“A Football Final Four”

Hmm.

The article may be true – who knows? – but it would have been a good deal more credible if any of the reporter’s sources had been willing to go on record by name.

My skepticism meter is also triggered by the fact that there is nothing in the article about how the Rose Bowl contract, which runs through 2014, will be handled so that this brave new world can be ushered in by 2011. That’s a rather significant road block.

In the end, this strikes me as more of an attempt similar to Bernie Machen’s, albeit less clumsy, to use the media to stir up momentum in bringing a playoff to D-1 football. It will be interesting to see if this winds up being any more successful.

13 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Media Punditry/Foibles

13 responses to ““A Football Final Four”

  1. kckd

    Senator,

    If you want a name go to finebaum.com and listen to his interview with Mike Slive. He calls it a “plus one” but said that they are looking into seeding the top four teams, adding one more BCS bowl and having a championship a week after the bowls.

    Like

  2. Are you suggesting that Slive was a source for the article?

    Otherwise, I don’t get your point – I’m aware, and, in fact, have mentioned here more than once, that Slive has expressed interest in at least exploring the idea of a “plus one” format. That’s a long way from the tone expressed in the linked article.

    Like

  3. kckd

    Did you listen to the Finebaum interview?

    From how you expressed it before, you’ve said plus one as in playing the bowl games and then taking the top two from that poll.

    Slive calls it a plus one, but what he’s really talking about is a final four. Again he said seeding the top four teams, have those semifinal games along with the national championship rotated.

    If he’s the one in the article, I don’t know. But it’d be darn hard to find anyone else with as much repute as him (that’s what you are asking for) to say what’s in that article. And that’s about what he said in the Finebaum interview.

    As far as tinkering with the BCS, there ain’t much more they can do but do that. And that one guy has it right. As much as everyone wants to continue to say that the fifth team will beeyotch like the second team does, no fifth team is gonna have a really good argument that they are the BEST team in college football.

    Like

  4. kckd

    You do know that Slive is the chair of the BCS committee?

    Like

  5. “As much as everyone wants to continue to say that the fifth team will beeyotch like the second team does, no fifth team is gonna have a really good argument that they are the BEST team in college football.”

    That won’t be the argument, though. It’ll be that there’s no difference between #4 and #5 and that it wasn’t fair to deny #5 a shot.

    With our luck, there will be a controversy over this right out of the gate.

    Like

  6. kckd, if Slive didn’t mind saying it for Finebaum, why would he want to be quoted without attribution in the article?

    Like

  7. kckd

    Maybe it wasn’t him Senator. You said it’d be nice if someone with a name was linked to the article to make it legitimate. I’m saying you can roll the article up in some paper and smoke it for all I care. Slive pretty much told Finebaum the same thing that’s in that article. So whether he’s the source backing the article or not, his words on Finebaum back it up.

    Look dude, it’s obvious to me you either want controversy or you want things to stay just the way they are. But I told you that anyone with two eyes could see it if they wanted to. Moving the BCS NC game a week behind the NYD games all but guaranteed this to be where we were headed. And if you don’t think that the powers to be weren’t already thinking this when they did it, pass me some of that stuff you’re hitting.

    Like

  8. kckd

    The fifth team thing. When you’ve got one game and an undefeated team left out is a much bigger difference than three games and a fifth team with two losses, maybe only on left out.

    Heck, look at this year. There was some debate, but in the end it wasn’t anywhere near the Auburn debate of 2004.

    And the fifth team won’t even have as good a debate as Michigan.

    I know you want the controversy, but the farther you are removed from the championship game itself, the less anyone cares.

    Like

  9. Again, I can live with a four game playoff, as long as that’s as far as things go.

    I don’t want the controversy, I just anticipate that we’ll get it.

    Like

  10. kckd

    Those guys are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

    They moved that NC game back and got the presidents to accept it. No one can argue this playoff makes the season go any longer. Any larger playoff would do just that.

    Second, they added a 12th game. The teams that complain the most about the BCS are the non-BCS conference schools. Well, guess what they have to sacrifice for one, maybe two of their teams to get into a 16 team playoff? Yep, an extra home game and probably a road game against a BCS conference school that brings them a nice hefty payout? Think that the majority of non-BCS schools are gonna wanna go that route?

    Like

  11. Those guys are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

    If by “those guys” you mean the networks, I never thought they were dumb in the first place. If you mean the conference commissioners, I believe most of them are pretty shrewd about at least one thing – protecting their turf.

    They moved that NC game back and got the presidents to accept it. No one can argue this playoff makes the season go any longer. Any larger playoff would do just that.

    “They” are the guys at the networks. You’re kidding yourself if you think the conference commissioners manuvered the presidents into this. They were pushed for the money. For the media, it’s a convenient way to space January out leading up to the Super Bowl.

    And as for a larger playoff making the season go longer, that’s not what will happen. Any increase in the size of the playoffs will result in lopping off conference championship games, the twelfth regular season games, the eleventh regular season games, etc. You can squeeze a 64 team playoff into the time frame if you reduce the regular season to ten games.

    And that, of course, is one thing that concerns me about this whole playoff debate.

    Second, they added a 12th game. The teams that complain the most about the BCS are the non-BCS conference schools. Well, guess what they have to sacrifice for one, maybe two of their teams to get into a 16 team playoff? Yep, an extra home game and probably a road game against a BCS conference school that brings them a nice hefty payout? Think that the majority of non-BCS schools are gonna wanna go that route?

    I think you’ve got this bass-ackwards. There’s nothing the mid-majors would like more than to see an extended post season from which they get a piece of the pie. There’s a lot more money in that for them than what they get now. Shoot, even with the limited BCS shot they got last year, the average mid-major school received an extra $100,000 resulting from BSU being in the Fiesta Bowl. It’s the big conferences with huge regular season revenues that risk more with an extended post season. If you don’t think that’s the case, tell me why so many small schools and conferences scramble to become a part of the NCAA D-1 basketball tourney.

    As much as we hear about “remember Auburn 2004”, this remains a fight about money. You’ll get your playoff when the powers that be are convinced that a playoff will provide them with a bigger pot with little downside. Where we disagree is that you think they’ll be satisfied with a four team set-up. I suspect that greed will lead them to a much bigger scenario when the dust settles.

    Like

  12. kckd

    You should change your name to Senator Edwards. You speaketh with a forked tongue.

    Like

  13. He’s got a better haircut than I do. 😉

    Like