The entire Texas argument is actually based on Oklahoma's performance against Tech. Tech was beaten so bad by the Sooners that they should be excluded from a three way tie in the standings? Nonsense. You can't penalize Oklahoma and Tech for what happened in Norman. If Tech is reduced to second-tier status, then that makes OSU second tier or worse, which got blown out by Tech, also second tier. OK, Texas lost to one and barely beat the other at home.
I love how the BCS is inappropriate to use to settle a three way tie in the standings but perfectly fine to narrow a field from three to two. How convenient.
For the gem of the day (and I take no credit for this as I lifted it from elsewhere), Texas coach Mack Brown voted Texas 15th in his final 2006 ballot. The issue? He voted the A&M team, with an identical 9-3 record, that just beat the Horns in Austin, 22nd in the country. Head to head hypocrisy.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Oath Proposal for ESPN
ESPN's talking heads seem quick to point out how much emphasis should be put on the result in Dallas. It seems they really want to frame this as a two-team race despite the reality of a three way tie and the reality that TECH would go to Kansas City with an OU loss in Bedlam. For all those that claim it MUST come down to head to head, then every media member should have no problem applying their logic to answer these simple questions.
If Oklahoma loses to OSU and Tech beats Missouri in the Big 12 title game, would you vote Tech over Texas for a spot in the BCS title game?
If Oklahoma loses to Missouri in the Big 12 title game, would you vote Tech over Texas for a spot in the BCS title game?
Do you have Florida ranked based on their resume or how they are playing SINCE their HOME loss to unranked (at the time) Ole Miss?
If Oklahoma loses to OSU and Tech beats Missouri in the Big 12 title game, would you vote Tech over Texas for a spot in the BCS title game?
If Oklahoma loses to Missouri in the Big 12 title game, would you vote Tech over Texas for a spot in the BCS title game?
Do you have Florida ranked based on their resume or how they are playing SINCE their HOME loss to unranked (at the time) Ole Miss?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BCS rankings may decide the Heisman
Oklahoma has to beat Tech and OSU - no easy task - but we are a nation of speculators. Sports, capital and commodity markets, doesn't matter. We like to think ahead. If OU wins out and creates a three-way tie, the Big 12 South will likely be determined by (gulp) the BCS rankings.
What about the Heisman Trophy? Tebow has reappeared but the leading candidates appear to be the 3 QBs in the Big 12 South. It figures that the Big 12 South QB with the best chance at the Heisman is the one that will emerge as the key figure in the 'winner' of the toughest division in college football and the one that will have the prime time opportunity to leave a lasting impression with a strong performance and win in the Big 12 championship game.
What about the Heisman Trophy? Tebow has reappeared but the leading candidates appear to be the 3 QBs in the Big 12 South. It figures that the Big 12 South QB with the best chance at the Heisman is the one that will emerge as the key figure in the 'winner' of the toughest division in college football and the one that will have the prime time opportunity to leave a lasting impression with a strong performance and win in the Big 12 championship game.
The Plus One Idea
What if the playoff opposition is just too strong? There has been some support for looking into a plus one. Most recommend a four team playoff of the top 4 ranked BCS teams after the final Saturday of the regular season/conference championship games.
Let's examine last year. I would be willing to bet that you take a random poll of college football fans across the country and ask them a simple question "Which team would have won a four team playoff?" that USC and Georgia would be extremely popular responses. Problem - USC and Georgia would not have been in a four team playoff last year. That's right. The final regular season BCS rankings were Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech and Oklahoma. 3 of those 4 got 'exposed' in their bowl games. Now you see the potential for continued controversy.
Plus, a four team playoff with a plus one still leaves two of the four BCS games irrelevant. To me the main issue with the post-season is that the BCS bowls have become irrelevant with the stand alone title game held several days after. To solve this problem and make the Rose and other bowls happy that would like to maintain conference ties - play the BCS bowl games on January 1st - Old School style - and then the BCS formula selects 2 of the 4 winners for a plus one. Controversy remains but this is about making the BCS games relevant again. Must see TV. Just like the first Saturday in December is now - channel surfing to check on whether or not a late upset will shake up the title chase.
Let's examine last year. I would be willing to bet that you take a random poll of college football fans across the country and ask them a simple question "Which team would have won a four team playoff?" that USC and Georgia would be extremely popular responses. Problem - USC and Georgia would not have been in a four team playoff last year. That's right. The final regular season BCS rankings were Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech and Oklahoma. 3 of those 4 got 'exposed' in their bowl games. Now you see the potential for continued controversy.
Plus, a four team playoff with a plus one still leaves two of the four BCS games irrelevant. To me the main issue with the post-season is that the BCS bowls have become irrelevant with the stand alone title game held several days after. To solve this problem and make the Rose and other bowls happy that would like to maintain conference ties - play the BCS bowl games on January 1st - Old School style - and then the BCS formula selects 2 of the 4 winners for a plus one. Controversy remains but this is about making the BCS games relevant again. Must see TV. Just like the first Saturday in December is now - channel surfing to check on whether or not a late upset will shake up the title chase.
Playoff system that might work and a plus one idea
The great topic in college football is BCS v. playoff. The BCS is flawed but a minority of college football fans appreciate the drama it creates during the regular season. The type of drama and impact that simply does not exist in any other sport's regular season. One game can mean everything with respect to a title contender in college football. Ask Pete Carroll. If USC beats Oregon State in late September, they are currently at least one of the top two teams in the country. Instead, because of that loss, they are on the outside looking in. Their title hopes essentially rest with Missouri knocking off the Big 12 South representative in Kansas City. Because of the system, USC fans will be glued to a TV or at least their mobile phone for scoring updates. Does that happen with a playoff system in place? Nope.
I have seen a lot of playoff ideas. Most are incredibly naive because they do not account for the dynamics of college football. College football is not the NFL - even though plenty of so-called fans seem to think it could be - thank God its not. I like football but the NFL regular season is a yawner. Individual games don't matter that much. The games matter only in aggregate and only to reach a certain benchmark to qualify for the "second season" - the post season. Fans complain about .500 teams making pre-Christmas bowl games. What about when .500 teams make the NFL playoffs and can compete with a 14 win team? If you like the "reset" of the season, fine, just don't tell me the regular season matters that much.
What defines the best team? Over what time period? The Giants were Super Bowl champs because they were the best in January - a fraction of the overall season. They couldn't beat the Cowboys in the regular season (home or away) or New England at home. They didn't win their division and yet they are the Super Bowl champs. Were the Giants truly the best team in the NFL? Not for me.
Let's say you vote with President Elect Obama and want a playoff. Here is one that might actually have a chance to work when you consider the dynamics of college football in that it is a collection of self-governing entities.
First, the system would be run by the BCS. The power conferences and their schools want no part of turning over the keys to the post-season money to the NCAA.
8 team playoff that begins with the BCS bowls:
Rose - Big Ten vs. Pac-10
Fiesta - Big 12 vs. TBD
Sugar - SEC vs. TBD
Orange - ACC vs. Big East
8 spots - 6 BCS conference champions, 1 spot for the highest ranked non-BCS conference champ and a wildcard (Notre Dame factor should they get smart and let go of Weis and become competitive again). However, the teams must be ranked in the final 14 of the BCS rankings or a spot opens up.
Why does the Rose get their matchup even if it might be No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Ohio State in a given year? Because, the Rose Bowl has been a thorn in the side of a playoff or plus one because they want to keep tradition. If you give them their traditional matchup every year (given they rank in the top 14), then the Rose would champion such a playoff system. If not, they won't play ball and as long as the Pac-10 and Big Ten are willing to side with them and boycott a new format, no system is truly legitimate without consensus of the major conferences. Like it or not, do the homework of previous articles/discussions on the subject and you will find the Rose has a tremendous amount of leverage.
Why not just top 8 in the BCS? Because of what happened last year where the top 8 consisted of 3 Big 12 teams and no Big East champ (West Virginia) and no Hawaii. If the money comes from the BCS appearances, the conferences won't sign off on a system that could see two dominant conferences (SEC and Big 12) take almost all of the post-season money in a given year.
Play the BCS games January 1st/2nd and then the highest ranked winners host a semi-final round? Why? Logistics. It is economically unrealistic for even a large fan base to take the time and money to travel to three straight neutral site games in a row, particularly on the heels of the holiday season. The home semis helps keep the initial fan focus on the BCS games and creates major incentive for teams to stay as high in the rankings as possible. The title game is played at a neutral site on a Sat night in mid January.
I have seen a lot of playoff ideas. Most are incredibly naive because they do not account for the dynamics of college football. College football is not the NFL - even though plenty of so-called fans seem to think it could be - thank God its not. I like football but the NFL regular season is a yawner. Individual games don't matter that much. The games matter only in aggregate and only to reach a certain benchmark to qualify for the "second season" - the post season. Fans complain about .500 teams making pre-Christmas bowl games. What about when .500 teams make the NFL playoffs and can compete with a 14 win team? If you like the "reset" of the season, fine, just don't tell me the regular season matters that much.
What defines the best team? Over what time period? The Giants were Super Bowl champs because they were the best in January - a fraction of the overall season. They couldn't beat the Cowboys in the regular season (home or away) or New England at home. They didn't win their division and yet they are the Super Bowl champs. Were the Giants truly the best team in the NFL? Not for me.
Let's say you vote with President Elect Obama and want a playoff. Here is one that might actually have a chance to work when you consider the dynamics of college football in that it is a collection of self-governing entities.
First, the system would be run by the BCS. The power conferences and their schools want no part of turning over the keys to the post-season money to the NCAA.
8 team playoff that begins with the BCS bowls:
Rose - Big Ten vs. Pac-10
Fiesta - Big 12 vs. TBD
Sugar - SEC vs. TBD
Orange - ACC vs. Big East
8 spots - 6 BCS conference champions, 1 spot for the highest ranked non-BCS conference champ and a wildcard (Notre Dame factor should they get smart and let go of Weis and become competitive again). However, the teams must be ranked in the final 14 of the BCS rankings or a spot opens up.
Why does the Rose get their matchup even if it might be No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Ohio State in a given year? Because, the Rose Bowl has been a thorn in the side of a playoff or plus one because they want to keep tradition. If you give them their traditional matchup every year (given they rank in the top 14), then the Rose would champion such a playoff system. If not, they won't play ball and as long as the Pac-10 and Big Ten are willing to side with them and boycott a new format, no system is truly legitimate without consensus of the major conferences. Like it or not, do the homework of previous articles/discussions on the subject and you will find the Rose has a tremendous amount of leverage.
Why not just top 8 in the BCS? Because of what happened last year where the top 8 consisted of 3 Big 12 teams and no Big East champ (West Virginia) and no Hawaii. If the money comes from the BCS appearances, the conferences won't sign off on a system that could see two dominant conferences (SEC and Big 12) take almost all of the post-season money in a given year.
Play the BCS games January 1st/2nd and then the highest ranked winners host a semi-final round? Why? Logistics. It is economically unrealistic for even a large fan base to take the time and money to travel to three straight neutral site games in a row, particularly on the heels of the holiday season. The home semis helps keep the initial fan focus on the BCS games and creates major incentive for teams to stay as high in the rankings as possible. The title game is played at a neutral site on a Sat night in mid January.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Requiring interviews for minority candidates
The story was out this week about the lack of minority head coaches in college football. Much progress has been made in the college coaching profession with the number of minority assistants rising. The head coach is the high profile position. There was a state by state poll on ESPN.com and only North Dakota felt that schools should be required to interview minority candidates. I believe they have the rule in some sports and what it usually becomes is a sham. Isn't the token minority interview a slap in the face when the media has already reported a team is locked in on a particular candidate? A good argument for it might be that person gets the experience of going through the interview process.
This stretches into other social issues but the ultimate goal is that minorities don't need assistance. We aren't there yet but mandating minority interviews is not the way to move in that direction either. I say no mandate. As an alternative, use a potent form of action that would involve the players (minority or not) that make up collegiate sports. Instead of mandates, an organization could track and provide information to recruits on the background, hiring and firing records of any school. This organization could push this information to recruits and their parents to make it part of their evaluation process - if they so choose. We need to push more responsibility on our younger people - not less.
The same organization that collects and distributes this info to high school recruits should also gather feedback and report it back to the schools. If an athletic director sees a report that a number of high profile recruits eliminated his school partially due to the school's previous and existing record on hiring coaches (minority or not), over time changes will be made because they AD wants to win or he will be out of a job.
I hope we can agree that even though minority coaches may be behind in getting head coaching jobs because of their race, they are not getting fired because of their race. It's about record. Look around the country at plenty of white coaches getting the boot. Ron Prince and Tyrone Willingham. I offer Tommy Bowden and Phillip Fulmer. Fulmer won a national title and played in the SEC championship game just last year. People like to bring up the Willingham boot from Notre Dame. We are a society of speculators and the business of college football is no different as we closely project the future by analyzing recruiting classes. Maybe race did play a role but the comparison to Weis has to be met with some caution. It's not about Weis' race, it's about he and his agent pulling off the greatest coaching con of all time by artificially creating a market in the NFL for his services and thus Notre Dame paid up and signed him to a long-term extension out of fear. It's about timing. Think Weis would get that contract now? The Notre Dame AD has had to release a statement about his job security after an article in the Sun-Times raised some doubt.
This stretches into other social issues but the ultimate goal is that minorities don't need assistance. We aren't there yet but mandating minority interviews is not the way to move in that direction either. I say no mandate. As an alternative, use a potent form of action that would involve the players (minority or not) that make up collegiate sports. Instead of mandates, an organization could track and provide information to recruits on the background, hiring and firing records of any school. This organization could push this information to recruits and their parents to make it part of their evaluation process - if they so choose. We need to push more responsibility on our younger people - not less.
The same organization that collects and distributes this info to high school recruits should also gather feedback and report it back to the schools. If an athletic director sees a report that a number of high profile recruits eliminated his school partially due to the school's previous and existing record on hiring coaches (minority or not), over time changes will be made because they AD wants to win or he will be out of a job.
I hope we can agree that even though minority coaches may be behind in getting head coaching jobs because of their race, they are not getting fired because of their race. It's about record. Look around the country at plenty of white coaches getting the boot. Ron Prince and Tyrone Willingham. I offer Tommy Bowden and Phillip Fulmer. Fulmer won a national title and played in the SEC championship game just last year. People like to bring up the Willingham boot from Notre Dame. We are a society of speculators and the business of college football is no different as we closely project the future by analyzing recruiting classes. Maybe race did play a role but the comparison to Weis has to be met with some caution. It's not about Weis' race, it's about he and his agent pulling off the greatest coaching con of all time by artificially creating a market in the NFL for his services and thus Notre Dame paid up and signed him to a long-term extension out of fear. It's about timing. Think Weis would get that contract now? The Notre Dame AD has had to release a statement about his job security after an article in the Sun-Times raised some doubt.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Rankings and BCS
I understand the playoff push but I like the what the BCS does to the regular season. So much more interesting. It makes college football the best regular season sport even if it means the post-season can be a major disappointment. The BCS is probably going to work - again. Depends on a personal definition of "work." The likely matchup is going to be the SEC champ vs. the Big 12 South champ. That is assuming the games play out as expected. Florida and Alabama win out until their meeting and the Oklahoma/Tech winner wins out with Texas. Then the controversy is squarely on the BCS rankings to select the winner of the Big 12 South but there is plenty of football to be played.
Rankings:
1. Texas Tech - impressive performance when many predicted a big win hangover.
2. Alabama - here because they are undefeated but they just aren't as impressive as other teams. If LSU got decent QB play, they beat Bama.
3. Texas - needed a spark to break away from Baylor but they were due for a letdown game.
4. Oklahoma - the Sooners might outscore every team but special teams is downright embarrassing and defense is improving but still giving up too many big plays.
5. Florida - these rankings are about resume and the Gators have a home loss to Ole Miss.
6. USC - impressed with the defense but offense not so much.
7. Utah - lucky that TCU can't make a FG but still undefeated.
8. TCU - wish they could make a FG.
9. Penn State - the anti-Big Ten faction can rest easy
10. Oklahoma State - disappointing performance at Tech but still could play the role of a spoiler.
Viewer's Guide
Thu - VT at Miami is a decent name matchup.
Fri - Cinci at Louisville might be worth a check in.
Saturday
Early Big Ten games only might be worth it for potential inclement weather football.
Texas at Kansas 11:30cst FSN HD - KU has tanked lately. A Texas loss would ripple across the Big 12 South.
South Carolina at Florida 3:30 eastern - CBS HD - the ole ball coach returns home.
That's it. A good weekend to put up Christmas lights.
Rankings:
1. Texas Tech - impressive performance when many predicted a big win hangover.
2. Alabama - here because they are undefeated but they just aren't as impressive as other teams. If LSU got decent QB play, they beat Bama.
3. Texas - needed a spark to break away from Baylor but they were due for a letdown game.
4. Oklahoma - the Sooners might outscore every team but special teams is downright embarrassing and defense is improving but still giving up too many big plays.
5. Florida - these rankings are about resume and the Gators have a home loss to Ole Miss.
6. USC - impressed with the defense but offense not so much.
7. Utah - lucky that TCU can't make a FG but still undefeated.
8. TCU - wish they could make a FG.
9. Penn State - the anti-Big Ten faction can rest easy
10. Oklahoma State - disappointing performance at Tech but still could play the role of a spoiler.
Viewer's Guide
Thu - VT at Miami is a decent name matchup.
Fri - Cinci at Louisville might be worth a check in.
Saturday
Early Big Ten games only might be worth it for potential inclement weather football.
Texas at Kansas 11:30cst FSN HD - KU has tanked lately. A Texas loss would ripple across the Big 12 South.
South Carolina at Florida 3:30 eastern - CBS HD - the ole ball coach returns home.
That's it. A good weekend to put up Christmas lights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)