[Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to theBig-XII (sort of)

Fri Jan 16 13:15:16 CST 2009

 I like the system just as it goes right now.? It makes every game important ( USC, Texas - just win your games)? Utah probably has a beef, but if anyone thinks if they played Texas or OK or TX Tech schedules with the 3 or 4 game gauntlet they had to go through - and still be undefeated, I would be surprised.? The problem is the season is long and teams change.? I think OK and FL were the best two - at the time, taking in all the factors.? NE - by the end of the year - probably should have been ranked higher - but some early blowouts made that not happen.? 
Hey - it is Mid Jan and we are still talking about it!? As we will be in March, June and September.? One game playoffs do not crown the best team... They reward those who get up for certain games - with travel, injuries, how you match with certain teams etc all playing in.? 

Steve Kauf
A husker fan deep in South Texas

Not the Victory but the Action
Not the Goal but the Game
In the Deed the Glory

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Feldman <dlfeldman at ameritech.net>
To: Steve Reichenbach <reich at inetnebr.com>; SLawson at uamail.albany.edu; husker at tssi.com; nickchevance at gmail.com
Sent: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to theBig-XII (sort of)

Steve,
With a two team playoff, it becomes paramount to get the two best teams into the 
playoff -- and those two are chosen by subjective methods.? Selecting 8 or 12 or 
16 still requires a subjective measurement, but does increase the chances of 
getting the "best team."? I do agree with your point that not always does the 
"best team" win a playoff, but at least they get a chance.? 

This year, Texas and Utah (and perhaps USC) all had support for being "the best 
team" but did not get a chance to play for the title.? Utah did everything they 
could to get there, but the subjective reasoning left them out.? They went on to 
beat the team that two polls earlier had been #1 and beat them more soundly than 
the team that became eventual #1.? You could make a similar argument for Texas 
(v OU), although Texas did go on to lose afterwards.? Did neither team deserve a 
shot at #1?

Thus a playoff with more than two members does seem reasonable.? But again to 
your point, too many and you begin to reduce the chances of a true "best team" 
avoiding an upset.? Again, 12 is my number with the top four teams only having 
to play three times to minimize the chances of an "upset."

Duane Feldman

________________________________
From: Steve Reichenbach <reich at inetnebr.com>
To: SLawson at uamail.albany.edu; husker at tssi.com; nickchevance at gmail.com
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:42:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to theBig-XII 
(sort of)

There is already a playoff, with two teams qualifying for the
playoff.? Actually, increasing the size of the playoff probably
diminishes the likelihood that the best team or the most deserving
team wins.? The more you expand the playoff, the less well a team
must do to qualify.? That diminishes the incentive to play a tough
schedule, diminishes the meaning of each regular season game, and
puts less deserving teams in a plae to win the championship.? In
some of the pro sports, a team that finishes barely .500 or even
worse can go on a streak and win the championship.? Is that better
than what we have now?? It isn't clear that it is.

> From husker-bounces at tssi.com? Fri Jan 16 09:55:24 2009
> Delivered-To: reich at inebraska.com
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on romaine.tssi.com
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
> ??? version=3.2.1
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> ??? h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
> ??? :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
> ??? :content-transfer-encoding;
> ??? bh=lGtrfmj1TrXJnLtB0D/14yByvp0sJz5/R/l+MKB8FC4=;
> ??? b=XbDGfsXHhYy6F2g2D3qHgT/4qvGGP/yQZsmuUUHxV548bg1vhlzE++W3TrCj/mKaUt
> ??? IL8OO9enQXu+42JlaAhgwKG4WLAg6NLFkmeU7z5E6/jerCNJMK0eMecJB/++C6019Kfq
> ??? qy1uzmxqy1qc7Fd3Y524PYlxvs0nIORKz1PCU=
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> ??? h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
> ??? :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
> ??? b=jqmJp+4I/tt6ZNBAbxtzvMNE5O62AHDRUeNLCu9g/sAYodOyd7uw60pBajUHesAxoL
> ??? o8qX09xM6KUF0nPehvlFlDs45O3XAem3jcaW+RtU8kEwLRT85LLF3/TsMoWXXISWb2kc
> ??? rEYh0RD63U8xkyhXEENg9ln2wMToKjZ1yp0/Q=
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:54:08 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to 
> ??? theBig-XII (sort of)
> From: Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>
> To: Scott R Lawson <SLawson at uamail.albany.edu>, Husker List <husker at tssi.com>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Cc: 
> X-BeenThere: husker at tssi.com
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> List-Id: The Husker List <husker.tssi.com>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker>,
> ??? <mailto:husker-request at tssi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/private/husker>
> List-Post: <mailto:husker at tssi.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:husker-request at tssi.com?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker>,
> ??? <mailto:husker-request at tssi.com?subject=subscribe>
> X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
> X-pstn-levels:? ? (S:95.11916/99.90000 CV:99.9000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 
M:94.5022 C:99.5902 )
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Scott R Lawson
> <SLawson at uamail.albany.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Seriously though, I know this topic is a sore one for many and has
> > probably been beat to death already, but can anyone enlighten me as to
> > why the current system could not be replaced with a playoff system? I
> > know one of the old arguments was having these kids playing too many
> > games, but that seems silly when you see divisions that DO have playoffs
> > seem to manage just fine with 15-16 games. Also, I know the bowls want
> > their revenue, but wouldn't two or three more rounds of playoffs tied
> > into existing bowl games make them even MORE money?
> >
> > Scott in NY
> 
> I suspect there will be others to pick at this carcass, but I'm
> willing to take a few whacks at it.
> 
> The biggest structural drawback to a playoff system is the fact that
> two of the major conferences don't have playoffs - Pac10 and Big11.
> At least with the way the Big11 does things (I only assume the same
> happens in the Pac10) where not every team plays each other team in
> the conference, there's gonna be questions about who the conference
> champ is.? I've heard that the Big11 has absolutely no desire to do
> anything about that, and while I haven't heard anything about Pac10
> feelings, they really haven't had to worry about it - its just been
> USC lately.
> 
> But if you can resolve that issue, then the rest of the (non)arguments
> come into play - it'll destroy the bowl system, it'll take the kids
> out of school for too long, how do conferences share revenue from
> these games, will the fans show up week after week, etc., etc.? The
> only thing - and really the only thing - I want to see come out of
> this if we do end up with some sort of playoff (8 teams seems the
> best), is that the higher seeded team gets to play at home during the
> playoffs, just like in the pros.? No moving everyone south to where a
> greater advantage is given to a team playing closer to home (or as USC
> did, playing in their neighborhood).? Make some of the warm teams move
> north and put up with cold games in cold stadiums.? I know, I know,
> makes for lousy TV, but after all, its football.? It wasn't intended
> to be an indoor sport.? Or at least I don't think so.
> 
> Nick
> -- 
> "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> Anatole France
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> 

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker