NCAA Football 2008 Discussion - It All Starts Here.

[1001001]

One thing that I like about selection of Oklahoma over Texas is that I like to see schools that intentionally fill their non-conference schedule with patsies to get punished. Usually they get away with it as the voters just look at the overall record and not do any kind of analysis, but in this case Texas got spanked for it (hopefully they won't back into the NC game with an Oklahoma loss).

Texas' non-conference schedule hasn't been very good recently. Mack Brown admitting he wasn't happy about Ohio State being on their schedule a few year ago wasn't a good sign. And looking at their future schedules it seem to be more of the same with only UCLA being a semi-decent program on it. Oklahoma on the other hand has done better (the inexcusable scheduling of Chattanooga notwithstanding), even Washington which was pretty bad this year has been a very good program historically (and these schedules are made well in advance). And on Oklahoma's future schedules I see big time programs like Miami, Florida State, Notre Dame, Tennessee and Ohio State.

As for the playoffs, I am against it. The last thing I want to see is for my favorite sport to become more like other less interesting sports (e.g. NCAA basketball, wake me up when the regular season is over). The only thing they should possibly consider is the "unseeded plus one" as that has the advantage of restoring the major Bowls to the relevance they had before the BCS came along. Also the voters need to punish schools that intentionally schedule cream-puff opponents. We need less of Oklahoma-Chattanooga, Texas-Louisiana Monroe & Alabama-Western Kentucky, and more of Texas-Ohio State & USC-Auburn games.

That's one thing I love about USC. They only get two optional games a year (since Notre Dame is a given), and almost always pick high quality opponents.

And I also agree with the playoff comment. In fact, I'd go one further, and say I'd actually prefer it go back to how it used to be. No BCS bullshit at all. Conference-tied bowl games, and coaches/writers polls at the end.

 

[Neroon]

USC is a good model for what I'd llike to see - more quality non-conference opponents scheduled. If it's true that iron sharpens iron, that approach is bound to improve several programs. Not everyone, because some schools will never have the resouorces of a USC or an Oklahoma or an Ohio State, but even some strengthening would help to some degree.

But the playoff question? It will never go back to the way it was - and I honestly don't feel it should. You'd still have plenty of controversy over voting who was ranked where, etc. The BCS is purely a money-making venture, and few people doubt that. But I have to believe that it can be improved, though I'm at a loss as to just how. Business has never been my forté. I keep hearing about at least using a Plus-1 format based off the four major BCS bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta. Do you guys see any trouble with that? (question asked in earnest, btw)


BTW....nice performance by your Scarlet Knights, JM! Even if it was against a lackluster Louisville team, still an incredible show by Teel. What the heck has happened to turn these guys around?

 

[mimic]

To clarify and repair your 'revisions':

Texas' 'away-from-home' win was also (as you conveniently avoided mentioning) an away-from-home loss for OU ...

I did mention it, actually, in my losses bullet point.

As far as neutral site goes, the Red River Rivalry is far from USC playing a 'neutral site' BCS game in the Rose Bowl. It's about as neutral as they come. It would help me respect your position a bit more if you'd let go of the ridiculous 'Texas had a psychological advantage' nonsense.

The idea that we should dismiss Cincinnati is laughable; they're a top 15 team (as is Texas Christian). I discussed discounting Rice because the Owls haven't a single quality win on their slate, whereas the Bearcats and Horned Frogs have won some wars. The Bearcats "weren't firing on all cylinders" in large measure because OU wouldn't allow it.

Oh, I agree. Cincinnati is a valid win. I'm employing your tactic of extreme examples to point out that if you can diminish Texas' win over OU because of outside factors, Oklahoma's wins can be diminished, too. Maybe it hadn't yet occurred to Cincinnati that they're a very good football team; maybe the hostile environment in Norman threw them off. These are factors you listed as to why head-to-head doesn't indicate who the better teams is overall, right? So if we can't be certain that Texas is better than Oklahoma, how can we be certain Oklahoma is actually better than Cincy and count that as a definitive quality win?

 

[DanCPA]

• Texas has a quality win away from home, as does Oklahoma

But not on the opponents field

 

[DaleC76]

But the playoff question? It will never go back to the way it was - and I honestly don't feel it should. You'd still have plenty of controversy over voting who was ranked where, etc. The BCS is purely a money-making venture, and few people doubt that. But I have to believe that it can be improved, though I'm at a loss as to just how. Business has never been my forté. I keep hearing about at least using a Plus-1 format based off the four major BCS bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta. Do you guys see any trouble with that? (question asked in earnest, btw)

I don't like the Plus-1 format. I don't see how an extra game is necessary. This year, we have a de facto three team playoff between Alabama, Florida, and Oklahoma, with an outside shot for Texas or USC if the Sooners stumble in their title game. Once the title game is played in January, that team will no doubt deserve the national championship.

Voters will always be a major part of deciding the championship unless a true playoff system based on the conference champions is used. I don't think it's much progress to go to a Plus-1 or a playoff that is still determined by voters. I would rather see things stay the same or go to a true, conference champion playoff.

 

[Neroon]

IF there were to be a playoff based upon conference champions, how do you decide who plays whom?

 

[DanCPA]

Not to mention, even if there was a playoff, we would be complaining about who should be #4 and who should be #5 and out of the tourney

Seriously, 4 teams in...
Florida
Bama
OU
UT
USC
Texas Tech
Boise

oops, already 3 too many... and now the new debate can begin

 

[Cyrus]

A playoff system based on conference champions is one sure way of ruining the regular season. e.g. The Ohio State-Michigan game wouldn't be the same if one of them has already clinched the conference championship. They maybe able to improve their playoff seeding if they win, but is it worth risking injuries to the key players?

Currently there are 2 "plus 1" proposals. The "seeded plus 1" is 4 team playoff system (funny that they don't call it that, I guess they think they can fool the playoff opponents this way) with #1 team playing #4 in one of the major Bowls and #2 playing #3 in another Bowl and then the winners play in NC game. The playoff proponents obviously prefer this one, but since college presidents and conference commissioners are against playoffs it doesn't have much chance of approval.

The "unseeded plus 1" decides the #1 & #2 teams after the Bowl games. It essentially is a combination of the old system & BCS (so this one has a fighting chance for approval). It restores the major Bowls to the relevance they had before since they can now influence who goes to the NC game. And the 2 top teams are now decided after each contender plays one more game against a tough opponent in a Bowl game.

The "unseeded plus 1" would have worked nicely in 2007. Many people felt Georgia and USC were the 2 best teams even though neither was ranked in the top 4. With this system they would get a chance. USC actually jumped from #7 to #2/#3 after the Rose Bowl games even though they beat the 13th ranked team. With this system they would have played the #1 ranked Ohio State in the Rose Bowl with more of a chance to impress the voters/computers.

I am fine with the current system. If they want a change then I vote for the "unseeded plus 1".

 

[1001001]

Have you guys seen this?

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...2-South-will-be-decided-by-a?urn=ncaaf,126902

Classic.

You gotta love college football.

 

[DanCPA]

That is pretty funny!

 

[Mallory]

Nice find Digits! Thanks for sharing the link.

 

[Neroon]

Be-YOO-tiful.

 

[DaleC76]

A playoff system based on conference champions is one sure way of ruining the regular season. e.g. The Ohio State-Michigan game wouldn't be the same if one of them has already clinched the conference championship. They maybe able to improve their playoff seeding if they win, but is it worth risking injuries to the key players?

Ohio St and Michigan have played lots of times with one or both teams out of the conference title hunt. In fact, almost all college football games are between teams that have no chance at a championship. The games are just as meaningful to the players and fanbases, especially the rivalry games.

The main advantage of using the conference champions as a basis for the playoffs is that it would take the voters out of the system, and let the championship be decided entirely on the field. I think it would also lead to better non-conference games since there would be little risk in testing your team against the tougher national powers.

Of course, the disadvantage of this system is that it would take a huge amount of upheaval to work right. That's why it'll never happen.


Okay, for a bit of fun, here's what I'd do if I were the king of college football:

There are 11 FBS conferences, plus the independents. In my system, I'd send the smaller, no-chance-anyway schools down a level. The largest/best programs of these would be absorbed into the remaining conferences to create 8 12 team leagues. This would create what amounts to a 16 team playoff, since the conference title games can themselves be considered playoff games.

Forgive the north/south oddities and picking the wrong small schools to fill out the new conferences. Just something off the top of my head:

SEC

East

Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

West

Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
Louisiana State
Mississippi
Mississippi State


Big Ten

East

Indiana
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan


West

Illinois
Iowa
Michigan State
Minnesota
Purdue
Wisconsin


Big Twelve

North

Colorado
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Nebraska

South

Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

Pac Ten

North

Hawaii
Oregon
Oregon State
San Diego St.
Washington
Washington State


South

Arizona
Arizona State
California
Southern California
Stanford
UCLA


ACC

Atlantic

Boston College
Clemson
Florida State
Maryland
North Carolina State
Wake Forest

Coastal

Duke
Georgia Tech
Miami
North Carolina
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Big East

Western
Ball St
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Miami, (OH)
Louisville
Rutgers

Eastern
Army
Pittsburgh
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia
Navy


Western Athletic

North

Boise St
Utah
Utah St
Idaho
BYU
Wyoming

South

Air Force
Colorado St
Nevada
UNLV
New Mexico
New Mexico St

Conference USA

East

East Carolina
Memphis
Southern Miss
UAB
UCF
Marshal

West
Louisiana Tech
TCU
Houston
UTEP
Tulane
Sothern Methodist


Since my goal is to take pollsters out of the equation, seeding is rotated for the first round between the conferences that are geographically closest. Also, bowl games are continuing to be played and the playoff games themselves are bowl games. The final three playoff games are rotated between the top three bowls.

Here's how a December under my system may work:

First weekend in December

Conference championship games

Christmas Week

Pac-Ten vs WAC - Fiesta Bowl
Big Ten vs Big East - Sun Bowl
Big 12 vs CUSA - Cotton Bowl
SEC vs ACC - Peach Bowl

Other bowl games are also played this week.

New Year's Week
Pac-10/WAC vs Big Ten/Big East - Rose Bowl
Big 12/CUSA vs SEC/ACC - Sugar Bowl

Other bowl games are also played this week.

Week After New Years

National Title Game - Orange Bowl

 

[JM1776]

It would help me respect your position a bit more if you'd let go of the ridiculous 'Texas had a psychological advantage' nonsense.

Good thing I'm entirely unconcerned with your respect, eh?

Are you asserting that there is absolutely no advantage whatsoever when Texas plays Oklahoma in the Red River Shootout within the State of Texas, during the Texas State Fair?

If you are, well ... we both know who's spouting "nonsense," don't we?

No one said it's a massive advantage. To say it's none in the least is preposterous.

 

[mimic]

Are you asserting that there is absolutely no advantage whatsoever when Texas plays Oklahoma in the Red River Shootout within the State of Texas, during the Texas State Fair?

Not the the extent where it could realistically impact Oklahoma's performance.

I saw the people at the fair. They were riding on Ferris wheels and eating greasy food and and most definitely weren't in the stadium cheering for Texas. They had no impact on the game unless you're suggesting that Oklahoma players' psyches are so fragile it freaks them out to see a Texas State Fair on the bus ride to the stadium a couple hours before the game. It's like claiming that the rooting preference of Dallas TV viewers gives a team a psychological advantage.

 

[Quantum]

Shouldn't the Number 1 team in the country by definition always be favored?

In other words....

How can Number 1 and undefeated Alabama be a 10 point dog.....

In the immortal words of Rick Flair "To be the man, Whooo...... You got to beat the man"

 

[DanCPA]

I do think that that Texas had a minimal advantage... but it was a win by them... I don't think anyone can deny that... What people do deny is that that win alone decides that OU should be eliminated because Texas Tech beat Texas and has the same record...

Shouldn't the Number 1 team in the country by definition always be favored?

In other words....

How can Number 1 and undefeated Alabama be a 10 point dog.....

In the immortal words of Rick Flair "To be the man, Whooo...... You got to beat the man"

Well, given where Ric Flair ended up... Lets not forget that Ric Flair won his first WWF Championship in a Royal Rumble... and it's the same thing here... Florida, despite a home loss, is considered to be a much better team (just like there are those that say that despite it's loss, USC is the best team in the nation) than Alabama.
And "the line" is not anything too scientific... It is just the way to get people to make even amounts of bets so Vegas can cover itself.
That said, I would not be shocked to see 'bama win!

'Bama and OU in the natinoal championship

 

[Neroon]

Shouldn't the Number 1 team in the country by definition always be favored?

In other words....

How can Number 1 and undefeated Alabama be a 10 point dog.....

In the immortal words of Rick Flair "To be the man, Whooo...... You got to beat the man"

It depends. If the #1 team hasn't played the other yet, it's possible that people may feel each team's particular strengths and weaknesses might match in a way to produce that result. But I'm with you in that though I can see Florida being favored, 10 pts seems like an awful lot. Especially when Percy Harvin isn't expected to play.

 

[JM1776]

I do think that that Texas had a minimal advantage...

And that's all I'm saying it was. Nevertheless, an advantage, however slight, is precisely that ... and coupled with the obvious inferiority of Texas' out-of-conference schedule (and, on an ethical plane, the downright childish and tiresome politicking of Mack Brown, whose stock has continued to drop with me), gives Oklahoma a modest but decisive edge.

I've always liked Texas, but their proponents, staff and fans really, really need to STFU at this point. It's over. You lost the argument. Accept it. [I'm talking about the crazed Longhorns fans nationwide, not the people knocking it around here, by the way. We're just talking college football and a little smack with each other. For some, though, it's getting a little crazy: Going on at halftime of your rival's game to stump? Renting planes for flyovers of the opposing campus? Come on!]

BTW....nice performance by your Scarlet Knights, JM! Even if it was against a lackluster Louisville team, still an incredible show by Teel.

Yeah. It could easily have been 70-14, 77-7, or even 84-0, if the Knights had really put the clamps on. This game was over early in the second quarter, and Louisville looked to be in total disarray.

I have a bad feeling the Cardinals are going to share the Big East basement with Syracuse over the next few years.

What the heck has happened to turn these guys around?

The rumors I've heard say that most of the coaches in the Big East were literally warning their players all season not to talk any smack before or while playing Rutgers, because they were bound to wake up sooner or later, and no one wanted it to be against them. [UConn ended up being lucky number one: Evidently their kicker didn't miss that game-winning field goal, but rather had it partially blocked by Kenny Britt.] I'm certainly not going to call them a top team at this point, but they've absolutely prevented the program from taking a step back with this run, and I'm fairly certain that no one outside the top five would want to play them right now.

If one were going to point at a single difference, Neroon, it's Mike Teel's swagger. This guy's a freakin' gunslinger, now, with a snap draw and a marksman's aim. He's hitting guys in stride on the hands 45 yards away with a flick of his wrist. You see him go back in play action now and actually grimace in sympathy for the opposing secondary. [And who knew the little bugger could roll out like that?!] RU laid fifty-four on a good Pittsburgh defense at Heinz, put forty-nine on USF in Tampa and hammered UL for sixty-three Thursday night. The big argument now is whether to award him or Pat White Big East Player of the Year and/or All-Big East First Team Quarterback. Frankly, I'd go with Teel for the latter, at least. Pat White's the superior athlete; Mike Teel's a better quarterback six times a week and thrice on Sundays.

For the first time this year, Rutgers will get a long look for a ranking in my poll. It's unlikely I can justify it at 7-5, despite the six-game win streak and crushing wins over quality foes, but ... another convincing victory over a quality opponent, and they may just sneak into the final rankings.

 

[trekkerguy]

Les go Florida!