Unverified Voracity's Annual Playoff Screed, But Prompted Comment Count

Brian

lsu-freek

HATE THE BCS? HATE AMERICA

The dumbest thing ever written. This is not literally true, but it may be the dumbest thing ever written about college football. It is this Bill Hancock guy's shoddily argued nonsense about the BCS. I've become a playoff guy over the past decade or so but even BCS proponents in the blogosphere (of which there appears to be one, the guy behind Get The Picture) have to wince at statements like this:

College football was one weekend away from Boise State participating in the BCS National Championship Game because of what happened on the playing field — not in a chatroom, a boardroom or a newsroom.

In the event that Auburn lost and Boise State won, yes. The reverse happened and instead the BCS works and is fair and that's Gary Patterson's artery spraying a red mist over most of the Southwest but how did you think Sedona, Arizona, ended up looking like that? Do you want a thriving tourist mecca to evaporate overnight when college football coaches cease venting the bloodmist that gently descends on the mesas?

Orson has gone FJM on the thing—it exists to be fisked, I thought about doing it myself—but you don't have to do anything other than blockquote to obliterate this extremely stupid system:

A playoff also would mean the end of America's bowl tradition as we know it. As Rick Baker, president of the Cotton Bowl, said, "A playoff system would ruin the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic."

We can't have that.

BONUS: Putting "Classic" in the name of your thing is a 100% sure way to tell that your thing is neither classic nor an actual thing anymore, in the, you know, traditional sense where entities are somewhat authentic outgrowths of desires instead of remanufactured bullcrap like "chocolate" diamonds that make me wish that authentic outgrowths of desires that form entities like Adbusters weren't equally odious and even more shrill. The "Cotton Bowl Classic" is at Jerryworld, not the Cotton Bowl. It can die in a fire for all I care.

OBLIGATORY REMINDER OF MGOBLOG PLAYOFF PLAN: Six teams, no autobids, byes to the top two teams. No more than two teams per conference, and those teams can't play each other in the first round. Home games until the final, one the week after the championship games, one on January 1st, final at the Rose Bowl January 8th, leave bowl system alone.

This preserves almost all of the urgency of regular season and guarantees that the champion is also the team with the best season-long resume since five of the top six lose and anyone not 1 or 2 wades through three elite opponents, staking an undeniable claim.

This year's hypothetical bracket:

1. Oregon vs winner of 3. TCU / 6. Ohio State
2. Auburn vs winner of 4. Wisconsin / 5. Stanford

If Auburn had lost to Alabama they would probably have fallen to fifth (ballparking it) and gone from a first round bye and January 1 home game to a first round game in Madison or Palo Alto—a freaking huge deal. Losing one game boots Boise and Michigan State, and two is fatal for everyone. Since the current system frequently sees one-loss teams into the championship game it's difficult to argue this system cheapens the regular season.

If you want a lengthier explanation I pretended I was talking to Joe Posnanski about it last January. In sum, there is no reason people who do not stand to lose money would oppose the idea.

This Week In Less Charismatic Than Stalin. Terrelle Pryor:

"I'll put it like this: You put me in any of their offenses — any of them — and I'd dominate," Pryor said, when asked about the attention afforded the likes of Newton, Robinson and Persa. "I'd dominate the nation. What those guys do, that's what they're supposed to do in their offense."

He goes on to say the usual boilerplate about how he's all about winning, which could be interpreted as a mitigating factor if Pryor didn't manage to twist every bit of boilerplate into another reason to think Pryor should be locked in the basement by Tressel until his graduation. Doctor Saturday looks at the numbers and says pretty much what I did in the OSU preview—against defenses that are actually good Pryor folds alarmingly.

In contrast:

Robinson said he also remembers picking up some snow, playfully chucking it at Rodriguez, "and then running pretty fast after that."
Robinson also packed snow into a plastic bag for his return flight.
"Melted on the plane," he said.

How does Robinson know if he's running fast?

This Week In Coaching Blah Blah Blah. Have fielded a couple inquiries as to why I'm not covering the "coaching search" or "situation," depending on your point of view. I'm not because there is no "search" and there is no reliable information on the situation. Time and again I have been told by people one or two or three steps removed from insiders that Rodriguez is going to get fired after the Ohio State game. Or on Monday (yes, as in three days ago, which makes absolutely no sense). Or pretty dang soon. Or that Brady Hoke is a viable candidate. Or etc etc etc etc. I got so much chatter in my inbox that made no sense that even the plausible stuff now carries the sheen of ulterior motive (not necessarily from the emailer, but from the discontent insider-type person) or wishful thinking (from Brady Hoke's friends and family).

I have no updates that are reliable enough to relate. There is a cottage industry of people telling other people that Rodriguez is definitely gone that has proven inaccurate multiple times so far in the past month, so I probably won't be able to say much definitively unless I get something solid from a few established guys.

To reiterate, I've run everything I've heard through filters of reliability and making a damn lick of sense and come up with this:

  1. There is a nonzero chance Rodriguez is not brought back or Brandon would have/should have already announced it.
  2. There is a nonzero chance Rodriguez is brought back or ditto.
  3. One game is probably not the deciding factor.
  4. Harbaugh exists. No other candidate strong enough to make a move compelling does.
  5. You cannot start a real coaching search that takes two to four weeks a month before Signing Day.

The conclusion is that on January second Harbaugh or Rodriguez will be Michigan's coach and that person will be the coach in 2011. No one peddling a story other than that is credible unless their name is Dave Brandon, and even then he's probably just having you on.

I don't know which is more likely. If I get anything that changes my opinion I'll mention it.

BONUS: A scientific poll shows that Michigan fans are split right down the middle: 35 percent want him gone, 32 percent want him to stay, and 33 percent are unsure. That's amazingly apropos. Too bad it doesn't include a section asking people "have you raged incoherently at someone about this opinion?" Three percent said they'd prefer Brady Hoke over Harbaugh (64 percent) or Miles(23 percent).

Penn State exodus? With Joe Paterno slightly old and doddering Penn State relies heavily on its ancient, incredibly stable coaching staff to prop up the ship. There was slight panic when DL coach Larry Johnson Sr. seriously considered taking the Illinois DC job a few years ago—it's testament to the loyalty of the staff that he stayed—and now with Pitt searching around BSD's a little concerned the Panthers might look at the blindingly obvious candidate: Tom Bradley. Bradley's considered the be the heir apparent to Paterno and probably should be since he's been the motive force behind the good bit of Penn State forever, but if he can't leverage the Pitt opening into something approximating a guarantee he's the guy he could be tempted to go. Too bad the NCAA put a kibosh on that coach-in-waiting stuff.

Meanwhile, LB coach Ron Vanderlinden is "linked to" the Ball State job. This will probably lead to nothing except a couple of raises but it's worth keeping an eye on if only to see how easy OSU's path to the Big Ten Championship game is going to be.

Etc.: The Daily's Nicole Auerbach scores a WSJ article about the Big Chill and the growth potential of college hockey. Big Ten Hockey cannot come fast enough. Thoroughly patronizing AA.com article explains to you what "faceoffs" and "hat tricks" are. Dave Brandon says Michigan is "highly interested" in adding D-I lacrosse if it proves viable. Monumental's series of awesome wallpapers continues.

Comments

st barth

December 9th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^

That's an excellent post with comments by Delaney.  Here's some more interesting insights from Delaney that appeared in a recent Tom Dienhart Yahoo column:

 

"Some people who are into structure look at it that way," Delany said. "We pushed hard to get the Rose Bowl in the BCS in '97 and '98. Keep the Rose Bowl healthy and alive, and grow it, improve and enhance the bowl system.

"If the Rose Bowl is healthy, that would make the establishment of a NFL-style playoff more difficult. I don't see our expansion to a championship as anything other than a move intended to strengthen the Rose Bowl and the conference's regular season. It's the same objectives we had when we went into the BCS. It's really not tied to a football playoff."

I've speculated that the Pac Ten & Big Ten are both headed to 16 teams each and then using the Rose Bowl as their centerpiece to effectively corner the market on premium college football.  This idea is especially potent if the Big Ten and Pac Ten can coax Texas & Notre Dame into the fold (that's 8 of the top 10 all time winningest prorgrams competing annually for the Rose Bowl) and if the Big Ten can get a foothold on the east coast TV market (Syracuse?  Rutgers?)  This would destroy the Big 12 & Big East and leave only the (soon to be scandal tarnished?) SEC offering any near a comparatively competitive level of football.

However, given that the Big Ten recently announced they are done with expansion, it wouldn't surprise me if the Pac Ten, Big Ten and Rose Bowl reaffirmed their traditional relationship and pulled out of the BCS anyways (even at just 12 teams a piece).  With conference championship games soon to be in place in both the Big Ten and Pac Ten they already have a rather convenient little playoff setup and may soon be big enough to, in essence, take their ball and go home.

Michigan Shirt

December 9th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^

I like Delaney's responses and it shows that he is really sticking up for his conference. I never thought about the consequences to the conferences by letting the small 5 into the BCS. The Big 10 along with the other AQ conferences are losing out on millions of dollars by allowing these small conferences to play in their bowl games, while the small conferences just show up asking for the free handouts because they have nothing to offer, yet they are still pressuring for more. This starts to get really polictical and I know that politics aren't allowed here so I will be careful, but this can really hurt the Big 10s smaller teams that don't generate as much revenue as the bigger teams. Indiana and Minnesota are already at disadvantages to us, but take away millions in revenue from them and the disparity worsens. This may be setting a dangerous precedent for all of the big conferences to become diluted with great teams and terrible teams which will definately hurt college football. Now this is all speculation and it wouldn't happen over the course of a few years, but the future has always been hard to predict.

In reply to by st barth

Michigan Shirt

December 9th, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^

Yeah, probably along the same lines as last time too. The Big 10 vs. The SEC, with the PAC10 looking on (because it's not really releveant) and UT just minding their own buisness because they are so awesome and want to become their own country.

MI Expat NY

December 9th, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^

It's exactly those smaller Big 10 teams that really piss off the non-BCS conferences.  To the non-BCS schools, they look at schools like Indiana, Minnesota, Vandy, Duke, Baylor, etc. and see a bunch of schools that haven't contributed anything to building CFB into what it is today, yet they get "free handouts" equal to their conferencemates that have built it into something.  Some of these BCS schools have tradition equal to or less than many non-BCS schools.  

MI Expat NY

December 9th, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^

I should have waited for your post than added what I wrote above in a reply.  

This is exactly what I was getting at.  The BCS currently gives some money and decent access to the non-BCS schools.  A playoff that is limited to 6 or 8 teams would almost certainly eliminate this.  The non-BCS schools already feel like they're at a huge disadvantage, it only gets worse with a 6 team playoff.

The NCAA has to sanction any additional games, and the chances of this happening without the non-BCS conferences at least maintaining their current access level is essentially zero.  

If we see a playoff, it will be 16 teams, run by the NCAA with every conference getting an automatic entry.  I think it maintains the integrity of the regular season while making lots more money for the BCS conferences and more money for the non-BCS conferences.  The other option is that the BCS conferences leave the NCAA and form their own organization.

Sgt. Wolverine

December 9th, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^

I would like there to be a requirement to precede the words "champion" and "championship" with either "playoff" or "bowl" -- but NEVER "national."  A playoff doesn't produce an undisputed national champion; it produces an undisputed playoff champion.  They may happen to coincide from time to time, but they're not the same thing.  Let's keep the discussion honest.

nickb

December 9th, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^

would be the champions of the respective 1A conferences play one another and the winner declared national champion. It would cover most teams except the unaffiliated like Notre Dame and force them to join a conference. Forget the subjective or computer based national rankings.

I am not sure of the number conferences but if it is odd number then you could use national ranking to determine who gets the bye.

Regarding RR though I would like to see him go, I believe it as a matter of fairness to him Brandon just confidential tell him now so he has an opportunity to quietly seek other positions given the number of openings. MY view is if he has not already told RR, Brandon is being somewhat cruel in the treatment of his coach/staff and their families.

For all we know he may have already told him especially when the Pittsburgh job became available.

jamiemac

December 9th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^

That Auerbach is a helluva budding sports writer.

Brian. Hire her. I've enjoyed her articles all year. Lets keep her writing about Michigan sports once her Daily tenure ends.

All this playoff talk, I hope people click that link. It was a good read and a great prep for Saturday

MGoShoe

December 9th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^

...instead of enjoying her MGoBlog.com stories, we'll be linking many of Auerbach's stories written for a major daily and arguing whether she's sold out her Michigan soul because of this or that criticism she may or may not have levied.  Here's what she's doing next summer:

Dear Boston/Red Sox nation, get excited. I'll be interning at the Globe this summer! #officialtweet

Don

December 10th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

—from December 22 to January 7—the notion that you can't create a playoff system that's integrated with a selection of existing bowls is ridiculous. Eventually, it will be done, everybody will make huge piles of cash, and they'll all ask each other, "Why didn't we do this before?"

cheesheadwolverine

December 10th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

I like Brian's plan, but we all know that wouldn't happen.  We'd get sixteen+ teams with UConn getting an autobid and it would turn into the NCAA basketball tournament (16 is about the same percentage of D-1A teams as 68 is of D-1 basketball teams).  To be totally honest the BCS crowns the best team national champion way more often than a playoff of that size would.  How often do the best two teams in the country play in the basketball or hockey or baseball final?  Honestly, far less often than the best two teams play in the BCS final.

Also "the traditional sense where entities are somewhat authentic outgrowths of desires instead of remanufactured bullcrap like "chocolate" diamonds" made my day so thanks for that.

iloveyellow

December 11th, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^

why the final of your playoff is always in the Rose Bowl. This seems unfair to me. Why not cycle it through a bunch of venues like they do in every other major sport in which there is a title game? To me, it seems like you picked the Rose Bowl because it possesses some outstanding quality relating to tradition or virtue - as if it's somehow the only correct choice. Perhaps it's because you're a Michigan fan, and most Michigan fans' favorite bowl game is the Rose Bowl. That's understandable, but I don't know how such a glaringly arbitrary and conservative element crept in to your otherwise logically sound and innovative proposal.

And on another note, couldn't the losers of the first round games (#5 and 6) get slotted into the bowl population after they lose? Those could cycle, too, on a regional basis. You could then market a 3rd place game to be played in rotating venues across the country. I just think that if you're going to implement a playoff, you might as well give places like Seattle or Memphis or Minneapolis big money bowl games, too, like basketball does. Why should the outdated vestiges of an poor system benefit from a financially unfair grandfather clause?