Monday, November 29, 2004
Monday's College Football Post
It seems every Monday I have something to say about what happened over the weekend in college football. If you know me at all, you pretty much know what I have to say. I'm anti-BCS.
So today, I'll share an email I just wrote to former Notre Dame coach Bob Davie, who is now working for ESPN.com and wrote this article, proposing that the two teams who play in the national championship game should be chosen by a simple vote of all 117 1-A coaches.
Why is Pittsburgh more deserving? Because they play in a so-called "major" conference. No other reason. Well, this year the Mountain West, WAC, and C-USA all showed that they can produce a better team than the Big East (and the Big Ten and arguably the ACC, too!).
Oh, and if Pitt loses this weekend, unranked 6-5 Syracuse will go to the BCS. How is that better?
So today, I'll share an email I just wrote to former Notre Dame coach Bob Davie, who is now working for ESPN.com and wrote this article, proposing that the two teams who play in the national championship game should be chosen by a simple vote of all 117 1-A coaches.
And my other comment. I know there are still people out there who think Boise State and Louisville (and maybe even Utah) aren't deserving of playing "with the big boys" in the BCS because they "haven't proved anything yet." One of you commented on my pro-Boise post last week. To you I say: Explain to me why Boise State and Louisville don't deserve it, but Pittsburgh does. If they beat Southern Florida this week, Pitt will play in a BCS bowl. They became ranked this week for the first time all season, at #21/#19 (compared to #10/#11 for Boise State and #8/#7 for Louisville). Their record is 7-3 (compared to Boise's 11-0 and Louisville's 9-1). Their losses came to not-so-hot Nebraska, UConn, and Syracuse, and their biggest win was over West Virginia this week. In comparison, Boise State has won 22 games in a row and 35 of its last 36; Louisville's only loss this season was a close one at Miami.Dear Bob Davie,
I read with interest your proposal for a coaches' vote on who should play in the national championship game. You forgot a few important facts. If USC and Oklahoma play in the Orange Bowl, Auburn will not be the only undefeated team left out. Utah and Boise State have both also completed undefeated seasons. Yeah, yeah--you're going to give me the "strengh of schedule" argument, but your article focused on the fact that three teams (according to you) might be *undefeated* at the end of the season. Your proposal calls for all 117 coaches to receive tapes from these three teams not because they are the best, but because they are undefeated. If that's the criterion, you must include Utah and Boise State as well.
Oh, and contrary to your assertion, there IS a perfect way to determine who should be playing in the championship game. Institute a playoff. Whoever wins in the initial rounds advances to the next round. The two teams who survive the playoffs are the two teams who deserve to play in the championship game. Perfect.
Why is Pittsburgh more deserving? Because they play in a so-called "major" conference. No other reason. Well, this year the Mountain West, WAC, and C-USA all showed that they can produce a better team than the Big East (and the Big Ten and arguably the ACC, too!).
Oh, and if Pitt loses this weekend, unranked 6-5 Syracuse will go to the BCS. How is that better?
Comments:
I spoke out against BSU going to the BCS and I still feel BSU doesn't deserve the BCS; however, that being said, there is no plausible way anyone, and I mean ANYONE, can approve of any team from the BigEast getting a BCS bowl. Which means that Texas or Cal doesn't have to be a have not while being in the BCS top 6. Every season the BCS makes adjustments, and this season they need to make a new rule which states that any 'guaranteed' conference that doesn't place a team in the top 12 in final standings of the BCS doesn't get in. Put an end to the 'guaranteed' crap.
Yes that means the Big10 is out this year too!
BSU is in the right bowl. They are playing Louisville in the Liberty Bowl. This is the right matchup.
The BCS should be (realizing I also am not a fond BCS person and assuming ceteris paribus) Orange: USC vs. Auburn; Rose: Michigan vs. Cal; Fiesta: Utah vs. Oklahoma; Sugar: Texas vs. Miami/VT winner.
BTW-Bob Davie's solution was crap. I heard him talk about a solution during a game that he was going to post on ESPN and he refused to mention it but said he'd release shortly. When I read it, and you have mentioned it, it was a load of garbage. How many coaches have the time to watch these game tapes? Maybe if Davie spent less time watching everybody else and more time coaching he wouldn't have tanked Notre Dame so bad!
Hey Davie, isn't the old saying: if you can't play - coach; and if you can't coach - announce games.
Yes that means the Big10 is out this year too!
BSU is in the right bowl. They are playing Louisville in the Liberty Bowl. This is the right matchup.
The BCS should be (realizing I also am not a fond BCS person and assuming ceteris paribus) Orange: USC vs. Auburn; Rose: Michigan vs. Cal; Fiesta: Utah vs. Oklahoma; Sugar: Texas vs. Miami/VT winner.
BTW-Bob Davie's solution was crap. I heard him talk about a solution during a game that he was going to post on ESPN and he refused to mention it but said he'd release shortly. When I read it, and you have mentioned it, it was a load of garbage. How many coaches have the time to watch these game tapes? Maybe if Davie spent less time watching everybody else and more time coaching he wouldn't have tanked Notre Dame so bad!
Hey Davie, isn't the old saying: if you can't play - coach; and if you can't coach - announce games.
Thanks for commenting, Anonymous.
I must say I agree with you on pretty much everything you have to say in this comment. We all know that the BCS isn't going to go away (at least not soon)--it'll only be tweaked. And the most important tweak necessary after this season is a condition on the automatic bids. The Big East is a BCS conference because Miami and VT used to be in it, and for no other reason. With BC leaving next year, it'll get even worse (though Louisville will join and become the consistent power, and perhaps get some credibility simply by shifting conferences). I like the idea of requiring at least a top 12 finish for ANY team to play in a BCS bowl.
The ideal situation is a playoff. As I've said before, I would include all 11 conference champs (perhaps with a conditional cutoff as you've suggested) and 5 at-large teams. An 8-team playoff, though, would be better than the mullarkey we have now. And if we can't have an 8-team playoff, I agree with your placement of the teams in the bowls. Yes, I've been arguing for weeks that BSU and Louisville deserve to be in it, but the truth is that so do both Cal and Texas. There are more deserving teams than there are spots available, which simply emphasizes the need for a playoff. So for my purposes, we'll call the BSU-Louisville Liberty Bowl the fifth BCS bowl (the winner of that game (I'm rooting for BSU, of course) will undoubtedly finish in the top 5 or 6, so it's every bit as important as the "real" BCS bowls, except for its payout). I like the idea of Utah playing another undefeated team--it would be terrible to put Pitt against Utah, have Utah cream Pitt, and then let the BCS lovers say, "Well, Pitt wasn't very good; Utah hasn't proved anything." The only problem with that is that a split national championship (allegedly the worst possible thing that could happen to the BCS, though it didn't kill it last year) wouldn't happen unless OU trounced Utah and Auburn snuck by USC (and probably not even then). And I want Utah to win their game.
Post a Comment
I must say I agree with you on pretty much everything you have to say in this comment. We all know that the BCS isn't going to go away (at least not soon)--it'll only be tweaked. And the most important tweak necessary after this season is a condition on the automatic bids. The Big East is a BCS conference because Miami and VT used to be in it, and for no other reason. With BC leaving next year, it'll get even worse (though Louisville will join and become the consistent power, and perhaps get some credibility simply by shifting conferences). I like the idea of requiring at least a top 12 finish for ANY team to play in a BCS bowl.
The ideal situation is a playoff. As I've said before, I would include all 11 conference champs (perhaps with a conditional cutoff as you've suggested) and 5 at-large teams. An 8-team playoff, though, would be better than the mullarkey we have now. And if we can't have an 8-team playoff, I agree with your placement of the teams in the bowls. Yes, I've been arguing for weeks that BSU and Louisville deserve to be in it, but the truth is that so do both Cal and Texas. There are more deserving teams than there are spots available, which simply emphasizes the need for a playoff. So for my purposes, we'll call the BSU-Louisville Liberty Bowl the fifth BCS bowl (the winner of that game (I'm rooting for BSU, of course) will undoubtedly finish in the top 5 or 6, so it's every bit as important as the "real" BCS bowls, except for its payout). I like the idea of Utah playing another undefeated team--it would be terrible to put Pitt against Utah, have Utah cream Pitt, and then let the BCS lovers say, "Well, Pitt wasn't very good; Utah hasn't proved anything." The only problem with that is that a split national championship (allegedly the worst possible thing that could happen to the BCS, though it didn't kill it last year) wouldn't happen unless OU trounced Utah and Auburn snuck by USC (and probably not even then). And I want Utah to win their game.
