or better yet, he once again caves in to SEC demands! I am ashamed that this guys runs the BIGTEN!
(Sigh...) Big Ten network, Nebraska joining up... Relax a bit on this, its probably just propoganda. These guys use the media as a tool. Besides, its not like he completely botched our new conference names...
So because we can't agree on the right way to improve the system we should just give up and go back to the old system that we all agree failed? Sounds reasonable.
I don't think the old system (the pre-'98 system) failed. College football has traditionally been less-National-Championship-centric than other sports have been. I like it for that.
It didn't attempt to definitively say who the national champion was, your teams's goal was to beat your rivals and win the coinference, period. And then you go to a bowl game for a reward and vacation at the end of the season. It was FAR better thsn the non-system we have now, and I would love to see its return, because make no mistake, the new 4 team system will have exactly as much debate and disappoval as we have now, both from the vocal media, and from the #5 and #6 teams that are left out. We will have debate for all the years of the new contract, then we'll expand to 8 teams for another 5 year TV contract with again, exactly as much debate as we have now.
I liked the old system as well, though we are in the minority. To me, the philosophy of the old system was more student athletic focused than the current consumer/fan focused system (or proposed reforms to the system). Old system reminded me of that scene in Fearless when Jet Li explains that martial arts isn't about dominating your foe, but about testing and bettering yourself. To me, college football used to be like that, until public demand to annoint a "definitive" national champion slowly lead to the direction we're going now. A national champion-centered sport is cool too, but I kind of liked the uniqueness of the old system.
I liked the bowl system myself. However, I don't ever get the idea that people who play Division III, II or FCS don't like a playoff system as they have it. In fact, most of them (the ones I know who have played in those systems) prefer that! Mostly because, you know, they are competitive athletes who like the challenge.
Agree. I didn't mean to say that the old system catered to the student athletes' expressed desires. I meant to say it was more focused on the concept of student athletetics and how it was supposed to be focused on preparing them for the grown up world. Hard to explain, but I guess the best example is really low level (younger) sports leagues.
IMO, since there's really no fanbase for little leagues, the goals and philosophies of the leagues are more oriented toward the development of participants, i.e., just making sure that they get exercise, learn the value of practice, overall just bettering themselves. IMO, the desire to annoint a national champion doesn't creep into the picture until you get fans/consumers injecting their input and demands into the system. Which is fine, I like having a champion too. I don't want to sound overly pretentious or anything, but the idea of student athletics actually being focused on making student athletes better people for the real world is kind of nice.
From split championships to undefeated major conference teams never getting a chance to missing out on potential 1 versus 2 games, yeah it failed.
This system hasn't been perfect, but it's light years better than what we had before.
It is marginally better if at all. By requiring the winner of the BCS championship be the national champion, the BCS system pretends to declare an objective champion based on a subjective determination of the top 2 teams -- and thereby leaves #3 and higher ranked teams holding the bag.
At least the old system did not pretend to remove the error tolerance / subjectivity from annointing one (or more) teams as the national champions. The final determination / measurement is only as good as the error tolerance of all the dependent measurements.
Yes, but I'd rather have something that's moving away from being 100% subjective. The mere fact that CFB is still close to a "Team X is #1....because they are better than everyone....probably." format is mind boggling. A 4+ team playoff would be better for everyone involved. The bowl system is horrible outdated, pointlesss, and benefits nobody except the people that host the bowls.
"At least the old system did not pretend to remove the error tolerance / subjectivity from annointing one (or more) teams as the national champions."
Yeah, it did. Voters assume(d) a team ranked #1 was better than the one ranked #2. That hasn't changed since the first AP poll in 1936.
the BCS system pretends to declare an objective champion based on a subjective determination of the top 2 teams.
So all of those other poll-driven Michigan championships prior to the BCS / Coalition / Alliance don't count?
All the BCS does is attempt to match up the #1 and #2 teams in the country to avoid them going to separate venues. It's still a poll-driven world.
How many #1 versus #2 games did we get in the bowl games in the 15 years prior to 1993?
1978--Alabama vs. Penn State
1982--Georgia vs. Penn State
1986--Penn State vs. Miami
1987--Miami vs. Oklahoma
That's it.
". . and thereby leaves #3 and higher ranked teams holding the bag."
So let's have a system that has the #2 team and below holding the bag.
In 1991, Washington crushed Michigan in the Rose Bowl and Miami shut out Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. Similar to 2005, they were clearly the 2 top teams in the country but they didn't play each other under this system. In 1992, with the Bowl Coalition in place, #1 Miami was forced to go to the Sugar Bowl to play #2 Alabama (as opposed to staying home and beating some Big 8 fodder and getting a national title by default). Alabama won to get a national title they don't get had it been 1991.
From split championships to undefeated major conference teams never getting a chanceLike in 2003 with LSU and USC? Or what about 2004 with Auburn? Saying it's light years better is a bit of a mistake
Well, I think last year was a perfect example of how the current system can be worse than the old system.
The old system would have NEVER allowed Alabama and LSU to play each other in a bowl game.
In 1978, Oklahoma and Nebraska replayed their end of season game in the Orange Bowl. There's a classic video showing Osborne hearing about the rematch with this look of "you've got to be kidding me."
In 1994 AND 1996, Florida and FSU had rematches in the Sugar Bowl, the 2nd for the national title.
So yeah, the old system does allow bowl rematches. Like the current system it didn't / doesn't happen very often.
The old system didn't allow for in-conference bowl games, and thus prohbiited any chance of a team that didn't win its own conference from winning a MNC. Completely and utterly wrong describes your post pretty well.
"The old system didn't allow for in-conference bowl games . . "
What part of Nebraska and Oklahoma re-playing each other in the 1979 ORANGE BOWL did you not understand?
Man, at least read the comment.
FML, I should have proofread my comment but the intent of my comment was that the old system didn't allow for in-conference championship bowl games. That Orange Bowl was a matchup between teams ranked #4 and #6 and besides fans of the teams ranked #4 and #6, not a whole lot of people really care.
It's hard to allow for an in-conference championship bowl game when there was NO CHAMPIONSHIP BOWL GAME in the old system.
There were plenty of championship bowl games, they just weren't called championship bowl games. Pretty much as long as the #1 or #2 teams weren't from the B1G or P12, you had a 1v2 matchup every year between the Big8 and SEC conference champs (or independents like Penn State/Notre Dame, etc.).
college football is appalling. The Big 8 champion was locked into the Orange Bowl. The SEC champion was locked into the Sugar Bowl. The SWC champion was locked into the Cotton Bowl. They couldn't play each other.
Go back and find all the 1 versus 2 matchups in bowl games. Even when possible with the bowl tie-ins they happened quite infrequently. Four times in the 15 years prior to 1992, and before then it was even more infrequent.
would also allow them to play, right? I'm hoping this is Delaney calling the SEC's bluff, and saying that we'll stick to the old system rather than watch the semipro SEC dominate the proceedings in warm-weather confines year upon year.
Nice post. One of the smartest and most well thought out comments I've read on here in a loooong time.
If the SEC will pay their players, why wouldn't they pay Delaney? That's the only possible reason he would keep caving to their demands. I guess it could also be that he's a wuss who's out of touch with his conference fan base.
Can't we just have an 8 team playoff that everyone will love after the first season?
They've totally screwed up the messaging on all of this. The Big ten has actually had the best ideas for the playoff - home sites, 3+1, but because they've been all over the place in explaining what they want, how it will work, and in garnering support for their plans from other conferences, Delany and the ADs/presidents have come off in such an unclear, convoluted, ever-changing manner, it's unclear why anyone should take their ideas seriously.
Contradictory statements and arguments, poor phrasing, etc may be the Big Ten's plan. None of the playoff scenarios are benefical to them. Status quo all but guarantees the Big Ten a spot in 1-2 premiere bowl games. By shifting to a final four scenario, the final games will with those four teams in it will be the high profile games, and all other games (including the Rose Bowl) will take a back seat. There will be a lot of years the Big Ten is shut out of the final four. With enough shut out years, the conference will start to lose prestige.
The best case scenario for the Big Ten is changing nothing. Confusion and mixed messages may just pollute the pot enough for everyone to throw up their hands and give up for another couple of years.
Most years, the winner of the new Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl would face the winner of the Rose Bowl. So it makes sense for Delany to back a Plus-One, since it means a Big Ten team has a good chance of playing in the National Championship Game any given year. Also, a Plus-One would almost certainly lead to four super conferences, which would be good for the Big Ten in his eyes.
I understand his position, but I disagree with it since I don't think it would be good for college football.
...cat.
~Herm
Patience all.... This is all part of the negotiations. Unfortunately, the SEC laid gauntlets down with their comments last week --- so I see this as posturing.
Delany has been an excellent commish, and he is taking a measured, thoughtful look at this and trying to do whats best for B1G. No reason to panic.
Patience....yes please. There is no reason to overreact to the bits of half-knowledge that are being selectively leaked to the media. There's no reason for any of these guys to do that except for leverage and bargaining purposes. I'll save my overreaction for when they actually announce a format. Much less headache that way, and at least then I'm getting worked up over something instead of nothing.
He's doing whats best for him and the AD's, not the conference. How is the world is giving up home-field or at least "regional field" games, without a fight, what's best for the team or the fans? Just look at the 2 things he is trying most to save...Rose Bowl and the status quo bowl / BCS system two things the fans pretty much universally hate.
maybe I am getting closer to geezer than I want to, but why do we hate the Rose Bowl?
The only reason I hate the Rose Bowl is some teams have a virtual home field advantage, and when a B1G team plays in the NC game we send our #2 to get trounced. Wah, on the virtual home filed advantage. It has always been that way. We just have to suck it up and win anyway.
The alternative is what: Indianapolis? Ford Field? Michigan Stadium on January 1st?
The Rose Bowl on January 1st - major conference champion against major conference champion is something to watch, something to go to. And if you only get to play in it once every 5 years (Michigan's average), then it is not that much of an imposition.
If we go back to B1G Champions playing Pac12 Champions in the Rose Bowl with the possibility of the winner playing in a plus 1 - (or maybe eventually a plus 2) - I am a happy camper. The B1G Championship means something, every season game means something (for plus one rankings), and winning the Rose Bowl means something.
I'll say it again - throw out the current BCS championship game. Run the other BCS bowls on New Years day (the NFL can go f themselves / keeping the Rose intact), and on January 2nd pick the two most powerful teams coming out of New Years Day.
Eventually this could go to four best teams for a semi and then the two winners to reduce arguments. That said at some point we have to consider length of season, not just from a student athlete perspective, but from a player wear and tear perspective and a fan travel perspective as well.
SEC will get what it wants; B1G will be playing in the Outer Siberia Bowl while SEC teams number three and four play in the Rose Bowl. Sux.
If this isn't already up somewhere, maybe this should be its own thread.
I think this playoff talk is all just a fad. Remember how after the 06 season when their was outrage at how there was talk of Michigan and Ohio rematch in the NC game in Glendale? It resulted in no playoff system. Just tough talk and propositions. It never materialized. I belive that this current talk of a playoff system will end up just the same.
The real cause of the problem was allowing Bama a chance at winning a NC game that they did not deserve to be in. That is the problem right there.
Had Oklahoma State gotten in, there would have been no controversey at all, because they were the second-best CONFERENCE CHAMPION to pick from after LSU and the winner of the game would have deserved the title.
Instead we watched Alabama win a fake national championsihp, that is a national championship that they did not deserve to be in.
PS: That's why in hindsight, I am glad that Michigan and Ohio did not have a rematch in 2006 because for that Michigan team it would have been an almost lose-lose situation because had we won, We would have heard the "well you didn't win your confrence" argument (A valid point too) and had they lost, we would have been hearing all the Ohio fans mocking us for losing to them twice in one year.
You have to be joking.
Us not going to that championship game is the single biggest reason the B1G fell off the map and lost all respect and the SEC became the most dominant conference in the sport.
If we play a rematch with Ohio, if we win and and become national champions, giving the B1G the top 2 teams in the country without question and another top 5 team in Wisconsin (including two wins over the SEC with Wisconsin beating Arkansas and Penn State beating Tennessee). If we lose, well Ohio goes down as one of the best teams ever and there is a a little backlash since no one else got to play them, but still the B1G is the best conference in the country in 2006.
Florida jumping Michigan - and then the throttlings at the hands of USC and Florida that Michigan and Ohio received - was the worst thing that happened to the B1G in the last decade.
Winning a National Championship.
Alabama seems all broken up about having people say "well you didn't win your conference." And LSU feels much better.
The BCS is a pretend system -- some years it works, some years it doesn't.
Utah 2008 wouldn't have made a 4-team playoff, yet they were undefeated against a quality schedule and went down South and kicked Alabama's ass in the Sugar Bowl. Can anybody say definitively that the Utes weren't deserving national champs? No.
The best we're ever going to do is a system that gets us one data point further than we did under the pre-1998 system and that system is the plus-one. Any system that depends on pre-bowl rankings or selections isn't as good as one that waits until after the bowls. If the B1G can get a system of traditional bowl ties, an extra data point, and a single final game, that's the best option. If Delaney is to be believed, that's what the conference wants and rightly so.
" I think we would feel comfortable with a selection committee, but even if you move to a selection committee, I think there are issues about what instructions they’re under with regard to how they determine who the best four teams are. We didn’t resolve that at this point.”
I suppose I don't mind so much that Delany agrees with the notion of having the "four best teams" in a playoff system. For the sake of simplicity (I know, another hypothetical in a playoff thread), if you used the Coaches' Poll as the final rankings to determine playoff standing a team from the Big Ten would have made it into this format - I believe - 5 out of the last 10 years, which isn't really too bad. It probably wouldn't happen quite that often all the time, but still, the Big Ten would not exactly be out of it. I say this in the full realization that "top four" and "best four" may not be the same thing, depending on how they decide to choose.
It is not knowing precisely the method by which these teams would be determined - regardless of the final format - which prevents me from getting terribly invested in articles like this right at this moment. As much as Delany sometimes makes me want to pull my hair out, to me his quotes seem carefully crafted, which would probably be an appropriate strategy at this point.
In any case, it seems like conference champions are typically in the top four anywany in the polls, so insisting that they be an integral part of the equation here seems redundant in an odd sort of way, so he isn't lying when he says there are "reasonable access opportunities" from a historical standpoint anyway (i.e., if the plus-one had always been the format). As an aside to that, it potentially means that he can keep the Rose Bowl in the spotlight for both playoff or for the Big Ten champ if they are not in the playoff that year.
The answer to the question doesn't matter because you don't know who 1 and 2 are before the bowl games. (Notre Dame jumped from 5 pre-bowl to 1 post-bowl in 1977 and there are other examples.) Some years you kind of do; most years you don't.
That's why you want the bowls to be a data point in themselves and that's why a plus-one system is so appealing.