Georgia Sports Blog FanShop


Nike Georgia Bulldogs College Wordmark T-Shirt - Red

Nike Georgia Bulldogs Logo Legend Dri-FIT Performance T-Shirt - Gray

Nike Georgia Bulldogs Ladies Football Gridiron T-Shirt - Red

Nike Georgia Bulldogs Football Team Issue T-Shirt - Red

Georgia Bulldogs Duck Call T-Shirt - Red

November 20, 2008

Presidential Involvement in College Football?

As most of you know, President-Elect Barack Obama has publicly said that he would like to see College Football move towards a playoff system. Set aside for a moment if you will whether a playoff is a good thing or a bad thing.

How is government involvement in a private enterprise at that level of detail a good thing? Shouldn't the free market decide what sort of product (or method for deciding victory) is "best."

College Football ratings have an aggressive upwards trajectory. TV rights are selling for an all-time high for the sport as evidence by the $2.25 billion deal TV between the SEC and ESPN. It's not a product that needs government intervention to be "fixed."


Be Careful What You Wish For
All of that said. A College Football Playoff is a "Be Careful What You Wish For" endeavor. If we could get a system whereby the "Best" 8 Teams would battle it out for post-season supremacy, I'd be opened minded about it. That will not happen. To think that's what you would get would be to ignore everything that's happened over the past 20 years politically within college football.

The "Best 8 Teams" model is not what the NCAA, BCS Conferences and Non-BCS Conferences would give us. Instead, we would get a system with rules very similar to this:
    1. An 8 Team Playoff whereby the 6 BCS Conference Champions are guaranteed an automatic birth. Any BCS conference commissioner agreeing to a system whereby his "champion" didn't get automatic access to the playoffs would be fired on the spot.

    2. An accessible entry point for the best non-BCS Conference Champ to enter the playoffs. They would open the door for them slightly wider (like Top 10 or Top 12 finish) in order to avoid pesky lawsuits from non-BCS Conferences. Also, the 53 teams not involved in a BCS Conference would never vote in favor of a playoff system that didn't give them an accessible entry point.

    3. Most years there would only be one at-large spot left. What criteria would be created to make sure that an independent like Notre Dame would be invited to fill that spot? A Top 8 Finish? A Top 10 Finish? There would most certainly be a loophole to grant them access, and no one is forcing ND into a conference against their will.
If you are an SEC or Big 12 fan, your conferences are most likely to produce a playoff champion. That's why all other conferences would aggressively work to limit your access to that one remaining at-large spot.

For instance, Big 10 Conference members -- who don't play an championship game -- would have a much easier path to the one at-large spot.

In the scenario above, it's very easy to see the #4, 5 and/or 6 teams in the nation being left out of an playoff in favor of lesser ACC, Big East, non-BCS conference members and/or Notre Dame. This year either the SEC runner-up or the Big 12 runner-up would be sitting at home in favor of a 4 or 5 loss Big East or ACC Champ.

How is that a better system? How does that bring on less controversy? Because that's the outcome you most certainly will get if we make a change for an 8 team bracket.

I keep hearing, "It's what everyone wants." I would argue that's only because "everyone" doesn't understand what it is that they are going to get if they make their request.

See Also:PWD


(NOTE: This is a FOOTBALL discussion. If you hate / love the president-elect or the sitting president, I respect your opinion. But I don't want to moderate a discussion on The Presidency. I'd rather...if at all possible...have the comments centered around the existing BCS debate. I know that's asking a lot. But please help me out. You're not going to convince anyone reading a football blog comments area that their views on the 43rd or 44th president of the US are "wrong.")

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post. Exactly what I've been saying for years, only written much more clearly. I'll have to bookmark this to send to anyone who tries to make the playoff argument in the future.

Andy said...

I agree - why in the world is this even a topic?

Dubbayoo said...

Anyone who believes a playoff system gives you a better result has clearly never looked closely at FCS and D-II playoff system.

What people fail to comprehend in all this is that in reality the D-II playoff system is no less controversial than the BCS is. Everybody crying about D-II playoffs has clearly never actually looked at them.

They divide schools into four regions - Northeast,Southeast,Northwest and Southwest. Each region is 3-5 different conferences combined into a top 8 regional ranking. The way they determine the rankings is somewhere between voodoo and comical; definitely no better than the BCS. It's crucial to be in the top 6 at year end. 24 teams make the playoffs. 8 teams get first round byes. I think last year West Texas A&M, 11-0 and ranked No. 4 nationally, did not get a bye...splain that.

The Gulf South Conference (GSC) is basically D-II's version of the SEC...the big kahuna. Three teams from the GSC are usually in the top 20. One year my old school (West Georgia) won the GSC title and didn't even make the playoffs.
Last year the 11th-ranked Carson-Newman Eagles, (10-1), and co-South Atlantic Conference Champions did not make the playoffs...splain that. 24 teams and #11 doesn't get in....smells like BCS to me.

Shaw and Albany State (Ga.) were handed bids on the strength of "Earned Access," a rule that provides a conference, if not represented in the top six of the regional rankings, a bid if it is represented in the top ten of the regional rankings....despite the fact that half the teams in the GSC would crush Albany State any given year. So if your conference sucks we'll give you a spot as long as you don't suck tooo bad.

I could go on and on but let's jump to D-I. Are you going to give the WAC champion an automatic spot even if they aren't in the top 20, while an SEC team ranked #8 stays home?

The playoffs themselves may be straightforward...but how you do determine 8 or 16 or even 24 playoff spots will still come down to voodoo....just like the BCS. (you're dreaming if you think there will ever be more than 16 teams in a playoff). Last time I checked people still cry over who gets invited to the NCAA basketball playoff and they take 64 teams, for crying out loud.

Anonymous said...

There's no perfect way.

But the existing way is the least perfect.

It's gotta be tweaked. Fortunately, I don't get paid to worry about it.

P.S. Your views on the 43rd or 44th president of the US are wrong.

Senator Blutarsky said...

Paul, this whole idea of an eight-team playoff is a non-starter, because they'd be reducing the current BCS pool of ten by two. There's no way any of the conferences, BCS or not, would agree to that.

If the powers-that-be go down this road, the smallest tourney they'll come up with would be twelve schools, with four of those receiving first round byes.

The good news is that would address most of the concerns you raise.

The bad news is that would certainly diminish the impact of the regular season. That's a trade-off I dread.

Anonymous said...

"The existing way is least perfect."

Sorry, but that can't be right. The prior way of having no plan to attempt to bring the top 2 teams together, however you might determine them, is definitely less perfect. Twelve years ago, the SEC and Big XII champions, would be playing in the Sugar Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl respectively. How in the world is that better than what we have now?

Anonymous said...

Why not +1? The only teams I think have a real complaint about the "system" are BCS Conference teams that go undefeated and don't get to play for a championship (Auburn 04). There will almost never be more than four teams at the end of a season that can have a real claim to being #1 and we already have the BCS Championship game at the same site as a BCS bowl so a lot of the logistics can be worked out with little tweaking.

Dante said...

PWD, breathe easy, budddy. Obama never said a thing about getting the government involved in the college football post-season. The worst he said was that he'd "throw [his] weight around a little bit." In the context, it appeared he wasn't talking government mandates as much as he was talking about using his media attention to advocate a playoff.

Personally, I don't care if we have a playoff or not. What I'd really like to see is 12 real games. For all the talk of every game in college football matters, there sure are a lot of lopsided contests. How about we start for a push for 12 real games. That'll take care of a lot of bowl talk. If every team went out there and scheduled non-conference peers on a regular basis, there would be a lot less post-season talk of which team is best because they would've all played each other already.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes the government does need to intervene as evidenced by our current economic problems. However, a college playoff system should be last on the list.

I doubt we will ever have a system that 100% of people would get behind. Yet when you see how UGA ended up last year it really sux. We should have at least played USC. The whole good ole boy network of the NCAA needs someone else to oversee their nefarious ways.

The fact college football is going to make $2.25 billion just for broadcast rights. This is ridiculous when you think about it. That money is being made off the backs of student athletes.

Proponents would argue that these kids are getting a free education but does that really balance out? Say what you like but it is a grave injustice that is done to these kids. I wish someone would do something about that.

Anonymous said...

I haven't made it past the slam on Obama. He was asked a question and gave his opinion. I don't think he ever said the government was to get involved in the process. What was the "level of detail" that he got to. Was it a detailed plan or just the thought of a playoff being better?

lar state said...

I personally love the current slew of 33 exhibition games played at the end of the year.

Just because Pop Warner, High School, other college divisions, and the NFL use playoffs to decide a champion doesn't mean major college football should.

Not to get all "spooky political" on you...but I believe he was asked an off-handed question about something that's wrong with sports. He didn't propose a government solution/intervention like your post suggests.

The ESPN college football podcast this week actually makes a great point that the current BCS has seen changes when non-BCS schools threatened law-suits. The non-BCS schools have won (Utah, Boise State) 2 out 3 of their BCS games. Wait until they start getting left out of title games. Wait until more years like last year mess. Wait until more threats of lawsuits.

Eventually, this "system" will go the way of the flat-earth theory and we'll all be able to watch meaningful college football games in December.

Eventually.

rbubp said...

It's a FOOTBALL discussion? Then what does the free market have to do with it, and why is that in your first line???

Sports, college or pro, have NEVER been about the free market, money boys!!!

mitch said...

Exactly, there will still be controversy even with an 8 team playoff. I like the bowls and i like the system the way it is. We have a better shot to win a NC with how the system is now than an 8 team playoff.

Frank said...

[snark]How in the world could anybody anywhere in any sport come to the conclusion that a playoff is the best way to determine a champion?

It makes no sense at all.[/snark]

Paul Westerdawg said...

Dante,

The need for 12 real games I agree with. If I could change anything, I'd raise the standards for what constitutes a Div I-A / FBS team.

Then I'd let attrition cut about 10-15 teams (like Utah State or Idaho) from FBS.


Then I'd ban playing Div I-AA teams more than once per 4 years for bowl eligibility purposes.

Those 2 things would "trickle up" to give us about 1-2 more quasi competitive match-ups per year per team.

Some of that would simply be a move from playing a Sun Belt also ran to a CUSA / MAC also ran. But the CUSA / MAC teams can only play so many games.

Teams like Texas Tech would have to sack up and play non-conference games if their pool of goober gobbler games dried up.

Brian Dale said...

Please, anyone that still thinks the regular season "is the playoff" is an idiot. Last time I checked, we had a 2-loss team play and win the National Championship last year and have a strong chance of having a won loss team (e.g. Florida) win it again this year.

The BCS is better than the system we had before, but its flaw are so glaring that something must be done.

A playoff system is adopted for every sport on every level imaginable, except for D1 football. A 8-10 team playoff, coupled with the continuation of the rest of the bowl system would make all of these college presidents more money. Countless studies have proven that.

The problem is that we are run by conservative presidents that want to keep things status quo, because they are all bringing in more money than they ever have before.

Anonymous said...

I have always just let sleeping dawgs lie when it comes to the playoff picture. But I guess I will take a stab at my views on it since they were requested.

How is that a better system? It is not a better system. It is a different system. One that employs no less voodoo than the BCS. It is better for the perennial powerhouses because the voodoo allows for ESPN to concoct reasons for allowing "this team" or "that team" into the playoff. It is different because it relinquishes the power of the NCAA and Universities to the Media. There has always been an uneasy relationship between the polls and universities but a playoff system would magnify that relationship if not give outright control to the media. Fortunately for the proponents of the playoff are usually the "gracious and unbiased" media that report on college football. (Notice the thick sarcasm in quotes).

How does that bring less controversy? Well it brings less controversy to the media since they would be the ones who sway public opinion upon the teams which get a place in the playoff. The media would have to do less analysis and more cheerleading for their favorites. So the controversy in the eyes of the media would lessened but that in no way would lessen the controversy for the college football fan.

I am usually not a conspiracy theorist but this concept of a playoff reeks of the media putting their greedy, grubby hands into a product they should simply lay off. Now this is not to say that the media should not have anything to say about the BCS or college football in general. But the media already bicks the two best teams in college football to go to the BCS championship game. Their power would grow immensely if they were allowed to determine who gets into a playoff regardless of its size or scope.

I hope this helps us look at a different picture of what is the playoff controversy.

Dante said...

"Please, anyone that still thinks the regular season "is the playoff" is an idiot. Last time I checked, we had a 2-loss team play and win the National Championship last year and have a strong chance of having a won loss team (e.g. Florida) win it again this year."

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, you do realize that last year's NCAA Baseball Champion lost 2 games in the playoffs, right? I agree that the college football regular season is no playoff but last year's LSU victory is not a very good example of why.

Evan said...

I agree that the President should stay out of sports. That said, the government is intimately, perhaps, inextricably intertwined with sports in many ways. Professional and amateur sports leagues are essentially the OPPOSITE of a free market.

A free market would require the best players to go to the highest bidder, NO MATTER WHAT. Instead, we allow leagues to restrict the manner in which business is conducted: drafts restrict a team's ability to sign players, caps restrict a team's ability to sign players, league conduct rules restrict a team's ability to sign a player. Rules (or old boys' networks) prevent certain owners from buying teams (Mark Cuban and many others). All of this is essentially a restriction of competition (amongst teams) that, without sanction from the US government, would be anticompetitive and would be a crime under traditional antitrust laws.

College sports are anticompetitive as well. College teams can't just play anyone they want to play, they are often contractually bound or prevented by rule from playing crappy teams or teams from other divisions/leagues. This restriction on a teams right to play other teams could be considered anticompetitive in the legal sense.

We often hear of Senators threatening to eliminate sports' immunity from prosecution for anticompetitive conduct. Recently, various leaders threatened MLB because of the steroids issue. The NFL has been told that there need to be more games broadcast and less restrictions on broadcasting rights.

The government is letting sports slide, so to speak, and if it perceives a particular league as abusing the immunity it's been granted, our Reps/Senators/Pres tend to threaten action. I think there is growing frustration among many with the current BCS system, and I think Senator Obama's opinion reflects this.

Robert said...

College football is about backdoor politics and under-the-table deals, not the "free market." Are you kidding?

But I really don't care how they do an 8 team playoff, whether it's top 8 or conference champs. This system is horrible and it HAS to go.

The college football postseason is the worst postseason in any sport, professional or amateur, and that's because we have 30 games that don't mean anything. And the one game that does mean something was set up based on opinion polls and computer programming.

DCDawg said...

Not that this matters, its all about money! Why do you think ND is getting discussed as a Cotton Bowl contender this year over the SEC. The teams that put fans in the stands will always be favored over all no matter how the championship is decided.

Daniel said...

Obama isn't going to intervene people. This topic was originally brought up when Monday Night Football did interviews of Obama and McCain. They asked Obama, as a sports fan, what change would you most likely to see in sports? He said a CFB playoff. On the 60 minutes interview they asked him the same question.

They were asking him what his OPINION was as a fan. Never did he say that he would legally intervene or anything. He said he'd "throw his weight around" on the issue, but it meant that he would make his personal opinion known.

It's become common to ask Presidential candidates pointless personal questions in an effort to know them on a personal level. Examples being when they asked Clinton about whether he ever tried pot, or when they asked the GOP candidates whether they believed in evolution. These questions have nothing to do with what they'll do in office, just who they are as people.

Anonymous said...

First of all this is PWD's blog. I did not take what he said about Obama as a slam. He is right. The federal government has so much more to worry about then the CFB playoffs. This should not even be an issue.

What a great country we live!

Rorschach said...

There is a simple answer to this whole discussion ... concentrate on a dispassionate power rating and get away from the "Homer" factor in voting ... we all have bias ... that's not bad .. its a fact ... the problem is that teams can sway votes and lobby ... bias and PR drive the vote then its a beauty contest ... nobody can tell me that a two loss Florida or Southern Cal is not a better "team" than an undefeated BYU ... The first poll for the BCS should come out after the 3rd game week and it should only be based on performance on the field and the quality of the opponent ... The National Champion wil have to prove "it" to get there and be tested by an opponent of the highest quality ... (my Dawgs against Hawaii??? ... only about money and a system that promoted it ... you have to earn the Bowl by your schedule and how you did ... who you play matters)

Hobnail_Boot said...

Am I the only one who didn't have a problem with the old pre-BCS system?

Who cares if there's a split national title? It just adds to the great debates of all time.

We'll never know if Nebraska or Michigan was better in 1997, etc. And that's awesome. I bet Auburn fans agree with me on this.

Frank said...

My guess is that PWD did not watch the interview but only read about it. Had he watched the interview he would have realized that it was only half hearted joshing around with the interviewer.

I am sure the last thing on Obama's mind is a college football playoff.

We should ask Bush what he wants and do the opposite.

A sure fire recipe for win.

kevin said...

http://blutarsky.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/talk-about-the-passion/

Muckbeast said...

First of all, this is college football. These are student athletes. Calling this "private enterprise" is pushing it when most of the entities involved are public universities.

Second of all, the government gets involved in private enterprise all the time. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. But there has never been a standing order that they stay out of private enterprise.

Third of all, the stranglehold a couple of power hungry twits have on the system is the only reason it will require something insane like Presidential involvement to fix this.

Fourth of all, how are the other conferences going to "do what they can" to make sure a Big12/SEC team doesn't get a 2nd team into the 8. That's asinine. They won't be able to do that any more than they are able to stop 2 teams getting in under the current system.

Fifth of all, a champion determined through actual games being played is better than a champion decided by pollsters and computers.

rbubp said...

Muckbeast,
Yes. Sixth of all, thank you for pointing out how utterly stupid this post is.

Anonymous said...

its not perfect but it solves two problems I dont like about the current system. #1 - . It puts the importance on winning your conference. That makes the conference championships all the more important. It takes out the whole -oooh they had a loss so they are out of the natl championship picture. Why is it we penalize college kids for one bad game but the pros can have 6 or 7 cause they have playoffs?

#2 - this eliminates a bad ACC or Big 10, Big East matchup for the national championship game. Mainly it means that a team with a weak schedule cant win all their games and sneak their way into the NC game. I know the ACC has a conf championship game but this year a so so team could have gone undefeated in the ACC and looking at a trip to Miami. I shudder every time I thought of South Fl or Louisville making it into the NC game over a much more deserving SEC team.

Anonymous said...

So, if there were a playoff and it came time to choose which of the two loss teams was getting an invitation to the dance and which ones weren't, I'm assuming all of you would be saying, "finally a fair system!"

One thing that really annoys me about the NFL -- how can a 11-6 (or whatever it was) team be champions over an 18-1 team.

The last thing I want to see in college football are two or three loss teams from a BCS conference (even if it was Georgia) leaving a BCS conf. team with one loss (in the playoffs) on the bench.

Anonymous said...

that is--the last thing I want to see in CFB are two or three loss teams from a BCS conference playing in the title game, leaving a BCS conf. team with one loss (in the playoffs) on the bench.

Mark said...

I'd rather have the BCS bowls actually have 1 vs. 2, 3v4, 5v6, etc. Having to play Hawaii last year, while guarateeing us a win in the sugar bowl, did not do anything for the fans of CF. IF (and I mean if) there were 2 undefeated teams remaining, have them play for all the marbles, a la a + 1 system when needed. Nothing is perfect. I don't know the stats, but how many times has a non-conf champ won the final four?

If the above scenario doesn't work, the 12 team playoff seems to be the best option. 6 conf champs and the other 6 highest BCS teams in order of finish after the last weekend. If Boise or whomever makes it, fine, but you have to finish as one of the 6 highest BCS teams not already in based on conf championship.

rbubp said...

How can an 11-6 team be champions over an 18-1 team??? Because they beat them head-to-head in the championship game!

It ain't baseball.

Kris said...

I say we keep the BCS.
I mean think about it this way:
1.) we wanted replay on calls
2.) we then go replay
3.) now when the replay doesnt go "our" way we bitch & complain about it.

See all im saying by this is that once we finally get rid of the BCS, we will bitch and gripe about it no longer existing.


-KRIS

Anonymous said...

Its a better system because it guarantees every conference champ from the SEC gets a shot, which would have been great for UGA 2002 and AU 2004.

nemov said...

The argument that "even if there's a playoff people will complain" is a non starter. People complain all the time about everything, so what?

Having an 8 team playoff full of conference champions is a good idea. If a conference is really tough and a team has three loses and survives. Why shouldn't they have a shot at a National Championship? The current system rewards good teams from bad conferences. Every conference champion should get a shot.

A playoff based on conference champions wouldn't devalue the regular season, it would enhance it.

Anonymous said...

Teddy Roosevelt very famously lent his weight towards promoting discussions to improve the rules and protection of players in football. There is precedent for the POTUS to foster and encourage discussion which is what I'm reading in the Pres-To-Be's comments.

I'm pretty sure it won't be something addressed in the first hundred days by legislation.

Football Dude said...

Okay, I'm not sure I'd really want a playoff, but here is how an 8 team playoff could occur:

1. Divide all FBS teams into 8 conferences.
2. Each conference has a championship game.
3. 8 conference champions play in playoff seeded by rank in polls (1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, etc.)

This would give weight to the polls, and presumably give stronger conference teams higher seeds. The higher seeds would have the first games at their home stadiums. The second round games would be at bowls and the championship game would be at a bowl.

Problems -

1. This would eliminate 2 of the 5 BCS Bowl games.
2. Getting fans to travel to 2 games may be difficult. But since the second game would be the Championship, I think it could work.

Anonymous said...

I had a discussion with a fellow dawg last night and we pretty much came to the conclusion that the first thing that needs to be parsed out is whether or not one wants a true champion or an overall champion. The distinction between true and overall is the means by which one gets to a playoff.

If it is a playoff where conference champs get invited then one can get a true champion. The benefit is that the teams in each conference controls its own destiny. You win the games that get to you to a championship. On the flip side it would require every conference to have a championship game. It would also require that independents get in a conference. The weighting system would have to make every single conference champ have the same value. This would produce a true champ based upon empirical football evidence.

The overall champion would enter a playoff based upon record. The benefit is that a restructuring of the conferences and independents would not happen. Another benefit is that one would not have to be required to give up the ranking system of the polls or the BCS. A downside of this is that there would be more controversy. We would have they same type of pandemonium we have every year. People complaining about who got in or why they got in.

The last benefit I find for the overall champion is the ability for one-loss or two-loss forgiveness. In a true championship playoff the one-loss or two-loss team would most likely be left out, outside of LSU last year. And you would not have the problem of a 1995 Northwestern who goes to the Rose Bowl winning the Big Ten(11) without playing Ohio State or Michigan.

So the playoff is more than rankings or media biased. To have any playoff there would have to be a major overhaul of the polls, BCS, conferences, and university scheduling to accomplish any of the playoff possibilities.

This is one man's opinion so take it for what it is worth.

Anonymous said...

+1 is the best for everyone

money-this will bring in MORE money because more ppl will watch cuz the games will be a whole lot more important

national champion- it will give us a definite national champion which is really the point of a playoff right?

bowls- keep em. have the playoff games at the 4 bcs bowls then pick the 2 best teams AFTER those.
keep the rest of the bowls when they are now. if the games are matched right, this will eliminate any question about a legit national champion.

reg season- the importance of the reg season will stay exactly the same. if there is only one round in the playoff, teams will continue to give full effort every game.

did i mention all these idiots who only care about money will make MORE???

Phat Wallet said...

+1 would be horrible... Just think how much controversy would come from trying to choose the top two after the 5 bcs bowls (there are 5 anon at 10:32).... imagine trying to pick the top two after last year.

Phat Wallet said...

complicating the problem is just how dominant most victorious s look against their opponents in their respective bowls.... UGA over Hawaii, USC over Ill, LSU over OSU... who do you pick?

Anonymous said...

Let's say, for the sake of argument, this year's BCS bowl projections under a plus one format:

Rose: USC/Oregon State vs. Penn State
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Utah
Sugar: Alabama/Florida vs. 1 loss Texas
Organge: ACC vs. Big East (irrelevant for converstaion)

Now, if the one loss Big 12 champion wins Fiesta Bowl, one loss Pac 10 or Big 10 wins Rose Bowl, and a one loss SEC school wins Sugar Bowl, and then you redo the rankings at then end to have a plus-one, you could still have three or four one loss teams who have a legit claim to national title. One team will be left out, and you are stuck right back where we are now. Someone will still end up being pissed.

Anonymous said...

i think that most plus-1 proposals involve ranking 1-4 BEFORE the bowl games, and having a two game playoff. 1 would play 4, 2 would play 3 and then the winners meet in the "championship" game.

While this would still create problems with who deserves to be #3 or #4 in the final BCS standings, it would not involve a re-ranking after the bowl games.

skidawg1985 said...

Colleges are somewhat restricted in who they can play, but guess what those colleges CHOSE to enter into a conference or the NCAA. Notre Dame can play anyone it wants. Maybe we should just do away with conferences and let everyone be an independent?

Someone wants to make 8 new conferences.I guess this person does not care about the tradition of conferences (although lately that tradition has been eroded). How do you decide what teams go where? Conferences right now are generally geographic in nature.

As for all these meaningless bowl games, they are not meaningless to the fans. Think about all the recent Sugar Bowl games UGA has played in. Were they meaningless to UGA fans (or the fans of opponents)? I would say not.

You know what would be meaningless would be this week's Tech-UGA game. It is not going to make any difference in the BCS game. It will be the equivalent of Cincinnati and Cleveland playing. Some fans might be excited, but the game will not really matter in the standings.

I will watch some of just about every bowl game. Part of the reason is I run a football pool so I need to be up on the games. I would say, bring on more bowls, lift the restriction on wins. If the Congressional Bowl wants to invite Utah State because its fans will travel and it thinks TV ratings would be good, then let it. (Just to be fair, I have changed my mind on this matter. I used to think there were too many bowls, but now I say let the market decide).

Josh M. said...

The argument against playoffs is "every game means something!" No, look at this weekend. One game means something. One.

Everybody else is either playing DII (Florida), playing for an exhibition game (every bowl game other than the BCS Championship Game), or already out of the postseason.

One game matters this weekend.

However, if we had an 8-team playoff, at least five games would have it all on the line.

The bowl system is a sham. Do you really get upset when your team loses? If so, why?

Football Dude said...

Skidawg,

Let me clarify my post. I'm not saying there should be 8 new conferences. I'm saying that for an 8 team playoff to work, there would need to be only 8 conferences in the FBS subdivision. There are 6 conferences currently in the BCS system. Of the smaller FBS conferences all but 2 would be eliminated (or, if you'd prefer, only 2 would be invited into the "new" system).

Again, I'm still not sure I would even support a playoff. But having 8 conference champions in an 8 team playoff would eliminate a lot of the controversy.

And, for the record, I do believe that the BCS has paired better teams in the "Championship" game than the previous system ever would have.

PTC DAWG said...

6 BCS Conference Champs, + next two best at large teams as determined by today's BCS Poll..

GET IT ON....

Brian Dale said...

"Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, you do realize that last year's NCAA Baseball Champion lost 2 games in the playoffs, right? I agree that the college football regular season is no playoff but last year's LSU victory is not a very good example of why."

Are you trying to compare baseball playoffs (that have best of series) to a single elimination game setup? Playoffs can done in different ways.

Anonymous said...

A playoff system would ABSOLUTELY be better than the crap-fest we have now and here's why:

1. The champion will be decided on the field.... NOT in media-hyped AP polls, allegiance-tied coaches' polls (i.e. all the SEC coaches voting the SEC champion #1 on their ballots) or some unknown formula spit out by a computer program that even Bill Gates couldn't understand.

2. Instead of arguing who's the #1 or #2 teams in the nation (like we do now for the BCS Championship Game).... we'd be arguing who's #7 or #8 in a playoff system. It's highly unlikely that the #7 or #8 team (Utah, Boise St, etc) would make much noise in the playoffs, but we'd FOR SURE have the consensus #1-4 teams in the playoffs and they'd be able to battle it out.
For example: last year, we would've argued whether Missouri or Hawaii or Illinois deserved to be in the playoff system, but USC, Ohio St, LSU, Oklahoma, Va Tech, West Virginia and probably UGA would have been in. So maybe Mizzou gets in and pulls an upset, but there's no denying that the top 4-5 teams were in the playoffs and had an equal chance at the 'Ship. BUT instead with the jacked up system we have, UGA crushed Hawaii, USC slaughtered Illinois and LSU beat a piss-poor OSU team. A playoff system would have solved those lop-sided games.

3. THE CHAMPION WOULD BE DECIDED ON THE FIELD!

Honestly, that's the only reason that really matters. Let the players/coaches decide the Champion, not some messed up formula.

Anonymous said...

Hey guys, I cant wait for the game on Saturday. Boy I bet Georgia Tech sure is scared out of their little yellow jackets...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha get it? Oh well, hey after the game, if somebody wants to meet me outside of Sanford stadium to stick a finger up my ass, I sure would appreciate it. I mean, since all of us Georgia fans are such flaming homosexuals. You know? You know? Ok, guys I cant wait, see you on Saturday!

pkwaldrop said...

Add two conferences to the BCS conference list. Make the winner of those 8 conferences automatic bids and seed them 1-8 based on polls. Take the remaining top 8 and seed them 1-8. play 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc.

BIG ALBANY DAWG said...

WE DO NOT NEED A PLAYOFF. That's right. A perfect example of this is Texas and Oklahoma. After last night's game, we think Oklahoma is dominant, even though they once lost to Texas. Ok, now fast forward to the "playoff" Championship game, we would still have a debate as to the better team. Then pundits would be calling for "double elimination" rounds. You just can't satisfy everyone, so leave it as is....

hot-dawg said...

If we have a playoff system then Georgia will never have a chance!
Boo-hoo.

Anonymous said...

Big Albany,

I don't understand what you are saying. If A and B meet in the championship game and A beats B, how is there a controversy over who is the better team?

Anonymous said...

HOW ABOUT A NEW POST?

Anonymous said...

What has happened to this blog? I use to love and rely on this blog, but now it is just about the last place I go to get my UGA sports news and information. I know life gets busy, but the both the quantity and quality of posts on this blog have greatly diminished over the course of this football season. I can certainly understand the quanity of posts hitting highs and lows as dicated by real life, but the erosion of the quality of the posts has become most disappointing over the course of this football season.

Jman781 said...

While I definitely enjoy the blog, it is just that, a blog. Unfortunately, the real world can get in the way of making posts on a regular basis. The bloggers I assume have jobs and lives outside of the blogging universe. They provide this free blog for us to enjoy. If what is desired is a minute by minute update on Dawg news, maybe a pay site like UGA Rivals is the place to go.

Keep up the good work fellas. I eagerly await your next post.

Jman781

Anonymous said...

Hey Jman I believe if you read my post you would have noticed how I acknowledged that I completely understand how real life can get in the way of a blog. I was not blaming anyone. I understand a blog is just a blog and in no way would I advocate a blog dominating a person's life. Also, I have paid subscriptions to every major college sports site. I was simply expressing my disappointment that a blog that I used to immensely enjoy seems to be deteriorating in terms of both the quantity and quality of posts. While the creators of this blog certainly have the right to control the frequency of their posts, I, as an avid reader of this blog, have a right to express my disappointment in the erosion of what I feel was once a premier college sports blog. Again, I am not trying to call anyone out. I am just expressing an opinion

 
Copyright 2009 Georgia Sports Blog. Powered by Blogger Blogger Templates create by Deluxe Templates. WP by Masterplan