[Husker] BCS - Am I alone?

[Rod Wellman]

On Dec 5, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Mark Landin wrote:

> On 12/5/06, Rod Wellman <gobigred66 at mac.com> wrote:
>>  Can we tweak the BCS formula
>> to make sure that we are picking the best 2 teams?  Maybe.
>
> Problem is, define "best". What criteria can you use to determine who
> is "best", unless it's whether or not one team would beat another if
> they played? And how can you know if one team would beat another,
> unless you actually play the game? If your position is that a person
> can determine if team A is better than team B without an actual game
> involved, then we should just skip ALL the games, not just the bowls.

Well that's pretty much what all the arguing is about, now isn't it?   
Previously and for many years, there was NO system in place to make  
sure that if two teams went undefeated they would at least play in a  
bowl game.  Bowls had their conference tie-ins and that was it.  That  
was tradition for many years, and the BCS came along and changed that  
entire system.  Tradition went by the wayside a bit, and instead it  
is attempting to use the current bowl structure to have a better  
chance of getting the best two teams on the field at the end of the  
season.  Is it 100% foolproof?  No.  But better than what we had  
before, without doing away with ALL of the bowl tradition.

>
>> Can we
>> even expand to allow 4 teams a shot?  Maybe.  In that case, I think
>> the conference championship games should be eliminated.  But the
>> current system isn't doing a bad job of deciding the MNC.  However, I
>> WOULD like to see the time between the last game of the year and the
>> MNC game shortened a bit because a 4 or 5 week layoff can really mess
>> a team up.
>>
>> BTW, didn't Blackledge make a rather eloquent argument against a
>> playoff during the OU game?
>
> I agree that the bowls are events unto themselves, unlike an NFL
> playoff game. However, if we are to keep the bowl system to preserve
> that tradition, then let's agree to STOP crowning someone a
> "champion". You can't know the champion without an elimation-format
> tournament. Without that, all you have is "guesses" and "feelings"
> about who a champion *would be*. If you want to crown a champion, you
> must have a playoff.

You must have missed the entire point of my post.  A playoff DOES not  
automatically result in "knowing" the champion.  First of all, there  
are still "guesses" and "feelings" involved in picking the teams in  
the playoffs.  How many "bubble" basketball teams are pissed every  
year that they didn't make it into the field of 64?  Still plenty of  
feelings and guesses involved in a playoff, and the entire point of  
my post was that even with a playoff, the best team can't possibly  
make it through with any assuredness.  The second, third, fourth,  
even seventh best team probably will.  Does that mean they are the  
true "champion"?  Or just a team that got lucky (or stayed healthy)  
at the end of the year...was playing at the top of their game for a  
couple games in a row, or maybe had the favorable distance to travel?


>
>> If it changes, it will be because those idiots single handedly
>> changed public opinion with their non-stop crusade.
>
> I think public opinion is largely in favor of a playoff system
> already, so I don't think you can blame those feelings on broadcasters
> ... I think you can blame those feelings on what George Patton said:
> "America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser".

I haven't seen any surveys of the general public to know whether or  
not public opinion is largely in favor of a playoff system.  Have you?

> The average
> football fan is very much fixated on knowing who "the best" is, and
> the current system does not adequately answer that question in many
> cases.
>

That's part of the fun.  Do you think the average fan has to know who  
the best is?  Can they ever know that?  And to my points made  
previously, a playoff doesn't tell them that.  They may think it  
does, but it doesn't.

Besides, how much fun would watching the games this season have been  
knowing all along that USC, Michigan, and the other teams who  
provided us with those thrilling in-season games were going to make  
it to "the playoff" anyway?

> Aside from a relative minority of fans like yourself who do not favor
> a playoff,

Again, I don't believe we can say for sure if I'm in the minority on  
this.  Has anyone seen an actual survey on this?

> the people who aren't in favor of a playoff are the people
> who are currently profiting the most from the current system: the bowl
> commitees and their cities,

Yes, and it would be a shame to lose all the associated events of the  
bowl games in their cities.  It has to be quite the experience for  
the fans, the cities and the players.

> the TV networks,

Don't tell me the TV networks would LOSE money in a playoff system.   
If that's true, all their talking heads who are pushing for it would  
not be allowed to run off their mouths advocating it the way they  
have for, oh, the last 5 to 10 years.

> and the presidents

If you can say without any survey information to back it up that most  
people want a playoff, I can say without a survey that most college  
presidents are more concerned with the academic issues of extending  
the season so long for those players on the playoff teams.  Yes, the  
other divisions do it, but they are done a long time before the D 1  
playoff would be completed.  They don't play 12 game seasons and  
don't have conference championship games.  A team from the Big 12  
would have to play a 16 game season in an 8 team playoff scenario.   
That's ridiculous for college football.


> and
> AD's of schools who enjoy the large payouts that would shrink in a
> merit-based playoff system

Well what is your solution for offsetting those shrinking payouts,  
then?  The money-making beast that is major college football  
nowadays, for better or worse, has to be fed.  Losing those payouts  
only hurts the up and coming programs, which everyone has practically  
willed onto the scene through a leveling of the playing field  
(reduced scholarships, bowl revenue sharing and other rule changes  
that allow for more parity).  College football fans can't have their  
cake and eat it too.  They can have a playoff with the same  
established big-time football schools involved every year, or they  
can have the current bowl system which distributes the riches to some  
of the "have nots" in the major conferences and even (recently,  
albeit) the mid-majors.

> (unless you think all 64 teams
> participating in the current bowl system would also qualify for a
> tournament, which I don't think is what anyone is advocating).

Well, that will be next.  Because hey, why stop at 8?  Why not 16?   
Hey, Nebraska ranked at #23 is getting pretty good odds on beating  
#10 Auburn.  If they can beat #10, why can't they beat #6, or #4?   
Maybe it should be 32 teams?  And on, and on....

Bye bye bowl games, and the last remaining remnant of what makes D1  
college football unique.

By the way, I AM an advocate of reducing the number of bowl games,  
and eliminating the conference championship games and reducing the  
season back to 11 games.

Rod W.