Conference Championship Games Should Cease to Be (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love That the PAC-10 Has it Mostly Right)
by Nico2.0 on Jul 14, 2009 7:00 AM CDT
in Football
59 comments
A recent thread about the BCS on RBR reignited an argument that we hear almost every off season: the conference championship game reigns supreme as a way to crown a victor. We also hear how the PAC-10 and Big Te(leve)n need to get on board with the "movement" created by the SEC and further fueled by the Big 12 and ACC by adopting the twelve team, two division format (midmajor conferences like C-USA and the MAC have also hopped on the train.) The Big East is almost never brought into the discussion for reasons unbeknownst to me; perhaps people feel that particular conference adding four more teams is unrealistic or that they shouldn't even be in the BCS equation anyway. Regardless, the PAC-10 and Big 10 are frequently brought up, most likely because their commissioners are viewed as the primary obstacles towards a playoff for Division 1 (FBS) football as a whole.
For whatever reason though, the cojones of the Pac-10 and Big 10 are frequently called into question because of their lack of a conference championship game. This is something I simply don't understand. What is so special about the ultimately one game playoff of a conference championship game that makes it a more valid way of crowning a champion? I think the Big Ten's format is wrong, but if anything, I view the PAC-10 as having the best format in place for determining a conference winner in the whole of college football. They play nine conference games and play everyone in the conference. I like this for two reasons: 1) it essentially adds more meaningful games to the schedule by replacing throw away non-conference match ups (aka cash grabs...which the PAC-10 as a whole doesn't do on the level of the SEC anyway) with more conference games and 2) everybody plays the same schedule as far as the conference is concerned.
One frequent complaint I hear about this system is that in the case of a three way tie, there's no clear cut way to determine a champion and that the title should be won "on the field." That's complete balderdash. Any determinant "tie breaker" is a measure of on the field activity...and furthermore a "winner take all" scenario for the conference title more or less negates it for what it is...a measure of the best team in the conference over the entire season. My particular suggested methodology of tie breaking in this instance is point differential. In the instance of ties in soccer to determine a champion, they do "goal differential" across the whole season including all games against all teams. That's too much in my opinion though. Here, I suggest using a "point differential" system, but only counting the games amongst the teams involved in the tie.
This is what I suggested be done to break the three-way tie in the Big 12 South last year when the Ouroborosian argument of "Well, Texas beat Oklahoma so they should go, but Texas Tech beat Texas so they should go, but Oklahoma beat Texas Tech so they should go..." nearly drove us all to drink. Poor Texas Tech was left out of the argument because they got thoroughly destroyed by Oklahoma, but based on record alone, they should've been a part of the discussion. If you elected to go with my proposed tiebreaker system, Oklahoma would've advanced to the title game based on the point differential. They lost to Texas by ten (-10) and beat Texas Tech by forty-four (+44) so they had a (+34) point differential in the games involving the tied teams. Texas beat Oklahoma by ten, but lost to Texas Tech by six, leaving them with a (+4) point differential. Texas tech beat Texas by six (+6), but lost to Oklahoma by forty-four (-44) leaving them with a (-38) point differential. See, Oklahoma's trip to the Big 12 title game was won on the field after all. I think the voters ultimately got it right, but by the wrong reasoning. Another benefit of using aggregate scores in a tiebreaker situation is that it eliminates the whole "style points" nonsense we're always hearing about. If you don't want to run up the score on teams, that's fine, but win all of your games so it doesn't become an issue. If you want to settle it on the field, make sure you beat your rival like a rented mule when given the opportunity. It adds another element of strategy to the proceedings: give youngsters some much needed playing time for depth and for the future, or secure the advantage in a tiebreaker situation?
The 2008 MAC Championship Game is the preeminent example of what is wrong with conference championship games. A 12-0 (8-0) Ball State faces a 7-5 (5-3) Buffalo team and ends up crapping the bed and the MAC winds up with an 8-5 champion and a 12-1 runner up. During the regular season, in a 12 team conference, the two eventual divisional champs shared five common opponents from an eight game conference schedule. If you remove the two teams in question, they only shared 50% of the same possible opponents in their conference. How is that a measure of the best in the league? I digress though. Among those five common opponents, Ball State was 5-0 and Buffalo was 2-3. Buffalo would've finished with the fourth best record in Ball State's division, yet by the disastrous possibilities a divided conference allows, a mediocre, middle of the pack team gets hot for one game and becomes champion. Madness. Sheer madness.
Is there anyone that really believes Buffalo was the best team in the MAC last year? I can hear the scoffers now saying, "That'll never happen in the SEC" and it may not happen ever (though that's unlikely based on a sample set that theoretically will be infinite)...or it may only happen once before the end of the world, but the fact that it's a statistical possibility should bother people. The two best teams in the MAC didn't face each other last year, but because of "playoff obsession" and the accident of geography, a team that shouldn't have been at the table was allowed a roll of the dice...and they won.
In my opinion, conferences should be capped in size at 10 teams and everybody should play everybody. I'd cap the whole of Division 1 at 120 teams with 10 conferences too...but that's another article for another day (as in I'll be writing it very soon.) I know the conference championship game is going to be around for a long time, but hopefully we'll wake up and see why it's bad for college football. I actually believe their eradication will actually pave the way for a D1 playoff that will function more like a super league or champions league, but like I said, that's an article for another day...
1 recs |
59 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Point differentials?
Noooooooo. Point differentials are already part of the game, in so much as they are computed (at least tacitly) by pollsters, and are included in the BCS formula (Colley and Massey among others). I don’t think that it needs to be codified in any other way. Running it up (I’m looking at you Oklahoma), serves no one well, and certainly does not serve the game.
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2009 7:29 AM CDT reply actions
Margin of victory hasn’t been a part of any BCS computer formula in many, many years. The BCS will actually not accept a computer ranking that includes game score.
That said: encouraging teams to display just how much better they are than another team serves everyone well who has an interest in such things. If you don’t like getting beaten by 40 points, field a defense that can keep that from happening.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 14, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions
It has no place in collegiate athletics...
Point differentials make sense in the NFL, with hordes of 9-7 teams beating other 9-7 teams. But, what does it prove in college, when there is so much disparity in conferences, in OOC play, on the roulette wheel of advanced scheduling? Not much: only that Oklahoma will keep throwing up by 5 TDs on hapless Texas Tech? That USC is, in fact, about 10 TDs better than a historically bad Wazzou? That Florida will be utterly merciless against the Citadel? That Nick Saban will hammer the last nail in Tubs coffin?
How do any of those demonstrate that X is better than Y? They don’t. It’s a magpie approach to rankings with points being the pretty shiny things.
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Nonsense. That a team can score at will on another team (and keep them from doing the same in return) speaks volumes. Is there a substantial difference between a 36 point win and a 50 point win? I don’t know, but to say that there’s no difference between a 3 point overtime win and a 40 point drubbing is just pure fantasy.
When you’re trying to rank 120 teams on the basis of 12 games a piece and virtually no common opponents, it helps to have some indication as to whether Team A is 3 points better or 30 than Team B. Which is why pretty much any of those statistical types will tell you that using the margin of victory produces better results than not, no matter what our sissified, self-esteem protecting culture might want us to believe.
You might have some principled objection to “running up the score”, but let’s not act like this is tee-ball. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you don’t want to lose by 40 points put a defense on the field that can stop it from happening. If you can’t do that, find a new conference or division to play in.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 14, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not on sissified or self-esteem protecting grounds that I object to...
it’s the fact that, as you concede, without common opponents we need some metric. We depart on what that metric may be. Unless you are going to also factor in home v. away v. neutral, climate, injuries, last game played-who’s next on the slate, traditional “grittiness factor” (I’m looking at you Vandy vs. Florida etc), whether a coach or team throws in the towel when down, and a million other variables, then the ONLY thing you know is that on one particular day, one team was better (by any degree from 1 to N) than another team. You do not, and cannot, know based on that score (inflated to satisfy some margin of victory) that is an accurate measure of who’s “best”. For instance, would you really take a 2008 Oklahoma team, blowing people out of the water (running it up, some would say), over a 2006 UF who squeaked by most conference opponents?
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
You’ve setup a false dichotomy. Just because you can’t know everything doesn’t mean we shouldn’t rule out information we have.
There is a difference between a 3 point win and a 50 point win.
People like to fall into the trap of wanting everything to be absolute. Sports aren’t that way. Asking the question “which team is better” is silly unless you define it better. We’re talking about statistics and probabilities here.
Say Team A plays Team B, and wins by 50 points.
Say, too, that Team C plays Team D, and wins by 3.
If those teams were to play those same match-ups 100 more times, it’s probably safe to say that Team A’s winning percentage against Team B would be better than Team C’s against Team D for the vast majority of Teams A-D. That’s important when it comes to predicting the outcome of future match-ups.
It’s also at the heart of what we mean when we say “better”. We don’t mean that the worse team can never win. We mean that more often than not, the better team will win.
Combine all of this, and it seems silly NOT to involve point diff in some measurable way.
Personally, I believe that as the margin of victory increases, the marginal difference between the teams declines. That is to say that the difference between winning by 3 and winning by 6 is much larger than the difference between winning by 57 and winning by 60. There comes a point where it’s clear that there’s just absolutely nothing the losing team can do about it and further piling on isn’t helpful.
That said, taking margin of victory out entirely is foolish.
Letting the pollsters model the league without interference from the NCAA and BCS would result in more accurate rankings. If you want a simple solution that still keeps the nancies happy, cap MOV at 28. All wins by more than four touchdowns are equal.
It's not a false dichotomy
I don’t think I’ve ever laid this out as some Nichomachean struggle between differential vs. measure N. My objections are only purely exclusionary grounds.
As I said, we part company on point differentials as the determinant tie breaker. That’s all. If you want to factor it, be my guest. I think points are already factored in the minds of voters who feel as you do and needn’t be ironclad and set in stone.
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 15, 2009 8:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Damn...
…I really thought this was figure skating. Gotta go find a new blog now….
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 15, 2009 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
But, if we don't have voters...
What do you do with teams like Ball State (12-0) vs. a 3-4 loss Ole Miss, or a 1 loss SEC or B12S team? I don’t see how we can work around the (admittedly untenable) system without them. And, no, I’m not prodding you, but voters are part of the fabric of the game (rightly or wrongly).
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 15, 2009 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Win your conference, play for the title. Don’t win your conference? Play in a bowl game.
Simple. Effective.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 19, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions
How...
…can you call Texas Tech hapless in the example scenario? If they beat Oklahoma last year then there’s no crazy debate about the Big 12 South. However, Oklahoma did what they did to TT because they could and they had to demonstrate that the could. Additionally, running up the score on Wazzou isn’t going to benefit USC as I’m saying the point differential should only count amongst the teams in question so unless they’re at the top of the heap it’s irrelevant and a coach isn’t likely to completely destroy them if they know it offers no benefit. The Florida vs. Citadel example doesn’t hold either as it’s a non-conference match up. I’m talking about point differential only in terms of a tiebreaker amongst the top teams.
Yes, but doesn't that
get you to the same point? Playing starters, risking injuries, lengthening blow-outs to satisfy some down-the-road mentality that “we may need these points”. That’s NFL think and I don’t believe it should be set in stone.
Now, as I’ve said before, do voters take it into consideration? Of course. OU put up 5 straight games of 60+ to end the year for precisely the above reasoning. And, you know what, it worked for them again, getting the benefit of the doubt over UT. Why should that necessarily be the default? (and, I think we see the three-way firing squad again this year as UT beats OU who beats OSU who beats UT).
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 15, 2009 8:19 AM CDT up reply actions
If you don’t like getting beaten by 40 points, field a defense that can keep that from happening.
or schedule a steady diet of cupcakes.
Bruce Schneider agrees with you.
But Mike Leach calls KSU’s OOC schedule “challenging”.
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 15, 2009 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Agreed Pete
BYU knew in the old days that a 40 point victory meant more notice than 3 point “nice guy” efforts and routinely pounded their WAC foes mercilessly. Some cried “running up the score”, but I always thought it was my teams duty to compete, not theirs to hold back their superior athletes from competing to the best of their ability.
When their passing game was tattooing us? I thougt it a thing of beauty and wished it were my teams. I thought them all heartless bastages who I hoped would burn in hell true, but I did love their superb schemes and effort.
You make some good points
but I really like the current system in the SEC. The SECCG adds excitement and the possibility of an additional game. Further, I think 12 given with 14 games is just about right – unless we get into a playoff system, but that is another topic. If you stretch the season out too far, you lose some of the gameday excitement. Shorten it up, you get too close to the high school format of 4 games plus a playoff.
"When people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears their people, there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
no way
y’all aint scared of them are you?
we gotta ditch miss state to conf usa and vandy to whoever will take em, no one cares about those programs like the other.
If it's 10 teams...
…you kick Arky and USC back out. Vandy started this ride, they get to finish it on their own terms.
And if we can’t beat AU and UT on an annual basis, what’s the point of playing?
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 14, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
And if we can’t beat AU and UT on an annual basis, what’s the point of playing?
Its the only point in playing.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
by Bens4vcobra on Jul 15, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree.
I don’t like the the championship game system. It is not even fair in your division as this year Ole Miss has much easier Eastern opponents than any other Western team. However due to $ it will remain unless we get a playoff ystem going in D-1.
However, if Vandy, UK, Arky, or SC decided they want to leave the SEC I’d be all in favor of 10 teams playing each other every year. No championship game could open up a possible 13th regular season game for everyone so you could still have 4 out of conference games.
I just don’t see any way UT leaves the SEC of their own free will. They are just too good at womens BBall.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
Me too- if you take out SC and Arky?
Where do they go? I have nothing against the “real” USC and certainly nothing against Arkansas. . . .however, what conference do they end up at. I’m not worried about that as much as I’d be worried about what Urban Meyer would say if he had to go through ‘Bama, Georgia, Ole Miss, Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU. I’m not saying he’s a crybaby, but. . . . . .
I have a feeling Coach Saban would relish the thought of SEC teams beating the crap out of each other. Shit. He’d prolly load up his OOC schedule to just “man-up” the other coaches.
Comer4tide to Nico2.0: "How come I've never heard of any of your random songs?"
Todd to Comer: "Because if you had, he wouldn't listen to it. BOOM. Roasted."
Nico to Todd: "Shouldn't you be off voguing somewhere?"
by BixBeiderbecke on Jul 14, 2009 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Well
USC could play in the Big East. Arkansas could join the MAC or WAC…both teams would probably dominate those conferences.
During what years of "heyday" do you base your. . .
. . .domination thing bammer? Just curious.
Comer4tide to Nico2.0: "How come I've never heard of any of your random songs?"
Todd to Comer: "Because if you had, he wouldn't listen to it. BOOM. Roasted."
Nico to Todd: "Shouldn't you be off voguing somewhere?"
by BixBeiderbecke on Jul 14, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Well...right now...
Ark would run right through the MAC…and USC would at least contend every year in the Big East….All they have going against them is UL and Rutgers…Uconn is better but i wouldn’t call them scary.
Pretty much roll the BCS conferences back to 1992, then tweak
… if you want everyone down to ten schools or less, without making any radical assaults on tradition. Schools in italics are former members of a conference returned to their traditional home, or schools that joined the conference I’m putting them in post-1992; schools in bold are new (they weren’t in a major conference 1992).
ACC: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, South Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest (undo Big East raid, undo SEC expansion)
Big 8 9: Boise State, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State (add Boise)
Big 10: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin (undo Penn State addition)
Big East: Boston College, UConn, Louisville, Miami, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (undo ACC raid, keep the UConn upgrade and dropping Temple, add Penn State and Louisville)
Pac 10: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Oregon, Oregon Stae, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State (no change)
SEC: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt (undo the expansion to 12)
SWC: Arkansas, Baylor, BYU, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah (rebuild the SWC, getting rid of the schools that ended up in CUSA and adding the Utah MWC schools)
I have
mixed feelings on this issue..One side of me says the CG format is the best. It attempts is to pit the two best teams from each division and whoever wins…wins. It gives us another exciting game to watch..The other side of says that the Pac-10’s 9 game conference schedule is the best, for all the reasons that Nico pointed out.
Ultimately i have to go with the SEC. It stepped out on a limb and did something no one else had done. The SEC CG has been a huge success and ill bet my life that it ain’t going anywhere anytime soon.
The one thing i have changed my mind on (you guys know you can do that right?) is that there should be no Conference Champion tie in to the BCS. Just because you snuck into your CCG and won, doesn’t mean you should play in a big bowl. The Top 8 teams should get invites and thats it. This would be the first step in moving towards a playoff.
I like the PAC 10's round robin scheduling
for no other reason than USC has not played for an NC since it’s implementation.
Bwahahahaha :cough cough cough cough: hahahahahaha
I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey.
I like the argument
The SEC would be alot more interesting if Vandy & USC (lot to keep Kentucky for the basketball) left and all the teams played every year. Right now eveyone likes Ole Miss in the West bc they don’t have to play a tough eastern conference schedule. There would be no place to hide. So long as the SEC champ was assured a spot in the playoff (& rightfully a first round bye). It would make for a better overall season.
The scheduling difference between the PAC 10 and the SEC is one game. That’s it. A PAC 10 team plays 9 conference opponents, an SEC team plays 8.
I much prefer the idea of every conference having a championship to none of them having one. Really, though, there’s not that much of a difference either way. Right now the SEC could be considered two six-team conferences that play several “out of conference” match-ups. It’s not exactly like that (since the interdivision games count toward the SECCG) but if the eventual goal is a playoff (as all intelligent people believe it should be ;) ) conference championships are just the 0th round.
The difference
The scheduling difference between the PAC 10 and the SEC is one game. That’s it. A PAC 10 team plays 9 conference opponents, an SEC team plays 8.
The difference is more significant than simply one of quantity. The PAC 10 teams play the same schedule. The SEC 8 team conference schedule exists in many different versions. It’s a qualitative as well as quantitative difference.
I was on a WizOfOdds thread a year or two back
Defending the SEC gauntlet, as the majority of commenters were hacking away (at least, trying to) at the soft early season OOC scheduling. This was still in a time when the “cupcake OOC” diatribes were just starting to take off. It was mainly a lot of PAC 10 nut-huggers and Big tEleven thigh-suckers. I was on a roll and commenting that:
A. the proximity of locales/stadiums made the games in-conference (SEC) as well as OOC, a lot easier to manage and brought revenue to smaller schools that would otherwise not see such benefits throughout the rest of their season. Both in dollars and media exposure.
B. the fact that these OOC games and SEC rivalry games would be virtual sell-outs! the fans in the South don’t just enjoy college football- they breathe and bleed college football.
C. proximity of games either home/away/neutral made traveling a ton easier, logistics were almost painless (due to having it be practically routine) and. . . .generations of families that didn’t have the finances to attend say “The Iron Bowl”, or “Cocktail Party”, or what-have-you were able to take their kids to these games and were diehards in the early season.
D. the revenue generated from ANY SINGLE SATURDAY IN THE SEC was second to no other conference period. these games brought communities the revenue, excitement, and vitality that helped support labor, employment, tourism, and “normalcy”.
This was my second comment, my first comment dealt with the fierceness of competition in the SEC that was unmatched in any other conference, so- so what that they play a few “gimmes”- they still have to play each other who, most often than not- have at least 5 teams ranked in the Top 25 on ANY GIVEN WEEK throughout the college football season.
Then some jokester replies to my comments by telling me that the SEC schools hardly play each other and that “more often than not” avoid the top-ranked teams (ex: LSU playing – "Bama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Arkansas, and Tennessee) during any given season. He/she remarked, "they’re (LSU) lucky to play only two of those teams in a given year, and if they do, hardly ever are do they play each other on consecutive years. (basically the dude/dudette was saying that SEC teams schedule to “avoid” each other)
The replies that followed! He/she got SPANKED!
So, it begs to question- what’s the general consensus among RBR-ers in this? Is this perception of “avoidance” accurate? Is it even understandable/rational?
To be sure, I replied that the person has got to: lay off whatever they’re smoking or. . . . .DO TONS MORE? Because, whatever’s going on in their lives. . . . . .ain’t working. And commenced to jot down Florida’s, Georgia’s, ’Bama’s, Auburn’s, and LSU’s schedules from 2000 – 2006. (they didn’t comment any further)
Comer4tide to Nico2.0: "How come I've never heard of any of your random songs?"
Todd to Comer: "Because if you had, he wouldn't listen to it. BOOM. Roasted."
Nico to Todd: "Shouldn't you be off voguing somewhere?"
by BixBeiderbecke on Jul 14, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
The teams don’t schedule the games, the SEC does. Alabama doesn’t get to pick who it’s 2 non-annual inter-division games are against.
Each SEC schedule is like this: every team in your division. Your annual inter-division rival (every SEC school has one). Two other games (home-and-home series) set by the SEC. I’m pretty sure there’s some sort of rotation for that, too.
There’s no “avoidance”.
ok ill bite..
Is this perception of "avoidance" accurate? Is it even understandable/rational?
i can only answer the question in regards of how conferences are structured at this time…not how we want them to look like..Im tired of arguing about things that MIGHT happen.
So the SEC has 12 teams and the Pac-10 only has 10…
To make the Pac-10 people happy, the SEC would have to play an 11 game conference schedule. Many teams, like UGA (GT), UK (UL), UF(FSU), USC, have annual OOC games built into their schedule. So that adds another tough opponent onto an already crazy conference schedule. So they would have us play 12 tough games PLUS a possible conference championship.
Sorry…that ain’t going to happen. EVER! Just because other conferences haven’t gone to a 12 team format, doesn’t mean the SEC or ones like it, should have to play all the teams in its conference. Its simply not doable.
Now lets look at the Pac-10…
Lets keep the conference the same with 9 conference games. This format allows for more OOC games. How wonderful…Everyone says that the Pac-10 is the bestest at playing tough OOC teams. Ok…don’t they kinda have to? Im not going to say the Pac-10 is as weak as the Big East but lets be honest…they aren’t the SEC or Big 12. Say for USC, I wouldn’t be all that worried about playing any Pac-10 team…perhaps for Oregon AT Oregon. I think they understand this and that is why you see such a tough OOC slate…if they felt their conference WAS as tough as the SEC…then you wouldn’t see those games…Just look at USC for example…if they felt by going undefeated or evening having one loss in the Pac-10 would get them to the NCG…you wouldn’t see Big 10 teams on their schedule regularly..
Simply put…due to our format, it is impossible to play everyone..its impossible to make sure that the best teams, also play the other best teams in the regular season.
Do i want cupcakes…no…but i know teams need a break every once in a while.
pac 10's schedule means 5 teams play 5 away conf games every year, compared to 4 home conf games
and the other 5 teams get the sweet side of that coin w/ 5 home conf games and only 4 road conf games. and also this does allow for 3 way ties, and i disagree that point differential between just the teams involved in the tie, or all conf games, is a fair way to solve that. IMHO Texas was the best team in the big 12 last year, and they got completely screwed by the voters. as Nico pointed out, a point differential would have assured the same wrong headed, uncompetative, and unfair result; OU named conf champ, after having lost to the only other team “in their league”, Texas lost a trap game, OU lost the biggest game on their regular season schedule. big difference IMHO.
i dont want to se a full blown playoff, anything more than 6 or 8 teams and we have just killed the damn baby while trying to change the bathwater… that said, if we DO transition to a 8 or 16 or god forbid 24-32 team playoff, then yes, we should scrap conf championship games altogether, and we should force non BCS conf teams to have to play BCS team only, for their OOC games, and no teams should be eligible for the playoffs if they played a D-1AA team.
welcome to the SEC kiffykins...
Doesn't it all boil down to. . .
. . .don’t lose a damn game? That’s what everyone seems to cry on about regarding USC?
Comer4tide to Nico2.0: "How come I've never heard of any of your random songs?"
Todd to Comer: "Because if you had, he wouldn't listen to it. BOOM. Roasted."
Nico to Todd: "Shouldn't you be off voguing somewhere?"
by BixBeiderbecke on Jul 14, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Unless
you’re Auburn.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
by Bens4vcobra on Jul 15, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
The numbers
Texas was the best team in the big 12 last year, and they got completely screwed by the voters. as Nico pointed out, a point differential would have assured the same wrong headed, uncompetative, and unfair result; OU named conf champ, after having lost to the only other team "in their league", Texas lost a trap game, OU lost the biggest game on their regular season schedule. big difference IMHO
The numbers say differently though. If Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech all have the same record and there’s a 1-1 record for all three teams how can one be dismissed from the conversation? Is TT being dismissed because OU dismantled them or because you simply think they don’t belong? By the measure of records, TT belonged in the conversation. Something knocked them out of contention for you, what is that measure? (I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I’m just trying to absorb the variety of viewpoints.)
Thoroughly amused....
I have to admit I’m amused by the Buffalo message board this post is showing up on as I’m accused of penning a piece defending a system of gerrymandered scheduling and defending the “big boys” when what I’m putting forth is a system based on having a champion for a season determined by the results of an entire season where everyone plays the same schedule and not a one game playoff between teams in the same conference based on a geographic split. These 12 team conferences aren’t big enough to where there should be the disparity in the similarity of scheduling that there is. The MAC divisional opponents faced five of the same opponents during the regular season, in the SEC it’s possible to share only four. That’s craziness.
Considering my tie breaking scenario overwhelmingly doesn’t favor the style of football played by Alabama, I find this super hilarious since our “run first” mentality doesn’t put up the same big numbers as the Floridas and Oklahomas of the world. My scenario accused of homerism when it overwhelmingly fails to support our style of play.
Also hilarious is the assumption this is a “reaction” against losing to Utah in the Sugar Bowl and the 1994 SEC Championship game. This blog, more than any other Alabama blog trumpeted how seriously in trouble we could be against Utah:
Needless to say, this is very bad news for us and very good news for Utah. You don’t lose a player of this caliber and not feel it on the field, especially against a quality team like Utah.
Oh yeah...
…hopefully their readers will follow up and read my BCS playoff proposal which is as across the board fair to every conference as could be.
Playoffs...
…were created by the devil.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 14, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions
BCS...
…stands for Big Cauldron of…
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 14, 2009 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
even though I think with a playoff to really work well, you need conference realignment.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
by Bens4vcobra on Jul 15, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not a huge playoff proponent...
…by any means, but inertia is carrying us there eventually. If it’s headed that way, might as well devise the best/fairest system to all.
I
think a playoff would make things a bit more fair, but you could potentially create as many issues as you would solve.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
by Bens4vcobra on Jul 15, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 15, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions
You could “create” as many, but they’d be less meritorious.
“We got screwed! We were #17 but we should’ve been #16! Waaaah!”
Yeah, cry me a river. Like those “first out” teams in the NCAA tournament. Wait, you were the 66th best team in the country and you’re whining about not making the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP tournament? Go play in traffic.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 19, 2009 12:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Not exactly
Pretty much all the teams team in the NIT are better than almost all 13-16 seeds (at-large teams never end up with lower than a 12 seed). But that’s fine. Those low-major conference champs (and the occasional school with a losing record that made a charmed run through their conference tournament) won their conference, even if it wasn’t a particularly tough one to win.
I’m not a fan of autobids for conference champs in a small (less than 16 team) playoff, because a BCS 6 + 2 at-large 8-team format will routinely include two teams from outside the top ten and a ‘8 highest-ranked conference champs’ format doesn’t deal with ties well (or cases where a non-conference champion is a legit top-5 team).
What an intelligent blog this is
A joy to read, sincerely.
Here’s my dos pfennigs:
Cap each league at ten teams. Teams play 9 league and one non conference game. Then go to playoffs. Yes, I know the regular season is thus only 10 games long. But the playoffs would generate cash spread amongst all Division I and get this: You could all play at least 11 games and not overwhelm student athletes.
If it is about the kids, let us make changes which accentuate their needs and that means lessening the season and crowning a true champ.
I accept criticism which states that my solution, hastily conceived, will never fly as it might cost the major powers money.
However, we should practice what we pretend are our ideals, and engrave the things we say are important upon our hearts, not just spout them at senate hearings to create the impression of philanthropic motivation when all truth points to a fawning pretense wrapped in dollars.
Importantly: You can still play the lesser bowls (they are still menaingful matchups between 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, teams left out of playoff contention, no?), even adding several, to get more games in for the teams involved who do not make playoff status. Or let teams left out of bowl/playoff contention schedule regional matchups for a season finale. Teams could also opt out of the playoff system entirely and play 12 games as they saw fit. This would likely create new conferences with no aspiration for playoffs/national titles entirely as say New Mexico and San Diego State would realistically expound "we won’t be in playoffs enough to warant inclusion and a mere 10 game schedule, but might attend a lesser bowl frequently, let us join with San Jose State, Utah State, UTEP, etc. and form a 12 team league and play 12 games and seek, perhaps, a minor bowl of our own creation to pit ourselves against anotehr minor league.
We already have divisions, why not acknowledge them more frankly and honestly? Ther eshould be a true division amongst DI teams, let us be honest men and do so. The BCS is a defacto division that pretenses to be open to all DI schools. It is the hypocrisy and manipulation that is inherent therein which offends the ideal of sportsmanship, not the Dividing line. Acknowledge it, and move forward.
Conferences are redrawn all the time, if the shift in population makes Ball State a perennial power and Virginia Tech a perennial also ran, they can change their affilaition and realistically address the needs and capabilities of their athletic programs.
As much as I'm glad you're discussing this....
…but I hope regarding commenting further that everyone will hold off (and that you’ll cut & paste this) until the playoff proposal article is published (likely tomorrow or Friday or next Monday even) because I doubt people are going to want to have this conversation twice so close together.
Orrin...are you listening?
However, we should practice what we pretend are our ideals, and engrave the things we say are important upon our hearts, not just spout them at senate hearings to create the impression of philanthropic motivation when all truth points to a fawning pretense wrapped in dollars.
Quite eloquently stated, sir.
I bleed crimson and white...I puke Vol puke orange. RTR
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
