Grab a plate, campers.
- Stewart Mandel lists his winners and losers of schools in the wake of juniors leaving early for the NFL. Georgia is on his biggest loser list. I wonder if Mandel thought as highly of Reshad Jones during the season as he seems to now.
- I was gonna be big and not mention it, but since these guys did… here you go. (And they’re right.)
- Gus Malzahn isn’t interested in the Louisiana Tech job.
- If you’re looking for some good stuff on what a team faces in switching from a 4-3 defensive scheme to a 3-4, this interview with former Denver Broncos’ defensive coordinator Joe Collier is for you.
- Chris Low concludes his looking-back-at-the-decade piece with a classy touch.
- The Fulmer Cup race has gotten off to a roaring start, albeit with a surprising early leader.
- More thoughts on defensive scheming. (h/t Smart Football)
Get The Picture 
Reshad is really big in Montana.
LikeLike
Broncos “switching from a 4-3 defensive scheme to a 3-4,”
and this season DC Mike Nolan brought Broncos defense from 29th to 7th but he and head coach Josh McDaniels still had to break-up…
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_14217058
LikeLike
Yeah, losing Bryan Evans and having to start Bacarri Rambo is absolutely going to suck.
How come the media only gives the Gators credit for being able to replace starters with ‘greater than’ or ‘equal to’ talent?
LikeLike
I should add, it DOES hurt losing Jones and Curran. Though I bet only Curran was on Mandel’s radar during the season.
LikeLike
Because they have the best coach EVAH?
LikeLike
Who, Addazio? Or Meyer’s cardiologist?
LikeLike
LOL, can you imagine the fanbase and boosters when Mark Richt or Rich Rodriguez or Nick Saban try to “rest” their starters versus Ga. Tech, Ohio St or Auburn.
Me thinks you worry too much. NFL schedules and college football schedules are two different things.
Now Paul Johnson might pull his guys, after all, he has bigger fish to fry.
LikeLike
Can you imagine the reaction if the coach has his starters playing in a meaningless game and his best player gets hurt?
I am a UGA fan. I am not alone in my preference for winning a championship over winning a single game.
LikeLike
That’s just it. Do you think the Tech game is meaningless? If you do, you are not the majority voice of the fanbase.
LikeLike
Less meaning is not the same as meaningless.
LikeLike
Ha, one of the weaker anti-playoffs arguments yet, in my opinion. Tradition and control remain the only real arguments against a playoff.
LikeLike
+1 Nailed it, that is all that stands in the way, and is really what all the arguments are about. I love the great traditions of CFB too, but it should be about having a winner on the field, not decided in barrooms and chat rooms. Like sex without the climax….lots of fun, but still lacking a finish.
LikeLike
I dont know what you saw happen in the BCS championship game, but what I saw was the #1 team beat the #2 on the field. I guess the game could have been decided on the training table, but it appeared to have been settled on the field.
the current system as far as i can tell does “settle it on the field”.
LikeLike
How were those teams decided? Which one beat Boise State? Was that decided on the field or was it done more subjectively?
I imagine Bama would have beat Boise State, but I also thought Bama would beat Utah last year.
LikeLike
I doubt that you really need me to explain how the teams were chosen for the BCS Championship game, but suffice it to say that they were chosen based on the results of games played on fields.
This isnt about “settling it on the field” but about how and how many teams we pick that get to “settle it on the field”.
Again, us BCS folks will stop with the “devaluing regular season” if you guys will stop with the “settle it on the field” thing..It is settled on the field.
LikeLike
Saying that #1 vs. #2 is illegitimate because neither team played against #3 or #4 is the game that never ends.
If #4 never had to play #5, then #5 got screwed. Why shouldn’t #8 have to beat #9? At least have to honesty to say that you want to replace some bit of arbitrariness with a different bit of arbitrariness.
And I will not cry for Boise St, who played the #89 ranked strength of schedule during the regular season. Good job winning them all, but it was the least impressive undefeated regular season of the five undefeated teams.
LikeLike
You will never beat this guys back, their minds are in the tradition of “if it was good enough for grandpa, it will always be good enough for me”. I guess having sportswriters, coaches, and geeks decide the way games would play out is OK for some. I wonder how many would feel the same if we had been Auburn in 2004. I know I feel UGA in 2002 and 2007 was the equal of OSU and LSU.
Hell, why not let Scout and Rivals determine who will win the BCS four years from now based off their recruiting rankings? We don’t need to hurt those boys playing the games; opinions and rankings are all many need to know who would win.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
Nope, just not willing to sell out tradition and history because some sports writer or internet geek is screaming that playoffs are better without actually making an argument other than “playoffs are teh best, duh”.
LikeLike
The sports writers and geeks OWN you. They reduce you to melted candle wax, you have NO say. Why can’t the players and coaches decide this, not groups who have no say in actual games, call zero plays, and rarely see games outside their own area. Why lay down and let them determine the fate of those who actually participate. Might we be risking the Emerald Bowl, or the PapaJohns Bowl, etc? You can have that level of tradition, I will stand for something better than that.
LikeLike
So that means you’re taking a principled stand against any postseason format that’s based on rankings, right? 😉
LikeLike
No, without a “Super Conference” structure yielding 8 representatives, we would always have a subjective team. I would have one “play in” team (BSU/TCU this year), and one at large. Only a 120 team playoff would be truly earned and that would not meet the “don’t change the regular season” demand. I always said you could never do more than satisfy 98% of the fans that the deserving teams were included. The cost of the other 2 % is too high, and not worthy of serious consideration. The 64/65 team discussion in March Madness is only for those who want to be argumentative and does not diminish the title of the winner.
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
SB and Auditdawg beat me to the punch, but I was going to suggest Mcallanlover reel in King Jerico et al if he wants to maintain credibility. If you are going to include the top 8 teams in a playoff, or even include a single at large team, then subjectivity still comes into play and your “settling it on the field” argument goes out the window. The playoff contingent’s problem is that none are on the same page as to what format they would seek, and none can guarantee that playoff creep wouldn’t come into affect. At least the anti-playoff crowd has a cohesive argument.
Dawgphan and Hacker both made excellent points above, and neither have been rebutted, other than Mcallanlover making a dismissive generic comment about our minds being made up. Tell us why the current system is not a 2 team playoff and all you want is to include more teams (read PLAYOFF CREEP). Tell me how the argument of #1 and #2 beating #3 and #4 (and on and on and on) will go away with a playoff. Don’t tell me my mind is stuck in the past. Tell me how you guarantee Barton and Hatch have the solution. Give us concrete answers to these questions and maybe we’ll listen.
LikeLike
Before the bowls, of the top 6 teams in the country, only one of them had lost a game (and that was to the #1 team). If you look at the #11 and #12 teams, they both have 3 losses. How is who gets into a playoff system any less subjective than who makes the BCS bowls? There’s 10 teams that made those bowls this year, why not 10 in a playoff? That’s the same subjectivity.
Yeah, I guess there is still a level of subjectivity, even when including more teams, but to find the BEST team in the country (which is the main goal), I think you’re better off searching from a pool of 8-10 rather than 2. Never do you hear the question “Should the #11 ranked Hokies be playing for the national championship? (the example from this past season).”
LikeLike
Don’t you think that’s because of the current postseason format for football?
After all, come March Madness we’ll hear a debate about whether the 65th best team should be playing for the national championship.
LikeLike
Senator, comparing the argument over #65 to the argument over #’s 1 & 2 is so far beneath you.
LikeLike
I’m not exactly sure what you mean. If there were an eight-team playoff, don’t you think we’d be having a debate about which team was the eighth best and which team was the ninth best?
Within fifteen minutes of the March Madness brackets being announced, you’ve got the pundits arguing about which teams got screwed.
Any format that involves subjectivity in the selection process is going to be open to that kind of questioning – whether it’s a two-team format or a 96-team one. That’s why I prefer the objectivity of a conference champs only playoff format.
LikeLike
As long as voting is part of the selection criteria there are going to be problems. Having said that, the problems concerning #65, or 8-9 pale in comparison to the problems in selecting 1,2&3.
I whole-heartedly agree with your conference champs only statement. However all conferences are not created equal, some have 12 teams some only 8. Still that is a step in the right direction.
As big a playoff proponent as I am, I realize the first and most important step is to reclassify the FBS. There are simply too many teams and to great a difference in level of competition.
High schools get it right. The NCAA would have to take it over. BCS conferences will not allow that. And that truly sucks from my vantage point as a fan.
LikeLike
That depends on the season, doesn’t it? How do you think the debate would have looked in 2007 with an eight-team playoff?
LikeLike
A much as I love my Dawgs and think they were playing the best football at the end, the regular season would still matter, er have value.
If you don’t win your conference, you are at the mercy of the process.
The process should never eliminate an undefeated conference champ. Sports writers and computers should not be allowed to impute a loss on any team (Auburn, Boise State, Utah).
LikeLike
“The process should never eliminate an undefeated conference champ.”
But you said yourself that not all conferences are created equal. If we are going to use hindsight (which playoff proponents LOVE using), should Hawaii 2007 have been included in the national title picture? After all, they WERE undefeated in the WAC, just as Boise 2009.
And why stop at the WAC or MWC? Why does the system leave out FCS teams too? Why don’t we include them. After all, they are colleges, and they do play football. Is it fair that their undefeated conference champions don’t get a shot to win the college football national championship?
LikeLike
Yes, puffdawg, I believe the process should never eliminate a conference champ. I am all for the non-Big6 conferences having a chance to play their way into a 8 team play off.
Why does the state of Georgia not allow single A teams to compete for the 5 A championship? Why doesn’t Major League baseball let the AAA champs play in the playoffs?
We have divisions and classifications for a reason.
Does your argument rest solely on “your system is not perfect, therefore my imperfect system is better”?
LikeLike
My argument rests on the fact that your imperfect system is no better than my imperfect system In fact your imperfect system is worse than my imperfect system because in your imperfect system, teams would be able to rationalize losses because they would still be eligible for the whole ball of wax. Therefore, with a loss being less devestating in your system, each game would lose it’s relative importance to the big picture. Thus, the regular season, which consists of individual games, would lose its overall importance.
LikeLike
So you prefer a system that leaves undefeated teams out to a system that allows beaten conference champs in. Fine.
My preference is to allow a beaten team in if that ensures an undefeated team is never left out.
As for you repeated argument that the regular season is devalued, I guess you apply that to the SEC as well. I am sure the SEC regular season was severely diminished in your eyes by going to a championship game whose participants are selected without polls.
I guess CBS and ESPN are not hip to your line of thinking.
LikeLike
If Hawaii 2007 didn’t prove to you that being undefeated should not be the absolute standard for ranking and evaluating teams, I don’t know what else to say.
I didn’t realize the SEC champion (before the SEC Champ Game) was determined by pollsters. I thought it was determined by their conf record. The SEC Champ Game works because it is regional and there are less teams.
LikeLike
My reference to pollsters is regarding the participants in the SEC Championship game are selected based upon on field wins and losses. Nothing subjective.
Your Hawaii argument could just as easily apply to Texas this year. How was that for an absolute standard?
There have been many championship game blow-outs far more lob-sided than the Sugar Bowl you reference.
What is the harm in a team getting in and getting beat? Someone has to lose.
My preference for 2007 would have been for Hawaii and BoiseSt to play to determine which gained entry into the tourney.
You just want to eliminate them because they are Hawaii.
I am glad our country does not preclude achievement based upon things that are out of the achievers control.
LikeLike
“My reference to pollsters is regarding the participants in the SEC Championship game are selected based upon on field wins and losses. Nothing subjective.”
Then why did you use it as an example of diminshing the regular season? You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Nobody is debating whether the SEC has an objective process. It can have one because there are less teams. We are debating whether CFB can have an objective postseason process that is fair and will determine the best team without diminshing the regular season.
LikeLike
My reply was pushed upward for some reason. I apologize. It’s the really long one. Probably mostly irrelevant.
LikeLike
(my posts aren’t showing up in the right place)
How is the Jets in the AFC championship a strike against them?
They had a rookie quarterback, so he got shaky in mid season. The existence of a playoff system meant the team could gel, pull together, rally, and fight their way into the playoffs. And then they could…. amazing thing here….
WIN
ON
THE
FIELD
not in the polls.
Kinda nice to have a champion decided by games on the field, not polls.
LikeLike
“…playoff system meant the team could gel, pull together, rally, and fight their way into the playoffs.”
And once again the playoff crowd sends a different message. How many times has the anti-playoff crowd been dismissed (not debated, but dismissed) as crazy because the regular season would never be devalued? You guys clearly do not understand the difference between devalued and irrelevant.
“They had a rookie quarterback, so he got shaky in mid season.”
…meaning the games they lost in the regular season did not matter because they were not as important because they could still make the playoffs. Thus, THE VALUE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL REGUALR SEASON GAME WAS DIMINSHED BECAUSE AN EXTENDED PLAYOFF EXISTED.
Muck ,
Obviously you disagree (respectfully, I would assume) with my stance, but thanks anyway for at least helping me prove my point.
LikeLike
Alright, I concede that losses are devalued, but so are wins. I’d say they outweigh each other and it works out even. How’s this for a scenario:
Texas, Ohio St, USC, UGA, Boise St, Virgina Tech, TCU, and WVU all go undefeated. Only two are allowed to play for the National Championship. I would have to say that 6 teams just had their wins devalued because they can’t “play for it all.” Sounds crazy? How about if it were only 3 teams? Perhaps, USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn? Maybe in 2004? And how about that Oklahoma looks like a bunch of idiots when they get picked to play in the big game over Auburn? I doubt we’ll ever see a time an undefeated SEC team doesn’t make it into the big game again, but it has happened, and it was a travesty.
Or how about the flip side. Because we’re being so selective, how about the OVERvaluing of a no-loss season? Back in 2006 when an undefeated Ohio St team was a huge favorite over the 1 loss Florida? Vanderbilt played Florida closer that year. I’d say anyone else in the top 10 would have played Florida better in that game.
All I’m saying is maybe devaluing losses at the expensive of not devaluing wins would be a better trade off. But to each, their own.
LikeLike
What did Hawaii 2007 prove? Georgia was arguably the best team in the country at that point and that’s all was proven. Hawaii was beat by only one team, and that one team couldn’t play any other teams to prove if it was truly the best or not. Georgia finished #2 in the country despite not playing the national championship game and not winning its conference (and not even playing that championship game period).
LikeLike
I don’t see how a loss would be less devastating. If you lose, like Mike said, you’re at the mercy of the process. It’s never a viable strategy to lose and hope for the best. Losing in the current system still puts in the mercy of the process. If others around you lose, you’re still able to play for the NC.
Look at 2006, Florida had lost a game that season, Ohio St had not, neither had Boise St. While Florida and Ohio St played for the National Championship, Boise ended up in the Fiesta Bowl, beat a 11-2 Okalahoma team that won the Big 12 that year, but still ended up behind two 2 loss teams at #5 in the rankings. I know I argue that the rest of the rankings don’t matter aside from first, but seriously, how does that work? Do I think Boise would have beat Florida? No. Do I think Boise would have beat Oklahoma? No. As the old saying goes, “That’s why they play the game,” yet, we’re not allowing them to play the game.
LikeLike
Again, there are so many different playoff proposals, I don’t know which one I’m even debating here, but I’ll base this on KJ’s…
It is obviously easier to make a 4 team playoff than to make a two team playoff, because more slots equal more teams that get in. Am I right so far? And it would be easier to get into an 8 team playoff than a 4 team playoff, right? And it would be easier to get into a 16 team playoff than an 8 team playoff. Said another way, a team would have to be “less qualified” to get into a 16 team playoff than a two team playoff. Am I right at this point? Have I said anything that can possibly be debated?
Now, what does “less qualified” even mean? It means one’s resume would not have to be as impressive, no? What does the resume consist of? Wins and losses, and who those wins and losses came against. So if a team has a loss on their resume, it is less impressive than before, right? So am I still right at this point? Can any of this be debated?
All this put together, the larger a playoff becomes, the less impressive an entrant’s resume must be, meaning they can better afford a loss and still have a larger chance to get into the playoff than if it were smaller playoff. Thus, a loss in the current system (2 team playoff) has greater consequence than a loss in your 8 team proposal. Thus, a loss is less devestating. Thus, each games loses a degree of importance. Tus the regular season loses importance.
LikeLike
More like “make sure the cure isn’t worse than the disease”. 😉
LikeLike
That’s what I said!
LikeLike
Sure, the FCS playoff is finished before the bowls start, why not throw them in there? If you’re not able to win the FCS, however, you probably shouldn’t be able to play for the FBS championship. But the FCS champ would have to have played a couple more games than the FBS contenders, so that wouldn’t be fair, or would the chance to play for the FBS National Championship be fair? Maybe make the Champ of one play the champ of the other. Then there would be some resting issues because the FCS is done about a month before the FBS would be. It’s workable, but then we’d have to have a major overhaul.
LikeLike
That’s a great idea, but some conferences are more powerful than others and perhaps should have more representation. It can already happen that you have a rematch in a conference championship, but that championship game is more important than the regular season game is a problem that some anti-playoffers have. No one really remembers who the 3rd, 6th, 8th places teams are at the end of a season (unless you’re that team), so I think we can all agree we’re playing to see who is #1. I think you’ve got a better chance of adding in the the top teams that aren’t conference champions as well (Florida this year for example). Yeah, they got shut down by Alabama and people would complain if they were to play again in the “big game” and win, but aren’t you already at an advantage if you’ve won the first time? It’s your own fault if you don’t expect a change or you can’t pull off the same magic. I think it’s an even better point at who the best team is because you show you can overcome that adversity.
In that same Florida Bama example, let’s say that Florida and Bama play a reg season game and Florida wins. Bama still wins their division, as does Florida and they meet again in Atlanta. This time Bama wins. Both teams only have one loss and it’s to each other (arguably the two best teams in the nation). Allowing Florida to also be in the playoff system in an “at large” type spot could allow for them to meet again for a 3rd time. Any other sport has series they play through in a round of the playoffs, this would just represent that. I’d say this would happen very sparingly though.
I totally agree with you about a playoff system, just trying to solidify the argument against those who think it wouldn’t be “fair.”
LikeLike
Yeah, I guess you have a point, but:
1) I think that’s a media driven thing just for talking points
2) How’s it any different than the BCS bowls placement process we already have? 10 teams for BCS bowls or the same 10 teams in a playoff seem like the same argument to me.
Let’s take the NFL for example because they’re football, but they operate a little differently. Let’s put a college twist on it:
First, you have about 120 teams in the NFL (same as FBS Div 1 schools in the US). Now, there’s a lot more divisions now that there are so many more teams. Let’s say the Seahawks are undefeated and look like monsters. But, since they’ve sucked a long time, no one really respects them and thinks it’s a fluke. The Saints and the Colts have been pretty good for a decent amount of time and they have very respectable seasons going. Yeah, the Seahawks only play the Browns and the Rams and other lowly teams, but it is what it is. They still have an incredible QB, a great defense, and a whole lot of heart. “Sorry Seahawks, you’re just not a respectable ball team and we don’t want you in the Superbowl,” says Roger Goddell. “If you keep it up though, and no one else is doing good next year, you might get a shot!” However, if they had a playoff system, were able to win their division, play in the playoffs, and prove it on the field, the mighty little Seahawks could show everyone how hard they truly play!
Alright, there’s probably holes in it and I like how it turned into a bedtime story, but that’s what it feels like to me.
LikeLike
You are arguing against this monster of a current system that uses people and computers to determine who gets to play for the national champion, but you advocate using the same people and computers to determine who would get to play for the national championship. What’s the difference, other than INCLUDING MORE TEAMS (read PLAYOFF CREEP)?
LikeLike
I’m not saying the computers and rankings are bad, I’m saying the exclusivity of picking #1 and #2 is bad when you have 120 teams and only (for the most part) 13 games to decide who’s what. I don’t think they get it wrong every year, but it has a much larger margin of error than picking from the top 10 teams than the 2 teams. That’s just statistics.
Now, I know people will complain about being on the cusp at #11, but not as much as people complaining about being on the cusp at #3.
LikeLike
True, it is just an unsatisfying, 2 team system that is too exclusive to have credibility. Not allowing for enough representation is the whole point. A system that excludes an unbeaten SEC title holder is all the proof you need as to the inadequacy. I have never suggested a perfect system which satisfies everyone is necessary, or even doable. Just that a MUCH better alternative is easily within our reach and would be as satisfying as the other NCAA championships are. They aren’t perfect either. The difference here is logistics make it more selective and exclusive….harder to get entry to, but still able to allow all viable contenders a chance. As to satisfying Hatch and Barton, my plan has higher goals than pleasing members of those two disasterous legislative bodies. The majority of those two chambers are no more reputable than the lunatic fringe of each NCAA program to me.
LikeLike
Given that the great majority of sportswriters are in favor of a playoff, I’m not sure why you think they “OWN” the anti-playoff crowd.
Just more logical dissonance, I guess.
LikeLike
Clearly stooping to insulting those of us that aren’t in favor of a playoff is the way to make a point. Not through legitimate discourse between reasonable people.
LikeLike
The NFL playoffs devalue its regular season. The J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets have an opportunity to go to the Super Bowl, after being 9-7. It makes the Chargers’ run of 13-3 and the games played between September and December not really matter. As long as you are just over .500 that is all that matters.
LikeLike
The Falcons, Steelers, and Texans might disagree, but I take your point…. cause it’s not like any of them deserve to be there any more than the Jets, and any one of them could potentially make a run, especially after getting guys back from injury.
And I don’t think anyone would argue that the Super Bowl determines the best team in the NFL. It does sometimes, but usually it determines who had the best 3-4 game streak. Whether or not the BCS does any better is obviously up for debate.
LikeLike
Ding Ding Ding. Well thought response, RedCrake. The point I’ve always argued about why the Orrin Hatches and the Joe Bartons of the world are wrong regarding a playoff is that they completely ignore that little tidbit of whether it truly determines the best team in college football.
As you mentioned, the Super Bowl determines who had the best 3-4 game streak (see 2007 Giants and 2008 Cardinals for example). It’s also hard to argue that the BCS determines the best team, but too many playoff proponents just ignore the fact that a playoff doesn’t necessarily determine the best team.
To me, that’s what makes college football different. We don’t reward teams for getting into a tournament and getting hot. We reward them for being the best team the for the ENTIRE season. The BCS may not be the best determinant of this, but I will argue to the death that it does a hell of a better job determining the best team for the ENTIRE season than a playoff that determines the best team for a MONTH.
LikeLike
Is a pageant truly a better way of determining the best competitor in football. Better than a playoff?
I guess the Heisman must be the best player in college football.
LikeLike
Like I said, the BCS is not really any better, but the sooner we get past the idea that a playoff will result in the best team in college football winning the National Championship, the more we can focus on the actual pros and cons of each.
LikeLike
No one is guaranteeing the winner of a playoff is the absolute “best” for that year, but they are the “winner” in a tournament where you earn a right to play for the title. The winner of March Madness isn’t the undisputed best every year, but they are the best when they were asked to perform. Anyone can see the difference in that and the CFB method. No one bitches at the end of college basketball because you had your shot, perform and you get rewarded. That is a huge difference, muy grande.
LikeLike
Eh, you’re skewing my words to make your point. I don’t disagree that the BCS is an imperfect system. My problem is that the people that are self-righteously promoting a playoff (i.e. Orrin Hatch and Joe Barton) never acknowledge the cons of a playoff system.
That’s not to say a playoff wouldn’t determine the best team, but to ignore the fact that there’s a chance that a flukey team could win the whole thing in a playoff system is just pure denial. There’s no perfect system, but the people that vehemntly push a playoff system refuse to acknowledge the faults with one. That’s my point.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
No doubt. Look at the Patriots in 2007. They went 15-1 regular season. The Giants, although they did win 4 straight games on the road, were contemplating firing their coach and Eli was hated earlier that season.
LikeLike
With 100+ teams in FBS and concentrated power in conferences like the SEC, a playoff is the only way to determine a champion.
It is possible that the 4 best teams are in one conference.
I have serious doubts Cincy, BoiseSt, or TCU finish the season unscathed in a power conference like the SEC, or BigXII.
By playing in a lesser conference, isn’t their regular season already de-valued in the voter’s minds? see Utah last year!
LikeLike
So how would you structure a playoff to address that?
LikeLike
The current ranking system with a playoff at the end. It’s very possible for 3 out of the top 5 teams to be SEC teams. Expand them parameters a little further and you’re probably grabbing another one of those teams. If you look at the final 8 teams before the bowl season:
1 Alabama 13-0
2 Texas 13-0
3 Cincinnati 12-0
4 TCU 12-0
5 Florida 12-1
6 Boise State 13-0
7 Oregon 10-2
8 Ohio State 10-2
Just under the cut you have GT at 9. Shouldn’t have lost to UGA, suckas.
Now, would this be a more fair way to see who the best team is? Yeah, these games are more important, but these are also the best teams in the country, playing each other. If you can’t put it together now, you don’t deserve to win. If you pull a Patriots and choke the ONLY GAME THAT MATTERS away, you’re not the best team in my opinion.
With the 2009-10 season’s potential bracket, you’re not encouraged to slack off the last game of the season. If Alabama had sat players and lost to UF, they go from #1 to #5, playing TCU rather than Ohio St. If you want to do the homefield or home region or something, Bama would have lost that by sitting some players, not to mention losing the SEC Championship.
I’m sure it’s still not “fair,” but short of just having a long enough season that everyone can play each other, adjusted that for injuries, have an analyst watch them during practice, account for weather, blah blah blah, that’s as fair as I can get it in 10 mins of thinking.
LikeLike
My problem with the playoff system is as you yourself admitted. Some games mean more than others. I don’t like that. I would like for the first game of the season to mean as much as the last.
And playoffs don’t automatically guarantee that coaches will rest players in meaningless games, but it introduces the possibility. In some years, some teams will have nothing to gain by playing hard in the final game of the season (like the Colts in the NFL). In that situation, you can bet your ass that coaches will coach for the playoffs rather than concentrate on beating a rival.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s reasonably possible to have each game carry the same value. I think one of the biggest supporting arguments that I’ve read for the BCS system is the fact that you’re not putting more value at the end of the season than you are in the beginning of that season. I don’t know that if that’s entirely true. Take these examples:
1) Everyone by now knows that Texas did not play the NC with Colt McCoy and we’ve heard a lot of “what if’s” because of it. Had Colt gone out in almost any other game they had been playing, the probably could have still won. Obviously I can’t prove this, but I think they have a better chance beating Baylor with a true freshman QB than they do beating Bama. Not buying into the injury angle? How about this one…
2) Losing a game in the beginning of the season has less effect than losing it at the end. Take the 2007 year for example. Missouri was pretty hot all year, only losing to one opponent (Oklahoma, twice). The first time they dropped from 11th to 16th and the second time they dropped from 1st to 6th. Now the numbers sound about the same, but when you think about the fact that Missouri was a 6th ranked team and did not get a BCS bowl while 13th ranked Illinois did, that’s a little strange.
I believe in a rock-paper-scissors type scenario in sports. Being a longtime sportsman myself, I’ve seen in many times. I’m able to beat one person, that person can beat someone else, that someone else can beat me. I might not be the most skilled, but I have found a way to exploit weakness. With that said, you’re never going to find something that’s “fair” for everyone.
As for the resting the players scenario, NFL is able to do it because you can lock up a homefield advantage for the length of the playoffs. Statistically, the home team wins 75% of the time. That’s a pretty convincing number and not worth squandering away to have your players rest a little more. In my example (and all recent years I can remember), you’re not going to have a team that’s so much better than everyone else in the playoffs that you can lock up a home field advantage. Again, I don’t know if that’s something that would be implemented into CFB playoffs, but it probably should be, somehow.
LikeLike
Jets vs Charges…two plays prior to the Green’s seal the victory run of 40+ yards you could see that play coming. Jets are where they are because of their secondary play. They have a “shut-down”corner. Let’s see how a UT grad does against them, and then let’s talk. Reshad Jones is one player that can make it in the Pros. He did not have the coaching he needed at UGA…that is why Marty is gone and Richt made his hires.
Schemes…GMAC and several HSs have made the switch to the 3-5-3 or the 3-5-3 tight because of the wingT and the spread…personnel are important …but the 3-4 allows good fronts against the triple option and the spread offense. CMR is putting in a good set of coaches and schemes on D to go with a very potent, young, but experienced O.
Watch and we will train, yuh.
LikeLike
After reading the article on the 3-4 as well as several others (1-Gap vs 2-Gap, etc.), I’m guessing that Justin Huston moves to inside LB on the weak side.
I cannot see him lining up at DE because he’d be hard pressed to take on a LT & LG + it negates his strength – flat out getting into the backfield!
LikeLike
I had said it in the past but it bears repeating, it matters not the scheme, it’s the fundamentals. Willie, with some glaring exceptions (see the middle of the field) usually had a player in position to make a play but the player had zero fundamentals and would miss the tackle. Also in the last couple of years we seemed to have a lot less guys around the ball at the end of a play. They were not running to the ball as hard or fast and it caused a lot of yards after contact. We need you get there and clean up. 3-4 4-3 just KISS.
LikeLike
The Jets are the standard bearer for the biggest problem with playoffs and one of the larger reasons why you won’t see one in college football anytime soon: the design and setup of the playoff.
A playoff isn’t inherently fair or better, it’s all in how you set it up.
The Jets making it to the AFC Championship is an indictment of the crappy playoff system, particularly the wild card aspect, the NFL has designed. A 9-7 team that only made it in because the Bengals benched players the last week really proved themselves over the course of the season and thus should be included in the championship game?
No, of course they didn’t. They proved themselves in the playoffs, and for the NFL, that’s what really matters. Otherwise, they would have never made it in.
For college playoff proponents, figuring out how to design a system that avoids, as much as possible, these ridiculous consequences is the true challenge.
LikeLike
Oh this bears repeating..we already have a 2 team playoff…just keep telling yourself that and you can all go through the off season a lot happier. Now you just want it expanded…
LikeLike
Does anyone remember the 8-8 Arizona Cardinals of 2008? Nearly Super Bowl champs?
LikeLike
Senator,
Thanks for the link to the 3-4 articles. Good insight about what’s ahead.
LikeLike
What is also interesting is 2 of the teams from the late 80s / early 90s that I remember running the 3-4 are the Giants and the Broncos. But the guys that you remember most for the Giants were LT (OLB) and then maybe Banks (OLB) and Pepper Johnson (ILB). For the Broncos, it was their secondary (Atwater) and Fletcher (OLB). I guess the guys NTs really don’t get any glory.
LikeLike
How many Fulmer Cup points is it worth for a school’s longtime radio man gets busted for child pornography?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-ufbroadcaster-childporncharges&prov=ap&type=lgns
LikeLike
“*WHEN a school’s longtime…”
LikeLike
You’re absolutely right. All of that is correct.
HOWEVER, a negligible amount of importance is still negligible. Though you have lost SOME importance, you don’t lose all of that importance. You still have to compete to get into the playoff. Out of 120 “eligible” teams for the National Championship, it’s hard to play enough games to get a feel for who’s how good when. If 4 teams go undefeated, why turn it into a beauty contest? Why bring a resume into sports?
The problem we have with college football is it’s too big and too short. It’s hard to really compare all the teams because there are 120 “eligible” participants, yet only 14 weeks to compare them before the bowls. In comes the out of conference scheduling factor.
It’s not surprise that defining part of these resumes are OOC scheduling. However, you only get 2 games to do that with. This is a big disadvantage from a smaller conference school.
OOC games have been scheduled as earlier as 13 years into the future (LSU vs NCState 2020 scheduled in 2007). Now, how much do programs change in that amount of time? Some of them, not so much, others can be drastic. Is NC State going to be a marque win for LSU or vice versa in 2020? We don’t know the future of these programs, but probably. It’s a better chance than scheduling Wofford in 2020 and hoping for that to be a marque win.
Now, the risk Boise St runs in scheduling Ohio St or USC in advanced could be from both sides. Boise has a pretty good track record, but it’s still in the WAC and could easily slip and fall, creating a weaker schedule on USC or Ohio St’s schedule. What about an up and coming team like SMU? They’ve traditionally stunk and now they looked good last year since June Jones has been there. If they go undefeated next year, should they be punished because they didn’t schedule anyone tough when they were a whipping post? This year they played TCU and Houston as their big teams. If they beat both of them, is that still enough to go into the NC?
Here’s SMU’s scheduled games so far:
08/31/2013 Texas Tech
09/14/2013 Baylor
2013 at Texas A&M
09/28/2013 at TCU
08/30/2014 at Baylor
09/06/2014 at North Texas
09/13/2014 TCU
09/20/2014 Texas A&M
09/05/2015 Baylor
09/12/2015 North Texas
09/19/2015 at TCU
09/26/2015 at Navy
09/03/2016 at North Texas
09/10/2016 Navy
09/17/2016 at Baylor
09/24/2016 TCU
2017 at Navy
2017 North Texas
2017 at TCU
2018 Navy
2018 at North Texas
TCU, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M are the “big names” on that list. Would wins over these programs make them a candidate? Not if UF and OU also go undefeated the same year. Now you’ve gotten into politics and resumes and not football.
I’ve rambled a little and got off on tangents, but here’s my point: The traditionally good teams only have so much room on their schedules for OOC games. Some of these games are scheduled many years in advance. If a team has a personnel change, makes a darn good football team, but couldn’t work its way into a powerhouse’s schedule deserve to be punished? I don’t think it should.
LikeLike
How is the Jets in the AFC championship a strike against them?
They had a rookie quarterback, so he got shaky in mid season. The existence of a playoff system meant the team could gel, pull together, rally, and fight their way into the playoffs. And then they could…. amazing thing here….
WIN
ON
THE
FIELD
not in the polls.
Kinda nice to have a champion decided by games on the field, not polls.
LikeLike
How is the Jets in the AFC championship a strike against them?
They had a rookie quarterback, so he got shaky in mid season. The existence of a playoff system meant the team could gel, pull together, rally, and fight their way into the playoffs. And then they could…. amazing thing here….
WIN
ON
THE
FIELD
not in the polls.
Kinda nice to have a champion decided by games on the field, not polls.
LikeLike