Thursday, September 2, 2010
Boise State and Virginia Tech's Meaningful Seasons
Jenni Carlson of The Oklahoman makes a terrific point. For either Boise State or Virginia Tech, the meaningfulness of their regular seasons ends this week:
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tournament of Champions - 2009 Edition
I want a playoff so bad, I feel compelled to play pretend with my own Tournament of Champions. The rules are simple: win your conference and you're in an 11-team field, each having a shot to play for the national championship. Come in second and enjoy a trip to a great bowl game, but win the conference and you have a legitimate shot at a national title.
For seeding purposes, we'll use again the actual BCS rankings achieved by the conference winners, and for those not making the BCS rankings, we'll tap the minds from the good folks at CollegeFootballNews and use their opinion of how each team ranks, from 1-120. Any independent that ranks in our top 6 will be invited, expanding the field to twelve or more teams as necessary.
The highest rated independent this year is 9-4 Navy, but as the Midshipmen are nowhere close to the top 6, we remain with the eleven-team bracket of conference champions:
It is clear that the Mountain West and WAC belong among BCS conferences in terms of competition. Using the BCS's own rankings, the Mountain West champion TCU and WAC champion Boise State each rate higher than half of the BCS conference champions.
And this isn't a one-time fluke. Last year, the Mountain West champion Utah rated higher in the BCS than the champions of the Big 10, Big East, and ACC, en route to crushing this year's #1 seed Alabama from the SEC 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl. For its part, Boise State as the WAC champion last year was also rated higher than either Cincinnati (Big East) or Virginia Tech (ACC). It's getting harder and harder to claim that the six-conference BCS cabal functions in a tier of quality above the Mountain West or WAC. They simply don't.
How about Conference USA, MAC, or Sun Belt conferences? Is this the year for a first-round upset from among the bottom three in our fictional tournament? Nope, and it's not even close. Realistically looking at the performance of East Carolina, Central Michigan, and Troy against BCS conference competition suggests that they are each undeniably below the first tier. Of the three, Central Michigan had the lone win against a BCS school, having beaten an average Michigan State team in a close one. So for our first round of the tournament, we'll easily call the favorites this year in Oregon, Ohio St., and Georgia Tech.
The second round gets much harder, and what a terrific slew of games it could have been! We'll take Alabama over Georgia Tech pretty easily, but Texas vs. Ohio St. and Cincinnati vs. Oregon are much tougher to call. Really, these are toss-ups. The Longhorns and Buckeyes went toe-to-toe in last years' Fiesta Bowl, with the game not resolved in Texas' favor until a Colt McCoy touchdown pass settled it with 16 seconds left in the fourth quarter. This year, we'd pick Texas to win another close one on the grounds that the Big 10 was a little weaker on the whole. And with Oregon seeming to peak at the end of the season, and Cincinnati's Kelly jumping ship to Notre Dame, we'll give the edge in their fictional game to the Ducks.
This leaves us with the second round matchup of TCU vs. Boise State, an ironic parallel to this year's Fiesta Bowl game. It's a sign of the cowardice of the BCS powers-that-be that this matchup exists in real life. What would happen if each TCU and Boise State had the opportunity to take on, and beat top-notch BCS teams? TCU could absolutely compete with Florida this year; Boise State's offense would have given Iowa fits. The BCS could not afford to risk having both TCU and Boise State undefeated (and rated 2 & 3 respectively in every poll that matters) following the bowl games. It will be bad enough for the BCS that one of these two will be undefeated. And what of the fact that we have essentially the 2008 Poinsettia Bowl being replayed? Really? This same matchup two years in a row? Who's kidding whom, BCS? For our purposes, I'm predicting that TCU's defense will have what it takes to slow down Boise's potent offense and pull off a second bowl win in two years against the Broncos.
Our third-round Final Four then features Alabama vs. TCU and Texas vs. Oregon. TCU is a strong, deserving team this year but it's hard to see them overpowering Alabama. The Tide's running game is too strong, and quarterback Greg McElroy has an uncanny ability to make plays when they need to be made. The Horned Frogs play to Alabama's level for the first three quarters, with Alabama outlasting them in the fourth for a victory by two scores. Texas beats the Ducks in a closer, uglier contest. Oregon is capable of the upset, but we'll pick the 'Horns on the strength of Colt McCoy who also makes the plays that need to be made.
And the National Champion is...
So maybe when it comes down to it, the BCS has the right two teams in this year's championship game. We'd just feel more comfortable if they actually played the (playoff) games to prove that.
Alabama 34, Texas 17.
For seeding purposes, we'll use again the actual BCS rankings achieved by the conference winners, and for those not making the BCS rankings, we'll tap the minds from the good folks at CollegeFootballNews and use their opinion of how each team ranks, from 1-120. Any independent that ranks in our top 6 will be invited, expanding the field to twelve or more teams as necessary.
| Seed | Champion | Conference | BCS/(CFN) ranking |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Alabama | SEC | 1 |
| 2. | Texas | Big XII | 2 |
| 3. | Cincinnati | Big East | 3 |
| 4. | TCU | Mountain West | 4 |
| 5. | Boise St. | WAC | 6 |
| 6. | Oregon | PAC 10 | 7 |
| 7. | Ohio St. | Big 10 | 8 |
| 8. | Georgia Tech | ACC | 9 |
| 9. | East Carolina | Conference USA | (45) |
| 10. | Central Michigan | MAC | (48) |
| 11. | Troy | Sun Belt | (78) |
The highest rated independent this year is 9-4 Navy, but as the Midshipmen are nowhere close to the top 6, we remain with the eleven-team bracket of conference champions:
It is clear that the Mountain West and WAC belong among BCS conferences in terms of competition. Using the BCS's own rankings, the Mountain West champion TCU and WAC champion Boise State each rate higher than half of the BCS conference champions.
And this isn't a one-time fluke. Last year, the Mountain West champion Utah rated higher in the BCS than the champions of the Big 10, Big East, and ACC, en route to crushing this year's #1 seed Alabama from the SEC 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl. For its part, Boise State as the WAC champion last year was also rated higher than either Cincinnati (Big East) or Virginia Tech (ACC). It's getting harder and harder to claim that the six-conference BCS cabal functions in a tier of quality above the Mountain West or WAC. They simply don't.
How about Conference USA, MAC, or Sun Belt conferences? Is this the year for a first-round upset from among the bottom three in our fictional tournament? Nope, and it's not even close. Realistically looking at the performance of East Carolina, Central Michigan, and Troy against BCS conference competition suggests that they are each undeniably below the first tier. Of the three, Central Michigan had the lone win against a BCS school, having beaten an average Michigan State team in a close one. So for our first round of the tournament, we'll easily call the favorites this year in Oregon, Ohio St., and Georgia Tech.
The second round gets much harder, and what a terrific slew of games it could have been! We'll take Alabama over Georgia Tech pretty easily, but Texas vs. Ohio St. and Cincinnati vs. Oregon are much tougher to call. Really, these are toss-ups. The Longhorns and Buckeyes went toe-to-toe in last years' Fiesta Bowl, with the game not resolved in Texas' favor until a Colt McCoy touchdown pass settled it with 16 seconds left in the fourth quarter. This year, we'd pick Texas to win another close one on the grounds that the Big 10 was a little weaker on the whole. And with Oregon seeming to peak at the end of the season, and Cincinnati's Kelly jumping ship to Notre Dame, we'll give the edge in their fictional game to the Ducks.
This leaves us with the second round matchup of TCU vs. Boise State, an ironic parallel to this year's Fiesta Bowl game. It's a sign of the cowardice of the BCS powers-that-be that this matchup exists in real life. What would happen if each TCU and Boise State had the opportunity to take on, and beat top-notch BCS teams? TCU could absolutely compete with Florida this year; Boise State's offense would have given Iowa fits. The BCS could not afford to risk having both TCU and Boise State undefeated (and rated 2 & 3 respectively in every poll that matters) following the bowl games. It will be bad enough for the BCS that one of these two will be undefeated. And what of the fact that we have essentially the 2008 Poinsettia Bowl being replayed? Really? This same matchup two years in a row? Who's kidding whom, BCS? For our purposes, I'm predicting that TCU's defense will have what it takes to slow down Boise's potent offense and pull off a second bowl win in two years against the Broncos.
Our third-round Final Four then features Alabama vs. TCU and Texas vs. Oregon. TCU is a strong, deserving team this year but it's hard to see them overpowering Alabama. The Tide's running game is too strong, and quarterback Greg McElroy has an uncanny ability to make plays when they need to be made. The Horned Frogs play to Alabama's level for the first three quarters, with Alabama outlasting them in the fourth for a victory by two scores. Texas beats the Ducks in a closer, uglier contest. Oregon is capable of the upset, but we'll pick the 'Horns on the strength of Colt McCoy who also makes the plays that need to be made.
And the National Champion is...
So maybe when it comes down to it, the BCS has the right two teams in this year's championship game. We'd just feel more comfortable if they actually played the (playoff) games to prove that.
Alabama 34, Texas 17.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Anti-trusting the BCS
Sally Jenkins, a columnist for the Washington Post, writes a great article taking the BCS to task as an antitrust enterprise. Read the full article - here's a couple of quoted highlights:
Ms. Jenkins makes the case that in any other industry, were major competing manufacturers to act in concert with distributors to fix revenues in their favor, they would be committing anti-trust violations and held accountable by the Department of Justice. Yet this is exactly the arrangement in place powered by the six "BCS" conferences (plus Notre Dame) - the manufacturers - and their bowl partners - the distributors.
Are we getting closer to a critical mass of public and political pressure to bust the BCS once and for all?
- Try finding a mathematician, a master of ciphers, vector bundles or covariant derivatives, who can explain why TCU and Boise State never had a chance of overtaking Texas in those enigmatic BCS computers despite going unbeaten against comparable schedules. That's because it's a scam. The non-BCS schools simply did not start the season with the same mathematical opportunity of winning a championship as Texas.
- Over the last five years, the six favored leagues split 88.8 percent of the BCS bowl revenue. The other five leagues got just 11.2 percent -- no matter how good their record or performance.
- The bottom line is that under the current crooked, dishonorable scheme, the six favored conferences are guaranteed anywhere from $7 million to $10 million more apiece in BCS money than the other five. Period. No matter what.
Ms. Jenkins makes the case that in any other industry, were major competing manufacturers to act in concert with distributors to fix revenues in their favor, they would be committing anti-trust violations and held accountable by the Department of Justice. Yet this is exactly the arrangement in place powered by the six "BCS" conferences (plus Notre Dame) - the manufacturers - and their bowl partners - the distributors.
Are we getting closer to a critical mass of public and political pressure to bust the BCS once and for all?
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
It's a Start
A bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) designed to prevent the BCS from promoting itself as producing a "national champion" in div. 1-A college football just passed a House of Representatives subcommittee on a voice vote. Only one member of the subcommittee, Rep. John Barrow (D-Georgia) voted against the bill.
Here's hoping it gains steam.
Here's hoping it gains steam.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Another One Bites the Dust
The Kansas City Star reports that "there was no overall support" for the Mountain West playoff proposal that would see eight teams eligible for championship play. This does not come as a surprise. But what caught my eye was this quote from outgoing BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Chairman David Frohnmayer:
How is it that all these other college football divisions respect academic calendars with their playoff systems, but Division 1-A somehow can't? The academic calendar is not the primary concern for college presidents in this fight. If it were, we wouldn't have playoffs in the other divisions. The primary concern for these college presidents is the money.
Frohnmeyer is disingenuous when claiming playoff proposals disrespect academics. But he's truthful when he says he's all about the business plan.
“In the last six years, I’ve read pundits, heard the pronouncements of broadcasters and collected several cubic feet of e-mail printouts from advocates of an NFL-style playoff system... Even those that go beyond sound bite certitude share two intertwined and fatal deficiencies: they disrespect our academic calendars and they utterly lack a business plan.”Frohnmayer's framing of playoff proposals as "NFL-style" is incredibly disingenuous, and a transparent attempt to support a false "disrespect our academic calendars" argument by associating a playoff with the professional league. We don't want an "NFL-style" playoff. We want an NCAA Division 1-AA playoff. We want an NCAA Division II playoff... Division III playoff...
How is it that all these other college football divisions respect academic calendars with their playoff systems, but Division 1-A somehow can't? The academic calendar is not the primary concern for college presidents in this fight. If it were, we wouldn't have playoffs in the other divisions. The primary concern for these college presidents is the money.
Frohnmeyer is disingenuous when claiming playoff proposals disrespect academics. But he's truthful when he says he's all about the business plan.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Tournament of Champions - 2008 Redux
Before the bowl games, we ran our fictional Tournament of Champions for 2008. The tournament bracket with each of the eleven conference champions looked as follows:
Now that the bowls have been played, it seems clear the #2 Florida vs. #3 USC matchup in the semi-final round would have been the decider. Previously, I had picked USC over Oklahoma in this tournament format, but following the bowls I'd probably have to give the USC/Florida coin flip back to Florida, with Florida taking the tournament. Pete Fiutak's piece on rating Florida #1 on CollegeFootballNews.com lays out a very good case why Florida should be considered an undisputed #1. Among the strong evidence: Florida played eleven - ELEVEN - bowl teams this year and beat two different teams rated #1 at the time. Fine - in the redux, we'll give it to Florida over Oklahoma and BCS supporters can feel good that the proper champion was crowned.
But...
Could Utah have beaten Oklahoma as Florida did? Maybe. Florida has a stronger defense than Utah and that made the difference in the BCS National Championship game. Would Utah have had the speed to match up against Oklahoma's spread attack? And had they played, who would have won between USC and Florida? Though again deferring to Florida given their actual bowl play, it seems that any of the top four seeds (Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Utah) could have had a legitimate chance to win a tournament like this. Unlike Fiutak, I'm not so sure that Utah couldn't have hung with Oklahoma, Florida, or USC and given a good match, if not outright winning.
It would have been nice to find out.
Now that the bowls have been played, it seems clear the #2 Florida vs. #3 USC matchup in the semi-final round would have been the decider. Previously, I had picked USC over Oklahoma in this tournament format, but following the bowls I'd probably have to give the USC/Florida coin flip back to Florida, with Florida taking the tournament. Pete Fiutak's piece on rating Florida #1 on CollegeFootballNews.com lays out a very good case why Florida should be considered an undisputed #1. Among the strong evidence: Florida played eleven - ELEVEN - bowl teams this year and beat two different teams rated #1 at the time. Fine - in the redux, we'll give it to Florida over Oklahoma and BCS supporters can feel good that the proper champion was crowned.
But...
Could Utah have beaten Oklahoma as Florida did? Maybe. Florida has a stronger defense than Utah and that made the difference in the BCS National Championship game. Would Utah have had the speed to match up against Oklahoma's spread attack? And had they played, who would have won between USC and Florida? Though again deferring to Florida given their actual bowl play, it seems that any of the top four seeds (Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Utah) could have had a legitimate chance to win a tournament like this. Unlike Fiutak, I'm not so sure that Utah couldn't have hung with Oklahoma, Florida, or USC and given a good match, if not outright winning.
It would have been nice to find out.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tournament of Champions - 2008 Edition
It's that time of year again... time when virtually every sportswriter covering college football puts out a fictional playoff, in and of itself strong evidence that the current BCS is a ridiculous farce. So in the spirit of December in College Football Without A Legitimate Post-Season Playoff Format, here is our Tournament of Champions for 2008.
In our fictional system, champions from all eleven conferences are invited to duke it out on the fictional field. We defer to the conferences themselves to select their representatives, so we don't care whether there is a conference championship game or not. We also don't care about three-way ties in the Big XII South; that's for the Big XII to sort out. We also don't care that the SEC has so many strong teams, or that the Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, and Big East are having relatively down years.
Second-placers from the conferences don't make it - you win and you're in - that's all there is to it. No polls, no computers, no lobbying, no mass-opinion-pushed-like-crazy-by-all-the-ESPN-on-air-talent... you win and you're in.
In lieu of a seeding committee, we'll consult a combination of polls for seeding assistance, and allow any independent that finishes #6 or higher in a relevant poll an invitation.
Conference Champions:
Independents: None qualify.
With the championship held in the Orange Bowl, the other top-tier bowls could look something like this:
Rose: Ohio St. vs. Oregon
Sugar: Alabama vs. Texas Tech
Fiesta: Texas vs. TCU
And the tournament bracket is as follows:
Notable in 2008:
And the National Champion is...
This is a difficult year to call, with a number of teams legitimately in the hunt. We'd give home teams Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, and Boise St. wins in the first round. And it's hard to see any upsets in round two, with Oklahoma, Florida, and USC advancing. While Utah/Penn St. would be a good matchup, we think the Mountain West, top-to-bottom, was a better conference this year than the Big 10, and give Utah the win to advance and face the Sooners. Oklahoma then takes that game, and we'll give a coin-flip to USC to outlast the Gators in the semi-finals, leaving...
Oklahoma vs. USC in the championship game. Oklahoma made headlines as the only team in NCAA history to score over 60 points a game against five opponents in a row. The only problem with a team with such a strong offense is when they hit against a team with a tremendous defense in a championship. It's often enough for the immovable Defense to slow down the irresistible Offense to take the match.
We'll use the 1983 Nebraska Cornhuskers, the dominant offensive powerhouse vs. Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl as the model. Through tremendous special teams' and defensive play, the Hurricanes made the Husker offensive machine play from behind the entire game, ultimately securing the win as Nebraska failed on a two-point conversion gamble late in the fourth quarter. We see our fictional championship playing out in a similar fashion. Yes, Offense wins games... but Defense wins championships.
USC 31, Oklahoma 30.
In our fictional system, champions from all eleven conferences are invited to duke it out on the fictional field. We defer to the conferences themselves to select their representatives, so we don't care whether there is a conference championship game or not. We also don't care about three-way ties in the Big XII South; that's for the Big XII to sort out. We also don't care that the SEC has so many strong teams, or that the Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, and Big East are having relatively down years.
Second-placers from the conferences don't make it - you win and you're in - that's all there is to it. No polls, no computers, no lobbying, no mass-opinion-pushed-like-crazy-by-all-the-ESPN-on-air-talent... you win and you're in.
In lieu of a seeding committee, we'll consult a combination of polls for seeding assistance, and allow any independent that finishes #6 or higher in a relevant poll an invitation.
Conference Champions:
| Seeding | Team | Conference |
| 1 | Oklahoma | Big XII |
| 2 | Florida | SEC |
| 3 | USC | PAC 10 |
| 4 | Utah | Mountain West |
| 5 | Penn St. | Big 10 |
| 6 | Boise St. | WAC |
| 7 | Cincinnati | Big East |
| 8 | Virginia Tech | ACC |
| 9 | East Carolina | Conference USA |
| 10 | Buffalo | MAC |
| 11 | Troy | Sun Belt |
Independents: None qualify.
With the championship held in the Orange Bowl, the other top-tier bowls could look something like this:
Rose: Ohio St. vs. Oregon
Sugar: Alabama vs. Texas Tech
Fiesta: Texas vs. TCU
And the tournament bracket is as follows:
Notable in 2008:
- Mid-Majors Utah (Mountain West) and Boise St. (WAC) seed better than the ACC champion (Virginia Tech). Why does the ACC get an automatic bid to the BCS?
- Cincinnati of the Big East seeds a respectable #7... but as this isn't in the top 6, one might ask why the Big East gets an automatic bid to the BCS as well?
- USC-Boise St. in the second round would be a surprisingly entertaining game.
And the National Champion is...
This is a difficult year to call, with a number of teams legitimately in the hunt. We'd give home teams Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, and Boise St. wins in the first round. And it's hard to see any upsets in round two, with Oklahoma, Florida, and USC advancing. While Utah/Penn St. would be a good matchup, we think the Mountain West, top-to-bottom, was a better conference this year than the Big 10, and give Utah the win to advance and face the Sooners. Oklahoma then takes that game, and we'll give a coin-flip to USC to outlast the Gators in the semi-finals, leaving...
Oklahoma vs. USC in the championship game. Oklahoma made headlines as the only team in NCAA history to score over 60 points a game against five opponents in a row. The only problem with a team with such a strong offense is when they hit against a team with a tremendous defense in a championship. It's often enough for the immovable Defense to slow down the irresistible Offense to take the match.
We'll use the 1983 Nebraska Cornhuskers, the dominant offensive powerhouse vs. Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl as the model. Through tremendous special teams' and defensive play, the Hurricanes made the Husker offensive machine play from behind the entire game, ultimately securing the win as Nebraska failed on a two-point conversion gamble late in the fourth quarter. We see our fictional championship playing out in a similar fashion. Yes, Offense wins games... but Defense wins championships.
USC 31, Oklahoma 30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)