CURIOUS INDEX, 12/3/07
 |
||
|
Bumper crops! On the heels of the extremely absurd setup of the extremely absurd final countdown to the extremely absurd conclusion of the college football season, what better time could you find to stop by the BCS’s website, an ode to propaganda with headlines like these: • The BCS Works It’s just what you’ll need to get into the key of bullshit this morning, especially if you’re a Georgia or Hawaii fan. The long list of people Sir Sweatervest needs to thank includes Steve Spurrier: if you’ll recall from deep within the early Cretaceous period of this season, South Carolina beat Georgia 16-12, giving the Bulldogs an early loss and setting up the Buckeyes’ return to the title game. What’s still got us pouring shots at 9 in the morning is the fact that this entire controversy hinges on a certain eight minute span in the Illinois/Ohio State game and an upset of the Buckeyes engineered by [NAME REDACTED], along with contributions from Jim Harbaugh, the Kentucky defense, and Blake Mitchell. With Miles staying at LSU, something it only took him an entire press conference and an interview with Tracy Wolfson to say, Michigan now has…Jim Grobe fever, motherfuckers! He’s just one possibility, of course, but he’s an amusing one especially when he’s got Tom Dienhart typing things like “it’ll be hard to get him out of Wake Forest.” Very much ungood yah things not happy good for Michigan right now yes yes. Yarr. Mike Leach in UCLA would be the best thing imaginable: Leach, a large media presence, the Pac-10, and public faceoffs with apparent Breathatarian, Humanitarian, and all-around freak Pete Carroll. Life, open the chutes to the silos of crazy and let them pour forth, because Mike Leach needs to hang out with Viggo Mortensen and Charlie Kaufman to make the cycle complete. He just does. Lloyd Carr will coach his final game in the Capitol One Bowl versus Florida. This game will not come down to a double reverse heave thrown by a backup cornerback. It will not. It will not. It will not.
|
||
 |
||
Loading ...
51
JJ says:
#40
I agree with your point about weak scheduling and inconsistent voters.
However, you picked a bad example for Ohio State. The voters were consistent when the put tOSU at #1 — they were just consistent with the tradition of putting teams with fewer losses closer to the top. Ohio State is the lowest ranked 1 loss team from a BCS conference. They just so happen to be the only 1 loss team. We saw this when tOSU lost — they dropped from 1 to 7, behind most of the other 1-loss teams.
The voters WERE consistent with rewarding the team with the most difficult schedule/best accomplishments. They put LSU at number 2, jumping them over Kansas, Georgia and VaTech.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
52
Sabanite says:
34
I would bet OSU is suprised to be playing for the MNC after losing the players they did from last year’s team. I’d guess, from looking at their schedule (USC early in L.A.), that 2008 was the year they were aiming to make a title run expecting Laurinaitis back for his SR year, Wells a Jr, etc.
Should be interesting to see if Miles can keep LSU from getting over confident. Game could turn into a Penn State v. Miami Feista Bowl circa 1987 game if LSU starts reading and believing the media.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
53
purpleheart says:
Hey Georgia fans, LSU had the same problem last year. You can’t be the best team in the country without being the best team in your conference.
Our losses came in triple overtime, you guys got smoked by Tennessee. Like it or not, there’s a difference.
Do us a favor though and smack the taste out of colt brennan’s mouth.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
54
Blog Goliard says:
@ 47 Thor: If we had an 8-team playoff this year, and it took the top 8 teams in the BCS, then:
* Stanford’s upset of USC would not have mattered.
* Kansas vs. Missouri would not have mattered.
* The Big XII championship game would not have mattered.
* Colorado upsetting Oklahoma would not have mattered.
* LSU would have lost to Arkansas more or less on purpose, choosing to rest their beaten-up football team ahead of the guaranteed SEC title game.
* Georgia getting embarrassed at Knoxville would not have mattered.
* Virginia Tech would get to meet LSU again–and if they somehow prevailed, even by one point in quintuple overtime, it would suddenly have been “settled on the field” that they were indisputably the “better team”, the 48-7 evisceration now being just another meaningless regular-season game.
* Illinois upsetting Ohio State would not have mattered, same as now…only, worse, that would have been perfectly clear at the time.
How can anyone say that system would clearly work better?
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
55
macker says:
#37 Blog Goliard. EXCELLENT. 100+ to you sir.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
56
Thor says:
I don’t think it would clearly work better.
I want them to put SOS back into the formula and ban teams from playing FCS (1AA) teams.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
57
Techie says:
Once again, why is it that CFB is soooo special and unique, when every other NCAA sanctioned sport has a playoff system.
Why March Madness then? Shouldn’t we just select the No 1 and 2 team at the end of the year and have them play a best 3 out of 5 series?
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 am
58
D-nice says:
Skepticism about OSU is warranted, but NOT becasue their Heisman Trophy winner or other players have a non-existent or less than stellar NFL career.
The Heisman in for the best (or at least one of the best) college players for that year. It’s not based on pro potential, nor should it be. Also, the NC slots awarded are not awarded based on how good the teams’ players may be in the NFL. So, it’s stupid to say in retrospect that a team didn’t deserve it because of the performance of their draft picks.
Again, OSU had a weak schedule, there are subsantive reasons for doubting their inclusion in the NC game, but the Heisman/NFL argument is just lame.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
59
Doug says:
#44:
Haley LaFontaine vs. Subcommandante Wayne. This has to happen.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
60
Dante says:
“Dante, could you put these words of wisdom onto two big honking signs–or maybe billboards–and send one each to Baton Rouge and Athens?”
I could, but I’m pretty happy with the idea of unproven equaling bad for poll purposes. I still remember my argument against moving to a 12 game season is that the teams don’t play 11 games as it is. I want good quality college football all year long. One of the best ways to accomplish that in our current system is to treat unprovens as inferiors, even though strictly speaking they may not be.
For the record, I am a Georgia fan and whether or not they should be in the National Title game is a matter of perspective. If you’re looking for the best team by the end of the season, Georgia is playing better football than either team that is going. If you’re looking at the season as a whole, Georgia was downright awful until the 2nd half of the Vandy game. Sure they picked it up at the end of the season, but that doesn’t make them any less bad at the beginning of the season. LSU from beginning to end had a better year than Georgia even if LSU did drop off a bit at the end.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
61
Techie says:
How did BYU win it all in 1984?
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:34 am
62
Will (the other one) says:
BYU, like Tech in 1990 stuck around the top 10 long enough to play a crap team in a bowl and finagle lucky votes.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
63
Blog Goliard says:
@ 56 Thor: Agreed. Nine conference games for everyone, and no I-AA opponents, would be a good reform.
Sorry that I mistook your earlier post for a simple “BCS doesn’t work: playoff now!” argument.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
64
Nick Saban says:
I don’t have time for this shit, aight, but I am taking credit for the SEC championship.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
65
Maryland Gator says:
It is always good to wake up and see a highlight that reminds you that [Name Redacted] is no longer UF’s coach.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
66
Dante says:
#63, don’t fool yourself. We do have a playoff. There are two teams in a one round single elimination format. In the olden days, there truly was no playoff. Everyone played as the bowls picked them and after the dust settled (or in the really olden days, before the dust settled) the best looking team was crowned. Pitting #1 against #2 on purpose and allowing the loser to remain #2 is a playoff. Personally, I’d like to expand that playoff to 4 teams. That way nobody gets to the final round without playing SOMEONE and the field doesn’t get so watered down that a loss is ok. It also wouldn’t trash the current cash cow of a bowl system. I used to be against the 4+1 idea but there are an increasing number of teams shirking games they’re afraid they might lose so until that changes, 4+1 is where I throw my weight.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
67
Brian O'Blivion says:
Winning your conference matters, as it should. The voters got it right.
Besides, we should all be thankful that we don’t have to watch a Mizzou – WFV championship game.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
68
PW says:
How would a playoff solve the problem with relying on computers and polls? Wouldn’t the playoff teams be selected using similar criteria? And wouldn’t non-conference champions still have a shot at winning the national championship? Or worse yet, teams which committed the nearly criminal offense of giving up “half a hundred”?
someone get stapler in here.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
69
Big Ten Joe says:
re: #59
Doug: Actually, Hayley LaFontaine and Subcommandante Wayne would be on the same side . . . wouldn’t they?
Now, Hayley LaFontaine and Subcommandante Wayne vs. ?? would be great too.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
70
stapler says:
LSU IS A BUNCH OF FRAUDS!!! WAKE UP!!! WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO IN LOVE WITH THESE PHONIES?!?!?!
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
71
Mr Pelican Pants says:
I think there is a bias alright…..against Pass-Every-Down-Teams…..BYU, Hawaii, Texas Tech….
The NCAA loves the run, just like tOSU….Imagine Mike
Leech at tOSU….
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
72
Techie says:
GT would have had the unamious NC that year if Colorado hadn’t gotten that 5th down.
(Of course, we’d have probably gotten it too if we hadn’t tied UNC)
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
73
stapler says:
And could any of these BCS games be any more pointless? Really, what the hell is the point of playing any of them? Does OU really give a damn if they beat WV? Does WV at this point give a damn about beating OU? And what about UGA/Hawaii. A UGA win proves what exactly? And if Hawaii wins, they still won’t be MNCs, so really what he hell is the point of even having BCS games? Could someone explain it to me, please.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
74
ALGator says:
As the video shows at UF’s expense, Redacted (as a head coach) has never won a postseason game.
Should he decide to finally win one this year, it will be (meaningless, I know) HELLO PRESEASON NUMBER 1 RANKING!! GO GATORS!!
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
75
Steve says:
Regardless of my SEC loyalties, I want to see TOSU kick LSU’s teeth in. A team that poorly coached with that much talent does not deserve to be in the position that they are in.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
76
Unhappy Monkey says:
Stapler, no need to thank LSU for getting uga into the sugar bowl. We know you appreciate it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
77
Because They Can says:
Missouri should be ticked. Watching the Fighting [Name Redacted]s and the Kansas team they recently beat playing in BCS games (not to mention Hawaii) has to sting. As for a 4-team playoff helping matters, UGA and USC would both be out of the loop this year even though they would likely be the favorites. An 8 team playoff would look pretty good, though, with the 6 BCS conference champs along with UGA and I suppose Hawaii (the affirmative action token). That looks pretty attractive this year at least.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
78
Because They Can says:
Of course, the year they decide to go for a playoff will be the year my team beats everybody on their schedule by 24 and wins the conference championship game in a blowout over a 12-0 team while everybody else loses at least two.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
79
marcillac says:
Blog Goliard @ 37, 54, 63
Compelling arguments one and all.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
80
Because They Can says:
* Kansas vs. Missouri would not have mattered.
This morning it does seem that it mattered quite a bit…in a bizarro kind of way. I mean, Kansas is going to the Orange Bowl instead of Missouri, right? Losing that game looks like the best thing Kansas did all year.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
81
Crabapple Buck says:
Thor @56
YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH! I have been saying this since they eliminated it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
82
Because They Can says:
I think there is a bias alright…..against Pass-Every-Down-Teams…..BYU, Hawaii, Texas Tech….
Wait, I thought it was because those teams tend to either suck or play nobody worth mentioning. Who knew it was the offensive scheme?
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
83
Brian O'Blivion says:
Mizzou was shafted – they were punished for playing in their conference championship game, but they did have an opportunity to go to the BCS championship game and blew it. They were still more worthy than Illinois however, who they beat.
Even ASU was more worthy than Illinois. 10-2 is still pretty good, but they couldn’t have gone to the Rose Bowl, so one of the other bowls (Orange?) would have to have picked them.
The matchups don’t look great right now, but neither did Boise State – OU last year, and that one turned out to be pretty entertaining. UGA should be careful….
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
84
Ltrain says:
Techie @ 57. I really hope you aren’t making the “everybody else is doing it” argument. Everybody else sucks. More people in the world like soccer and use chopsticks. I’ll continue to watch my real football and eat my Kraft dinner with a fork, thanks.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
85
lilac-a-go-go says:
Stapler lives!
Kudos and cocktails indeed to you, Sir. Your open thread rants had to cover what…16-17 HOURS putting the whole dawg nation on your back in its bid for a spot in the MNC game. I applaud your sustained intensity despite the rather shaky logic of your effort to derail my Tigers.
You show up in NOLA for the Sugar Bowl with a dawg cap for me and I’ll proudly wear it while I buy you a few scotches
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
86
Mr Pelican Pants says:
As far as SEC vs Big 10 undercurrents go…
This would be the perfect game for tOSU to break the 0 for 8 postseason bowl curse vs the SEC that they have going for them…..If they can sustain drives, not commit penalties, run the ball(they should be able to, everyone in the SEC has on LSU) and stop LSU’s big plays and 3rd down conversions, a well coached tOSU team should be able to score, knock Matt Flynn out of the game, and take advantage of all of the penalties that LSU will have…could be like a 24-21 score…LSU’s is their own worst enemy….plus LSU doesnt run the spread offense and their primary ball carrier is a fast white man….perfect match up for tOSU, and Les Miles is from Michigan—his hate for tOSU and this MNC game costing him the Michigan job will be too much to bear, especially if they announce the new Michigan coach the night before the game…..(the last shot in the heart …. from LLLoyd Car)
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
87
Chuck says:
Ltrain @ 84–
It’s only “everyone else is doing it” insofar as 1-A isn’t different from all those other sports. The argument has no force if 1-A football is somehow materially different from 1-AA through 3 football, all the basketball, etc.
Personally, I don’t see any difference. Except that fans of traditional powers are unfailingly, seemingly mindlessly worshipful of the traditional way of going about things…when anyone but the Rose Bowl does it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
88
Blog Goliard says:
Mmm…Kraft dinner and scotches…
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
89
Mr Pelican Pants says:
The best way to settle this dispute is by EA’s NCAA 2008……lemme ask you this…..when they decide who has the best Madden player or NCAA player…even the video game has a PLAYOFF, not computers…..although I have been know to unplug the game while getting beat by some random 10 yr old with a potty mouth who is schooling me by half a hundred while he is using UCF and I am using
Flo-Rida and my score is low low low low…..
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
90
DC Trojan says:
Blog Goliard presented a series of game results that affected the MNC game team selection, and then asked how a playoff could be any better. My remarks here aren’t specifically directed to him / her rather than the ideas in question.
I’ll start by characterizing the current system as I see it:
* The current system is better if you want to have a heady combination of bias, ice-dancing judging, and regionalism used to select who wins a national championship.
* It’s well suited to generating conversations about who “deserves” to get what Bowl, which is fine if you want a whiff of Calvinist judgementalism about your sport.
* It’s fine if you want to have one off game blow a season.
* It’s fine if you want to try and come up with rationalizations for ranking teams with the appearance of statistical rigor despite having sample sizes too small to be valid.
* It’s fine if you want to be able to show preferential treatments for one loss (it was a good loss in overtime! They practically won in regulation!) versus another (they lost to the cellar dweller of the conference! They are pretenders to the throne!).
I say it’s all crap, an edifice of dung with more cow-piles thrown on top every year to try and legislate for every possibility. Purely as a model for producing a result, the BCS fails. A real process doesn’t fail 4 years out of 5.
Never mind the rest of NCAA sports, find one REAL sport that picks a champion this way. You won’t. The BCS is solving the wrong problem: optimizing a broken process to maximize bowl, team, and conference revenue.
Here’s a different way to frame the whole business of arguing over finding out who’s “best” over the course of a season as the nonsense it is. Do we select conference champions that way? No. So if you’re willing to accept having a conference champion based on results on the field, why won’t you accept having a national champion the same way? Why is one okay, and the other not?
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
91
D-nice says:
[name redacted] deserves a lot of credit for turning around the Illinois, and I’m a fan (went to grad school at Illinois), but the Illini are very lucky to be going to a BCS game.
It took nearly the perfect storm for it to happen, and it did.
1. OSU making the Championship game
2. 3 elgible big 12 teams – Missouri beat Illinois, and it seems unfair that they got left out, but the BCS couldn’t take Missouri AND Kansas, so a spot would have been open for Illinois regardless.
3. Bowls not wanting to match up conference foes (Rose Bowl wouldn’t do USC-Ariz st.), and the Fiesta Bowl not wanting ASU because it wants tourist dollars more.
4. Notre Dame sucking.
This season would have been even more fucked up if a “deserving” 9-3 Notre Dame team who beat 1 opponent ranked around No. 20. at the time was thrown into the mix.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
92
D-nice says:
Playoffs OR back to the “pure” bowl system. Yeah, they’ll be split national championships, but who cares.
It would be like boxing – different belts from different sanctioning organizations.
Those champions who unify the belts are regardled more highly than those who only hold one.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
93
oc phil says:
DC: As you well know most, soccer leagues give the championship to the team that wins the most games over the course of the year.
Then you have the “play off” tournament on the side. It works pretty well. I don’t see this as a viable option for CFB though, but it does work there.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
94
Mr Pelican Pants says:
Note to future BCS contenders: Do not schedule Citadel…..win or lose….they screw you in the end….
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
95
Devil's Millhopper says:
More satire please.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
96
DC Trojan says:
OC Phil: you could apply the Euro Cup / World Cup approach to college football if you felt so inclined. This is where you start out with group play and the top 2 teams from each group go through to straight elimination.
In this case, it would mean that each conference winner would go through and be seeded against a conference runner up. That way you could maintain the existing conference structure and have the playoffs be filled with teams who were there because they won rather than because someone argued that they were deserving.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
97
marcillac says:
oc phil at 93 – Trojan at 90
yes they do but in those cases the champion is decided by a home and home round robin ON THE FIELD.
Trojan made a pretty compelling argument for a playoff predicated on the international competition format over at SMQ.
I tend to side with Blog Galiard’s perspective and don’t necessarilly think that a playoff would in every case make the better team the champion. Further while Trojan makes good points in his diatribe but on occassion the polling system (and the BCS – hey even a broken clock is right twice a day) it does produce a champion most fair, unbiased observers can agree on. Trojan, I’m sure knows this better than most when he considers the fate of his namesakes earlier in the decade.
It can be argued that those USC teams would have won a playoff but we didn’t really need such to judge them the best team in the land. This year we have no idea who would win a playoff and I suppose such a playoff is the most sensible way to crown an otherwise unidentifiable and perhaps undeserving champion. Still, such a playoff would drain at least some of excitment from regular season and I’m not willing to give that up to more fairly crown a champion when no self-evident candidate(s) presents itself.
BTW, the BCS sucks, Missouri and ASU got massively screwed and, yeh, Poll and Bowl would be better (with greater flexibility though, Rose needs to loosen up).
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
98
macker says:
“The argument has no force if 1-A football is somehow materially different from 1-AA through 3 football, all the basketball, etc”
As far as being different from basketball—–It most certainly is. You can have a basketball team play 2 games over a weekend, while you cannot ask a football team to do the same. This would keep football from inviting everyone who wins every lame conference championship to a playoff (thank goodness).
As far as being different from 1-AA football, it is and it isn’t. 1-AA takes the top 16 teams and plays them off. Until the NC game, each game is held at the higher seed’s field. If you were to implement this for Div 1 schools, you would need to do the same and would not be able to use bowl games as the playoffs, as some have suggested. If you think some bowls are sparsely attended now, wait until you ask fans to go on 4 weekend road trips in a row to undisclosed locations. You are going to lose a ton of travelling fans on finances alone, necessitating that the playoffs occur as home games for half the teams. So, the difference between 1-A and 1-AA football is the bowl tradition in the former.
Bottom line is that the choice is between current system, current system and a plus-1, or scrapping the bowls and doing a 1-aa type playoff. Good luck if you think that the coaches will take kindly to needing a top-16 ranking for a post season appearance. Also, if you thought the mid-majors are screwed now, try taking away their only opportunities for post-season appearances in exchange for 1-2 of those teams making the playoff.
Finally, 1-AA playoffs are no bastion of fairness either. There’s plenty of whining over who should get a home game, who should go and travel where, along with who should get in. Not saying it couldn’t work, but I doubt it will be the solution to all our problems.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
99
PortTrojan says:
DC and oc phil,
Does that mean the best CFB players would have to adopt one word names? We’ve already got RoJo; how ’bout Ausberrio?
Ok, I deserve to be cyber-smacked.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
100
oc phil says:
Port: Single names would only be required for Brazilians.
I’ll have to head over to SMQ to see the discussion over there.
My radical solution would be to strip down the number of teams involved. Sorry mid-majors you are down to 1AA. I’d create 4 super-conferences who all had to play a full-round robin schedule. Then those 4 winners play-off against each other.
The bottom two teams from each superconference go down to 1AA and are replaced by the best two teams in the region (so the Western superconference this year would lose Washington and Stanford and gain Hawaii and Boise State). Programs would gravitate to their natural level.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 pm