conference, wasn't in the same league as the 2006 Boise St team, and therefore should not have been eligible for BCS consideration.
It's presumptuous on my part, but I suspect that Ben agrees. A single, eight team MWC/WAC combo conference would have likely achieved BCS status.
IMO, a 75-80 team DI-A would be much more level playing field. The balance of the 40+ "tweener" teams would likely be better served in DI-AA.
(I may expand on these thoughts in a future post... post-hiatus, of course.)
Now lets take the top 12 MWC/WAC/C-USA west teams:
Boise State, TCU, BYU, Utah, Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno State, Tulsa, Air Force, Houston, New Mexico, Rice
You now have a conference of top contenders, vying for bowl eligibility every year.
This is what the MWC tried to do in 1997 when they went their own way. IMO they made a mistake by inviting SDSU over Fresno State, apparently favoring TV market size.
The problem is that these teams would then all play each other and some would start losing more games. This would then push them down to where the top teams left out in the remnant conferences would excel past them, as happened with the bottom of the MWC.
If major conference realignment (with most conferences going to 12 teams) ever happens, the Sun Belt and remnants of the WAC should return to 1-AA.
Their is room for 108 FBS teams, and maybe 4 independents (Notre Dame, Army, Navy, Hawaii).
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_s...
Just like apple pie... I mean potatoes and vodka. What a joke.
I am saving these for the next post on this topic, which won't be until either:
1) The Senate Antitrust Committee meets on this issue (Can I joint, I don't trust the Senate either)
2) The Department of Justice picks up the anti-trust case
3) A conference official or higher promotes a new system.
It looks like there's going to be another "showdown" before the 9th of July. You should get your proposal to Orrin Hatch ASAP (if you haven't already).
Orrin Hatch has an article coming in SI and seems to have a lot of backing.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/06/30/hatc...
"I believe there is value to ensuring fairness in our society whenever we can. And while life may not be fair, the moment that we stop caring that it isn't, we chip away at the American dream." -- Orrin Hatch
Amen
I have attempted to get it to him. I will be updating on my fight against the BCS in my write-up on this hearing.
This hearing has much more teeth than the one in congress last month, and I might have put a fly in the BCS ointment this week.
Boise State University