The Big Lead ran the false RR story as well. Maybe they should run something proclaiming that story to be bullshit, but they probably won't.
Unverified Voracity, With Tweaks
Site notes. Items of interest:
- The "MGoBoard" tab has been updated to have a consistent interface: comment counts appear on all tabs now and, more importantly, each tab has a pager in it so you can scan MGoBoard painlessly from the front page.
- Hopefully in the near future the tabs will load only when you try to display them, which should speed the page up a little bit.
- I looked into Drupal's mobile support. It's not good. The relevant modules are out of date. I'm still going to try to get something up, but it will take some more time.
- I have returned the leaderboard ad to its place, as it appears the evil reckless driving woman and her page takeovers are permanently banished.
More changes are in the works.
Chip. Oh, Ann Arbor News. It's been a while:
In the 1970s, Col. Steve Austin became a household name as the lead character in the dramatic television series "The Six Million Dollar Man."
Last year, the University of Michigan had its own $6 million man: Football coach Rich Rodriguez.
Setting aside the middle-school quality of that lead there, that's 1) completely disingenuous and 2) not news. The majority of that six million didn't go to Rodriguez but was a one-time payment to West Virginia for all that buyout noise. Michigan forked over 4.1 million total (2.5 million plus taxes) to West Virginia. This was known in August. Also known in August: the terms of Rodriguez's contract.
It's hard to escape the idea this is a hit piece, then, especially when the opportunity is taken to contact two academic sorts to bitch about the (completely fake) number. Can't say it better than some snark-merchant in the comments:
Posted by cruland on 01/22/09 at 9:40AM
Anyone with a calculator could have figured that out, and you needed the Freedom of Information Act as leverage to make you look like a clever, investigative reporter. Sweet.
A waste of time and trust on the paper's part. BONUS: Fanhouse bitchin', too, as it was either I or someone less inclined to call BS to write it.
Changeover. Tim Jamison's going to get drafted sometime in April, and Tom Kowalski has an interesting article on his current status:
While many experts applaud Jamison's physical skills, he gets marked down because his fundamentals aren't as strong and as consistent as other players.
Much of the reason for that, though, is the difference in coaching philosophy that happened between Jamison's junior and senior seasons. There was a radical change in how the coaches taught the importance of footwork.
"We had a new coaching staff for my senior year. The old staff taught us to shoot out our hips first and use our hands and our step was second. Our new coaching staff taught us to step first,'' Jamison said.
Jamison's being told by everyone that pad level is the thing it is all about; this naturally freaks out Lions fans with bad memories of Marinelli. Items:
- Another symptom of the coaching changeover and reason for optimism moving down the line: less confusion as to how you've been taught.
- Except we just hired a new defensive coordinator.
- If pad level's really what it's all about I can't wait to see Craig Roh's weird crab-stance hit campus.
Greg Gregory, who already suffered from the mediocrity seemingly inherent in the double named, now has to deal with his demotion from offensive coordinator at USF. The move came after Gregory admitted an interest in interviewing for the now-taken TE coach spot at Florida, a move that sent Leavitt first into anger, then into tears, and then into setting Gregory’s car on fire, and then into a kind of peaceful, composed and confident space where he told Gregory to move on, playah after draining his bank accounts and finding a hotter, younger assistant.
…with Rodriguez's hiring of USF assistants Rod Smith and Greg Frey two years ago and you have a recipe for bitchy, unprompted press conference quotes.
- The top four teams play each other in 1-4, 2-3 matchups.
- The next four teams play each other in 5-8, 6-7 matchups.
- Top four winners get a bye. Bottom four losers are eliminated.
- Top four losers play bottom four winners in the second round.
- The four remaining teams after the second round play out semifinal and final games. No rematches in the semifinal.
If that's confusing here's a visual aid:
Setting aside the obvious retort ("this will never happen"), the Aussie system has many of the same pros this blog's pet playoff proposal has:
- powerful motivation to finish in the top 2, top 4, and top 6, plus motivation to finish top 8.
- a difficult road for low finishers, which helps legitimize any hypothetical championships for them
- lots of home games
To this it adds room to go to eight teams, which helps get a couple non-BCS teams in when they deserve to make it. The major drawback is the slight possibility of a title-game rematch (pretend Alabama beats Florida above and you get a rematch of a first round game) and a slight possibility two teams go 1-1 against each other with one being declared the national title winner. But no proposal is perfect.
I don't like the double-elimination possibility AT ALL. If you want to make getting a top 4 seed more coveted, just expand to a 12-team field and make the format identical to the NFL. With a pool that is nearly four times the size of the NFL pool, you're still taking in only the cream of the crop. I have zero problem with any of the pre-bowl top 12-ranked teams from this year going on a hot streak, winning 3 or 4 games and being crowned the championship. THEY WOULD TOTALLY DESERVE IT!
Brian hit the nail on the head when discussing the sample size problem with the CFB regular season. It's WAY too small to make accurate determinations. It's exacerbated by the fact that nowadays nobody plays more than 1 or 2 difficult non-conference games. The ONLY way to figure out who's the best is to increase the field of teams under consideration (i.e playoff).
How many teams in recent NCAA history have beaten two top-5 teams in the reg. season only to fail to make the tournament? Can't imagine it's very many.
Last year, the only player with a shooting percentage above .500 was Jerrett Smith. As of now, the only players above .500 for this season are Cronin of the busted hip, Shepherd of the disappearing minutes, and Sims. I can't see them going 9-9 in conf. play unless those percentages improve dramatically. They aren't going to get any bigger down low.
I don't think the visual aid matches the description. The image seems to make more sense than the way you described it though; an 8-team bracket would have only 4 losers after the first round, so for the bottom 4 losers to be eliminated and the top 4 losers to play the next round, well.. I don't understand.
Did you mean that the bottom 2 losers get eliminated?
Teams ranked 1-4 -> Top four
Teams ranked 5-8 -> Bottom four
Top four losers = two teams
Bottom four winners = two teams
OH oops I see
Losers from the top 4, losers from the bottom 4.
I actually play footy (Australian Rules Football) here in the USA. Fantastic sport. Great to see the shout out!
From everything my coaches had ever taught me and what I've read, the KEY is to get your pads as HIGH as possible. That's why that dude from Navy who went airborne to sack Clausen is used so often as an example of textbook technique.
Is your meter on?
It's all about the leeeverage as the say down under
APB for gsimmons?
As you mentioned, you have the possibility of 2 teams going 1-1 against each other, with one of them being named champion. We need a system that'll provide as minimal dispute as possible.
Also, the proposed system could theoretically have 2 teams playing 4 times during the season [regular season, conference championship, playoff, national championship]. Who wants to see that???
I also hate the idea of two teams splitting games in the playoffs with one being named champion. The whole point of instituting a playoff is to crown a definitive champion. The last thing I want to do is continue debating AFTER the championship game.
I, too, hate the idea of watching two teams play each other four times. Awful.
"Rodriguez takes $4 Million Paycut?
of the best comment in the thread. Bravo!
The problem with this and Brian's playoff scenario -- you must get to 16 teams!!
With any less, you have to distinct probability that the LOSER of the conference championship games will be in the playoff and the winner will not. I know of no other playoff example where the conference champion does NOT make the playoff.
I guess the solution would be to ban conference championship games -- that is highly unlikely.
Other problem -- too different. For a playoff to be considered it should make as few changes as possible to the current regular season and bowl games.
I'm confused by your post. Pls expalin to me how the loser of a conf championship game makes a hypothetical playoff field and the winner does NOT.
If Missouri had won the Big 12 this year in the conference championship game, who would have been in an 8 team playoff?
This happened a couple of years ago when Oklahoma lost the conference championship and was in the BCS MNC.
It was 2003.
Oklahoma was upset in the Big 12 Championship Game by a Kansas State Wildcat team that all the experts thought had no chance against what some were calling one of the greatest teams in college football history. The Sooners eventually lost to LSU in the BCS title game.
Now I got it, and I agree with you. Personally, I think 12 teams would be the MINIMUM quantity of teams to be workable and have any chance of getting approved.
...is a Michigan fan, by the way. It's a little odd, but it surely would be interesting.
College National Championship that will work to select a Champion and keep the Bowl System virtually in tact. Presidence may approve, televisions contracts stay in place.
1) Have all regular season games and/or conference championships end on or before the last weekend in November.
2) Take the (6) BCS conference champions plus 2 at-large teams based on the BCS rankings have a Championship Saturday on the 1st Saturday in December.
a) There will still be some issues on team 7 and 8 but better than teams 1 and 2.
3) Give a home game to the Top 4 teams based on BCS rankings where 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. This rewards the top 4 teams with an added home game. By being a home game you do not have to worry about the fan base traveling multiple times.
4) This cleans the slate for the bowls leave all the non BCS bowls alone as they are today.
5) For the BCS bowls. 1st year have the 4 winners of the Championship Saturday games play in the Rose and Orange bowls and the 4 losers play in the Fiesta and Sugar. Alternate winners and losers every other year between the bowls (2nd year winners go to Fiesta and Sugar).
6) Then 1 week later have the BCS plus 1 game between the winners of Orange and Rose (year 1). This game would alternate between the 4 sites as is the current format.
Keeps everything in place, Having strong Non Conference Schedule will not hurt you.....Win your conference and your in.
"By being a home game you do not have to worry about the fan base traveling multiple times."
Yeah, but then you're asking the fans to travel to 2 seperate sites w/ the 2nd on one week's notice.
Plus the Rose Bowl will never go along with a system where it's a defined consolation prize every other year. I prefer Brian's system - 6 teams, no autobids, first 2 rounds at home, finale at the Rose Bowl.
The Rose Bowl (along with 2 others) are a "defined consolation prize" 3 out of 4 years now. They only get the BCS MNC once every 4 years.
Yeah, but they still hope against hope that they get their Big10 champ/Pac10 champ matchup every year. That's all they care about.
And frankly, I don't like that the Rose Bowl and New Year's Day have lost their luster. It used to be there was nowhere a team would rather go. I'm sure Penn State & USC both went in thinking "Damn, if could've won that one game, we could've gone to X". That thought makes me sick. Make the Rose Bowl the championship game and a.) It keeps the oldest and most traditional game in the limelight and b.) It ensures the Rowl Bowl people will finally get out of the way and let a playoff happen.
StuckinKY, Same problem. Tell me who gets left off this year in an 8 (or less) team playoff.
... if you realize that giving out auto-bids for a 9-4 ACC champion and not a 12-0 Mountain West champ is insane. The right eight teams this year would be:
The only team even close to in the discussion that gets left out is Texas Tech. (You could make the argument to put them in ahead of Boise State, but it's one I would dismiss out of hand - any system that proclaims a champion damn well better let everyone who hasn't lost get a shot at earning the title. The real debate would be Tech-PSU, and the nature of their losses - last-second vs. annihilation - makes me think PSU gets the nod.)
An eight-team playoff should not have auto-bid conferences. You could maybe say "the N highest-ranked conference champions" (this year, the top six champions would include Utah and Boise State over Cincy and VT) and fill the rest in at-large, but guaranteeing a spot for whichever team only loses three times in the ACC or for some craptacular Big Least team over a higher-ranked "mid-major" conference champion is just plain stupid. If you want to guarantee all the BCS conference champions, you're best off guaranteeing all 11 conference champs and going to 16 teams.
(That said, even StuckinKY's suggestion is better than the status quo. I'd rather have three deserving teams left out and two undeserving teams in than seven deserving teams left out.)
"if you realize that giving out auto-bids for a 9-4 ACC champion and not a 12-0 Mountain West champ is insane."
This, of course, goes against the very premise of why we need a playoff -- teams play so few games (12) and even fewer against virtually none of the same opponents that it is impossible to compare won-loss records.
So, do you arbitrarily decide which conferences don't get auto bids each year (based on the phase of the moon I presume?)?
And, to repeat -- you have picked the teams AFTER the conference championship games. Thus a repeat of 2003 is inevitable (Oklahoma loses the conference championship game, is not the conference champion, but still makes the MNC).
Why? Name one reason why backing up one week and making the conference championship games (along with 5 other games the same weekend) the first round of the playoff is bad.
"So, do you arbitrarily decide which conferences don't get auto bids each year (based on the phase of the moon I presume?)?"
Nope. Highest-ranked conference champions at the end of the regular season (if you want to guarantee some number of conference champions at all; personally, I'd just guarantee the unbeaten teams and then take the highest-ranked remaining teams until every slot is full). Nothing arbitrary about it, except possibly deciding how many conference champions and how many at-large spots. If we went with top six champions + two at-large, those six would have been OU, Florida, USC, Utah, Penn State, and Boise State (with Alabama and Texas as the at-larges). Cincy and VT? Too bad. Next time don't lose two (or four) games, and you'll probably be one of those top six.
"And, to repeat -- you have picked the teams AFTER the conference championship games. Thus a repeat of 2003 is inevitable (Oklahoma loses the conference championship game, is not the conference champion, but still makes the MNC)."
So? Oklahoma demonstrated over the course of the entire season that they were one of the top teams. K-State had three losses in conference. The only other Big XII team with one loss in conference was Texas, who Oklahoma beat the holy hell out of in the regular season (something like 65-10). Oklahoma knew going into the game they were going to finish in the top 2, win or lose (and, looking at the entire season, that was entirely justified - even with the loss to K-State they had a better resume than either USC or LSU). They played like they didn't care, because they had no reason to care. (As an aside, contrary to the usual arguments, they would have had more incentive to care if a playoff were to follow. They did finish #1 in the end anyway - but the difference between #1 and #2 in a season where three teams had clearly separated themselves from the rest is the difference between having to beat both of the other two and not facing either of the other two until the finals.)
It seems silly to me to discard the results of the entire season based on a single game between a 0-loss team and a 3-loss team. If that 3-loss team ran through three consecutive powerhouse opponents, I would have no problem proclaiming them the champion. (And even that's not likely to matter - no three-loss team has ever finished in the top 8 of the BCS standings, so it would have to be at least a 12-team playoff and they would have to win four straight.) But one win cannot make up a three-game gap against similar schedules. That's the problem with conference title games.
"Why? Name one reason why backing up one week and making the conference championship games (along with 5 other games the same weekend) the first round of the playoff is bad."
You already did. 2003 Oklahoma v. K-State. K-State had no business being in a playoff that year. (For that matter, Buffalo this year in the MAC, Missouri this year in the Big XII, and both VT and BC in the ACC also had no business being in a playoff, yet all were in conference title games.)
in that long post you kinda stepped on your dick at one point. Texas actually BEAT oklahoma at a (somewhat) neutral site in Dallas by 10 points. Decisive. The Big 12 had three teams that finished the regular season 11-1. Each beat the other. It was a clusterfuck.
FUCK the Rose Bowl.
It's a God damn home game for the Trojans.
I don't like that any more than you do, but where would you rather play for the national championship of college football? Dolphin Stadium? Cardinals Stadium? It's going to be a virtual home game for somebody no matter where it is.
And not just among southern sites. Maybe an eight-year rotation among the BCS bowl sites plus Indy, St. Louis, someplace in the Northeast (maybe Philly or Boston), and Denver or KC?
There's no reason one team should have that advantage every year. If they happen to make it the year that it's close to home, so be it. (Think Illinois in the 2005 basketball tournament when they got to play in Chicago, Indy, and St. Louis, or MSU 2000 through Cleveland, Detroit, and Indy - or, for that matter, the possible path through Dayton, Indy, and Detroit this year.)
One thing to note about the Aussie Rules playoff system is the potential for more TV revenue than just a straight 8 team playoff, since there are a total of 9 games (whereas a straight 8 team playoff format would contain 7 games). This would, I think, appeal to the NCAA.
On the downside, there will be arguments over the 4-5 seed, since the 4 seed effectively gets a double chance while the 5 seed is one and done. But that is not a major drawback imo.
I'm the Aussie who sent in the playoff idea to Dr. Saturday. I'm now on my two favourite blogs, awesome.
I hope RR has a great tax attorney because he might get raked over the coals from an income tax perspective in 2008 because it doesn't look like the UofM grossed up his earnings much to cover the increased tax burden that resulted from having to pay back the buyout in 2008. Maybe they've agreed to make an adjustment for him in 2009?
Love the idiot quote from the professor in which he compares the excesses of college coaching compensation to "excess that we had in the general business environment in the U.S.", by which I assume he means the excesses which created the mortgage crisis and subsequent liquidity crunch. It's hard to take in the full stupidity of that quote.
On one hand, you have a college football coach making lots of money. His position is one of the most highly scrutinized jobs around and has one of the most easy to analyze returns on investment in the form of salary vs. record - lots of wins = good vs. lots of loses = bad.
Then on the other hand, you have the mortgage industry, which was populated with creative bankers and brokers making lots of money. They had almost zero job scrutiny and intentionally hid their malfeasance in an almost impossible to analyze fashion.
Yep, those two are exactly alike. Fantastic comparison. Someone get that guy tenure STAT.
And, big thumbs up to the News for reporting that some academic somewhere thinks that college football coaches make too much money. Pulitzer quality stuff there, for sure.
Any feasible playoff system will have to
(1) include virtually all of the D1 conferences due to the expectant law suits.
(2) have to have at least several at-large bids to ensure that the 2nd-best team in the country gets in (due to the fact the occasionally the 2nd-best team is in the same conference as the best).
Incorporate the bowl games, get rid of the conference championship games or incorporate them. Thus, 16 teams, first round is home for the top 8 teams.
You're right about the fact that guaranteeing a spot for a particular conference's champion is going to draw legal fire if not every conference is included. That's why, for a small (6- or 8-team) playoff, the only feasible solutions are either A) all bids are at-large, or B) some number are reserved for the highest-ranked conference champions, irrespective of which conference they belong to.