Don't Get Too Excited About This CFB "Playoff" Just Yet

Sort of

The topic many college football writers and bloggers will be talking about this week is the now-approved, so-called four team college football playoff to replace the 1-vs-2 BCS situation currently in place.

Let me start by saying the BCS system, while much-maligned, basically did what it was outlined to do back when it was brought to college football in the late 1990s. The goal was to make sure that 1 played 2 in a big-time bowl game. That was it. It wasn't intended to solve all problems with the college football championship boondoggle. Sometimes it didn't quite please everyone, and there were several years where it could have been a complete mess had a couple of teams not obligingly rolled over late in the season. But for the most part, it pitted 1 versus 2, which is neat on that given night.... but which doesn't really feel like any other playoff in any sport.

You might insert the obivous joke here -- "Why is a Purdue site owner writing about college football playoffs? Pssshaw! Purdue won't be in there!" But maybe that makes me that much more qualified, since I'm unbiased and, usually, unaffected.

ESPN is happy in their coverage of this new "playoff" because they're supposed to be. Remember, ESPN isn't independent any more than the GM of the NY Yankees is independent. ESPN has a vested interest in people being excited by this playoff, so they've got writers talking about it being "celebrated" and giving "kudos." I'd say not so fast, because this isn't really what anyone has been pining for. Is it better? Sure, I suppose it's a step forward, but it's really only a playoff in the most basic sense and it's not even going to be based on obvious, on-the-field stuff. The four participants are going to be chosen....by a committee.

The thinking here isn't hard to see -- let's call it a committee and everyone will accept it since the NCAA basketball tournament is so popular. But that's got 68 teams, and every year people criticize the committee for something. Now their margin for error is far slimmer. Make a mistake here, and people are just as pissed off as when an undefeated Boise plays an undefeated TCU so that at least one of them will have to go away. Or when an undefeated Auburn team in 2004 doesn't get a shot at the title.

I also don't think people are thinking about the in-the-moment differences. As the season winds down right now, we know who is in contention for the top 2 spots and who isn't. Then there are usually a few long shots who could sneak in if the chips fall right. With the new system, even if a team is unbeaten and is #4 in whatever ranking system we're using at that point, they won't know for sure that they're in.... they'll have to then sit around like fringe teams do on selection Sunday in March. While that's fine for fringe teams that barely deserve consideration, it's not fine for an undefeated college football team in November.

And what rankings will we be referring to? I'm all for not having rankings until mid-October. Let the teams play and do the first voting/calculating on October 15. No more preseason nonsense that gives some teams a downhill grade to start with and others an insurmountable uphill climb. Play 'em out, and then when you have a real idea of who's who, then rank them.

I'm also fine with using some iteration of the BCS rankings...combine computer polls, human polls, etc., an algorithm to include a factor for just dag-nab, awersome the SEC is, ya'll, and then spit 'em out. But to have everyone play to the finish line and then have a committee decide? A committee that will most certainly have sketchy ties to those who run the BCS bowls? It all but guarantees corruption and more lying to college football fans. Just like the previous asinine lies about how a playoff would "ruin" the "tradition" of the Mineke Car Care Bowl or the majesty of the Pinstripe Bowl when two 6-6 teams duke it out. Or that a playoff brings unnecessary expense to fans or interferes with all those exams that these very serious students are taking....between Christmas and New Year's Day, one presumes.

Anyway, the point is, we've been fed blatant lie after blatant lie and I just want to put it out there that I only think it's going to get worse. When an 11-1 LSU team is 5th in the nation and Utah is 12-0 and 4th and the committee decides that LSU should go, we're going to be right back where we were.

And no, I'm not one of those people who says "Well, just like the tournament, wherever you cut it off, the next team will whine." Yes, I know that, but I don't care about that issue. If you don't make it, tough. If the rules/qualifications are clear from the beginning, then you can't bitch when you fall just short. However, the rules on how to qualify for this new, wonderful, unicorn-filled, utopian playoff system are very much not clear. It's the same crap -- everyone play hard and maybe you'll get rewarded.

Only now, instead of knowing that you absolutely must finish #1 or #2, you don't know what you have to do. Win a conference title but finish #5? Go undefeated but be in a certain conference? Pay off the committee? Who knows?

The ESPN article lists the following as things the committee will consider:

The committee will consider win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and whether a team is a conference champion.

Wow. So W-L record is easy. Strength of schedule is hard. Are we talking a computerized, defined, hard-to-argue strength of schedule? Or those Doug Gottleib-type graphics where someone like him (think Mark May) decides what's a good win and a bad loss?

Head-to-head results? Uh, what? Like if the #5 team has beaten the #4 team, the #5 team gets selected? That's weird and if that's indeed what that means, it doesn't sound like it's too likely to happen often. Or do they mean the committee will look at opponents that teams being considered have in common? Who knows?

And, of course, there is the perceived importance of winning your conference title. I suspect this is here just to keep conference commissioners happy as well as those who think it's stupid for Alabama to be in the position to win a national title when they didn't even win their division within the SEC, much less the conference. (Yes, I know they were great -- but they lost on the field to a team that shouldn't have had to play them again.)

So there you have it! It's all so simple! A committee will make a decision.... and so all those sycophants currently chirping -- "Finally, it will be decided on the field!" -- are actually wrong. It'll be decided on the field after who gets to go onto the field are hand-picked.

Yeah, sounds like heaven.

Yet Another Playoff/BCS Post

One of b-dowd's comments in his excellent earlier post about the bowl situation struck me and I wanted to comment on it. He said that this is one of the least-anticipated bowl seasons he can remember, and then he speculated on whether or not that was just something he was feeling. And I think the answer is that it's not and that is what makes this as good of a year as ever for a playoff.

In some years, there are three teams with a legit claim to the national title game (think the 13-0 2004 Auburn team that got shut out). In those years, a "plus 1" feels like a great solution. Let the best sort it out at the top, and let all the mediocre teams have their little, meaningless bowls. But then there are years like this one, when there's an argument among flawed teams for even the number 2 slot in the country.

One of my dingbat SEC friends said, matter-of-factly, that "LSU and Alabama are the two best teams in the country." Of course, we also hear all the time about how the reason college football doesn't need a playoff is because "the whole season is a playoff" and blah blah blah. I guess that only applies for everybody outside of the SEC. What a complete sham. Alabama had their chance, just like Houston "had their chance" and Boise "had their chance." They've all lost once. Oh, but since Alabama lost to LSU, they.....get another chance? Gee, I wonder if Boise would love another shot at TCU, who they lost two by one point, or if Houston would love another crack at Southern Miss. But I digress.

In college basketball, some years there are a handful of absolutely dominant teams and then the "rest," right? In those years, you wind up seeing everyone pick the same Final Four, or something very close. Lots of 1 and 2 seeds making it. But then there are those years -- like 2011 -- when there is maybe one or two dominant teams (or no dominant teams) and nobody has any idea who will win the championship. And aren't those the most exciting tournaments to watch? This year could be that in college football.

Sure, we know that LSU is #1 and they absolutely deserve it. For all the bashing we do on the SEC mouth-breathers, let's make no mistake here: LSU has earned every bit of the respect they have. But after that? There can definitely be arguments made, as I quickly did above, that a number of teams should get a look. There is no 100%, clear cut, #2 or #3 team. Everybody could make a claim and so just imagine an 8-team playoff or even a 16-team playoff. Here's what the top 8 in the BCS would include:

LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon, Arkansas, Boise State, Kansas State.

And if we added the next 8, too?

South Carolina, Wisconsin, Va Tech, Baylor, Michigan, Oklahoma, Clemson, Georgia.

Look at that mix. You've got teams that get a "shot" that didn't have a chance previously. You've got the chance to see what Boise State could do against these big shots (if their previous BCS appearances haven't been enough). You've got teams in (like Michigan) who are hitting their stride and have been better and better as the season has worn on. And you've got the requisite number of SEC teams in there, with their chance to prove how dominant they all are, ya'll.

I'm not going to go into all the reasons (money) and points (money) about why the bowl system (money) still exists, but it's got a lot to do with money. And only for the bowl operators themselves. Even Oregon and Auburn lost money (well into the six figures) in the national title game last year. How ridiculous is that?

My point here is that this bowl season is completely boring, and that's because there aren't engaging storylines. We aren't even getting to see a great national title matchup -- we're seeing a rematch of a game that anyone with two eyes and a rudimentary knowledge of football knows sucked. And then we have the rest, none of which matters at all.

Whee! Exciting!

The BCS People Will Beat The Drum Until You Give Up

Bill Footpenis I'm sorry, Hancock, is the executive director of the BCS right now, a revolving door role that different BCS stooges take on for a couple years at a time. Basically, it's their agreement -- each of us takes the bullets and pretends we're right and everybody else is stupid for a couple years, then you hand the target and manual for being an ignorant imbecile over to someone else.

Oh, and all the while you collect bags of cash.

He posted a story this afternoon on something called "The American Chronicle," I guess the subtext here being that if you don't like what he has to say about our awesome bowl system, then you're un-American or something.

Well, guess what? It's the same old tired arguments. Same nonsense, different day. And eventually he'll win. People like me will get tired of it and wander off to do something else. But you know what we won't be doing? Watching his sport. At a time when they could own sports for a month. But whatever. For now, I'm still punchy, and so we're going to stampede Bill Footpenis' (I'm sorry -- Hancock's) article. Ready? Me, too.

Like millions of other fans, I love college football.

I don't think you really do. This is like saying starting off an argument against capital punishment by saying, "I love putting people to death." You know what else "millions of other fans" love? A resolution. A champion. Fairness. An attempt at fairness.

Its passion, traditions and pageantry are truly cherished.

By whom? Who "cherishes" such a whimpering end to a sports season? And what tradition is left at this point? The Rose Bowl, where the Pac Ten and Big Ten play... okay. And what else? Nothing. This argument is weak.

Fans will be watching intently on Jan. 7, when the top two teams meet in a bowl game.

Maybe. But there are 32 other bowl games that the only people watching will be the fans of those schools, bored people and gamblers. Meanwhile, I bet you everyone who loves football will watch as many NFL playoff games as they possibly can, regardless of whether their team is playing. You know what else dominates TV ratings? Regular season NFL games. And they have a playoff that, I guess, "dilutes" the regular season. Yeah, makes it downright awful. Nobody watches the NFL. Stupid playoffs.

Such showdowns [1 versus 2] took place only eight times in 56 seasons previously, while they have occurred nine times in the last 12 years

This is called "misdirection," kids. Bill is making an argument against something nobody is arguing about. Nobody is claiming the BCS doesn't pretty much get #1 versus #2 (although only getting it right 75% of the time is hardly an argument for it being awesome). People are saying that, like, if you're Florida and you've been #1 all season and you lose one game, you probably are still pretty good and should play in a game that means something after a 12-1 season.

It will be another exciting finish to the most important regular season in sports.

No, it won't.

Now, to Bill's four repeated bullet points.

First, playoffs diminish the regular season.

How so, Bill? I mean, really, because college basketball has a gazillion-dollar-generating tournament with probably more teams than it needs and I don't recall anyone ever saying the basketball regular season is diminished. In fact, I'd say it diminishes everything that if you lose a flukey game your season is over. Or, you know, if you're Cincinnati and you go undefeated but, well, what didn't they do right again, Bill? Bill? Hello?

The interest of fans, sponsors and others is redirected into the playoff. Now, from August to December, fans nationwide shift their attention from game to game and conference to conference weekly, as teams move up and down the ladder toward the title game. Why would we want to dilute that?

Wh...what? I don't even understand that paragraph. I guess it's hard to argue when you are confused by nonsensical sentences. So, if we had a playoff, nobody would care about college football until the playoff rolled around? Seriously? Is that f-cking SERIOUSLY what he's saying here? The only league where I think that might be a legit argument is the NBA. But the NBA sucks for lots of other reasons, too, so who cares?

Second, playoffs burden the fans. It's unrealistic to ask thousands of college students and fans to travel to faraway places week after week, to follow their teams through a playoff.

Asinine. Simply asinine. You know what else "burdens" fans? Being a fan of Cinci or Boise or TCU and knowing no matter what your beloved school does, it won't matter, because some of you (or all of you) will get screwed out of playing for the title. You know what else is a "burden"? The asinine prices and exclusivity of BCS bowl games. Try getting a ticket, Average Fan. Go for it. Let me know how far that gets you. What if teams hosted playoff games for one or two rounds and then played the bowls? Huh, interesting. Or how about this? You guys already champion conference title games played in neutral site cities. How come it's okay to ask Florida fans to travel to Atlanta for the SEC title game and then to another city for a bowl game, but it's not okay to ask them to go to maybe one more game -- if Florida advanced that far? Because that's what we're talking about. Most people want a simple, small playoff. Top 8 teams, max.

Third, a playoff would fuel even more controversy, as more teams with similar records are left out.

You're an idiot, Footpenis. Controversy will always exist, yes. But it's easy to say "too bad" to the teams left on the outside of larger groupings than, say, TWO teams, because once you get past the top 5, it's hard to have an argument that you deserve to be the best.

Think it's tough picking the top two?

No. Nobody does. You yourself bragged that the BCS has gotten it right a whole 9 out of 12 times.

Try selecting eight or sixteen.

Okay. Top 8 in the BCS. That took me .33 seconds.

Or take the 11 conferences and say they all get in plus five "at-large" teams. Presto, 16 teams.

This would guarantee additional pressure to expand brackets to uncontrollable levels.

No, it wouldn't. This is just silly.

Historical note: The NCAA men's basketball tournament began with just eight teams.

Indeed. And the forward pass used to be illegal, too. What's your point?

Fourth, the vast majority of college athletes will succeed in life because of their classroom -- not football -- performance. These are college students, not NFL pros.

Yes, I forgot. You're concerned about academics. That's laughable. Again, as I said, conference title games in faraway cities in December are fine, but then suddenly when it comes to a playoff we all care about academics. Because lots of schools have classes and finals between Christmas and the first week of January. Putz.

Bill Footpenis then leaves us with this wonderful gem:

In conclusion, with all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than dictating how college football is played.

Wait, who said anything about Congress? It's almost like when the Law & Order cops are interrogating someone about a murder and they start off with, "Hey, do you know this girl?" And the perp says, "I'm telling you, I didn't kill anyone!" "Who said anything about killing anyone?" replies the streetwise cop.

You're right, Bill. Congress shouldn't have to get involved. But jerkwads like you continue to make a mockery of a sport many of us love, so maybe there's no choice. There are very real and possible and reasonable solutions. Solutions that would still allow gobs of money to be made. Solutions that would not "ruin" or "dilute" the regular season. Solutions that would not be set in stone. You've tweaked your precious BCS before -- why couldn't we tweak the playoff if there was a problem?

And please stop with the "nobody can come up with a perfect system" argument. The New England Patriots missed the NFL playoffs last year with an 11-5 record. Think they felt it was "fair"? Of course not. Everyone agrees -- there is no perfect solution. But there are better solutions than this joke we have now.

An Obligatory Look at Our Awesome Bowl System

I'll tell you, this sure is better than a playoff! Who wants to see exciting games, anyway?

No, let's have a joke of a "selection show" and then we can sit around for a month and then let teams play for mythical titles and have 32 of 33 bowls (97%) mean positively zero.

Awesome.

Let's start with the BCS bowl games, though, followed by some miscellaneous thoughts.

BCS National Championship Game -- Texas versus Alabama, 1/7/10

First, why must this be dragged out to January 7 now? You're more than a month past the final games of these two teams and that's only true because they played conference championship games (which, curiously, are okay and don't impact studying, fans traveling, etc., while a playoff would hinder these things).

Anyway, Texas looked pedestrian on Saturday and Alabama looked dominant. Truth is, Nebraska's defense is very good and Florida was only as good as they were because Tebow was willing them to wins. They were exposed for what they are -- a top five team, but not the best team in the country. This game will be closer than people think right now as long as Colt McCoy and Mack Brown don't forget what a clock looks like. I sincerely hope Texas pounds Alabama so that SEC sycophants shut their pie-holes for a while. The SEC is like any other conference this year -- deal with it.

Orange Bowl -- Iowa versus Georgia Tech, 1/5/10

Yawn. Seriously, who cares besides Iowa and G-Tech supporters? And this is a marquee bowl game, we're told. BCS and all. Yes, it's very nice for these programs to make a BCS bowl and it reaps millions for their programs and conferences. But for those who like meaningful football? Georgia Tech was a great story until they fell on their faces against a mediocre Georgia team. Sure, they won the ACC title game against unranked Clemson, but isn't that like winning your rec league softball tournament? It's fun and your family cheers for you, but does it matter? No.

And Iowa was another great story until the roof collapsed on them, they lost two of three end the season and Stanzi ran the ole "Roll out unprotected in the end zone and then fold your knee sideways" play.

Fiesta Bowl -- TCU versus Boise State, 1/4/10

You suck, BCS. Seriously, you're a bunch of ladies bicycle seats. You've probably heard this argument already, but my first thought was what a bunch of bullsh-t. This is a clever strategy by the BCS to further marginalize these programs. This way, neither of them can beat a big boy and make the BCS looks stupid. Last year, Utah beat Alabama. In 2007, Boise beat Oklahoma. So here's a solution -- have them play each other and you accomplish a couple things:

1) You'll have one less undefeated team making a claim they should have had a shot.
2) You can trivialize the winner's record by still pointing out they haven't played a big timer.
3) You can pretend this is "what everyone wants" by having two undefeated teams play each other.

Of course, one might argue that having TWO BCS bowl games pitting undefeated teams kind of further underscores the point that this could be a perfect playoff scenario. But they'll keep their fingers in their ears and keep squawking that there's "no perfect solution" and since there is no perfect solution, we shouldn't even try to do what practically everybody who has ever loved college football wants. Awesome.

Sugar Bowl -- Florida versus Cincinnati, 1/1/10

Will Florida care? I think yes, since Tebow is probably pissed and wants to run someone over by sixty. Unfortunately, Chattanooga isn't available. Cinci got jobbed, of course, since you can't even claim they're from a non-BCS power conference. And if anyone thinks Brian Kelly shouldn't be considering going to Notre Dame, keep in mind his team has gone 12-0 playing in a BCS conference, they played out of conference teams in the Pac Ten (at Oregon State) and Big Ten (home vs. Illinois) and pounded many quality opponents (i.e., 47-15 over an 8-4 Rutgers team)... and yet still don't get to play for the title. Can you blame coaches for wanting to go where they might be able to get into the biggest games? Games that, you know, matter for more than a payday for your school?

Rose Bowl -- Ohio State versus Oregon, 1/1/10

Two 10-2 teams in one of the few bowl games left with any semblance of the "tradition" we hear so much about. For those bitching about OSU representing the Big Ten poorly in BCS games, well, you can't blame Purdue this year, as our boys gave OSU their only Big Ten loss. Somebody needs to step up and knock these guys off their Big Ten champs pedestal or else we should all shut up.

Which Oregon shows up? This school hasn't won the Rose Bowl since, if you can believe this, 1917. They'll have to be up for this game, especially considering this is probably the only BCS bowl game for which it is not a letdown for the two participants. Think about that, BCS defenders. Aside from the National Championship game, who else got what they wanted out of this vaunted bowl system?

Miscellaneous Bowl Thoughts

Bobby Bowden and his 6-6 Florida State team gets to go to the flipping Gator Bowl -- a Jan 1 bowl game in Florida -- against West Virginia. I have no problem with WVU being there, but Florida State jumped a number of more deserving teams....obviously. And this is just a frreaking shravesty. Because the old man is being forced out, now we're going to pretend we're sad to see him go? And we're going to just make up the rules as we go? I guess we can, since it's a meaningless bowl system. Go for it! Too bad Joe Tiller didn't have more national attention -- maybe he could have asked for a bowl game in his final season despite not deserving it. What a joke. Have fun being rolled by WVU, Bobby. If you even know what's going on anymore.

Minnesota and Iowa State will play in the Insight Bowl on New Year's Eve in the only bowl matchup featuring not one winning team. How awful. I know there are lots of bowl slots, but come on. This shouldn't happen.

Notre Dame decides not to play in a bowl game. The initial reaction here is that they're too snooty and are above Little Ceasars Bowls and the like. While their alums and "fans" no doubt do indeed believe this, I don't think this is the primary reason for not going. It's likely got a lot more to do with what all bowl games have to do with -- money. As in, UND doesn't make enough to make going to one of these tiny bowls worth it. Of course, it would be a windfall for these tiny bowls because people would actually watch, in the hopes that UND could lose to a MAC team. Oh well. Jimmy Heisman has declared for the draft, anyway. I wonder what that magician (with his sparkling 16-21 record at UND) will do in the NFL. Did he declare for the draft from the NFL Hall of Fame?

BCS-Defending Web Site Makes Being Wrong An Art Form

This site is simply wonderful. It's called "Playoff Problem" and it's been launched by the BCS to defend how truly awesome the BCS is. The main crux of the argument, as always, is that 1) there's no way to have a fair, reasonable playoff and that 2) the regular season would be far less meaningful.

They pretty much debunk #2 on the main page:

Just try to create an eight-team playoff based on latest rankings (November 23rd). Should a one-loss Georgia Tech (10-1, #7) get in but not a one-loss Pittsburgh (9-1 #9)? Should a two-loss Oregon (9-2, #8) get in but not one-loss Pittsburgh or any of the SEVEN teams with two losses: Ohio State (10-2, #10), Iowa (10-2, #11), Oklahoma State (9-2, #12), Penn State (10-2, #13), BYU (9-2, #19), Utah, (9-2, #19), or Houston (9-2, #23)? If you think the BCS is controversial, try sorting that out.

Wait, so, with all those teams mentioned fighting for one of the eight coveted mythical playoff spots, you're saying the regular season games wouldn't be just as important? I have that right, do I?

A playoff would guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans.

I see. So instead of even trying to do what nearly everyone wants, we just shouldn't even bother.

You know what else a playoff would give us? The chance that one of maybe ten or so teams at the end of November would be in contention to win a national title. Instead of, you know, two teams (SEC champ and Texas).

I'm not going to rehash every argument because we've done it before and it's just not worth the typing. But I do love that their whole site seems to easily argued against:

In every sport, brackets began with a few teams. Then schools felt slighted, and so the brackets grew to accommodate more teams. And grew and grew and grew. It is known as "bracket creep." The NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship started with eight teams. It’s now 65, and some college officials want to expand beyond that. The NCAA’s Football Championship Subdivision began with a four-team playoff years ago, and now it’s been expanded to 20 teams. Think about what bracket creep would do to college football: it would greatly diminish the importance of the regular season, and would forever change the bowl system.

Yes, god forbid we wind up with an exciting championship like the NCAA men's basketball tournament! That totally would suck!

Also, schools might feel "slighted" if left out of the bracket. True. So let's slight all but two every year -- and all mid-majors all the time -- instead of risking a "slight" to the #9 team in the country. Better to offend those who have a legit argument at #1. Awesome.

And "forever change the bowl system"? You mean, from "meaningless" to "having some bowls mean a whole hell of a lot"? Um, okay. I guess that would be a....bad...change?

They also launched a Twitter feed, if you're into that sort of thing. If you're among the Twitter-inclined, I'd recommend reading their feed from time to time and simply making the easy responses taking down their flimsy arguments.

The BCS is about money, plain and simple, and keeping it among the power conferences. Always has been, always will be. It's never been about determining a champion.

How many losses is okay for the BCS?

It's just too bad. And not fair. This was the year that the echoes would win it all, right? They still can right? Won't the media make it happen? I mean, come on. Michigan is obviously the Michigan of old. They'd have to be. They beat Notre Dame after all. You have to be a freaking* good team to beat them after all.

Also (not to kick the guy whiles he's down, but...) how many hot dogs does that guy eat every day? Seriously. I'm not in stellar shape either, but at least I'm taller than I am wide.

* applies to any team that is not Hawaii or has a winning record.

BCS Continues Wearing Opponents Down

In a fairly quiet story on Weds night, the Mountain West Conference signed an agreement that they would behave and go along with the BCS for at least the next four years.

This is significant because if we're ever going to get a better system -- one that isn't a national punchline by the end of an otherwise terrific sport's season -- conferences need to fight the good fight. Even if they're the Mountain West. Fighting for an equitable system by teams and universities is what is needed. Not the rambling and ranting by fans and media types. That does no good. Actual schools need to stand up to this nonsense. And the Moutain West kind of was, but eventually wore down. I at least enjoyed the quote:

"... The Mountain West believes it has no choice at this time but to sign the agreements. If a conference wishes to compete at the highest levels of college football, and the only postseason system in place for that is the BCS, no one conference can afford to drop out and penalize its football programs and student-athletes."

In other words, "we think this royally sucks, but we don't see a victory in sight and we'd rather not punish our student-athletes."

None of the "big time" conferences were interested in fighting it because, hey, they were all somewhat fairly represented. You win a major BCS conference and you're likely in a BCS bowl game and if you're lucky and the stars align just right (and Penn State loses to Iowa), you've got a shot at a national title. That sort of thing.

Oh, and you schools stand to make gobs and gobs of money. Because, as usual, that's what it's all about. Which is what continues to be infuriating about the BCS -- a logical, sound, reasonable, manageable playoff of some kind (really, almost any kind of playoff) would rake in just as large gobs of money, if not more.

But this is college athletics, where common sense never wins out and the silly notion of old traditions do.... at least when they're convenient traditions.

Wouldn't It Be Neat If These Bowl Games Meant Something?

I know it's a tired discussion, but as I watched OSU figure out yet another way to make the Big Ten look weak to the naysayers, I couldn't help but think it was a great game and that I wished it actually meant something (plus, it gives us a chance to run one of our favorite photos yet again).

But, really, OSU-UT meant nothing last night. Had Texas blown them out then maybe they could make an argument for the AP title. But, again, what's that worth? A bunch of writers saying you're the best? Whoop-dee-doo.

And as much as Thursday night's BCS title game between Oklahoma and Florida has the potential to be fantastic, will the winner of that game be the unquestionably best team in college football? Not even close. Couldn't USC give any of these teams a great game? What about Utah? Haven't they at least earned a chance to show they're for real?

At its simplist, wouldn't it be neat if last night's winner (Texas) were to play USC and Utah got to play the winner of Thursday's game and then those winners played? Wouldn't that kind of sort it out without all that much trouble? We've talked about it before, but a very simple, small playoff of sorts would sort it all out very nicely. Would someone like Texas Tech still be pissed? Sure, maybe. But that's better than it being the current mess where nobody's really happy.

And maybe the place to start is to stop arguing about whether the bowl system or a playoff system is better. Can't we just say: "Girls, you're both pretty. Let's do some kind of combo."

Again, keep all your meaningless Mineke Car Care Bowls for the 6-5 Notre Dames of the world. Have fun, guys. You're "champions," in your own special way. But let the big boys actually sort this out, using the existing BCS bowls as the playoffs. It's not all that hard and it wouldn't diminish the regular season at all.

But let's even, for sake of argument, say it slightly diminishes the regular season -- isn't that worth it for the amazing matchups and pretty much undisputed champion you'd wind up with?

I think so.

-------------------------------------

And to plug in our formula from last year, using the (really simple, even-a-caveman-can-do-it) Boiled Sports Championship Series model, you'd have the following six teams included (based on BCS rank):

1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Alabama
5. USC
6. Utah

See, your Cinderella has a shot, because Utah is in there. And we all know they beat Alabama, though in our system they wouldn't play first. OK and Fla get byes and Texas plays Utah while Bama and USC battle.

I'll assume USC beats Bama and we'll pretend Utah upsets Texas. Then the Utes get Oklahoma and the Trojans get Florida. Who wouldn't love a USC-Florida matchup? Then the winners of those two games meet for the national title.

Wouldn't there be a hell of a lot less arguing?

Penn State Has Fallen And They Can't Get Up

Thanks Penn State, for doing the Big Ten proud, you clowns. You have the road paved for you to either make the BCS national title game OR at least make a case for (again) why this system sucks. Instead, you laid a smelly egg in Iowa and lost the game to a team that really shouldn't have been on the same field with you.

I often say I hate being forced to defend teams that I don't like. But I live in Big 12/SEC country now and so that happens a lot. I am a Big Ten loyalist -- not that I root for Big Ten teams, necessarily, but I don't like it when the idiotic statement is accepted as fact that the Big Ten is lousy. It's not that bad.

There was a guy in my office two weeks ago who claimed that he thought Penn State was "maybe #25 in the nation." Now no matter whether you think the Big Ten is down or not, that's just silly and I told him so. When teams from the MAC, the WAC, the ACC and the Big East are in the Top 25, you simply cannot make that claim. Penn State is a good football team. But again, I hate to defend them because, well, I can't stand them or their senile coach (hint -- when you're too old and decrepit to even stand on the sidelines, it's over).

And then PSU goes and loses by a point to Iowa. And while I do think Iowa isn't nearly as good as PSU, they're having a quietly decent season. Which brings me to another point.

How come when a mediocre SEC team (like, oh, say, Ole Miss) squeaks one out against Florida, people say that just shows how tough the SEC is, but when the exact same kind of thing happens with Iowa and Penn State, it "proves" that PSU isn't for real? I don't follow.

While I do agree Florida is the best team in the SEC (Alabama will find this out in the conference title game), they lose to a team they never should have lost to. Why doesn't this disqualify them in voters and media memebers minds? Ah, because they've all collectively decided that the SEC is "so good" that it's "hard" to go undefeated. Yeah, it's hard to go unbeaten in any conference, stooges. Including the Big Ten.

The other frustrating media thing is when they all sing the praises of a darling like Ball State or Boise State and how they can go undefeated and "not get their shot." Yes, see, that's because they play cream puffs and come from truly second-tier conferences. Yet it's fun to act like they deserve a shot and a one-loss (or, let's face it, even if they'd been unbeaten) PSU team doesn't because the Big Ten is "down."

Whatever, I'm salty.

In Other Moron Media News

Todd Blackledge of ESPN fame was on ESPN radio this morning talking college football and he shocked listeners by saying he has no problem with no playoff and doesn't even think we need the title game that we have... basically saying he liked the old bowl system where if two unbeaten teams played in different conference-affiliated bowls and both won, that the voters got to decide... and that if they split the national title, then it's "okay to have several winners."

What is this, peewee football? Unbelieveable, that a clown like Blackledge could think that. I'm so tired of this arcane argument that the lack of a playoff system makes college football so much more interesting. It's a tired and ignorant argument. Yes, it creates discussion and arguments on The Sports Reporters. But so what? Don't you think it'd be more interesting to actually see the top 6 or 8 teams (or, hell, the top 4 teams) duke it out for a title? I just fail to see how one meaningful bowl game (and 30 meaningless ones) at the very end is better than some incredibly meaningful playoff bowl games followed by a true national champ. You can still have your useless Pointsettia Bowls and Music City Bowls and Sun Bowls. Nobody cares about those besides the schools playing in them (and Vegas) and that would continue. They're meaningless now and they would continue to be just as pefectly "traditional" and meaningless as the deceitful powers-that-be want you to think they care about them being.

College football is so much fun and so exciting and yes, there's a desperation involved because of the system. But the little bit you'd lose would be far outweighed by actually deciding a champion on the field.

I'm sure this won't be the last time I ramble about this before January.

Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese Thinks You're Stupid

Since one of our frequent visitors, Matt, provided a link to an SI article purportedly as evidence as to why a playoff system wouldn't work in college football, I took the time to read it. Hey, our readers take the time to read our drivel so why not see what they want us to see?

Well, I'm glad I read it. Because you want to talk about drivel... What we have here is some angry old men who like lining their pockets with BCS money. (Oh, the current deal with Fox is four years and $320 million dollars. That's $80 million a year Fox has paid to broadcast the BCS bowl games. Don't tell me it's not about money, because that's the only f-cking thing it's about. Not tradition, not academics... money. Understand that.)

But let's look at some specific things in the article...

Any discussion about the future of college football's postseason must start with the requisite disclaimer that "the one thing [all] of us are in agreement on is there isn't going to be a playoff," said Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese.

Yes. "All of us." All of us being, you know, the five conferences that control the BCS and have guaranteed slots. "All of us" does not include:

50 or 60 other D-1 programs, plus a few hundred million college football fans, alumni and students, who all pour money into the beast that is college football.

Such sentiments routinely frustrate the large segment of the public that clamors for a playoff and can't comprehend why Division I-A football remains the nation's only major sport -- and only NCAA football division -- which refuses to implement a full-scale tournament to determine its champion.

Hmm, yes. It is hard to comprehend... unless you simply stop trying to find the logic-based reasons and come to grips with the fact that it's about money and nothing else. But what say you, Big East Commish Mike Tranghese?

"Whenever my [league's] presidents have asked me about the positives and negatives of a playoff, I tell them the two positives are [more] money and people will stop yelling and screaming," said Tranghese. "And the negative is that the value and meaning of the regular season will be diminished. Playoff proponents who say that's not true -- that's just pure stupidity."

Take note, aspiring debaters: whenever you don't like well-reasoned and fair questions/arguments from other people (including people who pay your salary), just tell them they're stupid. Also permissible names: ninny, poo-poo head, fart nose and booger-eater.

Tranghese points to Pittsburgh's upset of West Virginia the final night of the regular season, a riveting game that severely impacted the national-championship picture. "If there had been a playoff, who would have watched that game?" he said. "It would have no meaning. West Virginia would already be in the playoff.

Except that under the "system" that most people would settle for, it wouldn't be like a 64-team field, Mikey. It would be like a 4 or 6 team field and so the desperation to stay in the top 4 or 6 would still be there. And the #2 team losing to an awful Pitt team would STILL be devastating to their chances (for example, under the system we proposed here, WVU would have been out of the playoff -- not hard to comprehend). And also... even if it were true that it would diminish the regular season (which is simply would not)... and I'll say this really slow for those who have trouble sounding out words... the current system diminishes the postseason! Doesn't anybody get that? Sure, the regular season is awesome and builds and builds and builds to this magnificent crescendo.... and then peters out with meaningless bowl games and significant doubt about who is the best and who might beat who. Wow, how magical. How "traditional." But at least everyone gets to their finals on time.

But Tranghese isn't done.

"The BCS has created what I call cross-watching," said Tranghese. "An LSU fan had interest in that game, an Ohio State fan had interest in that game. Most of that would go away if we had a football playoff -- that is one thing I'm certain of."

Oh, so the goal of the BCS is not to pit the best teams versus one another to decide a clear-cut national champ? Glad you admitted that out in the open. What you're saying is that the goal of the BCS is to make Ohio State fans care about the West Virginia-Pitt game. I see. Well, then congratulations, sir, mission accomplished.

Guess what, though.... people who love college football would still have been watching. People don't turn off the TV and stop watching because a team is in a playoff. Do you think people stop watching the Red Sox once they clinch a playoff spot? Do Dallas Maverick fans say to their wives, "Naw, let's go shoe shopping tonight, hon, the Mavs already locked up the two-seed in the West. I don't need to watch."

And you know what else? The BCS may have created "cross-watching" but a real playoff system would create even more "real-watching"!

Mike Silve, SEC and BCS prez chimes in:

"Whether you like the BCS or don't like the BCS, no matter how cynical you may be, you have to agree it has contributed to the popularity of college football, particularly in the regular season," said Slive. "Years ago, when Hawaii played Boise State, it was of interest solely to those communities. It's now of interest to everyone."

What? You mean, because Hawaii and Boise State both had an outside shot at a BCS slot? Or because they were both good? And what did Boise State's BCS bowl game victory give them last year? They were perfect, 13-0. They got nothing. And even if Hawaii had beaten Georgia this year, what would have have meant? Nothing. LSU would still be your national champ. Yeah, the BCS is awesome.

The other common argument against a playoff -- the one regarding academics -- tends to draw more rolled eyes from the public. University presidents have repeatedly stressed their opposition to any postseason arrangement that would interfere with first-semester finals (usually held in mid-December) or would carry the season into a second semester (usually starting in mid-January).

Yes, consider my eyes rolled so hard that my eyeballs scratched on my eyebrows. This is quite possibly the stupidest and most insulting argument made against a playoff. And Tranghese is back:

"Don't insult my intelligence," said Tranghese. "Don't compare I-AA football to I-A football. Appalachian State-Delaware, that's a great game, but they are not operating in the limelight that I-A is. For anyone to think there could be a I-A playoff during exams -- the press demands, the television demands, they're just huge. People criticize us for low graduation rates -- then those same people want us to play playoffs during exams."

I'm not sure it's possible to insult your intelligence, Mike. So the reason D-1A cannot play playoff games and D-1AA can is because of... the limelight? Really? That's pretty thin.

And again, and I don't know how else to say this, nobody is suggesting we play playoff games during exams. I'd really like to know how many schools hold their first semester final exams between Christmas Day and the second week of January. Truly, please email me at BoiledSports@gmail.com and let me know if your school held exams at this time. I will then send you a personalized letter expressing my regret that you no doubt had to study on Christmas morning while your sibling opened presents and played with Tonka trucks from Santa. This is effing asinine!

And let me ask something else. Is this the only time these "students" are missing exams? What about the heart of the college football season, in mid-October, when midterms are usually held? What about that? Don't they sometimes miss those? Don't they work around them? Don't they have a cheerleader do their homework in between fluffing sessions?

Football players can play and practice from August through early December as well as all through the Spring.... but heavens no! Not during December!!

The article goes on to talk about the lilkihood of a "plus-one" system, which is almost stupider than having no playoff.... which means it's likely going to be the "solution." How would one more game have helped this year, though? Who would you put LSU up against? Georgia? USC? WVU? How would you determine it? What would it settle? And what about those years when there is a clear-cut, undefeated, above-the-rest team? They'd play another game against a random one-or-two-loss team? This will not solve anything.

HOWEVER, the one way a "plus-one" would work -- at least better than the current setup -- is the one proposed later in the article:

A seeded plus-one is exactly like it sounds -- the top four teams at the end of the regular season would meet each other (No. 1 playing No. 4, No. 2 playing No. 3) in two of the BCS bowls. (Because the BCS wants to remain at 10 berths, a fifth non-title game -- either a newly created one or an existing one like the Capital One or Cotton -- would likely need to be added.) The winners would advance to the championship game, which, conveniently, is already being played about a week after New Year's.

I still think this doesn't properly reward the #1 and #2 teams the way my proposed system would (thus lending credence to the argument about devaluing the regular season) but it's a hell of a lot better than the current debacle.

And on the subject of the "tradition" of the Big Ten-Pac Ten Rose Bowl:

That said, a seeded plus-one is sure to be met with considerable resistance from the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl. The Pasadena game -- which has a relationship with the two conferences dating back to 1946 -- has lost at least one league's champion to another site six of the past seven seasons. There was no Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup in four of the five seasons from 2001-05.

Hey, I'm all for tradition and I love the Big Ten and being affiliated with it. But why do we match up against the Pac Ten? This isn't 1953. It's not relevant anymore. And since the system has already been bastardized and the true B10-P10 matchup rarely happens anymore anyway, why not just move towards something that makes more sense and helps college football anyway?

Can you fathom the excitement of a playoff system -- or "plus-1" mini-tourney -- on this country? After an awesome regular season, seeing the four best team (or six or eight or whatever) battle it out over a couple of weeks... it's hard to imagine how massive that would be. It would rival the NFL playoffs. And that league seems to be having some amount of success, despite having a playoff system, wouldn't you agree?

Of course, then there are arguments about fan support and people showing up to games.

The Rose Bowl's Dorger, on the other hand -- whose game allocates nearly twice as many tickets to the participating schools (62,000) as the other BCS games (35,000) -- is more worried about potential ramifications.

"If [the Rose Bowl] is a semifinal game, I don't know how much [fan] support there would be," said Dorger. "If I'm hosting the championship game, and I don't know who the teams are until a week ahead of time, that's a terribly difficult task."

Yes, just like the Super Bowl. We don't know who is going to be in that until two weeks beforehand and it's always just a complete disaster, isn't it? Nobody goes, it's hard to get people to use tickets... they're probably just giving them away outside the building. Good point, Rose Bowl. Good point, indeed. Oh, also? You're booger-heads.

Now That's A Sports Weekend

It was such a tasty sports weekend, wasn't it Erin Andrews?

I don't even know where to begin with this smattering. (But it won't be with Purdue.)

The ALCS is looking to be a good series. The Indians put up 7 runs in the 11th inning to win Game 2 and that has to have Boston fans thinking now. Schilling was terrible, the Indians got very little from Fausto Carmona and still won. Uh-oh, Boston. Maybe this is punishment for disrespecting the Anthem.

The Rockies have are now 20-1 in their last 21 games and they're up 3-0 on the D-Backs. That's kind of ridiculous and awesome at the same time.

Brett Favre became the all-time leader in career interceptions just two weeks after becoming the all-time leader in TD passes. That's kind of amusing. I don't think they stopped the game to present him with a statue of him chasing a DB returning a pick, though. (But it would have been funny if they had.) ESPN is still finding new ways to slobber Brett's knob -- right now they have a "list of Favre's best games played right after his birthday." Seriously? Give it a rest.

The Patiots absolutely pasted the Cowboys (in Dallas, no less) yesterday. I don't think I've ever been happier about a Boston sports team winning. The Cowgirls are not nearly as good as their 5-0 record suggested and the Patriots completely de-pantsed them and exposed it for all to see. Tom Brady is having a superhuman season right now, and the Patriots haven't scored less than 34 points in any game this season.

George Steinbrenner is apparently "ceding" control of his Yankees to his sons. Okay, then. Does anyone still think George is running the show? He doesn't appear in public anymore, he's never at Yankee Stadium... it's kind of silly at this point.

Vinny Testaverde is still alive. Who knew? The Jets probably should have re-signed him.

The BCS Standings are out (and, really, doesn't it make sense for all polls to start around this time?) and Ohio State, amazingly, is #1 despite being in what they were even admitting was a rebuilding year. Get ready for more insufferable tOSU fans and shirts that say, "We don't rebuild -- we reload!" But it's pretty damn amazing to look at the BCS as well as the other, more traditional polls. South Florida is #2 in the country?? They've only existed as a D1 program for like a decade.

Once again, our friends over at Hawaii almost blew their chance at a perfect season, narrowly beating San Jose State in OT. And yet they find themselves at 18 in the BCS and 16 in the AP. Completely ridiculous and unjustified. I know this is the voters humoring Hawaii/WAC supporters because it is indeed hard to say a D1 program that is 7-0 shouldn't be ranked. But they're really not even as good as their ranking suggests. Just wait and see if they get into a major bowl against a big-time program. It might get embarrassing for them. Like, I'm talking 6 or 8 picks for pass-happy, overrated sexual assaulter -- err, I mean, quarterback -- Colt Brennan. Hell, he threw four picks against San Jose State! He threw for a ridonkulous 545 but also tossed the ball 75 times. Hawaii rushed for... 56 yards. Total. That's kind of... imbalanced.

Amazingly, I'm going to talk about the WAC twice in this post -- I actually watched the OTs last night in the Boise State-Nevada game. (Why college football is being played on Sundays now, I do not understand.) BSU won the game, 69-67 because Nevada failed to get the two-point conversion in the fourth OT session. I'll admit, I wanted to see them hit 70 points. But still, can you imagine your school putting up 67 points... and losing? One thing I also have to say about this game is that the combo of WAC offenses, weak defenses and tired players led to the offenses in the OTs being completely unstoppable. Just look at the OT scoring summaries... the first few were one or two play "drives" of 25 yards and, boom, there was your TD. What irritated me, though, was Bill Curry, who was supposed to be providing color analysis for the game, just wanted the game to be called a tie and wouldn't let it go. At about the third overtime, he began pointing out that these "kids" were "tired" and that "somebody could get hurt." Jeez, Bill, are you a cub scout den mother or something? It's (supposedly) big time college football. Don't give me this "the kids are tired" bullsh-t. They want to win as much as anyone. And ties were eliminated a while ago, Bill. Deal with it, or shuffle off to retirement. At one point, a Nevada defender twisted a finger or wrist or something on an awkward tackle and Curry acted like this proved his point. Like guys couldn't get hurt earlier in the game. Just intolerable to listen to. Shut up and call the game.

Hey, is anybody else tired of seeing Dane Cook pretend to be such a huge baseball fan and continually enunciating to us that "There's only one October"? Well, Saturday Night Live finally decided to have some fun with it and what bothers me about this sketch is that practically nobody laughs... maybe they don't get it because they haven't seen the commericals, or maybe they all just really love Dane Cook. Still, pretty funny and it's about time.

Last week, during the first couple games of the MLB postseason, you may have seen a few ads for Frank TV. Or like a few thousand. After about the 500th cutaway to a Frank TV ad, one of our readers and friend (when he doesn't do his disappearing act) sent me a text message that simply said, "Frank TV looks good." Sometimes it's the simple humor that makes me laugh most.

I'm sure there was more -- I know there was -- but that's all the time we have now, folks.