The 2010 college football season got off to a great start this weekend. It had everything we have come to expect: upsets, blowouts, new players making a name for themselves, new players struggling, old stars are still shining, some of the good teams are still very good, some of the bad teams are still very bad, and unexpected events happened. Here are 10 musings looking back on week one.
1. Biggest Upset: Jacksonville State 49, Ole Miss 48. I wasn't a very good weekend for the SEC (overrated?), and this game was the worst. This is Jacksonville State from the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS). We aren't talking about App. State, the two time defending FCS national champion who went on to win their third national championship in a row the year they beat Michigan. Jacksonville State was 8-3 last year, they didn't make the FCS playoffs, and they don't have Ryan Perrilloux this year either.
2. How did that happen? Toledo lost to Arizona 41-2. Maybe I am just weird, but I look at that score and wonder how Toledo was able to get the safety. Safeties are a rarity in football, and for a team to get a safety is a major accomplishment. An accomplishment that you don't expect from a team that is being outscored 41-0 otherwise.
3. I told you so. Just remember you saw it here first. While everyone had Florida ranked in their preseason top 5. I had the Gators number 16. Honestly, I don't know if they even deserve that ranking after struggling so mightily against Miami (OH).
4. Should we be concerned? Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC were supposed to win by hefty margins, and the starters should have rested most of the second half. Instead, they all played well into the fourth quarter.
5. Didn't see that coming. Oregon 72-0 over New Mexico. Sure I had Oregon winning, but who expected 59 points in the first half and 72 at game's end? With the LaMichael James out, Jeremiah Masoli gone, I thought Oregon would play more like the four teams above. I guess the real question is, did I underestimate Oregon or is New Mexico still that bad?
6. Who is that guy? When Middle Tennessee State lost Dwight Dasher less than a week before their first game, it was supposed to be a fatal blow. Dasher was going to be the guy that put the Sun Belt Conference on the map. Rather than fold and give Minnesota an easy win, Logan Kilgore stepped in and put up impressive numbers as Middle Tennessee State actually had the lead going into the fourth quarter.
7. We want our coach back. Cincinnati lost to Fresno State 28-14. After a perfect regular season a year ago, the Bearcats already have a blemish. Meanwhile, former Cincinnati head coach Brian Kelly was in South Bend celebrating his first win with Notre Dame.
8. Don't get too excited. Wake Forest won its first game 53-13. That is cause to celebrate after a 5-7 season last year, right? Not so fast. That 40 point win came against Presbyterian, an FCS team that was 0-11 in 2009. Let's wait and see how the Demon Deacons do against Stanford in two weeks.
9. That must have felt good. Year 3 for Rich Rodriguez at Michigan started with a 30-10 win over a Connecticut team expected to contend in the Big East. For a man needing a big year, this was the right way to start.
10. Ten and counting. After opening 2009 with three straight wins, Colorado State then dropped their next nine. The 24-3 loss on Saturday to Colorado makes it 10 consecutive losses and counting.
Showing posts with label Cincinnati. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cincinnati. Show all posts
Monday, September 6, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Big 12 Will Be Fine
Let's say Nebraska and Missouri leave the Big 12 for the Big 10. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado then follow suit and leave for the Pac-10. Now what? Well, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor, first of all, I can assure you that the sun will rise the next day, and when it does rise here is the plan for you.
The Big 12 leftovers will be in a favorable situation, for being leftovers. Being positioned in the middle of the country, they have the option now of picking and choosing from the strong schools on the west and east of them. Take your time, because you will have time, and look at the following candidates.
Mountain West (MWC)
Air Force, BYU, TCU, and Utah
Big East
Cincinnati, Louisville
Conference USA
Houston, SMU, Southern Mississippi, and Tulsa
These schools provide two key ingredients: 1) An expanded conference footprint, while maintaining the traditional Big 12 footprint, and 2) A conference that could still be an automatic qualifyier in the BCS. You can pick your size, anywhere from 9 to 12 teams (5-8 in addition to the four leftovers). Here are some scenarios:
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU or Utah
Air Force
As long as you take TCU over SMU, this conference should be stong enough for a BCS AQ. The only problem is that long term, SMU might be better at getting attention in Dallas/Ft. Worth and Texas in general. :
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU
Utah
Air Force
Louisville
Southern Mississippi
This will give you 12 teams to hold a championship game. You are taking a chance on BCS AQ status with Louisville, but the basketball showdowns with Kansas could be too irresistable. Hopefully with both BYU and Utah, the conference will be strong enough to get AQ status.
The moral of this post is to keep your heads high Jayhawks, Wildcats, Bears, and Cyclones. The Big 12 has a future, and it might not be all that bad.
The Big 12 leftovers will be in a favorable situation, for being leftovers. Being positioned in the middle of the country, they have the option now of picking and choosing from the strong schools on the west and east of them. Take your time, because you will have time, and look at the following candidates.
Mountain West (MWC)
Air Force, BYU, TCU, and Utah
Big East
Cincinnati, Louisville
Conference USA
Houston, SMU, Southern Mississippi, and Tulsa
These schools provide two key ingredients: 1) An expanded conference footprint, while maintaining the traditional Big 12 footprint, and 2) A conference that could still be an automatic qualifyier in the BCS. You can pick your size, anywhere from 9 to 12 teams (5-8 in addition to the four leftovers). Here are some scenarios:
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU or Utah
Air Force
As long as you take TCU over SMU, this conference should be stong enough for a BCS AQ. The only problem is that long term, SMU might be better at getting attention in Dallas/Ft. Worth and Texas in general. :
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU
Utah
Air Force
Louisville
Southern Mississippi
This will give you 12 teams to hold a championship game. You are taking a chance on BCS AQ status with Louisville, but the basketball showdowns with Kansas could be too irresistable. Hopefully with both BYU and Utah, the conference will be strong enough to get AQ status.
The moral of this post is to keep your heads high Jayhawks, Wildcats, Bears, and Cyclones. The Big 12 has a future, and it might not be all that bad.
Monday, April 26, 2010
NFL Draft 2010 Recap
If you missed my thoughts on the first round, they can be found here. If you are a college fan, I hope the players from your favorite team were drafted. If you have a favorite NFL team, I hope you like the choices that were made. Here are a few things stuck out to me in the final six rounds.
It was a bad draft to be an ex-Notre Dame quarterback. It started with the Jimmy Clausen free fall. Then, before Clausen was even drafted, the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow. The Broncos recently acquired Brady Quinn. I know Tebow is sort of an oddity and the Broncos might plan to use him in unconventional ways. But, at the same time, you don't trade up to the 25th pick overall to take a player you don't plan to play most downs.
Back to Clausen. He fell completely out of the first round, and the second round was well underway when the Carolina Panthers finally took Clausen with the 48th pick. That was Friday, so on Saturday, Clausen was probably finally taking a few momemts to relax. Then, when he was finally getting over his fall to pick 48, he gets a phone call from a friend. "Hey, Jimmy, what's going on? Carolina just took Tony Pike." Yes, that Tony Pike, the quarterback for the Cincinnati Bearcats. I don't know what all this means. Clausen is definately plan A for Carolina, but how does that effect your confidence if your team drafted another quarterback later in the draft?
After four Oklahoma Sooners were drafted in the first round, only three others heard their names called in the rest of the rounds. That makes seven overall, tied with USC and Alabama for second most. Florida had nine.
One more sign that June Jones has revitalized SMU football: Wide Receiver Emmanuel Sanders was drafted in the third round before names like Jordan Shipley, Mardy Gilyard, Riley Nelson, and Dezmon Briscoe. This is even more significant when you consider a recent study showed that players from teams that don't play in one of the "Big 6" conferences are handicapped in the draft. The same study shows that these same players are more productive in the NFL. When you are making your fantasy teams, don't forget Emmanual Sanders.
It was a bad draft to be an ex-Notre Dame quarterback. It started with the Jimmy Clausen free fall. Then, before Clausen was even drafted, the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow. The Broncos recently acquired Brady Quinn. I know Tebow is sort of an oddity and the Broncos might plan to use him in unconventional ways. But, at the same time, you don't trade up to the 25th pick overall to take a player you don't plan to play most downs.
Back to Clausen. He fell completely out of the first round, and the second round was well underway when the Carolina Panthers finally took Clausen with the 48th pick. That was Friday, so on Saturday, Clausen was probably finally taking a few momemts to relax. Then, when he was finally getting over his fall to pick 48, he gets a phone call from a friend. "Hey, Jimmy, what's going on? Carolina just took Tony Pike." Yes, that Tony Pike, the quarterback for the Cincinnati Bearcats. I don't know what all this means. Clausen is definately plan A for Carolina, but how does that effect your confidence if your team drafted another quarterback later in the draft?
After four Oklahoma Sooners were drafted in the first round, only three others heard their names called in the rest of the rounds. That makes seven overall, tied with USC and Alabama for second most. Florida had nine.
One more sign that June Jones has revitalized SMU football: Wide Receiver Emmanuel Sanders was drafted in the third round before names like Jordan Shipley, Mardy Gilyard, Riley Nelson, and Dezmon Briscoe. This is even more significant when you consider a recent study showed that players from teams that don't play in one of the "Big 6" conferences are handicapped in the draft. The same study shows that these same players are more productive in the NFL. When you are making your fantasy teams, don't forget Emmanual Sanders.
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Solution: It's About Conference Champions
This is the final part of the BCS Bash series. For part one, click here. For part two, click here. For part three, click here
The BCS structure is about conference champions. While it holds the altruistic aim to match number one versus number two, the BCS is influenced much more by the automatic qualifying status for the six self-proclaimed elite conference champions. Being a conference champion in the Big 10, Big 12, Big East, ACC, SEC, or Pac-10 is so reverred that teams with four losses and barely ranked in the top 25 are not stripped of the right to play in an elite bowl game against a team that is truly elite; that teams catapult up the rankings in the final week of polling only because of the conference champion label; that an undefeated season guarantees a spot in the national championship (barring the rare occurrence that three teams are undefeated).
This obsession with conference champions is the solution to creating a fair and equitable BCS. It is, after all, the Bowl Championship Series. The corrective action that the BCS needs to take is to stop filling six out of 10 bowl slots with conference champions and start filling 10 out of 10 bowl slots with conference champions. The BCS will be inherently unjust until all conferences have equal access.
As presently constituted, the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) of NCAA football has 120 teams grouped into 11 conferences, with three teams remaining independent (Notre Dame, Navy, and Army). As presently constituted, the BCS has 5 bowl games that 10 teams compete in. Without making any changes to the existing conference alignments or the BCS set up, my proposal to correct the injustices of the BCS would be the following:
• The 10 BCS slots would still be filled using a system to rank teams;
• The ranking system will be programmed to emphasize overall record and use head-to-head results if two teams have identical records;
• The ranking system, however, would only be applied to all 11 conference champions and the three independents (only for the purpose of determining the best independent team);
• The top 10 teams (10 conference champions or 9 conference champions and the best independent team) would fill the BCS bowl slots;
• The top 10 teams would be paired 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, 7 vs. 8, 9 vs. 10;
• The pairings would be adjusted, as necessary, to avoid rematches from the regular season, including and especially for the national championship (no double jeopardy) unless the number two team beat the number one team in the regular season, then a rematch would be in order;
• The revenues would be shared equally as well: 1/120 for each team in your conference, except bowl revenues would be proportionate to the seeding—the 1 vs. 2 would be the highest, the 3 vs. 4 would be $500,000 less, etc.;
• The bowls would continue the rotating double hosting system for the championship game, and they would rotate which pairing they hosted each year so that the bowls host each pairing once every four years.
To illustrate, here is what the BCS bowl games would have been for 2009 if this system was used:
National Championship Game: Alabama vs. Texas
Sugar Bowl: Cincinnati vs. TCU
Rose Bowl: Oregon* vs. Ohio State
Fiesta Bowl: Boise State* vs. Georgia Tech
Orange Bowl: Central Michigan vs. East Carolina
(Note: These pairing were made using the final BCS standings and the last USA Today poll before the bowl games.)
* = Following the 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc. order, Boise State and Oregon would have played in the same game. Since they played during the regular season, I paired Oregon with Ohio State for a more traditional game in the Rose Bowl. Another alternative would have been to pair Boise State vs. Ohio State and Oregon vs. Georgia Tech.
For all the traditionalists out there, which I am one, I would be willing to allow the Rose Bowl to continue hosting the Pac-10 Champion vs. the Big 10 Champion, as long as both are in the top 8, but not in the top 2. That means the worst case scenario would be 3 vs. 8 and 4 vs. 7, which should still be good games. The price would be that the Rose Bowl would have the pay out that would normally go to the pairing for the lower seeded team (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is team 4 vs. 6, the pay out would be for 5 vs. 6 and not 3 vs. 4).
This solution would guarantee access to the BCS for a team from 83% of the 12 groups of teams in college football, as opposed to 50% of the groups that the current BCS format guarantees. If we want to be truly all inclusive, then we have two options: 1) Force conference realignment to form 10 conferences of 12 teams each, or 2) add the Cotton Bowl as a sixth BCS bowl.
Yes, we would still have controversies, but nothing in life is without opposition. The whole point, though, is to crown a national champion. The only teams that should be eligible are those who were champions of their conferences. The only teams that should compete in this series are champions. It’s like the Olympics. To make it to the finals of an event, you have to win the qualifying rounds. The qualifying round for the BCS would be the regular season, and a qualifying mark would be to win your conference.
It doesn’t matter if Boise State played the 96th toughest schedule and only four teams in its conference had a winning record, while Texas played the 38th toughest schedule and was one of seven teams with a winning record in its conference. It doesn’t matter if Boise State is from a state with a total population less than the Austin metropolitan area. Playing a tougher schedule, playing in a certain conference, and having more money supposedly makes you better, but the real measuring stick is if Boise State can beat Texas. If they can despite the disadvantages of playing a “weak” schedule, playing in the WAC, and having less money for facilities, recruiting, coaching, etc., that is what matters. The BCS is bowl games. That is all it pertains to—the bowls. All of this other mumbo jumbo trying to justify the discrimination is irrelevant. To stick with the Olympics comparison, we never hear criticism that an athlete did not deserve to be in the Olympics because of the country he or she came from or the inferior facilities, coaching, etc. available to that athlete. That athlete qualified by being the best in his or her country. If that athlete then goes on to surprise everyone and win a medal we do not say he or she did not deserve it because it was easier to get to the Olympics by living in that other country. The BCS should not discriminate and exclude based on stereotypes—not on conference affiliation, schedule strength, or media markets. There is a reason the Super Bowl is the most watched television event EVERY year, regardless of who is playing. We love football and will watch whoever is playing in the championship game.
All 120 teams in the FBS make up the success of college football and the bowl system. The truth is that, just like a big family, Texas, Florida, Ohio State, Alabama, and USC all benefit from San Jose State, North Texas, Navy, Troy, and Wyoming, and vice versa. While each child of the family differs in age, strength, and abilities, the parents work together to ensure that each child is loved, is safe, and eats dinner at the same table. The parents of college football, the NCAA and the BCS, are not working well together. The BCS has turned into a domineering, controlling spouse that the NCAA is scared to stand up to. Some outside the family (the rankings) see what is going on, and they simply form their judgments to fit what is happening in the house. The BCS is a parent that plays favorites with its children. The abused children have been unable to find redress with the NCAA. The oppression has led the abused children to seek government assistance to get the help that they should find in the family.
Epilogue—No Playoff?
Many of you may be disappointed that I have not proposed a playoff as the solution. Fundamentally, I am opposed to a playoff. As I mentioned earlier, I consider myself a traditionalist. Honestly, I like the bowls (yes, there are too many, and I want January 1 to be what it once was). The bowls give one last chance to binge on college football before hibernating for almost nine months. The bowls have also become a launching pad for the next year’s Heisman Trophy campaigns and other awards. The bowls give players an opportunity to increase their draft stock. I believe a playoff will have a negative impact on rivalries and other defining characteristics of college football.
The biggest reason I don’t want a playoff is because I don’t want a three or four loss champion if a one or two loss team exists. Having played organized football for many years, I learned to appreciate that an undefeated season is a major accomplishment. Most years only one or two teams finish undefeated (we may be witnessing a paradigm shift, however, with the BCS, which has placed an increased emphasis on undefeated seasons, therefore, what happened last year—5 undefeated teams—might become more regular), so throughout the regular season a process of elimination is already happening. If a team was able to finish the year 12-0, with all that entails (overcoming injuries, not having a slow start to the season, avoiding trap games, avoiding a mid or late season let down, surviving down the stretch with a bulls eye on your back), that team should not have to put that perfect record on the line against a 9-3 or 10-2 team. It was hard enough to swallow the first two loss national champion two years ago (no offense to LSU, I realize a two loss team was, pretty much, our only option).
In the future, I will not be surprised to see a plus-one system. If three or more undefeated teams becomes the norm in college football, I will gladly support the plus-one system. However, that presents other issues. If we had a plus-one in place this year Boise State would have been left out and Utah would have been left out last year. After the bowls, however, it was obvious that they were underrated all year and deserved to play in a plus-one game. In any case, a playoff system with more than eight teams would be inappropriate. Player safety is a real issue. A long playoff system would increase injuries, and I can’t find any reason that you need to field more than eight teams to ensure that the best team is included.
Sources:
www.espn.go.com/ncf
www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc09.htm?loc=interstitialskip
The BCS structure is about conference champions. While it holds the altruistic aim to match number one versus number two, the BCS is influenced much more by the automatic qualifying status for the six self-proclaimed elite conference champions. Being a conference champion in the Big 10, Big 12, Big East, ACC, SEC, or Pac-10 is so reverred that teams with four losses and barely ranked in the top 25 are not stripped of the right to play in an elite bowl game against a team that is truly elite; that teams catapult up the rankings in the final week of polling only because of the conference champion label; that an undefeated season guarantees a spot in the national championship (barring the rare occurrence that three teams are undefeated).
This obsession with conference champions is the solution to creating a fair and equitable BCS. It is, after all, the Bowl Championship Series. The corrective action that the BCS needs to take is to stop filling six out of 10 bowl slots with conference champions and start filling 10 out of 10 bowl slots with conference champions. The BCS will be inherently unjust until all conferences have equal access.
As presently constituted, the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) of NCAA football has 120 teams grouped into 11 conferences, with three teams remaining independent (Notre Dame, Navy, and Army). As presently constituted, the BCS has 5 bowl games that 10 teams compete in. Without making any changes to the existing conference alignments or the BCS set up, my proposal to correct the injustices of the BCS would be the following:
• The 10 BCS slots would still be filled using a system to rank teams;
• The ranking system will be programmed to emphasize overall record and use head-to-head results if two teams have identical records;
• The ranking system, however, would only be applied to all 11 conference champions and the three independents (only for the purpose of determining the best independent team);
• The top 10 teams (10 conference champions or 9 conference champions and the best independent team) would fill the BCS bowl slots;
• The top 10 teams would be paired 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, 7 vs. 8, 9 vs. 10;
• The pairings would be adjusted, as necessary, to avoid rematches from the regular season, including and especially for the national championship (no double jeopardy) unless the number two team beat the number one team in the regular season, then a rematch would be in order;
• The revenues would be shared equally as well: 1/120 for each team in your conference, except bowl revenues would be proportionate to the seeding—the 1 vs. 2 would be the highest, the 3 vs. 4 would be $500,000 less, etc.;
• The bowls would continue the rotating double hosting system for the championship game, and they would rotate which pairing they hosted each year so that the bowls host each pairing once every four years.
To illustrate, here is what the BCS bowl games would have been for 2009 if this system was used:
National Championship Game: Alabama vs. Texas
Sugar Bowl: Cincinnati vs. TCU
Rose Bowl: Oregon* vs. Ohio State
Fiesta Bowl: Boise State* vs. Georgia Tech
Orange Bowl: Central Michigan vs. East Carolina
(Note: These pairing were made using the final BCS standings and the last USA Today poll before the bowl games.)
* = Following the 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc. order, Boise State and Oregon would have played in the same game. Since they played during the regular season, I paired Oregon with Ohio State for a more traditional game in the Rose Bowl. Another alternative would have been to pair Boise State vs. Ohio State and Oregon vs. Georgia Tech.
For all the traditionalists out there, which I am one, I would be willing to allow the Rose Bowl to continue hosting the Pac-10 Champion vs. the Big 10 Champion, as long as both are in the top 8, but not in the top 2. That means the worst case scenario would be 3 vs. 8 and 4 vs. 7, which should still be good games. The price would be that the Rose Bowl would have the pay out that would normally go to the pairing for the lower seeded team (i.e. If the Rose Bowl is team 4 vs. 6, the pay out would be for 5 vs. 6 and not 3 vs. 4).
This solution would guarantee access to the BCS for a team from 83% of the 12 groups of teams in college football, as opposed to 50% of the groups that the current BCS format guarantees. If we want to be truly all inclusive, then we have two options: 1) Force conference realignment to form 10 conferences of 12 teams each, or 2) add the Cotton Bowl as a sixth BCS bowl.
Yes, we would still have controversies, but nothing in life is without opposition. The whole point, though, is to crown a national champion. The only teams that should be eligible are those who were champions of their conferences. The only teams that should compete in this series are champions. It’s like the Olympics. To make it to the finals of an event, you have to win the qualifying rounds. The qualifying round for the BCS would be the regular season, and a qualifying mark would be to win your conference.
It doesn’t matter if Boise State played the 96th toughest schedule and only four teams in its conference had a winning record, while Texas played the 38th toughest schedule and was one of seven teams with a winning record in its conference. It doesn’t matter if Boise State is from a state with a total population less than the Austin metropolitan area. Playing a tougher schedule, playing in a certain conference, and having more money supposedly makes you better, but the real measuring stick is if Boise State can beat Texas. If they can despite the disadvantages of playing a “weak” schedule, playing in the WAC, and having less money for facilities, recruiting, coaching, etc., that is what matters. The BCS is bowl games. That is all it pertains to—the bowls. All of this other mumbo jumbo trying to justify the discrimination is irrelevant. To stick with the Olympics comparison, we never hear criticism that an athlete did not deserve to be in the Olympics because of the country he or she came from or the inferior facilities, coaching, etc. available to that athlete. That athlete qualified by being the best in his or her country. If that athlete then goes on to surprise everyone and win a medal we do not say he or she did not deserve it because it was easier to get to the Olympics by living in that other country. The BCS should not discriminate and exclude based on stereotypes—not on conference affiliation, schedule strength, or media markets. There is a reason the Super Bowl is the most watched television event EVERY year, regardless of who is playing. We love football and will watch whoever is playing in the championship game.
All 120 teams in the FBS make up the success of college football and the bowl system. The truth is that, just like a big family, Texas, Florida, Ohio State, Alabama, and USC all benefit from San Jose State, North Texas, Navy, Troy, and Wyoming, and vice versa. While each child of the family differs in age, strength, and abilities, the parents work together to ensure that each child is loved, is safe, and eats dinner at the same table. The parents of college football, the NCAA and the BCS, are not working well together. The BCS has turned into a domineering, controlling spouse that the NCAA is scared to stand up to. Some outside the family (the rankings) see what is going on, and they simply form their judgments to fit what is happening in the house. The BCS is a parent that plays favorites with its children. The abused children have been unable to find redress with the NCAA. The oppression has led the abused children to seek government assistance to get the help that they should find in the family.
Epilogue—No Playoff?
Many of you may be disappointed that I have not proposed a playoff as the solution. Fundamentally, I am opposed to a playoff. As I mentioned earlier, I consider myself a traditionalist. Honestly, I like the bowls (yes, there are too many, and I want January 1 to be what it once was). The bowls give one last chance to binge on college football before hibernating for almost nine months. The bowls have also become a launching pad for the next year’s Heisman Trophy campaigns and other awards. The bowls give players an opportunity to increase their draft stock. I believe a playoff will have a negative impact on rivalries and other defining characteristics of college football.
The biggest reason I don’t want a playoff is because I don’t want a three or four loss champion if a one or two loss team exists. Having played organized football for many years, I learned to appreciate that an undefeated season is a major accomplishment. Most years only one or two teams finish undefeated (we may be witnessing a paradigm shift, however, with the BCS, which has placed an increased emphasis on undefeated seasons, therefore, what happened last year—5 undefeated teams—might become more regular), so throughout the regular season a process of elimination is already happening. If a team was able to finish the year 12-0, with all that entails (overcoming injuries, not having a slow start to the season, avoiding trap games, avoiding a mid or late season let down, surviving down the stretch with a bulls eye on your back), that team should not have to put that perfect record on the line against a 9-3 or 10-2 team. It was hard enough to swallow the first two loss national champion two years ago (no offense to LSU, I realize a two loss team was, pretty much, our only option).
In the future, I will not be surprised to see a plus-one system. If three or more undefeated teams becomes the norm in college football, I will gladly support the plus-one system. However, that presents other issues. If we had a plus-one in place this year Boise State would have been left out and Utah would have been left out last year. After the bowls, however, it was obvious that they were underrated all year and deserved to play in a plus-one game. In any case, a playoff system with more than eight teams would be inappropriate. Player safety is a real issue. A long playoff system would increase injuries, and I can’t find any reason that you need to field more than eight teams to ensure that the best team is included.
Sources:
www.espn.go.com/ncf
www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc09.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Friday, August 28, 2009
USA Today Top 25 Preseason Poll
When the preseason USA Today Top 25 (Coaches Poll) was released a few weeks ago, the coaches, definitely unintentionally, poured fuel on the fire that is BCS debate. The Mountain West Conference (MWC) had three teams ranked while the Big East had none. TCU was number 17, Utah was 18, and BYU was 24. The leading vote getter for the Big East was Cincinnati which would be number 29 if the rankings went that high. The BCS debate reached new proportions at the end of last season. The last thing that the BCS needed was for preseason rankings like this. Keep in mind this is the USA Today poll, which is part of the BCS formula.
Before going on, I am one who feels the MWC is better than the Big East and the MWC Champion can hold its own with the “Big Six” conference champions. I would love to see multiple MWC teams ranked above the Big East champion at the end of the year. However, MWC/“mid-major” fans need to temper our jubilee. First, a whole season needs to be played. Preseason expectations don’t put points on the scoreboard. Second, the Big East champion will be ranked at season’s end. How high? No one knows.
The Big East has no clear favorite. This is what the preseason USA Today Top 25 is reflecting. As I noted, Cincinnati was number 29 with 90 points, followed by Pittsburgh at 30 with 64 points, West Virginia at 31 with 55 points, and Rutgers at 32 with 51 points. It looks like most voters have at least one Big East team in their Top 25. They just don’t agree on which one is the best. As the season progresses, and one team separates itself from the others, the points that these four teams share will migrate to the one with the separation. The point total for these four teams is 260 points, which would be good for number 21 in the poll. At this point, the voters feel the Big East champion will be the 21st best team in the country. This is still good news for MWC fans, because two teams are still ranked above 21. Come season’s end, though, there is a 95% chance the Big East champion will be closer to number 12 than 21. Last year Cincinnati was ranked number 12 in the final BCS polls, as well as the final regular season USA Today poll. With an 11-2 won-loss record, that ranking can’t be criticized; it just was not foreseen in August. Expect the same this year, unless the Big East champion has three or four losses.
What’s the bottom line? Yes, the perception of the MWC is improving, but they have to back it up on the field. The MWC is in a position to have its champion ranked higher than the Big East champion again this year, but the MWC champ’s won-loss record will need to be two losses maximum.
The USA Today Top 25 can be found at: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/usatpoll.htm
Before going on, I am one who feels the MWC is better than the Big East and the MWC Champion can hold its own with the “Big Six” conference champions. I would love to see multiple MWC teams ranked above the Big East champion at the end of the year. However, MWC/“mid-major” fans need to temper our jubilee. First, a whole season needs to be played. Preseason expectations don’t put points on the scoreboard. Second, the Big East champion will be ranked at season’s end. How high? No one knows.
The Big East has no clear favorite. This is what the preseason USA Today Top 25 is reflecting. As I noted, Cincinnati was number 29 with 90 points, followed by Pittsburgh at 30 with 64 points, West Virginia at 31 with 55 points, and Rutgers at 32 with 51 points. It looks like most voters have at least one Big East team in their Top 25. They just don’t agree on which one is the best. As the season progresses, and one team separates itself from the others, the points that these four teams share will migrate to the one with the separation. The point total for these four teams is 260 points, which would be good for number 21 in the poll. At this point, the voters feel the Big East champion will be the 21st best team in the country. This is still good news for MWC fans, because two teams are still ranked above 21. Come season’s end, though, there is a 95% chance the Big East champion will be closer to number 12 than 21. Last year Cincinnati was ranked number 12 in the final BCS polls, as well as the final regular season USA Today poll. With an 11-2 won-loss record, that ranking can’t be criticized; it just was not foreseen in August. Expect the same this year, unless the Big East champion has three or four losses.
What’s the bottom line? Yes, the perception of the MWC is improving, but they have to back it up on the field. The MWC is in a position to have its champion ranked higher than the Big East champion again this year, but the MWC champ’s won-loss record will need to be two losses maximum.
The USA Today Top 25 can be found at: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/usatpoll.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)