Cuban Plan to use Ungodly Wealth to end BCS
Basically, dude has WAY too much money. The article alludes to the fact that since his bids to own an MLB team failed, he's got all this money laying around that could buyoff finance other ways to crown Div I college football's champion.
Thanks for the help, Mark.
over 1 year ago
TopDaddy
40 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
here's your money quote
Cuban, who is reading the book “Death to the BCS,” said he thinks it would take about three or four years of planning before enacting the playoff system.
emphasis is mine
The Process of Champions
First of all not every CFB fan wants a
playoff- that is a ridiculos statement.
Secondly a 16 team playoff, even a 12 team playoff is crazy. If we had 16 teams then Bama would be in and lets be honest we don’t deserve to win the NC this year. However, last year we did deserve it but if we had to win a 16 team playoff we probably would not have won it.
And, I’m actually happy with going to just one bowl game and if we win then we end on a winning note,a nd our seniors go out winners and so the off season will be ok (not great since we lost to Auburn.) But if we are in a playoff then 15 of the top teams, and likely Bama, will end their season on losing note.
It is not that broke. But have a 16 team playoff and the average fan will be broke following their team all over the country—either that or they just won’t go and it will end up being a TV event.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
If we had 16 teams then Bama would be in and lets be honest we don’t deserve to win the NC this year.
You don’t think we might deserve to win the NC it if we beat Awbarn, Wisky, OU, Oregon (all on the road)? Also, you are just assuming that we’d be in a 16 team playoff. Most playoff scenarios take the conference champions and then the next highest ranked wild card teams. While we were ranked in the top 16, I think that we wouldn’t make it in. But, if we did, and we won all our games, I think we would deserve it.
However, last year we did deserve it but if we had to win a 16 team playoff we probably would not have won it.
Why did we deserve to win it any more than Texas? If you win the game(s) that determine the national champion, you deserve it. Prior to the BCSCG, both Alabama and Texas were equally deserving of it. We beat Texas and proved that we deserved it more. If Texas had won, they would have deserved it more. Under a playoff system, if you beat 3 or 4 of the other top teams in a row, you might just deserve to win the national championship.
And, I’m actually happy with going to just one bowl game and if we win then we end on a winning note,a nd our seniors go out winners and so the off season will be ok (not great since we lost to Auburn.) But if we are in a playoff then 15 of the top teams, and likely Bama, will end their season on losing note.
And that’s bad? Teams lose games, that’s what happens. If we didn’t want to have teams lose we could just pat everyone on the back and give them all a trophy.
It is not that broke. But have a 16 team playoff and the average fan will be broke following their team all over the country—either that or they just won’t go and it will end up being a TV event.
For the vast majority of fans, it already is just a TV event. But, for the teams that have home games, more fans will get to attend more games.
Last year quite a few Bama fans,
myself included made it to Pasadena. But, if that came after 3 weeks of games, and you didn’t know until the week before, or at the most 2 weeks before, a lot less would have goen to Pasadena.
And, yes I do think Bama deserved it last year because it is the champion of the entire football season and for the entire season we were the best. But, what if a 16 seed team does get lucky, and wins it all, but they had a very average season, do they deserve it? I’d say no, because for the season they were not the best. (I do think if Texas had won they would have deserved it too, but if someone a lot further down like GT had won it I would think not.)
So the question is do you want the champion of the entire season or the champion of the playoffs? Basketball is a tournament sport and you can play games back to back, or on 1 days rest etc. The NFL is a lot closer to being a tournament sport (although not a true tournament sport) largely because the regular season schedule is set by the league and there are only a few “rivalry games.” Thus, everything, including who you play and who you sit, is geared towards the play-offs.
But CFB is the least play-off sport you have. If we had a play-off I can promise that coaches would coach specific games differently.
And, yeah why do we care if a bunch of seniors go out losing their last game? Because for at least 85% of them it is their last game. And, I can promsie you that you will always remember your last game. As it is, at least 50% of the seniors on the bowl teams will always remember that they won their last game. If you are playing that is a big deal.
Anyway, I don’t think 500 million is enough to sway the Presidents. That would only work out to about about 4 million per school so I don’t know if 4 mil is actually a game changer.
You can argue it both ways, but I think we have a decent system right now. I don’t see the playoffs as THE major problem that needs to be fixed in CFB.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
This is a philosophical argument similar to politics...
But, what if a 16 seed team does get lucky, and wins it all, but they had a very average season, do they deserve it? I’d say no
I would say that a 16 seed gets lucky and wins the playoffs, they absolutely deserve to be National Champion. The non-favorite wins all of the time in the NCAA basketball tourney, the NFL, and the other NCAA divisions of football. Nobody complains that those winners “do not deserve it.” Whiners who say that others don’t deserve it are typically jealous…
by ApothecaryMark on Dec 16, 2010 9:10 PM CST up reply actions
Well Basketball by nature is a tournament sport.
The question though is do you want the NC to be the best team for the year or the best team for the tournament?
For example, Va Tech is playing good enough now to win it all but they lost to Dolly Madison. There is an unwritten rule in football, if you lose to Dolly Madison you can not be the number one team in the land for that year. But with a play off you can. The unwritten rule is broken.
It is not good to break those kind of rules.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
If you win the game(s) that determine the national champion, you deserve it.
Tautologies for the lose. For example, if a 16-team playoff takes the conference champions, UConn is in. If UConn somehow miraculously made it through the playoffs unscathed and emerged as champions, they would be the national champions, but I would say they are unworthy. I believe most of us accept the premise: “The national champions should be the best team in college football for that year.” UConn would not meet standard, I don’t care who they had to beat to get there.
The BCS: If it ain’t broke, don’t break it.
So your opinion of who is deserving is all that matters? I personally believe that if UConn went out and beat, for example, Awbarn, Wisky, Stanford, and Oregon, they would be the most deserving team. I, personally, have no problem with the 2008 Giants (even though I hate the Giants almost as much as the Boogs) being the NFL Champions even though the Patriots were clearly the best team in the NFL that year.
They are the champions.
But that doesn’t mean they “deserve” to be, which is what you said. I think it’s a mistake to conflate the two. And of course my opinion isn’t all that matters, but I find it hard to believe that you would consider UConn the greatest team in college football this season just because they made it through a playoff without a loss—unless, of course, you conflate the two.
I'm saying that a playoff isn't the panacea that most people seem to think it is.
While it is not necessarily true that the winner of the BCS is the most deserving to be called the national champion, the same can be said for the winner of a playoff. It is not a fundamental truth that the winner of a playoff is indisputably the best team in college football just because they made it to the playoff and won 5 games in a row. To pretend otherwise assumes the conclusion that you’re trying to prove.
I never said it was a panacea; I just believe that it is a preferable system to the BCS. I believe it’s fairer, it will be more likely to match the best two teams, it’s more likely to create more exciting match-ups, it creates more games period (more college football games > less college football games).
And it’s funny how I am assuming the conclusion that I am trying to prove but when you say things like the BCS ain’t broke, or that winner of a playoff doesn’t deserve to be champions, or that people who argue for a playoff think it’s a panacea you are not doing likewise.
I said bq. "BCS: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Of course I don’t think it’s broken, but that assumption is not necessary for my if → then statement to be true.
I didn’t say a winner of a playoff doesn’t deserve to be champion. I said it seems to me eminently possible that that could be the case, and I posited such a scenario that I find hard to disagree with. You may feel differently, but I believe that if you do, it’s more likely evidence of your faith in a playoff than UConn’s worth.
And I’m not seeking to prove that people who argue for a playoff think it’s a panacea, but I think that’s pretty much demonstrably true anyway by their constant trumpeting that by virtue of winning a playoff there can be no dispute as to whether that team was the best. That’s no more true than one who believes that the BCS inexorably produces the correct champion. Both are false. I merely believe that the BCS does a fine job, and I’ve yet to be convinced that a playoff would do a better one.
Question
Since the start of the BCS, can someone tell me the list of teams that ended up at #16 at the end of the regular season that deserved a shot at a NC?
And by “deserve a shot at”, I mean put a product on the field that produced a regular season body of work that would warrant inclusion in the ‘best team of the year’ conversation. Again, we all know football, so this would be a football conversation. Please don’t act like we don’t know enough about football to know when we see a good team or not. For example, Bama was a ‘good’ team this year, but in no way ‘deserves a shot at’ the NC.
To be fair, there is a discussion for some of the teams that have landed in the top 4 over the years (Barn, TCU, Boise, etc) and if it was a system that allowed all undefeated teams a legit shot, then fine. But this idea that #12 or 16 or 24 or 76 ‘deserves a shot’ then I respectfully disagree.
Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone.
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, because I'm not the biggest playoff advocate...
Since the start of the BCS, can someone tell me the list of teams that ended up at #16 at the end of the regular season that deserved a shot at a NC?
This is only the 13th Season under the BCS. I can tell you that in 2007, LSU lost to #18 Kentucky and unranked Arkansas, and was ranked #7 going into the SEC Championship Game, but still won the National Championship. So what changed in the one week between being ranked #7 and #2? They beat #15 Tennessee by one touchdown, and some other teams lost.
So no, I can’t think of a season in which the BCS #16 “deserved” to be the National Champions at the end of the regular season. However, a lot can change with the addition of 4 more games. The “better” team doesn’t win every game, which is “why they play the games.” They’re called “upsets.” If UConn beat Oregon, that would be a “huge, program-defining upset.” If they then beat Stanford, then we would borrow from March Madness, and the word “Cindarella” would pop up. If they then beat Wisconsin, then you’d start hearing words like “legitimate,” “serious,” and " for real." If they then beat Auburn, then all I could think to say would be “deserve to be National Champions.”
However, you didn’t ask whether the BCS #16 “deserved to be National Champions,” you asked whether they “deserved a shot at a NC.” Once again, all I can say is that in 1998, the first year of the BCS, #15 Syracuse played in the Orange Bowl (lost by 21 to #8 Florida), in 1999 #22 Stanford played in the Rose Bowl (lost by 8 to #7 Wisconsin).
In 2000 #17 Purdue played in the Rose Bowl (lost by 10 to #4 Washington).
In 2001 #13 LUS played in the Sugar Bowl (beat #8 Illinois by 13).
In 2002 #14 Florida State played in the Sugar Bowl (lost to #3 Georgia by 13).
In 2003 #10 K-State played in the Fiesta Bowl (lost by 7 to #5 Ohio State) while #9 Miami beat #7 FSU by 2 in the Orange Bowl.
In 2004 #21 Pittsburgh played in the Fiesta Bowl (lost by 28 to #6 Utah) while #13 Michigan lost by 1 point to #4 Texas in the Rose bowl.
In 2005 #22 Florida State played in the Orange Bowl (lost in overtime by 1 point to #3 Penn State) while #11 West Virginia beat #7 Georgia by 3 points in the Sugar Bowl.
In 2006 #14 Wake Forrest played in the Orange Bowl (lost by 11 to #6 Louisville).
In 2007 #13 Illinois played in the Rose Bowl (lost by 32 to #7 USC) while #9 West Virginia beat #4 Oklahoma by 20 in the Fiesta Bowl and #8 Kansas beat #3 Virginia Tech by 3 in the Orange bowl.
In 2008 #19 Virginia Tech beat #12 Cincinatti by 13 points in the Orange Bowl.
In 2010, unranked UConn will play #7 Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
As you can see, the “better” team, or the one that people seemed to think was “better” heading into the games, normally wins. If a team doesn’t “deserve” to win the National Championship, then they really shouldn’t be able to run the playoff gauntlet, against teams to “deserved a shot at a NC,” unscathed, right?
Heisenberg believed that the mere act of observation changed that which was under observation. (Or at least close enough for this conversation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle) Perhaps with a four game playoff, the mere fact of winning might prove that you “deserved” it?
The bigger question for me is how does one select the 12 or 16 teams in the playoffs? Are conference champions automatically in? If so, which conferences? Back-filled by the highest-ranked BCS teams until you get to the magic number? Or do we just take the top BCS 12 or 16?
One of the things I like about the current system is that we can chant “SEC, SEC, SEC!” It is good for Alabama, and all other teams in the conference, when one of our brother teams wins out of conference. In the NFL, you want every other team in your division to lose every non-divisional game they play, because that makes you more likely to get to the playoffs. I would really not want this to happen in college football. There are ways that the playoff selection process could be done that would result in me screaming for Alabama to get out of the SEC, and into the SunBelt Conference.
Since you asked a question, I’d like to ask one as well. What is the lowest-seeded team to ever win the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, which has been played since 1939? (Answer: #8 Villanova, in 1985, the year the tournament expanded from 53 to 64 teams, with four 16-team regions. Also noteworthy, in 1979, with a 40 team tournament [four 10-team regions], #9 Pittsburgh beat #10 St. John’s to advance to the Final Four after both teams had won three upsets.)
Thirteen.
Formatting fail...
*However, you didn’t ask whether the BCS #16 "deserved to be National Champions," you asked whether they "deserved a shot at a NC." Once again, all I can say is that in 1998, the first year of the BCS, #15 Syracuse played in the Orange Bowl (lost by 21 to #8 Florida).
In 1999 #22 Stanford played in the Rose Bowl (lost by 8 to #7 Wisconsin).
*If a team doesn’t "deserve" to win the National Championship, then they really shouldn’t be able to run the playoff gauntlet, against teams who "deserved a shot at a NC," unscathed, right?
Thirteen.
I totally agree with your reasoning
and would take it a step further- by using a BCS type formula you insure that the winner of the BCS will be deserving and will be considered by the vast majority of the people as the best team of the whole year. I really cannot think of even one BCS case where that has not proven true, the closest being AU’s crazy, people’s champion, which was not the people’s champion anyway.
But, let a weak team, somehow, someway. make it through the tourney, and win it all while a great team got tripped up by bad call etc. you would have tons of controversy.
Right now the only controversy we have is TCU & Boise. So, let’s create a playoff and see if some more controversy can arise.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
playoff
i would like to see a playoff but with fewer teams.say the top 6. 1and 6, 2 and 5, 3and 4.highest ranking team left gets a week off and then plays the team that is left.
by ALABAMA POLYTECH SUCKS on Dec 16, 2010 5:36 PM CST reply actions
A plus 1 is the only thing I'd conceed
and even at that I would not be totally in favor of it. But 1 through 4 sometimes are pretty tight.
And, for all you SEC, SEC, SEC fans- a tourney lessens the SEC’s chance of a NC unless they take it strictly by BCS ranking. Why? In a 16 team tourney where every little bootleg conference got in- USA???? The SEC would likely only have 2 schools, in an 8 team field we would only have 1. In a 16 team set up the odds of one of the SEC schools getting to the championship are probably no better than 1 in 3. Right now we have placed a team in that championship game 5 years in row. In a tourney that would go to 1 every 3 years. Do we really want this?
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
A pro-BCS vote is akin to a pro-electoral college vote:
antiquated and badly in need of an upgrade. It is time to let the popular vote take the fold, and it is time to settle the championship on the field with a playoff.
By the way, the electoral college
is a very good thing. Without it people who live in South Dakota would taxation without representation. Well, they already kind have that, but without it they would have even more.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
kind of have that
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Actually I don't see a parallel
with the BCS and the electoral college. A better case could be made that the BCS is like a popular vote and the play-off system would be like the electoral college. Considering that you would be consistent and I would be conflicted.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
I think his line of reasoning was that the BCS, like the Electoral College, have outlived their usefulness and is outmoded but the new thing all the kids are supporting is the playoff and the popular vote.
So...
He (AM) is saying that people that live in low population states have outlived their usefulness (except to pay their taxes of course) and should submit to the overpopulated states (who recieve the taxes after the gov’t takes their cut)?
And that this is the same as the BCS who rewards teams for staying focused, working hard, and winning their games against a (hopefully) strong schedule?
I guess I’m confused…
For the record, I’m pro-electoral college and pro (for the most part) BCS (at least versus the playoff, it could use an adjustment in SOS, but I digress).
Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone.
I'm pro both
but the way I see it the popular votes gives all the power to the big states and the BCS gives the power to the big conferences.
Meanwhile, the electoral college makes the little states important and a playoff would let the winners of the little conferences, like USA, have a NC shot.
I think in politics every state should have a say. In football allowing bootleg conferences at the table is a waste of time, unnecessary, likely to cause controversy, could resutl in an undeserving champion and for SEC fan against our best intrest. In football, we have the power, so why should we give some of the power up?
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
See, that’s where we differ. I am an egalitarian. I don’t see what’s wrong with giving a small conference a shot. They’ll lose the vast majority of the time, but when one is good enough, the cream will rise to the top.
Hey that is legit, but my feeling
is if you are on top, why would you give up some of your power by creating a play off. Right now the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 10 rule. We let the ACC & Big East have a little power. But, why would we giv eit all away voluntarily?
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Oh, it would be stupid for the SEC to get rid of the BCS and it would be stupid for Wyoming to get rid of the electoral college. But that doesn’t change the fact that playoff > BCS and electoral college > popular vote. All I am saying is that the BCS is a bad system and a playoff is a better system (for college football as a whole).
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 17, 2010 11:56 PM CST up reply actions
Sorry...
…fell asleep in my kibble reading this thread….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 19, 2010 6:23 PM CST up reply actions
You are what you eat, Richard.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 19, 2010 10:02 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
We are a Federal system of government.
A State is not a subdivision of the central government.
Thirteen.
In practice, but not in the Constitution.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
When I read the title of this post, I was all like...
WOLVERINES!!!
I wonder if there’s a post like this over on the Michigan blogs…
Thirteen.
by Darth Saban on Dec 18, 2010 7:47 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
