This Week in College Football 11/30 - 12/2

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I wonder if he only did so because Boise State beat the team that beat USC. Then again he is an USC hater, so that could be it too.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I like the idea of the 8 team playoff, but I'd just make it easier and shift things to on-campus sites for everything but the championship game. Your way somewhat gets around the difficulty of having playoffs while still maintaining the major bowls and having the semis on New Year's, but the execution is really difficult. But, if you move, say, the "Sugar Bowl" and the "Cotton Bowl" to mid-December to make it easier for people to set up travel plans, then those traditional games do lose some of their lustre. I dunno, though...I'd probably take a sell-out home crowd over a bowl crowd for atmosphere and fun, even if the major bowls would never go for it.

 

Of course, the current major conferences would never go for the "top 6 conference champions" thing. I also wonder how the money would be distributed--would there be payouts to playoff teams, or would the revenue work just like a home game for the host team? I see how having the semifinals at the Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, etc. is meant to settle that, but still think it's a bit more trouble than it's worth.

[iggymcfly 0]

I didn't list it, but I actually had an idea for that too. The three non-semifinal BCS games would pay out $10 million each, the semifinal games would pay out $15 million each, and the championship game would pay out $20 million. Since the quarterfinals would be played at campus sites, they would just operate as regular home games for the host institutions.

 

"Independents" is fair and gives Navy a shot if they go 12-0 some year while not giving Notre Dame any unfair advantages. I wanted every team in the country to at least have some chance of going to the title game if they go undefeated.

 

As for the Boise State/USC game, I was just giving an example of how upsets would be possible in this system that would give small-conference teams a chance to compete. I'm not saying that they definitively would beat the Trojans, especially if they had to go the Coliseum. I do think they could give them a game though, as in their three biggest games this year, they beat Oregon State 42-14, beat Utah 36-3, and beat Nevada 35-7. In fact, Boise State/USC is a game I'd love to see in any format.

[cabbageboy 0]

Honestly, I think it would need to be 16 teams. With an 8 team playoff a lot of teams don't get a chance that likely would deserve it. Recall that to be considered for the BCS you have to be in the top 14. How do you make the judgement call on which 8 teams would make it? It'd end up being a bunch of crap like the BCS, and deserving teams get snubbed. Anyway, higher seeds get home field in the first round at the least, then it moves to neutral bowl sites. Here is my bracket:

 

Ohio St. (1) vs. Wake Forest (16)

Boise St. (8) vs. Arkansas (9)

Florida (4) vs. Rutgers (13)

LSU (5) vs. Oklahoma (12)

Louisville (6) vs. Auburn (11)

Michigan (3) vs. Virginia Tech (14)

Wisconsin (7) vs. Notre Dame (10)

USC (2) vs. West Virginia (15)

 

Seriously, aren't those some great matchups or what?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

In fact, Boise State/USC is a game I'd love to see in any format.

 

Me too. I think the Broncos could give the Trojans defense a challenge. It'd be a good high scoring affair.

[teke184 0]

Anyway, higher seeds get home field in the first round at the least, then it moves to neutral bowl sites. Here is my bracket:

 

Ohio St. (1) vs. Wake Forest (16)

Boise St. (8) vs. Arkansas (9)

Florida (4) vs. Rutgers (13)

LSU (5) vs. Oklahoma (12)

Louisville (6) vs. Auburn (11)

Michigan (3) vs. Virginia Tech (14)

Wisconsin (7) vs. Notre Dame (10)

USC (2) vs. West Virginia (15)

 

Seriously, aren't those some great matchups or what?

 

With the exception of Ohio State vs. Wake Forest, I'd certainly pay to watch those games.

 

 

Additional storylines would even be in place for LSU-Oklahoma (rematch of 2003 title game) and Louisville-Auburn (Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville was nearly replaced by Louisville coach Bobby Petrino after 2003 season.).

[iggymcfly 0]

Honestly, I think it would need to be 16 teams. With an 8 team playoff a lot of teams don't get a chance that likely would deserve it. Recall that to be considered for the BCS you have to be in the top 14. How do you make the judgement call on which 8 teams would make it? It'd end up being a bunch of crap like the BCS, and deserving teams get snubbed. Anyway, higher seeds get home field in the first round at the least, then it moves to neutral bowl sites. Here is my bracket:

 

Ohio St. (1) vs. Wake Forest (16)

Boise St. (8) vs. Arkansas (9)

Florida (4) vs. Rutgers (13)

LSU (5) vs. Oklahoma (12)

Louisville (6) vs. Auburn (11)

Michigan (3) vs. Virginia Tech (14)

Wisconsin (7) vs. Notre Dame (10)

USC (2) vs. West Virginia (15)

 

Seriously, aren't those some great matchups or what?

 

3. Teams qualify for the I-A football playoffs as follows:

(i.) All independents ranked in the Top 8 of the final BCS standings automatically get in.

(ii.) The top 6 conference champions in the BCS rankings qualify regardless of conference affiliation.

(iii.) Any remaining spots are filled by at-larges by BCS ranking.

 

That's fair and impartial. If you win your conference and finish with a decent ranking, you get in, and if you have a really good season, but don't win your conference (like Michigan and LSU), you get in too. I'd probably make some minor tweaks to the BCS (let the computers take margin of victory into account up to 25 points, weight the computer rankings heavier, get rid of the Harris poll), but I think in general the system is fine as a way to rank teams. The problem is that you can't possibly differentiate between the second and third place teams in the country because they usually both had worthy seasons.

 

When you get into a 16-team playoff, you do run into the problem of devaluing the regular season. Michigan/Ohio State? Meaningless. LSU/Arkansas? Meaningless. The SEC championship game? West Virginia/Louisville? USC/Notre Dame? All meaningless. Really, who gets snubbed in an 8-team playoff that deserves to get in so badly? Wisconsin? Notre Dame? Notre Dame has two losses this year by twenty points each and Wisconsin finished third in their own conference. Do you really think that either of those teams is good enough to win a national title? No way.

 

Division I-AA has a 16-team playoff. You know how many "big regular season games there are in I-AA? Outside of rivalry games, none. Montana (the team where I live) has made the playoffs 14 years in a row. Fourteen in a row. Basically, before the year starts, everyone knows they'll be in the playoffs and it's just a question of "how does the team look", much like it would be for Duke or North Carolina during basketball season. Do you want that to start happening for the Trojans, Buckeyes, or Gators every year?

 

Also, you can't have fans flying to three different bowl sites to watch playoff games. It's just not practical. Maybe a couple rich alums who have their own private jets would be able to do it, but the average student who's been following the team will have no chance at getting the money together for that. If you do have a 16-team playoff, you're basically scrapping the bowl system and doing so immediately. Just say "if you're not a Top-16 team, you're screwed" and have the first three rounds at campus sites. Of course, the problem with this is that the MAC, C-USA, Mountain West, and Sun Belt champions will get nothing out of their seasons, and the gap between the major schools and mid-major schools will actually widen rather than close.

 

The way college football's set up, with definite 'haves' and 'have nots', there needs to be some kind of playoff accessible for any team that gets through their season undefeated, but at the same time the bowl system needs to remain intact to give more realistic goals for the Central Michigan's and Middle Tennessee State's of the world to shoot for. I think my system balances both well, but a 16-team playoff would be just as bad for I-A football as the current system.

[Guest Princess Leena]

The main reason a 16-team playoff won't work: TV time.

 

When do you play the games when there's NFL playoffs going on at the same time.

 

Even an 8-team playoff would be tricky to fit in.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Boise State would be lucky to break 10 points against USC.

[CanadianChris 0]

I know people hate using the transitive property in sports, but if Oregon State beat USC, and Boise State beat Oregon State by four touchdowns...

[Bored 0]

A report out of Baton Rouge says that the Rose Bowl will take LSU which pretty much sets the BCS bowls if true.

 

BCS: Ohio State vs. USC/Michigan

Rose: Michigan/USC vs. LSU

Sugar: Florida/Arkansas vs. Notre Dame

Orange: Wake Forest/Georgia Tech vs. Louisville/Rutgers

Fiesta: Oklahoma/Nebraska vs. Boise State

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

As much as I usually hate bowl season, I can live with those games.

[Guest Princess Leena]

The bowls must not have the ultimate say in who they want, because all of them would take ND immediately if they could. Even if it means Michigan beating them by 30 again.

[cabbageboy 0]

I totally agree. Having the bowls just invite whoever they feel like goes against the spirit of legitimiate competition. College football needs to be more about who has earned a spot, not just who can fill a stadium regardless of what kind of team they have.

 

For some reason I can't see the Rose Bowl taking LSU. I can see it maybe if Florida wins the SEC title, but what about if Arkansas wins? Arkansas goes to the Sugar and there's no way in hell LSU deserves the BCS over Florida (Florida won the SEC East and also has a head to head win). I would think the Orange Bowl would want Florida if they lose the SEC title game. In other words, we'd get more backroom dealings to where the Rose Bowl agrees to take ND at that point, the Sugar gets Arkansas, the Orange takes Florida over the Big East winner, and LSU would be screwed.

[teke184 0]

A report out of Baton Rouge says that the Rose Bowl will take LSU which pretty much sets the BCS bowls if true.

 

BCS: Ohio State vs. USC/Michigan

Rose: Michigan/USC vs. LSU

Sugar: Florida/Arkansas vs. Notre Dame

Orange: Wake Forest/Georgia Tech vs. Louisville/Rutgers

Fiesta: Oklahoma/Nebraska vs. Boise State

 

Even as much of an LSU homer as I am, I'm not taking that report at face value.

 

I'm interpreting it as "AD Skip Bertman is making a big pitch to the Rose Bowl and it's been implied to him that the Rose and Orange have some interest".

 

 

 

 

As far as Florida falling out of the BCS if they lose on Saturday, all I can say is "tough shit."

 

LSU went 10-1 last year in the regular season before losing the SEC Title Game to Georgia and dropping to the Peach Bowl because they were passed over for a BCS bid in favor of Ohio State (9-2) and Notre Dame (9-2).

 

They dropped below several teams they beat that year when that happened, including Auburn (Capitol One), Alabama (Cotton), and Florida (Outback).

 

 

(Admittedly, LSU got screwed by the fact that they'd played in the Capitol One Bowl the year before against Iowa... who was going to the Outback Bowl that year, not that the Capitol One and Outback were outright snubbing them.)

 

The only reason it worked out well was that the Peach was able to snag a Top 10 team in Miami, which made the Peach the most attractive non-BCS bowl last year.

[Broward83 0]

Playoff won't work because you've got too many AD's and too many conference heads that make bukoo money from how the current system is set up.

 

The thing I hate about having it end so early, is as someone pointed out about how the Cotton or other bowls being so early would ruin the lustre of the game, it'd do the same to some of the major rivalries in the game.

 

UT/AnM before Thanksgiving? Nonsense.

ND/Mich to possibly open the season?

UT/OU two weeks in?

ND/USC mid-season...

 

Seriously, we all hate the BCS and we can all bitch that teams are getting snubbed and that its unfair that Team X is getting snubbed by Team Y or that because Team Z is on ESPN every week they get an unfair rep over Teams A, B and C... but its the system we've got for Football until someone can possibly find a way to tweak the BCS into how they rank teams and weigh things out in NCAA Basketball.

 

Besides, as every AD and conference head states...

"The regular season is our playoff.."

[iggymcfly 0]

I don't get how an 8-team playoff changes any of those things. If they kept the bowl system and just added three playoff games at the beginning of December and then added a championship game at the end, they'd be making more money if anything.

 

And it wouldn't change the schedule that much either. Notre Dame, Michigan, and USC could all play 12 games still. Texas and Texas A&M would have to play one week earlier, but it would still feel just as important since it would be the last week of the regular season. All I'm saying is make the last Saturday in November the week where we get the conference championship games and USC/UCLA.

 

The regular season sets things up well, but can you honestly say that it differentiates USC, Michigan, Florida, and Boise State this year? Or Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah two years ago? Of course not. They all look worthy, and we need an 8-team playoff to separate the teams. Look through my plan and show me how it costs anyone money or ruins the schedule. If we have to trade Texas playing Texas A&M one week earlier for giving every team in the country a legitimate shot at the championship, I think that's a fair trade-off.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I don't really see the need for anything more than a 4 team playoff. When was the last time there were more than 4 teams that you could look at and say "yeah, that team looks like a legit 'best team in the country' contender and deserves a shot at the national title"?

 

2006: Aside from OSU, everyone is talking about Michigan, USC, and (if they win the SEC) Florida. I suppose you could MAYBE throw in Boise State.

 

2005: Texas and USC, end of story.

 

2004: USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn obviously, with Utah rounding it out. One could make an argument for Texas or Cal (although the later looks worse in hindsight).

 

2003: Oklahoma, USC, and LSU, with probably Michigan as #4 although clearly less deserving than the 3 one-loss teams.

 

2002: Miami and OSU, everyone else can suck it.

 

2001: Miami of course, then Oregon, Nebraska, and I guess Colorado.

 

2000: Oklahoma, with the trio of FSU, Miami, and Washington added.

 

1999: FSU and Virginia Tech, that's it.

 

1998: One of the messier years, with Tennessee and Florida State being the only obvious choices. Enough arguments for other teams that an 8-team playoff would seem more appropriate here.

[iggymcfly 0]

Say you do have an 4-team playoff, how do you decide who gets in? Do you just take the top 4 teams in the BCS? Because if you do, Utah two years ago, Boise State this year, and pretty much any undefeated mid-major for the next 20 years still probably wouldn't get in. It works as a 'bare minimum' solution, and is definitely better than the current system, but it still leaves half the teams in I-A with exactly zero chance at a championship if they go undefeated. An 8-team playoff would be much more efficient.

 

The other thing I like about an 8-team playoff is that it makes the conference races meaningful again. Arkansas and Florida wouldn't just be playing for a chance at some meaningless exhibition. They'd be playing for a spot in the NCAA playoffs. Rutgers with a win tomorrow would be looking at a first round game against Ohio State or USC. I think winning a major conference (unless they're absolute shit like the ACC this year) should mean something.

[Guest Princess Leena]

The main we need for a playoff: Give all teams a chance to win the national title. 2005 was the worst example of this. Yes, USC and Texas were the only teams that finished undefeated, so it worked out. But, if anyone else did? They had no chance from opening kickoff.

 

Boise St., Utah and Tulane went undefeated? And what did that do? Tulane went to the same bowl they would have even if they lost 3 games. Utah and Boise play teams outside the Top 15, but they get more money! Yay!

[CanadianChris 0]

The main we need for a playoff: Give all teams a chance to win the national title.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

Division I-A college football, in addition to being the only sports league I know of that doesn't have a playoff of some kind to determine its champion, is the only sports league I know of where there are entire blocks of teams that have no chance to win a championship NO MATTER HOW WELL THEY DO. We all joke about how teams like the Pirates are eliminated from World Series contention before Opening Day even rolls around, but this is a literal truth in college football for dozens of teams, and no one does anything about it.

[dh86 0]

Honestly, I think it would need to be 16 teams. With an 8 team playoff a lot of teams don't get a chance that likely would deserve it. Recall that to be considered for the BCS you have to be in the top 14. How do you make the judgement call on which 8 teams would make it? It'd end up being a bunch of crap like the BCS, and deserving teams get snubbed. Anyway, higher seeds get home field in the first round at the least, then it moves to neutral bowl sites. Here is my bracket:

 

Ohio St. (1) vs. Wake Forest (16)

Boise St. (8) vs. Arkansas (9)

Florida (4) vs. Rutgers (13)

LSU (5) vs. Oklahoma (12)

Louisville (6) vs. Auburn (11)

Michigan (3) vs. Virginia Tech (14)

Wisconsin (7) vs. Notre Dame (10)

USC (2) vs. West Virginia (15)

 

Seriously, aren't those some great matchups or what?

 

great idea but I still prefer the 8 team playoff for injury reasons and what not...no matter how big a playoff it is there will be teams crying snub...look at the basketball tournament

[dh86 0]

The main we need for a playoff: Give all teams a chance to win the national title. 2005 was the worst example of this. Yes, USC and Texas were the only teams that finished undefeated, so it worked out. But, if anyone else did? They had no chance from opening kickoff.

 

Boise St., Utah and Tulane went undefeated? And what did that do? Tulane went to the same bowl they would have even if they lost 3 games. Utah and Boise play teams outside the Top 15, but they get more money! Yay!

 

dont forget Auburn 2 years ago

[iggymcfly 0]

How in the hell does Ball miss Calvin Johnson there? He was five yards away! Just put it in his hands and it's a TD.

[Guest Princess Leena]

How in the hell does Ball miss Calvin Johnson there? He was five yards away! Just put it in his hands and it's a TD.

Lolz.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Bob, just say the real reason why Ball isn't a high percentage passer.

[iggymcfly 0]

So open! So open! This is just painful to watch. It's one thing if there's good D and you can't move the ball for that reason, but Swanson just got absolutely scorched two plays in a row.

 

I think Ball's just losing his confidence at this point. Take the Ball from the Maryland game and it would be a TD on either one of those plays.

[Guest Princess Leena]

A 50% chance of it being a catch.

 

Because that's Ball's completion percentage on a good day.

[Guest Princess Leena]

iggy, can you tell me why you don't hate Ball?

 

How good would they be with even an average QB? Great defense. Calvin Johnson. How doesn't this make you sick?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Why do you hate Ball so much, Leena? He isn't hurting anyone, isn't going to ever win QB of the year awards, isn't going to get the patented ESPN blowjob. To me he's the average NCAA QB that runs around in a Southern school. A lot of schools have those kinds.