More on the “plus one” kerfluffle

In answering the question “Are we any closer to a Plus-1 in 2011?”, Dennis Dodd’s pot meets the New York Post’s kettle:

You’re referring — faceless questioner — to last week’s New York Post story citing anonymous sources that such a set up was likely by 2011. Guess what, I wrote that in May. The New York Times had an extensive story on it seven months ago. This is nothing new. As I said a couple of months ago, we are trending toward a plus-one. There is a general feeling among the game’s movers and shakers that we’re headed that way. The skeleton for a plus-one is in place now with the double-hosting model — four bowls plus the championship game. One plausible scenario is the winners of five bowls (there would have to be five, mind you) would be eligible for the championship game. The rub comes in determining which two teams would be selected to play for the title. Use the BCS standings? (Yuck!) Human committee? (Fraught with biases.) Still, a plus-one is the logical next step. No one has the stomach — nor is there support for — a bracketed four-team playoff (college football’s Final Four). The Pac-10, Big Ten and Rose Bowl are dead set against it. Besides that, the TV contracts don’t line up. Most of the major conference TV contracts expire after the 2010 season. However the Rose Bowl, Pac-10 and Big Ten go to 2014. [Emphasis added.] Even if those hurdles are cleared, how do you convince the school presidents? There are 21 in the Pac-10 and Big Ten who would vote no yesterday, today and tomorrow. It took us 130 years to get to the BCS, 10 years to get to this point of even discussing a plus-one. The game, off the field, moves at a snail’s pace. Patience, people, patience.

Bernie’s solution would be to tell the Big Ten, Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl to go stuff themselves, but in the real world, it’ll be a little more nuanced than that. By the way, that Rose Bowl contract sure gives ESPN/ABC/Disney one helluva bargaining chip in negotiating as to who gets their hands on the broadcast rights for the playoffs, doesn’t it?

Advertisement

Maybe we didn’t know him as well as we thought we did.

Over at Statistically Speaking, Matt has a post up about ranking the top college quarterbacks from last season adjusted for opponent.  Here’s his methodology:

1) Exclude all games against non-Division IA competition
2) For each game take the player’s QB rating and divide by the QB rating defense (pass efficiency defense) of the opponent faced
3) Multiply this ratio by the number of pass attempts for the game
4) Add the these numbers up for each game
5) Divide by total pass attempts on the season
6) Multiply this number by 127.53 (the cumulative arithmetic mean quarterback rating for all passes thrown in 2006)

For me, the eye opener from his revised rankings is Chris Leak.  You know – the guy that wasn’t suited for Urban Meyer’s offense.  On the base list, Leak’s a rather pedestrian 23rd, but when you adjust his performance to take into account his opponents, he rockets up to tenth.   That’s because he faced four teams with pass defenses in the top 10 in the country, along with #18, #29 and #33.

Now there are two ways of interpreting this data.  One would be to conclude that Meyer’s system is so brilliantly conceived as to allow even a QB who’s not a particularly good match for it to excel.  If that’s the case, Tim Tebow fans should rejoice – ’07 will be a piece of cake, since by most accounts this offense is perfectly suited to him.

The other way of looking at this, of course, is that Chris Leak possessed a skill set that was good enough for him to overcome the limitations of being the proverbial square peg forced to squeeze into the round hole.  That leaves Tebow fans hoping (1) that he’s as talented as his predecessor;  and (2) that it will help that Tebow is a better fit for the spread option.

At this point, it’s all a guess.  Time will tell.