Great time to sound off! We're not talking about a complex situation here with multiple other teams poised with arguments to be in the hunt for the CFP. What about UCF? They haven't played anybody of relative strength to earn a shot at the CFP. If you use proper analytics, the argument is clearly not in their favor. How about USC? While I think it is awesome they finally won the PAC-12 (I never liked any of Stanford, Oregon, Washington, or anybody else), their "strength of schedule" doesn't match-up to what the committee is looking for. Obviously, the entire selection process is ambiguously qualitative and somewhat arbitrary in this regard. It is of reason as I've previously eluded to that we should have a pseudo expansion to allow conference champs of the power 5 to play-in for the CFP. However, for purposes of further discussion and as well agreed upon by the masses, USC is out, UCF is clearly out.
The argument now boils down to Ohio State and Alabama. I can prove to you that my argument is unbiased. I have fan gear I can post here from both sides. I verified loved Ohio State since Craig Krenzel and the 2002 team won the National Championship. I verified loved Alabama since they finally knocked off Florida and beat Texas in the 2009 National Championship. Each year, I have rooted for either team to win it all. Most years Alabama won and I was cool with that. I didn't get a chance to watch the 2014 campaign when both teams met, but found out that game was epic. Glad Ohio State didn't falter against Oregon in the finale. Both teams got a shot at it last year, but both lost to Clemson. Clemson really should just go away.
ANYWAYS, so do you let a team with a near perfect record with their only loss coming to a #2 team in a country on the road by a couple of touchdowns or allow a power 5 conference champion with losses coming to unranked Iowa and #3 ranked Oklahoma at home?
Quality wins are just as important though to consider!:
Ohio State beat a #2 Penn State, #4 Wisconsin, and #12 Michigan State. I'd like to add Michigan too because their losses only came to the top quality opponents in their league (all teams ranked within #12). All of Penn State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State held on to remain in high ranking (current #9 Penn State, #4 (loss today means dropping to within top 10), #16 Michigan State). In their schedule, Army also had a great campaign this year and could end up in the top 25 when all is said and done next week. Moreover, Ohio State played most of the rest of it's opponents in conference, with out-of-division teams landing in an even spread across the W-L conference standings. Their only "poor" out-of-conference win is against UNLV.
As for Alabama, they have only beaten a #3 Florida State, #19 LSU, and #16 Miss State. Florida State completely dropped off (consideration should be given to the fact that Alabama knocked out their star QB for the year, causing a spiral downfall), LSU improved to #17, but Miss State dropped to #23. They played all teams in their division of course, but out-of-division wins came to bottom-bucket teams Vanderbilt and Tennessee. Their out-of-conference wins, besides Florida State, came to deplorable Mercer and Colorado State. I'm not sure where I should put Fresno State at the moment having lost it's conference championship match against Boise State.
This "strength of schedule" resonates with the committee. It might be fair to say we should exclude any conference championship. Thus, if we just look at the wins and losses and whose those wins and losses came against, you're in a debate of who is the best team between the two.
In my opinion, I think purely by the analytics of the schedule you would favor Ohio State. However, what value is to be placed in the fact that Alabama hadn't lost a single game up until #2 Auburn on the road? The unfortunate part for the Tide is that Auburn didn't have 2 losses in conference. If they had, Alabama still would have played for the SEC championship today and likely crushed Georgia in a revenge game and punch their ticket to the CFP. I felt some sense of lost ownership with Alabama all of a sudden out of the picture. It's like "perfect season, perfect season, perfect season.... done". No division title, no conference championship, and possibly no CFP appearance now. Their argument now hinges on the fact that Ohio State, ironically, was in the same position last year when they had an excellent campaign with it's only and single loss to the team that played in the conference championship game (they won it though but were deemed unworthy for CFP due to other losses). Can the two be compared? Let's see. In 2016, Ohio State beat #14 Oklahoma, #8 Wisconsin, #9 Nebraska, and #3 Michigan. For Alabama this year, they only beat #3 FSU, #19 LSU, and #16 Miss State. Let's not forget the horrible season FSU had, although we cannot say how losing their QB has affected their mentality and allow the losses to snowball as they did.
While I feel that Alabama would be playing with a hell of a chip on their shoulder after getting nearly (if not all) completely out of the picture come tomorrow and that their team is always top-caliber to play heavy against anyone, weight should be placed reasonably on action and performance, not on speculation. Unfortunately, there is no opportunity left for Alabama to prove or disprove any speculative notion and it is impossible to award an opportunity.
It is at this juncture that Ohio State is the more favorable candidate based on all the information, not only by analytics, but on precedent and true argument that, like for comparing Ohio State and Penn State last year, Ohio State at least matches up with Alabama in simulation. It is definitely impossible to prove which team is best, as is the committee's duty to select the top 4 teams in the country; thus, since there is no clear and concise argument to illustrate in an alternative means from opponents played/strength of schedule (SOS) which team is better, we must rely on that strength of schedule and other common qualitative factors (like quality wins/losses, offense/defense ranking, etc...) the committee reviews for their rankings. [Just out of curiosity in total and scoring defense, Alabama has Ohio State beat. However, on total and scoring offense, Ohio State clearly out-ranks Alabama.]
When reviewing these factors, it is clear to say that Ohio State should be in the CFP and not Alabama. Where Alabama relies on the the previous year precedent of choosing Ohio State over Penn State, their argument falls short on the fact that Ohio State had been 3 top-ten teams in that year (all whom finished with well above .500 marks) whereas Alabama only beat 1 top-ten team in FSU (whom is now at .500 and could finish with a losing record).
While I think Alabama should be out, they should be happy with the fact that there is at least a debate. If Wisconsin had won yesterday, their would be no debate or doubt as to which teams belong in the CFP. If this was even so much as 4 years ago, they would have no argument for Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia would be brawling it out for the the two spots in the BCS National Championship game. For Alabama to interject their argument, they should be grateful. However, with the potential for greater volatility in the FBS (imagine if Clemson and Oklahoma had lost to mediocre teams) indicates that an expanded form should be considered. Even if not so at the current time, you can expect outrageous results in the years to come that would, so like for the fate of the BCS, push the NCAA to once again evolve the format once more, likely to again increase the number of teams eligible to participate for the National Championship.
Sunday, December 3, 2017
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
A necessary update to this blog: College Football Playoff (under construction)
The last time I touched this blog was 5 YEARS AGO. That's a LONG time ago and, thank God, there have been some necessary changes to college football in the interim.
Chiefly, the NCAA has adopted the 4 team college football format for the 2014 season. Without this, Ohio State would have never won the National Championship and I'm sure Alabama was not thrilled at all. In fact, they likely would have beat Oregon, but who knows.
This format was worked out so well for the past 3 years now. Being on our 4 year, we are less than a week away from seeing if new discussion and debate will start brewing over a 8 team format (all ears and eyes on Jamie Samuelson from Detroit's 97.1 "The Ticket" and FOX Detroit Sportsworks).
If all top 4 teams win, the format is solid. If any of those teams loses, we might well be looking at some heated debate. I can only imagine that if the only loss among the top 4 comes from Miami beating Clemson, Miami would only trade places with Clemson. However, if either of Auburn, Wisconsin, or Oklahoma loses (all of which are significantly possible), we are back in the same heated debate we had before the college football playoff (CFP) with the BCS.
I've heard talks of Ohio State battling it out with Alabama if they beat Wisconsin. I'm a HUGE fan of Ohio State and Alabama as well, but a bigger fan of logic. We are all overlooking TCU. If they beat Oklahoma and Ohio State beats Wisconsin, would that not be a serious debate right there. What if only TCU wins? Do we have a debate between TCU and Alabama?
The funny part I LOVE about this is that 5 years ago, I already made the suggestion to award all 5 power conferences a chance at the National Championship with options to include at-large teams.. Upon reviewing this, my selection was for not only all 5 power conferences but also Notre Dame since they were top in the country. Of course, this year they blew that chance in losing to Stanford. Nonetheless, that vacancy is invalid. We should perhaps consider adding another conference to the power 5 conferences (UCF had a pretty good season!). We don't need to though and there are good strategic means of covering all the bases on this. Perhaps, just add only 3 at-large teams?
The complexity of the college football team selection is grand. What if a power-5 conference has little competitive spirit as we've seen with Pac-12 this year and in some former years? If you look at today's 4-team format, they have seemingly rightfully been excluded. Some would disagree. An issue opponents to expanding the field is that it degrades from the worth of the regular season in allowing an "undeserving" opponent to join the field and upset a top ranked team to claim the national title. Ironically, we saw this back in 2011 when LSU rightfully claimed the SEC championship and a spot for the national championship but Alabama was allowed to re-compete for that national championship despite not having won either a conference or division championship. More ironically, they are once again in the same scenario with an opportunity to sneak into the 4 team field.
The problem with the opposition's argument is that ALL other major and collegiate sports follow a playoff format with a vast number of teams competing. Even the NFL allows for 12 teams out of 32 teams. We are essentially saying that among 100+ teams in the NCAA (60 of which are in power conferences) are limited to 4 teams to compete for the national championship? I dare say that 8 teams or more is reasonable.
Perhaps we can throw out some of these cupcake games that these teams play to open up that allotted game space for games that matter---like an at-large game for a chance to play in a bowl game as part of the playoff or just in a bowl game for a chance at the semis and then national championship game.
Well, if that 8+ team idea doesn't sit with you well, we can still surely agree that some unknown and abstract solution be implemented. Maybe it is semi-fluid from year-to-year to fit the NCAA and fanbase needs? Obviously, we are running out of ideas. Maybe all the fans can just vote at the end of the year for who is best or maybe with Trump and the foreign hooligans running afloat we won't need to worry about it for too much longer.
Monday, December 3, 2012
BCS Solution (2012 season integration)
The pic basically says it all:
Here is the generic version of the college football playoff picture:
Here is the generic version of the college football playoff picture:
Sunday, November 18, 2012
I HAD to add this.....NCAA, please adopt a new system.
Prologue:
The 2012 season sure has had plenty of excitement in the past couple of weeks with Alabama losing to Texas A&M on November 10, and in the following week seeing both new No. 1 Kansas State and No. 2 Oregon go down in the same week which hadn't happened since 2007 when No. 1 Missouri and No. 2 West Virginia both lost. However, there have been plenty of other upsets in the previous weeks with a steady change in guard outside of the No. 1 spot in the nation. I feel that this "chaos" has perhaps left voters confused.....or rather over-hyped and subjective, which doesn't work well when you are nationally influencing a ranking system that has such a profound effect in the NCAA college football realm.As such, I lead to saying this: The whole and entire college football rankings systems (BCS and AP) are complete [insert profanity and the term "non-sense"]. That seems to be a consensus nationwide that we can ALL agree on (something that I don't EVER foreseeing in politics). I'm not just going to blow hot air like the rest. I have PROOF!
-->Proof!: In weeks 1-9, Florida State ranked higher than Georgia (they both lost their only loss in the same week (Week 6)).
Then in Week 10, they got the pass in the AP poll, all along being ranked higher than Florida State in the BCS.
Now, even though both teams have continued to win their games, Georgia has continued to move up while Florida State slipped back from #8 to #10 (Texas A&M and LSU pass them).
-->End Proof.
You should clearly see that despite following the exact same W/L path, Georgia has moved ahead of Florida State at no fault of FSU's own all while being ranked higher from the get go in the BCS poll.
If you looked 10 some years ago and saw Florida State 10-1, you'd have them either 1 or 2. No question. However, we now look at the "strength", "size", and "talent" of players as well as team play to determine who is the better undefeated or 1-2 loss team. IN FACT, we don't just do that, but perhaps look MORE so at these same factors for their team opponents (better known as "strength of schedule"). The voters see the SEC teams with 0 or 1 losses as better than any other team with the same record or sometimes even better because the SEC is synonymous with "Big man/Grown man" football. So they argue that any ACC team is worth the least to beat while beating an SEC foe is the best with Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 mixed in between in some order.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Why college football needed Alabama to win the BCS National Championship
Unless you were living under a rock this past week, Alabama defeated, NO....SHUTOUT, the #1 top ranked team in the country, LSU, for the BCS National Championship. It was a true masterpiece of defensive domination, poise, and sweet redemption. Let me explain:
1) Alabama only let LSU past midfield (the 50 yard line) into Alabama territory ONCE!!...and they held them to around the 40 yard line eventually forcing them back and recovering a fumble on 4th down at the 50 yard line.
2) Alabama held LSU's defense to 98 total yards. LSU had t
3) Alabama only committed ONE penalty the entire game, an offsides call at 2 min
of the 4th quarter on LSU possession 4th and 15, which they punted anyways, after which Alabama was leading 21-0. Nick Saban was STILL infuriated.
4) A.J. McCarron played cool and collective throwing the ball out there, not forcing the issue, all while making smart reads and decisions. Jordan Jefferson on the other side fumbled the snap 2-3 times in the game, fumble, and threw a pitch toss to the RB (Spencer Ware) who was not looking and thus got intercepted by Alabama's Mosley near the 30 yard line.
First, I use the word "Redemption" rather than "Revenge" because revenge implies that the victim is seeking retaliation for an injury CAUSED BY the attacker. Redemption is the case for where the victim failed themselves or were failed by some external cause (the Football Gods) and thus now seek to "redeem" the previous status like if they fell of a rock and just got back on but where such redemption is made by pushing the rock down to get back up. Alabama just had to push LSU down and didn't attack it (somewhat of a good point as you can see by the lack of TDs on Alabama's part).
I think though that if you had watched the game very closely, you should have realized that the shutout and shocking stats for Alabama's defense where not as great as you think. You could obviously tell that LSU was not really doing their thing out there. So I guess you wondered why. Watching LSU in the big games of the season, the similarity is that LSU needed a BIG play on defense or special teams to get their team motivated to play. Beyond that, LSU needed the opponent to mess up, goof up on coverage or have a missed assignment. It was the big plays of LSU's defense (in particular Mathieu, Claiborne, and Reid) which took advantage of the opponents' weaknesses and exploited them. As well, LSU got the win by running the ball hard on soft, mediocre defenses soft as cheese. Against Alabama, in BOTH games, Alabama had none of the weaknesses of that of the other teams. Alabama halted Tyrann Mathieu, the "Honey Badger", on special teams and defense. In the national championship, they even threw to the man Mathieu was covering on defense, exploiting MATHIEU's short height weakness. Alabama was able to do what they wanted on offense because they had the personnel (all strong, big, and very well coached guys) whom were able to hold the line and get lead blocks for QB A.J. McCarron and RB Trent Richardson. Alabama sustained drives and punched several FGs on board as the offense rolled with a great balance of passing and tough and quick running by RB Trent Richardson. The lack of LSU to cause any turnovers or any big and critical negative plays meant that Alabama was forcing LSU to play offense without their regular fuel and ignition. Perhaps now you may say the game was lost by LSU (like Nov. 5 game lost by Alabama). I think many LSU fans may have a point, however the college football fan and media base, whether consciously or subconsciously, know that Alabama's defense was VERY effective in shutting down the LSU running and option game. Your point is taken by the fact that I think LSU failed to pass more often and not consider Jarrett Lee for passing. You have to highly wonder and think if LSU tried to pass more, could Alabama's secondary have really knocked down/intercept/contain all the possible passing attempts? If you look at what is happening in the NFL with the passing attack by Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Brady, and company, the answer really starts to look like NO because a VERY accurate throw has proven week-in-and-week-out that a GREAT passing game can subdue a very good defense. If Alabama was able to knock down and subdue LSU's attack, if the passes would have been well thrown, then we would have no doubt in saying Alabama's defense was truly one of the best of the decade and possibly half-century.
Despite all the possibilities that could have preceded, it was important for college football to have Alabama win this game. That is because if LSU had won, it would have meant that the BCS system was absolutely and undoubtedly unflawed for bringing in LSU, having them win it all, and be the unanimous #1 national champion, just like it did for the last several years. There would only be a very few stubborn people who would come to think that Oklahoma State would've beaten them. Looking at how they just sneaked out of the Fiesta Bowl over Stanford, basically all of the college football fan, media, and voting base would know that they probably wouldn't have a chance against LSU playing like that with a pretty mediocre defense but decent offense, which LSU would have likely done something against. But it is just that!!!!!: we need to have a playoff system that ultimately determines the true national champion by giving every legitimate team a chance to play. We would make the argument likely for all of LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and even Oregon, Wisconsin, and Boise State. If you see my "The BCS solution" post, you will find how I believe this can be successfully accomplished.
1) Alabama only let LSU past midfield (the 50 yard line) into Alabama territory ONCE!!...and they held them to around the 40 yard line eventually forcing them back and recovering a fumble on 4th down at the 50 yard line.
2) Alabama held LSU's defense to 98 total yards. LSU had t
3) Alabama only committed ONE penalty the entire game, an offsides call at 2 min
of the 4th quarter on LSU possession 4th and 15, which they punted anyways, after which Alabama was leading 21-0. Nick Saban was STILL infuriated.
4) A.J. McCarron played cool and collective throwing the ball out there, not forcing the issue, all while making smart reads and decisions. Jordan Jefferson on the other side fumbled the snap 2-3 times in the game, fumble, and threw a pitch toss to the RB (Spencer Ware) who was not looking and thus got intercepted by Alabama's Mosley near the 30 yard line.
First, I use the word "Redemption" rather than "Revenge" because revenge implies that the victim is seeking retaliation for an injury CAUSED BY the attacker. Redemption is the case for where the victim failed themselves or were failed by some external cause (the Football Gods) and thus now seek to "redeem" the previous status like if they fell of a rock and just got back on but where such redemption is made by pushing the rock down to get back up. Alabama just had to push LSU down and didn't attack it (somewhat of a good point as you can see by the lack of TDs on Alabama's part).
I think though that if you had watched the game very closely, you should have realized that the shutout and shocking stats for Alabama's defense where not as great as you think. You could obviously tell that LSU was not really doing their thing out there. So I guess you wondered why. Watching LSU in the big games of the season, the similarity is that LSU needed a BIG play on defense or special teams to get their team motivated to play. Beyond that, LSU needed the opponent to mess up, goof up on coverage or have a missed assignment. It was the big plays of LSU's defense (in particular Mathieu, Claiborne, and Reid) which took advantage of the opponents' weaknesses and exploited them. As well, LSU got the win by running the ball hard on soft, mediocre defenses soft as cheese. Against Alabama, in BOTH games, Alabama had none of the weaknesses of that of the other teams. Alabama halted Tyrann Mathieu, the "Honey Badger", on special teams and defense. In the national championship, they even threw to the man Mathieu was covering on defense, exploiting MATHIEU's short height weakness. Alabama was able to do what they wanted on offense because they had the personnel (all strong, big, and very well coached guys) whom were able to hold the line and get lead blocks for QB A.J. McCarron and RB Trent Richardson. Alabama sustained drives and punched several FGs on board as the offense rolled with a great balance of passing and tough and quick running by RB Trent Richardson. The lack of LSU to cause any turnovers or any big and critical negative plays meant that Alabama was forcing LSU to play offense without their regular fuel and ignition. Perhaps now you may say the game was lost by LSU (like Nov. 5 game lost by Alabama). I think many LSU fans may have a point, however the college football fan and media base, whether consciously or subconsciously, know that Alabama's defense was VERY effective in shutting down the LSU running and option game. Your point is taken by the fact that I think LSU failed to pass more often and not consider Jarrett Lee for passing. You have to highly wonder and think if LSU tried to pass more, could Alabama's secondary have really knocked down/intercept/contain all the possible passing attempts? If you look at what is happening in the NFL with the passing attack by Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Brady, and company, the answer really starts to look like NO because a VERY accurate throw has proven week-in-and-week-out that a GREAT passing game can subdue a very good defense. If Alabama was able to knock down and subdue LSU's attack, if the passes would have been well thrown, then we would have no doubt in saying Alabama's defense was truly one of the best of the decade and possibly half-century.
Despite all the possibilities that could have preceded, it was important for college football to have Alabama win this game. That is because if LSU had won, it would have meant that the BCS system was absolutely and undoubtedly unflawed for bringing in LSU, having them win it all, and be the unanimous #1 national champion, just like it did for the last several years. There would only be a very few stubborn people who would come to think that Oklahoma State would've beaten them. Looking at how they just sneaked out of the Fiesta Bowl over Stanford, basically all of the college football fan, media, and voting base would know that they probably wouldn't have a chance against LSU playing like that with a pretty mediocre defense but decent offense, which LSU would have likely done something against. But it is just that!!!!!: we need to have a playoff system that ultimately determines the true national champion by giving every legitimate team a chance to play. We would make the argument likely for all of LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and even Oregon, Wisconsin, and Boise State. If you see my "The BCS solution" post, you will find how I believe this can be successfully accomplished.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The BCS solution
After hearing about all the debates and discussion going on about the BCS system and how unjust it is and how we need a playoff system, I figured there should be some way everybody can collaborate and find a very good system the FBS can utilize as the playoff. A while back, as I was laying down, my mind began piecing together bits of ideas and requests. I found that my idea kept the tradition of all the BCS bowl games, gives at-large candidates a right into the BCS national championship game, and most importantly, sets forth a minimal number of additional games to be played (which has long been a factor in arguments against a playoff system). I realized that I may have found an excellent solution to the problem.
Here's my idea:
Basically, the winner of each of the four BCS bowls go on to face each other in a "final four" and then into a national championship game. But it's not that simple. In my draft, I have two spots in separate bowl games reserved for at-large candidates. The other two bowls will host the top two BCS ranked conference champions on opposite sides of the bracket. The Rose Bowl will feature either the #1 or #2 ranked conf. champ. If the Pac-12 is either #1 or #2, then the other school playing them will be from the Big Ten. If the #1 and #2 teams are neither from the Big Ten or PAC-12 (i.e. any other conference champion) as it was last year with the SEC and Big-12 as #1 and #2 top ranked conference champs respectively, the number #1 team (SEC) would play the higher ranked of Pac-12 and Big Ten champ. The text in italics indicate that if the Big Ten and Pac-12 are both ranked #1 and #2 in the country, the #1 team plays in the Rose Bowl against another automatic-qualifying conference champion and the #2 team plays on the other side of the bracket in the Fiesta Bowl against the Big-12 champ or Sugar or Orange Bowl (Sugar bowl and Orange bowl can alternate bracket positions) . In the Fiesta Bowl, the Big 12 conference champ is guaranteed a spot. They play either the #1 or #2 ranked team or play another conf. champion if they are that #1 or #2 team in the country. As previously mentioned, if when both the Pac-12 and Big Ten conference champs are the top two ranked conference champs, the Big 12 champ plays #2 Big Ten/Pac-12 champ if they are ranked lower than one of the "At-Large" winners or selected team. Otherwise, the Pac-12 champ would play in the Sugar Bowl (as illustrated in the example graphic below) or Orange Bowl against said "At-Large" opponent. The Orange bowl will play host to the ACC conference champion or one of any other automatic-qualifying conference champions remaining from selection. That team will play the winner of a match-up of "At-Large" candidates. The Sugar bowl features the last automatic-qualifying conference champion left (essentially, the lowest ranked conference champion), and they play the winner of another match-up of at-large candidates. The At-Large candidates will simply be the top four BCS ranked teams who are not conference champions. (If desired, the BCS may still wish to impose a 2-team limit per conference. Additionally, up for consideration may be that if 1 or 2 other conference champions rank in the top 25?/top 15?/top 10? of the AP polls (or other polls as determined), they receive the "At-Large winner" spot facing against the last one or two automatic qualifying conference champions)
NOTE/UPDATE: the BIG EAST lost their automatic qualifying spot so there are now only 5 teams who automatically qualify for the BCS/Playoff bowls. Under this new structure, the graphic below would be slightly off in this instance. To adate this dilemma,
1) the last automatic-qualifying conference champ spot could be given to the top ranked "At-Large" candidate with 4 other "At-Large" candidates (ranked #2-#5) taking the place of the two "At-Large" Match-ups,
2) The top two "At-Large" candidates would play in separate bowl games with a "At-Large" qualifying match-up between #3 and #4 to play in another bowl game (no two "At-Large" candidates play either other in a bowl game)
3) Only three "At-Large" candidates are chosen and they play against conference champions (as before, no two "At-Large" candidates play either other in a bowl game)
The format is relatively simple: it's simplistic, it rewards the top BCS teams, keeps bowl game traditions, ends the argument about a consensus national champion, and limits the number of games schools would need to play in a season. In addition, I believe it would also not impose significant monetary damages to the NCAA college football/BCS in revenues made through bowl games. Those elite games can and will still draw in nearly the same, if not greater, number of viewers considering the fact that it will continue matching up good teams. Moreover, a greater audience should be expected since the teams in the bowl game are now playing for more than a single bowl victory, but a chance at the national championship.
I think this is an excellent step to take beyond the four-team playoff format that was designed and approved of earlier this summer. Do have any other suggestion on how we can successfully unite the needs of those pleading for a playoff system and the bowl traditionalists, as well as justice for the non-automatic-qualifying conference powerhouses (i.e. Boise State)?
Basically, the winner of each of the four BCS bowls go on to face each other in a "final four" and then into a national championship game. But it's not that simple. In my draft, I have two spots in separate bowl games reserved for at-large candidates. The other two bowls will host the top two BCS ranked conference champions on opposite sides of the bracket. The Rose Bowl will feature either the #1 or #2 ranked conf. champ. If the Pac-12 is either #1 or #2, then the other school playing them will be from the Big Ten. If the #1 and #2 teams are neither from the Big Ten or PAC-12 (i.e. any other conference champion) as it was last year with the SEC and Big-12 as #1 and #2 top ranked conference champs respectively, the number #1 team (SEC) would play the higher ranked of Pac-12 and Big Ten champ. The text in italics indicate that if the Big Ten and Pac-12 are both ranked #1 and #2 in the country, the #1 team plays in the Rose Bowl against another automatic-qualifying conference champion and the #2 team plays on the other side of the bracket in the Fiesta Bowl against the Big-12 champ or Sugar or Orange Bowl (Sugar bowl and Orange bowl can alternate bracket positions) . In the Fiesta Bowl, the Big 12 conference champ is guaranteed a spot. They play either the #1 or #2 ranked team or play another conf. champion if they are that #1 or #2 team in the country. As previously mentioned, if when both the Pac-12 and Big Ten conference champs are the top two ranked conference champs, the Big 12 champ plays #2 Big Ten/Pac-12 champ if they are ranked lower than one of the "At-Large" winners or selected team. Otherwise, the Pac-12 champ would play in the Sugar Bowl (as illustrated in the example graphic below) or Orange Bowl against said "At-Large" opponent. The Orange bowl will play host to the ACC conference champion or one of any other automatic-qualifying conference champions remaining from selection. That team will play the winner of a match-up of "At-Large" candidates. The Sugar bowl features the last automatic-qualifying conference champion left (essentially, the lowest ranked conference champion), and they play the winner of another match-up of at-large candidates. The At-Large candidates will simply be the top four BCS ranked teams who are not conference champions. (If desired, the BCS may still wish to impose a 2-team limit per conference. Additionally, up for consideration may be that if 1 or 2 other conference champions rank in the top 25?/top 15?/top 10? of the AP polls (or other polls as determined), they receive the "At-Large winner" spot facing against the last one or two automatic qualifying conference champions)
NOTE/UPDATE: the BIG EAST lost their automatic qualifying spot so there are now only 5 teams who automatically qualify for the BCS/Playoff bowls. Under this new structure, the graphic below would be slightly off in this instance. To adate this dilemma,
1) the last automatic-qualifying conference champ spot could be given to the top ranked "At-Large" candidate with 4 other "At-Large" candidates (ranked #2-#5) taking the place of the two "At-Large" Match-ups,
2) The top two "At-Large" candidates would play in separate bowl games with a "At-Large" qualifying match-up between #3 and #4 to play in another bowl game (no two "At-Large" candidates play either other in a bowl game)
3) Only three "At-Large" candidates are chosen and they play against conference champions (as before, no two "At-Large" candidates play either other in a bowl game)
The format is relatively simple: it's simplistic, it rewards the top BCS teams, keeps bowl game traditions, ends the argument about a consensus national champion, and limits the number of games schools would need to play in a season. In addition, I believe it would also not impose significant monetary damages to the NCAA college football/BCS in revenues made through bowl games. Those elite games can and will still draw in nearly the same, if not greater, number of viewers considering the fact that it will continue matching up good teams. Moreover, a greater audience should be expected since the teams in the bowl game are now playing for more than a single bowl victory, but a chance at the national championship.
I think this is an excellent step to take beyond the four-team playoff format that was designed and approved of earlier this summer. Do have any other suggestion on how we can successfully unite the needs of those pleading for a playoff system and the bowl traditionalists, as well as justice for the non-automatic-qualifying conference powerhouses (i.e. Boise State)?
Saturday, December 3, 2011
BIG TEN UPDATE
Sorry that I've been out for a while. My computer crashed a while ago and I just recently got back online and nearly fully recovered. So I should be able to update more often than previous.
However, just this Saturday (12/4/11), the college football stage wrapped up the end of the regular season with all the conference championship games. For your info, if you've been living under a rock or been absolutely hammered (beer, homework or otherwise), here's a list of the champs for each conference:
PAC-12: Oregon
BIG TEN: Wisconsin
SEC: LSU
ACC: Clemson
BIG 12: Oklahoma St. (even though no championship game....rather Bedlam gave us our champ)
C-USA: Southern Miss
I leave Big East off of this because I consider them only a hair better than the Sun belt, WAC, and MAC conferences. This year, MWC and C-USA were far better producing TCU, Boise, Houston, and Southern Miss as very good fball teams.
Since this is a Big Ten Update, let's move right along and talk about the truly exciting BIG TEN Championship game we had Saturday and who were the winners and losers of the season and moving forward.
At the top of things, it was Wisconsin (UW) and Michigan State (MSU) heading off into battle for the Big Ten crown. The country knew of the power of UW and that they always put together a great football team. As of this century, they have been a traditional powerhouse fighting near the top for the Big Ten crown. However, many outside of the Big Ten, and even several within including myself, did not fully appreciate what MSU could really bring to the table. We saw them show up last season in a pretty big way. They were co-champs with Ohio State and UW but got a bowl outside the BCS because voters knew UW and Ohio State were the better teams at the time. Then, Michigan State got POUNDED by Alabama in the Capital One bowl. That proved they weren't really among the top #10 teams in the nation.
This year, they set forth an incredible feat beating both Ohio State and UW. (only loss to Nebraska). On the other hand, Wisconsin, as you may know, had those two "hail mary" losses to that same MSU team and Ohio State.
This BIG TEN championship turned out to be special from the onset because MSU upset UW on a last second hail mary pass that eliminated UWs chance at a National Championship appearance. Though with the sour taste in UW's mouth for all of that week, Ohio State did nearly the exact same thing the very next week and nearly eliminated UW from Big Ten consideration. Therefore, we knew it was going to be very interesting to see how UW would respond. In the first half of this game, it was deja vu for UW all over again. They got quick scores before MSU threw up a bunch of points and took an 8 point lead into half time. The second half had UW tie it up and MSU taking a touchdown lead again. This continued until UW made a good stop on MSUs offense with only a few minutes left in the game and then got a touchdown to 1 point lead (40-39). A two point conversion then gave them a 3 point lead (42-39). They stopped MSU again and got the ball with just over 2 minutes to go. MSU then made a great stop on 3rd and 4 to set up a UW punt. On the play of the game, one of the MSU defensive players rushed to block the punt but missed and scraped the leg of the UW punter. Feeling the mild interference of the rusher, Nortman, the UW punter, intelligently pretended the hit was bigger and spun into a fall. His Emmy-winning performance deserved a best-performing actor oscar award as well!! It was so well acted out. I thought it was too well done...thankfully the ref through the flag anyways. He DID get hit a little and he could have just spun the rest of the 90 degrees and fall down. He did like a full twirl. But if that's what it took to make sure the ref knew he was hit, so be it. THAT was truly REALLY bad for MSU!!! Turns out, Keshawn Martin had returned the punt all the way to the 1 yd line!! With the flag on MSU, the punt return was negated and UW was given 15 yds AND a 1st down on their current 4th down possession which they punted on. Thus, with the clock near 2 min and a 1st down, they just ran out the clock on runs. The game was all over and UW was going to the Rose Bowl!! ...and MSU....the Outback Bowl.
Now here's another point that struck me cold. After finding that MSU was thrown dead into the Alamo Bowl, I found out that Michigan (UM) got a BCS bowl berth. Now here's a team that clearly lost to MSU on their best day. In fact, it was absolutely stupid, upsetting, and overall disappointing that they did place UM ahead of....get this....10-2 Kansas State (losses to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) and 11-1 BOISE ST!!
What is more upsetting is that the rules for who gets into the BCS bowls puts bad teams in and leaves out top ranked teams. For instance, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Georgia are all teams that have ALREADY beaten or you know would beat all of West Virginia, Clemson, and Michigan....and likely Virginia Tech....the latter accounting for half of the current selected teams in the BCS. Due to the fact that the rules states that only 2 teams from each conference can make a bowl appearance, Ark, S. Car., and Georgia (all in the SEC) cannot appear since LSU and Alabama are playing. In fact, what is ABSOLUTELY grotesque is that the voters could have resurrected the failing of the BCS system by selecting Boise State in (an at-large candidate for a BCS bowl birth), and the same team who proved in the first game of the season and countless other times, that they can beat a top ranked team in the country (they themselves are ranked #7). West Virginia and Michigan are clearly unproven teams. Michigan didn't even play in their championship game!! You can say Alabama didn't either but you know why!!: they lost 1 game to THE #1 team....in OT. Michigan lost twice, one to Iowa and the other to MSU...both teams obviously NOT at the VERY top of the list. We are obligated to include West Virg. and Clemson based on the rules....I get that....Virginia Tech is a really good football club that just couldn't figure out Clemson...and they have been ranked as high as #5....#13 is Michigans highest ranking.
....and I think that THIS is the BIGGEST disappointment for me. Voters obviously had some special feelings for Michigan since they were a long-time-ago big football program. They need to WAKE UP and realize that they are not the tough minded, solid team today (that has gone to Alabama).
Who do you think would win #7 Boise State or #13 Michigan?!?!? If you realize that Boise State is 45-2 over the last 4 years, I think you would be hard pressed to take a dismal 25-23 record over the same 4 years. Granted, Michigan is in Big Ten and Boise in WAC/MWC.....but Boise's 45-2 dominating record indicates they DON'T lose....even to their annual elite, non-conference foe (be it Georgia this year, Virginia Tech the previous, or great Oregon team the third year back). You match Boise against Virginia Tech and THAT will be a really good matchup....you put Michigan versus Virgina Tech and that is just mediocre bc even if Michigan can win, they just don't play good, traditional football. It is that same weak mix of spread and power football. I mean you go with spread to the max (Oregon) or power (Alabama/LSU). More than that, they still don't have (as you can see) the skill and great coaching that defines the top programs.
What obviously probably happened was that Michigan obviously used their "political" (I MEAN MONEY) influence to BUY their way. I'm betting you someone got paid off!!! As we know, Boise State and Kansas State are definitely not as well funded as U of Michigan. Hopefully Urban Meyer and Ohio State can muff them back into the hole where they currently belong. HEY AND JUST TO ENSURE YOU KNOW I'M JUST NOT anti-Michigan, I'll come to respect them (AS I DID FOR MICHIGAN STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!) when they show up with a real team....so far the only playmaker is Denard....aren't you tired of hearing about im?!? Can you name anybody on defense?!? (besides an fair Mike Martin they keep pointing out).....NO...NO YOU CAN'T!!!
However, just this Saturday (12/4/11), the college football stage wrapped up the end of the regular season with all the conference championship games. For your info, if you've been living under a rock or been absolutely hammered (beer, homework or otherwise), here's a list of the champs for each conference:
PAC-12: Oregon
BIG TEN: Wisconsin
SEC: LSU
ACC: Clemson
BIG 12: Oklahoma St. (even though no championship game....rather Bedlam gave us our champ)
C-USA: Southern Miss
I leave Big East off of this because I consider them only a hair better than the Sun belt, WAC, and MAC conferences. This year, MWC and C-USA were far better producing TCU, Boise, Houston, and Southern Miss as very good fball teams.
Since this is a Big Ten Update, let's move right along and talk about the truly exciting BIG TEN Championship game we had Saturday and who were the winners and losers of the season and moving forward.
At the top of things, it was Wisconsin (UW) and Michigan State (MSU) heading off into battle for the Big Ten crown. The country knew of the power of UW and that they always put together a great football team. As of this century, they have been a traditional powerhouse fighting near the top for the Big Ten crown. However, many outside of the Big Ten, and even several within including myself, did not fully appreciate what MSU could really bring to the table. We saw them show up last season in a pretty big way. They were co-champs with Ohio State and UW but got a bowl outside the BCS because voters knew UW and Ohio State were the better teams at the time. Then, Michigan State got POUNDED by Alabama in the Capital One bowl. That proved they weren't really among the top #10 teams in the nation.
This year, they set forth an incredible feat beating both Ohio State and UW. (only loss to Nebraska). On the other hand, Wisconsin, as you may know, had those two "hail mary" losses to that same MSU team and Ohio State.
This BIG TEN championship turned out to be special from the onset because MSU upset UW on a last second hail mary pass that eliminated UWs chance at a National Championship appearance. Though with the sour taste in UW's mouth for all of that week, Ohio State did nearly the exact same thing the very next week and nearly eliminated UW from Big Ten consideration. Therefore, we knew it was going to be very interesting to see how UW would respond. In the first half of this game, it was deja vu for UW all over again. They got quick scores before MSU threw up a bunch of points and took an 8 point lead into half time. The second half had UW tie it up and MSU taking a touchdown lead again. This continued until UW made a good stop on MSUs offense with only a few minutes left in the game and then got a touchdown to 1 point lead (40-39). A two point conversion then gave them a 3 point lead (42-39). They stopped MSU again and got the ball with just over 2 minutes to go. MSU then made a great stop on 3rd and 4 to set up a UW punt. On the play of the game, one of the MSU defensive players rushed to block the punt but missed and scraped the leg of the UW punter. Feeling the mild interference of the rusher, Nortman, the UW punter, intelligently pretended the hit was bigger and spun into a fall. His Emmy-winning performance deserved a best-performing actor oscar award as well!! It was so well acted out. I thought it was too well done...thankfully the ref through the flag anyways. He DID get hit a little and he could have just spun the rest of the 90 degrees and fall down. He did like a full twirl. But if that's what it took to make sure the ref knew he was hit, so be it. THAT was truly REALLY bad for MSU!!! Turns out, Keshawn Martin had returned the punt all the way to the 1 yd line!! With the flag on MSU, the punt return was negated and UW was given 15 yds AND a 1st down on their current 4th down possession which they punted on. Thus, with the clock near 2 min and a 1st down, they just ran out the clock on runs. The game was all over and UW was going to the Rose Bowl!! ...and MSU....the Outback Bowl.
Now here's another point that struck me cold. After finding that MSU was thrown dead into the Alamo Bowl, I found out that Michigan (UM) got a BCS bowl berth. Now here's a team that clearly lost to MSU on their best day. In fact, it was absolutely stupid, upsetting, and overall disappointing that they did place UM ahead of....get this....10-2 Kansas State (losses to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) and 11-1 BOISE ST!!
What is more upsetting is that the rules for who gets into the BCS bowls puts bad teams in and leaves out top ranked teams. For instance, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Georgia are all teams that have ALREADY beaten or you know would beat all of West Virginia, Clemson, and Michigan....and likely Virginia Tech....the latter accounting for half of the current selected teams in the BCS. Due to the fact that the rules states that only 2 teams from each conference can make a bowl appearance, Ark, S. Car., and Georgia (all in the SEC) cannot appear since LSU and Alabama are playing. In fact, what is ABSOLUTELY grotesque is that the voters could have resurrected the failing of the BCS system by selecting Boise State in (an at-large candidate for a BCS bowl birth), and the same team who proved in the first game of the season and countless other times, that they can beat a top ranked team in the country (they themselves are ranked #7). West Virginia and Michigan are clearly unproven teams. Michigan didn't even play in their championship game!! You can say Alabama didn't either but you know why!!: they lost 1 game to THE #1 team....in OT. Michigan lost twice, one to Iowa and the other to MSU...both teams obviously NOT at the VERY top of the list. We are obligated to include West Virg. and Clemson based on the rules....I get that....Virginia Tech is a really good football club that just couldn't figure out Clemson...and they have been ranked as high as #5....#13 is Michigans highest ranking.
....and I think that THIS is the BIGGEST disappointment for me. Voters obviously had some special feelings for Michigan since they were a long-time-ago big football program. They need to WAKE UP and realize that they are not the tough minded, solid team today (that has gone to Alabama).
Who do you think would win #7 Boise State or #13 Michigan?!?!? If you realize that Boise State is 45-2 over the last 4 years, I think you would be hard pressed to take a dismal 25-23 record over the same 4 years. Granted, Michigan is in Big Ten and Boise in WAC/MWC.....but Boise's 45-2 dominating record indicates they DON'T lose....even to their annual elite, non-conference foe (be it Georgia this year, Virginia Tech the previous, or great Oregon team the third year back). You match Boise against Virginia Tech and THAT will be a really good matchup....you put Michigan versus Virgina Tech and that is just mediocre bc even if Michigan can win, they just don't play good, traditional football. It is that same weak mix of spread and power football. I mean you go with spread to the max (Oregon) or power (Alabama/LSU). More than that, they still don't have (as you can see) the skill and great coaching that defines the top programs.
What obviously probably happened was that Michigan obviously used their "political" (I MEAN MONEY) influence to BUY their way. I'm betting you someone got paid off!!! As we know, Boise State and Kansas State are definitely not as well funded as U of Michigan. Hopefully Urban Meyer and Ohio State can muff them back into the hole where they currently belong. HEY AND JUST TO ENSURE YOU KNOW I'M JUST NOT anti-Michigan, I'll come to respect them (AS I DID FOR MICHIGAN STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!) when they show up with a real team....so far the only playmaker is Denard....aren't you tired of hearing about im?!? Can you name anybody on defense?!? (besides an fair Mike Martin they keep pointing out).....NO...NO YOU CAN'T!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)