RT @DeathToTheBCS: Oregon-Georgia cancel games in ’15 and ’16. Odds are each replaces with I-AA team. Playoff would force schools to stop playing scaredy cat.
RT @DeathToTheBCS: Oregon-Georgia cancel games in ’15 and ’16. Odds are each replaces with I-AA team. Playoff would force schools to stop playing scaredy cat.
Look, usually i’m big anti-duck, but seriously? Oregon isn’t the wimp here, thats all Georgia. Next years non-conference games for the Ducks? Utah, Nevada, LSU. Last year Boise State, Purdue, Utah. 2007? Fresno State, Houston, and Michigan.
Yeah, but this game could only be canceled with both teams’ agreement. And Georgia, while not as great as Oregon in terms of scheduling tough opponents, isn’t a typical SEC wimp like Florida or LSU: in recent years, in addition to the annual Georgia Tech rivalry game, they’ve played home-and-homes with Arizona State, Oklahoma State and Colorado (the latter presumably looked a bit more challenging when it was schedued), and also hosted Boise State in 2005, and they’ve got home-and-homes with Louisville and Clemson coming up. That’s partly why this Oregon cancellation is so disappointing: these are two teams who usually challenge themselves in the non-conference slate (Georgia by SEC standards, Oregon by any standard), yet now even they seem to be falling victim to the BCS-induced Wimpy Scheduling Virus.
This year LSU’s already played UNC and West Virginia, next year we’ve got Oregon and West Virginia, 2012 already has TCU, and 2013 Washington. We’ve also got following home and homes with Arizona State, NC State and Oklahoma. LSU’s scheduling isn’t to Oregon’s level, but we’re nowhere near as bad about cupcakefest as the Floridas of the BCS.
You’re right, I am mixing LSU up with somebody else. They’re one of the “good” SEC teams, scheduling-wise.
I’m guessing Oregon agreed to cancel but wasn’t the one who initiated it. The Bulldogs are the ones whining about travel distance. The Ducks have shown they’ll travel (like all Pac-10 teams).
Incidentally i don’t buy that a playoff means you’d play tougher opponents. At least not till the end at least. Rankings will still determine who gets into the top 16 and weaker opponents still help rack up the wins. Plus how else is Florida going to get it’s 8 home games a season.
A playoff likely also means a return to an 11 game season like 1-AA, which, if CO is in the opposite division of SC means less games in Boulder.
Glad you caught him BTW Matt, LSU and Tennessee are the only two teams I can recall playing out here from the SEC.
Rankings will still determine who gets into the top 16
A 16-team playoff wouldn’t be based on “who gets into the top 16.” It would feature 11 conference champions plus 5 at-large teams. If you’re just going to go by rankings, you do an 8-team playoff.
You say “weaker opponents still help rack up the wins,” which in turn leads to higher rankings, and that’s true, to a point. However, in a system where, instead of trying to pick the top 2 teams (or the SEC champion plus 1 other team), we’re choosing at-larges from among non-conference-champions — with most of the very best teams either having auto bids or being obvious, beyond-debate entrants (like Florida last year, or Texas the year before, or Michigan in ’06) — I think strength of schedule would come to take on a much greater role in the debate. We wouldn’t be comparing 12-0 vs. 12-0 or 11-1 vs. 11-1 teams anymore. Instead, we’d be comparing 10-2 vs. 10-2 or 9-3 vs. 9-3 type teams. In such a comparison, where everybody’s flawed, I think the voters are a bit more serious about SOS, instead of just getting caught up in the OMG ALABAMA WON THE SEC, THEY ARE THE BEST TEAM EVAR!!!1!! hype. If you’re 9-3 having lost all of the games you played against decent opponents, i.e. you’ve got zero quality wins, you’re going to be at a decided disadvantage versus a 9-3 team that had 2 or 3 other quality teams it played, and beat. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, teams won’t feel like they have to try and go 12-0 or 11-1 to make it in, so the natural desire to schedule better competition, which gets suppressed by the insanity of a system that requires you to be one of the (subjectively determined) top 2 in the nation, will rise back to the fore.
In the absence of a playoff, I would like to see college football bring back the pre-season “classics” only instead of letting sponsors and backroom deals set up lousy matchups, they should create a pre-season “Top 8” and publicly invite the most likely top 8 teams during the summer. Teams can decline, but at least that way voters and everybody else will know who the p*ssies are. 4 pre-season classics, and mix them up geographically. Have one in the midwest, one on the west coast, one in the Gulf Coast states, and one in the Atlantic. Hold them the last week of August and reward teams who accept the invitations with and extra week of practice (in addition to the $$$).
It MIGHT feature the setup you mention but there is no guarentee especially if we don’t even HAVE 11 conferences. Not to mention rankings will still determine seeding, so yes, even for first place it will matter. Incidentally a top 16 is overkill. When has there ever been a question that the best team in the country was the 16th ranked team. An 8 team setup is more than enough. Top eight ranked conference champions. If you didn’t win your conference, you don’t deserve a shot. If you are the 9th highest ranked conference champ but you went 9-3 or 8-5 you don’t deserve a shot. Doesn’t solve the problem of weak non-con scheduling, but it’s better than the BCS and more likely than a 16 team setup.
If you want to encourage better non congf scheduling here are some ideas:
Cap on number of home games in a two or four season window. You want 8 home games this year? Fine but you get 6 next year.
Require home and homes, or set a limit on the number of non home and homes in a given period.
Require one non con game outside your home state every other year. This is called the FU UF rule.
Penalize teams who play multiple 1-AA opponents in the BCS rankings more.
Alternative to some of the above requirements, reward a team who schedules a home and home with a BCS level opponent.
Incidentally the 8 home games, no non con games outside state issue is, in my mind, the most solvable egregious problem.
David, you’re missing the mark completely. The WHOLE POINT of a 16-team playoff is to give every team a legitimate shot — win your conference and you’re in. That’s the ONLY reason to do 16 teams, otherwise, yes, keep it to 8. You’re absolutely right about, “When has there ever been a question that the best team in the country was the 16th ranked team?” But that’s like saying, when has there ever been a question about the #64 vs. #65 best team in college basketball? It’s not how the system works, or would work. Meanwhile, what about an undefeated WAC or MAC or C-USA champion who finishes #9 or #10? That team absolutely deserves a bid, even if we all suspect they aren’t “legit” (see: Hawaii, 2007), because there’s no way to KNOW that unless they get to play, and if you win your conference and go undefeated, you should always get a shot. The fairest way is to determine a champion is to give everyone a fair path and then play it out on the field.
If you actually were to go back and play out 16-team playoff scenarios from past years, I think you’d find them a lot more palatable than you’re suspecting. Five at-larges doesn’t allow a whole lot of totally unworthy major-conference teams in. But if you’re concerned about the number of at-larges being 5, then fine, reduce it to 3 and make it a 14-team playoff, or However Many Conferences There Are Plus Two, so the top couple of teams get byes. Whatever. Either way, the only real duds in the field will be the Sun Belt and MAC champs most years, but that’s fine, as it gives an incentive to care about being seeded #1 or #2 (or #3 and #4 if the top 2 have byes) — and hey, you never know, it’ll be like March Madness, there will be crazy upsets occasionally.
Meanwhile, the “top eight ranked conference champions” thing is absurd. You don’t exclude a #2 or #3 team that happens to be from the same conference as #1. You don’t exclude Texas in 2008, which beat Oklahoma on a neutral field, but lost the Big 12 South three-way tiebreaker because it had the later loss of the three 1-loss teams. You don’t exclude Michigan in 2006, which had only one loss, a close loss, to the #1 team in the country, which happened to be its conference archrival. That’s absolute nonsense. You obviously have to have room for discretion re: at-large teams in any playoff. Imagine a situation where you’ve got an 8-4 major conference team with 3 non-conference losses that ties for the conference title with an 11-1 team whose only loss is to the 8-4 team. The 8-4 team is playoff-eligible because of the head-to-head tiebreaker (likely a #7 or #8 seed because of the number of losses, but still probably ahead of enough mid-majors to get in), while the 11-1 team, which might be ranked #2 or #3 in the country, isn’t? Nonsense. That’s not a remotely palatable solution. It’s worse than the BCS, worse than a 16-team playoff, worse than a standard “Top 8” playoff, worse than “Plus-One,” worse than the old bowl system, worse than everything.
An undefeated MAC or WAC team who finishes ranked #9 or #10 would undoubtedly get in since a number of teams who did NOT win their championship would be ranked above them. Thats why i specified the top 8 ranked conference champions. I don’t see how an undefeated MAC team would not be ranked atleast high enough for that to happen.
You can come up with idealistic proposals that aren’t going to happen, or you can come up with realistic ones that can. A 16 team play off is not realistic, an 8 team playoff is. A 16 team playoff may give the little guy a chance, but honestly, does he deserve it? If the MAC champion is 9-3 and the SEC champ is 12-0? I don’t care how overrated we both agree the SEC’s vaunted WAR is, thats still a significant gap. Its one thing to argue about a 12-0 Hawaii vs 12-0 Florida, we don’t know because neither team lost, but if a MAC team lost three games? I’m fairly certain they aren’t the best team in the country by far.
“Meanwhile, the “top eight ranked conference champions” thing is absurd. You don’t exclude a #2 or #3 team that happens to be from the same conference as #1. You don’t exclude Texas in 2008, which beat Oklahoma on a neutral field, but lost the Big 12 South three-way tiebreaker because it had the later loss of the three 1-loss teams. You don’t exclude Michigan in 2006, which had only one loss, a close loss, to the #1 team in the country, which happened to be its conference archrival. ”
Why is it absurd to expect that the best team in the country should at least be the best team in its conference? If teams feel they get an unfair shake because of how their conference determines its champion, then the conference should fix things. And you absolutely do exclude Michigan in 2006 because they LOST on the FIELD to another team. They don’t get a do-over. Based on the whole philosophy of a playoff they already had their chance! You can’t have it both ways!
If you want the BCS to live on, keep pushing for a 16 team play off, because the factors against it aren’t going to out weight the factors for it. If you actually want the BCS to die, you push for a solution with a chance in hell of happening, a 4 or 8 team playoff (8 is incidentally still a long shot).
This isn’t like gay marriage where fundamental rights are at stake here and take a principled stand is a good and respectable thing. This is college football, if you want change to happen you better be realistic about it. The constitution guarantees equal rights for people, i’m pretty sure the Supreme Court isn’t going to hear about a 16 team playoff (conceivably you could go after the BCS on anti-trust grounds, but then you might just eliminate the whole thing and go back to polls determining number 1)
I simply don’t see how a 16-team playoff can work, logistically. I can see eight, but not 16. Unlike the NFL or NCAA, there’s a big chronological wrench in the works: Christmas.
1st Saturday in December (1st-7th, aka 2nd Saturday after Thanksgiving): conference championships
2nd Saturday in December (8th-14th): 1st round playoffs (Sweet 16 or Elite Eight)
3rd Saturday in December (15th-21st): 2nd round playoffs (Elite Eight or Final Four)
4th Saturday in December (22nd-28th): 3rd round??? (Final Four in a 16-team playoff)
If the Christmas-week games are played at a neutral site, we have a problem of fans trying to get tickets on planes booked solid months in advance, not to mention scheduling issues for people with jobs. If at the site of one of the participating teams, now it’s a scramble for that site to get people to show up and work right before, after, or ON Christmas Eve/Day. (For good measure, let’s throw in a blizzard in Lincoln/Columbus/Dallas(!).)
On the other hand, we can set up two playoff rounds on those 2nd and 3rd Saturdays, with a championship game scheduled either directly on Jan. 1 or the first Monday in January.
None of the above should be construed as support for a playoff, nor of the belief that a playoff would result in better nonconference scheduling.
2nd Saturday – First Round, 3rd Saturday-Second Round, New Year’s Day SemiFinals, The Saturday 6-12 days later Championship. It wouldn’t be much past the current Bowl system for an end date.
Ok, let’s imagine Boise State next year is ranked 10th in the tourney after going 11-1 and winning the Mountain West. Let’s also assume teams play at the higher ranked seed. That means assuming no upsets other than their own game, BSU would play four consecutive away games. Further let’s assume the #7 seed is Virginia Tech, #3 seed is Florida, #2 seed is Penn State and the championship game is scheduled for the Sugar Bowl vs undefeated Washington (shut up, this is my scenario). You have now asked Boise State fans to travel to the East Coast four times in six weeks. Around Christmas. With incredibly short notice. You think that is going to go well financially? Even a spirited fan base like the Broncos can only absorb so much. And which game do you go to? Surely most fans can’t go to them all. Do you take the sure thing first round game or hold out for the later gsmes which you moth not even be in?
Whatever the issues with the BCS the bowl games have been a success for as long as they have because they provide predictable, advanced notice situations for fans and teams and cities. It takes a lot of effort to put on events of that level, especially on short notice. There is a reason teams with conference championships hold them in a pre determined location.
You cant ignore these issues of financial and logistical impact in a serious discussion about playoffs.
It’s not like lower division football playoffs because of the money and size involved. It’s not like basketball playoffs with smaller teams, venues and multiple events in a single city on a single weekend, football is more complex. You could Try and locate the first round in say two cities and the second round in another two to try and handle it like the NCAA does but your talking literally in the hundreds of thousands of fans if you host 3+ games in the same location in such a short time frame.
There is far more to it than simply coming up with a bracket and going from there. Whatever might be the best idealistic setup is not from what I can see the most practical or realistic one.
How in the world did this love spat descend into yet another tired old argument about theoretical NCAA Division I football playoff structures? Haven’t we re-tread this ground a bazillion times the past five years? And even if we hadn’t, didn’t we learn this summer that superconferences are darn near inevitable, and thus the BCS’ days are numbered (to the detriment of the mid-majors)?