Jerry Hughes and TCU want to state their caseThe dust has cleared, the conference championships have been won, and no one outside of the military really cares about the Army-Navy game this Saturday (feel free to chastise me if you're all fired up about that exciting contest). Moreover, the BCS selection show is over and we now know where each bowl team will be playing and when. Looking over the teams that will be playing in the most cherished post-season venues, I'd have to say that I'm....well....not very impressed.
There are many college football fans who hate the BCS and who have been rooting for "BCS Chaos" for years in the hope that this mythical scenario will somehow convince the CFBPTB (college football powers that be) to switch to a playoff system (you know, like every other level of football has). In fact, some commentators have already declared that "BCS Chaos" is upon us. It almost happened last year, when 8 teams had at least a plausible argument that they belonged in the BCS Championship game (9 if you count an undefeated Boise State team). But this year the problem is not too many qualified teams. This year the problem is no one outside of Alabama has made a really strong case. We know that the Texas Longhorns are going to the MNC game, but they're not a whole lot more impressive than several of the other teams who were candidates. Did Texas really deserve it? Did anyone else? Let's look at them all one by one.
TEXAS
By virtue of winning the Big 12 Championship game, Texas is 13-0 and has a chance to match OSU's unprecedented feat of winning 14 games back in 2002. But there's nothing in their record this season that would make you think they're capable of knocking off Nick Saban's boys. Prior to Saturday they had only two wins over top-25 teams (OSU has 3), and their close call in the traditional rivalry game against Oklahoma looks rather shaky now that the Sooners have been exposed as pretenders. They did beat a pretty good Oklahoma State team 41-14 on the road, and they crushed a decent Kansas team at home 51-20. But Oklahoma State lost 27-0 to that 7-5 Sooner team, thus taking some of the luster off of that win. And Saturday's less-than-impressive showing against Nebraska now has half of the country scratching their heads. Are the Longhorns really the second-best team in the land? Well, maybe. Or maybe not.
CINCINNATI
The Bearcats are everyone's favorite up-and-coming team because of their potent offense. But their defense defines impotence better than an hour's worth of Cialis commercials. Their most impressive win was a road victory over Oregon State. They also have wins over top-25 teams West Virginia and Pittsburgh, the latter on Saturday in a de facto Big East (or Big Least, as some call it) championship game. But that last one might well have gone to overtime if Pitt hadn't missed their last extra point attempt, and in any case the Panthers pushed and shoved the Bearcats all over the field in scoring 44 points, much like the Connecticut Huskies had done in scoring 45 against them a few weeks prior. Could the Bearcats outscore the Crimson Tide the same way they did the Pitt Panthers? It doesn't seem likely. Nor does it seem likely that they will stand up well against Florida, but I wouldn't shed a tear if they did.
TCU
The Horned Frogs of TCU, like Texas and Cincinnati, are undefeated. TCU has played only two ranked teams, but they crushed both of them. First they demolished a pretty good BYU team 38-7, then they dismantled last year's BCS buster Utah 55-28. The Frogs are solid on both offense and defense, and they have taken care of business consistently throughout the season. Their only close calls came in road games against Air Force and Clemson. Of course, there are only two top-25 teams on their schedule, and those teams are also propped up by weak schedules. But given the weakness of the Big 12 this season, is it really accurate to say that Texas played a tougher slate of teams? I'm not sure about that, but TCU will apparently have to wait at least another year before they get a chance at a big-time bowl match-up.
BOISE STATE
The school that made their reputation by dying their turf blue and tricking their way to victory over Bobby Stoops and Oklahoma three years ago is back in the ranks of the undefeated again this season and they might have the best argument for the MNC game of all the candidates. Having said that, I must point out that they have only one top-25 team on their schedule, and that was way back on 9/3. But that one game is important, because it was a win against 7th ranked Oregon. The Broncos thoroughly dominated that game, and they've dominated most every team they've played this season. Their only close call was a seven point victory on the road against Tulsa. Still, the schedule is extremely weak and it's not obvious that they would fare any better against Alabama than the others would. Heisman voters seem to understand the problem, as they did not include Broncos QB Kellen Moore among their five finalists despite his gaudy stats and undefeated record.
So what do you think? Is Texas truly the 2nd best team? If not, who do you like among the other candidates? Does anyone think Florida deserves a re-match?
Comments
absolutely not. If scUM didn't deserve a rematch after such a close game in 06, no way UF does after getting blown out
I 2nd and 3rd that! Michigan that year played the number 2 strength of schedule and their only blemish was to Ohio State that year. If they didn't get a chance it would've been a Traveshamochery if Florida got int.
agreed!
No to the rematch. Florida was dominated and the score could have been worse. Texas is not great. They matched up particularly poorly against Nebraska. But Bama's defense is not as dominant up front as Nebraska's so it should be a good game. I don't think TCU or Boise State would give the Tide a better game. But the Oregon Ducks are playing amazing football and Bama v Oregon would be interesting. Oregon probably a little too undersized on defense to hold off Alabama though. Might receive a similar pounding as Florida got.
Go Bucks.
This year strikes me as Big Wheelie (Alabama) and the Hubcaps (everyone else). I'd line up TCU as #2, definitely not Florida.
OT a bit, but I am really disgusted that BCS "gave" Florida a bowl matchup against WVU. I'm not a fan of 6-6 teams getting bowls, but FSU?! I just hope that when JoePa retires, the BCS awards Penn State a slot in MNC game.
hopefully WVU takes care of business against Free Shoes University
Wha?
FSU was bowl eligible, Bowden just made the request his last bowl was in Florida, that's nothing to do with the BCS.
I think TCU might be the best team, regardless of who they have played, but oh well, it's the matchups after that are dissapointing.
Except for the Rose Bowl, That's going to be a mean game.
Just out of curiosity - how many top-25 teams has Alabama beat? Obviously they have the HUGE win over Florida, and after that is LSU, and then...? I didn't see anyone else in the SEC looking too exciting this year.
Also Virginia Tech OOC.
What do I think? I think it's stupid to make arguments about which teams are best on paper and then expect some sort of legitimacy. Settle it on the freakin' field like men (and like every other sport known to man and even every other football league known to man).
You're right, I had a brain cramp when I wrote this. Go Mountaineers.
Minor point of contention: That is Grant Schwartz shoving it out with Shaw, not Dane.
That was Schwartz' best hit all year....he did just miss a blocked punt in the USC game.
Good article. You nailed it with Texas. They've faced NOBODY. One of our writers posted an article on why Texas doesn't deserve to be in the championship game -- it basically expands on what you wrote.
Someone then commented that the PAC 10 has FIVE teams in the Top 25, and we should all stop worshipping the SEC... but that probably won't happen this year as Bama is going to kick Texas' teeth in unless Texas does something different.
This is the most boring batch of games I can recall. BCS really blew it with that Boise vs. TCU game.
Mark Snyder resigned as Marshall's head coach. Any chance we can get him back in Columbus or is Cincinnati going grab him up if Kelly leaves?
He didn't work out particularly well as a head coach, so I doubt Cincy makes the hire. Do we have room on the staff for him? We have DC/DL Coach, an LB coach, and a solid DB coach.
Perhaps he could come on as co-defensive coordinator? I don't think we have room, but if we do, I'd like the move.
If Fickell departs, it might make a lot of sense.
As usual, the BCS blew it, but I blame the voters in the Coaches and Harris (AP as well) for basically blindly voting Texas 2 and not even attempting to examine the resumes of all five unbeaten teams. I know I get flack for this, but I sincerely believe TCU is the best team in the country this year, and would not only thump Texas, but they would beat Alabama too. That's why it's a shame to see a rematch of a bowl we saw last year (TCU beat Boise in the Poinsettia) instead of TCU vs UC for example, if the voters insist on giving the nod to big bad Texas (I know UC was higher in the final BCS standings and computers, but you can't convince me they're better than TCU). Florida vs Boise would be ridiculously entertaining IMO.
In the meantime, Dan Wetzel of Yahoo wrote a great piece on how a 16 team playoff would look here (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/f...). I love the idea of the higher seeds hosting games right up to the NC game...let the southern teams go to cold weather in January if they are ranked high enough! I personally would rather have 12 teams (11 conference champs, only 1 at large based on system similar to BCS system), with top 4 seeds (again, based on ranking system) getting byes...just like the NFL.
I hate the idea of letting 11 conference champs and 1 at large. Last year, the 2nd best team from the division of the big 12 conference played for the championship. If Nebraska beat Texas the other night I'm still not sure they are better than Texas. I think take the champs from the big 6 conferences, then use a BCS type system to grab another 6 at larges. Somone will bitch they are being left out, but that happens in basketball where they take 65. It just seems like going to conference champs only, you may not get the best 11 12 teams in the mix.
but auburn, south carolina, mississippi all spent time in the top 25. Miss was no. 5 at one point.
Brian, you are right. No system will make everyone happy. Even with 65 teams, the bball tourney still has whiners.
Usually there aren't more than 4 or 5 teams that have legit claims to a title shot. By legit, I mean from opinions OTHER than that of fans of that team. So, IMO, there should at least be a 4 team playoff. No, it still isn't perfect. But, that would be far and away better than this mess we have now.
I just wish the people opposing a playoff would just be HONEST about why they are against it. Stop feeding us this ridiculous garbage about academic concerns. Of all major college sports, division 1 football players spend the MOST time in class. Baseball players from northern schools spend the first month or so of there season down south, not to mention their post-season tourney.
Someone from a bowl commitee or a conference please just say " we don't want a playoff because we will lose to much money!" I can respect that. But all the other lame-ass arguments are just insulting to our intelligence.
Not getting the "best teams" on paper happens sometimes. I know I'm going to lose some people with this, but the 76 Steelers were said to be the best team of that era, and the Raiders beat them in the AFCCG that year (because Harris and Blier were hurt and didn't play). The 80 Browns were burned by Red Right 88, and they may have been the best team in the NFL that year. But they didn't get it done, so they couldn't be considered the best. Hell, the Patriots were 11-5 last year and didn't even get into the playoffs. Gotta get it done in the regular season. And that's my point.
If we want to retain the sanctity and importance of the regular season (and I would be the first to say you definitely want to do that), then you have to do it this way. Then there's no excuse; win your conference and you're in, which makes the season and those conference championship games mean something. If Texas lost the Big 12 championship, tough shit; it's a playoff game too, and if you can't win your conference, you can't control your destiny. That's why I don't like 5 at large teams in; they didn't get the job done in the regular season and/or conference championship game.
And if there's a playoff, ALL the conference champs have to be in...yes, even the Sun Belt. There's no getting around it. If they aren't in, then it's no better than the current system where the other 5 conferences have to beg to play. The "Big 6" can't stand alone and legitimately call it a true playoff.
Read Wetzel's column. It's absolutely spot on. I could even buy into 16 when done that way as opposed to 12.
I understand that thought process, but honestly a Sunbelt Champ like ECU, may be able to sneak up and pull one upset, but they would never have a chance to make a run of 3 or 4 games. I'll just say there's no possible way. Once you get below the top 12 to 16, the likelihood of any of those teams pulling off a run is almost impossible. That's why, I say Big 6 champs and 6 at larges. Which this year would include the top 2 mid majors. Then use the bowls the same way they are executed today. If you are 6-6 or better then congrats, you get a bowl game still. College football, mostly is not set up like basketball where one guy can get hot and a team makes a run like Davidson, George Mason etc. That system works in basketball, but it's just not going to be correct in football.
Sorry ECU is CUSA
Just sticking with BCS-conference teams, I still maintain that Cincinnati's accomplishments this season stack taller than Texas's. Do I think they'll beat Florida? Not really. Do I think they'd beat Alabama? Less so. However, I think that's immaterial. This system is supposed to reward the team that put together the best season. Auburn didn't play for it in 2004 because their schedule was lame. Texas's nonconference schedule was God-awful this year.
In the end, the clowns can keep their flippin' national title. We've been there, done that, and we still get no respect. ROSE BOWL IS STILL THE GRANDDADDY!!!
soooo basically tennesse has hookers on payroll:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12...
I know this kind of thing supposedly "happens everywhere," but I've got a friend who is a hostess at OSU and I know that kind of shit isn't in her repitoire. she's pretty much just a glorified campus guide. maybe there are people who do crazy stuff to get recruits at OSU, but man I'd hope Tressel and co have more integrity than that.
Sorry to jump in so late, y'all, but: Brian is right about the conference champs route being the wrong one for determining the field for a 12-team playoff. iball is also right that there's USUALLY only 4-5 teams that have a legit shot at being the best, BUT: that's why they play the games, right? DJ is wrong about ALL conference champs being granted automatic bids - "better than the current system" is a low bar to clear, to say the least.
The way I see it, a 12-team field is the MINIMUM size that might make the vast majority of folks with skin in the game happy, so here's how I think it should work:
Something like the BCS ranking system ought to be retained, in the manner of the RPI that the Basketball selection committee uses. BUT: it needs to be reconfigured so that it only incorporates rankings, human or computer, that DO NOT ENGAGE IN PRESEASON RANKINGS - there should be no weight at all, ever, given to any ranking system that doesn't wait to issue its initial rankings until, at the very least, all of the Big Six conference teams have played at least one conference game. Preseason rankings poison every single subsequent ranking, for obvious reasons - right up until, and even after, all the games have been played.
Anyway: you use the BCS-style composite rankings, along with a selection committee composed of reps from DJ's "ALL" the conferences, and seed a 12-team field. The top four seeds get a bye, and the first round is played at the higher seed's home field. Then the four first-round winners are re-seeded, and the quarterfinals are played at the current four BCS sites - hell, you can even call those games by their current names. But the games have to be assigned to the "bowls" in such a way as to minimize the home-field advantage any team might be able to gain via location - i.e., LSU could never play a quarterfinal at the Sugar Bowl, USC at the Rose, etc...then you have the semis, finals, etc., and you call them what they are: "The National CFB Semifinals", "The National Championship". Play them at the BCS sites on a rotating basis the way the MNC game is now, or come up with different ones, whatever.
Look, bups: if you're surprised that THAT particular sort of recruiting "shenanigans" (Hey Farva! What's that place you like to go to with all the shit on the walls?) is mainly the province of SEC schools, well, then, you haven't been paying close enough attention/reading enough EDSBS/visited many SEC schools.
I began my college career at Miami U., and thought that the female portion of the student body there was, for the most part, both beautiful and willing, if you catch my drift - and then, on the way back from a Spring Break '91 spent in Panama City FL, I visited a bar in Gainesville called "Balls".
Before that, I hadn't known that college girls routinely (depending on your locale/definition of the word "routinely") went out for the night dressed in bikini tops and Daisy Dukes, unless there was some sort of specific party theme involved. And yet: there they were. Lots of them. And I talked to as many of them as I could (ha), and they were all for-real college girls.
So: I see this as mostly a regional thing, and although the recruiting aspect of it isn't something I'm entirely cool with, I suspect that I'd like the enforcement regime designed to stop it even less.
We talk a lot here about the built-in warm-weather advantage the SEC schools, and the USCs of the world have over us in particular and the rest of the Big 10 in general, but this one - if true, which it probably is - is just unavoidable. Think Michigan's "Golf-Mom" Cheerleader outfits from a year or two ago and you'll catch my drift.
i'm sorry, i only date women whose wardrobe is at least 75% flannel
but for realsies, it isn't that they're hot babes to show these players around, it's that in all likelihood they are actually having sex with these dudes. the SEC is pretty much an academic wasteland with the exception of a few schools, and no i'm not surprised in the least that this stuff goes on. i'm just interested in seeing how far down the rabbit hole the NCAA goes.
You can't protect the "Big 6" at the expense of the others...it's absolutely wrong. They are competing at the same level, yet are shut out of the financial rewards of it in a playoff where they're excluded, which is the same thing as the current BCS. In order for the system to have ANY legitimacy whatsoever, you HAVE to include ALL conference champs. Period. Champions deserve/earn a shot.
Now, if you can convince the Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC schools that they need to drop to 1-AA, then fine. If you want to limit the number of conferences/schools that can participate at that level, ok. But like it or not, those conferences are currently a part of the system, and they have to be equal partners. If not, then they need to be told to drop down to 1-AA.
(Personally, I believe most of the schools in the Sun Belt should be 1-AA, and Troy should move to C-USA. Ten big conferences is probably about right. But if more than two at-large teams get in, then the regular season and conference championship games are meaningless. They just are.)
As to game location, if the first round is played at the higher seed's home, then the top 4 have earned that right to host the next week as well. That's a lot of money in the coffers of the home team in that first round (seeds 5-8), even if the visitor is given a bigger split than they would in the regular season. There's no way to justify the top 4 seeds missing out on that the following week, especially since they earned that seed. If you want the semifinals at neutral sites, I'm willing to compromise there, but if the higher seed hosting the semifinals works at every other level of football, then it would work at the big college level too.
One thing you are right about: Preseason rankings cannot be a part of this system for seeding/at large selection.
It doesn't matter if they can make a run or not. By winning their conference at that level, they deserve a shot. If the big school ends up getting beat, then they didn't deserve to be champs anyway.
The conference championship games already are meaningless. They almost never pit the 2 best teams in a conference against eachother. They were created to make more moeny for the conferences. Last year the Big 12 had 4 teams in the south better than any team in the North. That's not a true conference championship.
Big 12 - yes. SEC - no. Same w/ MAC and, most years, C-USA. But if the better team takes care of business and makes it to the championship game, then they will be fine. Regular season still matters.
I get the oddity of last year in the Big 12 South, where Texas did indeed get jobbed. That's up to the Big 12 to make sure that never happens again. It's also so rare that I could live with it.
Ok, well in the years that I remember watching college football where the big 12 and SEC have played a championship game, there have not been that many years where the topp 2 teams in the conferences have played eachother. Usually, one of the divisions was very strong, and the other one had lesser teams emerge to go to the championship game. I still don't see how it helps the little guy get included by letting a team like Central Michigan Match up against Alabama in the first round. Look at how the MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt, and WAC preform against the big guys every year. You may have one team out of 30 pull a huge upset.
The reason I say the big 6 winners should get automatic bids is because they are way more battle tested. Then you use a BCS type system to pick 6 or 8 or 0 at larges and you will have the little guy represented. I just don't have much use for a system that will include teams like East Carolina or Troy so they can be a bye week for a team that already beat them by 40 earlier in the year. At least in my system the legitimate Mid Majors would get a crack. It's not a perfect system, but I'm sorry Ohio State is more deserving of a title shot than East Carolina and in your system they wouldn't get a crack at it.
I meant 6 or 8 or 10
Obvioulsy, we won't agree on this topic, but I would much rather have a system where the best teams get a crack, and if that means leaving Troy out in the cold, that's fine with me. I want to see teams who deserve to have a shot, have a shot. I'm sorry ECU, Troy, etc, don't deserve that shot over a team like Ohio State, Iowa, Florida, etc wo didn't win their conference have a shot. Especially since they would absolutely destroy thesee teams. These are the teams that people actually criticize Ohio State and Florida for playing in their non conference schedules. So all of the sudden we are going to make them legit and throw them in a playoff that they have no chance of winning? It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know if you want the automatic bid because that's how basketball does it. But when you have a playoff that includes 65 teams, the best teams are all represented and then the Colonial Atlantic gets their auto bid. If there weren't a 65 team feild wyou would not have the inclusion of these small conferences.
You're right; agree to disagree. But the short answer to the limited at large teams is simple: If you don't limit them to one (maybe 5 in a 16 team system), and allow just the big boys, then the regular season doesn't matter anymore, and it DOES become college basketball, which I could care less about (except for OSU, of course). Isn't that one of the things that makes college football at this level great? I know it is for me and countless others.
And like I said, if the Troys aren't a part of it, then they need to be in 1-AA.
Good debate; this needs to be happening all over.
And I definitely agree, unfortunately we're stuck with the BCS for 3 seasons more after this. I hope they come up with something better, but have read articles that even if they scrap the BCS they won't do anything playoff wise, and may actually go back to the old way. Theres just way too much money made with the current system. Schools like OSU make so much money off of football, I just don't see them ever being against it. I can't blame the president of the university for not wanting it to change. Think of how much money tOSU would not have if it weren't for BCS appearances.
I don't think it really counts where they were ranked as much as where tey are now though. I mean Auburn was ranked because they were 5-0 against weak teams. Mississippi State was grossly over rated as well.
I have two points:
One is that an 8 team playoff is more than adequate to decide this problem, while still being decent with logistics of the number of teams. This year it's 5 undefeated. Other years there have been 3. Other years have have been about 5-8 legitimate 1 loss teams with a gripe. You have to make a cut-off somewhere and I say keep the BCS scoring as is, and just the top 8 make it. Period. If you can't get to the top 8 in the country, then tough. You're telling me adding 6 more teams to a potential NC doesn't give enough chance to people griping. Go back 9 years and find me one single team ranked #9 or lower that had an honest argument why they should be playing for the title.
Secondly, TCU-Boise is BS. Not only did that cause ALL the games to be boring (minus the Rose Bowl), but it is the BCS continuing to keep small schools not only out of the NC game, but also out of hearing range. Say TCU (who MANY people argue should get the nod over Texas) destroys Boise. Then people can just shrug it off as "Oh, well it was against Boise and we told you they weren't that good...". Or vice versa. TCU should have played FL (if not Bama) and Boise should have played Iowa/Cinci while GTech played the other. Then it would either shut up small schools or truly exposed them for being equals. The BCS forbid TCU or Boise to even have a chance of making a statement. And that's crap.