Unverified Voracity, With Tweaks

http://thebiglead.com/?p=10948#comments

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.

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?

I actually play footy (Australian Rules Football) here in the USA. Fantastic sport. Great to see the shout out!

Is it fundamentally correct to shoot hips first, or to step first? I am thinking--based on most athletics that i've played--that shoot hips first is correct. all power comes from hips--tackling, punching, double leg take downs, olympic weightlifting etc. however, i don't know what the correct fundamentals for pad level are. does anyone know?

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???

"Rodriguez takes $4 Million Paycut?

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.

...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.
 
Everyones happy......................right?
 

FUCK the Rose Bowl.

It's a God damn home game for the Trojans.

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.

if possible.