Proposed four-team playoff not perfect but it's a start

For several years, college football fans and media have wanted a playoff system. Now it appears they will be getting one.

I’m not even going to try to explain the parameters of the proposed four-team playoff. I’ll let collegefootballnews.com do the honors:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1196749.html

I have long been in the minority, while the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect, I don't think NCAA March Madness in basketball is the cat's meow either like some people are inclined to believe. Like most people, I fill out my office pool but you’re not going to hear me say that March Madness is the greatest thing since the Great Wall of China.

You see, before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated teams. The problem is that they seldom matched up against each either: 1991 Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn state, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those teams play each other on the field? No.

Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split National title (i.e. Michigan in 1997) or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say, sorry folks. You can't have it both ways (i.e. keep your tradition and whine about a split National Title). The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.

The BCS hasn't been without its controversies either. One loss Florida State instead of Miami (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Oklahoma in 2000. One loss Nebraska instead of Oregon (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Miami in 2001. One loss Oklahoma instead of one loss USC played LSU for the BCS title in 2003. One loss Florida instead of one loss Michigan played Ohio State in 2006. Of course, no one was complaining when in 2002 (Ohio State-Miami), 2004 (Oklahoma-USC) or 2005 (Texas-USC) were a battle of two unbeaten teams.

The 2006-2008 seasons, however, were jumbled beyond belief. In 2006, you had two one loss teams playing for the title as Florida met Ohio State, while one-loss Michigan and undefeated Boise State were left in the cold.

In 2007, you had a two-loss LSU team meeting a one-loss Ohio State team. In the process, many people lobbied for USC and/or Georgia (a pair of two loss teams) to play in the title game.

In 2008, two one-loss teams (Florida and Oklahoma) met for the title while unbeaten Utah and one loss teams USC, Texas, Penn state and Alabama were left in the cold.

Ohio State lost both of its title games (41-16 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU) as viewers of the game wasted four hours of their lives they will not get back. Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14.

The interesting subplot to the whole matter was that Boise State and Utah (two nonBCS schools) made noise. Boise State defeated Oklahoma 32-31 in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006. Well, 2006 regular season/2007 bowl game. While Utah defeated Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl in a game that really wasn’t even that close.

I’m perhaps in the minority but I think Boise State and Utah should have been awarded a share of the National Title or been allowed to play in the title game. And please, don’t come at me with the strength of schedule argument or the notion of “they would have gotten blown out.” And if they do, so what, I don’t see how it’s any worse than watching Ohio State get its doors blown off by two SEC teams.

While you will never get a system that satisfies everyone, I’m all for the proposed four-team playoff. The problem is, I can see it morphing into a football version of March Madness, which would be a liability not an asset. Four teams (six maybe) is an ideal number. For one thing, the regular season still means something because a two-loss team is not normally going to be in the Top Four. Honestly, no team with two losses should be playing for a National Championship. I know the cynics would say that considering the BCS Title Game between Alabama and LSU was a rematch, the argument of “the regular season still matters in college football” was tainted.

The one example that I keep coming back for my case in favor of a four-team playoff to is the 2010 season. Oregon and Auburn went undefeated from the Pac 10 and SEC respectively. I say, well and good, they should play in the BCS Title Game because if you come out of those conferences undefeated, you have earned the right to play for the title.

However, there was one other problem. You had an unbeaten TCU team from the Mountain West. Of course, the cynics would ask, “well, who the hell are you playing in the Mountain West?” TCU defeated an 11-1 Wisconsin team from the Big 10 by the final of 21-19 in the Rose Bowl. Then you have an 11-1 Stanford team from the Pac 10 that smashed Virginia Tech 40-12 in the Rose Bowl. VaTech went 11-2 in the regular season. When the dust settled after all of the bowl games had been completed, most people believed that Stanford was the best remaining one-loss team. Keep in mind, Wisconsin’s aforementioned loss to TCU dropped them to 11-2. There’s one more argument, “well what about Ohio State?” The Buckeyes went 11-1 out of the Big 10 and defeated an 11-2 Arkansas team 31-26 in the Sugar Bowl.

Yes, Ohio State would have had a legitimate point. However, if you had a Final Four of Oregon, Auburn, TCU and Stanford, that would have sufficed for two reasons: 1) You have two teams from power conferences like Auburn and Oregon, 2) Your unbeaten TCU or Boise State or Utah would get their chance and 3) Your best remaining one-loss team like Stanford would also get its chance. I believe that’s the scenario most people want anyhow. So you leave out another deserving one-loss club like Ohio State or Wisconsin? Losing one game won’t dash their National Title hopes but you get a playoff, maintain your bowl games and make the regular season matter.

As for the bowl games, people would say “but they make money.” Your major bowls like the Orange, Rose, Fiesta, and Sugar are not going anywhere. Neither are other New Years Day bowl games. For that matter, neither are games like the Holiday Bowl. Start by getting rid of bowl games that are being occupied by 6-6 teams. They have no business even playing in a bowl game.

Season opener won't tell us much but important nonetheless

The nation is not going to have its eyes glued on No. 11 ranked Nebraska's Saturday matchup against Tennessee-Chatanooga like, say, No. 3 Oregon against No. 4 LSU or to a lesser degree No. 7 Boise State travelling to No. 22 Georgia.


However since Nebraska has to play the game anyhow, the question becomes what will the game tell us? Keep in mind, the Huskers are looking for a fresh start after finishing last season with a 10-4 record that concluded with three losses in its last four games.
Considering that it is a game that the Huskers should win fairly easily by the second half at the latest (given the Mocs total lack of depth on the lines, thin even by FCS standards), the game is a no-win situation for Nebraska. Let's face it, if you win big, it's to be expected. If you struggle like say the 2005 season-opening 25-7 win over D-IAA Maine, the question becomes, what's wrong with the Huskers? On the other hand, you don't want to see a process like the 2004 season-opening 56-17 win over Western Illinois. In that game, the Huskers turned the ball over six times and it proved to be a season long problem on the way to a 5-6 campaign.

That said, from Nebraska's standpoint, being in a position where second and third-stringers getting lots of reps should be expected if for no other reason than to develop your bench players.
Since the Huskers are breaking in a new offensive coordinator (Tim Beck), the objectiives should be getting lined up in order, getting off the snap, avoiding stupid penalties, getting plays off in time, avoid wasting time outs, finishing drives, very few dropped passes, and no turnovers. All of those things plaqued the Husker offense a year ago even wen quarterback Taylor Martinez was healthy I seriously do not think we will learn entirely of Beck's new philosophy because executing base plays will be much more important.

On defense, I want to see defensive ends getting pressure on the quarterback to go along with the good push we have seen from the defensive tackles the last several years. I am also curious to see the ends keep better outside containment. I am also interested to see how much does the secondary miss DeJon Gomes and his tackling along with getting better linebacker play from the likes of Will Compton, Alonzo Whaley and Sean Fisher.

On special teams, I would like to see a solid kicking game which includes pinning the opponent deep on punts. Lastly, I would like to see someone returning kicks, and punts, someone with some decent vision and breakaway speed.


Regardless of the score, I am looking for a 38-10 type game with a lot of room for improvement going into game 2, and as most coaches will tell you most teams improve the most between game 1 and game 2. So let's hope for an injury free game and a glimpse of the talent the team has for 2011.

BCS still better than March Sadness

I’m not into making guarantees but you can bet your life that at some point during the 2009 college football season, many people will grovel to no end about the BCS.

Heck, our own president – Barack Obama -- of the United States has gotten on his soapbox about wanting a playoff. Memo to Mr. President, worry about fixing our country first.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor Harvey Perlman was recently appointed chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee. In a nutshell, Perlman just assumed a pretty important seat of power, as head of the committee that looks at the viability of playoffs, TV contracts, and the like.

The BCS just shot down a Mountain West proposal for an eight-team playoff. It was the chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight committee, University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer, who delivered the vague statement explaining that any playoff suggestion “disrespect our academic calendars and they utterly lack a business plan.”

Collegefootballnews.com addressed the topic as well. I have one thing in common with CFN.com, I am not in favor of a playoff in college football. Yes, I said not in favor.

Yes, the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect but a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the not the cure-all either. It would be “different” than the BCS but the only thing that change guarantees is that things will be “different,” but “different” does not necessarily mean “better.”

Yes, the bowl games are watered down in that more than half the teams in Div. I-A get to one. That’s bad enough but let’s not water it down anymore than the other sports have. Most people would argue that “every other sport has a playoff so college football should get one.”

The argument you hear most often is to take the six BCS league champions, the top non-BCS conference champion, and one wild-card. That idea sounds all well and good but what makes you think the powers that be would not get sucked in by money and expand the college football playoffs?

Major League Baseball, yes the sport with so many that spews out terms like “integrity,” “tradition,” and “purists,” expanded. It used to be that only division winners reached the postseason. Now, it’s four teams per league (three division winners and a wild card). I don’t have a huge problem with that because since MLB adopted the wild card format in 1995, numerous wild card teams have gone on to win the World Series. Why did MLB expand its postseason? Money. Owners of mediocre teams got sick of their teams being out of the pennant chase in late June and changed things to add more playoff teams and a wild-card.

I know many college football playoff advocates swear by the NCAA Tournament and call it “March Madness.” March Sadness is more like it. Back when only the conference champions were allowed in the tournament, it was much better. Now any team that can walk on to a bus and avoid tripping over the step gets in the tournament. What a joke.The other sports have screwed it up too. The NFL is borderline is not perfect but it’s acceptable in that 12 out of 32 teams make it to the postseason. The NBA and NHL, however, are brutally watered down in that over half the teams reach the postseason. The good news there is that it is a best-of-seven format where the better team usually wins. However, why are there so many playoff series – money!

As screwed up college football is as far getting two teams in the BCS title game, it gets it right more so than any other sport. True, teams like unbeaten 2008 Utah might be hard to convince, USC in 2007, Auburn in 2004, Oregon in 2001 or Miami in 2000 but it is also hard to argue with a team that went through the rigors of the regular season and then won a BCS championship.

The BCS has been tweaked over the years with things such as quality win points, computer rankings, strength of schedule, etc. The anti- BCS folks have been equally tweaked and want say a four-team or and eight-team playoff with the preservation of the bowl games. Unfortunately, they forget one thing.

The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court." True but it doesn't stop teams that were "on the bubble" from complaining about not getting an NCAA tournament bid.The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a gimmick and de-emphasizes the regular season. Fans that love it say that a team can "get hot" all of the sudden. My argument is that any team can "get hot" all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.

Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game in baseball. With each win, the laws of averages are not on your side because that team has a Bull's Eye right across its ever loving chest.Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either. I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.

If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place? The BCS might need its share of tweaking but I've always argued that it comes closer to crowning a true national champion than college basketball does. The best way to make a playoff in football a plausible situation is to make Notre Dame join a conference. I believe that’s as big of a reason as any why there is no playoff. Others have come up with a solution of matching up all conference winners. I like that scenario in that there is no ambiguity but some years one conference is appreciably strong while another is weak. I’d say just take the Top eight BCS teams, conference champ or not.Of course, for a playoff to work Notre Dame must get off its high chair and join a conference but given their elitist mentality that’ll never happen.

BCS not perfect but give it an edge over March Madness

I know many purists swear by the NCAA Tournament in college basketball and swear at the BCS in college football.

You can bet the deed to your house that people will go gaga for the next few weeks during March Madness and cries of a playoff in football will be in full bloom by early-to-mid October.

Heck, our president Barack Obama has already gotten on his soapbox about college football needing a playoff system. Don’t you think our country has more pressing needs at the moment? Like fixing the economy. Like addressing the war in Iraq.

I'm in the minority, while the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect, I don't think a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the cat's meow either like some people are inclined to believe. OK, I know what you’re thinking. “Lay of the bong, Vince.”

For the record, I do enjoy March Madness. Like most people, I fill out my office pool but I refrained from asking Rick Neuheisul for any advice. Sorry, I could not resist. However, you’re not going to hear me say that March Madness is the greatest thing since the Great Wall of China.

You see, before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated teams. The problem is that they seldom matched up against each either: 1991 Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn state, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those teams play each other on the field? No.

Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split National title (i.e. Michigan in 1997) or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say, sorry folks. You can't have it both ways (i.e. keep your tradition and whine about a split National Title). The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.

The BCS hasn't been without its controversies either. One loss Florida State instead of Miami (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Oklahoma in 2000. One loss Nebraska instead of Oregon (also a one loss team) played unbeaten Miami in 2001. One loss Oklahoma instead of one loss USC played LSU for the BCS title in 2003. One loss Florida instead of one loss Michigan played Ohio State in 2006. Of course, no one was complaining when in 2002 (Ohio State-Miami), 2004 (Oklahoma-USC) or 2005 (Texas-USC) were a battle of two unbeaten teams.

The 2006-2008 seasons, however, were jumbled beyond belief. In 2006, you had two one loss teams playing for the title as Florida met Ohio State, while one-loss Michigan and undefeated Boise State were left in the cold.

In 2007, you had a two-loss LSU team meeting a one-loss Ohio State team. In the two process, many people lobbied for USC and/or Georgia (a pair of two loss teams) to play in the title game.

In 2008, two one-loss teams (Florida and Oklahoma) met for the title while unbeaten Utah and one loss teams USC, Texas, Penn state and Alabama were left in the cold.

Ohio State lost both of its title games (41-16 to Florida and 38-24 to LSU) as viewers of the game wasted four hours of their lives they will not get back. Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14.

The interesting subplot to the whole matter was that Boise State and Utah (two nonBCS schools) made noise. Boise State defeated Oklahoma 32-21 in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006. Well, 2006 regular season/2007 bowl game. While Utah defeated Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl in a game that really wasn’t even that close.

I’m perhaps in the minority but I think Boise State and Utah should have been awarded a share of the National Title or been allowed to play in the title game. And please, don’t come at me with the strength of schedule argument or the notion of “they would have gotten blown out.” And if they do, so what, I don’t see how it’s any worse than watching Ohio State get its doors blown off.

The BCS has been tweaked over the years with things such as quality win points, computer rankings, strength of schedule, etc. The anti-BCS folks have been equally tweaked and want say a four-team or and eight-team playoff with the preservation of the bowl games. Unfortunately, they forget one thing.
For example, suppose we have one undefeated team and four one-loss teams. How are you then going to justify leaving out one of the one-loss teams? Some would say make it eight teams. OK. Let's say you have two unbeaten teams, four one-loss teams and three two loss teams? How then do you justify leaving out one of the two loss teams.

I find it almost comical how fans, media and talk show hosts whine and complain about the BCS just like they whined and complained about Nebraska (2001) and Oklahoma (2003) not winning its conference but yet still playing for the title. Yet they don't say boo, yeah or neah about a team finishing seventh in its basketball conference and getting an NCAA tournament bid.

The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court." True but it doesn't stop teams that were "on the bubble" from complaining about not getting an NCAA tournament bid.

The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a gimmick and de-emphasizes the regular season. Fans that love it say that a team can "get hot" all of the sudden. My argument is that any team can "get hot" all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.
Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game in baseball. With each win, the laws of averages are not on your side because that team has a Bull's Eye right across its ever loving chest.

Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either. I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.
If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place? The BCS might need its share of tweaking but I've always argued that it comes closer to crowning a true national champion than college basketball does.

The best way to make a playoff in football a plausible situation is to make Notre Dame join a conference. I believe that’s as big of a reason as any why there is no playoff. Others have come up with a solution of matching up all conference winners. I like that scenario in that there is no ambiguity but some years one conference is appreciably strong while another is weak. I’d say just take the Top eight BCS teams, conference champ or not.

Of course, for a playoff to work Notre Dame must get off its high chair and join a conference but given their elitist mentality that’ll never happen.