President-Elect Obama repeats call for a playoff
by Bobster on Jan 7, 2009 11:18 PM CST
32 comments
and says Texas should be in it. It's the very last question of a long interview, so scroll to the end if you use the links.
HARWOOD: Last question. Florida plays Oklahoma tomorrow in the, what's widely regarded as the national championship game. You've talked about the need for a college football playoff. Do you think Utah, which finished undefeated by defeating Alabama, has a good a claim as either of those schools to be the national champion?
President-elect OBAMA: I think Utah has a pretty good claim. They're undefeated. And Florida and Oklahoma both are well...(unintelligible). I think USC, which had a great Rose Bowl, beat Penn State pretty badly. They've got a pretty good claim to being number one. Florida and Oklahoma, I think, both have a claim. Texas, at this point, has got to feel like, `Well, we did OK, too.' I think--I think a football playoff system makes sense. I've spoken about this quite a bit, and I think if you look at knowledgeable sports fans, they agree with me.
Video:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/01/07/us/politics/1194837537502/interview-obama-on-the-economy.html
Transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07text-harwood.html?pagewanted=all
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
0 recs |
32 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'm not sure how it'll be possible
but if Obama somehow forces a playoff for college football, my vote was worth it.
by longhornricky on Jan 8, 2009 12:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sure
let the federal government control our sports. What could possibly go wrong?
May Colt be with you. Yeah, that's right.
by bfaut86 on Jan 8, 2009 8:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the federal goverment already has control...
Professional sports only exist as they do today because the government put in special provisions and labor laws in order for these leagues to be able to thrive. Without these laws and protections we would probably still have some form of pro sports, but nothing near what we have now.
College athletics thrive in part because parts of their revenue are not paid to the IRS, and large state schools are funded by tax dollars. Sure, Texas’ program is self sufficient, but that doesn’t mean that the school wouldn’t gladly take football revenue dollars away if somehow it’s state money or federal grant money ran out. In other words, without the goverment allowing big time collegiate sports to thrive, they’d have a hard time doing so on their own because part of the revenue they enjoy would go elsewhere.
Just because the government has choosen not to intervene more in collegiate sports (aside from Title IX) doesn’t mean its not completely within its jurisdiction and abilities to do so. If popular opinion is advocating such a change, the goverment can compel the NCAA to create a playoff system.
The legal issues behind the BCS are being looked in to, particularly by the state of Utah which definitely has a gripe because Utah is the sole undefeated. I could see the threat of legal action being enough to push the school presidents towards a playoff as well.
by BMG on Jan 8, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
very good points
And I’m sure my friends at Utah would agree.
by Bobster on Jan 8, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Second point here is that the State of Texas has an interest in collegiate football.
Not only on a yearly basis with the state schools, but an historical interest with the formation of the Big 12 (how do you think Baylor got it). They are always looking over the state school’s shoulders. That they don’t interfere very much is more of a credit than we realize, considering the insanity called the Texas Lege. It is state money which basically underwrites these institutions and as long as that money flows, there is going to be strings and attention that goes with it.
No one should pretend that both state and national governments are not involved at some level. They are gears in the process, whether obvious or not.
by whills on Jan 8, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It'll happen
The university presidents that run the NCAA are greedy for federal grant money. They’ll do the math and fall right in line.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on Jan 8, 2009 1:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Disney will not bow to Obama
The BCS is around until at least 2013, according to ESPN’s programming manager.
Brown, who has worked at ESPN for 21 of the network’s 29 years, is not only the king of the mid-week college football game but also one of the driving forces behind games like the preseason Chick-fil-A College Kickoff game that pitted Alabama and Clemson last year and will match the Crimson Tide against ACC champion Virginia Tech on Sept. 5 to open the 2009 season.
He’s also the person to talk to if you want to know if there will ever be a playoff in major college football. The answer, at least for the four-year duration of ESPN’s recent agreement to broadcast the BCS bowl games, is a definite no.
“The next four-year cycle is done, so a playoff is not a consideration at this point,” Brown said. “I wouldn’t want to see the bowls changed because I don’t want to create meaningless games during the regular season. I don’t think that would be good for college football.”
by BearsNecessity on Jan 8, 2009 4:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The big strawman:
… I don’t want to create meaningless games during the regular season.
This is one of a series of strawmen trotted out to support their thesis. There are always meaningless games during the regular season, but there is also Texas/OU, Florida/Florida St., Alabama/Auburn, Michigan/Michigan St., Michigan/tOSU, USC/Notre Dame (well, use to be) and any number of others.
You can’t get to B, the playoffs, without winning A, the regular season games. Brown would like you to think he can make water run uphill. Don’t buy it.
by whills on Jan 8, 2009 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"I don't want to see the bowls changed because we've got our money
and we’re not sharing it."
by Bobster on Jan 8, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lame
College football, like BON, should be completely absent of beltway politics.
by whoopspat on Jan 8, 2009 9:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
President Obama also wants to take our hard earned money and distribute it among the less fortunate…..what does that say about his advice
by MJY6087 on Jan 8, 2009 11:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It says he wants a stable middle class
and not an oligarchy of powerful and rich interests that predate on everyone else.
by whills on Jan 8, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, except for his definition of "Rich" has gone from..
250,000 and up for familiies to 117,000 and up for families. No offense, but in a lot of places in the US, 250,000 is not enough for a family to live on. Obama = socialist. In many ways, a playoff is also a form of socialism. It totally throws out the importance of all the regular season games. You can win just enough games to get in (See the NFL), and then bench your starters for the rest of the regular season.
I hate the BCS, but I am not sure an all out playoff would solve all that is bad either. Someone is ALWAYS going to get screwed.
by HornigStrega on Jan 8, 2009 6:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A playoff is like socialism as it..
Takes away, in many ways, from the haves, and gives the have nots a better chance. One bad game, and a 13-0 team is out. Doesn’t really seem fair does it?!?
by HornigStrega on Jan 8, 2009 6:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One bad game
and a 13-0 team is 13-1. Sounds fair to me.
by ctex80 on Jan 8, 2009 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This is not the time or place,
No offense, but in a lot of places in the US, 250,000 is not enough for a family to live on. Obama = socialist
but you’ve got to be kidding me.
by ctex80 on Jan 8, 2009 6:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spoken like a person who wouldn’t know socialism if it beat him over the head.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 8, 2009 7:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Particularly if he got a public education
and then went to a public university.
by whills on Jan 9, 2009 12:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
MJY, Please leave the politics, particularly the ill-informed type, out of BON.
I like politicians. I think it’s silly and a tired cliche that people use the word “politician” as a perjorative. Politicians are necessary and, in some cases, good people, and without them we would be forced to endure despotism in even the best-case scenario. That said, I definitely don’t want any politicians deciding how NCAA football determines its champion. Steroid scandals are about the limit of congressional involvement I’ll tolerate.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 8, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed - my point here was not about Obama's politics
but whether a college playoff system could alleviate the unfairness that is the BCS, and what mechanisms could make that happen. President-elect Obama’s support for a playoff system is a recognition that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, and he’s no different that most popular opinion, he just has more influence than your average Joe and might actually get the attention of the boneheads at the BCS.
I’m not sure federal intervention is the answer myself. I’m inclined to think that the weight of public opinion, bolstered by some financial pressure (whatever form that takes) might finally flip the switch.
And the fact that Notre Dame got $1.3 million from the BCS for going 7-6….
by Bobster on Jan 8, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The financial pressure already exists
It’s called the free market.
by whoopspat on Jan 8, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I wasn’t directing my comment toward you. Hope you didn’t perceive it that way.
The system can always be changed. I don’t like the idea of an automatic playoff if it includes wildcards. I could potentially get behind the idea of a triggered playoff, though.
My recommendation:
A BCS playoff would be triggered by any of the three following ways:
1. If there were more than two undefeated BCS-conference teams.
2. If there were an undefeated non-BCS team that was not put in the BCS championship game.
3. If, using the current BCS formula or a slight tweaking thereof, the gap between #2 and #3 were smaller than the gap between #1 and #2.
This would produce a playoff in most seasons, I believe, but not in seasons in which it’s unnecessary, like when USC and Texas faced each other. Once a playoff is triggered, the number of teams involved would be determined as follows:
Using the BCS formula, the rating between #4 and #5 as well as #6 and #7 would be used. If the gap between #4 and #5 is smaller, then the playoff stops at six teams, giving the two top-rated teams first-round byes. If the gap between #6 and #7 is smaller, then eight teams would be in the playoff, and no teams would get first-round byes.
Selection of teams:
1. Any undefeated team is automatically included. If more than eight undefeated teams exist, take the number of undefeated teams, round up to the nearest even number (for example, if there are 9, round up to 10, but if there are 10, stay at 10), and that’s the number of teams in the playoff. It’s unlikely there will ever again be eight undefeated teams in a season, so this is unlikely to ever happen.
2. The remaining spots are filled by the conference champions in order of BCS rating. Alternatively, I guess they could just be filled by teams in order of BCS rating, regardless of conference championship.
I know this seems complicated, but really, is it any more complicated than the RPI and seeding system in the NCAA basketball tournament? I sure don’t think so. I think people would have fun watching the late-season games that would determine how, in that particular year, the championship would be decided.
Oh, one more thing: Notre Dame would lose special status. No extra money. No $1.2 million for a mediocre seaon. Screw Notre Dame. If they don’t want to be in a conference, they should be subject to the same requirements as any other team. They’re not that good a program.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 8, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm, very interesting ideas
and perhaps a good compromise. It’s the very thing that needs to be debated openly, but the BCS Cardinals have apparently have put their hands over their ears and are just singing to themselves. It’s the undemocratic (small d) nature of the BCS that really pisses me off.
That, and the Notre Dame deal just reeks.
by Bobster on Jan 8, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
First, thanks for using a personal attack (im sorry I am so “ill informed”)
Second, it was meant as a joke, I am strictly all about football
by MJY6087 on Jan 8, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
First this
Then Obama will be authorizing warrantless wiretaps on Yale for the Harvard-Yale game. Oh my!
by whoopspat on Jan 8, 2009 12:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Or just taking advantage of the ones which already exist. nt
by whills on Jan 8, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
you're the one making political comments
the rest of us seem to be able to stick to the topic at hand, which is whether the high-powered calls for a playoff will finally undo the BCS mess.
If you’re not smart enough to keep up, please go somewhere else.
by Bobster on Jan 8, 2009 1:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Some folks can't seperate the message from the messenger.
Nothing to do with intelligence, just a conscious (and all too common on BOTH sides) decision to ignore what a person says because they hail from a particular side of the isle.
But hey, if this country can’t unite around a college football playoff, then I really am moving to Canada!
by ctex80 on Jan 8, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You really think Canadian football will make you happy? Don’t do it, man, don’t do it. I’ve been there. It’s a dead end. Come back toward the light.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 8, 2009 7:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
