Brandon's thoughts on the BCS
http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/brandon/spec-rel/111710aaa.html
This is DB's first entry into his new blog on MGoBlue.com. In short, he thinks the system works well because every week is essentially a playoff game in his view. I don't agree with this because, well, what happens when you have multiple undefeated teams? And is the "hysteria" he says is created surrounding college football good when a lot of people aren't satisfied with the outcome?
These arguments have been hashed out a lot. Nonetheless, I think it's good to have an AD who will be this open about communicating his thoughts to the people that follow the program. This new blog combined with his new Twitter account (http://twitter.com/#!/DaveBrandonAD) are good efforts to communicate with fans in ways most AD's around the country won't.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
the idea of DB opening up his world to ours. Although I don't use Twitter, I think it will be a useful tool for him. As for the BCS, I think anywhere from a 6-20 team playoff would work. But that is just me.
November 18th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
In fact, I hate the BCS. I wish we could go back to the old system where the Pac 10 and the Big 10 champs met in the Rose Bowl, and let the rankings fall where they may.
I get that most CFB fans like the playoff idea -- but I am with Brandon. The regular season matters in college football, and it simply doesn't if you have a large playoff system. The importance and drama of upsets, etc. That's what makes college football fun, and it's already being ruined by the BCS.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
Seems like we could live with the #5 team griping about being left out....keeps pretty much all bowl games intact as is...cake-eaten
November 17th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
To me if you're going to do a plus one you have to almost go to a 4 team playoff. It doesn't seem fair to have #1 and #2 play and the possibility of having #3 play say the #7 team. You almost have to set it up so that the top 4 teams are somehow playing each other.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
I think that's his point. Set up a #1 v. #4 BCS game, then a #2 v. #3. Then have the +1 game a week later.
Or, I think you could go back to the old bowl affiliations. Big Ten/Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl, Big 12 in the Fiesta, SEC in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, and the Big East doesn't matter. The top 2 teams after the bowls play the +1. Occasionally it won't work out, but it would keep tradition and make every one of the big bowls important.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
I'd like a 6 team system. #1 and #2 get byes, since we can almost always agree on who are #1 and #2. Sorry #7, you probably weren't that good anyway.
#'s 3&6 playoff for the right to play #2. #'s 4&5 playoff for the right to play #1.
You play the 5 games at the BCS sites. Spread the BCS over 3 consecutive Monday nights (Since the NFL will be in playoffs at this point and Monday nights are open).
Let the rest of the Bowl system get down however they want to.
I realize that craps on some traditions, but I'd like to see them try it for a year or two and see how it goes. I think that's what frustrates me the most. People act like you can't revert changes if you don't like them. Sure you can.
EDIT: I do realize a major flaw is requiring some team's fans to travel a possible three mondays in a row. I think some other adjustments could be made to make it work.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
I think whatever you do is going to have to incorporate the bowls. That means you need at least an 8 team playoff. You could do 12 or 16 and have the second week be the bowls. Part of the success of the bowls is that they were on New Years Day and everyone could watch them. They would have to do the same thing with the playoff IMO and I don't know if they could both run at the same time or if we really want to completely kill any of the BCS Bowl Games for this.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^
and the Big East doesn't matter.This hit me square on the funny bone. Something about the matter-of-fact way you worded that whole sentence. Still laughing about it.
November 18th, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^
Thanks
November 17th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
A Michigan education will lead to an Ultra First Class Athletic Department. Were in good hands with Brandon no matter where he stands on the BCS.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
I just think a playoff would be more fun to watch than the current system.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
but I like that he's "openly" communicating with the M faithful.
I would like to see some sort of comments section (moderated obviously) or a Q&A thread where we can submit questions and he answers them, i.e. the quesitons the OP has on the BCS comments.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^
with a small playoff like 4 teams. I wouldn't want too many teams, because the regular season is so exciting at the moment. I wouldn't want to take away from that.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
The NCAA basketball tournament used to be 8 teams. Then 16. Then 32. Then 64. Soon, 96. Conference tournaments rendered the regular season largely meaningless, and now the growth of the NCAA tournament itself has left conference tournaments largely meaningless. As a result, not many people care about college basketball anymore until March.
While I would not object to a 4-team tournament, history tells me it won't stay at 4 teams for long. I don't want college football to go the way of basketball, so I will oppose any sort of post-season tournament.
November 17th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
a lack of people caring about the NFL regular season, and over 30% of the teams make the playoffs. This argument doesn't hold water in a sport with such a small sample size. Every game would still matter significantly, just like in the NFL.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^
...Blue_Sox and a great move by Dave Brandon.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
This has to be the first thing that I disagree with him about. If he likes the bowls then think of a good way to incorporate the bowls into a playoff system. He says every game matters but what happens if the ACC and Big East send teams with 3-5 losses to the BCS? How about if VaTech gets a guaranteed spot in the Orange Bowl, but Boise gets held out? It doesn't sound like that game between them mattered very much. Or if Miami gets in but OSU is held out? That game must not have mattered either. This is just such a silly argument. When you guarantee spots, you are setting the system up for failure.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^
UNLESS
We end up with four mega conferences and the champions of each play each other in a semi/ final playoffs.
But that is not happening anytime soon.
November 17th, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^
Yes, 4 super-conferences. This was the one reason I was in favor of them. Each super-conference could crown their champion in late Nov. -early Dec. Have all the bowls played as normal except, and this is a big except, the four big bowls get back to all playing on New Years day. (Two of the big 4 bowls get the 4 super-conference champions-which are rotated each year) You end up with 2 teams standing and very minimal bitching b/c they earned it on the field. National Championship played the week after New Years. Oh yeah, New Years day is exciting again and no more oddly timed "who cares" bowls 3 or 4 days after new years.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
Could someone with skillz make a playoff bracket based on the top 6, 10, 15, 20, or 25? Who would get first round byes besides first place? Would it be seperated in regions of the country? I am curious. Thanks!
November 17th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
What, no Hard Edge?
November 17th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
just in case I forget it in my content.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
Screw the BCS system. It's a joke. Every NCAA division championship is settled on the field via a playoff, except the one division of football that anyone cares about.
16 team playoff, utilizing conf champions and a few at large bids. Regular season games still matter because teams need to win their conference in order to get in.
Latest issue of SI had a respectable bracket format/proposal. I'm not opposed to other bracket proposals, but for god's sake, settle it on the field.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
Everyone's view would change if there were 3 undefeated teams and Michigan was the one being left out.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
Also - if a playoff was in place for the 1997 season (1998 Bowl Rose Bowl) we wouldn't have had to endure the Tom Osborne going away present and split the national title. We would have had the chance to beat their asses on the field.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
Ooh Dave Brandon! He so smart and sexy! His pimp game is stronger than Mr. Whitefolks! He's the best AD since Don Canham!
Oh sorry, I was just getting out the requisite DB tongue bathing before I seriously concern myself with this post. For real, though, he seems to have nothing original or insightful to add to this topic. I would have expected, especially for all the ridiculous praise he gets around here, that he'd have some interesting spin on why bowls "work so well" (or even some explanation of what the hell he means by that). Also, unnecessary use of all-caps and scare quotes. Maybe he's not the strongest writer (even if he is, like, the most totally awesome pimp around). If this were an mgoblog diary, I'd neg it. Not so much because I disagree (though, I do) but because it was a platitudinous waste of time.
November 17th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
I think I'm being a little harsh, though. You don't get to where DB is by bucking conventional wisdom and tradition; you get there by mastering its deployment of conventional wisdom and tradition, if necessary, and by having some idea of how to turn What The People Want into cash money. It would be ridiculous to expect our AD's thoughts to reflect the spirit of a brilliant philosopher or political scientist or whatever. I expect him to reflect the spirit of a man who got rich selling coupons and pizza. I think, for a school like Michigan, the money might very well be on the side of the current bowl system. And it might well be as simple as that. It must be; pimps can't be too sentimental. I've learned this from years of listening to Too $hort.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^
I'm not quite sure what Brandon has done to earn this fantastic reputation he has, other than clearly being better at PR than Bill Martin. Evidently, we all just wanted more flash and dash.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
Has a certain, tintinabulatory je ne sais quoi, doesn't it?
November 17th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
So the blog is cool. Saw it on Twitter (negbang me for using that, please) and I thought it said he was blogging on mgoblOG, which would have been even cooler.
My issue on the playoff is that the best team in the country wins the national championship the vast majority of the time in the BCS system. That isn't true if you get to a playoff beyond say 8 teams. How many times does the best team really win the NCAA basketball torunamnet? (true that that's a slightly higher percentage of the teams in the country than would likely be included in the football tournament, but the point remains).
November 17th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
A playoff wouldn't have to go to more than eight teams, sorta. Let conference championship games and play-in at large berths decide who gets in. It would be a de facto sixteen-team playoff, but at least everyone with a legitimate beef would get in.
As for the basketball question, football is different. Upsets do happen, but the team with the most talent will win a greater percentage of the time in football than it will in basketball. There is no way a middle-rung team could win four consecutive football games against clearly superior opponents. It can happen in basketball if a few shooters get hot and the other teams choke, but it is too much to expect in football.
Give me a true champion determined on the field: not a McGyvered "championship game" determined by pollsters and computers.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
I don't get what the point is of wanting "the best team" to win. Or of being upset when the "best team" loses and doesn't get to be the champion. If we really want to ensure that the "best team" (an entirely subjective matter of public opinion) to be the champion then we should abandon any notion of a championship game (BCS or playoff or whatever) and just go back to the days when the "champion" was determined by majority vote after a bunch of non-mutually dependent bowl games.
A championship game is there to determine the champion, the winner of a competition between all teams, in which every team has a reasonable chance to win enough games to be the champion, not the "best team." Obviously, there are many times in which the champion and the "best team" are the same team but sometimes, the "best team" loses somewhere along the way and that's why they play the games. I thought Barça was better than Inter — as TP said, "everybody knows" that if the teams played 100 times, Barça would have had a better total score; but they played twice and Inter won the first leg (3-1) and Barça only scored once in the second leg. 3-2 Inter. Inter goes on to win the European Cup. That's why they don't ask me (or "everybody") who is the best and make that team the champion; that's why they play the games.
Any system worth having will include "best teams" losing a significant portion of the time to good teams and great teams who had fortune, coaching, or preparation on its side. Are you really suggesting that the problem with a playoff would mean that it would be too much like March Madness? That would be, in the words of Marlo Stanfield, one of those good problems. March Madness is awesome!
November 17th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
You are confused cheeshead. Crowning champions because they look good on paper without them winning it on the field is not a good thing. I guess you would prefer to get rid of all playoff systems and just crown champions after the regular season in all sports. Bravo!
November 17th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^
Dave, Dave, Dave. I'm shaking my head that we have yet another leader that thinks the BCS and bowl system are swell. The system is a dismal failure in all respects. After hearing about how Mr. Brandon is all about money is his resent interviews, it is amazing that he could support a system that is costing athletic departments hundreds of million dollars. I just don't get the inconsistency.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
Consolidate the handful of good teams outside the 6 BCS conferences into 2 more power conferences.
Tell the Sun Belt, C-USA, and MAC to go play in the FCS.
Require the new 8 BCS conferences to play all of their OOC games against other BCS conference schools. This helps achieve strength of schedule parity.
The 4 conferences with the best overall OOC records get byes. The other 4 conference winners play 4 at-large teams in the "wild-card" round.
Those 4 winners play the 4 bye teams. Re-seed each round.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
I hate the BCS and want a playoff system like the other football divisions have. It isn't any bit of rocket science putting it together either.
However, the power of the pimp hand has spoken and my eyes have been opened. Now the "every game counts" argument, so lame when spoken by ESPN/ABC shills, seems compelling.
I feel reborn. Where do I send money to help cover the losses incurred by the athletic departments for these bowls?
Joking, but I did read through his opinion without giggling. Yet I can't take it when Herbstreet says it over it over again. Testimony to the greatness of DB.
November 17th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
Once the conference gets to its 16-team configuration, Jim Delanay and David Brandon will become playoff advocates and ditch the BCS in a heart beat.
Right now, the Big Ten and the BCS conferences control college football by having a larger slice of a smaller pie and being able to hold the knife. Opening up the post-season to a playoff system that could net around $750M means that the non-BCS schools will iinvariably have more resources to sustain themselves financially and not be beholden to the major conferences' bidding and control.
When Delany feels the Big Ten is in its optimal strategic position (16-team conference including Notre Dame, Big Ten Network on basic cable in northeast and mid-Atlantic), his opinion (and Brandon's) will change in a heart beat. There's just too much money left on the table if they don't do this (with the current bowl set up netting a bit over $200M).
Dan Wentzel put together a playoff scenario with sixteen teams including the eleven conference winners and five at large selections. I would put it together differently by taking the top nine conference winners (which would effectively eliminate the Sun Belt and the reconfigured WAC) plus seven at large selections. All the playoff games will be played at campus sites with the championship game in the Rose Bowl. Teams not selected for the playoffs would participate in the bowl games.
Using the current BCS standings, here's how the first round of the playoffs might look (current records in brackens). This assumes that the champions from the Big Ten, Pac 10, Big XII and SEC are included in the list:
#16 Conference USA Champion at #1 Oregon (10-0)
#9 Ohio State (9-1) at #8 Nebraska (9-1)
#15 MAC Champion at #2 Auburn (11-0)
#10 Oklahoma State (9-1) at #7 Wisconsin (9-1)
#14 Pittsburgh (5-3, Big East Champion) at #3 TCU (11-0, MWC Champion)
#11 Alabama (8-2) at #6 Stanford (9-1)
#13 Virginia Tech (8-2, ACC Champion) at #4 Boise State (9-0, WAC Champion)
#12 Michigan State (9-1) at #5 LSU (9-1)
Teams that didn't make the cut and would go to the major bowl games (Rose, Orange, etc.) include Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Iowa.
Of course, if a playoff system was in place, then we'd be discussing the teams on the outside looking in, what would happen to Alabama if they lost to Auburn in the Iron Bowl (or vice versa), what teams would need to do in order to get home field advantage in the first round, etc. instead of whether or not TCU or Boise State is going to go undefeated again and not get into the BCS national championship game. Which do you prefer?
November 17th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
Thanks!
November 17th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
All about the cash money and as soon as the people that control the system figure out how to keep the additional revenue a playoff will provide, it shall be. Delaney even said that a 16 team playoff would generate 4 times the amount of cash the current system provides.
<br>
<br>Love DB and his pimp hand, but I wish he would have kept these stupid thoughts to himself. You don't have to support a playoff, but saying the BCS is fine or fair is dumb.