Espn writer with some firing synapses

[Big Red Ron]

Editor's note: ESPN.com asked five of its analysts to discuss one change they would like to see in college football. Here is the second installment of the five-part series.

Michigan or Florida?



That was the controversial firestorm that engulfed college football for more than a week after the Gators beat Arkansas 38-28 in the SEC championship game in Atlanta's Georgia Dome on Dec. 2.


Did SEC champion Florida or Big 10 runner-up Michigan deserve a chance to play Ohio State in the Jan. 8 Tostitos BCS Championship Game?


Wolverines fans argued their team was more deserving because it had fought No. 1 Ohio State to the bitter end of a 42-39 loss on Nov. 18, a game that was prematurely dubbed "The Game of the Century" during the regular season.
Florida coach Urban Meyer lobbied his team played a tougher schedule in the sport's most difficult conference and was more deserving because the Gators actually won their league championship. Meyer argued the Wolverines had their chance against the Buckeyes and even though the outcome was close, another team deserved an opportunity at beating Ohio State.


In the end, Meyer proved to be right. Michigan lost to No. 4 Southern California 32-18 in the Rose Bowl presented by Citi. And the Gators, despite being overwhelming underdogs, blasted the top-ranked Buckeyes 41-14 in the BCS title game to win the school's second national championship.


One significant rules change in the way college football determines its national championship would prevent such arguments in the future.


While I'm among those media members who favor a playoff system in the sport -- a change that won't come anytime in the foreseeable future -- turning conference play into a playoff is the next best thing.


In the future, only conference champions should be allowed to play for the BCS title. That would have prevented the Ohio State-Michigan loser from being included in the BCS discussion this past season, and thus would have eliminated the ugly debate that preceeded the BCS title game.


University presidents and other key figures in charge of college football are reluctant to install a playoff system because, among other reasons, they say it would lessen the importance of the regular season.



College football's 14-week regular season is already the most important in all of sports. In college basketball, teams can struggle during their nonconference schedule in November and December, then rally during conference play to earn a spot in the NCAA tournament. In professional sports, the regular season means even less. NFL teams can stagger early in the 16-game schedule, but rebound and claim a wild-card spot in the playoffs. Seemingly half of the teams in the NBA and NHL qualify for the playoffs, and Major League Baseball teams have 162 games to right the ship.


College football teams have no room for error playing a 12-game regular season schedule. Lose one game and you run the risk of being left out of the BCS title game. Lose twice in college football's regular season and you're done.

Example A: The Trojans, whose 13-9 loss to rival UCLA in the regular-season finale prevented USC from playing for the national championship for the third straight season. Example B: LSU, which lost
regular season games at then-No. 3 Auburn and then-No. 5 Florida by 17 combined points. The Tigers were playing as well as any team in the country at the end of the regular season, winning their last seven games, including a 41-14 shellacking of Notre Dame in the Allstate Sugar Bowl. But because LSU had two losses in the regular season, it not only was left out of the BCS title game, but also the SEC championship game.
In a perfect world, each of the BCS conferences would stage a championship game. Uniformity would even the current playing field in college football. The ACC, Big 12 and SEC conferences play championship games. The Big East, Big 10 and Pac-10 do not. NCAA rules require conferences to have at least 12 teams before staging a league championship game. The Big East has eight teams; the Big 10 has 11; and the Pac-10 has 10.


Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese said he doesn't anticipate the expansion of his league. Ditto for the Pac-10, which could add schools such as Boise State, Fresno State or Utah to reach the NCAA's minimum membership for championship games.



Notre Dame is the obvious choice to join the Big 10, but the Fighting Irish won't give up their independence any time soon, especially since they're winning football games again and collecting a hefty payday from the BCS. Because Notre Dame has the ability to schedule whichever opponents it sees fit, the Irish are all but guaranteed seven or eight victories each season. Two or three more wins guarantees Notre Dame a spot in a lucrative BCS bowl game.


Under the current BCS rules, the Irish automatically qualify for a BCS bowl game with a finish in the top eight of the final BCS standings. They will be considered (and probably chosen) for a BCS bowl game if they finish in the top 12. Notre Dame keeps $4.5 million each time it plays in a BCS bowl game; the school receives $1 million from the BCS even if the Irish don't qualify for one of college football's biggest bowl games.


The BCS needs Notre Dame for obvious reasons (as disliked as Notre Dame might be, college football is at its best when the Irish are winning), and Notre Dame obviously needs to be part of the BCS system. But the Fighting Irish don't deserve preferential treatment and aren't any more important than any of the other schools from the six BCS conferences.



If every other team in the BCS system would be required to win a league championship, so should Notre Dame. Mark Schlabach covers college football and men's college basketball for ESPN.com. You can contact him at [email protected]

[BermudaSooner]

Notre Dame keeps $4.5 million each time it plays in a BCS bowl game; the school receives $1 million from the BCS even if the Irish don't qualify for one of college football's biggest bowl games.


They get $1 million even if they don't qualify? What kind of crap is that? I hate ND, but have to admire their feast or famine attitude towards making the cash come bowl season. But to know they get $1 million for just being ND is ridiculous.

I'd love that deal, maybe I should try it on my boss. "Hey boss, if I have a crappy year, please pay me $1 million, but if I have a good year, please pay me $4.5 million."

[Sooner_Bob]

I'm not really sure I agree that the sport is at it's best with the Irish are winning either . . . there may be more interest in the sport because of the dislike people have for them.

[Big Red Ron]

I'm not really sure I agree that the sport is at it's best with the Irish are winning either . . . there may be more interest in the sport because of the dislike people have for them.I know but I like this one...





If every other team in the BCS system would be required to win a league championship, so should Notre Dame.

[Sooner_Bob]

Yep, but I don't think that'll ever happen. I'd be very surprised if the Irish joined a conference.

EvAR.

[swardboy]

I'm lazy...anyone know how much money the championship game puts into the Big 12's coffers...and per team? And the Big 10 might want to consider a championship game from the aspect of being off 50 FREAKIN' DAYS before the BCS championship game. I think it makes for teams playing at peak performance when it counts.

[Desert Sapper]

Much as I'd like to disagree with Schablach on this, I have to agree. The NCAA is better when they are winning (at least more interesting). Of course, they need to play a tougher schedule, like they did in the 1920's to 1970's. They literally found the most competitive teams in the country and challenged them. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost, but they always competed. In years past, they would have never dared play a schedule like they did this past year. The alumni paid through their noses to watch the Irish play good teams. The patsies' only losses were to the only good teams they played this year.

Notre Dame is like the Yankees in MLB, the Cowboys the NFL, the Lakers in the NBA, etc... You either love them or you hate them. There is no in between. Like it or not, they are one of, if not the most storied programs in NCAA Football. We have a stiff claim to counter that argument, as do about a dozen other programs, but it is inarguable that ND belongs in the discussion of most storied programs. As far as wins, championships, Heismans, All-Americans, etc, they are among the best in every measurable category. They have the biggest fanbase of any team in the country (as evidenced by their lucrative TV contract -- NBC wouldn't do it if it didn't make them lots of money), they travel very well, and they garner attention even when they suck.

That being said, I don't think they should be allowed to continue on as an independent. The NCAA has grown beyond the days when that was acceptable for top teams. Their shameful scheduling wouldn't look quite as shameful if they were in a BCS conference. The BCS money scheme for ND is ridiculous. They need to step up and play with the big boys. The Big 10 would be a better conference for their addition. They already play a mostly Big 10 schedule (with the service academies and USC rolled in).

If the NCAA weren't so pussified, they might actually establish a conference championship requirement for the national championship (including ND). They won't, though. ND is a big money player. They can do what they want, because they have the NCAA's proverbial nuts in a vise.

[Beef]

I don't see what the problem with the Pac 10 not having a championship game is now that every team plays each other every year.

[footballfanatic]

Much as I'd like to disagree with Schablach on this, I have to agree. The NCAA is better when they are winning (at least more interesting). Of course, they need to play a tougher schedule, like they did in the 1920's to 1970's. They literally found the most competitive teams in the country and challenged them. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost, but they always competed. In years past, they would have never dared play a schedule like they did this past year. The alumni paid through their noses to watch the Irish play good teams. The patsies' only losses were to the only good teams they played this year.

Notre Dame is like the Yankees in MLB, the Cowboys the NFL, the Lakers in the NBA, etc... You either love them or you hate them. There is no in between. Like it or not, they are one of, if not the most storied programs in NCAA Football. We have a stiff claim to counter that argument, as do about a dozen other programs, but it is inarguable that ND belongs in the discussion of most storied programs. As far as wins, championships, Heismans, All-Americans, etc, they are among the best in every measurable category. They have the biggest fanbase of any team in the country (as evidenced by their lucrative TV contract -- NBC wouldn't do it if it didn't make them lots of money), they travel very well, and they garner attention even when they suck.

That being said, I don't think they should be allowed to continue on as an independent. The NCAA has grown beyond the days when that was acceptable for top teams. Their shameful scheduling wouldn't look quite as shameful if they were in a BCS conference. The BCS money scheme for ND is ridiculous. They need to step up and play with the big boys. The Big 10 would be a better conference for their addition. They already play a mostly Big 10 schedule (with the service academies and USC rolled in).

If the NCAA weren't so pussified, they might actually establish a conference championship requirement for the national championship (including ND). They won't, though. ND is a big money player. They can do what they want, because they have the NCAA's proverbial nuts in a vise.

I agree with this post, except for one thing. Notre Dame plays a pretty tough schedule. It's tougher than our Big 12 teams play, albiet our conference is down.

[Big Red Ron]

It's tougher than our Big 12 teams play, albiet our conference is down.I disagree. If you play in the Big XII South, you play in maybe the toughest division in CF.

[Sco]

I disagree. If you play in the Big XII South, you play in maybe the toughest division in CF.

Maybe if you're not OU or Texas.

No, SEC is way tougher than Big XII.

[Desert Sapper]

I agree with this post, except for one thing. Notre Dame plays a pretty tough schedule. It's tougher than our Big 12 teams play, albiet our conference is down.

I respectfully disagree.

Their Schedule:
09/02 at Ga Tech (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=59) (9-5) W 14-10 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262450059)
09/09 #19 Penn State (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=213) (9-4) W 41-17 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262520087)
09/16 #11 Michigan (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=130) (11-2) L 47-21 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262590087)
09/23 at Mich St (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=127) (4-8) W 40-37 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262660127)
09/30 Purdue (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2509) (8-6) W 35-21 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262730087)
10/07 Stanford (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=24) (1-11) W 31-10 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262800087)
10/21 UCLA (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=26) (7-6) W 20-17 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262940087)
10/28 at Navy (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2426) (9-4) W 38-14 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263012426)
11/04 UNC (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=153) (3-9) W 45-26 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263080087)
11/11 at Air Force (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2005) (4-8) W 39-17 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263152005)
11/18 Army (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=349) (3-9) W 41-9 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263220087)
11/25 at #3 USC (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=30) (11-2) L 44-24 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263290030)
01/03 vs #3 LSU (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=99) (11-2) L 41-14 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=270030099)


Outside of the three teams that beat them, what was so hard about their schedule (harder than our Big XII slate -- which included 6 winning teams in conference alone)? If ND had played a Big 10 schedule, they would have had to earn their BCS spot against Ohio State and Wisconsin (as well as the Michigan team that handed them their asses). Even a Big East schedule would have necessitated games against Rutgers, Louisville, and West Virginia (all good teams). All of this would be before the bowl game (which was the third good team they played). I think their USC matchup every year (together with the tough conference schedule) would make for a good schedule. I have no problem with a service academy game every year, but all three in one year? That just screams of wanting easy wins.

I think the Big 10, the PAC 10, and the Big East should all beef up to 12 and play a CCG like the real conferences (ACC, SEC, Big XII). I don't think you should be able to play for a MNC without a conference crown (won in a CCG). That would make the post-season even bigger.


As to the Big XII, it is going to be scary when the Big XII North catches up to the Big XII South (which isn't but a couple years away).

[TMcGee86]

I would be fine with this except that if all the conferences aren't forced to have championship games, then I would suggest a home game for the higher ranked conference foe in the B12CG.

No reason OU or UT should be forced to drive to KC in December to play Nebbish if they are much higher ranked and teams like tOSU dont have such a game.

[BermudaSooner]

I'm lazy...anyone know how much money the championship game puts into the Big 12's coffers...and per team? And the Big 10 might want to consider a championship game from the aspect of being off 50 FREAKIN' DAYS before the BCS championship game. I think it makes for teams playing at peak performance when it counts.


I thought it was $12.5 million to the conference, but like you, I'm too lazy to look it up.

Being in a conference for OU, probably means a minimum of $1 million of bowl revenue a year (independent on how OU performs), as 6-9 teams make bowls in any given year, with at least 1 in a BCS game. So we have about the same downside as ND (being we only get about $1 million), but we don't have the big payday that they have, as we are socialized with the rest of the Big XII.

[WP76]

According to the Sagarin computations, ND's strength of schedule at the end of season was a 75. OU's was a 74 (one point weaker). To an unbiased observer, the two SOS were equal.

[Seamus]

d00d, don't obfuscate the argument with facts ;)

[jwlynn64]

I don't see what the problem with the Pac 10 not having a championship game is now that every team plays each other every year.

Do you see a problem with a team having to win 13 games as opposed the Pac-10's 12?

Also, the 13th game is not a home game against what is generally going to be the 2nd or third best team in the conference. That team might also be a team that you have already played once that year.

Yeah, I don't see a problem either. :rolleyes:

[Jdog]

I respectfully disagree.

Their Schedule:
09/02 at Ga Tech (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=59) (9-5) W 14-10 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262450059)
09/09 #19 Penn State (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=213) (9-4) W 41-17 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262520087)
09/16 #11 Michigan (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=130) (11-2) L 47-21 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262590087)
09/23 at Mich St (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=127) (4-8) W 40-37 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262660127)
09/30 Purdue (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2509) (8-6) W 35-21 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262730087)
10/07 Stanford (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=24) (1-11) W 31-10 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262800087)
10/21 UCLA (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=26) (7-6) W 20-17 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262940087)
10/28 at Navy (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2426) (9-4) W 38-14 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263012426)
11/04 UNC (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=153) (3-9) W 45-26 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263080087)
11/11 at Air Force (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2005) (4-8) W 39-17 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263152005)
11/18 Army (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=349) (3-9) W 41-9 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263220087)
11/25 at #3 USC (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=30) (11-2) L 44-24 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=263290030)
01/03 vs #3 LSU (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=99) (11-2) L 41-14 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=270030099)


Outside of the three teams that beat them, what was so hard about their schedule (harder than our Big XII slate -- which included 6 winning teams in conference alone)? If ND had played a Big 10 schedule, they would have had to earn their BCS spot against Ohio State and Wisconsin (as well as the Michigan team that handed them their asses). Even a Big East schedule would have necessitated games against Rutgers, Louisville, and West Virginia (all good teams). All of this would be before the bowl game (which was the third good team they played). I think their USC matchup every year (together with the tough conference schedule) would make for a good schedule. I have no problem with a service academy game every year, but all three in one year? That just screams of wanting easy wins.

I think the Big 10, the PAC 10, and the Big East should all beef up to 12 and play a CCG like the real conferences (ACC, SEC, Big XII). I don't think you should be able to play for a MNC without a conference crown (won in a CCG). That would make the post-season even bigger.


As to the Big XII, it is going to be scary when the Big XII North catches up to the Big XII South (which isn't but a couple years away).



Ok - here's their record by conference:

ACC 2-0 1 weak, and 1 average team
Big 11 3-1 1 weak, 2 average and 1 above average
Pac 10 2-1 1 weak, 1 below average and 1 strong
ServAcad 3- 0 2 very weak and 1 average
SEC 0-1 1 strong

So they played 2 very weak teams, 3 weak teams, 1 below average, 4 average teams, 1 one above average and 2 Strong teams

They lost to the top 3 teams that they played - and beat the rest -
This is a very basic schedule - below average if they played in the Big 11 and SEC.

They would be a Bottom dweller in the SEC
They would place in the middle of both the Pac 10 and Big 11
they would be in the upper middle of the ACC (could win it)
And they would dominate if they were a Service Academy

They are sooooo over rated.

[Beef]

Do you see a problem with a team having to win 13 games as opposed the Pac-10's 12?

Also, the 13th game is not a home game against what is generally going to be the 2nd or third best team in the conference. That team might also be a team that you have already played once that year.

Yeah, I don't see a problem either. :rolleyes:
I don't see a problem with a conference playing EVERY TEAM in it's conference to determine a champion. Isn't that a more logical way of determining a champion than playing 2/3 of the teams in your conference? They eliminated a non-conference game (most likely a winnable home game) for another conference game. I don't see why that's an objectionable way of determining a conference champion.

Now the way the Big 10 does things is assinine.

[Desert Sapper]

According to the Sagarin computations, ND's strength of schedule at the end of season was a 75. OU's was a 74 (one point weaker). To an unbiased observer, the two SOS were equal.

I acquiesce. SOS seems to indicate that they had a reasonably tough schedule (even tougher than ours, it would seem).

According to Jeff Sagarin,

http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/cfsend.htm

ND has the 18th toughest schedule
OU had the 32nd

According to the NCAA, based on cumulative opposition,

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2006/Internet/toughest%20schedule/ia_9games_cumm.pdf

ND had the 34th
OU had the 44th

OU's opponents won 1 (82) more game than ND's.

My opinion is purely subjective. I think the fact that the quality of their opposition (and hence their SOS) was bolstered by three teams (Michigan, USC, and LSU) that shoe-whipped them into submission and the fact that they had to come from behind to beat a pretty sub-par Michigan State team (and they played three of the worst teams in D-IA - Stanford, Army, and UNC) makes their SOS a little irrelevant.

If OU got obliterated by the two best teams they played AND they played teams like Army (who haven't been good since I was a plebe), Stanford (who haven't been good since Ty Willingham left for ND), North Carolina (who haven't been good since Mack left for Texas), Air Force, and Michigan State (who I can excuse as a 'rival'), they wouldn't have been in a BCS game. Period.

ND has a history of playing great opponents. They could do what they used to, and find the toughest teams they can and challenge them. They won't, though. Joining the Big Ten would give them that opportunity every year. I don't personally like their preferential treatment, and I don't think most of the college football world does, either.

[jwlynn64]

I don't see a problem with a conference playing EVERY TEAM in it's conference to determine a champion. Isn't that a more logical way of determining a champion than playing 2/3 of the teams in your conference? They eliminated a non-conference game (most likely a winnable home game) for another conference game. I don't see why that's an objectionable way of determining a conference champion.

Now the way the Big 10 does things is assinine.

If every conference had the same method of determining a champion then it is fine. As it is, they play one less game than the three BCS conferences that do play a CCG.

Besides not having a chance to lose it CCG, they also don't have to worry about injury or playing a sub par game that could hurt their BCS ranking.

If all you were concerned with was determining a conference champ, then their method is fine. If you are trying to even the playing field between all teams, then their way gives them an unfair advantage.

[sooner94]

I thought it was $12.5 million to the conference, but like you, I'm too lazy to look it up.

Being in a conference for OU, probably means a minimum of $1 million of bowl revenue a year (independent on how OU performs), as 6-9 teams make bowls in any given year, with at least 1 in a BCS game. So we have about the same downside as ND (being we only get about $1 million), but we don't have the big payday that they have, as we are socialized with the rest of the Big XII.

I'm pretty sure its $14 million for a BCS game (per the DMN a few weeks ago).

The school gets 100% reimbursed for its travel and entertainment expenses for the week (which can be over $1 million because it includes players, coaches and university officials), and the net amount (let's say $12-$13 million) gets split among the conference teams.

[Soonerfan88]

They get $1 million even if they don't qualify? What kind of crap is that? I hate ND, but have to admire their feast or famine attitude towards making the cash come bowl season. But to know they get $1 million for just being ND is ridiculous.

I'd love that deal, maybe I should try it on my boss. "Hey boss, if I have a crappy year, please pay me $1 million, but if I have a good year, please pay me $4.5 million."

The reason these numbers were agreed upon is that it gives ND the same basic amount as any other conference team. Baylor's conference share of the Fiesta Bowl payout is also going to be around $1M. Although I agree that ND (and all other independents) should have to join a conference, this is at least better than the previous deal where they got the entire $14-16M normally given to the conference if they made it and $0 if they didn't. Even though ND only got to 2 BCS games in the first 8 years of the BCS, they made more money than they would have under the new system.


And the only issue I have with the "conference champ" rule is the difference in how that champ is determined. If you go by the Big East/Big 11/Pac 10 rule, it is the team with the best won/loss record. If you go by the ACC/SEC/Big 12 rule, it is whoever wins the CCG. In 2003, OU lost the CCG but at 8-1 still had the best won/loss record in the conference. Which rule do you use to determine the champ? Until all is equal, this rule should not be passed.

[Scott D]

Actually, chances are better that you can get the Irish to join the rest of their sports teams (sans mens hockey) in joining the Big East than the Big 10.

[AlbqSooner]

All these statistics are confusing me. I just hate the Fuggin Irish on principle.

[Seamus]

All these statistics are confusing me. I just hate the Fuggin Irish on principle.

Now, laddie, I kin un'erstan' you dislikin' Notre Dame, but spare the hatred for me people, boy-o. We've had enough o' the troubles since 1847 http://www.smileycollector.com/images/stpats/88.gif

[Stoop Dawg]

One significant rules change in the way college football determines its national championship would prevent such arguments in the future.

In the future, only conference champions should be allowed to play for the BCS title. That would have prevented the Ohio State-Michigan loser from being included in the BCS discussion this past season, and thus would have eliminated the ugly debate that preceeded the BCS title game.


Sorry, but there is no synapses firing here. Just more short-sighted "put a band-aid on it to fix the controversy from the current year" gibberish.

Requiring that a team win in its conference to play in the NC game will eliminate very, very little controversy. This guy obviously can't see past the end of his nose - which is probably why he became a sports-writer in the first place.

[SleestakSooner]

Notre Dame never made any freakin sense to me... why are the Biting Irish living in a place named after a cathedral from southern France? And why isn't
http://www.zenbutoh.com/charactergallery/images/Quasimodo-Naked-Gun-2.jpg
Quasi Modo their mascot?

[Luthor]

What flavor of ancient history crap is that? College football was at its best when the fighting Irish were playing for championships...50 frick'n years ago. Domer has NOT been a key factor in any conversation since Knute Rockney and leather helmets.

To the other subject, maybe Meatchicken should have played in the MNC game after all...against Florida.

[jwlynn64]

Except that Michigan didn't win it's conference. ;)

If you want a playoff, requiring a conference title would be a big first step to getting there. If you add this requirement, you have started down that road and have left "the consensus national championship" behind.

If you look at this year. What if Michigan and tOSU had met in a CCG and Michigan won in OT. Any talk of tOSU playing the the MNC game would have been removed by the conference title rule.

Under the current system, there would have been a possibility of a third meeting between the same two schools.

[Stoop Dawg]

If you want a playoff, requiring a conference title would be a big first step to getting there. If you add this requirement, you have started down that road and have left "the consensus national championship" behind.

Huh? Are you going with the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" arguement here? Because it doesn't apply in this situation. There can only be one system, and replacing the current crap with some different crap doesn't get you anywhere.


If you look at this year. What if Michigan and tOSU had met in a CCG and Michigan won in OT. Any talk of tOSU playing the the MNC game would have been removed by the conference title rule.

So? If you had an 8 team playoff then there wouldn't have been any debate either.


Under the current system, there would have been a possibility of a third meeting between the same two schools.

And? We had to beat KSU twice in 2000 to win the conference. Was that so unfair that the rule was changed? Nope.

[MI Sooner]

This guy from ESPN misses what so many others do when they propose changes to the BCS system. They want to adjust a formula so that it spits out the desired result when the variables aren't variable, but known. If adding a quality win factor means Miami would have played OU instead of FSU (the desired result), put in a quality win component. But three years later, it could prevent consesus #1 USC from playing in the championship game, which everyone bitched about. It makes about as much sense is saying, "Florida deserved to get in the BCS championship over Michigan, so we should add a bonus for the number of eighty degree days or a bonus for winning the basketball championship." Yeah, it achieves the desired result, but you have to think about the if it's really something you want to be a factor in the future. In two-team playoff, a la the BCS championship, I think the vast majority of non-partisan fans would be happy if human polls determine the participants (AP would be best currently available), and if computers only are used as a tie-breaker.

In any case, requiring a team be a conference champ to participate in the BCS championship game doesn't make sense. What if Wisconsin had one tie (think 10 years ago) and no losses, had played an extremely difficult non-conference schedule, but didn't play Ohio State during the Big Ten season? If there are no other undefeated teams, shouldn't they play for the championship?

What if OU and Nebraska are the only one loss teams (unlikely, I know), and their losses are to each other in hard fought games? Should the loser of the Big XII championship game be denied a third game, even if it's ranked number one in all polls, and won on the other team's field but lost on a neutral field?

I favor a playoff, but I also favor having the system we have use the best criteria for determining the participants. Using the AP poll makes the most sense to me. I still don't understand why the BCS can't use the AP poll in it's formula. Maybe the AP does have rights to restrict it's use, or maybe the BCS didn't want to be associated with an organization that has rebuffed them.

[MI Sooner]

Another dumb part of the conference championship requirement I forgot:

What if Arkansas had won the SEC championship? The result would have been stupid. You'd have a two loss Wake Forest or USC or Arkansas or OU or...

...maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.

[SoonerTerry]

"The BCS needs Notre Dame for obvious reasons (as disliked as Notre Dame might be, college football is at its best when the Irish are winning), "


I absolutely dissagree with this.. can anyone justify this? I cannot see how ND could possibly control college football in that way.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I disagree. If you play in the Big XII South, you play in maybe the toughest division in CF.
I must disagree. While the Big XII south might have OU (11th) Texas (13th) , Texas Tech (Not ranked) and Texas A&M (Not ranked). Oklahoma Sate was very mediocre and Baylor was Baylor.
Now look at either the SEC West or SEC East.
In the east there is Florida (1) Georgia (23) Tennessee (25). Then there is SOuth Carolina who was a blocked kick away from beating Florida and is very very good. Kentucky also won their bowl game and Vandy sucks. Advantage Big XII South here.
In the west LSU (3) and Auburn (9) are both in the top 10 and Arkansas sits at 15th. Alabama was average and everyone from Mississippi was awful-like Baylor. Advantage SEC West with 2 top 10 teams and another top 15.

[SoonerFaninAZ]

I'm not a fan of the "win your conference" requirement.

If a team finishes #2 in their conference and the consensus is that they are still at least the second best team in the country, then they should be included in the mix.

Now, I don't think that Michigan was the second best team in the country, but if, prior to the bowls, some of the voters and the computers thought so, then they should be in the mix.

I have no problem with the human voters who voted Florida #2 prior to the bowls, but if they did it just because Michigan didn't win their conference, I think that's lame. Especially, when the week prior they had Michigan #2.

[jwlynn64]

I'm not a fan of the "win your conference" requirement.

If a team finishes #2 in their conference and the consensus is that they are still at least the second best team in the country, then they should be included in the mix.

You miss the point that because there is a disparity between the strenghts of conferenences, it is easy to think that a conference is strong and be proved incredibly wrong in the post season.

Take the Big 10 as an example this year. The "obviously two best teams in college football", Michigan and tOSU got their asses handed to them in the bowl games.

Because there is not enough overlap between conferences in the OOC games, it's difficult to judge the comparative strength of conferences.

That's why I believe that if all other things are considered equal, the opportunity should go to the team from another conference.

The conference champ is supposed to be the best team in that conference. In determining the MNC, we don't care who the second best team in that conference is, just the best. Now make the conference champs duke it out to see who is the best.

I think that this type of playoff would be a lot more palatable to me than taking some consensus rankings. In this system, the conference season would be incredibly important.

[Texas Golfer]

I don't see what the problem with the Pac 10 not having a championship game is now that every team plays each other every year.

I do. If the Pac-10 were split into two divisions as are the three conferences that play CCGs, they'd have to beat a good team again in order to advance as do the other three conferences.

Have you forgotten the time where Nebraska knocked us out of the #1 spot only to have to play us again in the Orange Bowl where they lost? Have you forgotten that, twice in the early 2000s, we had to play KSU during the regular season only to have to play them again in the CCG?

It's not easy to beat the same good teams twice. The other three conferences have to do it so the Pac-10 should, too.

[jwlynn64]

Huh? Are you going with the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" arguement here? Because it doesn't apply in this situation. There can only be one system, and replacing the current crap with some different crap doesn't get you anywhere.

Not sure what your argument here is. If you like the consensus champion system, then the system doesn't need to be fixed. If you want a playoff, then this is a good first step.



So? If you had an 8 team playoff then there wouldn't have been any debate either.

An eight team playoff that included only conference champs might have reduced the controversy. An eight team playoff that didn't include the BigXII champ, (as would have happened if you use the BCS rankings) would have been terrible.



And? We had to beat KSU twice in 2000 to win the conference. Was that so unfair that the rule was changed? Nope.

Having to play a team during regular conference play and then having to beat that same team again in the CCG isn't that bad. It still doens't ensure that the "best" team wins the conference but both teams would have played several common opponents to get into the CCG. There will still be easier divisions (Big XII north vs. south) but that can change from year to year.

[Stoop Dawg]

Not sure what your argument here is. If you like the consensus champion system, then the system doesn't need to be fixed. If you want a playoff, then this is a good first step.

Why is it a good first step toward a playoff? What do conference champions have to do with a national playoff?

Also, I feel your use of the word "consensus" is disingenuous. While "consensus" can be taken to mean "majority opinion" - it can also mean "general agreement or concord; harmony". There are many years in which there is no "general agreement" or "harmony" in selecting the national champion.


An eight team playoff that included only conference champs might have reduced the controversy. An eight team playoff that didn't include the BigXII champ, (as would have happened if you use the BCS rankings) would have been terrible.

Why would leaving out a 2 loss Big XII champion be terrible? I thought we wanted the regular season to be important? If you want to make the playoff then don't lose - twice.


Having to play a team during regular conference play and then having to beat that same team again in the CCG isn't that bad. It still doens't ensure that the "best" team wins the conference but both teams would have played several common opponents to get into the CCG. There will still be easier divisions (Big XII north vs. south) but that can change from year to year.

I agree. When you have two teams that are very good, sometimes they will need to play each other more than once to determine the best team. I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

[jwlynn64]

Why is it a good first step toward a playoff? What do conference champions have to do with a national playoff?

Aren't the conference champions by definition the best team in that conference? In that senario, wouldn't the best team in the nation be one the the conference champions? What possible purpose would you have in inviting a team to the playoff that was already shown not to be the best team?


Also, I feel your use of the word "consensus" is disingenuous. While "consensus" can be taken to mean "majority opinion" - it can also mean "general agreement or concord; harmony". There are many years in which there is no "general agreement" or "harmony" in selecting the national champion.

So your argument is that as long as one voting member doesn't agree with who is #1, then that does not constitute a consensus? :confused: In that case, I would argue that we never have a "consensus" national champion. Another weak argument bases on semantics.



Why would leaving out a 2 loss Big XII champion be terrible? I thought we wanted the regular season to be important? If you want to make the playoff then don't lose - twice.

As long as there can be a difference in the strenghts of conferences, you will need to make sure that the best team from each conference is invited. It is entirely possible that a two loss team from one conference would have won another weaker conference.

[Stoop Dawg]

Aren't the conference champions by definition the best team in that conference? In that senario, wouldn't the best team in the nation be one the the conference champions? What possible purpose would you have in inviting a team to the playoff that was already shown not to be the best team?

As you mention below, not all conferences are equal. Why would you invite a 4 loss team (for example) to a playoff just because they won a weak conference? Why would you leave out an undefeated team just because they didn't win their conference? Unless you institute some sort of uniform method of determining a conference champion the title is meaningless on the national stage.


So your argument is that as long as one voting member doesn't agree with who is #1, then that does not constitute a consensus?

No that's not my point at all.

Who was the "consensus" champion in 2004? LSU? USC? It depends who gets included in your "consensus" poll, doesn't it? Throwing around the word "consensus" champion implies things that are simply not true. Namely, that there is always a "general consensus" (redundant, I know) across the country about who is #1 at the end of the year.


As long as there can be a difference in the strenghts of conferences, you will need to make sure that the best team from each conference is invited. It is entirely possible that a two loss team from one conference would have won another weaker conference.

I agree. That's why a team needn't be a conference champion in order to make the playoff.

Edit: It feels like we're talking in circles here. You said it would be terrible if the 2 loss Big XII champion were left out. Then you said that a 2 loss champion might be better than the champion of some other conference. You can't have it both ways. Either the 2 loss champion is better than the champion of some other conference or it's not. The way to decide is NOT to use the "conference champion" title - but to use the (admittedly flawed) ranking system. Is that what you wanted me to admit? That the flawed ranking system must still play a role? Well, I did, because it does. Better?