Souteastern Conference (SEC) Football Season Preview 2010

The Southeastern Conference (SEC) has dominated college football the last four years. Here are five questions to get a quick glimpse of what SEC football will look like in 2010.

1. Who will win the conference? Alabama Crimson Tide. Even though Alabama lost several key defenders to the NFL, so did Florida. Florida also lost a lot on the offensive side. Alabama did not. Nick Saban faces the challenge of keeping his team hungry and focused after reaching the pinnacle last year.

2. Who is the top returning player? Mark Ingram, Alabama. How can the answer to this question be anyone but the reigning Heisman Trophy winner? In case you forgot, Ingram ran for 1,658 yards (6.1 yards per carry) and scored 20 touchdowns (17 rushing, 3 receiving) in 2009. In nine games the Heisman Trophy winner ran for more than 100 yards.

3. Which team will be the most improved? Mississippi State Bulldogs. The Bulldogs were 5-7 in Dan Mullen's first year. Mississippi State ended the year on a positive note by beating Ole Miss, 41-27. That momentum will carry over into this year and people will be talking about the Bulldogs at the end of the year.

4. What will be the biggest surprise? The SEC champion will not play in the BCS title game. After an unprecedented four year run, the SEC champion will be back in the Sugar Bowl. Alabama will not be undefeated at season's end, and that will keep them out. At least two other teams will be undefeated and claim the top two spots in the final BCS standings.

5. Which coach is on the hottest seat? Les Miles, LSU. Everyone in the Bayou is getting restless after the 2007 National Championship has been followed up with back-to-back single digit win seasons. Miles didn't even receive much credit for the national championship three years ago, since he won that year with Nick Saban's recruits. Now is the time for Miles to deliver with the players that he has recruited, otherwise, he will be shown the door out.

Western Athletic Conference Football Season Preview 2010

Five questions to preview the 2010 football season for the Western Athletic Conference.

1. Who will win the conference? Boise State Broncos. No surprise here. The Broncos return 21 starters off of last year’s perfect team. If Boise State does not win the conference, someone will have a lot of explaining to do.

2. Who is the top returning player? Kellen Moore, Boise State. Moore had the second highest pass efficiency rating in the nation last year, and he passed for 3,536 yards with a 39:3 touchdown to interception ratio. Moore also boasts a 26-1 record as a starter.

3. Who will be the most improved team? The Louisiana Tech Bulldogs. Three of Louisiana Tech’s conference losses (Utah State, Idaho, and Fresno State) were by a combined total of five points. They also played Boise State close last year (10 point loss). It also helps that there are no SEC teams on the schedule (Auburn and LSU last year).

4. What will be the biggest surprise? Boise State will play in the BCS National Championship game. With a number 5 preseason ranking in the USA Today Top 25, Boise State is in prime position to move into the top 2 as the teams ahead of them drop games. A win over Virginia Tech, a squad that has high expectations as well, to start the year followed by a perfect run through the rest of the schedule (which includes Oregon State) and the computers won’t be able to hold Boise State back.

5. Which coach is on the hottest seat? No coach in the WAC is on a very hot seat. Either the coaches are new to their posts or they are having success. The one with the hottest seat is probably Chris Ault at Nevada. Hard to imagine that his seat is the hottest. He has won over 200 games in 25 years with the Wolfpack. He is a member of the College Football Hall of Fame, and he played quarterback for Nevada back in the 1960s. However, he has failed to get Nevada over the hump (beat Boise State). Nevada can’t let complacency settle in on the program. Ault turns 64 in November. If he can’t get it done this year, and with Nevada moving on to the tougher Mountain West Conference soon, Nevada may create an administrative position in the athletics department for Coach Ault so they can try and find a guy who can get Nevada to the next level.

Big Ten Conference Preview For 2010

Previewing the Big Ten conference is next to continue priming us for the 2010 NCAA college football season. All the conferences and the independents will be previewed this week (Monday through Saturday, two per day).

1. Who will win the conference? Iowa. If Ricky Stanzi didn’t get injured, the Hawkeye’s probably would have been undefeated and in the Rose Bowl last year. Stanzi is back as well as a strong defense. The schedule is favorable as well. Iowa plays Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Penn State at home with at least two weeks separating each of these games.

2. Who is the top returning player? John Clay, Wisconsin. The bruising tailback rushed for 1,517 yards last year and scored 18 touchdowns. He finished 2009 with six consecutive 100 yard rushing games, and had a total of nine 100 yard rushing games.

3. Who will be the most improved team? Michigan. The Wolverines were 1-7 in conference play last year. In his third year in Ann Arbor, Rich Rodriguez will start to deliver what everyone has been expecting. Although the schedule is difficult, I expect Michigan to reach 8 wins.

4. What will be the biggest surprise? Between the end of the regular season and the bowl game, Joe Paterno will announce that he is retiring. After reaching 400 wins and no Bobby Bowden to push him for college football immortality, JoePa will step aside.

5. Which coach is on the hottest seat? Rich Rodriguez, Michigan. With an 8-16 record after two seasons, and this is a make or break year for Rodriguez. He will be gone if there is not a very positive feeling about the direction of the program after this year.

Poll Results: How will Jeremiah Masoli fare at Ole Miss?

This poll has closed and 54% said Jeremiah Masoli would take over the starting spot sometime during the year. The next leading vote getter was start from game one (26%), followed by make Ole Miss a contender in the SEC with 20%. No one voted that Masoli would play so well that he would be a Heisman Trophy finalist.

Thank you to everyone who voted. Don't foreget to vote in this week's poll: "The best part of college football is".

2010 College Football Preview: 10 Questions

The 2010 college football season will kick off in just two weeks! College Football Haven has the top 10 questions for 2010, plus one bonus question for making it to the end.

1. Is this Joe Paterno’s last ride? Last year we saw the departure of the legendary Bobby Bowden. Now that Bowden is gone, Joe Pa is assured that when he retires he will have more wins than any FBS coach. With 394 wins to his name, he should eclipse the 400 win plateau this year. These two factors just might be enough to get him to finally hang it up after 45 years.

2. Will an SEC team win the National Championship? It has happened for the last four years. Whether the SEC champion has been undefeated or has had two losses, they have made it to the BCS national championship game and come out the victor every time. The SEC championship could be a rematch of Florida and Alabama. If this is the case, I don’t expect either team to be undefeated, so whether the winner makes it to Glendale will depend on how the other automatic qualifying (AQ) champions fare. Two undefeated teams (Ohio State and Oklahoma, perhaps) and the SEC champion will be on the outside looking in. If only one AQ champion is undefeated and so is Boise State or TCU, then the SEC champ probably gets in.

3. Will Boise State or TCU play in the National Championship game? They are both in a very favorable position starting at numbers 5 and 7, respectively, in the USA Today preseason top 25. After the way they played last year, if one of them finishes undefeated, and no other team in the nation is undefeated, then I like their chances to be in the BCS top two. If one AQ champion is undefeated, then Boise State and TCU will have to fight for that second spot. Both teams have earned a shot to prove themselves if they are undefeated, but in the end, they probably won’t make it over a one loss SEC champion.

4. Is this Rich Rodriguez’s break through year at Michigan? With his track record at Tulane and West Virginia, many expected the Wolverines to be a force in the Big Ten last year. Instead, Michigan dropped 7 of 8 league games and finished 5-7. It was a good strategic move by Michigan to hire Rodriguez, but if he doesn’t get things done this year, he is probably gone. That being said, I think Michigan will be back in a bowl and Rich Rod will be on the sidelines in 2011.

5. Will SMU continue its resurgence? While Rodriguez continued to struggle in his second year, June Jones was flourishing in his second year at SMU. The Mustanges went from one win to 8, and slaughtered Nevada in the Hawaii Bowl. Kyle Padron returns at quarterback so I fully expect the Mustangs to gallop in the lead pack of Conference USA and could win the conference in a photo finish.

6. Are select teams auditioning for invitations to join better conferences? The Big Ten doesn’t appear to be satisfied with 12 teams. Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, and maybe even Virginia are prime candidates. The Big XII may be happy with 10 teams for now, but it won’t be long before they are back to 12. The Memphis faithful are hungry to make the jump to big time football. BYU has made it clear that they are looking for something better than the Mountain West Conference. These teams may find that the way they play on Saturdays was the difference maker in whether they got an invite or not.

7. Can Jeremiah Masoli redeem himself? With a second chance at Ole Miss, the former Oregon Duck may get the last quack. I find it hard to imagine that he won’t be the Rebels starting quarterback. How quickly he can grasp the offense and gel with his teammates will determine his success. He will have a respectable year, but what will determine the winner in this situation will be how well Oregon does without him.

8. Will Jake Locker live up to the hype? For three years we have heard about the phenomenal athleticism and potential of Jake Locker. This summer he went back east on a whirlwind media tour to promote his Heisman Trophy candidacy. Many consider him to be the future number one draft pick in the 2011 NFL draft. With all this fanfare you would think that his college career resembled that of Tim Tebow. On the contrary, Locker has not played in a bowl, nor has he passed for more than 3,000 yards in a season. I predict that Locker will break both these trends this year. Locker and Washington are poised for a breakout year in Steve Sarkisian’s second year as head coach.

9. Who will represent the Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl? No conference race is more wide open than the Pac-10. USC has a bowl ban, so even if they win the conference, they won’t play in the Rose Bowl. Oregon had a good chance to make a repeat showing until they lost Masoli and had a rash of other off the field issues that affected the team. Stanford is making strides, but replacing Tody Gerhart will keep the Rose Bowl out of reach. Same goes for Cal without Jahvid Best. Washington and UCLA are dark horses that I wouldn’t count out. In the end, this is Oregon State’s year. The Beavers will get off to a typically slow start, but when the conference games roll around Jaquizz Rodgers and company will be ready.

10. Will Case Keenum break the NCAA record for career passing yards? With back-to-back 5,000 yard passing seasons and 12,950 yards to his credit, Keenum is only 4,123 yards away from breaking Timmy Chang’s record (17,072). Barring injury, Keenum will break this record with ease. The better question might be how high will he push this mark?

Bonus: How will they react? With the way 2009 ended and the events during the offseason, I am curious to know how several teams will react to what happened. Their reactions will go a long way in shaping how the 2010 season plays out.

• USC: Pete Carroll left for the NFL, and the NCAA finally ruled in the Reggie Bush case. With no bowl game to play for and some players transferring, how will the men of Troy react? USC has a lot of pride, and, like him or not, Lane Kiffen overachieved last year at Tennessee. I see USC bouncing back from last year’s 9-4 campaign and playing with a chip on their shoulder. Even with Carroll gone, the end result will be typical of the Pete Carroll years.

• Nebraska: The Cornhuskers nearly pulled off the biggest win of the season last year in the Big XII championship game. We saw them vent some frustration in the 33-0 beat down of Arizona in the Holiday Bowl, but something tells me that Bo Pelini and his boys are not satisfied. Look for them to be breathing fire this year and play with great emotion as they try to take care of some unfinished business and leave the Big XII as champions.

• Texas: It looked like it would never come, but Texas now faces life without Colt McCoy. We all got a taste of the future when McCoy went down in the BCS Championship game. While Garrett Gilbert will have a nice career in Austin, Texas will drop two games this year.

• Oregon: No one is happier that the season is starting than Chip Kelly. After an offseason to forget, with an alarming number of players violating team rules and having run ins with the law, Kelly is relieved to finally move on. If the players handle this well, then Oregon will still be better than most teams in the Pac-10. However, if the locker room is divided and they are dwelling on the off-the-field issues, the Ducks might struggle to finish with a winning record and leave the fan base wondering what might have been.

• Florida: The Gators face a situation similar to Texas. In Gainesville, the Tim Tebow era is over. It is impossible to replace a guy like him. Florida will have to move on the best they can with John Brantley. Besides losing Tebow, Florida nearly lost their coach. After announcing his resignation, Urban Meyer quickly changed it to a leave of absence. While everything seems to be smooth sailing again, how many of the players are worrying whether Coach Meyer will survive the rigors of the year? Although the Gators are the preseason number 3 team, this year is going to be bumpier than the last two. If Meyer and the players hit the panic button when things aren’t as peachy as they were with Tebow around, then this could end as a disappointing year.

• Temple: The Temple Owls were the biggest surprise last year. They won 9 games for the first time since 1979. They were a win against Ohio away from playing for the MAC Championship. Temple has Heisman Trophy aspirations for running back Bernard Pierce. Is Temple hungry for more or did they take their foot off the gas after the surprising success in 2009?

• Florida State: Bobby Bowden is not at Florida State for the first time since 1975. While new head coach Jimbo Fisher has been in the program for the last few years, he is making sure that everyone knows there is a new sheriff in town. The reaction, so far, has not been good. Players are dropping from the roster like flies. Florida State has lost several players in the last few weeks for a lot more reasons than injury. The Seminoles sputtered during Bowden’s final few years. Will the coaching change bring a resurgence, or will it further cripple the program as players struggle to adjust to the new expectations?

• Alabama: They are the defending national champions and now they are number one to start the year, despite having seven players drafted. The preseason number one is a curse, and so is Alabama’s schedule with six conference teams having byes the week before playing the Crimson Tide. Will Alabama have enough drive to repeat to end the season where they are starting? In 2009, they were coming off of back-to-back losses in the SEC Championship game and the Sugar Bowl. Where is the motivation going to come from after a perfect 14-0 national championship season?

Yardbarker Network Privacy Policy

College Football Haven has joined the Yardbarker Network. As a YBN member, the following privacy policy will apply. There is nothing to worry about. As I understand it, information is being collected only to for advertising purposes. I can assure you I would not do anything to put you in a position to be exploited.

Privacy Policy

College Football Haven knows that you care about how your personal information is used and shared, and we take your privacy very seriously. Please read the following to learn more about our privacy policy. By visiting our website, you are accepting the practices outlined in this Privacy Policy.
This Privacy Policy covers College Football Haven's treatment of personal information that College Football Haven gathers when you are on the College Football Haven website and when you use College Football Haven services. This policy does not apply to the practices of third parties that College Football Haven does not own or control, or to individuals that College Football Haven does not employ or manage.
Information Collected by College Football Haven
We only collect personal information that is relevant to the purpose of our website. This information allows us to provide you with a customized and efficient experience. We do not process this information in a way that is incompatible with this objective. We collect the following types of information from our College Football Haven users:
1. Information You Provide to Us: We receive and store any information you enter on our website or provide to us in any other way. You can choose not to provide us with certain information, but then you may not be able to take advantage of many of our special features.
2. Automatic Information:
o We receive and store certain types of information whenever you interact with us. College Football Haven and its authorized agents automatically receive and record certain "traffic data" on their server logs from your browser including your IP address, College Football Haven cookie information, and the page you requested. College Football Haven uses this traffic data to help diagnose problems with its servers, analyze trends and administer the website.
o College Football Haven may collect and, on any page, display the total counts that page has been viewed.
o Many companies offer programs that help you to visit websites anonymously. While College Football Haven will not be able to provide you with a personalized experience if we cannot recognize you, we want you to be aware that these programs are available.
E-mail Communications
College Football Haven is very concerned about your privacy and we will never provide your email address to a third party without your explicit permission, as detailed in the "Sharing Your Information" section below. College Football Haven may send out e-mails with College Football Haven-related news, products, offers, surveys or promotions.
Cookies
Cookies are alphanumeric identifiers that we transfer to your computer's hard drive through your Web browser to enable our systems to recognize your browser and tell us how and when pages in our website are visited and by how many people. College Football Haven cookies do not collect personal information, and we do not combine information collected through cookies with other personal information to tell us who you are or what your screen name or e-mail address is.
The "help" portion of the toolbar on the majority of browsers will direct you on how to prevent your browser from accepting new cookies, how to command the browser to tell you when you receive a new cookie, or how to fully disable cookies. We recommend that you leave the cookies activated because cookies allow you to use some of College Football Haven's coolest features.
College Football Haven's advertising partners may place a cookie on your browser that makes it possible to collect anonymous non-personally identifiable information that ad delivery systems use to present more relevant ads. If you would prefer to opt-out of this standard practice, please visit our advertising partner Platform-A's privacy policy and opt-out page.
Sharing Your Information

Rest assured that we neither rent nor sell your personal information to anyone and that we will share your personal information only as described below.
College Football Haven Personnel: College Football Haven personnel and authorized consultants and/or contractors may have access to user information if necessary in the normal course of College Football Haven business.
Business Transfers: In some cases, we may choose to buy or sell assets. In these types of transactions, user information is typically one of the business assets that is transferred. Moreover, if College Football Haven, or substantially all of its assets, were acquired, user information would be one of the assets that is transferred.
Protection of College Football Haven and Others: We may release personal information when we believe in good faith that release is necessary to comply with a law; to enforce or apply our Terms of Use and other policies; or to protect the rights, property, or safety of College Football Haven, our employees, our users, or others. This includes exchanging information with other companies and organizations for fraud protection and credit risk reduction.
Syndication: College Football Haven allows for the RSS syndication of all of its public content within the College Football Haven website.
With Your Consent: Except as noted above, we will contact you when your personal information is shared with third parties or used for a purpose incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected, and you will be able to opt out to prevent the sharing of this information.
Children Under 18 Years of Age
You must be 13 years and older to register to use the College Football Haven website. As a result, College Football Haven does not specifically collect information about children. If we learn that College Football Haven has collected information from a child under the age of 13, we will delete that information as quickly as possible. We recommend that minors between the ages of 13 and 18 ask and receive their parents' permission before using College Football Haven or sending information about themselves or anyone else over the Internet.
Changes to this Privacy Policy
College Football Haven may amend this Privacy Policy from time to time, at its sole discretion. Use of information we collect now is subject to the Privacy Policy in effect at the time such information is used. If we make changes to the Privacy Policy, we will notify you by posting an announcement on the College Football Haven website so you are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances if any, it is disclosed.
Conditions of Use
If you decide to visit College Football Haven website, your visit and any possible dispute over privacy is subject to this Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use, including limitations on damages, arbitration of disputes, and application of California state law.
Effective Date of this Privacy Policy
This Privacy Policy is effective as of August 16, 2010, and last updated August 16, 2010.

New Year, Same Old Story: The SEC is Overrated

The USA Today (Coaches) Top 25 is out. I am not going to discuss the poll in depth. When the College Football Haven Top 25 comes out August 30, you will be able to see where I agree and disagree with the coaches. However, there is one thing from the coaches poll that does stick out. The SEC is still overrated. In the poll, the SEC is represented as follows:

1. Alabama
3. Florida
16. LSU
19. Arkansas
21. Georgia
23. Auburn

Six teams is one half of the SEC. Do you really expect anyone to believe that six of the top 25 teams in the country are from one conference? This poll is saying that the top half of the SEC is better than 81% of the teams in the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision.

Auburn might have surprised many people with 8 wins last year after the fallout over the Gene Chizik hiring, but I think Auburn still needs to show it is ready to take the next step before being ranked.

Georgia had a down year (8-5) in 2009. However, with a redshirt freshman starting at quarterback, I am skeptical that this year will be better than the last. Guys like Sam Bradford don't grow on trees.

Arkansas is one I agree with. In fact, I think the Hogs will be a surprise team in 2010, and should be ranked higher. Ryan Mallett and Bobby Petrino will have the team racing up and down the field. If they catch a few breaks, they may find themselves in the SEC Championship game.

LSU has been disappointing, to say the least, the last two years (8-5 and 9-4). Les Miles has already lost my faith, and if he doesn’t put up 10 wins or more this year he might lose his job. Sixteen is a little bit of a stretch, I would have them closer to 20.

Florida lost Tim Tebow, the three time Heisman Trophy finalist, Aaron Hernandez, the 2009 Mackey Award winner, at tight end, and Brandon Spikes, a two-time All-American, at linebacker. Yet, Florida is starting 2010 at number 3. Talk about deja-vu. After the 2006 National Championship year, Florida had to replace the starting quarterback and some key personnel on defense. In 2007, the team finished 9-4. Why should we expect much different this year? There was a noticeable drop off from 2008 to 2009 just by Percy Harvin leaving for the NFL. Throw in Urban Meyer’s health, and the number 3 ranking for Florida is the most egregious ranking of all the SEC teams.

Last is Alabama. The 2009 National Champions are starting right where they left off. Except they will have to do so without Rolando McClain, Terrance Cody, and five other NFL draft picks. Throw in the controversial schedule that has six conference opponents given two weeks to prepare for the Crimson Tide, and I don’t think this team even makes the national championship game. Don’t get me wrong. I am starting to become a believer in Nick Saban the coach, and I think ‘Bama will be a top 10 team this year. I just don’t think this number one ranking is merited.

Well, maybe overrating the SEC will stop next year. Until then, there's a lot of great football to play! (Come back Thursday, August 19, 2010, as I make an overview of the 2010 season before getting into previewing each conference.)

Violate the Rules Now, Don't Pay Later

Last year Michigan was hit by the NCAA for violating rules. Earlier this year, the NCAA finally came down on USC for events that happened back when Reggie Bush was on campus. Just last week, the NCAA accused West Virginia of major violations. These major violations started when Rich Rodriguez coached there.

There are many complaints about how the NCAA handles rules violations, but the biggest is probably that in many cases the violators escape any real punishment. For example, Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll. Bush doesn't have to sit out any games, lose any eligibility, or have a "no draft" tag placed on him by the NCAA in cooperation with the NFL. Pete Carroll has changed employers and he will never feel the effects of the lost bowl appearances and lost scholarships. The West Virginia case presents the same problem. Whatever punishment the NCAA metes out to the Mountaineers for Rich Rod's transgressions will not be borne by Rodriguez.

How can this problem be corrected for both players and coaches? For coaches, I think there is a pretty easy solution. If the coach is no longer at the university, then he has to take a 15-20% pay cut. A second violation would bring a larger pay cut (30%). A third violation and the coach is banned from being a head coach in the NCAA. For a coach like Pete Carroll who is no longer coaching college football, the NCAA can sue him. (I don't know how coaches contracts are structured now, but the NCAA could make it mandatory that all coaches contracts include a provision that states the coach agrees to pay a fine if he retires or takes a NFL coaching job and is later found to have broken NCAA rules.)

For players, the solution is not as simple. In fact, I don't have a solution that I feel strongly about. The player's stats and records could be stricken from the books. What might be better is to have the player pay back the monetary value of the scholarship that he received.

The fact of the matter is that unless the NCAA changes something, coaches and players will continue to violate rules at the same rate or higher.

Ready for the 2010 Season

Thank you to everyone who has been regularly visiting the blog this offseason. I know the coverage was pretty sporadic, except the opinion polls, but I had some family issues to resolve. I am pleased to report that those issues are closed and just in time for the upcoming season.

From now until kickoff in only three weeks, you can expect the follow:

1. A broad outlook for the 2010 season.
2. Previews for each conference.
3. The College Football Haven Pre-Season Top 25.
4. The College Football Haven Pre-Season Heisman Hopefuls.

That will be the bare minimum. I also have some thoughts on the pre-season coaches top 25 and on the recently reported West Virginia violations.

Poll Results: What should be done about the 2005 Heisman Trophy?

Two-thirds of voters thought that Vince Young should be awarded the Heisman Trophy for 2005. The other third thought that no one should get it, which means no one thought that Reggie Bush should keep it. Thank you to all who voted.

Don't forget to vote in the new poll: How will Jeremiah Masoli fare at Ole Miss?

Poll Results: Who will be the best quarterback in 2010?

Jake Locker (Washington) received 40% of the votes to lead this poll. Kellen Moore (Boise State) came in second with 30%. Christian Ponder (Florida State) was third and Ryan Mallet (Arkansas) was fourth. No other quarterbacks received votes.

Thank you to all who participated. Don't forget to vote in the new poll: What should be done about the 2005 Heisman Trophy?

Poll Results: What was the best expansion move?

Nebraska to the Big 10 received the most votes for best expansion move (44%). Boise State to the MWC was second with 33%, and Utah to the Pac 12 received the rest of the votes. Thank you to all who voted.

Don't forget to take a few seconds to vote in the new poll: Who will be the best quarterback in 2010?

Lessons Learned from Conference Expansion

Now that most of the dust has settled from conference expansion, let's see what we have learned.

1. Notre Dame is not the most powerful school in the country. That designation now belongs to Texas. Texas was able to turn college football on its head and then put it back on its feet, all in less than one week. The Longhorns had grown men fearing for their futures and desperately begging Texas to keep the status quo. Most importantly, Texas was able to leverage more money and control in the Big 12.

2. Expansion is all about money. Being good in football or basketball took a back row seat to other factors like the size of a school's local media market, the number of television sets that watch a school's games, and the impact on travel costs. Each conference did not hide that they would not expand if the current membership would not receive as much TV and other monies. Schools that have not fielded competitive teams in years (Colorado) were viewed more favorably than schools that win more than anyone else (Boise State). Schools that are very logical additions geographically (Pitt) are being rejected for schools that expand the conference footprint (Nebraska).

3. There are no loyalties. Each school will do what is best for it. While conferences were created to better the collective group, that won't stop one part of that group from leaving if a better offer comes along. Utah, with a BYU grad as school president and a former BYU player as its head football coach, had no concern about the impacts of its move on BYU and the rest of the Mountain West. Colorado couldn't accept the Pac-10's invite fast enough to throw Baylor to the curb. While doom and gloom was being forecasted for Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, and Iowa State, Nebraska happily jumped to the safety of the Big 10. The Boise State Broncos probably have not thought twice about how the WAC will be the Sun Belt of the West once they leave.

4. The Pac-10 is properly situation on the left coast. I, for one, was shocked to see the way certain schools in that conference openly opposed the addition of religious schools like Baylor and BYU. Come on, this is sports we are talking about. Why are you going to let liberal ideas get in the way of a good sports competition? Each conference has its own identity, but it is hard to find another conference that cares more about its identity than the Pac-10.

5. The power of the people. From the outset last December, all conferences proclaimed that this would be a 12 to 18 month process. That did not stop fans and media from talking about expansion and postulating expansion scenarios. Facts and data were being thrown out left and right arguing the merits of School A vs. School B. Demands for updates and leaks to the media fueled the fire. The people were heard and a mere six months later, the Big 10 and Pac 10 have made their moves (as well as the Mountain West, but that was more reactionary). The Big 12 is uncertain what it will do, but be assured that whatever timetable is set will be sped up by the people pushing for a resolve.

Poll Results: What Should Texas Do?

The University of Texas must have seen this poll because 68% said Texas should stay in the Big 12. Going to the Big 10 got 19% of the votes, and go independent received 13%. Thank you to all who participated.

We will stick with the expansion theme for the next poll question: What was the best expansion move?

CU says see you later to Big XII

Thursday, June 10, 2010, the Pac-10 announced that Colorado University will become the conference's 11th member. This change will become official in the summer of 2011. While many new rumors about Pac-10 expansion errupted less than a week before this annoucement, the first offical move was the oldest rumor. Colorado and Utah were the two teams first mentioned for Pac-10 expansion, which was thought to be a simple and fairly painless process to get the Pac-10 to 12 teams with a football championship game and improved television contract.

Now conference expansion has turned into a soap opera, with the Pac-10 being right in the middle of it all. Colorado made this move before other members of the Big XII to cut off attempts by Baylor to force its way into the Pac-10 and leave Colorado as the odd team out.

This move does not surprise me in the least. Colorado football has been down for several years, and what better way to infuse some life into the program than changing conferences. There is finally something to be excited about, which might translate into 2 or 3 more wins, which would translate into more excitement and better recruiting, which ... . You get the point; it's the snowball effect. Colorado pretty much hit rock bottom, so there is very little risk in this move.

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.

Big XII Ultimatum--Is this a joke?

The Big 12 has given Nebraska and Missouri an ultimatum for conference membership. The two schools have until Friday, June 11, 2010, to declare whether they are staying in the Big 12 or leaving for another conference. Really? This is the ultimate sign of desperation by the Big 12 conference officials. I find it hard to believe that the schools actually voted to issue this ultimatum. Six of the other 10 schools in the Big 12 have nothing to worry about if Nebraska and Missouri leave. Anyways, what good does this ultimatum do?

If I were Nebraska or Missouri, I would not respond. Go ahead, Big 12, kick me out. The worst thing that I see happening is the Big 10 does not extend an invite, so I have to go back to the Big 12 and say, "Sorry, will you let me back in?" I feel confident the Big 12 will say yes. The ultimatum makes it clear that the Big 12 has no "slam dunk" replacement schools, so when I come back as a known commodity, they will let me back in.

If Nebraska and Missouri do pledge loyalty to the Big 12, that is a slap in the face to the Big 10. This conference expansion carousel is still moving. The Big 10 might not be ready to extend an invite now, but maybe six months down the road will be. If you send the wrong message to the Big 10 you could kill your chances for the future. This is important because even with your commitment, Texas, Oklahoma, et al. can still bolt for the Pac-10, SEC, or something else. One thing we have learned already is that conference alignment is done on a school by school basis (with maybe the state of Texas being the one exception). Schools are making a decision based on themselves, not on how they may hurt/help the other teams in the conference by leaving or staying.

Yes, the ultimatum is a joke. The joke is the Big 12 officials, who are so scared of losing their job that they think they can use scare tactics to keep the conference from dissolving.

Conference Expansion Craziness

Sorry I have not posted a real article or anything for such a long time. Thank you to those who still frequented the site and have been participating in the opinion polls.

We are in the middle of what is supposed to be the quiet time for college football. Letter of Intent day is long passed and the spring football practice sessions wrapped up weeks ago. Classes are out and the coaches can't have contact with the players. Yet, the conference expansion craze is generating enough headlines and discussion to make this as busy as the regular season. Let's quickly run down the popular possibilities for each conference in expansion.

Big 10
We will start with the one that is responsible for this mess.
Plan A is to add Notre Dame to reach 12 and hold a championship game.
Plan B seems to be to take teams from the Big 12 and Big East to reach 14. Top candidates include the Big 12's Nebraska and Missouri and the Big East's Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt.

Pac-10
Plan A is to change the rule for championship games to conferences with 10 teams, as opposed to the current minimum of 12.
Plan A-1 emerged just last weekend to add six Big 12 schools that would include Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Colorado or Baylor.
Plan B Add Colorado and Utah to reach 12 and get a championship game to leverage a better TV deal and start a Pac-12 Network.

Big 12
Plan A is to weather the storm by keeping the nucleus of Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. They would prefer not to lose any team, but if Missouri goes they will survive.
Plan B add BYU, Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, Arkansas, or another team NOT IN THE CURRENT BIG 12 FOOTPRINT to replace Missouri.

SEC
Plan A is to wait and see what happens knowing most likely they won't have to do anything.
Plan B is to expand to 16 teams by attacking the ACC and/or Big 12. Popular candidates include Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and Georgia Tech.

Big East
Plan A is to give Notre Dame an ultimatum to join the conference for football or lose membership for its other sports. This is viewed as the best hope for survival, regardless of Notre Dame's response. The idea is to stop radical changes by forcing Notre Dame to join the Big 10 or, in their dreams, to stabilize the Big East by having Notre Dame as a football school.
Plan B die.
Plan C reach into the mid-majors again and repopulate the conference after the dust settles.

THE REST
Plan A is to wait and see. The Mountain West Conference (MWC) made this clear yesterday in a press conference announcing that Boise State would not be added. The ACC will only add teams if it loses teams or 16 becomes the new 12. The rest of the mid-majors won't expand unless one of the major conferences disbands and they feel they can capitalize with one of the once privileged "BCS schools."

With all these options on the table, which make the most sense and are the most likely?
Big 10 Plan A. Probably not going to happen. Notre Dame is being very vocal about wanting to stay independent, which means that is probably the message the boosters are sending. Notre Dame will listen to its boosters more than the Big 10.
Big 10 Plan B. Rumors are that Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10 is immenent and could be annouced very soon. I think this has a high probability of happening, but not this month. Expansion is as big of a decision for these conferences as marraige is to an individual. The conferences will take the time that they need. These two teams would bring the total to 13 for the Big 10, which means one Big East team needs to come along. Pitt has the best football program, but offers the least new market. Rutgers has shown promise and the head coach is committed to the school, but how much market do the Scarlet Knights really bring? Syracuse has been putrid in football, but is great in basketball. However, the Orangemen seem to have the potential of delivering the most TV sets. I would rank the likelihood of these teams joining the Big 10 as 1-Rutgers, 2-Pitt, 3-Syracuse.
Pac-10 Plan A and A-1. Until the news broke about the 6 Big 12 schools I thought changing the championship game rule was going to happen and the Pac-10 would not change. If the numbers add up for Texas, I think the six Big 12 teams will end up joining the Pac. I have no expertise in projecting TV revenues, but I think there is a good chance that Texas would stand to profit with this arrangement with the Pac-10. If not, I think this opens a new can of worms for the top teams from the Pac and the top teams from the Big 12 to form a new 12-16 team conference hand picking the teams that would make the $$$ numbers work.
Pac-10 Plan B. What was once the most likely and reasonable scenario is as good as dead, I think. If this was such a great idea, the Pac-10 would not be bending over backwards to try and make other scenarios work.
Big 12 Plan A. Your guess is as good as mine about keeping the Big 12 nucleus together. It is hard to imagine that the Big 12 could cease to exist, but at this point we have to accept that it just might.
Big 12 Plan B. If Missouri is the only school to replace you can rule out Arkansas and Memphis as candidates. It won't happen. Cincinnati is very unlikely as well. I think it will come down to Louisville or BYU. Anyone who knows me will know that BYU would be my preference, but my gut feeling tells me that the Big 12 would prefer to expand east, not west. A presence east of the Mississippi could be very valuable.
SEC Plan A. This is the plan I envision the SEC following. Even if conferences expand to 16 teams now, the SEC is in a position to wait and see if these expansions really work. If they do, the SEC is strong enough to rip teams away from almost anyone.
Big East Plan A. I don't see the ultimatum happening. I really think the Big East will go down (Plan B) without much of a fight if two or more teams are taken. Raiding other conferences will prove fruitless because the Big East will be so weakened that BCS automatic qualifying status will be lost.

To summarize, the biggest players in the conference expansion game are: Notre Dame, Texas, and the NCAA rule for minimum teams required for a championship game. Notre Dame is capable of keeping the structure of eastern college football largely in tact by joining the Big East. Texas is capable of exploding the structure of college football nationwide by breaking up the Big 12. An NCAA rule change could keep everything status quo. Not only would it satisfy the Pac 10, it could satisfy the Big 10, or keep the Big 12 from expanding if one or two teams leave.

Poll Results: Should the academics of a university be a deciding factor in expansion?

Thank you to everyone who voted in the lastes poll, "Should the academics of a university be a deciding factor in expansion?" Sixty (60) percent said that academics should not be a deciding factor in conference expansion. I have to say I agree. If you have visited the Conferences page of this blog you have found a link to each conference's official web site. If you click through those you will find that these web sites are dedicated to college athletics. The conferences were established because of sports, not academics.

A new poll is posted, don't forget to voice your opinion on "What should Texas do?"

Poll Results: Should Notre Dame stay independent in football?

One half of you said Notre Dame should stay independent. Joining the Big 10 was second and joining the Big East was a distant third (one vote). Personally, I think that Notre Dame should stay independent. I think that Notre Dame being independent is a big part of the identity of college football. I also would like to see the Big East cease to exist as a football conference and if Notre Dame joined the Big East it would save that conference. As for the Big 10, if Notre Dame joined, then I don't think we have much of a domino effect in conference expansion, which is something I am really looking forward to, for better or worse.

Thanks to all who voted. Be sure to vote in the new poll: Should the academics of a university be a deciding factor in expansion?

Poll Results: How many teams will the Big 10 expand to?

The majority (60%) think that the Big 10 will add one team to reach 12. Forty percent voted for 14 teams, and no one voted for 16. Thank you to all who participated.

Don't forget to take a minute to vote in the new poll: Should Notre Dame stay independent in football?

TQ26A2B9KAPQ

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.

NFL Draft: Round 1 Reaction

While this is a college football blog, I think the NFL draft still fits the scope of college football. For me, college football starts with a player signing a letter of intent, and ends with a player being drafted or signing as a free agent, or just moving on to grad school or the less glamorous part of the workforce. With round one in the books, five things stuck out to me.

1. Sam Bradford was the number one pick. Talk about the biggest case of “much ado about nothing” that football has ever seen. Bradford could have been the number one pick a year ago, but he decided to come back. He was injured less than 30 minutes into the season and the frenzy started about how much money he lost and how he should not have come back. It turns out it was all a waste of time and energy. What more productive and constructive thing could have been done with all that time and energy?

2. Big night for the Big 12. I saw the USA Today front page headline, “1-2 for the Big 12,” but that is only half the story. The first four picks were from the Big 12, three from Oklahoma, as well as picks six, fourteen, nineteen, twenty-one, and twenty-four. Nine players in all. If I had the resources, I would do the research to find out if this is precedent setting.

3. Three WAC players drafted. Ryan Matthews (Fresno State) was drafted number 12 by the Chargers, Mike Iupati (Idaho) was drafted 17 by the 49ers, and Kyle Wilson (Boise State) was taken number 29 by the Jets. As you can see, only one played for Boise State, and he was the last one taken. For all the criticism that Boise State gets for playing in such a weak conference, the WAC produced more first rounders than the Pac-10 and the MWC, an equal number of first rounders as the Big 10 and the Big East, and just one less first rounder than the ACC.

4. Tim Tebow at number 25 was not shocking. It happens every year. Someone is taken much earlier than expected. We all know the adage “it only takes one.” I just want to know what inside information Denver had that made them move back into the first round. Denver had the 22nd pick. If they really wanted Tebow this bad, they could have taken him then, or else wait for the second round. Someone else must have been hot on Tebow and was going to select him before the night ended, even with Jimmy Clausen still available. No only was this pick not shocking, but I like it. With the success Kyle Orton had last year in the Denver system, then I don’t see why Tim Tebow won’t be able to have a good NFL career there.

5. Jimmy Clausen. Quarterbacks falling in the first round has become common, but they still make it out of the first round. Not this time. Clausen is still without a team. Was leaving Notre Dame early really the right decision? How smart does this make Jake Locker in Washington look?

Poll Results: Rate the proposed solution to the BCS

While my proposed solution to the BCS was favored by a 2:1 ratio over the existing BCS system, the majority (66%) still think that a playoff would be better for college football. Thank you to all who participated.

POLL RESULTS: When will Tim Tebow be drafted?

Tim Tebow will have to wait until the 3rd round of the NFL draft to hear his name called, according to 66% of you. The only other votes were for the second round.

If you haven't voted already, there is a new poll posted about how my proposed solution to the BCS compares to what we have now.

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 Evidence: Performance on the Field

This is the third part of the BCS Bash series. For part one, click here. For part two, click here.

We all come to a point in life when we have to make a decision, but the best choice is not clear. However, after we make and carry out that decision, we are able to judge if the decision we made. The Bowl Alliance decided to include the Big East, Big 8, Southwest, Atlantic Coast, and Southeastern conferences and to exclude the Western Athletic, Mid-America, and Big West conferences. The Bowl Alliance decided to have the participants in its three bowl games be the conference champions of the five included conferences, plus one at-large team. The BCS made these same decisions three years later. (Note: The Big 8 and Southwest conferences merged in 1996 to form the Big 12. For clarity, I will refer only to the Big 12 for the rest of this article.)

The declared intent was still to match number one and number two in a bowl game, but the actions of the organizers sent a clear message that participating in the elite bowls was for conference champions. If you are a champion you have automatic access. If you are not a champion get in line and hope your name is called. The automatic access, however, was not granted to all conference champions because not all conference champions were viewed as equal. Champions of the SEC, ACC, Big East, and Big 12 were in a higher class than the other conference champions. They were given automatic qualifying status because they were "extra special." The other conference champions were merely mediocre.

This is America and we have the freedom of speech, so there is nothing illegal with anyone making that statement. In America you are also innocent until proven guilty, so let’s take this to the judge.

Court is now in session. Charges have come against the Bowl Alliance/BCS for unjustly limiting the automatic qualifying status for conference champions to the ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-10. The prosecution argues that for anyone to be a conference champion, they earn that distinction through their performance on the field of play. If these six conference champions are so superior to the other conference champions, their performance on the field of play will reflect that.

Exhibit one is the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.

Year....ACC....SEC....Big East..Big 10...Big 12...Pac-10

1996....11-0...11-1......10-1.........10-1.....8-4......11-0

1997....10-1...11-1.......9-3.........11-0....12-0......10-1

1998....11-1...12-0.......8-3.........10-1....11-2......10-1

1999....11-0...10-2......11-0..........9-2....11-1.......8-3

2000....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1

2001....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1

2002.....9-4...12-1......12-0.........13-0....11-2......10-2

2003....10-2...12-1......10-2.........10-2....11-3......11-1

2004....10-2...12-0.......8-3..........9-2....12-0......12-0

2005.....8-4...10-2......10-1.........10-1....12-0......12-0

2006....11-2...12-1......11-1.........12-0....11-2......10-2

2007....11-2...11-2......10-2.........11-1....11-2......10-2

2008.....9-4...12-1......11-2.........11-1....12-1......11-1

2009....11-2...13-0......12-0.........10-2....13-0......10-2

Total 143-26..157-17..143-19....154-17..157-19...145-17

Win % 0.846...0.902...0.882.....0.901...0.892....0.895

Relevance: The ACC champion had the lowest winning percentage (0.846) among the conference champions awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl. If this winning percentage is significantly higher than that of the conference champions not awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl, then the BCS is justified for excluding those other conferences.

Exhibit two is another table that shows the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the non-automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.

Year...MWC*...WAC**...MAC...Conf. USA

1996...13-1.......8-3........8-3.........8-3

1997...10-2.......6-5.......10-2.........8-3

1998...11-1.......8-3.......11-1........11-0

1999....8-3.......8-4.......12-0.........8-3

2000....9-2......10-1........7-5.........9-2

2001...12-1.......7-4........9-2........10-2

2002...10-3......11-1.......10-2.........9-2

2003....9-2......12-1.......12-1.........9-3

2004...11-0......11-0........9-3........10-1

2005...10-1.......9-3........7-5.........8-4

2006...10-2......12-0........9-4........10-3

2007...10-2......12-0........8-5........10-3

2008...12-0......12-0........8-5.........9-4

2009...12-0......13-0.......11-2.........9-4

Total 147-20...139-25......131-40.... 128-37

Win%..0.880...0.847.......0.766......0.775

* = The Mountain West Conference (MWC) did not exist prior to the 1999 season. The data used for 1996-1998 are the records of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) champion since the MWC members competed in that conference at that time and all WAC champions during that time are now members of the MWC.
** = Most of the teams comprising the WAC today were members of the Big West Conference from 1996-1998, so the records of the Big West Champion was used for those years.

(Note: The Sun Belt Conference did not exist prior to 2001, so for lack of data, the Sun Belt Conference was not used in this comparison.)

Relevance: On the field of play, both the MWC and the WAC champions, over a 14 year period, have sustained better on the field performance than the ACC champion. The WAC champion’s winning percentage was 0.001 better, and the MWC champion’s winning percentage was 0.034 better. It is also important to point out that the MWC champion’s wining percentage was only 0.002 less than the Big East champion. The performance on the field of play by the WAC and the MWC champions has exceeded that of the ACC. The MWC champion is even on par with the Big East champion.

Exhibit three is the results of the “BCS Busters” against teams from automatic qualifying conferences.

2004: Utah 35, Pittsburgh 7 (Pittsburgh was the Big East Champion)
2006: Boise State 43, Oklahoma 42 (Oklahoma was the Big 12 Champion)
2007: Georgia 41, Hawaii 10
2008: Utah 31, Alabama 17
Overall Record: 3-1 (2-0 versus automatic qualifying conference champions)

Relevance: On the field of play, non-automatic qualifying conference champions have won 75% of the time they have played in BCS bowl games against teams from AQ conferences, and 100% of the time these non-automatic qualifying conference champions have played automatic qualifying champions.

While Hawaii lost to Georgia by 31 points that does not hurt my case. Teams from conferences with AQ status have lost by 31 points or more in Bowl Alliance or BCS games on six occasions.

Florida lost to Nebraska by 38 points in 1995
Florida State lost to Florida by 32 points in 1996
Notre Dame lost to Oregon State by 32 points in 2000
Maryland lost to Florida by 33 points in 2001
Oklahoma lost to USC by 36 points in 2004
Illinois lost to USC by 32 points in 2007

The BCS’s decision to exclude cannot be justified by Hawaii’s blowout loss since it is not the only time that a BCS game has had such an outcome. In fact, Hawaii did not have the greatest losing margin of all teams in BCS games in 2007. On the other side of the coin, Utah won in 2004 by 28 points, which begs the question, “Why would such a superior conference champion lose so lopsidedly?”

Exhibit four is the changes in conference make up. Since the Bowl Alliance formed in 1995, the composition of the Big 8, the ACC and the Big East have all changed. The Big 8 added teams from the SWC and the ACC swiped teams from the Big East. The Big East, however, reached into the pile of leftovers (teams not in a conference granted automatic qualifying status) and added three teams. Since the Big East added teams, three out of five years one of the former outsiders won the conference.

Relevance: While the Big East conducted research to determine the best candidates to add to the conference, the Big East did not need authorization by the BCS. The BCS did not conduct its own analysis of performance on the field of play and conclude who were the three most qualified teams in college football for membership in the exclusive BCS circle. The precedent established in 1995 changed the rules for conference expansion. The ACC added teams from a fellow AQ conference, but if a conference was going to reach outside the AQ boundaries, then the BCS should have to approve the move.

Furthermore, the immediate success of these new Big East members shows that, on the field of play, teams from conferences without an automatic qualifying conference champion are NOT inferior to the teams in conferences with an automatic qualifying conference champion.

Exhibit five is that the expressed purpose of the Bowl Alliance, which the BCS continued, was to create a system that would match the number one and number two ranked teams in the same bowl game.

Relevance: On two occasions (Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003) teams who were not conference champions played for the national championship. To play for the national championship, a team must be ranked either number one or number two. Since teams who were not conference champions qualified for the national championship game, the BCS showed that automatic qualifying status for conference champions was not necessary to accomplish its intent. Therefore, one or more of the parties involved in creating the Bowl Alliance and the BCS were working to protect special interests by creating the automatic qualifying status for a limited number of conferences in college football.

Closing Arguments: The defendant will, undoubtedly, attempt to counter my evidence with the strength of schedule for teams from the conferences with automatic qualifying champions. I rebut that argument by reiterating what was covered yesterday regarding “overall conference strength.” This notion of “strength of schedule” is a false perception born out of misconceptions that have, unfortunately, corrupted all forms of rankings and ratings for college football. When the issue is automatic qualifying status for conference champions, the only evidence that matters is performance on the field.

Specific to exhibit three, the defendant might rebut by incorporating regular season head-to-head competition of teams from conferences with automatic qualifying status versus teams from conferences without automatic qualifying status. That is irrelevant evidence. First, any head-to-head comparison should be between conference champions in the year that both teams were conference champions. Second, head-to-head competition is not a criterion used for selection of any team to the BCS bowls. USC and Notre Dame have both played in BCS bowls in the same year, regardless of the results on the field of play in the regular season. The same can be said for Florida and Florida State. Even in 2008, USC embarrassed Ohio State during the season, but both played in BCS bowls. The tables in exhibits one and two include all regular season games. Any head-to-head competitions that occurred are a part of those records. Bringing in regular season head-to-head competition is another bad cover up. It would be like lying: once you lie, you have to use another lie to cover it up. Regular season head-to-head competition would be using an injustice to cover up the original injustice.

The evidence I have presented clearly shows that two conference champions that don’t have automatic qualifying status have performed equally on the field of play to the conference champions that do have automatic qualifying status.

When we find out that we made a bad decision, we take corrective action. The BCS needs to take corrective action. Like most corrective action, it will hurt the wrongdoer. Fortunately in this case, the corrective action is simple. For now, though, we have had enough for one day. Come back tomorrow for The Solution.

Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions

Sources:
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809942

The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength

This is the second part of the BCS Bash series. For part one, click here.

Once the Bowl Coalition and its successors adopted a platform that would use conference champions as a means to its end, and then gave automatic qualifying status to the champions of the participating conferences, these entities needed to justify that platform. Justifying this platform was easy to defend in the beginning. Few criticized them and most just glossed over the automatic qualifying element. As time has passed and very good teams from the other conferences were overtly excluded from playing in one of the bowls, greater scrutiny has been given to the automatic qualifying status for six conferences.

The automatic qualifying provision has been exposed as a bad cover up. The conferences with automatic qualifying status needed some incentive to join this pact, and the automatic qualifying status for their champion was the incentive. Of course, if you are going to extend privileges you need to justify those privileges. To justify this privilege and to try and keep the hidden agendas safe, the battle cry became “overall conference strength.” The overall conference strength of these six conferences is so much better than the rest of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences that these six conference champions earned, by play on the field, one of the ten (formerly 8) slots in the participating bowl games. The other conference champions were relegated to parading themselves for style points from the voters and computers in a competition with the second and third place teams from conferences with automatically qualifying champions for the four (formerly 2) remaining slots.

Overall conference strength!!! Are you serious? How do you quantify that? Do you compare the last place teams in each conference? Do you look at each team’s non-conference record? Do you look at the end of the year rankings? While each of these can appear reasonable on the surface, the truth is they are all ridiculous.

Last Place Teams
This overall conference strength argument tells me that the powers that be must have done something to evaluate and compare the last place teams in each conference. Maybe they conducted 10,000 computer simulations of Vanderbilt vs. Tulane, Duke vs. Louisiana-Lafayette, Iowa State vs. UTEP, Indiana vs. Kent State, Rutgers vs. Northern Illinois, and Oregon State vs. New Mexico State (in the early to mid 1990s these were the perennial losers). The results of these computer simulations must have been so compelling that any reasonable person would look at them and say, “You know, if the WAC champion had to play Iowa State instead of UTEP, then I would support automatic qualifying status for the WAC champion. I mean look at last year (1994). A win over Iowa State (0-10-1) was much more impressive than a win over UTEP (3-7-1).” Reality check: The competitiveness of the worst team in the conferences was never discussed and it had no bearing on handing out the automatic qualifying status for conference champions. Reality check #2: A last place team is a last place team, and two wins in a season is two wins. There is no way to sugar coat bad teams.

Non-Conference Record
Since it wasn’t head-to-head competition between the last place teams, it must have been the better non-conference record by those bottom-of-the-bucket teams that made the overall conference strength so great. It is quite logical that in 1994 Wake Forest was only 1-7 in conference games because the ACC was so strong top to bottom. Look at the Demon Deacon’s 2-1 non-conference record. However, in 1994 Hawaii was 0-8 in the WAC because Hawaii was awful, never mind that Hawaii was 3-0-1 in non-conference games. Sorry, but that logic is grossly flawed! The facts reveal that Wake Forest beat Appalachian State 12-10, beat Army 33-27, and lost to Vanderbilt 35-14. Hawaii beat Pac-10 champion Oregon 36-16, Cal 21-7, and Southeast Missouri State 34-0, and tied Missouri 32-32.

The overall records at face value for the worst teams in the automatic qualifying conferences often do look better than their non-automatic qualifying conference counterparts. When you start to compare, it is evident that this difference can be attributed to the bad AQ teams playing more Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams or other bad FBS teams than the bad non-AQ teams. Am I the only one that cringes when a team that was 2-6 or 3-5 in league play goes to a bowl game because they were 4-0 or 3-1 against terrible non-conference opponents (case in point: Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Texas A&M, and UCLA in 2009)? Any ground that is gained by playing in a conference with greater “overall conference strength” is lost by playing much softer non-conference schedules. In other words, the season schedule as a whole is usually comparable.

Rankings
We were wrong about comparing the worst teams from each conference, and we were wrong about the non-conference records. Therefore, the answer to the overall conference strength mystery must be those hallowed national rankings. Sadly, the rankings have lost their integrity and now have a decided BCS bias. In 1994, Utah was 10-2, second place in the WAC, and ranked number 10 in the final Associated Press poll. Every other team in the top ten had one loss or less, except one other two loss team, so I have to say the number 10 ranking was fair. Fast forward 10 years and let’s track how the Mountain West Conference (MWC) champion finished in the final BCS standings (Note: The MWC is comprised of virtually the same teams as the WAC was in 1994.)

2004: Utah was 11-0 and ranked number 6, behind one-loss Texas and one-loss California; teams that finished second in their conferences.
2005: TCU was 10-1 and ranked number 14. A 10-1 record for a conference champion from an automatic qualifying conference garnered a no. 3 and no. 11 ranking that year, while two-loss Georgia was no. 7, two-loss Ohio State was no. 4, and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 6.
2006: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 20. However, the AQ conference champions with two losses were ranked numbers 5, 10, and 14, while two-loss LSU was no. 4 and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 11.
2007: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 17. The AQ conference champions with 2 losses were ranked numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, while the teams ranked numbers 12 through 16 all had three or four losses.
2008: Utah was 12-0 and ranked number 6. Every team ahead of Utah had one loss, including its Sugar Bowl opponent Alabama. Utah won that game convincingly, 31-17.
2009: TCU was 12-0 and ranked number four. Every team ahead of TCU was undefeated as well. However, all season long, TCU was ahead of Cincinnati, an AQ conference champion, until the final standings when the Bearcats leapfrogged TCU.

The last six years the BCS standings have shown a clear bias towards teams from conferences labeled as automatic qualifiers. (If we looked at the first six years of the BCS the bias would be even more apparent.) A similar pattern is reflected in the individual polls—human and computer. The examples cited above only look at conference champions, but it has a trickle down effect on the overall conference. If voters are going to rank a non-AQ conference champion lower than the AQ conference champions, they will also rank the second and third place teams lower. A second place team cannot be in the top 10 if the conference champion isn’t even in the top 10. The third place team won’t even be ranked if the second place team is stuck in the 20s.

Although I love the rankings, they are very flawed because they are largely influenced by opinion. At present, the human voters’ opinions and the computer formulas are biased by the two misconceptions previously addressed, and other subjective elements like unreliable recruiting class ranks, theoretical strength of schedule ranks, and the historical success of a team. The BCS has caused the voters and computer programmers to draw a line of demarcation between schools in AQ conferences and schools in non-AQ conferences. If you happen to be in one of those six AQ conferences you are given the benefit of the doubt, but if you are on the outside you are handicapped. The outsiders have to repeatedly prove themselves to be considered legitimate, but if they slip up once along the way the voters and computer matrices hastily slam the outsider schools back to ground zero. An outsider must finish a season undefeated to play in a BCS game, while an AQ team can expect a spot in the national championship game if it finishes undefeated.

(NOTE: I used 1994 for many of my arguments because that is the last year before the Bowl Coalition morphed into the Bowl Alliance, and it is the time frame that would have been used when analyzing conference strength and weighing the merits of the decision to have automatic qualifying conferences.)

SEC
The SEC is currently considered the gold standard for football conferences. Interestingly, Chris Low, the ESPN.com blogger for the SEC compiled the record of each SEC team against teams in the final Associated Press and USA Today top 25 over the last five years. Here are the results:

• Florida – 14-9 (.609)
• LSU – 13-11 (.542)
• Alabama – 10-12 (.455)
• Auburn – 8-12 (.400)
• Georgia – 8-12 (.400)
• Tennessee – 5-17 (.227)
• Ole Miss – 4-14 (.222)
• South Carolina – 5-19 (.208)
• Arkansas – 3-20 (.130)
• Kentucky – 2-17 (.105)
• Vanderbilt – 2-17 (.105)
• Mississippi State 2-20 (.091)

Two SEC teams have a winning record. Seven teams (over half of the conference) average one or fewer wins per year against a top 25 team. The winning percentage for each of those seven teams is below 0.250 (1 out of 4). Thank you, Mr. Low, for providing more numbers to expose the fallacy that is “overall conference strength.”

At this point, we still have no evidence supporting the overall conference strength argument. The fact is that each conference has three or four teams at the bottom that are "easy" victories, and each conference has four or five teams that pose a legitimate threat to the eventual conference champion. All these arguments that one team had a harder conference schedule are not compelling arguments.

Proponents of the BCS and its predecessors use the cover up that the overall conference strength is so much better in certain conferences that the champions from those conferences merit preferential treatment (automatic qualifying status). As we can see, that cover up is full of holes, and the situation only gets bleaker when you look at the evidence against those supposed merits. The evidence will be on display tomorrow.

Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions

Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/9443/tracking-the-sec-vs-the-final-top-25-polls

The Scam: Automatic Qualifying Conference Champions

Note: This is the first part of a four part series on the Bowl Championship Series. Links to the other three parts are found at the end of this article.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a scam. Why? The provision that grants automatic qualifying status to certain conference champions. The BCS toots its own horn about how great it is because it guarantees that the number one and two teams will play in a bowl game to finish each year. Okay, so where does the need for automatic qualification come in? First a little history, so we can understand the real answer to this question.

Historically, bowl games had agreements with one or two conferences for the right to host certain teams in their games at the end of the year. The bowl games operated completely independent of any entity that ranked the top teams in college football. As attention to both bowl games and the rankings increased, the desire to see the top two teams play each other at the end of the year increased.

In 1992 the Bowl Coalition was created between the Big East Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 8, Southeastern Conference (SEC), Southwest Conference (SWC), and Notre Dame with the expressed intent to create better possibilities for a bowl game to feature number one and two. This coalition involved the Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Gator, and John Hancock bowls.

The Bowl Coalition was dumped in 1995 for the Bowl Alliance. The Bowl Alliance consisted of the same five conferences, but reduced bowl participation to the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls. Each conference champion would automatically qualify for one of these bowls and one at-large team would be selected. Theoretically, that at-large team could be from any conference in NCAA Division 1-A football.

That brings us to the BCS. The BCS brought all the “major” conferences and bowl games together for the first time in 1998. The Pac-10, the Big 10, and the Rose Bowl joined the others to form the BCS. In 1996, the Big 8 and SWC had consolidated, more or less, to form the Big 12, so the official make up of the BCS was the Big East, the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12, the Pac-10, and Notre Dame, as well as the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls. The BCS continued the automatic qualifying status for champions from the six participating conferences. Notre Dame could automatically qualify if it had 9 wins and was ranked in the BCS top 10. Teams from outside the six participating conferences could automatically qualify if they were ranked in the BCS top 6.

In most cases, I give people the benefit of the doubt and believe they act with good intentions. In the case of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS, it is pretty hard to accept that some other interests besides matching the top two teams in the same bowl were not driving this process. All that would have been necessary to accomplish the declared intent was to have an agreement between the bowls that the bowl with the number two ranked team would release its rights to that team so that team could play in the same bowl as the number one ranked team. Of course the bowl losing the number two ranked team would want retribution for its losses, but I think retribution would be a minor detail that could be worked out easily and beneficial to all. Furthermore, if we are talking about having the top two teams play, why wasn’t the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS all inclusive—all bowls, all teams. When was it ever decreed that a team from a conference with ties to one of the other bowls could not be number one or two? If a team from one of these outsider conferences and bowls was number one, why would that team not deserve to play for the championship in its affiliated bowl? Limiting the conferences and bowls involved and by giving automatic qualifying status to those conference champions was self-serving and collusive. The real intent was to have number one and number two play every year in a bowl game and to ensure that number one and two were teams from this select group of conferences.

Digging into history a little further makes this whole bowl confederation look very sketchy. I am still scratching my head wondering how the Big East and the ACC were able to gain favored nations status if the organizers’ motives were pure.

First, the Big East did not even exist until 1991 (Bowl Coalition began in 1992), so there was little to no historical evidence that this conference was important in accomplishing the objective to have number one and number two play in a bowl. Now, it is true that the University of Miami, Florida, technically was a Big East member and won the national championship in 1991 (as well as in 1983, 1987, 1989 as an independent), the Hurricanes played only two conference games that year. Now that 20 years have passed, the evidence we do have is that the Miami Dynasty unraveled shortly after it became affiliated with a conference.

Second, the ACC was a glorified Western Athletic Conference (WAC) before the 1992 season. Sure, Clemson won the national championship in 1981 and Georgia Tech split the national championship in 1990, but that is it. Once in a decade the ACC champion was relevant. The WAC was having the same level of success as the ACC during this timeframe. In 1992, however, Florida State left the ranks of the independents to join the ACC. Florida State was 53-8 and ranked in the top 5 from 1987-1991. Again, the evidence we have post-1991 is that the ACC, as a whole, was mediocre; the Seminoles dominated the ACC for the next decade. Furthermore, the ACC has never fielded an at-large BCS team.

Let’s be honest with ourselves and accept that the only reason the Big East is an automatic qualifying conference is Miami, and the only reason for the ACC is Florida State. No entity stating that it was trying to match number one and number two in a bowl game would have any credibility if it left these two national powerhouses out. However, all credibility would be lost if several schools were being hand picked like Notre Dame was.

Now, back to the original question, where does the need for automatic qualification come in? The short answer is it is not needed, all it is merely a cover up. I will uncover this cover up tomorrow. Don’t miss it!

Part 2: The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength
Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions

Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/

BCS BASH WEEK

I am affectionately anointing this week as “BCS Bash Week.” For the next four days I will attack the cartel disguised as the Bowl Championship Series. The four part series will include the following:

1. Tuesday: The Scam
2. Wednesday: The Cover-up
3. Thursday: The Evidence
4. Friday: The Solution

I have made significant research while preparing each day’s topic to ensure that I present accurate information and that I make substantiated assertions. I am not simply venting. I know your time is valuable, and I have ensured that each topic has enough substance that reading it will not be a waste of time.

Come back each day as we bash the BCS.