The Purists vs. Objectivity
by Mulliganville on Nov 9, 2009 12:05 PM CST
Email
PrintI have thought about this long and hard. Because I get it. I get how important the regular season is in college football. For nowhere else would I have been glued to the TV watching, practically begging, Indiana to hold on to that lead in the 4th quarter against the vastly overrated Iowa Hawkeyes two Saturdays ago. Certainly they cannot hold a candle to Texas, Florida, or Alabama. Or can they? We will never know. And that is a shame. It has been predetermined that the Longhorns are more worthy this season. Sucks to be you Hawkeye fan. Smacking Penn State annually is not enough to earn the respect of the pollsters. It seems that pedigree plays a major role here with the BCS, and it is this pedigree which will also preclude TCU, Cincinnati, and Boise State from the championship game. I would be willing to wager that a one loss SEC team would jump an unbeaten Cincy or TCU. And this is everything that is wrong with college football.
The fact of the matter is all of the unbeatens deserve a shot if they are good enough to get into the top 8 BCS rankings. Why include them at all if you are going to glass ceiling them? Boise deserves a shot. TCU deserves a shot. Cincy deserves a shot. But the purists do not want to give them their shots at glory for fear of Boise vs. Cincy as the national title game (those kids do not count...those aren't real schools). They will not want to point to the fact that USC or FL or Texas or Bama or OUsux lost to these programs. No, the purists would rather point to weak conferences and lack of pedigree as undeserving credentials to certain young men of college football’s pinnacle. How smug of them. As an example, one receiver from the Dallas Cowboys went to a big time program and one went to Monmouth. One is the go to receiver, the other has under performed. One is Miles Austin, the other is Roy Williams. Go scan NFL rosters...it is mind boggling how many top tier players went to bottom tier schools. Shocking actually.
Back to the point at hand, the BCS was designed to pit #1 vs #2 for a winner-take-all conclusion to the college football season. Yet, it has failed miserably in many seasons to determine just who in the hell are the two best and most deserving teams for all of college football's glory. No need to rehash the shortcomings of which program got the nod over the other in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. This is just how the BCS works or should I say, fails.
Yes, we must preserve the regular season at any cost. That cost is increasingly becoming objective conclusions to the college football season.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No comment from me one way or the other
Would just like to point out that other people on this site have been warned for repeatedly posting the same comments/opinions.
There is a meaningful discussion to be had but the BCS won’t be changing anytime soon. For now, it’s time to put this argument to bed.
noted.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 9, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions
FWIW
There’s a more appropriate forum at BCS Evolution. (not harping, just couldn’t find the link earlier)
its cool...i know i am passionate about it. I want to be a good community contributor.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 9, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions
Basically it comes down to
If you would prefer college football to be one of two things
1) The regular season is the playoff. It is a 13-week campaign to prove you’re the best, and at the end of the regular season a national champion is voted on by the media and coaches. The bowl games are like a dessert at the end of the season; a chance to see the top programs in the country play each other, but nothing more than entertainment.
2) The regular season sets up the postseason. The BCS instituted a 2-team playoff with seeds dictated by computers and polling, and if you are in this camp, a 2-team playoff isn’t enough. This format allows for fallibility, which in turn weakens the intensity of the regular season, but provides teams that arguable are deserving of a national championship the opportunity to settle the issue on the field.
I’m in the second camp, and it has been talked to death, but in my opinion I would happily sacrifice some of the intensity of regular season games (which I think would be marginal at best) in order to have the best teams in a given season actually play each other.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Not sure the intensity argument holds...
First off, we pretty much have situation this year where Bama or Fla could lose one of their regular season games already knowing they are in the SEC championship and that winning that game will probably still get them to Pasadena. Obviously this is absurd and neither team wants to risk it…which of course would be the same thing that would happen with a playoff. No team is going to risk their seeding by dropping a game. This isn’t the NFL where seeding is predetermined and there are fewer teams. College football will have to rely on a BCS-type system and will initially rely on voters, so a loss could send a team to a crippling early playoff match up.
I think the only instance where the regular season is potentially weakened is if the conference champions get auto-bids. This isn’t all bad since it would at least allow teams to schedule more difficult foes in their OOC knowing that a loss isn’t going to cripple their chances for a shot at the title. I would rather just get rid of more of the early season OOC games and have a longer playoff. I think we should go back to a 10-game regular season. Let teams schedule ‘exhibitions’ for their 2 or 3 OOC games. Then let’s get an 8, 12, 16 team playoff (I actually think 8 us OK, but 12 is optimal, and 16 is too many) that includes the 6 BCS conference champs (I think losing the auto-bid would weaken the conferences too much) and some at-large teams. If you want good games then they need to pit top teams both playing for the right to play again the next week.
Screw shortening the season,..
lets get a longer season!!! (c’mon, 13 days of Texas football per year is just not nearly enough)
"It's comin' home to Texas. It's comin' home all the way back to Awwwstin, Texas, baby!" -VY
by 2100 San Jac on Nov 10, 2009 2:47 PM CST up reply actions
I agree with the author regarding the BCS.
The funniest thing is if you go to one of the schools not in the “big 6” conferences, you know that going undefeated will result in not a national championship. It’s funny that the BCS favors 6 FBS conferences over the others. Why not just make those other FBS conferences into FCS powerhouse conferences, if they have no chance to win a national title as an FBS school? Ridiculousness.
Here’s what the Boise, Cincy, and TCU coaches should do if they go undefeated: Call a press conference and declare that they are going to play (insert bowl opponnent here) for a national title. Then if you win that game, claim that you just won the national title. Hey, it worked for USC in 2003, why not give it a try? I hate USC, but you have to admire the guts of “1-Pete” blatantly dismissing the credibility of the system he agreed to play in. And instead of being chastised, he was rewarded with an AP championship.
$$$$
I bet even the crappiest bowl game has a higher payout than the FCS winner gets. TCU and Cincy aren’t going to pass up $17 million dollars (and their conferences wouldn’t let them take that kind of money out of the conference kitty) just to stage another MNC in some bowl game with a $500,000 payout. That $17 million can be used to pay PR firms to lobby voters and pay off congress critters to lobby for changes to the system in their favor.
The problem will ultimately be solved by the big boys deciding they want a bigger piece of the pie. The BCS conferences pretty much pay for the whole show and yet when the payoffs get doled out they watch as TCU or BSU takes a lucrative spot from them. If a playoff ever happens the TV money will be astronomical and I am not sure the BCS conferences will want to see that money siphoned off.
Mully
First, I appreciate your regular posts on this space, even if they are mostly BCS related. While I don’t agree that the system is a travesty, I still enjoy the well argued points you raise, however, two points above I take issue with.
One, do you think an eight seed playoff will provide the public with a true champion (a you posted yesterday)? As I posted yesterday in response to your comments on another fanpost, are you comfortable assuming that the top eight are indeed deserving, and furthermore that the seeding of these teams is fair?
Second, trying to link the strength of small schools to the makeup of NFL rosters is a bit silly in this context isn’t it? Surely one NFL talent from a small school doesn’t mean that the college team he played for could compete with Texas, bama, etc. Were you serious here?
Finally, let me state again that I’m not attacking you here mully, however, I do enjoy a bit more discourse on the possible issues with even am eight team playoff.
Hook ’em
by DaGoose on Nov 10, 2009 8:41 AM CST via mobile reply actions
I still don't understand the obsession with a 'true champion'...
To get into the playoffs there will be rules and guidelines. We can argue about what they will be, but once they are set all the teams will know what it takes to get a spot. Teams meeting those guidelines will have ‘deserved’ their spot, because those are the rules that were agreed to at the start.
I imagine there will have to be at-large spots and that is where there will be some controversy. But once the games begin, I don’t understand how anyone could claim a team didn’t deserve to be the champion if they navigate the playoff undefeated. Ok, I suppose the refs could make horrible calls to help a team win (hardly anyone seems to claim OSU’s title is tainted anymore even though the refs gifted it to them) or someone gets through by facing teams that lost their starting QB in the previous game, but these are rarities not likelihoods.
Fairness is a blatantly impotent argument to critique a college football playoff. The whole system is unfair. Traditional powers have better recruiting success and more money. Larger schools inevitably also have greater resources and more alumni than smaller schools. Recruits tend to want to stay close to home which gives teams in Texas, California, and Florida a huge advantage. There is no fairness in college football from the start.
The issues with a playoff are tiny compared to what we currently have. If don’t think the current system is a travesty, I find it hard to understand how you could have a legitimate beef with the potential fairness of a playoff. A playoff in any guise would be fairer than the current system. Going from 2 teams out 119 to 8 teams out of 119 no matter the mechanism would be fairer just by the fact of giving more teams an equal shot at the title.
FYI
I’m not concerned with crowning a true champion. I was just commenting on a previous point made by the OP. However, saying the winner of a playoff as a ‘deserving’ champion is indeed acceptable to me, unfortunately this does reduce the importance of navigating the regular season unscathed. All this said, I am not for or against the BCS. I simply enjoy college football and it is easily the number one sport for me. If the format changes in the future I don’t see it making me enjoy it any more, or any less than I do currently.
by DaGoose on Nov 10, 2009 11:38 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
So the goal is to make the system ‘fairer’? Fine. What’s the plan forward? I’m seriously asking. How do you determine seeds? An how does it grossly correct the current system?
Of course this is all moot because a playoff will not be realized until he big boys decide a way to make it more equitable to themselves (unless there is government intervention). Nonetheless, as fans passing time on a blog this is an entertainig discussion.
by DaGoose on Nov 10, 2009 11:45 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
There are two flavors to this sauce...
If you want a playoff that tries to make the regular season/being perfect the most important element then you take the top 8 teams using a BCS-type formula. You probably even continue to neuter the computers by not using MOV since that means being undefeated is still the most important metric. You then seed them 1-8. Don’t know how the sites would or should work, but at this stage I don’t care. This one is ‘fairer’ in the sense that you are taking the ‘best’ teams.
If you want a playoff that makes the big boys happier you take the 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at-large teams. This would likely guarantee that the BCS conferences have all the playoff participants since the likelihood of a non-BCS team being one of the remaining top 2 for an at-large bid would be almost nil. They could still be seeded based on their positions in a BCS formula. This one is not quite good at collecting the top teams nor does it leave room for the little guys, but it would give every BCS conference team a real shot to play for the title since the rules would be set for an auto-bid for each conference champ. It could certainly weaken the regular season by allowing a weaker conference champ into the picture, but it might also make it better since teams would no longer be tethered to perfection they might actually want to schedule more interesting match-ups in the OOC slate. Teams will still try to win as much as possible to maintain seeding.
I like a 12-team playoff. 6 conference champs and 6 at-large bids. Top 4 seeds get a first round bye, making the regular season important by given the best teams a real advantage. Seeding again would be based a BCS-type formula. This one seems to have the best of both worlds. You get the big conferences on board by guaranteeing them a place at the table. You get at least 6 of the top teams regardless of conference by having at-large bids and if you keep the current limit of 2 teams per conference you might even get the non-BCS conferences on board since they could see a path to playing for the title.
There are other permutations including 16 teams, which could then take all 11 FBS conference champs. If that is what you want to consider ‘fair’.
I have never bought into the ‘regular-season-as-playoff’ scenario. I think there is too much disparity between schedules…just the fact that Boise State or Utah think they should get one of the two slots in the MNC just because they are perfect shows just how silly this system has become. I don’t think being unscathed in the regular season is what college football is or should be about. College football is about building a team over the season and I would rather reward the team that is the best at the end of the year, not the one that had the most manageable schedule.
This statement:
“College football is about building a team over the season and I would rather reward the team that is the best at the end of the year, not the one that had the most manageable schedule.”
Is superb.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 10, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
DaGoose...thanks for the feedback.
I believe an 8 Teamer would have delivered a true, objective champion in all of the years the BCS failed to do so. Quick side note, did you happen to catch Colin Cowherd today? He gave a list of 8 schools that have a legitimate shot at winning the BCS title each year: Texas, USC, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Miami, and Penn State I believe. The rest of the schools do not have the ability to recruit the athletes that these schools can recruit annually. USC sent their entire linebacking core to the NFL this year for crying out loud. Regarding the seeding and fairness, I would like 12 ideally, with the top 4 getting byes. But, I think that will not fly, so I would be happy to embrace 8. You have to draw the line somewhere…and there is always controversy centered around this. Drawing the line between 8 and nine is far superior to drawing it between 2 and 3.
Regarding the NFL rosters…as mentioned above, we are so enamored with the big boys, we overlook the other schools and ASSUME they have no shot. To me, this is vastly unfair. If one or two run the table, give em their shot at glory…there certainly is no harm in doing so. What if we did the same with baseball? Then Cal State Fullerton would never be invited to the party. Certainly Stanford, Texas, Miami, etc. should be able to draw superior talent. But schools like Fullerton, Rice, etc. have done what Boise State has done…manged to compete in a respective sport with the big boys. The NFL looks much deeper than just the more worthy schools, to put it in BCS honks verbiage.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 10, 2009 2:45 PM CST up reply actions
Remove Penn st and insert LSU.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 11, 2009 12:44 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Question on "objectivity"
1st, you can’t compare baseball or basketball to football. completely different animals in many ways (one I’m about to get to). Nor can you compare this to the NFL where the worst team still has a talent level equivelent to a Top 30 program.
next point, Boise St has the #101 SOS of 119 schools.
“To me, this is vastly unfair. If one or two run the table, give em their shot at glory…there certainly is no harm in doing so”
OK, I’m with you so far, you are saying we need to reward mediocrity and play weaker not stronger schedules during the year.
In fact if a school does ‘man up’ and play a good schedule and takes a loss, reward the weak schedule because they beat a bunch of patsies.
Of course I’ll take an 8 game playoff over what we have now in a heart beat. Hate 12, bye weeks suck and would prefer a 16 (though it won’t work) built around the existing bowls.
If the 101st SOS...
Puts them in the BCS top 8, that is a system flaw. I don’t care who is in the top 8, but under the current system, Boise and TCU may be there. I still think Cincy loses to Pitt. Are we fortunate that we tr one of the chosen schools who will compete annually with 7 others who have a shot at the title? You bet. The top 8 will reward those that take a loss on a tough conference. I wonder what UT’s SOS is this year? Cannot be good.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 11, 2009 8:55 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Pretty easy to view our SOS (at least how the computers judge it) on the different computer sites. Only 1 doesn’t post it.
We are significantly superior to Boise St, we are running about 45 in the nation which is impressive considering how down the BigXII is.
With TCU and Boise ranked so high, you turn the “top 8” into a top 6 which makes it far more difficult for a 1 loss team from a real conference to get a berth.
I quoted you saying if they run the table, give them a shot so BSU’s 101st ranking is not a system flaw.
BTW, the harm is the current system discourages decent OOC games.
PS
I do think TCU is very deserving but they’d have 2 losses playing in the BigXII (unless they played in the north then they’d have a loss in the title game for sure)
I believe the statement should be....
TCU will probably have two losses playing in the Big 12. We will never know.
Whether it is a system flaw or not is probably moot. One loss and they are done. If they run the table, they are in the BCS discussion.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 11, 2009 12:25 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
