Bill James Murders the BCS in its Sleep

Your link takes the reader directly to Page 3 of the article. Here is the link to the whole article.

by talonk on Jan 7, 2009 6:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fixed. Sorry about that all.

by NickFantana on Jan 7, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am tempted to rec this fanshot just because of the awesome title.

by tabler84 on Jan 7, 2009 6:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think you can do better with the tags. But I’ll let the other nick be the judge of that.

by world dictator on Jan 7, 2009 6:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fixed.

by NickFantana on Jan 7, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dave Roberts is dead?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jan 7, 2009 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh that Dave Roberts.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jan 9, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This article is amazing

by Roger Dorn on Jan 7, 2009 6:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’ve always maintained that no serious journalist should ever refer to the “national championship” of D-I football because there isn’t one. Back in the day, most had enough integrity to use the adjective “mythical.”

When Bear Bryant died, the AP story said he won five national championships, while the UPI story said he won four. If there really were such a thing, we would all be able to count them.

by SuddenSam on Jan 7, 2009 7:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think back in the 60’s and/or 70’s they handed out 3 or 4 different national championships.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 7, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is kind of awesome. I’m not even a football person. And it always did bug me about how people blamed the “computers”.

by Voltaire on Jan 7, 2009 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah that’s dumb. People program the computers — computers can’t do anything without human input.

I actually trust the computer rankings more than the human ones. Humans are biased and the voters favor big-name teams, don’t look at strength of schedule, and too much is based on the preseason rankings, which are utterly meangingless. If one teams starts at 5 and another starts at 20 and they both win out, the first teams will always be ranked higher no matter how much better the second team plays. That’s not fair. Preseason rankings should be eliminated and they shouldn’t rank teams until after the first month of the season to give voters a chance to evaluate the teams.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 7:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. Which is why it really bugs me that they just rig the formulas to justify the rankings.

by Voltaire on Jan 8, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I gotta say, for all the things to boycott, the BCS should not be at the top of the list. How about the almost meaningless regular seasons in: NCAA basketball, the NBA, the NHL, and to some extent the NFL. To me, those are much bigger frauds.

Not to mention the fact that the BCS champion is no more fraudulent than any other champion that’s ever been crowned in college football. Why start boycotting it now?

by scripteye on Jan 7, 2009 9:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As Brad said above, anybody can award a trophy, and many have over the years. I remember a stadium-shaped championship trophy called the McArthur Bowl that somebody handed out.

But now you have something that actually calls itself a “championship series” and features a “national championship game.” The fans and pundits howl about the procedure, but they buy into the concept. I mean, if you think Oklahoma-Florida is just another bowl game, why get in a lather over who’s in it?

by SuddenSam on Jan 7, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why start boycotting it now?

Cause I want to spend one holiday season watching an NCAA Football Championship Tournament before I die.

As General Manager of this team, I demand to know when I'm getting a start.

by bigbrabbs on Jan 7, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm. Well, good luck.

by scripteye on Jan 7, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NCAA basketball is God’s gift to the masses.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At least from conference tourney week onward

by Roger Dorn on Jan 8, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I love the whole season. From start to finish it is just long enough to not be a joke (NCAA Football, for instance, is so short that it is a tournament from day one) and short enough to hold your attention. Then it culminates in the second best tournament in the world.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I love the whole season, too. Think about it. Tennessee has already played Gonzaga twice, Georgetown, will play Marquette and Kansas, too. (I just picked Tenn because of the game last night.) That’s a alot of ranked or close-to-top-25 teams to play so far. Those matchups are just as interesting as ones that occur in March. But they don’t necessarily impact Tennessee’s chances to make the field of 65 because of the conference-champ rule (I WISH IT WAS REGULAR SEASON CHAMPS who got the auto-bid, however.)

Would some sort of football tournament where Conference Champs got an automatic bid yield more interesting regular-season non-conference matchups? Would those jackasses in Gainesville travel anywhere other than Talahassee for a non-conference game if they weren’t punished for losing an NC game?

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

(I WISH IT WAS REGULAR SEASON CHAMPS who got the auto-bid, however.)

You can’t do that – otherwise, the conference schedule would actually mean something.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing with you, but the conf season does determine something … seeding for the end of season tourney.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is a huge advantage to teams in conferences like the A10, Big Sky, CUSA and the like. The conference schedule is more meaningful in college basketball than it is in college football conferences that don’t have tournaments.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm. World Cup or Champions League?

by Pronktastic on Jan 8, 2009 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

World Cup. The CL is fun, but it just doesn’t compare.

by fwembt on Jan 9, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. The fixtures are so spread out that it feels less like a true tournament.

How long until 2010?

by Pronktastic on Jan 9, 2009 9:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not a huge NCAAF fan, but I’m inclined to support the ‘’Regular season is for students and bowls are for alumni’’ claim.

For example:

Asked what were more important, his two Rose Bowl rings or his one pair of gold pants, Gradishar, in the automobile business in Denver, couldn’t make a choice. In the book Woody’s Boys, an oral history of Hayes’ 28 seasons at Ohio State, Hall of Fame (College and Pro) guard Jim Parker made his.

“I’d rather lose every other game,” Parker said, “and win the Michigan game.”

Students walk to home games (er, except at UConn) or at least watch most regular season games with their friends when school is session. Bowls are holiday fodder, weeks after the most recent game, and abstractions from the season. Yes, the BCS is an unnatural way to end the season, but so is any league that tries to decide a winner from 100+ teams in half a year when games can only be played once a week.

by FranklinScott on Jan 7, 2009 10:49 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

The problem with that is all other college football divisions have playoff systems, and pretty extensive ones at that. Division III, for example, has 32 teams make the playoffs – that’s five extra games for the teams who make it to the championship.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And no, I don’t think a 32-team tournament makes sense for Division I.

My version:

8 teams qualify, using BCS rankings.
Regular season is reduced by one game, hopefully to limit the cupcakes.
Tournament starts immediately after regular season, with quarter-final and semi-final games hosted by the higher-ranked team.
Teams that are eliminated in the quarter-finals and semi-finals play in three of the four traditional BCS bowl games, with the fourth BCS bowl being the national championship.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s pretty much the way to go

by Roger Dorn on Jan 8, 2009 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See my fanpost on this subject.

I prefer a 16 team tourney using the bowls.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 3:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

8 teams. You have to make the regular season important and only the very best should make the playoffs. I don’t want some 12th ranked team getting hot and winning a championship like what often happens in the NCAA basketball tournament.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 7:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

define “often”.

then, list that many #12 seeds that have won the NCAA championship

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jan 8, 2009 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

12th ranked would be a 3 seed.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

:footinmouth:

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jan 8, 2009 9:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but to be fair to my original point, there are 3 times as many D1 basketball programs eligible for the NCAA tournament as there are for the BCS (in theory). So the 12th ranked team in football is more comparable to the 36th ranked team in the NCAA basketball tournament, or, a #9 seed. Going in the other direction, the 12th ranked team in the NCAA basketball tournament is equivalent to the #3 team in the BCS, which goes to the core of what we’re debating about in the first place.

Under a “similar”, yet toned down, tournament, BCS#3 Texas would have the chance to earn a title on the field against the other top teams, instead of among the voters.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jan 8, 2009 9:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that the #3 or #4 or #5 team should have a chance to earn a title (because the difference between #2 and #5 is often subjective, like this year). I don’t agree that the #12 or #13 team should have a chance at the title, because they’re not an elite team. Having a 16-team tournament would also water down the regular season, because the games at the end against the top teams wouldn’t matter because they’re both in the playoffs. If you only take 8, every game matters to get in.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How could the regular season be watered down with 16 teams if 11 of them are conference champions? This only leaves 5 at large bids for the “big boys”.

Let’s assume that 2 or 3 come from the SEC. If that occurred, the highest seeds would have home games against Troy or Ball St, while the “at larges” play Penn St or Utah.

A better regular sason assures you of a better first round matchup, just like the 1 vs the 16 seed on the BBall tourney.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The difference between the #3 team and #10 team this year was 3 points and 16 seconds.

How is that a ‘bug’ and not a ‘feature’?

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t want some 12th ranked team getting hot and winning a championship like what often happens in the NCAA basketball tournament.

Why? #12 out of 347 teams doesn’t deserve the title? That’s quite a stretch.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t that part of the drama?

Why not just give the trophy to North Carolina and be done with the ‘12 seed problem’

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course that’s part of the drama. And that’s what the NCAA tourney is for: drama (and money, of course. Lots and lots of money.) But getting the best drama isn’t the same as finding the best team. If you wanted to find the true best team, you’d invite less teams and play best-of-7 rounds. That eliminates the big upsets and determines the true “best team”.

I’m not saying the NCAA tourney should do that. Everybody loves the big upsets and seeing the mid-major team make the Elite 8 by knocking off Duke or Kentucky. That’s definately more drama. But it doesn’t find the best team.

If basball wanted more drama in the playoffs, they’d invite more teams and play one-and-done. But the point of the playoffs isn’t to make drama, it’s to find the best team.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But the point of the playoffs isn’t to make drama, it’s to find the best team.

Sorry, but this is utterly false. St Louis was not the best team in 2006. They won a weak division and got hot in the playoffs. The NY Giants last year, were not the best team (New England was) but got hot at the right time, during the playoffs.

The only “true” champion are divisioon winners from the NBA, MLB, NFL, and hockey. The playoffs do determine champions of those "winners’ but they are not necessarily the best teams.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I would rather reward teams that ‘do what they had to do’ than crown an arbitrary ‘best’ team. The Cardinals won their division, and then moved on from there. No matter how ugly it was, they won the necessary amount of games to win the WS. That’s my only argument for Utah. The won the games that they had to win … and they are the only team who can say that.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am not denying Utah has a voice in the matter, but I cannot judge whether a 13-0 Utah team is better then a 13-1 Oklahoma/Florida team. And neither can you. Without a playoff!!!!

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly!

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel like I am the official 2006 Cardinals apologist. It’s a team that suffered through a few injuries during the season and got healthy come playoff time. They had the best player on the planet playing 1B and a Cy Young guy at the head of their rotation. Not to mention and up and coming closer with a wicker curve

by Roger Dorn on Jan 8, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Am not trying to denigrate them at all. But if that division had better teams, the Cards would have never made the playoffs in the first place.

Isn’t it Beane, Shapiro, et al that say the playoffs are a crapshoot? You just gotta get into that crapshoot to have a chance. There is no guarantee that the “best” team of teh 8 is going to win.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A wicker curve?

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just can’t get past the fact that you believe making a team win 6 consecutive games against teams that are in the top 20 percentile (arguably) of college basketball doesn’t find the best team. Other than making each of the 347 teams play each other on a neutral court once each, I don’t know how they can better their system.

It may not be the absolute best way, but it’s lightyears ahead of the BCS, championships determined by pollsters, and possibly even an 8-team playoff that is based off of the current BCS, which in turn, is based off of voters anyhow.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jan 8, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Rec Rec Rec

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not saying it’s a bad system, but you cannot say that the NCAA champion every year is the best team. Syracuse a few years ago with Carmelo Anthony wasn’t the best team. They were a 4 or 5 seed that got hot at the right time and won it all. Go back to Villanova’s upset over Georgetown — they were barely over .500 when the tourney started. Were they really the best team that year? Of course not.

I’m not saying the tourney should be changed or that I don’t like it. And most times the winner is clearly the best team. But not always. What is more representative of how good a team is — winning 6 games in a row in March or having the best record over 30 games played over the course of 4 months? What if two teams from the same conference who played roughly the same schedule met in the tourny, and one is 30-2 and the other 22-10 (and the first one beat the second twice in conference play). Which team is better? Clearly the 30-2 team. Of course, when those teams play, the better team could have a bad game and lose. And that’s fine — they don’t deserve to be champion if they lost in the tourney. But they’re still the better team.

St. Louis won the World Series a couple years ago. Were they the best team? Not many people think so. Nobody is arguing that they don’t deserve the championship, but if you look objectively over the course of the whole season (a much larger sample) they weren’t the best team. Same with the NY Giants last year. Still, they’re champs and congrats to them. This happens often in sports.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not that I disagree with your basic premise, but basketball is nowhere near as variant on a game-to-game basis as baseball is. In baseball, the better team might win 60% of the time at best — the Royals sweep the Red Sox sometimes, etc. In basketball, the better team will win a lot more often than that.

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this. When you make it a best of 7 series like in the NBA, I’d be hard pressed to say that the best team doesn’t end up winning the series at least 95% of the time

by Roger Dorn on Jan 8, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right. I’m not talking about the NBA, I’m talking about college basketball where it’s one game and out in the playoffs.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right. In baseball, it might be 70%.

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this is why the NBA’s decision to make the opening round best of 7 is infuriating

by APV on Jan 8, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think that’s bad; best-of-7 is always better than best-of-5, in baseball or basketball. It’s their decision to spread it out over so many days for TV ratings that is bad.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This response totally contradicts your one above.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh? Why??

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because above you state that the goal of the playoffs is to determine the best team, yet in this post you show how the best team doesn’t always win in the playoffs.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure what “playoffs” you’re talking about — we’ve been discussing many different sports. I stated above that the best team doesn’t always win the NCAA tourney. The tourney is for drama, ratings, and making money. People disagreed with me, so I explained why I thought that way. I don’t see the contradiction.

The NBA playoffs do a much better job of finding the “best team” because all series are best-of-7. Baseball is pretty good, too, but of course there are upsets (because, as Jay said, the better team wins more often in basketball than baseball).

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From your 9:50 AM PST post:

If basball wanted more drama in the playoffs, they’d invite more teams and play one-and-done. But the point of the playoffs isn’t to make drama, it’s to find the best team.

Then from your 10:53 AM PST post:

St. Louis won the World Series a couple years ago. Were they the best team? Not many people think so. Nobody is arguing that they don’t deserve the championship, but if you look objectively over the course of the whole season (a much larger sample) they weren’t the best team. Same with the NY Giants last year. Still, they’re champs and congrats to them. This happens often in sports.

Those are the contridicting posts.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, sorry, the Cardinals were a bad example. No playoff system is perfect, and there are always time where the team that has demonstrated over a long season to be the best team loses to a lesser team. Look at the A’s in the 80’s. But the baseball playoffs are closest to the best we have in sports, so that was a bad example. The goal of the playoffs should be to produce the best team, and baseball usually does that.

If you wanted a perfect system to produce the best team, you wouldn’t have any playoffs. You’d play 162 games, with every team playing every other team an equal number of times, and whoever has the best record is the champion.

My point, which I have repeated multiple times, was that the NCAA tourney often does NOT produce the best team as champion. I don’t see how anyone could disagree with this statement.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’d play 162 games, with every team playing every other team an equal number of times, and whoever has the best record is the champion.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess it ate my comment…

Exactly. The playoffs in baseball is a different animal from the regular season.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like the Premier League. But nobody gets relegated.

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jan 8, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which takes some of the fun out of it.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NCAA tourney often does NOT produce the best team as champion. I don’t see how anyone could disagree with this statement.

I can disagree because I played college ball and still follow it obsessively. I will give you the 1988 Kansas Jayhawks, the 1985 Wildcats and the 1983 Wolfpack as aberrations (Valvano cheated. Why does no one mention that?). You can throw in Arizona in ’97 (I think) as another team that may not have been the best.

Other than those teams, the lowest seed ever to win is a #3. Beginning in 1979 with the first seeded tournament until now (above teams excepted) every team that has won the championship has a very, very good claim to having been the best in the nation. That’s 4 “mistakes” in 30 years. That seems to me an awesome success rate for the best team winning.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, I’m not saying it happens very often, but it does happen. More than in college football, was my point. (That’s why I was arguing for an 8-team playoff, to keep out the non-elite teams and make the regular season mean something.)

You obviously know college basketball more than I do, so I’ll take your word for that. I was thinking of Syracuse a few years ago — I thought they were a 4 or 5 seed — and those other teams you mentioned, as examples. You won’t see an 8-3 team win a national title in college football.

I don’t want anyone to think I’m trashing the college tourney because I’m certainly not. It’s a lot of fun for the fans and generates tons of interest. I just think that any tournament where it’s one-and-done doesn’t always produce the best team because of the frequency of upsets.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We may have to agree to disagree here. I think it is rash to say that college football names a deserving national champ more often than basketball does. It seems to me there is a disagreement each year as to who amongst three or four teams should be playing. Either way, I watch the championship in each sport, each year. It’s still fun, even when flawed. At least Xavier has a chance in basketball, we don’t even have a football team.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now, I never said the way college football determines a championship is perfect. Far from it. I’d like an 8-team playoff. My only point is that the best way to determine who’s the best team in a playoff is with a 7-game series, not one-and-done like the NCAA tourney. That format makes for compelling drama, of course, but I don’t think it’s the most fair. That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy watching it.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It would take a miracle for an 8-4 college football team to ‘get hot’ and run off 3 straight wins (16 team tournament) against superior teams. Football isn’t like basketball. There’s more separation between talent on the field than on the court. It takes more players, too — and there are many more factors as to why a series of upsets, rather than a singular upset would be highly improbable.

Chances are, even with a 16-team tourney, the championship would be won by one of the top 5 teams every year. On the field, where they belong.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s my problem with a playoff system. Right now the fight largely centers on what two teams deserve to be in the title game. Most years this is an argument which involves 3, maybe 4 teams, with 0 or 1 loss. If you expand it to 8 teams, the number of teams making legitimate claims is going to expand considerably, as you’ll be bringing in a lot of 2 loss teams. So instead of having 1 or 2 upset teams, I could easily see 4-6 upset teams. And while the playoff would be better, I’m not sure that makes the “problem” any better. The NCAA basketball tournament works as well as it does, in part, because those teams that just miss the cut aren’t great teams. They might be good teams, but it’s hard to get all worked up about the 6th place big-10 team with 14 losses getting “snubbed”. I could easily see getting worked up about the SEC runner-up with 2 losses not making a NCAA football playoff.

by APV on Jan 8, 2009 8:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t be opposed to expanding it in the future (though not to the extend you’re saying), but keeping it at 8 teams seems the best way to fit it into today’s system.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 8:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that the logistics of expanding much beyond 8 in the context of football would be pretty difficult, if not impossible.

by APV on Jan 8, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ask Divison 1-A. Sorry, FCS. (That C stands for ‘championship’, not ‘bowl’ for a reason.)

Not impossible.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or Division II or Divisoin III or the NAIA tourneys …

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Richmond Spiders “Division I National Champions” t-shirt should be arriving soon. There’s something Ohio State fans won’t really ever get to experience. I feel sorry for you guys!

by cleveland teamer on Jan 8, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember the Spiders taking out Barkley-Person Auburn and defending champion Indiana in first-round NCAA games back in the 80s.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They also had one of the few 15 vs. 2 victories in the tournament (vs. Syracuse in ’91). Not much basketball success since then, though.

by cleveland teamer on Jan 8, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Congrats by the way. Wanting my fourth straight title felt kind of greedy.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jan 8, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh right, I thought I saw your comments about App St. a while back. Thanks.

by cleveland teamer on Jan 8, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They just experienced that like six years ago.

(But the BCS still bloze.)

by JulioBernazard on Jan 8, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The SEC runner up with 2 losses is going to be in the top 8 almost every year.

More to the point, this argument that now the 9th team is upset and complaining is silly because the ninth best team has no claim to be the best team in the country. Currently, the third ranked team has a legitimate claim that they might be the best team in the country. So, when you’re talking championship, you want to clarify the best of the best and I can’t recall the last time the best team in the country ended up 9 or lower in the BCS.

by NickFantana on Jan 8, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but that’s not the issue. the issue is the argument over which team is 8th and which team is 9th. And there will be a lot more viable arguments about that than about which team is 2nd and which team is 3rd.

by APV on Jan 8, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Any time you play a tournament, there’s always going to be arguments over who gets left off. The b-ball tourney could expand to 128 and there would be arguments over who’s the 128th or 129th best team. It doesn’t matter how viable those arguments are, those teams shouldn’t be competing for a title.

A football tourney should be short and only include elite teams. Otherwise you’d devalue the regular season. If OSU was ranked 4th and Michigan 6th when they played, the game would be for a tourney spot if you took the top 8. If you take the top 16, it wouldn’t matter except for seeding purposes.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And that is why the regular season would still mean something if those seeds actually meant something.

If OSU is #4 and and UM is #6 in the BCS rankings going into that game. Let’s assume OSU wins, they may move up to #3, or #2 (depending on the other teams of course), but UM is surely to slide down to #10.

If OSU is the #3 seed, they get an extra home game, most likely against Troy, Ball St or Tulsa, whereas Michigan as the #10 seed, now needs to go on the road and play say Alabama or Texas.

Are you telling me that the UM-OSU game would be meaningless at that point? I don’t think so.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If OSU is #4 and and UM is #6 in the BCS rankings going into that game. Let’s assume OSU wins, they may move up to #3, or #2 (depending on the other teams of course), but UM is surely to slide down to #10.

This gets to something that has always irritated me about the polls. If #6 loses a close game to #4, why should they drop? Doesn’t that validate the original ranking? Yet they do, always. There’s an internal logic to the polls. We all know pretty much how they are going to come out every week because we are steeped in that unstated formula. You don’t have to ever watch game to know with a high degree of certainty how the teams will be ranked each week.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In this scenario .. I assuming that the teams #7-9 all still won, so UM then would have one more loss compared to them.

I agree they shouldn’t drop far, but it happens.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s my point, it happens. Because we’ve been conditioned to think that way by watching the dynamics of the polls all these years. If the game was close, why not move them up to #5?

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s say that 6-9 looked like this.

6-UM (9-2), 7-Utah (10-1), 8-LSU (9-2), and 9-Oregon (9-2).

If UM loses to OSU, they are now 9-3 and the other three teams all win, they would have one more loss than those schools. How do you justtify keeping them above them? now if they were 9-2, and all those schools were 8-3, you’d have apoint that they shouldn’t drop.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because a week ago you thought they were a better team. If they lost by a point or a field goal to a higher ranked team, why does that change your assessment of them?

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn’t, just the fact the other teams keep winning would have me rank them higher. But that’s just me. I could very well be wrong.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is considerably less argument over #66 in NCAA basketball than #1 and #2 NCAA football. There is no argument that the most deserving teams in basketball get their shot every year. You can expand to four, six or eight in football and you still leave someone good out in the cold. It’s not comparable.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The current system does absolutely nothing to address this, either.

I would rather have a maligned playoff system than a maligned non-playoff system.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am hoping that in the next couple of years, we have a scenario where two or more non BCS teams all finish undefeated (say Utah, Boise St, Ball St, East Carolina) and where all the BCS schools finish with 2 losses.

I’d love to see how the BCS honchos would justify pitting a 2 loss USC versus a 2 loss Florida, while leaving out all the undefeated non-BCS schools.

Totally anarchy I tell ya … dogs living with cats … etc.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The argument could simply be based off of strength of schedule and quality wins.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not that I would advocate for that.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That works well when the teams have the same amount of losses, or +/- 1, but a 2 loss differential is wayyy tougher to defend.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that in most years some undeserving two-loss teams would get in. But they are just lucky, and the ones who get left out have no legitimate claim on a championship, just like the 18-14 basketball teams. Any tournament field large enough to scoop up all the deserving teams will also include some bubble teams, some of which will get lucky now and then (Florida Marlins, Villanova, etc.).

This year, oddly, teams with 0-1 loss would actually be left out. Go back two weeks, putting aside what we know about bowl losses. An 8-team tournament this year would have included Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Alabama, USC, probably Utah, and two of these: Oregon State, Penn State, Texas Tech, Boise State. No 2-loss teams in sight and at least two teams

What I really want is for baseball to start.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

…..left out with 0 or 1 loss.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oregon State lost 4 games during the regular season.

by ClarkM on Jan 8, 2009 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oops

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, but if 8 teams are chosen for this tourney, I can assure you it will be the 6 BCS champions and 2 at larges. that means this year you would have had Utah, Boise St, Ohio St, Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech all in contention for those 2 spots.

there is no clear cut way to determine which 2 teams would make that list.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, it shouldn’t be the 6 BCS champions. I think James makes it pretty clear that the BCS is just a racket anyhow.

by NickFantana on Jan 8, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, but whatever playoff system is designed, no way those conferences give up the big paydays.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is again where the FTC and legal action come into play. If the whole thing is set up as a racket, it’s torn down again in five years under some obscure 1930’s anti-trust law and then, finally, we’ll have a real playoff.

by NickFantana on Jan 8, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, but the beef being on the outside looking in against the top 2 is a huge difference to being number 9. The conference championship games become hugely important. If you can’t win that game, then I have no sympathy for you missing the 8 team playoff

by Roger Dorn on Jan 8, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ESTE ESTE

by NickFantana on Jan 8, 2009 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this.

Expanding it to eight (or even four) solves the problem of all the legit #1 claims being included, but it creates a bigger problem where invitation to the tourney itself becomes the primary focus.

I tend to agree with my OSU brother, who feels that the bowl games should go back to just being pageantry, more important than the Pro Bowl but less important than a conference title. Also, the World Series should do this, and we should have three different leagues.

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the bowl games should go back to just being pageantry

If you have a playoffs and still have the bowls (save the semis and final), then this will be accomplished.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they should be called The Player’s League, The National League, and the Beer and Whiskey Leauge.

by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good choices. Best I could come up with for a third league was the Patriot League, keeping the tradition of bland, vaguely nationalist league names. Although the Extra League would be fun, and you’d have AL-NL-XL.

I’ve decided this is a serious idea. Each league has ten teams, and you have a four-team playoff format with one Wild Card and best of sevens in both rounds. Solves a lot of problems.

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

all credit goes to watching the Ken Burns 1st Inning the other day.

I also want to put in for some new awards:

The Cap Anson “Amazing Player, but more Amazing Prick” award.

The Fleetwood Walker “You won’t really be Remembered for this Achievement, some other guy will” award.

And the Ty Cobb "Imagine if you were a Yankee" award.

by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2008 winners:

Joba Chamberlin for recording a Hold

Justin Morneau for beating Josh “Great Story” Hamilton in the Homerun Derby

Grady Sizemore for joining the 30-30 club

by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’m intrigued. Would teams not taken out of the AL and NL to form the XL stay in their respective leagues?
What would be the criteria for picking the teams to join the XL?

by ClarkM on Jan 8, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

AL
1. Indians
2. Red Sox
3. Yankees
4. Tigers
5. Whitesox
6. Twins
7. Orioles
8. Twins
9. Blue Jays
10. Rays

NL
1. Reds
2. Cubs
3. Brewers
4. Cardinals
5. Royals
6. Pirates
7. Mets
8. Nationals
9. Phillies
10. Braves

WL
1. Dodgers
2. Angels
3. A’s
4. Giants
5. Mariners
6. Rockies
7. Diamond Backs
8. Rangers
9. Astros
10. Padres

by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

as part of the realignment, the White Sox become one word and the Diamondbacks become two.

by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Shouldn’t we strive to keep the expansion teams all in the XL? I would think the Rays, and the Mets or the Nationals should be sent off in favor of the Giants and the Dodgers.

by NickFantana on Jan 8, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i was trying to keep it regional too.

by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think it needs to be broken into 3 conferences with 2 divisions each.

Realigning by location as well, to cut down on travel expenses in these times of need:

AL1: Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Orioles, Nationals
AL2: Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians, Twins, Brewers

NL1: Phillies, Pirates, Braves, Marlins, Rays
NL2: Cardinals, Royals, White Sox, Cubs, Reds

XL1: Dodgers, Angels, A’s, Giants, Mariners
XL2: Rockies, Padres, Diamondbacks, Rangers, Astros

Still trying to figure out the scheduling for that though.

Then you have 6 division winners and 2 wild cards. Seed 1-8 by record, and go from there.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have just defeated the entire purpose of the realignment.

Which is:

(1) To restore the prestige and integrity of winning the league pennant for 162 games.

(2) To create an honorary postseason format that would usually have four excellent teams and only very rarely one mediocre team, e.g., the 2006 Cardinals wouldn’t have had a sniff.

AL pennant: Yankees 97-65
NL pennant: Mets 97-65
XL pennant: Athletics 93-69
wild card: Twins 96-66

There are two problems with having many, small divisions. The first problem is that it devalues the regular season (and pennants generally) by not awarding a major title to a team that vanquished nine other teams over six months of games.

The second problem is that it dramatically raises the chance that a thoroughly mediocre team will make it into the playoffs and (possibly) win the World Series.

The Wild Card does not let in mediocre teams, the small-division system does. This was the case even when there were only four divisions, e.g., the Twins.

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should add, I think you could go crazy with the playoff format, too.

For example, Round One could be a qualifying-round free-for-all, with 12 games for each team over 16 days.

Day 1-3: A hosts B, C hosts D
Day 5-7: A hosts C, B hosts D
Day 9-11: B hosts C, D hosts A
Day 13-15: C hosts A, D hosts B
Day 16: one-game tiebreaker(s) if needed

This may seem radical, but we’ve already eliminated Divisions, so no LDS, and we already have crowned three league champions, so no LCS. Why not further the idea of crowning a team that can win over the long haul?

Finally, a nine-game World Series over 12 days (max): 2-rest-2-rest-2-rest-2-1.

Again, just doing a little better job of trying to give the actual best team the title.

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While I agree with your premise Jay, the only way it works in an ideal world is to have each team play every other team the same number of times.

The only way that would be feasible is to play one home and home for 3 games for all 29 teams. That is 176 games. Not gonna happen.

If you drop it to some with 5, and some with 6, that turns it into a lot of weird 2 game sets for traveling purposes and then stupid strenght of schedules creeps into it as well.

While I do appreciate the 4 teams only get in argument, there is no way that ever flies in RL as 8 teams currently reap the benefits now. My system mirrors the current system, but better aligns it so each division has 5 teams (which is not the case now).

If you took, the 8 seeds and slottted them by record, not be division winners, you would more than likely weed out those weak division champs.

Playing 156 games, allows more days off (either during the All Star break, or elsewhere) and allows the playoffs to have full 7 game series for all rounds. Currently the 5 game division series round is the one that most unfairly hampers a good team against a weaker team.

And seeding them 1-8 would also have a better chance of weeding out that #8 team than it does now.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, the teams make minimal cash on the first round as it is. You can resolve cash issues by sharing more revenue from the extended new first round.

Slotting doesn’t solve much in baseball — the variability is the big problem. If you’re not going to seed division winners, why have divisions? It makes no sense.

“the only way it works in an ideal world” … what are you talking about? There is surprisingly little history in baseball of perfectly balanced schedules. I get that you’re having fun doing the math, but you’re not making any real point here.

I have no objection to playing 156 games, it’s just sort of a non-essential and irrelevant detail to the proposal. Other than giving you a warm feeling, it serves no purpose.

What we’re trying to do here is restore a sense that winning a pennant is something to strive for in its own right.

by Jay on Jan 9, 2009 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and the marlins become the twins

by Brick. on Jan 8, 2009 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, following Bricks alignment, only way I see this working is in your own division/conference, you play each of the other nine teams 14 times each for a total of 126 games.

Then you play 3 games each against half the teams in each of teh other division/conferences for 30 games total.

Shortens the season to 156 games, meaning the All Star break could be a full week off.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s about exactly what I had in mind, actually, except that you don’t need to short the season. The current system doesn’t allow perfectly balanced numbers of games against each opponent, so there’s no reason to impose that on the new one. Possibly you fill out the other games with those dreaded “regional rivalries.”

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 6:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But why not take advantage of the ability to balance the games against each opponent?

If they must occur, maybe the regional rivalry games could be exhibitions (or separate “cup series”), to avoid giving an advantage to teams with weak regional rivals.

by Logodaedalus on Jan 8, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because it’s not necessary, and holding to that ideal prevents all kinds of other creativity in the schedule, starting with regional rivalries but extending to many other possibilities. There would be no support for it from anyone except a few nerds, to be honest, so it’s just not important.

by Jay on Jan 9, 2009 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You think? I wouldn’t have thought that concern about strength of schedule imbalances was that nerdy a topic…

by Logodaedalus on Jan 9, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

alright alright i got this, don’t tell me:

cup series => soccer => western europe => soccer => white people=> nerd!

by joeee on Jan 10, 2009 3:18 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

It’s not, but over a 162-game schedule, it isn’t any big deal to have one-game imbalances among opponents, and that’s mostly what we have. It’s not like football, where there’s only 12 or 16 games.

by Jay on Jan 10, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a fair point. The bigger issue I guess is that playing six games against a weak opponent vs. six against a strong opponent could make a difference of a couple games in the standings, which could be a biggish deal.

by Logodaedalus on Jan 11, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but that’s already a big deal with interleague play to some extent (not all teams in the same division play the same schedule), and with the Wild Card to a great extent (since teams in different divisions are competing).

And the fact is — this also came out during the Olympic discussion — the schedule is full of all kinds of strength distortions no matter what you do, because teams are changing as the season progresses, sometimes in quite profound ways. It’s not “balanced” for one team to play the Indians in May 2008 while another team plays them in August 2008.

by Jay on Jan 12, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How can the Twins field 2 teams when they barely have enough talent to field 1?

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 9:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the second team is the Danny Devito version

by APV on Jan 9, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well dur, they have two of everyone. Twins? Come on.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jan 9, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Scheduling this would be problematic … but I love the idea

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s how it was until 1965. All the polls chose their champions after the regular season and the bowls were played for fun. Then three teams finished undefeated (Michigan State, Arkansas, Nebraska) and the AP made a one-time (supposedly) decision to defer its final poll until after the bowls. Amazingly, all three teams lost on New Year’s day and AP vaulted #4 Alabama (with a loss and a tie) into #1.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not a 32-team tournament? Or 16 games? Seed them and let them play out a bracket. Highest-seeded team gets home field until the semifinals.

As an aside, I went to D3 Otterbein College, which went 9-1 in the regular season, with that one loss to eventual [perennial?] champion Mount Union. We made the playoffs and were able to host a first-round game, which we lost to a team that had more playoff experience and a quarterback who was unbelievably hot. Because we’re in a conference with Mount Union, we might not have made a 16-team tournament with a 9-1 team. It was genuinely exciting to be part of the playoffs.

Giving higher seeds home field advantage would be huge for northern schools because it would make some southern schools travel. Does any team in the SEC ever play a cold weather game? The hell with the Shreveport Bowl. The hell with the Rose Bowl – it’s pretty much a home game for USC anyway. You want to be the best? Show it on the field against Penn State in Happy Valley in the snow in December. Or Ohio State. Or Michigan. Or Boston College. Come up north and play our teams in cold weather, you pansy southern schools.

And if the alumni want to travel, they can go back to their alma mater.

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jan 8, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Yes I agree.

by Matt Y. on Jan 8, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eight teams, and the system is almost in place already. Teams picked by a committee, no automatic bids. (Cincinnati comes nowhere near this tournament.) Teams are seeded into the four BCS bowls. The championship game is moved back to the open week before the Super Bowl. In between, two semi-finals are added. Bowl system stays in place, minor bowls are unaffected, we get a championship.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 8:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem I have with using bowl games as quarter-final or semi-final games is the logistics of making fans travel to as many as three neutral site games. It would be much better aesthetically to have the first two rounds on campus, and would give teams incentive to be ranked as high as possible. Let’s say the first two rounds are completed by the second week of December – that still gives the fans of teams going to BCS bowls enough time to buy tickets, get hotels, etc.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They may be the ideal, but it will never happen. The current bowl system, both major and minor, is entrenched and lucrative. Playing down the BCS bowl winners is, IMO, the only system we are likely to ever see.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t get rid of them at all. The Rose Bowl can still be between the Big Ten and Pac 10 champions, and it can be just as irrelevant to determining a champion as it’s ever been three out of every four years.

by Ryan on Jan 8, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny but playoff revenues would be much higher, if those in power weren’t so short-sighted.

Keep the lesser bowls for teams who don’t make the tourney.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the paydays for those extra home games would definitely be a boon for those conferences.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My link (from above), actually does incorporates the lesser bowls into the equation.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s my (long) but never-to-be-implemented because I destroy and merge several conferences plan. You create 10 conferences that conference champions (decided by a championship game at the end of the regular season) get automatic bids. There are six at-large bids which will (mostly) come from the current 6 BCS conferences due to strength-of-schedule and strength-of-program advantages.

ACC North – Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke
ACC South – Georgia Tech, Clemson, Miami, Florida State, Wake Forest, N.C. State
(The 3 NC teams could be interchanged upon closer examination of geography, etc.)

Big 12 stays as is.

Big East East – Connecticut, Rutgers, UCF, Syracuse, East Carolina, Army, Navy
Big East West – Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Louisville, Marshall, USF

Big Ten North – Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan, Northwestern
Big Ten South – Penn State, Ohio State, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame

MAC East – Buffalo, Temple, Akron, Ohio, Miami, Bowling Green, Kent State
MAC West – Western Mich, Eastern Mich, Central Mich, Ball State, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Kentucky

Pac 12 North – Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Boise State
Pac 12 South – Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal

SEC stays the same

C-USA/Sun Belt Hybrid East – UAB, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Memphis, Middle Tenn State, Troy
C-USA/Sun Belt Hybrid West – LA Tech, LA Lafayette, LA Monroe, Southern Miss, Arkansas State, Tulane

SuperWest Mountain – Air Force, Colorado State, BYU, Tulsa, Idaho, Wyoming
SuperWest Pacific – Hawaii, San Jose State, San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, Nevada

SoWest (currently only 8 teams) – TCU, Rice, SMU, Houston, North Texas, New Mexico, New Mexico State. The downside is that TCU would be from a much weaker conference.

If we were to assume how each conference would have been ‘won’ in 2008 this would be the field of 16. Yes, Troy and Buffalo aren’t going to stack up well, but that’s where the seeding would come in to make them 15 and 16 seeds (and easier fodder for the first round home games) However, the possibility is that the ability to make the tournament from these lesser few conferences would strengthen the elite programs in those conferences, making them more formidable matchups in the future (thinking long-term.)

1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Alabama
5. USC
6. Penn State
7. Utah
8. Texas Tech
9. Boise State
10. TCU
11. Ohio State
12. Virginia Tech
13. Georgia
14. Cincinnati
15. Buffalo
16. Troy

The way it shakes out, the quarterfinals could feature Boise State/Oklahoma, Alabama/USC, Texas/Penn State and Utah/Florida matchups. The semis might feature Oklahoma/USC and Texas/Florida matchups. Who the hell wouldn’t want to watch those 2 weeks of games? Talk about revenue and excitement.

Yes, I know it is impossible.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In actuality, Ohio State would be replaced by the runner-up in the Big Ten conference championship … let’s say Michigan State. I was looking at the AP poll when I put some of this together, not recognizing the new/revised division alignments.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Including the part where it’s impossible.

You know what a dork like me would appreciate? A video game that would at least let you experience a virtual version of this.

by NickFantana on Jan 9, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

EA could simply add a tournament function to their NCAA 2010 game. It wouldn’t really be that hard.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

EA could do a lot of good things with a lot of their games but they won’t as long a sheep are plopping down $60 every year for the same game.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jan 9, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s why I tend to wait a year and buy it for 12 bucks.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sad thing is they’re spreading their plague even further into non-sports games. they’ve taken over so many franchises and made them just … blah.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jan 9, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny you should post this emd … I posted this on Around The Oval about a year ago:

Since everyone is always complaining about this conference vs another conference, here is a solution to everyone’s problems (not that it would ever happen of course, $$ rule college football of course).

Currently there are 66 BCS teams (ACC-12, Big12-12, BigEast-8, Big10-11, Pac10-10, SEC-12, Notre Dame) and 54 non BCS schools (ConfUSA-12, Ind-3, MAC-13, MWC-9, SunBelt-8, WAC-9).

What needs to be done is to create two divisions, 60 BCS and 60 non-BCS. Each division would then be split into 6 conferences. Basically, what you would have is a major league and a minor league.

ACC – ConfUSA
Big East – New Conference “Metro” (better name?)
Big 12 – MWC
Big 10 – MAC
Pac 10 – WAC
Sec – SunBelt

Of course this would require 6 current BCS schools to lose their “status”. No real easy way to do this, but since 1990, the teams that are continuously bad, have to go. See ya Duke, Vandy, Iowa St, Rutgers, Kentucky, and Baylor (worst winning % since 1990). Then we would need some reshuffling to get all conferences to 10. Moving Notre Dame, Penn St and Boston College to the Big East would give all 6 conferences 10 teams each. The new conferences now look like this:

ACC: Clemson, Wake, Fla St, Maryland, NC St, VA Tech, Virginia, GA Tech, NC, Miami FL
Big12: Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Kansas St, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Okla St
Big East: West Virginia, UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Penn St, Notre Dame, Boston College
Big10: Ohio St, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Mich St, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota
Pac10: USC, ASU, Oregon, Oregon St, UCLA, Arizona, Cal, Washington, Wash St, Stanford
SEC: Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, Miss St, Alabama, Ole Miss

Of course, shifting the “minor league” conferences would be needed as well.

ACC partner league, ConfUSA: Duke (ex-ACC), East Carolina, Southern Miss, Tulsa, Houston, Rice, SMU, UCF, FAU (ex-SunBelt), FIU (ex-SunBelt)

Big 12 partner league, MWC: Baylor (ex-Big12), BYU, Air Force, Utah, TCU, Colorado St, North Texas (ex-SunBelt), UTEP (ex-ConfUSA), Utah St (ex-WAC), New Mexico St (ex-WAC)

Big East partner league, “Metro”: Rutgers (ex-BigEast), Navy (ex-Ind), Army (ex-Ind), Western Kentucky (ex-Ind), Kentucky (ex-SEC), Ball St (ex-MAC), Temple (ex-MAC), Northern Illinois (ex-MAC), Buffalo (ex-MAC)

Big 10 partner league, MAC: Iowa St (ex-Big12), Bowling Green, Miami OH, Ohio U, Akron, Kent St, Central Michigan, Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Toledo

Pac 10 partner league, WAC: Hawaii, Boise St, Fresno St, San Jose St, Nevada, Idaho, UNLV (ex-MWC), San Diego St (ex-MWC), New Mexico (ex-MWC), Wyoming (ex-MWC)

SEC partner league, SunBelt: Vandy (ex-SEC), Middle Tenn St, Ark St, Troy, LA-Monroe, LA-Lafayette, Memphis (ex-ConfUSA), UAB (ex-ConfUSA), Tulane (ex-ConfUSA), LA Tech (ex-MWC)

Most of the shifting in the partner leagues was to promote inter-sectional rivalries. Tried to keep most of the like state teams together whenever possible.

Now to the fun part, scheduling. Now that each conference has 10 teams, they can play every team in the conference once EVERY year. No need for conference championship games anymore. A winner would be determined on the field by playing everyone.

This would allow each team three OOC games. First OOC game would be somebody from the partner league, preferably 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc. Or a rotational system to play each partner league team once every nine years.

Second OOC game would need to be another BCS conference. Again, preferably 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc. All conferences would rotate, similar to how the NFL does AFC/NFC matchups. Each conference would face the each BCS team once every five years.

Third OOC could be reserved for rivalry matchups (USC-ND, UF-FSU, etc), or a second partner league team. If a FCS team (1-AA) is used as the third OOC game, they must have been in the FCS playoffs the previous two seasons, no dregs from FCS allowed.

Finally, the final tweak everyone has been waiting for. At the end of each year, the worst team from each BCS Conference would swap out into the partner conference for that conference’s best team. Similar to how Europe does their shifting between divisions each year. This would ensure fresh blood every year. Imagine how tough some of those games would be.

As for the postseason, see my previous post. EDIT – this part was changed from my older post

by talonk on Jan 10, 2009 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok, here’s the other thing that needs to be added to the conversation. These are not professional teams or leagues. These are collegiate conferences that represent a lot of teams and athletes and student tradition outside of football.

by APV on Jan 10, 2009 8:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly — do you really think Duke and Kentucky are going anywhere? The ACC is never going to kick out Duke in a million bajillion years.

That’s a nice idea, talonk, but I’m sorry you wasted so much time on it Something like this is never going to happen. Conference affiliation is about much more than football. There is a lot of history and tradition involved, and these things are important to schools and conferences. And schools that suck at football are great in other sports that the conferences won’t want to lost (such as Iowa St. in wrestling).

You can creat a football playoffs without rearranging all the conferences. Would it be ideal? No, but it would be doable. Proposals like this are just a fairy tale.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Duke is going to go to a bowl next year, I’d wager. If not then, the next. The program will be fine again, very soon. They’ve dumped a lot of money into it and they finally have a legitimate coach.

by afh4 on Jan 10, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this.

by NickFantana on Jan 10, 2009 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

realx fellas … this was written as a dream scenario. Not one that would ever, ever, ever occur.

But in that scenario, if those teams dropped out of the BCS in the first year, were to dominate the non-BCS conference they ended up, they would make it back (ala European soccer style).

Like I said, it was a dream scenario, not one based in reality.

by talonk on Jan 11, 2009 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As a dream scenario, I’d say it’s pretty damn good.

by NickFantana on Jan 11, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kentucky would be a tough sell, too. They’ve won 3 straight bowl games under Rich Brooks.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 10, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also Rutgers. Schiano has turned that program around. They weren’t great this year but they did make a bowl, and wasn’t it just last year that they were ranked in the top 5 at one point of the season?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it is impossible to avoid the $$ issue and its relation to team selection. bowls, or just college football playoff games, have a huge amount of revenue associated with them. and the difference in revenue generated from bringing in a team like Ohio State versus a team like Boise State is, itself, huge. NCAA basketball has the benefit of a lot of games, closely packed together, with smaller attendance at each game – meaning no one game has a huge monetary impact on the system as a whole. Football does not have that luxury. The economic reality of football and its impact on a tournament system are vastly different than those faced by college basketball.

by APV on Jan 8, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The $$ impact is also why the bowls must be incorporated somehow into a playoff system. The cities/bowls themselves have too much invested in keeping those traditions alive.

That is why I agree with Ryan that at least the first round, if not the second need to be at the higher seeds home stadium.

Then you rotate the semis between the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta .. .with the final being played the week after as it is now.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no automatic bids

That will never happen with a playoff.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed. the big conferences are too powerful to accept anything that doesn’t guarantee them a big payoff at the end of the day.

by APV on Jan 8, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And that is why I don’t think an 8 team could ever work as that would essentially remove all the non-BCS schools from “having a shot”. That would definitely get the government involved one way or another.

My plan, if you didn’t see the link above, would still have the huge paydays for the conferences that make the final 8. So if Utah, Boise St were able to win a first round game (most likely at hone, or at a comparable opponent), they would ensure that huge payday, win or lose. It would also open the chance that a conference could get 3 teams in for a huge payoff.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could they not reserve one slot for the top-ranked team outside the major conferences?

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but then you have the #2 team from the SEC, Big12, PAc10, Big10, ACC, and BigEast all competing for the last spot. How would you pick Alabama or Texas this year?

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, that’s why I think there should be no playoff system. I guess I also wouldn’t give all the major conferences an automatic bid, the system is doomed from that moment on.

by Jay on Jan 8, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup. Improve the computer rankings, include the human polls if you have to (but make them less important), and take the top 8 teams. Of course, the conferences won’t go for that because that will usually leave out the ACC and Big East.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Make all of the conferences 12 teams, 2 divisions. Pac10 would add a Boise State or Utah (or BYU). Big East would add 4 teams. BigTen would add Notre Dame (who needs to get in a conference to improve) Play a conference championship game. Win and you’re in. Lose, and either roll the dice if there are at-large bids in a 16 team format, or suck it up and play in the Chik-Fil-A (Peach?) Bowl, losers.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m of the opinion that (most of) the media doesn’t really want a national playoff either. They realize the amount of easy stories and conflict that comes out of this BCS scheme. The BCS already favors teams that draw big(ger) ratings and thus more eyeballs in the long run. It makes their jobs much easier.

Like this nice article from Rick Reilly:

Rick Rielly crowns the national champion already.

by Toxicadam on Jan 8, 2009 3:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If I had a vote, it would actually go to Utah, too.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They actually have a stronger case than BYU did in 1984. BYU was hard-pressed to beat a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl, quite a contrast to the smackdown the Utes delivered in New Orleans.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am all for Utah being part of the discussion, but some of their regular season struggles (New Mexico, Michigan, etc) help offset that dominating win against an uninspired Alabama team.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No argument. But nobody believed BYU was the best team in 1984, either.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve changed my mind. Anything that generates this much discussion on a baseball site is obviously a brilliant system.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d love to have this discussion on Around the Oval, but most here don’t post there.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would only offer that Michigan was the first game of the season, on the road, against a team that didn’t know how bad they really were yet.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The entire problem with the BCS is the employment of transitive properties to determine which team is better than another without an actual contest on the field of play. Utah struggles have nothing to do with it, as does Alabama’s inspiration deprivation.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 8, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah college football doesn’t really get me

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Jan 8, 2009 1:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Think of it like you do minor league baseball.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed. another frankenthread.

by Voltaire on Jan 8, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really? I thought this post stayed on tangent since the premise was BCS oriented from the start.

Did you expect us to turn into a pure baseball discussion?

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tim Tebow should hit third.

by SuddenSam on Jan 8, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah, I figured he’d be a Billy Wagner type.

by talonk on Jan 8, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chris Weinke was a KMTS

by APV on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No way, he should hit second!!

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t be an idiot, Grady hits second.

by fwembt on Jan 8, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

YES!!!!!

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

READ THIS SHAPIRO!

"...leading the league in most offensive categories. Including nose hairs."

by sarcasmdave on Jan 10, 2009 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’m not about to say you guys shouldn’t have fun. But it is from my perspective. Though it is still entertaining to read.

by Voltaire on Jan 9, 2009 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

’bam and Biden (and some dudes in TX) want to clean this up.

by JulioBernazard on Jan 8, 2009 3:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think there are way too many problems in this country that the government needs to be working on for them to be spending time worry about college football playoffs.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m going to disagree with this. This should be priority one.

by NickFantana on Jan 8, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. A welcome distraction from the government destroying our economy even more.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 9, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, that’s enough.

by Ryan on Jan 9, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting college football tidbit I just heard while watching the national championship game. This is the third year in a row that both coaches in the championship game are from Ohio (Jim Tressel, Urban Meyer, Les Miles, Bob Stoops). How cool is that!

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 8, 2009 8:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs